A Comparative Study of the Perceptions of Argentinean and Mexican Managers and Non-Managerial Employees about Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness
Carlos E. Ruiz, PhD
Georgia Gwinnett College
Email:
Robert G. Hamlin, PhD
University of Wolverhampton, UK
Angeles Carioni, PhD
Barry University
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of Argentinean and Mexican managers and non-managerial employees about effective and ineffective managerial behaviour.
Design/methodology/approach
A qualitative multiple cross-case and cross-nation comparative analysis of findings obtained from the two past emic replication (Argentina and Mexico) studies was conducted.
Findings
Our findings suggest that Argentineans and Mexicans perceive effective and ineffective managerial behaviour in a very similar manner which brings into question the extent to which national or societal culture plays a role in the perception of effective/ineffective managerial behaviour.
Research limitations/implications
We suggest that more replication studies and other research using different methodologies should be conducted before concluding that Argentineans and Mexicans perceive managerial and leadership effectiveness in a very similar manner.
Practical implications
We suggest our study could be used by Argentinean HR professionals when preparing Argentinean managers for assignments in Mexico. And by the same token, these findings could be used by Mexican HR professional when training Mexican executives for managerial assignments in Argentina. Reinforcing the set of managerial practices that are perceived as effective in both countries and emphasizing those practices that may be particular to Argentina or Mexico, could lead to an improvement in the performance of Argentineans managing in Mexico and Mexicans managing in Argentina.
Keywords: Managerial Effectiveness, Mexico, Argentina.
Introduction
The role that Latin America is playing in the global economy is significant. An example of this is the level of inflows of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to the Latin American region compared to other regions of the world. According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC, 2014), the inflows of FDI to Latin America and the Caribbean reached $184.92 billion in 2013; close to a five percent increase compared to 2012. More significant than these figures is the fact that this increase in FDI took place in a year when there was a generalized fall of about 13% of international FDI. This outstanding record in FDI inflows reached by the Latin American region is thought to be the result of two main reasons: i) the economic crisis and uncertainty facing developed countries thathave resulted in deviating investments to emerging economies, and ii) Latin American local conditions being appealing to global investors (Porter, 2013).
Even though European Union countries and the United States are still the largest investors in Latin America, there has been a substantial increase of investment made by Latin American companies in the region. In 2012 these investments represented 14% of the total FDI that entered Latin America. The largest inward increases were in Peru (49%), Chile (32%), and Argentina (27%), while Mexico was the region’s largest outward investor in 2012 (International Business Times, 2013).
Particularly relevant to the Latin America economy is the role of Mexico and Argentina which are the second and third largest economiesin the region. The commercial relationship between Argentina and Mexico became predominantly important in the last decade. An example of this is the increase in commercial trade between Argentina and Mexico from 2001 to 2011. Mexican exports to Argentina increased 703% while the Argentinean exports to Mexico increased 140% for the same period (CNN Expansion, 2012). Furthermore, the investments made by Argentinean-owned companies in Mexico was close to $600 million between 1999 and 2006, representing 50.2% of the total investments made in Latin America by the 12 ALADI (Latin America Association of Integration) countries (Wharton School of Business, 2007). The direct investments made by Mexico in Argentina tripled in value by 2006 reaching $1.9 billion, resulting in Mexico having more investors in Argentina than in the rest of Latin America. Argentina became an important attraction for Mexican investors because it is considered a gateway to the MERCOSUR (Southern Common Market) countries (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay). In addition, investing in Latin American countries like Argentina is a strategy taken by Mexican companies to reduce their dependence on NAFTA. Argentina has become Mexico’s third commercial partner in Latin America after Brazil and Chile (Wharton School of Business, 2007).
The increased commercial ties between Mexico and Argentina could be attributed to different factors such as Mexico looking to expand commercial relationships with other regions of the world to become less dependent on the US economy. However, regardless of what has motivated closer economic relationships between Mexico and Argentina, these relationships have led to the need to better understand the similarities and differences in regards to effective managerial and leadership practices in these countries.
The positive impact of effective leadership and management practices for an organization has been widely discussed. Effective managers have a positive impact on the competitiveness of the organization because of their capacity to influence the performance of employees and consequently the performance of the organization (Addis, 2003). Furthermore, Ireland and Hitt (2005) suggested that, by using effective leadership practices, managers at different levels can make organizations more competitive to face the challenges of globalization. This view is supported by Rausch (1999) who stated that “no matter what the organization's activity, or country, the better the decisions of its managers and leaders, the more likely that the organization will thrive” (1). Additional research on this topic indicates that effective managers have a positive impact on job satisfaction and productivity (Bass 1985; Bass and Avolio 1993; Burns 1978).
In the case of Argentina and Mexico, despite the relevance that both countries play in the global economy, there is scarce research that addresses the issue of managerial and leadership effectiveness in these countries. And we found no research that compares the types of managerial and leadership behaviorsthat are manifested in these two countries. In fact, as indicated by Hernandez-Romero (2010), the majority of research on the topic of management and leadership has been focused on countries in Western Europe and North America (Canada and the United States). Therefore, these researchers have called for studies on management and leadership in other regions of the world like Latin America, especially because Latin America is becoming more relevant to the global economy as suggested by the increased inflows of FDI.
Our study is in part a response to this call, and it builds upon two studies of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness that we have carried out previously in Argentina and Mexico (Ruiz, Wang & Hamlin, 2013; Ruiz, CarioniHamlin, 2014), and seeks to compare the perceptions of Argentineans and Mexicans about managerial and leadership effectiveness and ineffectiveness. These two studiesreplicated several replicationstudies carried out in the UK by Hamlin and Cooper (2007), Hamlin and Bassi (2008), and Hamlin and Serventi (2008), and carried out in China by Wang (2011). In accordance with these previous studies, our use of the term ‘managerial and leadership effectiveness’ refers to “the behavioral effectiveness of managers in performing their everyday tasks of managing and leading people” (Ruiz, Wang Hamlin, 2013, p. 131). In the context of this definition the word “leadership” relates to the everydayactivity of leading people that managers at different levels in the organization perform as an integral part of their managerial job. This type of leadership is whatHouse et al. (2004) describedas “general leadership”, and House and Aditya (1997) described as“supervisory leadership”.
We suggest that research on managerial and leadership effectiveness is particularly relevant in Latin American countries due to the increased levels of FDI (World Bank Group, 2012). And due to the increasing commercial relationships in the last decade between Mexico and Argentina, we consider it is imperative to explore the similarities and differences in managerial and leadership practices and behaviours, especially due to the impact that these can have on the competitiveness oforganizations.
Literature Review
Research on management effectiveness and leadership effectiveness in Mexico
Research that provides insight on how to be an effective manager in Mexico is scarce. Hoftstede’s cross cultural research (1980) suggests that Mexican employees feel comfortable with rules and uncomfortable with ambiguity. In addition, Mexicans are willing to accept authoritarian managers and uneven power distribution. The research also suggests that Mexicans are highly collectivistic and expect that employers take care of employees. Moreover, Mexicans are high in masculinity. In general, Mexicans believe that men and women assume different traditional roles; therefore, they are willing to accept gender inequalities (Navarro, 2005).
The GLOBE study (Global Leadership Organizational Behavior Effectiveness)also provides insight about effectiveleaders in Mexico. The findings of this study suggest that outstanding general managers [i.e. organisational leaders] in Mexico are achievement oriented, team players, decisive, competent, and inspiring. Conversely, the results of the study suggest that behaviours such as beingmalevolent, self-centred, a face saver, autocratic, and non-participative could potentially inhibittop managers in organizations frommanifestingoutstanding strategic/organizationalleadership (Ogliastri et.al. 1999).
Even though these previousstudies provide some insights about the behavioural effectiveness of managers in Mexico, we have found only one study that specifically addresses the topic of managerial and leadership effectiveness in this Latin American country, namely that of Ruiz, Wang and Hamlin (2013). These researchers explored the perceptions of managers and non-managerial employees about managerial and leadership effectiveness as observed within various organizations in the South East of Mexico. The results of their study suggest that an effective Mexican manager is perceived as someone who is behaviourally ‘approachable’, ‘democratic’, ‘fair’, ‘considerate’, ‘understanding’, ‘supportive’, ‘caring’, ‘hard working’, and ‘good at problem solving’.
Research on management effectiveness and leadership effectiveness in Argentina
Research about managerial effectiveness in Argentina is also very limited. And, as in the case of Mexico, there are international studies that suggest that certain managerial practices could be more effective than others based on cultural factors. For example, Hofstede’ study (1980) found that Argentineans are high on uncertainty avoidance. This suggests that Argentineans feel comfortable with rules and they have low tolerance for risk. This finding also suggests that Argentineans prefer managers who give clear instructions. Additionally, Hofstedes’s research suggests that Argentineans place a great deal of respect on executive leadership (AimarStough, 2007), which indicates that they are more willing to accept authoritarian managers and uneven power distribution compared to Americans (LuthansDoh, 2012). In Argentina decisions are made at the top. Lower level employees avoid expressing conflicting ideas; and superiors are not normally questioned about their decisions (Aimar & Sought). Furthermore, Hofstede’s findings indicate that connections are very important in Argentina. Individuals tend to rely more on people they know rather than on strangers. Relationships may be more relevant to Argentineans than institutions, laws, or regulations (Aimar & Sought, 2007). Finally, the research conducted by Hofstede shows that Argentineans place great value on earnings, recognition, material things, and advancement. However, different from Hofstede’s study, Trompenaars’ (1998) research indicates that Argentineans are more individualistic than collectivistic. This finding suggests that Argentineans may prefer to accomplish things alone and assume personal responsibility. Trompenaar(1998) also claims that Argentineans are achievement oriented which means that status in the workplace is based on performance.
As with the case of Mexico, the GLOBE study (House et al. 2004) provides insight into effective organizational leadership in Argentina, the findings of which suggest that the most outstanding general managers in Argentina are the ones who are team oriented, charismatic, participative, and human oriented. Conversely, the GLOBE results suggest that behaviours such as being self-protective (self-centred, status-conscious, conflict inducer, face saver, and procedural) and autonomous (independent, individualistic, and self-centric) could potentially inhibitoutstanding strategic/organizational leadership being exhibited by general managers in Argentina (Center for creative leadership, 2013).
As far as specific studies about managerial and leadership effectiveness in Argentina are concerned, only one study was found, namely that of Ruiz, Carioni and Hamlin (2014). These researchers explored the perceptions of managers and non-managerial employees about effective and ineffective managerial behaviour as observed in a variety of companies located in Cordova, Argentina. Their findings suggest that effective managers in Argentina (i) are approachable, flexible and understanding of employee’s needs and problems; (ii) are fair decision makers and take into considerations employees’ suggestions as well as support employees’ decisions; (iii) are good motivators by providing rewards and recognition as well as procuring a friendly and respectful work environment; (iv) care about employees doing a good job by supporting employees, providing guidance, professional development, providing recommendations for work improvement and by making sure employees have all the resources to do their work; (v) are concerned about the image of the company by making sure employees provide excellent customer service.
Our present study builds upon and extends the findings of these two empirical replication studies of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness conducted in Argentina and Mexico, and looks to explore the similarities and differences between the perceptions of effective and ineffective managerial behaviour as manifested in both countries.
Theoretical Framework
Our study is guided by the multiple constituency modelof organizational and managerialeffectiveness and the concept of reputational effectiveness, which were the theoretical frameworks used to guide our two empirical source studies conducted previously by us with the purpose of exploring perceived managerial and leadership practices across countries. Based on ‘multiple constituency’ theory, managers and leaders perform in organizations (social entities) that are comprised of different stakeholders (subordinates, peers, and superiors) who have their own expectations about the behavioural performance of managers (Tsui, 1990). The perception that subordinates, peers, and superiors have about their own and other managers’manifested behaviour defines the reputational effectiveness of those managers(Tsui, 1984). These perceptions can then affect in a positive or negative manner theactual performance of managers as measured against objective output standards (Tsui & Ashford, 1994). For example, if peers and subordinates perceive that the manager is effective and performing well, then they will more likely be willing to collaborate with him or her. Conversely,if subordinates perceive a manager’s performanceis ineffectivethen this could lead to problems with themfailing to follow willing the manager’s leadership. Furthermore, if a manager’s colleagues perceive him or her to be ineffective, then they may be less willing to share information or collaborate.
Purpose of the Study and Research Question
The purpose of the study was to compare the perceptions of Argentinean and Mexican managers and non-managerial employees about effective and ineffective managerial behaviour. In order to do this we conducted a qualitative multiple cross-case and cross-nation comparative analysis of findings obtained from the two aforementioned (Argentina and Mexico) past emic replication studies conducted by Author 1 and Author 2 and various co-researchers. With this purpose in mind, we addressed the following research questions:
- What are the similarities and differences between the perceptions of Argentinean and Mexican managers and non-managers about effective managerial behaviour?
- What are the similarities and differences between the perceptions of Argentinean and Mexican managers and non-managers about ineffective managerial behaviour?
Methodology
For our cross-case/cross-nation comparative study we adopted the concept of empirical generalization replication (Tsang Kwan, 1999). In addition, we used a derived etic approach (Berry’s 1989) which involves a “multiple cross-case analysis” and “replication logic” (Eisenhardt 1989). Using a combined emic–etic approach, which involves a common methodology to explore the same phenomena in a variety of contexts, is considered appropriate to reach valid derived generalizations (Berry, 1989).
Sampling
Our empirical source data were obtained from the two aforementioned emic replication studies on perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness carried out by us within a wide selection of private companies and public sector organizations in Argentina and Mexico. Therefore, we had access to all ofthe raw data and findings generated by these studies which were replications of Hamlin’s (1988) original managerial behaviour study conducted in the United Kingdom in state secondary schools and subsequent replication studies. The subject focus and details of the two studies are provided in Table 1.
In following Hamlin (1988), we used for ourreplication studies in Argentina and Mexico studies Flanagan’s (1954) critical incident technique (CIT) to obtain concrete examples (critical incidents-CIs) of effective and ineffective managerial behaviour. The CIs were collected from purposive samples of managers and non-managerial employees, and then subjected to open and axial coding in order to group them into behavioural categories based on their similarity in meaning. Following the clustering of the CIs, behavioural statements (BSs) were formulated to reflect the meaning held in common with the CIs (n=3 to 12) constituting each behavioural category. The empirical source data used for the present study were the sets of effective and infective BSs that resulted from the Argentinean and Mexican replication studies. As can be seen in Table 1, the number of CIT informants interviewed was 42 and 35 for Argentina and Mexico respectively. The number of CIs collected was 302 and 318 for Argentina and Mexico respectively; and the number of discrete BSs derived from the content analyzed CIs was 69 for Argentina and 33 for Mexico.
Table 1. Empirical Source Data Used For the Present Derived Etic Study