A Comparative Study of Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness
within Asian and Western European Countries
Robert G. Hamlin
University of Wolverhampton, UK
Sewon Kim
StateUniversity of New York (SUNY) Empire State College, USA
Corresponding Author: Prof Bob Hamlin
Email:
Submission Type: Refereed Full Paper
Copyright © 2015 Robert G. Hamlin Sewon Kim
1
ABSTRACT
Purpose-To explore the extent to whichbehavioural indicators of perceived managerial and leadership effectivenesspreviously identified in multiple South Korean private sector companies and a Chinese for-profit-like state enterprise,are different (local/context-specific) or similar (potentially global/context-general) to those identified within British and German private sector companies.
Design/methodology-Empirical data were obtained from past emic replication studies (cases)carried out inChina, Germany,South Korea and the United Kingdom respectively. The behavioural indicators were subjected to realist qualitative comparative analysis using open and axial coding to identify, classify, and group them into discretebehavioural categories.
Findings-High degrees of overlap and convergence were revealed with the vast majority of managerial behaviours (91.85% Asian; 95.23% Western European) that distinguish effective managers from ineffective managers being found to be the same, similar, or congruent in meaning. Only 1 out of 11 non-convergent Asian behavioural indicators showed any evidence of being local/context-specificand thus culturally embedded.
Research Implications- The findings bring into question the validity of past claims in the cross-cultural management literature which assert that particular types and styles of managerial and leadership behaviour are contingent upon the cultural aspects of specific societies and countries.
Practical/social implications- HRD practitioners in all four countries and those in multinational corporations could utilize the findings to inform the creation of new management or leadership development programmes, or to critically evaluate extant programmes.
Originality/value-Our study is a rare example of Type 4 indigenous management research, and our findings are illustrative of what has become known as geocentric (emic-and-etic) knowledge.
Keywords: Management, leadership, perceived effectiveness, cross-nation comparison
1
A Comparative Study of Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness
within Asian and Western European Countries
The vast majority of management research conducted outside the USA continues to be “normal science” (Kuhn, 1996: p.5) based on the North American positivist (functionalist) research paradigm. And the preference of most international and indigenous researchers who have explored local phenomena, particularly in China and other Asian countries, has been to conduct deductive studies using extant Western theories, constructs, and methods drawn from management literature dominated by US research (see Leung, 2007; Leung and White, 2004; Tsui, 2006; White, 2002). Tsui (2009) considers this tendency to be a cause for concern because it risks researchers making discoveries that only fall within the domain covered by theory derived in the USA. Furthermore, she argues that such research may be insufficient to provide understanding of novel contexts, or may even lead to biased or inaccurate conclusions (Tsui, 2007). A similar situation exists regarding leadership research. As Zhang et al. (2012) perceived from a Chinese perspective, drawing on Yukl (2010), almost all leadership studies throughout a century-long history have been conducted in the West (predominantly in North America and particularly the USA), and almost all leadership theories have been derived within Western cultural contexts which, according to these authors, make them very limited in their applicability to different economies and cultures
A few notable non-normal science studies of managerial and leadership effectiveness have been carried out around the globe, including for example (i) Cammock et al., (1995) qualitative ‘repertory grid’ study of managerial effectiveness within a large public sector organization in New Zealand, (ii) the nine qualitative ‘critical incident technique-CIT’ studies of managerial and leadership effectiveness that Author 1 has carried out and replicated with various co-researchers in a diverse range of public, private, and third sector organizations in the United Kingdom (UK) (see Hamlin and Hatton, 2013); (iii) the subsequent replication of these UK studies by Hamlin et al. in various other countries such as Egypt (Hamlin et al., 2010), Mexico (Hamlin et al., 2011), Romania (Hamlin and Patel, 2012) and South Korea (Chai et al., 2015), and by Wang (2011) in China, and (iv) the multiple cross-case/cross-nations comparative studies of Hamlin and Hatton (2013) and Patel and Hamlin (2012) using as empirical source data the findings of their previous emic replication research which led to the emergence of a British-related and EU-related taxonomy of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness, respectively.
Our study builds on this past research. It is a non-normal science cross-case/cross-nation comparison of findings obtained from two published Asian emic replication studies of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness, namely our recent South Korean study(Chai et al., 2015), and Wang’s (2011) equivalent study carried out within a Chinese state owned enterprise (for-profit like), against the findings of five equivalent published European based replication studies, namely two British and three German inquiries conducted by Author 1 with various indigenous co-researchers. As active participants in these source studies we have had privileged access to all of the empirical evidence generated, and we have used this as the source data for the present study. Our primary aim has been to explore the extent to which the behavioural indicators of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness resulting from the source studies are different (local/context-specific) or similar (potentially global/context-general) to each other. The central question we addressed was as follows: “To what extent are the managerial behaviours that distinguish effective managers from ineffective managers, as observed and perceived by managers and non-managerial employees within multiple South Koreanfor-profit companies and a Chinese for-profit-like enterprise, similar or different to those perceived by managers and non-managerial employees within British and German for-profit companies?”
LITERATURE REVIEW
To address the research purpose, this section first discusses current concerns and criticisms ofindigenous management research in Asia, and current debates concerning culture and management/leadership effectiveness research. An introduction to the theory that has guided the research and the empirical source studies upon which it is based then follows, andthe section concludes with a statement of the primary aim of the studyand the specific research question that was addressed. At this juncture readers should note that our use of the word ‘leadership’ in the term ‘managerial and leadership effectiveness’ refers to the everyday ‘supervisory leadership’ performed by managers at all levels of management, and not to House et al.’s (2004) concept of ‘strategic leadership’ as performed by general managers and other top managers/organizational leaders.
Indigenous Management Research in Asia
During the past 5 years there have been numerous calls for papers on indigenous management research in Asia, and particularly in China (Holtbrugge et al., 2011; Li et al., 2014; Lyles, 2009). However, what qualifies as indigenous research is stillopen to debate because there is no widely accepted definition. Some researchers suggest a study is indigenous if it covers an indigenous topic, even if based on the philosophical assumptions of the North American research paradigm (Whetton, 2009), whereas others argue that indigenous research is any single country study that is context-specific as a result of either incorporating aspects of the national context in the theory and methods, or by taking the national context as granted which is the case for research conducted in the USA (Tsui, 2007). According to Lyles (2009), and also to Li (2012),in generalindigenous research is thestudy of a unique local phenomenon,or a unique element of any local phenomenon from a local (native-emic) perspective, that aims to explore/examine its local implications/relevance and/or its global (etic) implications/relevance. Li et al.(2014) similarly define indigenous research in a broad sense to encompass context-specific orcontext sensitiveapproaches to the exploration of unique local phenomena that may have global implications. To clarify the diverse nature of indigenous research, both Lyles (2009) and Li et al. (2012) have offered a typology comprised of four types/stages of sophistication/advancement, the applicability of which depends on the nature of the local phenomenon to be studied, and/or the source of the adopted theoretical and/or paradigmatic perspective. These are as follows:Type 1 (Emic-as-etic or Imposed eticwith mostly Western content).This is the most basic and most common approach, and involves a naïve/uncritical application of extant theories from the West in a local context. Type 2 (Etic-to-Emic with imbalanced Western-Eastern content). This is a more advanced approach involving a cross-context comparative component with the potential to discover one or more novel constructs unique to the local phenomenon. Type 3 (Emic-as-emic with mostly Eastern content). This is an innovative approach involving the identification and development of novel local constructs to explain local phenomena. Type 4 (Emic-and-etic integration with well balanced local-global or Eastern-Western content). This is the most advanced approach involving an integration of the emic theories resulting from Type 2 and Type 3 studies carried out in different local/cultural contexts, with the aim of building cross-cultural constructs/theories, and thereby develop geocentric (emic-and-etic) knowledge.
Culture and Managerial/Leadership Effectiveness Research
Extant literature provides evidence for both universal and contingent approaches to studying management and leadershipbehaviours. The universal approach assumes that behaviours whichmanagers need to demonstrate in order to be perceived effective or ineffective are independent of national culture(Arvonen and Ekvall, 1999; Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002). And House and Aditya (1997) have argued the existence of universal/nearly universal effective leader behaviours (see also Bennis, 1999; Robie et al., 2001). Similarly, Bass (1996) and Bass and Riggio (2006) have argued that very little of the variance in leader behaviour can be justified by culture, and that there is far more universalism in leadership than has been believed previously. However, despitestrong and compelling logic, empirical evidence supporting notions of the universality of managerial and leadership effectiveness is sparse.
In contrast, the contingency approachsupports the view that managers and leaders need to adapt their behaviours to the environmental and organizational context, including the national culture, if they wish to be effective (Morrison, 2000). Others claim that leadership effectiveness is contingent upon similarities between the national cultures of leaders and followers (Brodbeck et al., 2000; Yamaguchi,1988). And Wendt et al. (2009) claim that societal culture, which they operationalize as individualism/collectivism (Hofstede, 2001), has a direct impact on leadership and team cohesiveness. Similarly, Alas et al. (2007) argue that leadership and its influence are subject to the culture of the country in which the leader is operating. Other researchershave argued that there can be both similarities as well as differences in perceived effectiveness/ineffectiveness of managerial and leadership behaviour across nations. For example, Dorfman and Howell (1997) empirically demonstrated cultural universality across North America (U.S. and Mexico) and Asia (Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) for three leader behaviours (supportive, contingent rewardand charismatic), and cultural specificity for three others (directive, participativeand contingent punishment); and Martin et al. (2009) produced similar findings.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical concepts that have guided our study of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness, which also informed the three empirical source studies upon which it has been based, are known as themultiple constituency model of organizational effectivenessand the notion of reputational effectiveness, respectively. Using the multiple constituency approach for research, managers are perceived as operating within a social structure consisting of multiple constituencies or stakeholders (e.g., superiors, peers, subordinates, etc.), each of whom has his/her own expectations of and reactions to them (Tsui, 1990). How managers are perceived and judged by their superiors, peers, and subordinates can be important for managerial success (or failure) because it determines their reputational effectiveness (Tsui, 1984).
METHOD
We adopted Tsang and Kwan’s (1999) notion of empirical generalization replication which utilizes the same measurement and analysis and different populations or contexts, andBerry’s (1989) derived etic approach to applied research which involves both replication logic and multiple cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Empirical Source Data
The empirical source data used for our Type 4 indigenous study were derived or obtainedfrom the seven aforementioned emic replication studies that we have severally conducted within South Korea, Germany,Chinaand the UK. We and the other researchers of these source studies used Flanagan’s (1954) critical incident technique (CIT) to collect concrete examples of effective and ineffective managerial behaviour observed by indigenous managers and non-managerial employees of the respective collaborating organizations. Opencoding (Flick, 2002)was used to identifythe unit(s) of meaning of each of the so collected critical incidents (CIs) and to disentangle any as necessary. Theywere then subjected toaxial coding (Flick, 2002) to identify discrete categories of managerial behaviour comprised of a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 13 CIs. For each of these categoriesabehavioural statement(BS)was created and used as a label to describe in essence the meaning held in common to all of its constituent critical incidents.
Details of the overall CIT data and BS data that were obtained from our seven empirical source studies and used for our study are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Empirical Source Data Used for the Study
The seven emic studiesof perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness / Subject
focus of
the study* / No. of
CIT
informants / No. of
usable
CIs / No. of
effective
BSs / No. of
ineffective
BSs / Total number
of BSs
South Korean Study
Case SKN1
Multiple private sector companies
Chai et al. (2015)-refined / T, S, M
& FL / 45 / 560 / 53 / 51 / 104
Chinese Study
Case CHN1
A for-profit-like state enterprise
Wang (2011) / T,S, M,
& FL / 35 / 230 / 14 / 17 / 31
British Studies
Case UK1-
A British global communications company Hamlin and Bassi (2008) / S, M,
& FL / 55 / 555 / 31 / 35 / 66
Case UK2-
A British international telecoms plc
Hamlin and Sawyer (2007) / T only / 37 / 370 / 16 / 13 / 29
German Studies
Case GER1
A heterogeneous mix of private companies in Germany
Patel et al., (2009) / T,S,M,
& FL / 64 / 154 / 15 / 19 / 34
Case GER2
Multiple private sector companies
Hamlin et al., (2013) / S, M &
FL / 24 / 506 / 58 / 90 / 148
Case GER3
A German space systems and services company
Hamlin et al., (2014) / S, M &
FL / 41 / 393 / 50 / 38 / 88
Totals / 301 / 2,768 / 237 / 263 / 500
Note. Subject Focus: T-Top managers. S-Senior manager. M-Middle managers. FL-First line managers
Data Analysis
For ourstudywe used the behavioural statement (BS) as our unit of analysis. Initially the BSs were subjected torealist qualitative comparative analysis (Madill et al., 2000) using open coding at the semantic level (Braun and Clarke, 2006) to identify the salient concept of each British, Chinese, German and South Korean BS. The open coded BSs were then subjected to axial coding to identify those that were the same as, similar to, or contained an element of congruent meaning with one or more BSs from both countries (Flick, 2002; Miles and Huberman, 1994). These were accordingly clustered and categorized into discrete behavioural categories. Each category was then interpreted, and asimple statement created to describe in essence the meaning held in common with all of its constituent BSs.
Trustworthiness of the Findings
The compared sets of BSs were deemed suitable for comparison because the respective researchers of the empirical source studies had adopted the same research design and CIT protocol for collecting and analyzing their empirical data. The credibility and dependability of our findings were assured through a process ofinvestigator triangulation (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991). This involved both of us conducting the cross-case/cross-nation comparative analyses to a greater or lesser extent, andthenengaging in a subsequent code cross-checkingexercise (Gibbs, 2007). Working independently of each other initially and then jointly helped to assure the accuracy and objectivityof our research (Knafl and Breitmayer, 1991).
RESULTS
Our comparative study hasdemonstrated empirically that perceptions of what behaviourally distinguishes effective managers from ineffective managers within large Asian (Chinese/South Korean) and large Western European (British/German) for-profit/for-profit-like companiesare highly congruent. In the mainthey are substantially the same and described in similar terms. As a result of the open and axial coding 92.54% (n=62) of the Asian positive (effective) BSs were found to be convergent in meaning with 95.29% (n=162) of the equivalent European BSs against which they had been compared. Similarly, 91.12% (n=62) of the Asian negative (least effective/ineffective) BSs were found to be convergent in meaning with 95.16% (n=177) of the equivalent Western European BSs against which they had been compared. This led to the emergence of 25 positive and 22 negative cross-cultural ‘etic themes’ (behavioural categories) as shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.
Table 2Positive (Effective)Behavioural Categories of Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness
______
1. Acknowledges, gives recognition to and praises employees for good performances/successes2. Rewards employees for high/good performance and extra effort
3. Involves employees in decision making
4. Actively seeks, listens to and is open to questions, ideas, opinions and suggestions from staff
5. Gives employees clear directions, explanations and guidance on the tasks to be performed
6. Shares with employees key information regarding what is going on in the company
7. Shows a personal interest in employees as individuals and for their well being, and listens with empathy
and sensitivity to their personal concerns
8. Actively and effectively delegates responsibilities to employees, empowers them, shows trust/confidencein their abilities, and encourages their initiative
9. Plans ahead and produces well thought through plans including deadline dates and timings for key
decisions
10. Organizes/structures processes and procedures for efficient working and effective outcomes
11 Develops and presents a clear vision and goals for his/her department, and ensures his/her
team/subordinates’ goals are aligned
12 Provides and is always available to provide help and support to employees to solve problems or address
concerns as and when needed or requested
13 Protects/stands up for employees who are under threat from people in other departments and/or from
adverse higher management decisions
14 Provides encouragement and positive feedback/reinforcement to employees
15 Adopts an open, friendly and approachable style of management/leadership
16 Helps/supports employees to reflect upon and learn from their mistakes/errors and to improve their
performance
17 Actively encourages and supports the personal/career development of employees, provides education
and training opportunitiesand personally coaches/mentors them
18 Provides helpful, honest and constructive feedback on performance
19 Creates a good work environment, climate and culture within his/her team
20 Facilitates honest and open two way communication with employees
21 Fosters personal contact and close trusting interpersonal relationship with subordinates and
within/between teams
22 Monitors/checks and periodically reviews/appraises the performance of his/her employees
23 Leads by example and acts as a role model
24 Treats employees with fairness, respect and consideration
25 Proactively addresses/resolves problems/conflicts
______