Homework answers / question archive / Assignment Information Turnitin® This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin®

Assignment Information Turnitin® This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin®

Writing

Share With

Assignment Information Turnitin® This assignment will be submitted to Turnitin®. Instructions Goal: Conduct a case study analysis based on two scholarly studies that are related to your research topic. After a concise, but thorough, analyses of the cases, summarize the benefits of cross-cultural management in business. Instructions: Students will write a 600-750 word case study analysis based on two case studies that involve cross-cultural management. Review the Case Study Analysis procedure as presented in a document located in this week's reading resources (see Content). Obtain your case study articles from scholarly peer-reviewed journals in the online library. Use case studies that were published within the last ten years. After a concise, but thorough and clear delineation and analysis of the cases, complete the paper with a summary of what you gleaned from using the cases to understand management practice within organizations. Write using the APA style format, including a title page and references page (no abstract is required). When you upload your paper, also upload pdfs of BOTH case studies, so the professor can check your analysis. This assignment should be submitted as Word.doc attachment in the Assignment section of our virtual classroom. The file name of your paper should be named in the following manner: Last name–truncated Week Number-Assignment name (abbreviated if necessary) For example: Smith-Wk07 - Case Study Analysis The accompanying articles upon which your work is based should be saved to your computer as a pdf file and then uploaded along with your assignment, named as suits you, EXCEPT put your last name first in the following manner: Last name–the name of the respective article (abbreviate as needed) For example Smith-YadaYada Research Please note that this week you should upload three items into the same assignment area: your paper (.doc) plus the two case studies (each as a .pdf) upon which your paper is based. The grading rubric is found in the Resources section of the classroom. A document "Five steps case study analysis" is found in the Content>Readings & Resources as well as in the Resources The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm IJOA 22,3 A cross-cultural study of managerial skills and effectiveness 372 New insights or back to basics? Received 27 June 2012 Revised 11 October 2012 Accepted 17 February 2013 Richard C. Hoffman and Frank M. Shipper Perdue School of Business, Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD, USA Jeanette A. Davy Raj Soin College of Business, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA, and Denise M. Rotondo Department of Management, Meredith College, Raleigh, NC, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between managerial skills and effectiveness in a cross-cultural setting to determine their applicability. Design/methodology/approach – Data from 7,606 managers in 5 countries from a large multinational firm were analyzed using structural equation modeling to assess all relationships simultaneously and reduce error effects. Findings – The results support the cross-cultural validity of the model of managerial skills-effectiveness. Few cross-cultural differences were found. Interactive skills had greater positive impact on attitudes than initiating skills. Pressuring skills had a negative impact on attitudes. None of the skill sets were related to job performance. Research limitations/implications – Using a single firm and industry to control for other cultural levels may limit the generalizability of the results. Only three skill sets were assessed and one coarse-grained measure of culture was used. These factors may account for the few cultural differences observed. Practical implications – Training programs for managers going overseas should develop both interactive and initiating skills sets, as both had a positive impact on attitudes across cultures. Originality/value – The model of managerial skills and effectiveness was validated across five cultures. The use of structural equation modeling ensures that the results are not an artifact of the measures and represents a more direct test for cross-cultural differences. Managing successfully across cultures may require fewer unique skills, with more emphasis placed on using basic management skills having positive impact. Keywords Leadership, Management development, Cross-cultural management, Management skills Paper type Research paper International Journal of Organizational Analysis Vol. 22 No. 3, 2014 pp. 372-398 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1934-8835 DOI 10.1108/IJOA-06-2012-0593 Managers are being challenged to manage effectively in different cultures as multinationals become a major, if not dominant, form of business. Prior research suggests that the practice of management in various parts of the world differs (Hofstede, 1983; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005; House et al., 2004). This study focuses on identifying differing effective patterns of managerial skills across a relatively wide range of cultures. The purpose of this study is to learn how different cultures value selected managerial skills by examining cross-cultural differences in the use of those skills and differences in the associations between those skills, and employees’ attitudes and managerial performance. The underlying assumption is that effective managerial skills result in more favorable subordinate attitudes and better managerial performance in terms of producing results that positively impact organizational objectives. A skill-based model for predicting managerial effectiveness (Shipper and Davy, 2002) serves as the framework for this study. The model is expanded in this study to include more managerial skills and the concept of social or national culture. Both differences in the use of skills and the relationships between the use of these skills and managerial effectiveness in terms of positive employees’ attitudes and managerial performance are examined among five cultures. The purpose is to determine the prevalence and effectiveness of the skills in a variety of cross-cultural settings. This knowledge is important for global firms, as they increasingly must transfer managers to operate their facilities abroad. The review of the literature that follows begins by describing the management skill constructs that are the focus of the study and the skill-based model that links the skills to effectiveness. Second, the concept of culture is discussed and embedded into a general model delineating the relationship between managerial skills and effectiveness in a cross-cultural setting. Subsequently, the impact that culture has on the skills– effectiveness relationship is described and summarized in the form of two propositions and a set of hypotheses. The remainder of the paper describes the empirical study and its results followed by a discussion and conclusions from the study’s findings. The structural model of managerial effectiveness Effective patterns of management can be defined by specific skills. Yukl (1994) suggested that such refinement can improve our conceptualization and understanding of management. For this study, a general structural model of managerial skill and effectiveness was developed based on prior research (see Figure 1). For ? 40 years, management models have classified managerial skills into two general constructs – consideration and initiating structure (Shipper and Davy, 2002). Recent meta-analysis of prior research has shown that these models are as good as, if not better than, more recent models of managerial effectiveness (Judge et al., 2004). After reviewing 15 taxonomies of managerial skills, Shipper and Davy (2002) identified 6 skills that are widely recognized – participation, facilitation, recognition, planning, time emphasis and control of details. The first three of the six skills are classified as interactive skills and are similar to consideration behaviors noted earlier. Interactive skills, i.e. participation, facilitation and recognition, are defined as “[…] the abilities/behaviors required for meaningful collaboration between two or more people concerning the work to be accomplished” (Shipper and Davy, 2002, p. 97). The last three of the six skills are classified as initiating skills, i.e. planning, time emphasis and controlling details, which are defined as those: “[…] managerial behaviors required to organize and define what employees should be doing to maximize output” (Shipper and Davy, 2002, p. 98). They focus on manager behavior toward employees in providing guidance or initiating structure for employee tasks. Managerial skills and effectiveness 373 IJOA 22,3 374 Figure 1. Structural model There is evidence of skills outside the interactive and initiating classifications (Bass, 1990; Miller, 1973). To expand this study, pressuring skills (i.e. applies pressure, gets upset, punishes) were incorporated into the model as a third construct. They are defined as “the ability to apply the appropriate insistence for the accomplishment of goals” (Shipper and Dillard, 2000, p. 333). This skill construct is representative of authoritarian management. Given that in some cultures, authoritarian management may be either more prevalent or more effective than in others, including it in this study provides a more complete assessment of managerial skills across cultures (Miller, 1973; Shipper and Dillard, 2000). Furthermore, this construct conceptually parallels a construct referred to as active management by exception, included in cross-cultural research on transformational and transactional management (Bass, 1997). Figure 1 depicts the general structural model using the three constructs described above and their relationship to two indicators of managerial effectiveness: employee attitudes (affects) and performance (job performance). Based on the extant literature (Judge et al., 2004; Shipper and Davey, 2002), the interactive, initiating and pressuring constructs are hypothesized to have direct effects on employees’ attitudes and direct and indirect effects on managerial performance (task). The indirect effects result from the direct effects from the skills constructs on employees’ attitudes combined with the direct effect of employees’ attitudes to managerial performance. In the next section, culture is introduced to the skills-effectiveness model. Modeling of managerial effectiveness in a cross-cultural context This section specifically places the basic managerial skills-effectiveness model into a multicultural setting. Culture is a central construct in the conceptual model presented here and is defined as the pattern of shared values, attitudes and beliefs that result from common experiences of a group of people, and it affects their behavior (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Given that cultures appear to vary on a number of basic values, attitudes and beliefs (Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 1994; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985), it would follow that both work attitudes and behaviors (i.e. use of skills) are also likely to vary across cultures. Prior cross-cultural studies have established the validity of examining the relationship between management practices and various forms of outcomes. For example, Hui et al. (2004) found some support for a model linking management empowerment and job satisfaction as moderated by cultural values. Chen and Ayree (2007) found support for culture’s moderating effect on the relationship between management delegation, employee self-concept and a variety of outcomes (job satisfaction, commitment, task performance and innovation). Hoffman and Shipper (2012) found some support for cultures moderating the relationship between interactive and controlling skills and commitment. Drawing on these and other studies (Erez and Early, 1993), Figure 2 depicts the conceptual relationship among skills, effectiveness and culture. Similar to the structural model, managerial skills are posited to have a direct influence on both employee attitudes and managerial performance as well as an indirect effect on performance as mediated by attitudes. In the current model, culture moderates the various relationships between skills and attitudes and skills and performance based on the research so far. The dark arrows in the model depict the general relationships examined in this study. The attitudes–performance relationship is not formally examined in this study. While both affective and task/behavioral performance measures have a long tradition in studies conducted in the USA, they also have proven to be relevant measures of managerial effectiveness across cultures. For example, affective outcomes such as job satisfaction (Cascio, 1974; Chen and Ayree, 2007; Hui et al., 2004; Pichler and Wallace, 2009; Smith and Peterson, 1988) and commitment (Chen and Ayree, 2007; Hoffman and Shipper, 2012; Shipper et al., 2003) have been found to be valid indicators of managerial effectiveness across cultures. Similarly, effectiveness measures pertaining to the manager’s job or task performance have proven to be valid in cross-cultural studies. Management skills/behaviors have been found to affect subordinate performance (Black Managerial Skills Employee Attitudes Culture Managerial skills and effectiveness 375 Managerial Performance Figure 2. The managerial skills – effectiveness relationship across cultures: a conceptual model IJOA 22,3 376 and Porter, 1991; Chen and Ayree, 2007) and work group performance (Hoffman and Shipper, 2012; Shipper et al., 2003) in a variety of cultural settings. Finally, the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has also been impacted by differences in cultural values (Ng et al., 2009). This leads us to our first proposition: P1. The model of the relationship between management skills and managerial effectiveness as depicted in Figure 1 is valid across cultures. When a macro variable such as culture is introduced into a model at the managerial level, it is also important to account for other possible macro-level variables that might serve as rival hypotheses. First of all, given the individual level of analysis of the model, there are not likely to be many macro-level variables that have a direct effect at this level of analysis. It is possible for culture to affect behaviors at the individual level because peoples of given cultures come into the workplace with the values and beliefs of their respective cultures, and these, in turn, affect their behavior on the job as numerous cross-cultural studies at this level of analysis have already demonstrated (Dorfman et al., 1997, Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004). One macro-variable that might influence the relationships at the individual level is industry (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004) because organizations and their managers often have to adopt common practices shared within the industry. An organization level variable that also may mask culture’s impact is that of differences in organizational cultures whose norms and beliefs are designed to influence the behavior of their members. Other macro-societal-level variables include economic wealth and political risk, but Smith (2002) has cautioned against attempting to partial out say the effect of wealth because it may already be reflected in the culture’s value system. Others have combined economic and cultural constructs in an effort to seek an interaction between the two (Ralston et al., 1997), but as Witt (2007) points out, this approach tends to mask cultural influences because this seeks to examine the interaction of culture with other concepts. Thus, given the robust effect of culture found in many comparative management studies, we will focus on industry and organization culture as the two most plausible macro-level variables affecting the behaviors of managers within organizations. Managerial skills and effectiveness across cultures: some hypothesized relationships To better describe how culture may affect the managerial skills– effectiveness relationships, this study draws on research that has empirically derived some value dimensions that serve to differentiate one culture from another. This section begins by describing the value dimensions and then identifies the cultures examined in this study. The value dimensions are then used to help describe the differences in the managerial skills– effectiveness relationships that are expected among the cultures under investigation. There have been numerous efforts to assess cross-cultural value dimensions. These include studies by Hofstede (1980, 2001), House et al. (2004), Schwartz (1994) and Trompenaars (1994). However, by far the most widely used framework is that developed by Hofstede (1980) in part because it was the first large-scale study of culture and also because reviewers of Hofstede’s work have praised it for its “rigorous research design, a systematic data collection and a coherent theory to explain national variations” (Sndergaard, 1994, p. 442). Moreover, most of the other value studies have yielded convergent results with Hofstede’s dimensions supporting their validity (Leung et al., 2005, 2011). According to Kirkman et al. (2006), Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) work has been the most influential in cross-cultural research for the past 40 years. Researchers (Kirkman et al., 2006) have demonstrated also that Hofstede’s values are relevant for additional cross-cultural research. Thus, we have adopted Hofstede’s approach in this study; its use will also provide greater comparability with prior research. Hofstede (1980, 1980a, 2001) identified four empirically tested values that seem to distinguish between cultures; moreover, four of the values repeatedly have been found to be relevant in explaining observed differences in leadership styles (Pavett and Morris, 1995) as well as managerial skills (Shipper, et al., 2003). We apply these dimensions to examine differences in work attitudes and behavior across five country cultures. The four dimensions are the following: • power distance, which refers to the social stratification within a society such that higher status individuals/groups are accorded more power and authority by those of lower status; • uncertainty avoidance is a society’s fear of the unknown or ambiguous situations; • individualism (in-group collectivism), which refers to the identity of self as based either solely on the individual or on the individual as part of a group or collective; and • masculinity (assertiveness), which refers to a society’s preference for competition and outcomes (masculine values) as opposed to cooperation and process (feminine values). These values are used to discuss possible differences in work-related attitudes and the use of managerial skills across cultures. Power distance is important to the study of leadership because it deals directly with expectations of authority – who has the power to decide what? (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005; Offermann and Hellmann, 1997). Uncertainty avoidance norms refer to preferences by a culture for ambiguity versus stability. They help define rules or procedures that must be in place to attain the desired goals (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005; Offermann and Hellmann, 1997). Individualism and masculinity affect how people think about themselves and others in the organization rather than about the organization (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Managers from five national cultures were selected for use in this study. They represent a diversity of cultures based on their differences along Hofstede’s (2001) values as demonstrated by Shipper et al. (2007). The cultures sampled include two Western (Anglo) cultures – the American and Irish, two Far-Eastern (Ronen and Shenkar, 1985) cultures – Malaysian and Filipino and Israeli, a culture geographically and, in terms of its value profile, between the other two groups of cultures. According to cluster analyses by Ronen and Shenkar (1985) and House et al. (2004), Far-Eastern cultures are almost the opposite in terms of a variety of values and goals from Anglo cultures and should provide therefore a strong contrast for comparative analysis. Israeli culture proved to be independent from the seven other cultural groupings identified by Ronen and Shenkar (1985). When examining the mappings of these five countries on the four dimensions (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005), it is clear Israel stands out as different from the remaining four countries. Israel falls into Managerial skills and effectiveness 377 IJOA 22,3 378 completely different quadrants from the others on masculinity versus individualism, power distance versus masculinity and masculinity versus uncertainty avoidance. Israel only falls in a common quadrant (with the USA and Ireland) on power distance and individualism. Even in this case, Israel is in the far opposite corner of the quadrant than the USA, with Ireland in the middle. The values profiles of these five cultures are summarized in Table I. Still focusing on these mappings, it seems risky/hasty to state Far-Eastern cultures are almost opposite in terms of a variety of values from Anglo cultures. For example, the USA, Ireland, Malaysia and the Philippines are quite similar in their country scores and rankings on uncertainty avoidance. The Philippines are similar to the USA and Ireland on masculinity. These similarities make hypothesis development less clear cut. Finally, it is important to note that our intent is to examine whether there are differences in the relationships between managerial skills and managerial effectiveness. As a result, we are more interested in examining culture’s role as a moderator of these relationships than any direct effects it may have on either skills or effectiveness. Adopting this perspective also enables us to examine if the structural model of management effectiveness depicted in Figure 1 is valid across all cultures in the study simultaneously as opposed to testing different pairs of relationships across cultures. This leads us to posit the following: P2. Culture moderates the relationships between managerial skills and effectiveness as depicted in Figures 1 and 2. Hypothesized relationships among skills, attitudes and effectiveness across cultures In this section, we describe the specific cross-cultural relationships in our model and as indicated by P2 in the form of hypotheses that are tested with our data. We use pairs of Hofstede’s (1980) values to explain the cultural difference in the relationships between managerial skills and managerial effectiveness (attitudes and performance) expected in Nations Table I. Cultural profiles of nations sampled Cultural characteristics Ireland The USA Israel Malaysia Philippines Cultural clusters: Ronen and Shenkar (1985) Classification in this study Power distance: Hofstede, 2001 Uncertainty avoidance: Hofstede, 2001 Self-orientation: Hofstede, 2001 Assertiveness: Hofstede, 2001 Anglo Anglo Independent Far Eastern Far Eastern Western cultures Hybrida Eastern cultures Low Med. Low High High Low Low-Med. High Low Low Individual Individual Individualistic/collectivistic Collectivistic Collectivistic Masculine Masculine Masculine/feminine Masculine/feminine Masculine Note: a Israeli is classified as a “hybrid” culture here because, although House et al. (2004) found Israeli to be similar to Latin European cultures based on their values, Ronen and Shenkar (1985) found that Israeli culture did not cluster with any prevalent cultural group including the Latin European cultures. The latter study was based on many more values and attitudes than the former study Sources: Hofstede (2001); Ronen and Shenkar (1985) each of the five cultures examined. Pairs of values are used because Hofstede (1980) recommended this as a parsimonious way of examining cultural differences. Moreover, Sivakumar and Nakata (2001) suggested the use of value pairings when four or more cultures are involved in a study. The specific pairings are based on our prior discussion which noted that power distance and uncertainty avoidance are most related to management behaviors because they affect perspectives on authority and control, whereas individualism and masculinity affect how people see themselves and others within the organization. We first examine the possible relationships among the three management skills and employees’ attitudes and performance for values of power distance and uncertainty avoidance and repeat this approach for the cultural values of individualism and masculinity. For the sake of parsimony, within each cultural pairing, we examine only the relationship between the specific managerial skills (i.e., interactive, initiating or pressuring) and effectiveness for which there appears to be either strong evidence or theory suggesting that differences in the relationship between a given managerial skill and effectiveness is to be expected. In other words, we do not investigate how each of the four cultural values might affect each and every pairing between specific skills and specific outcomes. Power distance and uncertainty avoidance and outcomes Power distance and uncertainty avoidance are critical to organizing. Power distance defines who has the power to do what, while uncertainty avoidance addresses rules or procedures that will be followed (Hofstede, 1983; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). In high-power distance cultures, superior–subordinate relationships are more distant and formal (Offermann and Hellmann, 1997). Leaders in high-power distance cultures have a preference for exerting control over others (Den Hartog et al., 1999; Shin et al., 2007). Initiating skills have been positively associated with employee affects, i.e. job satisfaction (Birnbaum and Wong, 1985; Williams et al., 1966). Task-oriented behaviors are associated with subordinate performance in single-culture studies (Judge et al., 2004). Skills that initiate structure for subordinates were found to be positively related to performance among high power distance and high uncertainty avoidance cultures (Scandura et al., 1999; Shipper et al., 2003). These are all consistent with greater use of initiating and pressuring skills: H1. In high-power distance cultures, such as Malaysian and Filipino, initiating and pressuring skills as opposed to interactive skills are more positively related to: H1a. Employee’s attitudes; and H1b. Managerial performance. In the case of uncertainty avoidance, the USA, Ireland, Malaysia and the Philippines are very similar, while Israel is significantly different from the rest (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Strong theoretical relationships exist between perceptions of uncertainty and ambiguity and aspects of decision making (Jackson and Dutton, 1988). As a result, we expect relationships between uncertainty avoidance and leadership behaviors. Specifically, leader participation has also been found to be positively related to satisfaction and commitment among cultures exhibiting low uncertainty avoidance (Rubenowitz et al., 1983). Moreover, past research has found a relationship between Managerial skills and effectiveness 379 IJOA 22,3 380 interactive skills, especially participation, to be positively associated with job performance in cultures having low uncertainty avoidance (Scandura et al., 1999; Shipper et al., 2003). As a result, we offer: H2. In low uncertainty avoidance cultures, such as American, Irish, Malaysian and Filipino, interactive skills versus initiating and pressuring skills are more strongly and positively related to: H2a. Employees’ attitudes and H2b. Managerial performance. As can be seen from these hypotheses, there are conflicts with regard to Israel, Malaysia and the Philippines. As a result, the differences posited in H1 may be neutralized by those posited in H2. Individualism and masculinity and employees’ attitudes Individualism and masculinity affect how people think about themselves and others in the organization rather than about the organization and as a result may not have as strong explanatory power direct impact on the skills– effectiveness relationship. In individualistic cultures, leadership practices may allow for and expect greater individual initiatives. There is less pressure for conformity, more freedom to question superiors and a belief one can take action to make changes (Kirkman and Shapiro, 2001); participation in decisions is expected to an extent. This suggests a preference for use of interactive management skills. Managers from cultures that differ on individualism– collectivism values have been found to differ on affective behaviors (Ramamoorthy et al., 2007). Other studies have found that interactive skills were positively related to managerial performance in individualist versus collectivist cultures (Scandura, et al., 1999; Shipper et al., 2003). Thus, we propose: H3. In individualistic cultures, such as American and Irish, interactive skills versus initiating and pressuring skills are more strongly and positively related to: H3a. Employees’ attitudes; and H3b. Managerial performance. When looking at cultures that differ on masculine–feminine values, the USA, Ireland and the Philippines display moderate levels of masculinity. Israel and Malaysia are classified (see Table I) as more feminine. Masculine cultures value assertiveness, challenge and ambition. Feminine cultures place greater value on cooperation and attention to process (Hofstede, 1991; Offermann and Hellmann, 1977). In addition, job satisfaction (an attitude) has been found to be more strongly correlated with masculine values (Near and Rechner, 1993). Furthermore, Shipper et al. (2003) found a positive relationship between interactive skills and managerial performance among some masculine cultures. These latter findings are consistent with the preference for results, e.g. performance, in masculine cultures. As a result, we offer the following: H4. In masculine cultures, such as the Irish, Filipino and American, initiating and pressuring skills versus interactive skills are more strongly and positively related to: H4a. Employees’ attitudes; H4b. Employees’ attitudes; and H4c. Managerial performance. Methods Sample and data collection This study was conducted using managerial employees in a large multinational corporation. The sample consisted of indigenous managers from five different countries: (1) Ireland (279). (2) Israel (392). (3) Malaysia (654). (4) the Philippines (487) (5) the USA (5794). The rationale for selecting these countries identified earlier included: • cultural diversity as previously noted; and • the countries provided sufficiently large sample to enable the use of simultaneous analysis of all the relationships examined. Furthermore, the selection of five cultures exceed the four recommended by Sivakumar and Nakata (2001) for cross-cultural research. As previously stated, two macro-level variables that are likely to pose rival hypotheses in cross-cultural management research include both organization and industry cultures (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004). In both cases, “sub”-cultures are formed via the values and norms of either differing organizations or industries. These were controlled for through sample selection. The managers surveyed were drawn from a single multinational firm operating in a single high-tech industry. To decrease size bias in the statistical analysis, a one-eighth random sample (724) of the US managers was used in the comparative analyses. Of the total sample, 25 per cent was female. On average, the managers were 36 years old with six years of service with the company. Correlations were run by country for the length of service in the company and each of the measures. Of the 80 correlations, only 13 were significant. In all cases, the significant correlations were small, ranging from 0.076 to 0.315. With the exception of one, the correlations explained ? 5 per cent of the variation in the measures. The relatively large sample sizes may account for many of the small, but significant, correlations (Combs, 2010). As a result, we did not feel it was necessary to control for the length of service. Data for this study were collected electronically via the Internet as part of an on-going management development program. Only data from the first administration of the Survey of Management Practices (Form LB), a 360 questionnaire, were used in this study. Each direct report was allowed to respond in English or in the native language or languages of the country. The procedure used for collecting the data involved the use of a secure server and passwords for each respondent to protect anonymity. The process was explained to all involved. For this study, data were collected from two sources. The direct reports of each manager were used to assess both the manager’s skills and the employees’ attitudes. Managerial skills and effectiveness 381 IJOA 22,3 382 The response rate of the direct reports was 63 per cent, with a minimum of 3, a maximum of 8 and an average of 3.52 direct reports responding for each manager. Second, each manager’s superior independently provided data on each manager’s performance. Measures Managerial skills were assessed using a structured questionnaire, The Survey of Management Practices (Form LB) collected observations (Wilson and Wilson, 1991). It was chosen for its comprehensive nature and psychometric soundness (Clark et al., 1992; Leslie and Fleenor, 1998; Morrison et al., 1978; Shipper, 1995; Shipper and Davy, 2002; Shipper and White, 1999; Van Velsor and Leslie, 1991). Prior studies have examined the questionnaire and found its test/re-test reliability, internal consistency, interrater reliability, construct validity and criterion validity to be acceptable (Rosti and Shipper, 1998; Shipper, 1995; Shipper and Davy, 2002; Shipper and White, 1999; Wilson, 1975, 1978). For example, all of the scales within the instrument have been reported in prior studies to exceed Nunnally’s (1978) criteria of 0.70 for reliability. In addition, the structure of the questionnaire has been found to be stable within and across cultures (Shipper, 2004; Shipper et al., 2003). Furthermore, the instrument has been used in other cross-cultural studies of managerial skills (Offermann and Hellmann, 1997; Shipper, 2004; Shipper et al., 2003) and is available in a number of languages, including Bahasa Malaysia, English, Spanish, Mandarin Simplified and Tagalog. The questionnaire consists of 71 items, of which 59 were used in this study. Of these items, 48 were selected because they constitute the scales for managerial skills found in the managerial task cycle model (Wilson et al., 1990). Seven additional items that measure employees’ attitudes – commitment and morale – were used. Furthermore, four other items were selected because they are indicators of managerial performance. Operational measures. Evaluations of skills were measured using multiple-item scales. Direct reports of each manager rated their manager on each of these scales. Responses for each manager were aggregated as in prior research (James, 1982; James et al., 1984; Lim and Ployhart, 2004). Indicators of latent construct interactive skills. Encouraging upward communication and participation skills were measured with an 8-item scale (? ? 0.88, ICC1? 0.27); e.g. “members feel free to contribute ideas”. Skills related to recognition for good performance were measured with a 7-item scale (? ? 0.95, ICC1? 0.28); e.g. “acknowledges accomplishment of difficult goals”. Facilitating the work of others skills were measured with a 6-item scale (? ? 0.88, ICC1? 0.29); e.g. “insures that employees have the resources needed”. Indicators of the latent construct initiating skills. Skills related to orderly work planning were measured with a 7-item scale (? ? 0.93, ICC1? 0.34); e.g. “keeps the tasks organized”. Skills related to time emphasis were measured with a 6-item scale (? ? 0.83, ICC1? 0.26); e.g. “insures that employees know when things are due”. Skills related to control of details were measured with a 5-item scale (? ? 0.79, ICC1? 0.40); e.g. “stays on top of project details”. The latent construct pressuring skills. It was measured with four items as indicators. The four items are: (1) punishes or yells at people when they make mistakes (ICC1? 0.34); (2) gets upset when goals are not met (ICC1? 0.31); (3) seems to feel it is necessary to apply pressure to get results (ICC1? 0.35); and (4) complains vigorously if goals are not met (ICC1? 0.32). The latent construct employees’ attitudes. Affective commitment and morale were used as indicators of the latent construct, employees’ attitudes. These variables have been identified as two of the most commonly used in assessing employees’ affective reactions in organizational studies (Brooke et al., 1988; Mathieu and Farr, 1991). These variables were measured using scales contained within the SMP having 7-point Likert anchors. Commitment was measured by a scale containing six items (? ? 0.79, ICC1? 0.19); e.g. “we are committed to reaching our goals”. Morale was measured by a scale containing five items (? ? 0.93, ICC1? 0.20); e.g. “I enjoy working here”. The latent construct managerial performance. Superiors of the managers being assessed were asked to respond to multiple items as indicators of managerial performance. These items ask whether the manager’s work unit “works well”, “does high quality work”, “is very productive” and “has a positive impact on the organization”. Given that two attitudinal measures are already incorporated into the model, performance measurement became the focus of this construct. Using the superiors to evaluate performance of the managers avoids problems of common-source variance that has plagued much of the research on leadership (Judge et al., 2004). Analysis and results As is customary, each scale was analyzed for reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. All scales had acceptable reliability (? ? 0.70). Furthermore, each scale and the items for pressuring skills were analyzed to ensure their suitability for aggregation using the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC1) (Lim and Ployhart, 2004). Prior research has used intra class correlations (ICCs) ranging from 0.12 (James, 1982) to 0.22 (Lim and Ployhart, 2004) to justify aggregation. Thus, given that the ICCs for the scales reported earlier in this study fell within or exceeded this range, aggregating the direct reports’ responses to the managerial skill and employee attitude scales appears to be statistically justified. Results To analyze for differences in effectiveness of managerial skills on employees’ attitudes and managerial performance, as used in one country versus another, the structural equation modeling with latent variables was performed (intercorrelation matrices available on request). This type of analysis provides a means of estimating structural parameters while providing for the estimation of measurement error, reducing the biasing effects of random and systematic errors (Williams and Hazer, 1986; Williams and Podsakoff, 1989). The use of latent variables requires assessment of the measurement model before testing (see Figure 3) structural linkages (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). This assessment seeks to empirically discriminate the theoretical constructs of the model and to validate operational measures of the constructs. Assessment of the measurement model is particularly important in this study in that we are examining five samples – Irish, Israeli, Malaysian, Filipino and American. Thus, we have to assess not only discriminant validity within each sample but also construct validity across the five samples because of potential differences in the conceptualization Managerial skills and effectiveness 383 IJOA 22,3 384 Figure 3. Measurement model of managerial skills, employees’ attitudes and managerial performance across cultures (Brett et al., 1997; Yukl, 2002). Multi-sample structural equation analysis allows all of the paths between constructs and the respective indicators for Irish, Israeli, Malaysian, Filipino and American samples to be assessed simultaneously while testing for significant differences among the five samples. Single sample analyses were performed first to identify the best-fitting measurement model for each country sample. Best-fit models for each sample were incorporated into the multi-sample analysis used as the basis for testing for invariance across samples (Byrne, 1994, pp. 163-175). The assessment of the measurement model and the structural model were performed using the goodness-of-fit indices, normed fit index, non-normed fit index and comparative fit index to determine the appropriateness of the tested model. Then, based on the LaGrange Multiplier test, cross-group equality constraints were released one at a time until no further improvements could be made (Bentler, 1989). With the measurement model identified across the five samples, equation modeling software (EQS) structural modeling tests were performed to evaluate the theoretical model. Beginning with single sample analyses, baseline models were established for each group. Using these baseline models, multi-sample analysis was conducted testing the equality of all path estimates as well as covariance estimates and factor loadings (as determined by the measurement model analysis) that were significant in at least two of the five groups. Using the LaGrange multiplier test, cross-group equality constraints were dropped until no significant improvement in fit could be obtained (Bentler, 1995). As with a single sample analysis, it was necessary to develop sequentially nested structural models for the multi-sample analysis to which the theoretical model was compared. The sequential chi-square difference test (SCDT) determines which structural model more adequately fits the sample data. A significant SCDT indicates a loss of fit, and the path has to be put back in the model. A non-significant SCDT indicates there was no loss of fit, and the more parsimonious (more constrained) model should be accepted (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; James et al., 1982). In this study, the first sequential model was the least restricted theoretical model. Successive sequential model constrained the path from interactive (initiating and then pressuring) skills to managerial performance to zero, thus providing a clear test for a direct relationship between the two constructs. When a significant chi-square difference occurs, testing of this sequence is stopped and the less restricted model in the pair-wise comparison is accepted as the best fitting model (James, et al., 1982). Once the best fitting model was identified, the final test consisted of examining individual parameter estimates for significance. Results for the measurement model The baseline tests of the measurement model for each of the five countries indicated the theoretical model provided a good fit to the data. All path coefficients from the latent constructs to their manifest indicators were significant at p ? 0.05. Furthermore, the multi-sample analysis of the full model indicated the five factor model provided a good fit to the data. All of the goodness-of-fit indicators exceeded the 0.90 minimum recommended by Bentler (1990). Thus, P1 is supported regarding the validity of the model across cultures. The LaGrange Multiplier test indicated 16 cross-group equality constraints needed to be dropped. These are summarized in Tables II and III. For example, for Ireland, these included: • the path coefficient from pressuring skills – applies pressure; • the path coefficient from pressuring skills – punishes; • the covariance between interactive skills and initiating skills; • the covariance between initiating skills and employees’ attitudes; and • the covariance between pressuring skills and employees’ attitudes. The number of equality constraints released for each of the other cultures was as follows: Israeli – 4, Malaysian – 1, Filipino and American – 3 each. Releasing these equality constraints across groups did not result in the loss of significant paths between the latent constructs and their respective indicator variables. The covariance between interactive and pressuring skills for Malaysia was non-significant. The fit indices for this final model were: NFI ? 0.912; NNFI ? 0.924; and CFI ? 0.928. Managerial skills and effectiveness 385 IJOA 22,3 Constructs Latent variables Interactive skills (A) Participation (B) Facilitation 386 (C) Recognition Initiating skills (D) Planning (E) Time emphasis (F) Control of details Pressuring skills (G) Punishes (H) Gets upset (I) Applies pressure (J) Complains Employees’ attitudes (K) Morale (L) Commitment Managerial effectiveness (M) Works well (N) High quality (O) Very productive (P) Positive impact Table II. Path statistics from the measurement model by culture Path coefficients Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Irish n ? 279 Israeli n ? 392 Cultures Malaysian n ? 654 Filipino n ? 467 American n ? 724 0.917 0.886a 1.100 0.964 1.00b 0.886 1.022 0.904 0.768 0.875 1.00 0.855 0.675 0.773 0.850 0.772 0.969 0.810 1.00 0.820 1.110 0.917 1.00 0.969 0.897 0.868 0.931 0.889 0.990 0.893 1.00 0.862 0.917 0.881 1.100 0.954 1.00 0.840 1.022 0.910 0.768 0.878 1.00 0.888 0.849 0.763 0.697 0.687 0.814 0.703 1.00 0.889 1.110 0.925 1.00 0.976 0.897 0.867 0.931 0.863 0.990 0.895 1.00 0.843 0.917 0.915 1.100 0.960 1.00 0.897 1.022 0.944 0.768 0.894 1.00 0.944 0.849 0.676 0.850 0.717 0.814 0.688 1.00 0.815 1.110 0.914 1.00 0.950 0.897 0.855 0.931 0.882 0.990 0.873 1.00 0.856 0.917 0.937 1.100 0.984 1.00 0.887 1.022 0.949 0.849c 0.930 1.00 0.919 0.849 0.658 0.850 0.752 0.704 0.679 1.00 0.808 1.110 0.925 1.00 0.940 0.897 0.896 0.931 0.909 0.990 0.915 1.00 0.853 0.917 0.915 1.100 0.964 1.00 0.865 1.022 0.903 0.768 0.891 1.00 0.831 0.533 0.687 0.850 0.763 0.814 0.736 1.00 0.898 1.110 0.913 1.00 0.964 0.897 0.897 0.931 0.896 0.990 0.906 1.00 0.866 Notes: ?2 ? 2805.066, df 564, ? ? 0.00001; NFI ? 0.912; NNFI ? 0.924; CFI ? 0.928; a all coefficients of non-fixed indicator variables were significant at 0.05 or less; b one indicator variable of each construct must be fixed to establish the scale of the construct; c Paths that are italicized are significantly different than other paths for that latent variable. Despite finding support for the model across the five cultures, the following differences were identified. The path coefficient from initiating skills to time emphasis is significantly stronger for the Philippines than the remaining four countries. Three other path differences are identified in Table II as denoted by the bold and italicized standard path coefficients. Table III reveals differences in covariances in the measurement model. For example, the covariances between interactive and initiating skills for Malaysia and the Philippines are equal and significantly stronger than the remaining three. Five additional covariance differences from the measurement model are displayed in the table. Analysis of the theoretical model With the measurement model identified across the five samples, EQS structural modeling tests were conducted to evaluate the theoretical model in Figure 1. As with a Covariances Irish n ? 279 Israeli n ? 392 Cultures Malaysian n ? 654 Filipino n ? 467 Co12 Co13 0.908 ?0.191 0.901 ?0.114 0.966 0.037N/S 0.966 0.082 0.908 ?0.191 0.900 0.851 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.457 0.173 0.457 0.173 0.457 0.173 0.457 0.173 0.457 0.079 0.861 0.891 0.891 0.891 0.891 0.456 0.456 0.456 0.456 0.456 ?0.098 0.077 0.077 0.077 ?0.098 ?0.050 ?0.050 ?0.050 ?0.050 ?0.050 0.503 0.503 0.503 0.503 0.503 Co14 Co15 Co23 Co24 Co25 Co34 Co35 Co45 Interactive skills-initiating skills Interactive skills-pressuring skills Interactive skills-employees’ attitudes Interactive skills-managerial effectiveness Initiating skills-pressuring skills Initiating skills-employees’ attitudes Initiating skills-managerial effectiveness Pressuring skills-employees’ attitudes Pressuring skills-managerial effectiveness Employees’ attitudes-managerial effectiveness American n ? 724 Notes: All covariances significant at 0.05 or less, except where noted; covariances that are italicized are significantly different from the same covariance from a different culture. single sample analysis, it was necessary to develop sequentially nested structural models for the multi-sample analysis to which the theoretical model was compared. The theoretical model provided a good fit to the data for all five countries in support of our first propositions. The theoretical model was then tested for all five country samples simultaneously. Again, this model provided a good fit to the data. The LaGrange Multiplier tests indicated three equality constraints to be released. These were the path from interactive skills to attitudes for Israel and the paths from initiating skills to attitudes for Malaysia and the USA. Then, the nested sequence of models was tested. The path from interactive skills to managerial performance was constrained to 0 for all groups. The SCDT was non-significant (4.055; 2 df), indicating this path could be dropped. The next sequential model constrained the path from initiating skills to managerial performance for all five groups. Again, the SCDT was not significant (3.992; 2 df), indicating support for dropping this path from the model. Finally, the path from pressuring skills to managerial performance was constrained to 0. In this case, the SCDT was significant (6.511; 2 df), indicating this path must remain in the model. The fit indices for this reduced model were NFI ? 0.943, NNFI ? 0.952 and CFI ? 0.958. Results for the theoretical model The paths in Figure 1 from the managerial skills to employees’ attitudes labeled A, B and C are relationships relevant to hypotheses 1a through 4a that relate managerial skills to attitudes. Table IV reports the results for those paths. The paths D, E and F from managerial skills to performance in Figure 1 relate to H1b through H4b pertaining to the relationship between managerial skills and performance. These are tested by comparing the appropriate standardized coefficients across paths D, E and F in Table IV. Managerial skills and effectiveness 387 Table III. Covariances from the measurement model by culture Table IV. Statistics from the structural model by culture 0.777 0.354 0.775 0.246 0.925 0.408 0.957 0.657 0.834 0.354 ?0.270 ?0.231 ?0.325 ?0.275 0.054 (N/S) 0.051 (N/S) 0.100 0.102 ?0.264 ?0.231 0.273 0.183 0.084 (N/S) 0.043 (N/S) 0.258 0.183 0.196 0.183 0.065 (N/S) 0.043 (N/S) Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized 0.471 0.644 0.391 0.593 0.471 0.628 0.471 0.679 0.471 0.583 0.142 0.152 0.142 0.135 0.217 0.218 0.142 0.188 0.217 0.206 B Initiating to attitudes N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S C Pressuring to attitudes N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S Paths D Interactive to performance N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S E Initiating to performance ?0.136 ?0.072 ?0.136 ?0.078 ?0.136 ?0.083 ?0.136 ?0.081 ?0.136 ?0.078 F Pressuring to performance 0.489 0.128 0.489 0.114 0.489 0.141 0.489 0.149 0.489 0.144 G Attitudes to performance Notes: ?2 ? 1824.861, df 525, ? ? 0.00001; NFI ? 0.943; NNFI ? 0.952; CFI ? 0.958; all paths, correlations and covariances significant at 0.05 or less unless otherwise marked; paths, correlations and covariances that are italicized are significantly different than others across the different cultures. Malaysian n ? 654 (group1) Filipino n ? 467 (group 2) American n ? 724 (group 4) Irish n ? 392 (group 3) Irish n ? 279 (group 5) Path coefficients A Interactive to attitudes 388 Culture Correlations/covariances Co2 Co3 Co1 Interactive Interactive Initiating to initiating to pressuring to pressuring IJOA 22,3 H1a examined the relationship between initiating and pressuring skills and employees’ attitudes and is not supported. Path B for initiating skills is positive and significant across all five cultures; moreover, Malaysia, a high power distance culture had a somewhat stronger relationship than three other cultures providing some support to the hypothesis. However, the USA, a low power distance country also had a stronger relationship between initiating structure and attitudes contrary to the hypothesis. Although the covariances for the relationship between pressuring skills and employees’ attitudes were modestly negative in Ireland and the USA (lower power distance cultures), the more rigorous test within the structural model, path C failed to support H1b; none of the path coefficients between pressuring skills and attitudes were significant across all five cultures. H1b – initiating skills are not significantly related to performance in any of the five cultures contrary to the hypothesis; see path E in Table IV. Pressuring skills are significant, but negatively related to performance, path F in Table IV, contrary to the hypothesis. Thus, there was minor support for H1a for initiating skills in one of the two high power distance cultures and no support for the remaining paths in H1a nor for H1b. H2a regarding the positive relationship between interactive skills and employees’ attitudes in Ireland, Israel, Malaysia and the USA is partially supported by the positive coefficients for this path (A, Table IV) for those cultures, but there was also a strong positive coefficient for the Philippines contrary to the hypothesis. Comparing the coefficients in path A to B, there is support for the hypothesis, as all of the coefficients for interactive skills are larger than those for initiating skills, but this is also true for the Philippines, contrary to the hypothesis. The lack of significance for path C pressuring skills and attitudes also failed to support the hypothesis. H2b is not supported, as interactive skills are not significantly related in any of the five cultures, path D. Thus, there was partial support for H2a regarding stronger relationships between interactive skills and attitudes especially in comparison to initiating skills for all five cultures. H3a pertaining to interactive skills (vs initiating and pressuring skills) being more positively related to employees’ attitudes for individualist cultures, such as American and Irish is tested by comparing the standardized path coefficients between path A and path B and between path A and path C for the two appropriate cultures. Based on these comparisons, H3a is supported for the USA and Ireland. However, the other three cultures also had stronger relationships for interactive skills and attitudes, contrary to the hypothesis. Regarding the H3b and the relationship between interactive skills and performance among individualistic cultures, an examination of path D reveals no significant relationship across all five cultures, contrary to the hypothesis. Consequently, there is no need to compare path D to paths E and F. H4a examines the relationship between initiating and pressuring skills and attitudes among masculine cultures such as Irish, American and Filipino. Path B relating initiating skills to attitudes are all positive and significant, and while that for American is stronger than the other cultures so is the coefficient for Malaysian, a culture having lower masculine values, contrary to the hypothesis. Moreover, all of the coefficients for initiating skills in path B are less than those in path A for interactive skills contrary to the hypothesis. There is no support for H4a for initiating skills. Furthermore, the results for pressuring skills in path C are all non-significant. H4b concerning the stronger relationship between initiating and pressuring skills and performance is also not Managerial skills and effectiveness 389 IJOA 22,3 390 supported. The coefficients in path E relating initiating skills to performance is non-significant as is that for interactive skills, so this part of the hypothesis is not supported for initiating skills. Pressuring skills are significantly but negatively related to performance in all five cultures (path F), contrary to H4b. Overall, few differences were found in the skills–attitude relationship across the five cultures. Two of the three sets of managerial skills were found to have a positive and significant impact on employees’ attitudes in all five cultures. Moreover, whereas, both interactive and initiating skills have a positive impact on employees’ attitudes, neither directly impact managerial performance. Conversely, while the use of pressuring skills seems to have no impact on employees’ attitudes, those same skills have a negative impact on managerial performance. Thus, P2 regarding the cross-cultural differences in the managerial skills-effectiveness model is generally not supported. These results appear to be fairly universal for the five cultures examined and provide strong reinforcement for many of the basic managerial principles as they apply both inside and outside the USA. Discussion and conclusions “What are the attributes of effective multicultural managers in the 21st century?” The answer to that question may not be that managers need to be flexible and responsive to the cultural values and norms prevailing in each environment to achieve results. There are four major conclusions based on our results. First, the model of managerial skill-effectiveness of the type suggested by Shipper and Davy (2002) does appear to be valid in cross-cultural settings in support of P1. Thus, at least with respect to specifying the fundamental relationships, these appear to be relevant across cultures. Second, the results did not support the arguments that different skill sets are necessary to be an effective manager in different cultures, contrary to P2. Thus, contrary to the body of research that suggests the need to manage to culture (Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 2004), our results reveal a consistent pattern of skills that seem to reinforce the need for the same “basic” management skills in each culture. Despite these findings, some differences do exist, as discussed in a subsequent paragraph. Third, managerial skills appear to have a direct impact on employees’ attitude, and these are consistently positive. Both interactive and initiating skills were positively and significantly related to employees’ attitudes, but not to performance. These findings are consistent with meta-analysis based on data that grew out of the Ohio State Studies (Judge et al., 2004) and the model tested by Shipper and Davy (2002). Finally, the study reveals the advantage of using structural equation modeling in cross-cultural research. This technique requires multicultural confirmatory factor analysis which confirms the structure of the measurement model across cultures before proceeding to testing the theoretical model. Thus, the use of structural equation modeling ensures that the results are not an artifact of the instrument used. The use of multicultural structural equations modeling also represents a more direct test for differences across cultures than the usual regression-based methods (Ng et al., 2011). There were some significant differences among the cultures, though not as hypothesized. For example, interactive skills were not as strongly related to attitudes in Israeli culture as they were in the other four cultures. Initiating skills were more strongly related to attitudes in Malaysian and American cultures compared to the other three cultures, providing evidence of cross-cultural relationships. The lack of any significant relationships between interactive or initiating skills and managerial performance among all five cultures was a little more puzzling. Pressuring skills were significantly and negatively related to performance across all cultures. Overall, the conceptualizations of the constructs appear to be consistent across the five cultures included in this study. Furthermore, the relationships between interactive skills, initiating skills, employees’ attitudes and managerial performance extended those reported by Davy and Shipper (2002) across four additional cultures. A search for new insights This study began with the assumption that effective management translates into better employee morale, stronger employee commitment and the achievement of high quality, productive, organizational results. Further, the authors contended that effective management is the result of a manager’s ability to put into action certain key skills necessary to accomplish results through the efforts of employees. The key questions this study attempted to answer centered on the cultural relevancy of what constitutes “effective skills”. This study expected to identify those effective skill patterns through differential relationships between skills and employees’ attitudes and between skills and performance across different cultures. Because different cultures value and expect different interactions between managers and employees, it was logical to expect managerial skills to be valued differently as well. An important issue identified by this research is the differential impact that managerial skills had on attitudes versus performance. The skills–attitudes relationships were strongly supported across cultures for both interactive and initiating skills, but not for pressuring skills. In both cases, the relationship was positive. These results support the vast leadership literature (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994) on the importance of behaviors providing structure as well as consideration to employees and that both sets of skills are important. However, these findings were not supported when these same skills were related to managerial performance. Using analysis of covariance and structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques, where relationships can be tested simultaneously may help explain the relationships. Looking at both the covariances in Table III and the results in Table IV, one may be able to discern additional conclusions not hypothesized. In Table III, the covariances for both interactive (Co15) and initiating skills (Co25) and performance are both moderately positive and consistent across all cultures suggesting uniformity. Furthermore, the relationships between employees’ attitudes (Co45) and managerial performance are also moderately positive and consistent across cultures. This suggests that these relationships are relevant, but also invariant across cultures. Finally, looking at path G in Table IV, the path linking attitudes to performance as also depicted in Figure 1 reveals significant and fairly similar positive coefficients across all cultures. Collectively, these results reveal that the skills–performance relationship is both positive and relevant across these cultures. However, the skills–performance relationship is mediated through attitudes rather than having a direct relationship, both of which are depicted in the model in Figure 1, as opposed to cross-cultural models that view performance as having a direct effect on performance separate from affect (Chen and Ayree, 2007; Hoffman and Shipper, 2012). This suggests that in a cross-cultural model of management effectiveness, the mediating relationship of affect on the skills–performance relationship may be more relevant than direct effects of skills on performance. Managerial skills and effectiveness 391 IJOA 22,3 392 The only significant results for performance were the direct effects of Pressuring skills, and this relationship was consistently negative across all five cultures. This seems to support the conclusions of House et al. (2004) that there are some management behaviors that are perceived to be negative across cultures and therefore their use should be avoided. The literature is filled with words of caution for managers about using punishment in dealing with employees. There is a growing body of research establishing the costs and outcomes of bullying bosses, such as increased turnover, lower job and life satisfaction and lower commitment (Tepper, 2000). These results add lower job performance to the consequences of bullying behavior by bosses in all five cultures examined. This finding appears to hold even in cultures (Malaysian and Filipino) known to accept strong authority figures. Finally, while the present results show a fair amount of consistency across cultures, there were some differences in the managerial skills–attitudes relationship. These differences may be due to the need for managers to make up for certain deficiencies. In a recent study across 50 countries, Hoffman and Shipper (2012) found that using management skills that appeared to be more consistent with the local culture was effective when the manager’s skills were not very strong. There is certainly an opportunity to explore these anomalies in future research. Limitations As with any study, there are some obvious limitations. First, we have not examined all the skills that might be included in a model of management. The skills examined here do not include many of the skills that have been described as transformational in nature (Bass, 1997). Yet, recent research has questioned whether the addition of those skills has increased our understanding of management (Judge et al., 2004). Furthermore, we used a coarse-grained measure of culture, cultural profiles. This may account for the inconsistent cross-cultural differences observed. These cross-cultural differences cannot be explained by the limited set of cultural values considered in this research. Studies using specific measures of cultural values and belief would provide a more fine-grained approach to seek out cultural differences if any exist in skills– effectiveness relationships. Another limitation of this study is that the primary statistical techniques used, structural equations modeling, does not account for possible curvilinear relationships. At least one cross-cultural study has found curvilinear relationships between managerial skills and managerial performance (Shipper, 2004). The reported differences in the skills– effectiveness relationship across cultures in prior research are based on research that relied heavily on analytical techniques, such as correlation and analysis of variance. Using analysis of covariance and SEM techniques, where relationships can be tested simultaneously and measurement error properly captured, very few significant differences across cultures remain. Instead, the overall pattern of results is quite consistent, both in sign and magnitude. Given that the data were collected from one large multinational organization in one industry, the convergent forces might outweigh the divergent forces; the corporate culture might dominate the various national cultures. However, other studies (Ford and Ismail, 2006) using samples of managers from several organizations have found a growing convergence of managerial values and practices in certain regions indicating that using a single organization may not necessarily bias or limit these results. These results seem to reflect that cultural convergence (similarity) is most likely to occur in person–work relationships (Webber, 1969) as management education and practices become shared around the world. In other words, the implicit model of good management held by individuals may be more universal than expected today (Bass, 1997). A pattern emphasizing the basics of sound management Overall, the results of this study challenge the conventional advice given to expatriate managers to adopt the dominant management pattern of the local culture to be effective. Two of the skills sets used in this study, interactive and initiating skills, closely resemble categories of leader behavior prevalent throughout the literature and an integral part of leadership theories, employee motivation and other management concerns. Furthermore, some implications for practice suggest that interactive and initiating skills are important attributes of successful managers (Judge et al., 2004) within the USA and, as this study shows, in other countries as well. Training programs for managers in multinational firms should emphasize the importance of these two sets of skills because both skills sets independently have a direct and positive impact on employees’ attitudes. By the same token, such programs should seek to provide managers with alternatives to using pressuring skills which were found to have a universally negative impact. For example, proper development programs in the use of Bass’s (1997) active management by exception might be a possible training approach. A positive link between employees’ attitudes and managerial performance, though not included in this study, also emerges as being consistent across cultures. Thus, managers need to be made aware that their successful use of certain skills has a positive impact on employee attitudes which, in turn, may have a positive impact on how their performance is evaluated. Committed and satisfied employees may indeed be more productive for a given manager. A look at future research With all three types of managerial skills, the expected cultural differences did not appear. This could be because the differences do not exist in a meaningful sense with the particular constructs tested in this study, as argued above. Or perhaps the fact that multinationals are increasingly using similar structures, technologies and management training may have contributed to this convergence of skills across cultures. Clearly, more research will be needed to fully understand these results. Possible studies to test the validity of these results would be to examine cultural differences across two or more multinational firms using a greater variety of cultures and more direct measures of culture similar to that used by Hoffman and Shipper (2012). Such an analysis would be quite complex in terms of controlling for corporate differences to sort out cultural differences. Other direct extensions of this study would be to examine other skill sets managers use that are (potentially) effective; developmental skills (e.g., coaching) would be an example. Similarly, there are skills that may be effective at times and ineffective at other times, e.g. pressuring skills (Wilson et al., 1990). Looking beyond the obvious extensions, there appears to be the need to examine other factors that may enhance or limit the universality of management skills, such as skill deficiencies and the manager’s own values. Furthermore, more cross-cultural work needs to be performed on measures of management performance as opposed to affects; Managerial skills and effectiveness 393 IJOA 22,3 394 what are the best performance indicators across cultures? Similarly examining the employee affect–performance relationship would also yield some more insights into the complex relationships between managerial skills and effectiveness. In the final analysis, the goal of this type of research is to provide managers of MNCs with the proper skills to yield effective outcomes for their organizations. References Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423. Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1997), “Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 130-139. Bentler, P. (1989), Theory and Implementation of EQS, A Structural Equations Program, BMDP Statistical Software, Los Angeles. Bentler, P. (1990), EQS Program Manual, BMDP Statistical Software, Los Angeles. Bentler, P. and Wu, E.J.C. (1995), EQS for Windows User’s Guide, Multivariate Software Inc., Encino, CA. Birnbaum, P.H. and Wong, G.Y.Y. (1985), “Organizational structure of multinational banks in Hong Kong from a culture-free perspective”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 262-277. Black, J.S. and Porter, L.W. (1991), “Managerial behaviors and job performance: a successful manager in Los Angeles may not succeed in Hong Kong”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 99-113. Brett, J.M., Tinsley, C.H., Janssens, M. and Lytle, A.L. (1997), “New approaches to the study of culture in industrial/organizational psychology”, in Earkey, P.C. and Erez, M. (Eds), New Perspectives on Industrial/Organizational Psychology, New Lexington Press, San Francisco, CA, pp. 75-127. Brooke, P.P., Russell, D.W. and Price, J.L. (1988), “Discriminant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 139-145. Byrne, B.M. (1994), Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Cascio, W.F. (1974), “Functional specialization, culture and preference for participative management”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 593-603. Chen, Z.X. and Aryee, S. (2007), “Delegation and employee work outcomes: an examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 226-238. Clark, K.E., Clark, M.B. and Campbell, D.P. (1992), Impact of Leadership, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC. Combs, J.G. (2010), “Big samples and small effects: let’s not trade relevance and rigor for power”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 9-13. Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. and Dorfman, P.W. (1999), “Culture specific and cross culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 219-256. Dorfman, P.W., Howell, J.P., Hibino, S., Lee, J.K., Tate, U. and Bautista, A. (1997), “Leadership in western and Asian countries: commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 233-274. Erez, M. and Earley, P.C. (1993), Culture, Self-Identity, and Work, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Ford, D.L. and Ismail, K.M. (2006), “Perceptions of effective leadership among central Eurasian managers: a cultural convergence– divergence examination within a globalization context”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 158-180. Hoffman, R.C. and Shipper, F.M. (2012), “The impact of managerial skills on employee outcomes: a cross cultural study”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 1414-1435. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Hoftsede, G. (1980a), “Motivation, leadership and organization: do American theories apply abroad?”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 42-63. Hofstede, G. (1983), “The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 75-89. Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations, McGraw-Hill Book Company Europe, Berkshire. Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences, 2nd ed., Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadership, and Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Hui, M.K., Au, K. and Fock, H. (2004), “Empowerment effects across cultures”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 46-60. Jackson, S.E. and Dutton, J.E. (1988), “Discerning threats and opportunities”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 370-387. James, L.R. (1982), “Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 219-229. James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), “Estimating with-in group inter-rater reliability with and without response bias”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 85-98. James, L., Mulaik, S. and Brett, J. (1982), Causal Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F. and Iles, R. (2004), “The forgotten ones? the validation of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 36-51. Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B. and Gibson, C.B. (2006), “A quarter century of culture’s consequences: a review of the empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural value framework”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 285-320. Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (2001), “The impact of team members’ cultural values on productivity, cooperation, and empowerment in self-managing work teams”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 597-617. Leslie, J.B. and Fleenor, J.W. (1998), Feedback to Managers: A Review And Comparison of Multi-Rater Instruments for Management Development, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC. Managerial skills and effectiveness 395 IJOA 22,3 396 Leung, K., Bhagat, R.S., Buchan, N.R., Erez, M. and Gibson, C.B. (2005), “Culture and international business: recent advances and their implications for future research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 357-378. Leung, K. (2011), “Beyond national culture and culture-centricism: a reply to Gould and Grien (2009)”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 177-181. Lim, B. and Ployhart, R.E. (2004), “Transformational leadership: relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 4, pp. 610-621. Mathieu, J.E. and Farr, J.L. (1991), “Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of organizational commitment, and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 127-133. Miller, J.A. (1973), “A hierarchical structure of leadership behaviors”, Technical Report No. 64, University of Rochester Management Research Center, Rochester, New York, NY. Morrison, A.M., McCall, Jr. M.W. and DeVries, D.L. (1978), Feedback to Managers: A Comprehensive Review of Twenty-Four Instruments, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC. Near, J. and Rechner, P. (1993), “Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satisfaction: an historical view of differences among West European countries”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 109-121. Ng, K., Koh, C., Ang, S., Kennedy, J. and Chan, K. (2011), “Rating leniency and halo in multisource feedback ratings: testing cultural assumptions of power distance and individualism-collectivism”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 5, pp. 1033-1044. Ng, T., Sorenson, K. and Yim, F. (2009), “Does the job satisfaction-job performance relationship vary across cultures?”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 761-796. Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Offermann, L.R. and Hellmann, P.S. (1997), “Culture’s consequences for leadership behavior: national values in action”, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 342-351. Pavett, C. and Morris, T. (1995), “Management styles within a multinational corporation: a five country comparative study”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 1171-1191. Pichler, F. and Wallace, C. (2009), “What are the reasons for differences in job satisfaction across Europe? individual, compositional, and institutional explanations”, European Sociological Review, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 535-549. Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H. and Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997), “The impact of national culture on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan , and China”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 177-207. Ramamoorthy, N., Kulkarni, S.P., Gupta, A. and Flood, P.C. (2007), “Individualism– collectivism orientation and employee attitudes: a comparison of employees from the high-technology sector in India and Ireland”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 187-203. Rubenowitz, S., Norrgren, F. and Tannenbaum, A.S. (1983), “Some psychological effects of direct and indirect participation in ten Swedish companies”, Organization Studies, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 243-259. Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985), “Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review and synthesis”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 435-454. Rosti, R.T. Jr. and Shipper, F. (1998), “A study of the impact of training in a management development program based on 360 feedback”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 77-89. Scandura, T.A., Von Glinow, M.A. and Lowe, K.B. (1999), “When East meets West: leadership “best practices” in the United States and the Middle East”, in Mobley, W., Gessner, M.J. and Arnold, V. (Eds), Advances In Global Leadership, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 235-248. Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 19-45. Shin, S.J., Morgeson, F.P. and Campion, M.A. (2007), “What you do depends on where you are: understanding how domestic and expatriate work requirements depend upon the cultural context”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 64-83. Shipper, F. (1995), “A study of the psychometric properties of the managerial skill scales of the survey of management practices”, Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 468-479. Shipper, F. (2004), “A cross-cultural, multi-dimensional, nonlinear examination of managerial skills and effectiveness”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 91-103. Shipper, F. and Davy, J. (2002), “A model and investigation of managerial skills, employees’ attitudes and managerial performance”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 95-120. Shipper, F. and Dillard, J.E. (2000), “A study of impending derailment and recovery among middle managers across career stages”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 331-345. Shipper, F., Hoffman, R.C. and Rotondo, D.M. (2007), “Does the 360 feedback process create actionable knowledge equally across cultures?”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 33-50. Shipper, F., Kincaid, J.F., Rotondo, D.M. and Hoffman, R.C. (2003), “A cross cultural exploratory study of the linkage between emotional intelligence and managerial effectiveness”, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 171-191. Shipper, F. and White, C.S. (1999), “Mastery, frequency and iteration of managerial behavior relative to subunit effectiveness”, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 49-66. Sivakumar, K. and Nakata, C. (2001), “The stampede toward Hofstede’s framework: avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 555-574. Smith, P.B. (2002), “Culture’s consequences: something old and something new”, Human Relations, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 119-137. Smith, P.B. and Peterson, M.F. (1988), Leadership, Organizations and Culture: An Event Management Model, Sage, London. Sø?ndergaard, M. (1994), “Hofstede’s consequences: a study of reviews, citations and replications”, Organization Studies, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 447-456. Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 178-191. Trompenaars, F. (1994), Riding the Waves of Culture, Irwin, New York, NY. Van Velsor, E. and Leslie, J.B. (1991), Feedback to Managers, Volume II: A Review and Comparison of Sixteen Multi-Rater Feedback Instruments, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC. Webber, R.H. (1969), “Convergence or divergence”, Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 75-83. Williams, L. and Hazer, J. (1986), “Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover models: a reanalysis using latent variable structural equation methods”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 219-231. Managerial skills and effectiveness 397 IJOA 22,3 398 Williams, L. and Podsakoff, P. (1989), “Longitudinal field methods for studying reciprocal relationships in organizational behavior research: toward improved casual analysis”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research In Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 247-292. Williams, L.K., Whyte, W.F. and Green, C.S. (1966), “Do cultural differences affect workers’ attitudes?”, Industrial Relations, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 105-117. Wilson, C.L. (1975), “Multi-level management surveys: feasibility studies and initial applications”, JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, Vol. 5, Ms. No. 1137, American Psychology Association, Washington, DC. Wilson, C.L. (1978), “The wilson multi-level management surveys: refinement and replication of the scales”, JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, Vol. 8, Ms. No. 1707, American Psychology Association, Washington, DC. Wilson, C.L., O’Hare, D. and Shipper, F. (1990), “Task cycle theory: the process of influence”, in Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (Eds), Measures of Leadership, Leadership Library of America, West Orange, N.J, pp. 185-204. Wilson, C.L. and Wilson, J.L. (1991), Teams and Leaders: A Manual for the Clark Wilson Publishing Company Training And Development Programs, The clark wilson group, Silver Spring, MD. Witt, M.A. (2007), “Crossvergence 10 years on: impact and further potential”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 47-52. Yukl, G.A. (1994), Leadership in Organizations, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Yukl, G.A. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Further reading Atwater, L., Wang, M., Smither, J. and Fleenor, J. (2009), “Are cultural characteristics associated with the relationship between self and others’ ratings of leadership?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 4, pp. 876-886. Dickson, P.H. and Weaver, K.M. (1997), “Environmental determinants and individual-level moderators of alliance use”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 404-425. Earley, P.C. (1989), “Social loafing and collectivism: a comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 565-581. Edwards, J.R. (1994), “The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: critique and a proposed alternative”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 51-100. Gelfand, M.J., Erez, M. and Aycan, Z. (2007), “Cross-cultural organizational behavior”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 479-514. Welsh, D.H.B., Luthans, F. and Sommer, S.M. (1993), “Managing Russian factory workers: the impact of U.S.-based behavioral and participative techniques”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 58-79. Corresponding author Richard C. Hoffman can be contacted at: rchoffman@salisbury.edu To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm IJOA 22,3 A cross-cultural study of managerial skills and effectiveness 372 New insights or back to basics? Received 27 June 2012 Revised 11 October 2012 Accepted 17 February 2013 Richard C. Hoffman and Frank M. Shipper Perdue School of Business, Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD, USA Jeanette A. Davy Raj Soin College of Business, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA, and Denise M. Rotondo Department of Management, Meredith College, Raleigh, NC, USA Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between managerial skills and effectiveness in a cross-cultural setting to determine their applicability. Design/methodology/approach – Data from 7,606 managers in 5 countries from a large multinational firm were analyzed using structural equation modeling to assess all relationships simultaneously and reduce error effects. Findings – The results support the cross-cultural validity of the model of managerial skills-effectiveness. Few cross-cultural differences were found. Interactive skills had greater positive impact on attitudes than initiating skills. Pressuring skills had a negative impact on attitudes. None of the skill sets were related to job performance. Research limitations/implications – Using a single firm and industry to control for other cultural levels may limit the generalizability of the results. Only three skill sets were assessed and one coarse-grained measure of culture was used. These factors may account for the few cultural differences observed. Practical implications – Training programs for managers going overseas should develop both interactive and initiating skills sets, as both had a positive impact on attitudes across cultures. Originality/value – The model of managerial skills and effectiveness was validated across five cultures. The use of structural equation modeling ensures that the results are not an artifact of the measures and represents a more direct test for cross-cultural differences. Managing successfully across cultures may require fewer unique skills, with more emphasis placed on using basic management skills having positive impact. Keywords Leadership, Management development, Cross-cultural management, Management skills Paper type Research paper International Journal of Organizational Analysis Vol. 22 No. 3, 2014 pp. 372-398 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1934-8835 DOI 10.1108/IJOA-06-2012-0593 Managers are being challenged to manage effectively in different cultures as multinationals become a major, if not dominant, form of business. Prior research suggests that the practice of management in various parts of the world differs (Hofstede, 1983; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005; House et al., 2004). This study focuses on identifying differing effective patterns of managerial skills across a relatively wide range of cultures. The purpose of this study is to learn how different cultures value selected managerial skills by examining cross-cultural differences in the use of those skills and differences in the associations between those skills, and employees’ attitudes and managerial performance. The underlying assumption is that effective managerial skills result in more favorable subordinate attitudes and better managerial performance in terms of producing results that positively impact organizational objectives. A skill-based model for predicting managerial effectiveness (Shipper and Davy, 2002) serves as the framework for this study. The model is expanded in this study to include more managerial skills and the concept of social or national culture. Both differences in the use of skills and the relationships between the use of these skills and managerial effectiveness in terms of positive employees’ attitudes and managerial performance are examined among five cultures. The purpose is to determine the prevalence and effectiveness of the skills in a variety of cross-cultural settings. This knowledge is important for global firms, as they increasingly must transfer managers to operate their facilities abroad. The review of the literature that follows begins by describing the management skill constructs that are the focus of the study and the skill-based model that links the skills to effectiveness. Second, the concept of culture is discussed and embedded into a general model delineating the relationship between managerial skills and effectiveness in a cross-cultural setting. Subsequently, the impact that culture has on the skills– effectiveness relationship is described and summarized in the form of two propositions and a set of hypotheses. The remainder of the paper describes the empirical study and its results followed by a discussion and conclusions from the study’s findings. The structural model of managerial effectiveness Effective patterns of management can be defined by specific skills. Yukl (1994) suggested that such refinement can improve our conceptualization and understanding of management. For this study, a general structural model of managerial skill and effectiveness was developed based on prior research (see Figure 1). For ? 40 years, management models have classified managerial skills into two general constructs – consideration and initiating structure (Shipper and Davy, 2002). Recent meta-analysis of prior research has shown that these models are as good as, if not better than, more recent models of managerial effectiveness (Judge et al., 2004). After reviewing 15 taxonomies of managerial skills, Shipper and Davy (2002) identified 6 skills that are widely recognized – participation, facilitation, recognition, planning, time emphasis and control of details. The first three of the six skills are classified as interactive skills and are similar to consideration behaviors noted earlier. Interactive skills, i.e. participation, facilitation and recognition, are defined as “[…] the abilities/behaviors required for meaningful collaboration between two or more people concerning the work to be accomplished” (Shipper and Davy, 2002, p. 97). The last three of the six skills are classified as initiating skills, i.e. planning, time emphasis and controlling details, which are defined as those: “[…] managerial behaviors required to organize and define what employees should be doing to maximize output” (Shipper and Davy, 2002, p. 98). They focus on manager behavior toward employees in providing guidance or initiating structure for employee tasks. Managerial skills and effectiveness 373 IJOA 22,3 374 Figure 1. Structural model There is evidence of skills outside the interactive and initiating classifications (Bass, 1990; Miller, 1973). To expand this study, pressuring skills (i.e. applies pressure, gets upset, punishes) were incorporated into the model as a third construct. They are defined as “the ability to apply the appropriate insistence for the accomplishment of goals” (Shipper and Dillard, 2000, p. 333). This skill construct is representative of authoritarian management. Given that in some cultures, authoritarian management may be either more prevalent or more effective than in others, including it in this study provides a more complete assessment of managerial skills across cultures (Miller, 1973; Shipper and Dillard, 2000). Furthermore, this construct conceptually parallels a construct referred to as active management by exception, included in cross-cultural research on transformational and transactional management (Bass, 1997). Figure 1 depicts the general structural model using the three constructs described above and their relationship to two indicators of managerial effectiveness: employee attitudes (affects) and performance (job performance). Based on the extant literature (Judge et al., 2004; Shipper and Davey, 2002), the interactive, initiating and pressuring constructs are hypothesized to have direct effects on employees’ attitudes and direct and indirect effects on managerial performance (task). The indirect effects result from the direct effects from the skills constructs on employees’ attitudes combined with the direct effect of employees’ attitudes to managerial performance. In the next section, culture is introduced to the skills-effectiveness model. Modeling of managerial effectiveness in a cross-cultural context This section specifically places the basic managerial skills-effectiveness model into a multicultural setting. Culture is a central construct in the conceptual model presented here and is defined as the pattern of shared values, attitudes and beliefs that result from common experiences of a group of people, and it affects their behavior (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). Given that cultures appear to vary on a number of basic values, attitudes and beliefs (Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 1994; Ronen and Shenkar, 1985), it would follow that both work attitudes and behaviors (i.e. use of skills) are also likely to vary across cultures. Prior cross-cultural studies have established the validity of examining the relationship between management practices and various forms of outcomes. For example, Hui et al. (2004) found some support for a model linking management empowerment and job satisfaction as moderated by cultural values. Chen and Ayree (2007) found support for culture’s moderating effect on the relationship between management delegation, employee self-concept and a variety of outcomes (job satisfaction, commitment, task performance and innovation). Hoffman and Shipper (2012) found some support for cultures moderating the relationship between interactive and controlling skills and commitment. Drawing on these and other studies (Erez and Early, 1993), Figure 2 depicts the conceptual relationship among skills, effectiveness and culture. Similar to the structural model, managerial skills are posited to have a direct influence on both employee attitudes and managerial performance as well as an indirect effect on performance as mediated by attitudes. In the current model, culture moderates the various relationships between skills and attitudes and skills and performance based on the research so far. The dark arrows in the model depict the general relationships examined in this study. The attitudes–performance relationship is not formally examined in this study. While both affective and task/behavioral performance measures have a long tradition in studies conducted in the USA, they also have proven to be relevant measures of managerial effectiveness across cultures. For example, affective outcomes such as job satisfaction (Cascio, 1974; Chen and Ayree, 2007; Hui et al., 2004; Pichler and Wallace, 2009; Smith and Peterson, 1988) and commitment (Chen and Ayree, 200...