A comparative Study of Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness within Asian and Western European Countries

A Comparative Study of Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness

Robert G. Hamlin

University of Wolverhampton, UK

Sewon Kim

State University of New York (SUNY) Empire State College, USA
Corresponding Author: Prof Bob Hamlin

Email: r.g.hamlin@wlv.ac.uk

Submission Type: Refereed Full Paper
Copyright © 2015 Robert G. Hamlin & Sewon Kim

ABSTRACT

Purpose-To explore the extent to which behavioural indicators of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness previously identified in multiple South Korean private sector companies and a Chinese for-profit-like state enterprise, are different (local/context-specific) or similar (potentially global/context-general) to those identified within British and German private sector companies.

Design/methodology-Empirical data were obtained from past emic replication studies (cases) carried out in China, Germany, South Korea and the United Kingdom respectively. The behavioural indicators were subjected to realist qualitative comparative analysis using open and axial coding to identify, classify, and group them into discrete behavioural categories.

Findings-High degrees of overlap and convergence were revealed with the vast majority of managerial behaviours (91.85% Asian; 95.23% Western European) that distinguish effective managers from ineffective managers being found to be the same, similar, or congruent in meaning. Only 1 out of 11 non-convergent Asian behavioural indicators showed any evidence of being local/context-specific and thus culturally embedded.

Research Implications- The findings bring into question the validity of past claims in the cross-cultural management literature which assert that particular types and styles of managerial and leadership behaviour are contingent upon the cultural aspects of specific societies and countries.

Practical/social implications- HRD practitioners in all four countries and those in multinational corporations could utilize the findings to inform the creation of new management or leadership development programmes, or to critically evaluate extant programmes.

Originality/value-Our study is a rare example of Type 4 indigenous management research, and our findings are illustrative of what has become known as geocentric (emic-and-etic) knowledge.
Keywords: Management, leadership, perceived effectiveness, cross-nation comparison

A Comparative Study of Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness

within Asian and Western European Countries

The vast majority of management research conducted outside the USA continues to be “normal science” (Kuhn, 1996: p.5) based on the North American positivist (functionalist) research paradigm. And the preference of most international and indigenous researchers who have explored local phenomena, particularly in China and other Asian countries, has been to conduct deductive studies using extant Western theories, constructs, and methods drawn from management literature dominated by US research (see Leung, 2007; Leung and White, 2004; Tsui, 2006; White, 2002). Tsui (2009) considers this tendency to be a cause for concern because it risks researchers making discoveries that only fall within the domain covered by theory derived in the USA. Furthermore, she argues that such research may be insufficient to provide understanding of novel contexts, or may even lead to biased or inaccurate conclusions (Tsui, 2007). A similar situation exists regarding leadership research. As Zhang et al. (2012) perceived from a Chinese perspective, drawing on Yukl (2010), almost all leadership studies throughout a century-long history have been conducted in the West (predominantly in North America and particularly the USA), and almost all leadership theories have been derived within Western cultural contexts which, according to these authors, make them very limited in their applicability to different economies and cultures

A few notable non-normal science studies of managerial and leadership effectiveness have been carried out around the globe, including for example (i) Cammock et al., (1995) qualitative ‘repertory grid’ study of managerial effectiveness within a large public sector organization in New Zealand, (ii) the nine qualitative ‘critical incident technique-CIT’ studies of managerial and leadership effectiveness that Author 1 has carried out and replicated with various co-researchers in a diverse range of public, private, and third sector organizations in the United Kingdom (UK) (see Hamlin and Hatton, 2013); (iii) the subsequent replication of these UK studies by Hamlin et al. in various other countries such as Egypt (Hamlin et al., 2010), Mexico (Hamlin et al., 2011), Romania (Hamlin and Patel, 2012) and South Korea (Chai et al., 2015), and by Wang (2011) in China, and (iv) the multiple cross-case/cross-nations comparative studies of Hamlin and Hatton (2013) and Patel and Hamlin (2012) using as empirical source data the findings of their previous emic replication research which led to the emergence of a British-related and EU-related taxonomy of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness, respectively.

Our study builds on this past research. It is a non-normal science cross-case/cross-nation comparison of findings obtained from two published Asian emic replication studies of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness, namely our recent South Korean study (Chai et al., 2015), and Wang’s (2011) equivalent study carried out within a Chinese state owned enterprise (for-profit like), against the findings of five equivalent published European based replication studies, namely two British and three German inquiries conducted by Author 1 with various indigenous co-researchers. As active participants in these source studies we have had privileged access to all of the empirical evidence generated, and we have used this as the source data for the present study. Our primary aim has been to explore the extent to which the behavioural indicators of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness resulting from the source studies are different (local/context-specific) or similar (potentially global/context-general) to each other. The central question we addressed was as follows: “To what extent are the managerial behaviours that distinguish effective managers from ineffective managers, as observed and perceived by managers and non-managerial employees within multiple South Korean for-profit companies and a Chinese for-profit-like enterprise, similar or different to those perceived by managers and non-managerial employees within British and German for-profit companies?”

To address the research purpose, this section first discusses current concerns and criticisms of indigenous management research in Asia, and current debates concerning culture and management/leadership effectiveness research. An introduction to the theory that has guided the research and the empirical source studies upon which it is based then follows, and the section concludes with a statement of the primary aim of the study and the specific research question that was addressed. At this juncture readers should note that our use of the word ‘leadership’ in the term ‘managerial and leadership effectiveness’ refers to the everyday ‘supervisory leadership’ performed by managers at all levels of management, and not to House et al.’s (2004) concept of ‘strategic leadership’ as performed by general managers and other top managers/organizational leaders.

During the past 5 years there have been numerous calls for papers on indigenous management research in Asia, and particularly in China (Holtbrugge et al., 2011; Li et al., 2014; Lyles, 2009). However, what qualifies as indigenous research is still open to debate because there is no widely accepted definition. Some researchers suggest a study is indigenous if it covers an indigenous topic, even if based on the philosophical assumptions of the North American research paradigm (Whetton, 2009), whereas others argue that indigenous research is any single country study that is context-specific as a result of either incorporating aspects of the national context in the theory and methods, or by taking the national context as granted which is the case for research conducted in the USA (Tsui, 2007). According to Lyles (2009), and also to Li (2012), in general indigenous research is the study of a unique local phenomenon, or a unique element of any local phenomenon from a local (native-emic) perspective, that aims to explore/examine its local implications/relevance and/or its global (etic) implications/relevance. Li et al. (2014) similarly define indigenous research in a broad sense to encompass context-specific or context sensitive approaches to the exploration of unique local phenomena that may have global implications. To clarify the diverse nature of indigenous research, both Lyles (2009) and Li et al. (2012) have offered a typology comprised of four types/stages of sophistication/advancement, the applicability of which depends on the nature of the local phenomenon to be studied, and/or the source of the adopted theoretical and/or paradigmatic perspective. These are as follows: Type 1 (Emic-as-etic or Imposed etic with mostly Western content). This is the most basic and most common approach, and involves a naïve/uncritical application of extant theories from the West in a local context. Type 2 (Etic-to-Emic with imbalanced Western-Eastern content). This is a more advanced approach involving a cross-context comparative component with the potential to discover one or more novel constructs unique to the local phenomenon. Type 3 (Emic-as-emic with mostly Eastern content). This is an innovative approach involving the identification and development of novel local constructs to explain local phenomena. Type 4 (Emic-and-etic integration with well balanced local-global or Eastern-Western content). This is the most advanced approach involving an integration of the emic theories resulting from Type 2 and Type 3 studies carried out in different local/cultural contexts, with the aim of building cross-cultural constructs/theories, and thereby develop geocentric (emic-and-etic) knowledge.

Extant literature provides evidence for both universal and contingent approaches to studying management and leadership behaviours. The universal approach assumes that behaviours which managers need to demonstrate in order to be perceived effective or ineffective are independent of national culture (Arvonen and Ekvall, 1999; Horner-Long and Schoenberg, 2002). And House and Aditya (1997) have argued the existence of universal/nearly universal effective leader behaviours (see also Bennis, 1999; Robie et al., 2001). Similarly, Bass (1996) and Bass and Riggio (2006) have argued that very little of the variance in leader behaviour can be justified by culture, and that there is far more universalism in leadership than has been believed previously. However, despite strong and compelling logic, empirical evidence supporting notions of the universality of managerial and leadership effectiveness is sparse.

In contrast, the contingency approach supports the view that managers and leaders need to adapt their behaviours to the environmental and organizational context, including the national culture, if they wish to be effective (Morrison, 2000). Others claim that leadership effectiveness is contingent upon similarities between the national cultures of leaders and followers (Brodbeck et al., 2000; Yamaguchi, 1988). And Wendt et al. (2009) claim that societal culture, which they operationalize as individualism/collectivism (Hofstede, 2001), has a direct impact on leadership and team cohesiveness. Similarly, Alas et al. (2007) argue that leadership and its influence are subject to the culture of the country in which the leader is operating. Other researchers have argued that there can be both similarities as well as differences in perceived effectiveness/ineffectiveness of managerial and leadership behaviour across nations. For example, Dorfman and Howell (1997) empirically demonstrated cultural universality across North America (U.S. and Mexico) and Asia (Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) for three leader behaviours (supportive, contingent reward and charismatic), and cultural specificity for three others (directive, participative and contingent punishment); and Martin et al. (2009) produced similar findings.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical concepts that have guided our study of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness, which also informed the three empirical source studies upon which it has been based, are known as the multiple constituency model of organizational effectiveness and the notion of reputational effectiveness, respectively. Using the multiple constituency approach for research, managers are perceived as operating within a social structure consisting of multiple constituencies or stakeholders (e.g., superiors, peers, subordinates, etc.), each of whom has his/her own expectations of and reactions to them (Tsui, 1990). How managers are perceived and judged by their superiors, peers, and subordinates can be important for managerial success (or failure) because it determines their reputational effectiveness (Tsui, 1984).

We adopted Tsang and Kwan’s (1999) notion of empirical generalization replication which utilizes the same measurement and analysis and different populations or contexts, and Berry’s (1989) derived etic approach to applied research which involves both replication logic and multiple cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989).

The empirical source data used for our Type 4 indigenous study were derived or obtained from the seven aforementioned emic replication studies that we have severally conducted within South Korea, Germany, China and the UK. We and the other researchers of these source studies used Flanagan’s (1954) critical incident technique (CIT) to collect concrete examples of effective and ineffective managerial behaviour observed by indigenous managers and non-managerial employees of the respective collaborating organizations. Open coding (Flick, 2002) was used to identify the unit(s) of meaning of each of the so collected critical incidents (CIs) and to disentangle any as necessary. They were then subjected to axial coding (Flick, 2002) to identify discrete categories of managerial behaviour comprised of a minimum of 2 to a maximum of 13 CIs. For each of these categories a behavioural statement (BS) was created and used as a label to describe in essence the meaning held in common to all of its constituent critical incidents.

Details of the overall CIT data and BS data that were obtained from our seven empirical source studies and used for our study are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

For our study we used the behavioural statement (BS) as our unit of analysis. Initially the BSs were subjected to realist qualitative comparative analysis (Madill et al., 2000) using open coding at the semantic level (Braun and Clarke, 2006) to identify the salient concept of each British, Chinese, German and South Korean BS. The open coded BSs were then subjected to axial coding to identify those that were the same as, similar to, or contained an element of congruent meaning with one or more BSs from both countries (Flick, 2002; Miles and Huberman, 1994). These were accordingly clustered and categorized into discrete behavioural categories. Each category was then interpreted, and a simple statement created to describe in essence the meaning held in common with all of its constituent BSs.

The compared sets of BSs were deemed suitable for comparison because the respective researchers of the empirical source studies had adopted the same research design and CIT protocol for collecting and analyzing their empirical data. The credibility and dependability of our findings were assured through a process of investigator triangulation (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991). This involved both of us conducting the cross-case/cross-nation comparative analyses to a greater or lesser extent, and then engaging in a subsequent code cross-checking exercise (Gibbs, 2007). Working independently of each other initially and then jointly helped to assure the accuracy and objectivity of our research (Knafl and Breitmayer, 1991).

Our comparative study has demonstrated empirically that perceptions of what behaviourally distinguishes effective managers from ineffective managers within large Asian (Chinese/South Korean) and large Western European (British/German) for-profit/for-profit-like companies are highly congruent. In the main they are substantially the same and described in similar terms. As a result of the open and axial coding 92.54% (n=62) of the Asian positive (effective) BSs were found to be convergent in meaning with 95.29% (n=162) of the equivalent European BSs against which they had been compared. Similarly, 91.12% (n=62) of the Asian negative (least effective/ineffective) BSs were found to be convergent in meaning with 95.16% (n=177) of the equivalent Western European BSs against which they had been compared. This led to the emergence of 25 positive and 22 negative cross-cultural ‘etic themes’ (behavioural categories) as shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.

Table 2 Positive (Effective) Behavioural Categories of Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness

__________________________________________________________________________

Table 3 Negative (Ineffective) Behavioural Categories of Perceived Managerial and Leadership Effectiveness

_________________________________________________________________________

1. Shows lack of interest in and/or respect/sensitivity/consideration for employees as human beings 2 Overloads employees and/or fails to reduce excessive workloads 3. Fails to consult with/involve employees in decision making and/or ignores their ideas, or fails to listen to their suggestion or queries 4. Exhibits inappropriate autocratic and controlling behaviour 5. Exhibits selfish, self-serving and manipulative behaviour 6. Exhibits unfair, unequal and discriminatory treatment of employees 7. Is inconsistent and unreliable 8. Engages in undermining behaviour 9. Exhibits emotional instability 10. Exhibits poor focus and planning 11 Exhibits poor decision making 12 Is poor at organizing and/or in self management 13. Is poor at delegation and assigning tasks 14 Gives poor directions/instruction and/or unclear explanations of his/her expectation 15 Is poor at monitoring, controlling and giving feedback 16 Exhibits procrastination, avoidance and/or abdicating behaviour 17 Fails to guide, train and develop employees 18 Does not communicate with employees or fails to communicate with them clearly 19 Exhibits a parochial and/or rigid, negative mentality 20 Mistrusts his/her employees 21 Fails to appreciate or give recognition/reward for achievement 22 Does not act as a role model or lead by example

________________________________________________________________________

Of the positive (n=5) and negative (n=6) Asian BSs found to be non-convergent, only one of the South Korean and none of the Chinese BSs could be construed as showing evidence of being, maybe, culturally embedded. None of the European positive BSs (n=8) or negative BSs (n=9) indicated any evidence of being culturally embedded. To illustrate the identified convergence of meaning between the Asian and Western European positive and negative BSs underpinning the emergent geocentric behavioural categories, an indicative sample is given in Table 4.

Table 4. Indicative Sample of BSs Underpinning the Emergent Geocentric Behavioural Categories

South Korean Study Case SKN1: Multiple private sector companies throughout South Korea Chinese Study Case CHN1 State ‘for-profit’ company in Bejing,	Two British Studies Case UK1: Global communications services company. Case UK2: International telecommunications plc Three German Studies Case GER1: Mix of private companies throughout Germany Case GER2: Mix of private sector companies in Bavaria Case GER3: Space systems SME in South Germany
Positive (effective) BSs	Positive (effective) BSs
Involves employees in decision making Case SKN1 A manager listens to and discusses various topics with his/her subordinates and determines processes and future directions together, including goals, visions and values based on those discussions Case CHN1 Involves employees in decision making and conflict [problem] resolution	Involves employees in decision making Case UK1 Involves staff in decision making and problem solving Case UK2 Consults and includes others in decision making Case GER1 Involves employees in decision-making; pursues their interests; consults with employees Case GER1 The manager allows his employees to participate in decision making; The manager involves his/her employees in decision making Case GER3 Manager involves their staff in decision making and/or includes them in meetings and discussions At employee review meetings my manager and I specify my goals together and she takes the opportunity for a detailed exchange of views so that we both learn and take something from the meeting
Shows a personal interest in employees as individuals and for their well being, and listens with empathy and sensitivity to their personal concerns Case SKN1 A manager takes a personal interest in his/her subordinates as individuals and shows care for their well being A manager understands and pays attention to the emotions and feelings of his/her subordinates, and reacts to them in a sensitive, empathetic, un-intrusive and/or gentle manner A manager empathetically listens to subordinates' ideas, opinions and personal issues with an open-mind, and strives to be supportive Case CHN1 Cares about employees’ [welfare]	Shows a personal interest in employees as individuals and for their well being, and listens with empathy and sensitivity to their personal concerns Case UK1 Shows care and concern for the health and well being of staff Is willing to be flexible and gives support to staff that are experiencing problems in their personal circumstances Recognizes fear and anxieties of staff in change situations and takes proactive action to allay or reduce fears Case UK2 Shows [personal] interest in others, being responsive to their needs Case GER1 Shows [personal] interest in employee’s needs/career plans, is sensitive to their concerns and is empathetic Case GER2 The manager shows interest in his employees The manager responds to the needs of every individual employee The manager cares about his/her employees’ [personal] problems The manager handles employee [personal] issues with care [sensitivity] Case GER3 Manager shows care for employees and colleagues in stressful situations (e.g., gave less work to employees returning to work after an accident; gave an employee a day off to look after her sick child; visited a colleague in hospital; showed humanity to employee who gets tense) Manager is flexible about employees’ holiday arrangements and other work-life balance issues Manager shows interest in me as a person and engages in personal conversations (e.g., asks about my weekends and vacations; knows about my hobbies; talks about private things) Manager is open to new ideas and solutions to problems suggested by employees, and also [open] to their [personal]concerns
Negative (ineffective) BSs	Negative (ineffective) BSs
Selfish, self-serving manipulative behaviour Case SKN1 A manager assigns to or dumps on staff tasks that s/he does not want to take on her/himself A manager perceives his/her subordinates and other teams as competitors/rivals and refuses to share information A manager takes the credit for his/her subordinates' work and does not give them recognition or reward A manager shifts responsibility when things go wrong and avoids blame for negative results by passing the buck to his/her subordinates A manager engages in politicking and/or manipulative behaviour for own self interest A manager prioritizes and/or is only interested in his/her own needs and interests A manager misuses the company's resources [e.g., money or subordinate time] and/or violates/neglects processes or standards at work for personal/private benefit A manager takes on unnecessary or extra tasks to please or impress upper managers Case CHN1 Acts selfishly (abuses authority for personal gain) Shows favouritism	Selfish, self-serving manipulative behaviour Case UK1 Demonstrates selfish and self-serving behaviours; Case UK2 Case GER1 Case GER2 The manager gives the impression that his/her praise is not sincere The manager is not loyal to his/her employees The manager does not admit errors The manager abuses his/her position of power The manager is only interested in his/her own benefit The manager does not correct his/her misbehaviour The manager overestimates his/her professional competencies The manager uses praise as leverage Case GER3 Manager is selfish and self serving ( e.g., takes care only of his own wants; pursues a disinterested foreign customer for personal leisure reasons; not transparent about what they do all day; lobbies just at own level or above and not at lower levels) Superior is insincere and/or manipulative (e.g., uses praise as a smokescreen to delegate additional tasks; makes up own ‘company rule as basis to reject my request for holiday; asks me to do a task and then found he’d asked someone else;’ uses untrue arguments in a salary negotiation; praise seems artificial) Manager does not admit to errors/mistakes, and takes action to avoid blame
Exhibits unfair, unequal and/or discriminatory treatment of employees Case SKN1 A manager engages in discriminatory behaviour (e.g., assigns excessive work/weekend duties to females that cannot be met; expects subordinates to behave differently according to their gender; practices sexual discrimination) A manager assigns critical tasks and delegates authorities to favored subordinates only A manager provides privileges and cares for favored subordinates and discriminates based on his/her personal preferences A manager unfairly provides more work to higher performers and less work to low performers Case CHN1 Does not evaluate employees in a fair manner	Exhibits unfair, unequal and/or discriminatory treatment of employees Case UK1 12) Shows favoritism and demonstrates double standards in decisions and behaviour Case UK2 Case GER1 Criticises in an unfair way/gives unjustified criticism Does not treat employees equally/favours certain employees Case GER2 The manager gives unjust criticism The manager treats women with less respect than men The manager has prejudice against the work performance of long-term employees When in a bad mood, the manager is unfair towards his/her employees The manager treats different employees in different ways Case GER3

DISCUSSION

The unexpected and most significant finding from addressing our research question is that 91.85% (n=124) of the identified behavioural indicators that differentiate effective managers from ineffective managers in Chinese and South Korean ‘for-profit-like/for profit’ organizations appear to be the same as, or similar to, or have an element of congruent meaning with 95.23% (n=339) of those identified in British and German private sector companies, and consequently appear to be global (context-general). This finding challenges predominant discourse in the cross-cultural management literature which asserts that particular types and styles of managerial and leadership behaviour are contingent on the cultural aspects of specific countries (Alas et al., 2007; House et al., 2004).

On the contrary, it suggests that managers and employees working within Asian private companies are likely, in the main, to perceive and judge the behavioural indications and contra-indications of managerial and leadership effectiveness in much the same way as do their counterparts within Western European private companies. The finding also challenges Tsui’s (1984) assertion that the behaviours which determine managers’ reputational effectiveness are idiosyncratically context-specific, and vary according to their respective organizational/cultural contexts and constituencies. The most unexpected finding is that only one of the 11 non-convergent Asian BSs shows any evidence of perhaps being culturally embedded; namely the South Korean negative BS: “A manager adopts an extreme collectivist approach to teamwork” (e.g., expects them to commute to work together; do overtime together; not leave until everyone has finished their overtime work; prevents anyone leaving the office before s/he leaves). We suggest this might be due to South Korea being a highly collectivist society, whereas the national culture of the UK is highly individualistic (Hofstede, 2001). For example, it might be the result of South Korean managers overusing the collectivism orientation. Based on the non-convergent negative BS: “A manager exhibits a lack of expertise and/or of volition to learn which limits his/her ability to lead/manage fully and effectively” (e.g., to voice own opinions on team tasks; to provide direction and evaluate outcomes; to give help/advice to staff), it seems that expertise is a more critical component for South Korean managerial practices.

The identified high degrees of commonality between the findings from the two Asian and two Western European countries are similar in magnitude to those identified by the aforementioned public sector hospital-related replication studies carried out by Hamlin et al. in Egypt, Mexico and Romania. As with all of these past studies, the cross-cultural etic themes (behavioural categories) that emerged from our multiple cross-case/cross-nation comparative analyses were comprised of a mosaic-style integration of diverse-emic BSs drawn from the BS data sets of the compared cases. Thus, our study is an example of Type 4 indigenous Asian management research, as called for by Lyles (2009) and Li et al. (2012). Furthermore, our findings are illustrative of what Li (2012) refers to as geocentric (emic-and-etic) knowledge.

We acknowledge two limitations of our cross-case/cross-nation comparative study. The first relates to the imbalance in the number of Asian BSs (n=135) compared against the much larger number of Western European BSs (n=356). The second limitation arises from the fact that the Asian empirical source data were obtained from just one indigenous study in China and one in South Korea, whereas the Western European data were obtained multiple indigenous studies. Consequently, our findings and conclusions need to be treated with a degree of caution until such time that more indigenous replication studies are carried out in the two Asian countries.

The positive and negative behavioural indicators of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness within a Chinese for-profit-like state enterprise and multiple British, German and South Korean private sector companies have been shown to be mostly the same, and only a small portion of different (local/context-specific) categories of effective and ineffective managerial behaviour have emerged from the compared studies. These findings suggest that human resource development (HRD) practitioners in all four countries could utilize the geocentric (emic-and-etic) findings of our study to inform the creation of new management and leadership development programs, or to critically evaluate extant programmes.

We suggest that the findings of our study could provide useful information to Western multinationals (MNCs) that have operations in China and South Korea. With specific and detailed knowledge of the different categories of effective and ineffective managerial behaviour, as perceived and judged by indigenous managers and non-managerial employees within large private companies, they could better prepare their expatriate managers and other expatriates for international assignments in those two Asian countries based on hard empirical evidence. In addition, with our findings, MNCs could be in a better position to recruit and select candidates possessing the necessary behavioural competencies to be successful as an expatriate manager in China and South Korea.

A direction for future research could be for more private sector related single-organization and multiple-organization emic replication studies to be conducted in the four countries of our study, followed by multiple cross-case/cross-nation comparative analyses to validate and further develop (if possible) the geocentric (emic-and-etic) behavioural categories of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness that have emerged from our study. Another direction could be to instigate equivalent emic replication studies within a diverse range of public and third sector organizations in the four countries, and then conduct cross-sector and cross-nation studies in search of similarities and differences. It is our hope that the current indigenous and non-normal science cross-case/cross-nation comparative study of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness will help enrich and advance the research and work of an expanding global community of HRD scholars and practitioners (Kuchinke et al., 2014).

Alas R, Tafel K and Tunlik K (2007) Leadership style during transition in society: The case of Estonia. Problems and Perspectives in Management 5(1): 50-62.

Arvonen J and Ekvall G (1999) Effective leadership style: Both universal and contingent? Creativity & Innovation Management 8: 242-257. doi: 10.1111/1467-8691.00143

Bass BM (1996) Is there universality in the full range model of leadership? International Journal of Public Administration 16: 738-769. doi:10.1080/01900699608525119

Bass BM and Riggio RE (2006) Transformational Leadership (2^nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bennis W (1999) The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is impossible without full inclusion, initiatives and co-operation of followers. Organizational Dynamics 28: 71-80. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(00)80008-X

Berry JW (1989) Imposed etics-emics-derived etics: The operationalization of a compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology 24: 721-735. doi:10.1080/00207598908247841

Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brodbeck FC, Frese M, Akerblom S, Audia G, Bakacsi G, Bendova H and Wunderer R (2000) Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73: 1-29.

doi: 10.1348/096317900166859

Cammock P, Nilakant V and Dakin S (1995) Developing a lay model of managerial effectiveness: A social constructionist perspective. Journal of Management Studies 32: 443-474. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1995.tb00784.x

Chai DS, Jeong S, Kim J and Kim S (2015) Perceived managerial effectiveness in a Korean context: A qualitative study on indigenous management. Paper presented at the 2015 AHRD International Research Conference in the Americas, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.

Dorfman P and Howell J (1997) Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership. Leadership Quarterly 8: 233-275. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90003-5

Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R and Lowe A (1991) Management Research: An Introduction. London: Sage.

Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14: 532-550. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385

Flanagan JC (1954) The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin 51: 327-358. doi:10.1037/h0061470

Flick U (2002) An Introduction to Qualitative Research (2^nd ed). London: Sage.

Gibbs GR (2007) Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Sage.

Hamlin RG and Bassi N (2008) Behavioural indicators of manager and managerial leader effectiveness: An example of Mode 2 knowledge production in management to support evidence-based practice. International Journal of Management Practice 3: 115-130. doi:10.1504/IJMP.2008.018366

Hamlin RG and Hatton A (2013) Toward a British taxonomy of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly 24: 365-406.

doi: 10.1002/hrdq.21163

Hamlin RG, Nassar M and Wahba K (2010) Behavioural criteria of managerial and leadership effectiveness within Egyptian and British public sector hospitals: An empirical study and multiple-case/cross-nation comparative analysis. Human Resource Development International 13: 43-64. doi:10.1080/13678861003608238

Hamlin RG and Patel T (2012) Behavioural indicators of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness in Romanian and British public sector hospitals. European Journal of Training and Development 35: 234-261. doi: 10.1108/03090591211204733

Hamlin RG, Ruiz CE and Wang J (2011) Perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness within Mexican and British public sector hospitals: A cross-nation comparative analysis. Human Resource Development Quarterly 22: 491-517. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.20087

Hamlin RG and Sawyer J (2007) Developing effective leadership behaviours: The value of evidence-based management. Business Leadership Review 4 (4).

Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values (2^nd ed). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Holtbrugge D, Narayanan K and Hui W (2011) Call for papers: MIR Focused Issue. Management International Review. Retrieved on June 20, 2014, at: https://www.tu-chemnitz.de/wirtschaft/bwl5/konferenzen/ostforum/MIR%20Focused%20Issue_Call%20for%20Papers.pdf

Horner-Long P and Schoenberg R (2002) Does E-business require different leadership characteristics? An empirical investigation. European Management Journal 20: 611-619. doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(02)00112-3

House RJ and Aditya R (1997) The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management 23: 409-465. doi: 10.1177/014920639702300306

House RJ, Hanges P J, Javidan M, Dorfman PW and Gupta V (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. London: Sage.

Knafl KA and Breitmayer BJ (1991) Triangulation in qualitative research: Issues of conceptual clarity and purpose. In: Morse JM (ed) Qualitative Nursing Research: A Contemporary Dialogue. London: Sage, pp. 226-239.

Kuchinke KP, Ardichvili A, Sadler-Smith E, McLean G and Hamlin RG (2014) HRD and design science: Reclaiming practical relevance of HRD academic research. Innovative session presented at the 2014 International Conference on Human Resource Development Research and Practice across Europe, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Kuhn T (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolution (3^rd ed). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Leung K (2007) The glory and tyranny of citation impact: As East Asian perspective. Academy of Management Journal 50: 510-513. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.25525592

Leung K and White S (eds) (2004). Handbook of Asian Management. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Li PP (2012) Toward an integrative framework of indigenous research: The geocentric implications of Yin-Yang Balance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 29: 849-872. doi: 10.1007/s10490-011-9250-z

Li PP, Leung K, Chen CC and Luo J-D (2012) Indigenous research on Chinese management: What and how. Management and Organization Review 8: 7-24.

doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2012.00288.x

Li PP, Zhou K and Sekiguchi T (2014) Call for papers: Special issue on indigenous management research in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. Retrieved on June 20, 2014, at: http://www.iacmr.org/v2en/Detail.asp?id=413

Lyles M (2009) Call for proposal submission for Dissertation Grant and Workshop. International Association for Chinese management Research. Retrieved on June 20, 2014, at: http://www.iacmr.org/Publications/MOR/IndigenousResearch/Definition of Indigenous Research MOR.pdf

Madill A, Jordon A and Shirley C (2000) Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology 91: 1-20. doi: 10.1348/000712600161646

Martin G, Resick C, Keating M and Dickson M (2009) Ethical leadership across cultures: A comparative analysis of German and US perspectives. Business Ethics: A European Review 18: 127-144. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2009.01553.x

Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousands Oak, CA: Sage.

Morrison A (2000) Developing a global leadership model. Human Resource Management 39: 117-131. doi: 10.1002/1099-050X(200022/23)39:2/3<117::AID-HRM3>3.0.CO;2-1

Patel T, Hamlin R G and Heidegen S (2009). Exploring managerial and leadership effectiveness: Comparing private sector companies across Germany and the UK. Working paper presented at the UFHRD/AHRD 10^th International conference on HRD research and practice across Europe, Northumbria University, United Kingdom, June.

Patel T and Hamlin RG (2012). Deducing a taxonomy of perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness: A comparative study of effective and ineffective behaviour across 3 EU countries. Human Resource Development International 15: 571-587. doi:10.1080/13678868.2012.726539

Robie C, Johnson K, Nilsen D and Hazucha J (2001) The right stuff: Understanding cultural differences in leadership performance. Journal of Management Development 20: 639-650. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005637

Tsang E K K and Kwan K-M (1999) Replication and theory development in organizational science: a critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review 24: 759-780. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1999.2553252

Tsui AS (1984) A multiple-constituency framework of managerial reputational effectiveness. In: Hunt JG, Hoskings J, Schriesheim C and Stewart R (eds) Leaders and Managers: International Perspectives on Managerial Behavior and Leadership. New York: Pergamon, pp. 28-42.

Tsui AS (1990) A multiple-constituency model of effectiveness: An empirical examination at the human resource subunit level. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 458-483. doi:10.2307/2393313

Tsui AS (2006) Contextualization in Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review 2: 1-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00033.x

Tsui AS (2007) From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the Academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal 50: 1353-1364.

doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.28166121

Tsui AS (2009) Editor’s Introduction-autonomy of inquiry: Shaping the future of emerging scientific communities. Management and Organization Review 5: 1-14.

doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00143.x

Wang J (2011) Understanding managerial effectiveness: A Chinese perspective. Journal of

European Industrial Training 35(1): 6-23. doi: 10.1108/03090591111095718

Wendt H, Euwema M and Emmerik I (2009) Leadership and team cohesiveness across

cultures. Leadership Quarterly 20: 358–370. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.005

Whetton DA (2009) An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review 5: 29-55.

doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00132.x

White S (2002) Rigor and relevance in Asian management research: Where are we and where can we go? Asia Pacific Journal of Management 19: 287-352.

doi: 10.1023/A:1016295803623

Yamaguchi T (1988) The challenge of internationalization: Japan’s kokusaika. Academy of Management Executive 2(1): 33-36. doi: 10.5465/AME.1988.4275588