MANAGEMENT

Cross-Cultural Management Models

Cross-Cultural Management Models

Introduction

Cross-cultural leadership has been largely investigated in management studies looking at national culture and managerial practices. Perhaps the most heavily cited work has been conducted by Hofstede (1991) who set out to determine if American management theories applied abroad. Hofstede's seminal work has provided the foundation for many cross-cultural studies, most often seeking to determine how differences on cultural dimensions (i.e., power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity) impacted work related outcomes.

From a leadership standpoint several empirical approaches have been taken such as evaluating the effects of leadership style on subordinates with different cultural characteristics (Jung and Avolio, 1999), comparing actual leadership behaviours to cultural characteristics (Offermann and Hellmann, 1997), and identifying leadership differences and preferences between workgroups from different nations (Kuchinke, 1999). In spite of these in-depth investigations, a dearth exists looking at the extent to which cultural differences exist between a leader and subordinate, and the subordinate's perception of, and response to their leader.

While much has been done on leadership at the dyadic level (i.e., leader-member exchange (LMX), see [Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995], [Gerstner and Day, 1997] and [Borchgrevink and Boster, 1997] for reviews), and how differences between supervisors and subordinates might impact the relationship (Allinson et al., 2001), little has looked at how cultural congruence (leaders and subordinates originating from the same national culture) impacts subsequent employee outcomes. A notable exception is a study conducted by Pillai et al. (1999), which looked at the relationship between transformational leadership and LMX to organizational justice and job satisfaction in five different cultures.

Using a varied sample of 755 MBA students and working professionals from the US, Australia, India, Columbia and the Middle East (Saudi Arabia and Jordan), the researchers determined that differences existed between western and non-western cultures. The samples in the US and Australia reported that transformational leadership and LMX influenced organizational justice and job satisfaction where the relationship was more complicated for the non-western sample. The study suggests that work-related values based on national culture impacted the relationship between LMX and employee outcomes.

Another area in need of further study of cross-cultural leadership is the hospitality environment. While some work has been done, we know little about how the dynamics of the industry impact the relationship between leaders and stakeholders in the multi- cultural environment. Pizam et al. (1997) study provided some insight as to the impact of national culture versus the hotel industry's culture on managerial behaviour. In addition, the researchers attempted to identify the impact of personal work values on managerial behaviour. Using a sample of 192 hotel managers from Hong Kong, Japan and Korea, the researchers found significant differences between the three groups. The results indicated that national culture had a greater impact on 22 of 29 managerial practices than the hotel industry culture.

Aims and Objective of Cross-Cultural Management

* identify some of the factors that influence how decisions are made in cross-cultural management contexts

* identify, describe and explain key models used for comparing cultures, critically assessing the practical ...