Nội dung

International Journal of Management (IJM) Volume 7, Issue 3, March-April 2016, pp. 213–223, Article ID: IJM_07_03_019 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=7&IType=3 Journal Impact Factor (2016): 8.1920 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510 © IAEME Publication MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS AND SELF-MONITORING: A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE Dr. Assissi Menachery Professor, Loyola Institute of Technology and Science, K.K Dist, T.N, India Dr. R. Venkatapathy Professor & Director, BSMED, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, T.N, India ABSTRACT The cultural diversity among today’s labour force is influenced by the demographic changes all over the world. Impact of multicultural differences has accompanied with the rising number of companies expanding into international markets. Many of the studies have focused on cultural differences in terms of values, norms, and assumptions (Adler, 1991; Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994; Triandis, 2001). This study analyses the similarities and differences that Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness could impose across cultures. The study has observed and analyzed the similarities or differences among Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness among managers across India & U.A.E working in hospitality industry. The impact of ‘levels of Self-Monitoring’ on various Managerial Effectiveness dimensions are also analyzed and discussed. Specific hypotheses were formulated. Testing of hypotheses, Analysis of data and recommendations are advanced based on the findings. Key words: Self-Monitoring, Managerial Effectiveness, Cross cultural research, Diversity, Hospitality Industry. Cite this Article: Dr. Assissi Menachery and Dr. R. Venkatapathy, Managerial Effectiveness and Self-Monitoring: A Cultural Perspective. International Journal of Management, 7(3), 2016, pp. 213–223. http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=7&IType=3 http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 213 editor@iaeme.com Dr. Assissi Menachery and Dr. R. Venkatapathy 1. INTRODUCTION The cultural diversity among today’s labour force has been largely influenced by the demographic changes all over the world. Many of the studies have focused on cultural differences in terms of values, norms, and assumptions (Adler, 1991; Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1994; Triandis, 2001). To the extent that culture share objective elements (such as language, religion, political systems or economic systems) or subjective ones (values, attitudes, beliefs, norms, roles), they are considered similar (Triandis, Kurowski & Gelfand, 1994). Hospitality involves high degree of service orientation and is considered a high-impact area for the development of economy. In hospitality industry, the international managers are exposed not only to the cultural diversity of co-workers but also they are vulnerable to the heterogeneous type of customers across countries, cultures and races. Service orientation holds few unique characteristics such as intangibility, ‘inseparability of production and consumption’, heterogeneity and perishability (Ruderman & Hughes-James, 1998). Similarly, most services involve the simultaneous production and consumption too. In a shorter span of time, India has increasingly cemented its position as one of the ‘must-see’ hospitality locations across the world. India is famous for its rich and varied culture, heritage and natural resources. Hospitality Industry provides opportunities for employment directly and indirectly in several related areas such as hotels, tour operators, and travels by means of Health and Spiritual Tourism. Each year an ever-increasing number of people are flocking into this country to relish its beauty and rich, but varied culture. Kerala tourism department achieved the ‘Super brand’ (2003-05) status known as ‘God’s own country’, across the globe, and is considered one of the prime destinations because of its scenic beauty, natural resources and Ayurveda. U.A.E. has been able to create a niche for itself in the world tourism map with its excellent infrastructure and hospitality, various leisure and sporting facilities, shopping malls, high levels of safety and a welcoming adjustable society. Dubai, which has lesser reserves of oil are being able to create a stable economy based on tourism or hospitality industry and retail business, which often complement each other. Studies indicate that the tourism accounts for ‘20%’ of Dubai's GDP. Hospitality Industry or Tourism in both the countries are the two sides of the coin. India’s unique selling proposition is Health or Medical tourism, scenic beauty and natural resources. Middle East countries thrust on infrastructure; man made wonders and other facilities & amenities. Even though there are a few studies on cross-cultural issues and Managerial Effectiveness, the results of these studies have been inconsistent, contradictory, and inconclusive (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994). Studies conducted in the western countries, are often referred to as consideration and initiation and in eastern studies as production and maintenance. Davis and Luthans (1979) concluded that the models on which they are based lacked the ability to predict success. The majority of these studies are based on frequency of behaviours and not skill of managerial behaviours (Bernadin & Beatty, 1984; Schriesheim & Kerr, 1974; Shipper, 1991; Shipper & White, 1999; Van Velsor & Leslie, 1991; Yukl, 1994). The skill or how well a manager engages in a behaviour has been posited (Blake and Mouton, 1981; Van Velsor & Leslie, 1991) and supported empirically (Shipper, 1991; Shipper & White, 1999) to be more relevant to success than the frequency of that behaviour or skills (Cullen, 1999). Outside North America, few studies examine effectiveness of managerial behaviour or skills (Cullen, 1999). There are multiple studies of what managers do or should do (Kipnis, Smith & Wilkinson, 1984; Schmidt & Yeh, 1992) or employee attitudes toward management (Hofstede, 1983, 1991). http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 214 editor@iaeme.com Managerial Effectiveness and Self-Monitoring: A Cultural Perspective It has been observed that due to the pace of internationalization of business, understanding managerial skills associated with different cultures have become necessary (Hadjikhani & Johanson, 2002). Moreover, culture is a pattern of values, attitudes, and beliefs that affect the behaviour of the people within a region. Emotions are partially influenced by one’s attitude and beliefs (Hofstede, 2001; Scherer & Wallbott, 1994). It is observed that culture varies on a variety of fundamental values, attitudes, and assumptions (Hofstede, 2001; House & Javidan, 2001; Ronen & Shenkar, 1985). Hence, it is probable that Managerial Effectiveness is likely to vary across cultures. Cultural differences on Managerial Effectiveness are likely to derive from two sources (Shipper, Kincaid, Rotondo & Hoffman, 2003). The first of these are cultural differences in certain characteristics related to self-awareness. Secondly, the cultural variations have been observed in research on the effectiveness of managerial behaviours and skills. Hence, Managerial Effectiveness is considered to be related to Self-Monitoring. However, there are limited studies available across cultures. Managerial Effectiveness is the ability of an executive to achieve the positional objective with optimal effort under the influence of given set of situational variables and environmental conditions. Further Self-Monitoring refers to an individual’s ability to adjust his or her behaviour to external, situational factors or environmental conditions. Individuals high on Self-Monitoring show considerable adaptability in adjusting their behaviour to external situational factors. Thus, the trait SelfMonitoring seems to be potentially related to Managerial Effectiveness. The relationship between Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness are yet to be empirically established. The hospitality industry is a growing field with vast potential. Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness make high impact on hospitality industry in various dimensions. It is appropriate and relevant to carry out such a study. It is expected that the knowledge derived from this study would augment, add, or expand the existing knowledge that pertains to the specific relationship between the variables. However, an effort has been made to study the impact of Self-Monitoring on Managerial Effectiveness on different cultures. This study will analyse the similarities and differences that Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness could impose across cultures. 2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The study aims at observing and analysing the similarities or differences among SelfMonitoring and Managerial Effectiveness among managers across cultures (India & U.A.E.) working in hospitality industry. The main objectives are: 1. To study the Self-Monitoring characteristics of managers working in different cultural environment. 2. To study the similarities or differences with special focus on the dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness among the managers working in different cultural environment. 3. To study the impact of ‘levels of Self-Monitoring’ on various Managerial Effectiveness dimensions. 2.1. Hypotheses The respondents working in India & U.A.E. and the high and low levels of SelfMonitoring would remain to be homogenous on their scores on each Managerial Effectiveness sub-scales viz. http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 215 editor@iaeme.com Dr. Assissi Menachery and Dr. R. Venkatapathy 1. Future Orientation, (2) Drive Strength, (3) Problem Solving, (4) Giving and Receiving Feedback and (5) Decisiveness Based on the above hypothesis, a detailed hypothesis could be advanced as follows: 2.1.1 (a) Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring would remain to be homogenous on their scores on the Future Orientation sub-scale of Managerial Effectiveness scale. (b) Managers working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on their scores on the Future Orientation sub-scale of Managerial Effectiveness scale. (c) Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring, working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on the scores of Future Orientation sub-scale of the Managerial Effectiveness scale. 2.1.2 (a) Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring would remain to be homogenous on their scores on the Drive Strength sub-scale of Managerial Effectiveness scale. (b) Managers working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on their scores on the Drive Strength sub-scale of Managerial Effectiveness scale. (c) Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring, working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on the scores of Drive Strength sub-scale of the Managerial Effectiveness scale. 2.1.3 (a) Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring would remain to be homogenous on their scores on the Problem Solving sub-scale of Managerial Effectiveness scale. (b) Managers working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on their scores on the Problem Solving sub-scale of Managerial Effectiveness scale. (c) Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring, working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on the scores of Problem Solving sub-scale of the Managerial Effectiveness scale. 2.1.4 (a) Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring would remain to be homogenous on their scores on the ‘Giving and Receiving Feed-back’ sub-scale of Managerial Effectiveness scale. (b) Managers working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on their scores on the ‘Giving and Receiving Feed-back’ subscale of Managerial Effectiveness scale. (c) Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring, working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on the scores of ‘Giving and Receiving Feed-back’ sub-scale of the Managerial Effectiveness scale. 2.1.5 (a) Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring would remain to be homogenous on their scores on the Decisiveness sub-scale of Managerial Effectiveness scale. (b) Managers working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on their scores on the Decisiveness sub-scale of Managerial Effectiveness scale. http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 216 editor@iaeme.com Managerial Effectiveness and Self-Monitoring: A Cultural Perspective (c) Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring, working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on the scores of Decisiveness sub-scale of the Managerial Effectiveness scale. 2.4 Sample For the purpose of study, two star and three star hotels or resorts from Dubai and Kerala have been selected as sample. The perusal of records at Department of Tourism and Commerce Marketing, Govt. of Dubai and Department of Tourism, Govt. of Kerala, resulted in ‘seventy-eight’ registered two star and three star hotels or resorts in Dubai and ‘eighty-three’ two star and three star hotels or resorts in Kerala to be included in the sample. 2.4.1. Sampling Frame and Characteristics Permission was requested to conduct the study in all the above said registered hotels or resorts from Dubai and Kerala. ‘Sixty-nine’ hotels or resorts from Dubai and ‘seventy five’ hotels or resorts from Kerala, responded positively for the study. Hotels or resorts were categorized alphabetically and numbered numerically as per the alphabetical order. Further, one hotel from every two, based on the numerical numbering was selected for the study. Systematic random sampling was adopted. Thus, ‘thirty-five’ hotel or resort from Dubai and ‘thirty-eight’ hotel or resort from Kerala formed the sample of the study. The response sheets with a covering letter were sent to all functional heads of the selected hotels. After two weeks, the respondents were requested and reminded to send back the completed response sheets. Many of the respondents completed the questionnaire and sent it back to the researcher. To collect the data from the few managers who did not respond in time, the researcher went personally to the hotel or resort and collected the completed response sheets. Totally ‘152’ managers from Kerala and ‘141’ managers from Dubai responded. On perusal, it was found that a few response sheets were incomplete, a few were marked haphazardly, and a few were not returned in the full version. Thus, eliminating all the incomplete and inappropriate response sheets, the final sample resulted in ‘145’ managers from Kerala and ‘138’ managers from Dubai. The middle level managers or functional heads from the hotels (such as Operations; H.R.; Marketing; Finance; Front office and Maintenance) were taken as the sample for the study. The executives or managers with more than three years of experience were considered to be included in the sample. 2.5. Technique The response sheets with a covering letter, which explains the purpose and scope of the study, were initially sent to the hotels or resorts. The respondents were given information that they were participating in a research program on a cross-cultural study on Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness. After two weeks, the respondents were requested and reminded to send back the completed response sheets. Many of the respondents completed the questionnaire and sent it back to the researcher. To collect the data from the few managers who did not respond in time, and when they had doubts or clarifications on certain aspects too, researcher went personally to the hotel or resort and collected the completed response sheets. Wherever the respondents confronted with ambiguous situations, they would explain about the nature of each situation without disclosing the conceptual framework. http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 217 editor@iaeme.com Dr. Assissi Menachery and Dr. R. Venkatapathy 2.6. Measures 2.6.1. Self-Monitoring Scale The revised Self-Monitoring Scale developed by Lennox and Wolfe (1984) was used to measure Self-Monitoring. The instrument contains thirteen Likert-type scale items to be responded to a four point rating scale starting from ‘always false’, ‘sometimes false’, ‘sometimes true’, and ‘always true’. The maximum possible score is fifty-two and minimum thirteen. The total cumulative scores of the responses of all items yield scores on Self-Monitoring. Of the thirteen items, eleven items were to be scored by the direct method while two items were to be scored by the reverse method. Higher scores relate to high level of Self-Monitoring and lower scores relate to low level of Self-Monitoring. 2.6.2. Managerial Effectiveness Scale The scale developed by Menachery, A & Venkatapathy R. (2009), called Managerial Effectiveness Scale (MES) to measure Managerial Effectiveness. It comprises ‘110’ items. It is a four - point Likert type rating scale had been designed for each question (1 - Strongly disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Agree, 4 - Strongly Agree). There were eleven negative items in the Managerial Effectiveness Index. It measures the five composite factors which include (1) Future Orientation, (2) Drive Strength, (3) Problem Solving, (4) Giving and Receiving Feedback and (5) Decisiveness 2.7. Results and Discussion 2.7.1. Classification of the respondents based on their scores on Self-Monitoring The respondents are classified using their levels of Self-Monitoring as high and low. The scores on Self-Monitoring scale of the respondents are arranged in an ascending order. Based on the median (theoretical mean), scores of the respondents are divided into two groups. Those respondents who have scored greater than the median score are classified as high on Self-Monitoring. Those respondents who have scored less than the median score are classified as low on Self-Monitoring. The scores corresponding to the median score are removed from further analysis. This classification resulted in the rejection of ‘eight’ responses from respondents working in U.A.E. and ‘fourteen’ responses from the respondents working in India. Finally, ‘130’ responses from the respondents working in U.A.E., and ‘131’ responses from the respondents working in India are subjected to further analysis. This includes ‘136’ low Self-Monitoring respondents and ‘125’ high Self-Monitoring respondents. The data collected are analyzed using 2 x 2 ANOVA and the results are analysed and discussed for the difference of the scores of the respondents working with the criterion groups. During discussion, attention has been given in arriving at a conclusive perspective on the analysis, hypothesis testing and interpretation of data on the biographical variables and on specific constructs such as ‘Self-Monitoring’, and ‘Managerial Effectiveness’. http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 218 editor@iaeme.com Managerial Effectiveness and Self-Monitoring: A Cultural Perspective Table 1 U.A.E. High & low Self-Monitoring V/S Managerial Effectiveness Criterion group Sub-scale Future orientation Drive strength Problem solving skill Giving and Receiving feed back Decisiveness UAE Low Self-Monitors (49) Mean SD 60.73 6.18 59.49 5.99 76.04* 3.36 63.37 4.83 75.04 3.21 UAE High Self-Monitors (81) Mean SD 60.27 5.77 58.89 5.49 79.42 2.76 69.61* 2.83 78.04* 2.90 Table 2 Indian High & low Self-Monitoring V/S Managerial Effectiveness Criterion group Sub-scale Future orientation Drive strength Problem solving skill Giving and Receiving feed back Decisiveness Indian Low Self-Monitors (87) Indian High Self-Monitors (44) Mean 69.46* 70.89* 70.75 57.00 SD 8.55 7.98 4.40 5.29 Mean 65.66 68.11 76.93* 63.14* SD 5.91 5.44 3.36 3.80 69.80 4.15 75.77* 3.87 Table 3 U.A.E & Indian Managers V/S Managerial Effectiveness Criterion group Sub-scale Future orientation Drive strength Problem solving Giving and Receiving feed back Decisiveness UAE managers (130) Mean SD 60.45 5.91 59.12 5.66 78.15* 3.41 65.72* 4.78 Indian managers (131) Mean SD 68.18* 7.94 69.95* 7.32 72.82 5.02 61.08 5.63 76.91* 71.81 3.34 4.94 Table 4 High & Low Self-Monitors V/S Managerial Effectiveness Criterion group Sub-scale Future orientation Drive strength Problem solving Giving and Receiving feed back Decisiveness Low Self-Monitors (136) Mean SD 66.32* 8.82 66.78* 9.13 72.65 4.78 61.13 5.99 71.69 4.59 High Self-Monitors (125) Mean SD 62.17 6.34 62.14 7.02 78.58* 3.20 65.74* 4.41 77.24* 3.43 Table 5 Average mean score UAE and India Total (261) Criterion group Sub-scale Future orientation Drive strength Problem solving skill Giving and Receiving feed back Mean 64.33 64.56 75.48 63.39 S.D 7.99 8.50 5.04 5.71 Decisiveness 74.35 4.92 http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 219 editor@iaeme.com Dr. Assissi Menachery and Dr. R. Venkatapathy 2.7.2. A comparison on the levels of Self-Monitoring The managers high on Self-Monitoring are high on Problem Solving Skill, Giving and Receiving Feedback and Decisiveness dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness scale. The managers high on Self-Monitoring are low on Drive Strength and Future Orientation dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness scale. 2.7.3. A comparison between different cultures The managers working in different countries and the levels of Self-Monitoring failed to differentiate on Drive Strength, Future Orientation and Giving and Receiving Feedback dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness Scale. The managers working in different countries and the levels of Self-Monitoring differ on Problem Solving Skill and Decisiveness dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness Scale. 2.7.4. High and Low levels of Self-monitoring, Cultures and Managerial Effectiveness Table 6 High and Low levels of Self-monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness of India and UAE Managers: Criterion group Indian and UAE Managers Low and High Self-monitoring Interaction Sub-scale Drive strength 0.05 0.05 NS Future orientation 0.05 0.05 NS Problem solving skill 0.05 0.05 0.05 Giving and Accepting 0.05 0.05 NS feed back Decisiveness 0.05 0.05 0.05 NS: Homogeneous and failed to achieved statistical significance P ≥ 0.05 level of significance 2.8. Cultural Implications The managers working in India are high on Drive Strength and Future Orientation dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness. The managers working in U.A.E. are high on Problem Solving Skill, Giving and Receiving Feedback and Decisiveness dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness. While analysing the countries together, high Self-Monitoring managers score high on ‘Problem Solving’ and ‘Decisiveness’ subscales of Managerial Effectiveness Scale and low Self-Monitoring managers score high on ‘Future Orientation’, ‘Drive Strength’ and ‘Giving and Receiving Feedback’ sub scales. However, when these parameters are analysed taking the countries individually, the result is different for the both. It is likely that the culture would have influenced the Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness of managers. The cultural implication could be viewed in yet another perspective. From the pattern in the result, it may be inferred that culture could have moderated the scores of the various sub-scales of Managerial Effectiveness Scale. Thus, the dimensions of culture could possibly moderate the Managerial Effectiveness dimensions. Culture of the respondents working in two nations has an implication on the Self-Monitoring of the managers working in the hospitality industry. Thus, it may further be inferred that Managerial Effectiveness is influenced by the respondents across culture. http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 220 editor@iaeme.com Managerial Effectiveness and Self-Monitoring: A Cultural Perspective 2.9. Future research directions The following leads are suggested for the future research endeavor in this area of study and research. 1. 2. 3. 4. A comparative study emphasising on the sex differences. A cross-national study to understand the cross-cultural issues. A cross section of the hospitality industry may be carried out. A longitudinal study may be initiated to evolve cross cultural differences and management of diversity. 3. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is aimed at studying the empirical relationship between personality (SelfMonitoring) and Managerial Effectiveness. Based on the outcome of the analysis of the results it is possible to extricate the skills and capabilities unique for the high complexity competitive scenario in hospitality industry at the global level. Hospitality industry requires hiring the right personnel, to excel among the competitors. Hospitality industry includes travel, tourism, hotels and resorts. This essentially makes the manager of the company to face customers or clients across cultures. Based on the results of the study the following recommendations are advanced. Nurturing and developing the managerial skills suiting to the country specific training needs. The management of hotels and hospitality industries may implement the programmes with an integrated approach to emphasise the mix of Personality and Managerial Effectiveness to achieve the maximum benefit. Drive strength and Future Orientation capabilities are low for the managers working in U.A.E., compared to the managers in India. These two attributes are the requirements for entrepreneurs and managers. Drive-Strength, trigger the urge for a person to strive and achieve success in personal and professional life. Need for achievement is a product of Drive strength. This attribute is found lacking in the managers working in U.A.E. Hence, the industry leaders or government may conduct a study to identify the root cause for the lack of Drive Strength and Future Orientation attributes and employ corrective actions to enhance the same. Adequate awareness programmes may be designed for the managers working in U.A.E. hospitality industry to improve on ‘Drive Strength’ and ‘Future Orientation’ attributes. Training and retraining programmes may be designed to fill the knowledge and competence gap. Scores on ‘Giving and Receiving Feedback’ is less for managers working in India compared to managers from U.A.E. Giving and Receiving feedback is a mechanism or methodology to enhance interpersonal skill. People who are successful in all businesses requiring active interaction with other people, such as salespeople, managers, counsellors, consultants, and lawyers all have a high degree of interpersonal skills. They give and receive feedback very effectively. Hence, the industry leaders or government may conduct a study to identify the root cause for the lack of ‘Giving and receiving feed-back’ dimensions and can implement correction and corrective actions to enhance the same. Adequate awareness programmes may be designed for the managers working in Indian hospitality to fill the knowledge and competence gap. ‘Problem solving skill’ and ‘Decisiveness’ is less for Indian managers when compared to U.A.E., managers. Problem Solving entails the ability to identify and define problems as well as to generate and implement the potentially effective solutions. To identify the potential problems and taking preventive action to avoid the occurrence of problems is the preventive measure. In case of confronting with a problem, identifying the root-cause of the problem, identifying alternative http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 221 editor@iaeme.com Dr. Assissi Menachery and Dr. R. Venkatapathy solutions, choosing the best alternative and correcting the problem are the subsequent phases of Problem Solving skill. ‘Decisiveness’ is the ability to take effective decisions from alternatives by balancing the risk factor thereby integrating resource allocation and goal achievement. An effective manager with ‘Decisiveness,’ capability exercises good judgment by making sound and well-informed decisions. Adequate awareness programmes may be designed for the managers working in Indian hospitality industry on ‘Problem Solving Skill’, and ‘Decisiveness’. Training and retraining programmes may be designed to fill the knowledge gap on these two dimensions. Self-Monitoring is related to Managerial Effectiveness. Development of the manager in any of the dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness will enhance his ability in Self-Monitoring. Self-Monitoring is one of the most important qualities of a manager in the hospitality industry, hence, the above recommendations. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Adler, N. J. (1991). International Dimensions of Organisational behaviour (2 nd ed.). Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Company. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications (3rd ed.), New York: Free Press. Bernadin, H. J. & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Preformance appraisal: Assessing human behaviour at work. Boston: Kent Publishing. Cullen, J. B. (1999). Multinational Management: A Strategic Approach. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing. Davis, T. R. V. & Luthans, F (1979). Leadership reexamined: A behavioural approach. Academy of management review, 4, 237-248. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organisational Dynamic, Summer, 42-63 Hofstede, G. (1983) "The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories", Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.14, No. 2, pp 75-89. Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organisations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, Geert (1993). "Cultural Constraints in Management Theories", Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7(1), pp.81-94. Maastricht, the Netherlands: Academy University of Limburg. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and research. International Journal of cross cultural management, 1 (1), 11-30. Menachery, A & Venkatapathy R. (2009). GIM Journal of Management, ISSN 0974-0708, Volume 4, No.2 July – December. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond Individualism-Collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In K. Uichol, C. Kagitcibasi, H.C. Triandis & G. Yoon (eds.). Individualism and Collectivism. Newbury Park: Sage. 85-119. Shipper, F. (1991). Mastery and frequency of managerial behaviours relative to sub-unit effectiveness. Human Relations, 44, 371-388. Shipper, F & White, C. S. (1999). Mastery, frequency and interaction of managerial behaviours relative to subunit effectiveness. Human Relations, 52, 49-66. http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 222 editor@iaeme.com