multicultural validation of a three-dimensional framework of … · 2013. 6. 13. · author copy...

A

UTHOR COPY

Original Article

Multicultural validation of a three-dimensionalframework of managerial competencies: Acomparative analysis of its application in Asianversus non-Asian countries

María José Boscha,*, Yih-teen Leeb and Pablo CardonabaESE Business School, Av. Plaza 1905, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile.bIESE Business School, Avenida Pearson 21, 08034, Barcelona, Spain.

*Corresponding author.

Abstract In this article, we examine the structural stability of a three-dimensionalmodel of managerial competencies across 11 non-Asian countries (Brazil, Colombia,Ireland, Germany, Greece, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, Spain and the United States)and 4 Asian countries (China, Pakistan, Philippines and Thailand). The results indicatethat the three competency dimensions (external, interpersonal and personal) are stableacross countries. We further investigate potential variation across countries in terms of theweight allocated to different competencies. We discovered that Asian countries placeheavier emphasis on external and interpersonal dimensions; non-Asian countries tendmore toward the personal dimension. In addition, key managerial implications, particu-larly with regard to leadership development, are discussed.Asian Business & Management advance online publication, 12 June 2013;doi:10.1057/abm.2013.8

Keywords: competency; managerial competencies; cross-cultural; leadership development

Introduction

Competencies can be defined as ‘the repertoire of capabilities, activities, processesand responses available that enable a range of work demands to be met moreeffectively by some people than by others’ (Kurz and Bartram, 2002, p. 230).Specifically, managerial competencies are found to be closely related to managerialperformance at work (Bartram, 2005). In the last 30 years, several models ofmanagerial competencies have been developed (McClelland, 1973; Katz, 1974;Boyatzis, 1982; Lobel, 1990; Spencer and Spencer, 1993; Mumford et al, 2000b;Harvey and Novicevic, 2005). Managerial competency models are generally well

© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1472-4782 Asian Business & Management 1–21www.palgrave-journals.com/abm/

A

UTHOR COPY

accepted by executives and HR professionals, as they identify a range of valuablemanager behaviors, offer a tool for individual self-development and outlinea framework for companies to select and develop their managers (Hollenbecket al, 2006).

However, the concept of competency is complex and subject to multiple inter-pretations (Sandberg, 2000). Managerial effectiveness usually results from variouscombinations of knowledge, skills and abilities dependent on specific situations. It isuncertain whether it is feasible to delineate a stable set of competencies applicableto different managerial situations and contexts (Hollenbeck et al, 2006). One keysituational variable is national culture (Schwartz, 2004; Javidan et al, 2006).Definitions, perceptions and attributions of competencies are culturally sensitive(Cheng et al, 2003; Delamare-Le Deist and Winterton, 2005). Hence, a criticalchallenge for scholars of managerial competencies is to establish a specifiable set ofstable qualities that indicate a manager’s effectiveness, while taking into accountpossible cross-cultural variation.

In order to shed light on this issue, we aim to answer the following researchquestions: (i) is the structure of the three-dimensional framework of managerialcompetencies, as proposed by Cardona and Garcia (2005), stable across countries?(ii) are there differences between Asian and non-Asian countries in this framework?

We first review key managerial competency models and propose a three-dimensional framework (external, interpersonal and personal, consistent withCardona and Garcia, as explained in more detail below), and then examine thestructural stability of the framework, as well as its potential variation acrosscountries, particularly between Asian and non-Asian countries.

Theoretical Background

The concept and model of managerial competencies have evolved over time as theyattracted the attention of many scholars (Boyatzis, 1993; Spencer and Spencer, 1993;Tett et al, 2000; Mumford et al, 2000a,b). Boyatzis (1982, p.21) defined managerialcompetencies as ‘underlying characteristics of a person which resultsin effective and/or superior performance in a job’. In its beginnings, research oncompetencies identified the characteristics of outstanding performers (McClelland,1961), including motives, traits, self-concept, knowledge and skills. Later, theconceptualization of competencies covered a wider variety of perspectives, such asobservable behaviors (Woodruffe, 1993), habits (Cardona and Chinchilla, 1999), andstandards and situations (Ruth, 2006). We focus on the behavioral aspect ofmanagerial competencies for the following reasons: (i) behaviors can be learned anddeveloped, unlike dispositional traits, which tend to be stable and (ii) although traitsmay facilitate or enable behaviors, it is behaviors that predict more variance inmanagerial effectiveness (DeRue et al, 2011). In this article, we adopt the definition

Bosch et al

2 © 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1472-4782 Asian Business & Management 1–21

A

UTHOR COPY

of managerial competencies by Cardona and Garcia (2005, p.43): ‘the observable andhabitual behaviors that make managers effective in their job performance’.

A three-dimensional framework of managerial competencies

It is generally agreed that managerial competencies are multidimensional. For instance,focusing on skills, Katz (1974) suggested the importance of technical, human andconceptual skills for achieving managerial effectiveness. Boyatzis (1982) developedthe first model of managerial competencies, which includes 12 competencies, rangingfrom ‘concern with impact’ to ‘managing group processes’. Mumford et al (2000a)developed a framework of managerial skills that distinguishes three dimensions:problem-solving skills, social judgment skills and knowledge. Tett et al (2000)suggested a hyper-dimensional taxonomy of managerial competencies that capturednine dimensions of competencies (that is, traditional functions, task orientation,person orientation, dependability, open-mindedness, emotional control, communica-tion, developing self and others, and occupational acumen and concerns). Morerecently, Cheng et al (2005) empirically validated a 12-dimensional model withparticipants based in the United Kingdom. Building on the work of Pérez-López(1993) that recognizes three managerial talents, Cardona and Garcia (2005) proposeda three-dimensional framework of managerial competencies, including (i) externalcompetencies, which reflect strategic talent (that is, the capacity to develop andimplement strategies that lead to the achievement of good financial results),(ii) interpersonal competencies, which reflect executive talent (that is, the capacityto develop efficient relationships with collaborators) and (iii) personal competencies,which represent personal talent (that is, the capacity to build trust and a sense ofmission among collaborators through coherent and exemplary behavior). Witha slightly different focus, Boyatzis and Goleman (2007) developed a new model ofcompetencies based on the Emotional and Social Intelligence (ESI) framework. Inparallel, Peterson and Seligman (2004) developed a model of competencies based onthe Positive Psychology framework, emphasizing constructs such as courage, justiceand temperance (Seligman, 2002; Park et al, 2004; Wright and Goodstein, 2007).

Despite their different emphases and theoretical origins, one can clearly observea considerable degree of overlap between these competency models. Different namesand labels may be used, but they all seem to refer to a related body of concepts.We select the framework of Cardona and Garcia (2005) to categorize managerialcompetencies for several reasons. First, this model is more parsimonious, as itencompasses only three key dimensions. Second, the model is consistent with ourfocus on studying competencies as observable behavior. Although the well-knownmodel of Mumford et al (2000a) also includes only three dimensions, its ‘knowledge’dimension does not fit the behavioral orientation in this study. Below, we discuss thecontent of each of the three dimensions of managerial competencies in more depth.

Multicultural validation of a three-dimensional framework

3© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1472-4782 Asian Business & Management 1–21

A

UTHOR COPY

External competenciesThese are competencies oriented toward producing the greatest economic value forthe company. Such competencies are associated with behaviors that have a directimpact on task performance and the use of resources that may affect the organiza-tion’s profitability. Competencies related to this dimension are present in variousmodels, such as task orientation and occupational acumen (Tett et al, 2000), concernwith impact and efficiency orientation (Boyatzis, 1982), focusing on client needs(Cheng et al, 2005), and foresight and strategic vision (Van der Laan and Erwee,2012). The capability to solve external-related problems (Mumford et al, 2000a) alsobelongs to this category.

Interpersonal competenciesThese are competencies oriented toward building effective relationships within theorganization. Such competencies are associated with behaviors that improve employ-ees’ relational capacities and performance at work. Competencies such as humanskills (Katz, 1974), use of socialized power and managing group processes (Boyatzis,1982), social judgment skills (Mumford et al, 2000a), personal orientation andcommunication (Tett et al, 2000), and teamwork and cooperation (Cheng et al, 2005)would fall into this category.

Personal competenciesThese are competencies oriented toward developing self-leadership and profes-sionalism, and being an exemplary manager. Such competencies are associatedwith the person’s internal decision making and learning processes. Relatedcompetencies present in various models include self-confidence (Boyatzis, 1982),self-control and flexibility (Cheng et al, 2005), open-mindedness and developingself and others (Tett et al, 2000), and emotional intelligence (Boyatzis andGoleman, 2007).

We expect that effective managers will possess a sufficient level of all three typesof competencies described above. In other words, we expect that the structure of thisthree-dimensional competency model to be stable across various contexts andsituations, including national cultures. Thus, we posit the following:

Hypothesis 1: The three-dimensional structure of managerial competencies (thatis, external, interpersonal and personal competencies) is stableacross countries.

Cultural variation of competency models

A form of mental programming (Hofstede, 1984), culture shapes people’s interpreta-tion and sense making of the world. As the work environment gets increasingly

Bosch et al


A

UTHOR COPY

global, a cross-cultural understanding of work-related attributes such as managerialcompetencies becomes more relevant for both researchers and practitioners. Extantstudies have shown that the notion and conceptualization of competencies can varyacross cultures (Cheng et al, 2003; Delamare-Le Deist and Winterton, 2005; Jeriset al, 2005; Gilbert, 2006; Winterton, 2009). In terms of models of managerialcompetencies, most have been developed in either a single culture (Boyatzis, 1982;Spencer and Spencer, 1993) or only within a few cultural contexts (Casimirand Waldman, 2007; Chong, 2008). In fact, individuals of various cultural back-grounds may hold varied expectations of how managers should behave (Den Hartoget al, 1999; House et al, 2004).

To our knowledge, no research has empirically validated the dimensions ofmanagerial competencies across all key cultural clusters (Sagiv and Schwartz,2007). As mentioned earlier, as definitions, perceptions and attributions of compe-tencies are culturally sensitive (Schwartz, 2004; Javidan et al, 2006), it is not certainthat models of managerial competencies would hold in different countries. Suchmodels need to be subjected to multicultural validation before being used in differentcountries.

To avoid confusion, it is useful to distinguish between two types of cross-culturalstudies on competencies, that is, studies on competencies in different cultures,and studies on cultural competencies (Earley and Ang, 2003; Johnson et al, 2006;Thomas et al, 2008). The main purpose of this article is to test whether themanagerial competency model is comparable across countries. Although culturalcompetencies may be very relevant for managers in international work settings, herewe are concerned with managerial competencies that are applicable to managers ingeneral. Consequently, we investigate potential cultural competencies of managersin this study.

We posit that effective managers will possess all three competencies describedabove (that is, the structure of the three-dimensional competency model will be stableacross cultures). Nonetheless, people of different cultural backgrounds may allocatedifferent weights to each dimension of managerial competencies. These weightsindicate the degree of importance people place on a specific managerial competencyin a given society. If people place heavier emphasis on one managerial competencyover another, they will expect managers to more frequently demonstrate behaviorsassociated with this one competency in order to be effective (Bollen, 1989; see alsoMorris et al, 1998, as an example using similar methods to analyze culturaldifferences). As a result, knowledge of how people place emphasis on competenciesin diverse countries offers insights on training and developing managers in specificsocieties.

For instance, we expect that in certain cultural contexts, such as in the Asiancultural context, interpersonal relationships are particularly important to accomplishtasks (Hofstede, 1984; Triandis, 1995; Luo et al, 2012). In other words, managersin the Asian cultural context may need to emphasize personalized attention toward



A

UTHOR COPY

subordinates (Pun et al, 2000; Pellegrini and Scandura, 2008). Consequently, in thiscontext, interpersonal competencies may be perceived as more important formanagers.

Research on trust in various cultural contexts offers additional evidence of theimportance of interpersonal competencies in Asian countries. A wealth of differentdefinitions of trust exists, where most include multiple aspects (McAllister, 1995;Lewicki et al, 1998; Rousseau et al, 1998; McEvily, 2011; Tomlinson, 2012).Given that trust can be conceptualized as the willingness to be vulnerable (Mayeret al, 1995), the propensity to trust is higher in the United States than in Asia (Huffand Kelley, 2003). Similarly, in comparison with the Japanese, who see more utilityin dealing with others through personal relations, Americans are more trusting ofother people in general, and consider themselves more honest and fair (Yamagishiand Yamagishi, 1994). Studies also provide evidence on the lower tendency ofcollectivists, which tends to be a dominant value in Asia, to trust out-group members(Chen and Li, 2005). As a result, managers in Asian countries need to mobilize moreinterpersonal competencies so as to build up interpersonal relationships, and todemonstrate more trusting behaviors, such as communication and delegation(Whitener et al, 1998), so as to establish trust with subordinates, and hence beeffective. Therefore, we posit that the interpersonal dimension of managerialcompetencies will have a more important role in determining managerial effective-ness in Asian as compared with non-Asian countries.

Hypothesis 2: People will place heavier emphasis on the interpersonal dimensionof managerial competency in Asian countries as compared withnon-Asian countries.

Method

Sample and procedure

We collected data over the period 2007–2008 in 11 non-Asian countries (Brazil,Colombia, Ireland, Germany, Greece, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, Spain and theUnited States), as well as 4 Asian countries (China, Pakistan, Philippines andThailand), which represent most of the cultural regions of the world (Ronen andShenkar, 1985; Sagiv and Schwartz, 2007). Collaborators of the Cross-CulturalManagement Network (CCMN) in these countries translated the questionnaire fromits original English to their local language, with back-translation (Brislin, 1986). Inaddition, collaborators verified the quality of the translation before collecting the data.

Collaborators contacted managers in companies from different sectors and sizes,and allowed for a maximum of 10 per cent of respondents from the same companyfor each country included in the study. The sample includes middle and topmanagers, as well as managers from both the public and private sectors.

Bosch et al


A

UTHOR COPY

Competencies are more reliably measured based on external ratings than onself-reports (Spencer and Spencer, 1993). Thus, we measured competencies ofmanagers using their subordinates’ responses. Collaborators contacted managersin each country directly and asked them to identify three subordinates to assess theirmanagerial competencies. The collaborators collected the responses in paper orelectronic format, depending on the respondent’s convenience. In Spain, Russia,Colombia, Greece, Peru and the United States only the electronic format was used.The layout of the hard copy and electronic survey was identical. Research has foundno specific effects of the survey medium on response characteristics (Simsek andVeiga, 2001). The differences between hard copy and electronic survey were notsignificant, according to a conventional ANOVA test, in the countries that used bothformats: Brazil (0.38, P<0.5395), China (F= 0.96; P<0.7139), Pakistan (F= 0.13,P<0.7231), Philippines (F= 1.71, P<0.1937), Ireland (F= 0.57, P<0.4527),Germany (F= 2.48, P<0.1214), Mexico (F= 0.26, P<0.6141), Poland (F= 0.02,P<0.88) and Thailand (F= 2.48, P<0.1203).

In the non-Asian countries, a total of 1921 surveys were administrated, yielding1116 subordinate responses (a 58.1 per cent response rate). The final non-Asiansubsample ranges from 57 to 156 responses per country (see Table 1). Managersin this subsample had an average age of 39 years and an average organizationaltenure of 10 years, and 75 per cent of them were male. In the Asian countries,a total of 732 surveys where administered, producing 501 subordinate responses(a 68.4 per cent response rate). The final Asian subsample ranges from 69 to 150responses per country (see Table 2). Managers in this subsample had an averageage of 39.6 and an average organizational tenure of 9.2 years, and 62.6 per cent ofthem were male. Data on China were collected in Beijing and Shanghai.

Table 1: Sample size per country for non-Asian cultures

Country Number ofsubordinates

Number ofmanagers

Percentageof women

Managers’average tenure

Managers’average age

Rate of response(in percentage)

Brazil 126 42 14.8 12.8 37.8 62.5Colombia 72 24 14.8 12.8 37.8 41.6Mexico 99 33 18.2 6.1 35.7 34.6Peru 87 29 41.4 6.2 38.5 36.6Spain 120 40 10.8 11.3 40.5 90.9Germany 57 19 26.3 14.7 42.6 43.9Greece 138 46 43.5 14.5 44.3 92.0Russia 156 52 26.9 6.0 34.8 74.3Poland 78 26 11.5 6.2 37.0 54.5Ireland 60 20 23.8 12.6 42.3 56.3United States 123 41 34.2 8.1 37.5 81.6

Total 1116 372 25.0 9.9 38.7 58.1



A

UTHOR COPY

Cronbach’s α were calculated for each competency and sub-dimension, and allα were above acceptance levels (Cortina, 1993) (for the number of items, see Table 3and Table 4 for non-Asian and Asian countries, respectively).

Measures

We used the scale developed by Cardona and Garcia (2005) to measure the threedimensions of managerial competencies. The scale includes 6 sub-dimensionsfor external competencies, 6 for interpersonal competencies and 13 for personalcompetencies. Each sub-dimension is measured with three items. Thus, the ques-tionnaire includes a total of 75 items, reduced from 150 with a pilot study conductedin Spain (Garcia et al, 2001). A 5-point scale was used, where 1 corresponds to‘Never’ and 5 corresponds to ‘Always’. The items were specifically written for themanager–subordinate context; for example: ‘My supervisor asks his/her subordinatesfor their opinion when deciding how to tackle problems’.

Analytical procedure

In order to test our hypotheses, we carried out the following analyses: first, an explor-atory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with data collected from the 11 non-Asiancountries, to examine the structural pattern of competencies. Second, we mapped thecompetencies with multidimensional scaling, which gives a visual distance among allitems (Cox and Cox, 2001). Third, we carried out a multigroup confirmatory factoranalysis (CFA), with which we identified the competencies that are stable acrosscountries. Finally, we tested the invariance of factor loadings between Asian andnon-Asian groups. We performed data analysis using the software packages MPlus5.0 (Muthén and Muthén, 2007) and STATA 10.0 (Rabe-Hesketh and Skrondal,2008).

Table 2: Sample size per country for Asian cultures

Country Number ofsubordinates

Number ofmanagers

Percentageof women

Managers’average tenure

Managers’average age

Rate of response(in percentage)

China 150 50 33.3 7.9 36.4 78.4Pakistan 141 47 17.0 4.8 33.9 74.0Philippines 141 47 46.5 13.1 47.3 67.1Thailand 69 23 69.6 12.9 42.6 49.2

Total 501 167 37.4 9.2 39.6 68.4

Bosch et al


AUTHOR COPY

Table 3: Cronbach’s αof each competency and sub-dimension for non-Asian cultures

Factor Item Br Co Ir Ge Gr Me Pe Po Ru Sp US

External Business vision 0.84 0.66 0.69 0.89 0.76 0.83 0.57 0.83 0.79 0.88 0.58 0.82Resource 0.80 0.84 0.68 0.85 0.76 0.79 0.83 0.71 0.71 0.73 0.62 0.81Negotiation 0.77 0.76 0.87 0.80 0.80 0.42 0.70 0.74 0.79 0.80 0.88 0.71 0.81 0.63 0.79 0.82 0.68 0.81 0.85 0.89Networking 0.71 0.81 0.67 0.61 0.73 0.84 0.66 0.67 0.85 0.81 0.71

Interpersonal Integrity 0.76 0.71 0.60 0.89 0.89 0.78 0.69 0.87 0.87 0.91 0.73 0.58Communication 0.76 0.89 0.82 0.87 0.53 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.77 0.66 0.82Delegation 0.76 0.61 0.89 0.85 0.92 0.50 0.72 0.59 0.90 0.75 0.93 0.77 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.73 0.62 0.87 0.78 0.90Kindness 0.83 0.84 0.76 0.84 0.82 0.88 0.83 0.92 0.88 0.85 0.86

Personal Inspiration 0.787 0.71 0.871 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.9 0.916 0.95 0.738 0.90Initiative 0.80 0.77 0.93 0.82 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.74 0.90 0.77 0.88Humility 0.85 0.89 0.56 0.77 0.87 0.927 0.57 0.88 0.89 0.83 0.91 0.91 0.74 0.85 0.94 0.93 0.89 0.63 0.744 0.91 0.93Discipline 0.83 0.82 0.85 0.74 0.79 0.80 0.71 0.65 0.90 0.84 0.83

Note: Br=Brazil, Co=Colombia, Ir= Ireland, Ge=Germany, Gr=Greece, Me=Mexico, Pe=Peru, Po=Poland, Ru=Russia, Sp=Spain, US=UnitedStates.

Multiculturalvalidation

ofathree-dim

ensionalframew

ork

9©

2013Macm

illanPublishers

Ltd.1472-4782

Asian

Business

&Managem

ent1–21

A

UTHOR COPY

Results

Our data are multilevel in nature, because every manager is evaluated by threesubordinates, who are embedded in one country. The main focus of our study is theindividual level, as we would like to understand how individual subordinates assesstheir managers’ competencies.

In order to control for potential higher-level effects (that is, country and managerlevel), we calculated the variance components and intra-class correlation coefficient(ICC) for each sub-dimension of the competencies across both the country ICC(1) and manager ICC (2) levels. Table 5 shows that about 64 per cent of the variancein each dimension for non-Asian countries consists of between-subordinate variance,with about 28 per cent of the remaining variance being between-manager effect and8 per cent between-country effect. The ICC (1) scores have moderate values for the

Table 4: Cronbach's alpha of each competency and sub-dimension for Asian countries

Factor Item Ch Pa Ph Th

External Business vision 0.64 0.62 0.83 0.83Resource managements 0.76 0.63 0.79 0.88Negotiation 0.69 0.81 0.50 0.83 0.86 0.92 0.75 0.93Networking 0.65 0.77 0.78 0.82

Interpersonal Integrity 0.84 0.79 0.83 0.83Communication 0.80 0.78 0.85 0.92Delegation 0.88 0.94 0.70 0.91 0.73 0.95 0.92 0.95Kindness 0.77 0.70 0.87 0.91

Personal Inspiration 0.79 0.80 0.89 0.96Initiative 0.79 0.65 0.91 0.92Humility 0.83 0.91 0.64 0.87 0.87 0.94 0.88 0.94Discipline 0.74 0.77 0.87 0.79

Note: Ch=China, Pa=Pakistan, Ph=Philippines, Th=Thailand.

Table 5: Variance components and ICCs for study dimensions

Non-Asian countries

External(in percentage)

Interpersonal(in percentage)

Personal(in percentage)

Between-manager variance 65.4 64.2 62.9Between-country variance 26.4 27.4 30.3Total 8.1 8.4 6.8ICC (1) culture 0.09 0.09 0.07ICC (2) manager 0.29 0.30 0.33

Bosch et al


A

UTHOR COPYexternal (0.09), interpersonal (0.09) and personal (0.07) competencies. In the Asian

context, as Table 6 shows, about 55 per cent of the variance in each dimension isbetween-subordinate variance, whereas about 32 per cent of the remaining varianceis attributable to a between-manager effect and 13 per cent to a between-countryeffect. The ICC (1) scores have moderate values for the external (0.20), interpersonal(0.13) and personal (0.15) competencies. In both the Asian and non-Asian cases, theICC (1) values are above the recommended value of 0.05 (Bliese and Hanges, 2004),suggesting the need to control for country-level effects. Consequently, we includedthe country as a fixed effect in the analyses.

Map structure

First, with the same data set, we ran an EFA in order to explore possibledimensionality of the competency model, using data collected from a broad rangeof countries. The EFA results suggested a consistent three-factor structure in allcountries, which corresponds to the three-dimensional framework of managerialcompetencies (that is, personal, interpersonal and external competencies). At thelevel of measurement of the 75 questionnaire items, 49 did not show consistencyacross countries and were dropped from subsequent analyses. Among the 26 itemsthat showed consistency across countries, so that in each country the principalcomponents of every factor was the same, 8 belong to the external dimension, 8 tothe interpersonal dimension and 10 to the personal dimension (see Table 7).

In order to test the structural stability of the three-dimensional framework ofmanagerial competencies, as stated in Hypothesis 1, we first ran a multigroupCFA for each dimension separately (Bollen, 1989; Hox, 2002), allowing for countrydifferences in means and variances. The CFAs for the external, interpersonal andpersonal dimensions obtained satisfactory fit measures: external ( χ2: 444.8; DF: 294;RMSEA: 0.021; CFI: 0.947; TLI: 0.944), interpersonal ( χ2: 993.2; DF: 294;RMSEA: 0.046; CFI: 0.828; TLI: 0.819) and personal ( χ2: 1184.6; DF: 499;

Table 6: Variance components and ICCs for study dimensions

Asian countries

External(in percentage)

Interpersonal(in percentage)

Personal(in percentage)

Between-manager variance 53.3 45.3 57.0Between-country variance 28.9 42.8 29.4Total 17.8 11.9 13.6ICC (1) country 0.20 0.13 0.15ICC (2) manager 0.35 0.51 0.34



A

UTHOR COPY

Table 7: Items of each competency

ExternalDimension

Business vision My supervisor knows the company’s strengths andthe strengths of the competition

Item 1

My supervisor analyzes the environment to exploitopportunities and detect threats that affect thebusiness

Item 2

Resourcemanagement

My supervisor takes into account the opportunitycost of the resources that he/she commits

Item 3

My supervisor monitors the actual productivity ofthe resources used and controls any deviations

Item 4

Negotiation In negotiations, my supervisor is able to winconcessions without giving way on matters thatare non-negotiable and without souring therelationship

Item 5

My supervisor is able to quickly win the trust of theparties to the negotiation

Item 6

Networking My supervisor has an influential circle of friendswith whom he/she shares information andcontacts

Item 7

My supervisor tries to cultivate informalrelationships with key people in his/her workenvironment

Item 8

InterpersonalDimension

Integrity My supervisor deals with me honestly Item 9My supervisor always tells the truth Item 10

Communication My supervisor asserts his/her opinions in aconvincing way

Item 11

My supervisor expounds the ideas in an organizedmanner

Item 12

Delegation My supervisor gives his/her people autonomy intheir job

Item 13

My supervisor lets me participate in the decisionmaking

Item 14

Kindness My supervisor actively searches for the well-beingof his/her people

Item 15

My supervisor shows concern for the problems ofhis/her subordinates

Item 16

PersonalDimension

Inspiration My supervisor encourages and inspires his/herpeople by highlighting the importance andmotivating aspects of their work

Item 17

My supervisor fosters a sense of responsibility andprofessionalism at work

Item 18

My supervisor bases the relationship with his/hersubordinates on trust and example

Item 19

Initiative My supervisor promotes improvements in his/herdepartment

Item 20

My supervisor participates actively in generatingnew ideas for his/her work

Item 21

Bosch et al


A

UTHOR COPY

RMSEA: 0.035; CFI: 0.867; TLI: 0.868). The only fit measures below acceptancelevel are the CFI and TLI for the interpersonal dimension model. However, for thisdimension the χ2=DF ratio is lower than 3, and the results of the EFA are supportiveof the structure. Thus, we accepted the model for each dimension and its respectivecompetencies (items).

Once we established the structure of the three dimensions, we ran another CFA ofthe overall three-dimensional model. In order to increase the ratio of parameters toour sample size, we averaged the items per competency. Again, we conducted amultigroup CFA, allowing for differences in means and variances in the non-Asianand Asian countries. The goodness-of-fit measures are satisfactory for the overallmodel ( χ2: 1583.8; DF: 651; RMSEA: 0.036; CFI: 0.870; TLI: 0.856). Thecorrelations among dimensions are significantly positive (interpersonal with external:r= 0.22, P<0.001; personal with external: r= 0.17, P<0.001; personal with inter-personal: r= 0.25, P< 0.001). Thus, we accepted the three-dimensional model.These results support Hypothesis 1, which stated that the three-dimensional structureof managerial competencies, comprising external, interpersonal and personal compe-tencies, is stable across countries.

In order to test Hypothesis 2, which claims that in Asian countries people tend tofocus more on interpersonal competencies, we first checked for differences in themeans of each competency dimension between countries (Asian versus non-Asian).The differences in country means are significant in a conventional ANOVA test forboth interpersonal (F= 3.61; P<0.001) and personal competencies (F= 1.52;P<0.01). However, there is no significant difference in country means in the externaldimension. We then conducted a multigroup CFA to verify the equality of factorloadings between Asian and non-Asian groups. The goodness-of-fit measures aresatisfactory for the complete model for both cultural groups ( χ2: 969.3; DF: 111;RMSEA: 0.069; CFI: 0.919; TLI: 0.904). The results of the multigroup CFA indicatethat the three-dimensional model of managerial competencies holds in both Asianand non-Asian groups, yet with country differences in specific loadings for each

Table 7: (Continued )

Humility My supervisor accepts feedback with an attitude ofopenness and a desire to improve

Item 22

My supervisor accepts his/her responsibility forpersonal failures and apologizes

Item 23

My supervisor makes a habit of examining his/herown behavior

Item 24

Discipline My supervisor is constant and orderly in his/herwork

Item 25

My supervisor finishes the tasks he/she begins,despite any difficulties that may arise

Item 26



A

UTHOR COPY

competency (see the results of model comparison in Table 8). Specifically, the resultsshow that the factor loadings of the external and interpersonal competencies arehigher in Asian countries as compared with non-Asian countries. Moreover, andunexpectedly, the loadings of the personal dimension are found to be lower in Asiancountries. These results partially support Hypothesis 2.

Finally, we conducted a secondary analysis with the non-Asian countries. Wedivided them into the following regions according to Schwartz’s (2004) classifica-tion: (i) Latin America: Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Peru; (ii) West Europe:Germany, Spain and Greece; (iii) English-speaking countries: Ireland and the UnitedStates; and (iv) East Europe: Poland and Russia. We conducted CFA to verify theequality of factor loadings between these four groups. The goodness-of-fit measuresof the complete model with four country groups are satisfactory ( χ2: 960.6; DF: 231;RMSEA: 0.052; CFI: 0.897; TLI: 0.882). We found country differences in specificloadings for each dimension of managerial competencies. More specifically, ourresults show that respondents in English-speaking countries place heavier emphasis

Table 8: Specific loadings per culture: Asian vs. non-Asian countries

Model 1 Model 2

Common loading Non Asian Asian

Business vision 1.000 1.000 1.000Resource management 1.036 1.021 1.056Negotiation 1.059 0.997 1.164Networking 0.879 0.826 0.953Integrity 1.000 1.000 1.000Communication 0.969 0.886 1.010Delegation 0.946 0.883 0.987Concern 0.769 0.778 0.757Inspiration 1.000 1.000 1.000Initiative 1.022 1.025 1.017Humility 1.102 1.123 1.071Discipline 0.940 1.049 0.739Fit measuresχ2 1036.1 969.3DF 123 111CFI 0.914 0.919TLI 0.908 0.904RMSEA 0.068 0.069χ2 difference test P>0.0001*

N 1617 1617

*This means that Model 2 fits the data better than Model 1.DF=degrees of freedom; RMSEA=Root mean square error of approximation; CFI=comparative fit index;TLI=tucker lewis index.

Bosch et al


A

UTHOR COPY

on the external and interpersonal dimensions than respondents from other countrygroups, whereas those in East European countries focus more on the externaldimension. Individuals in West Europe tend to focus least on the interpersonaldimension. Regarding the personal dimension, it received most attention in LatinAmerica and least in English-speaking countries.

Discussion

The objective of the study is to examine the structural stability of a parsimoniousthree-dimensional managerial competency model across different countries, as wellas to explore possible variation in the model between Asian and non-Asian countries.Competencies are often intangible and dynamic. Our study contributes to theliterature of managerial competencies by suggesting a framework of competenciesthat is (i) based on observable behaviors and (ii) validated across multiple culturalcontexts. Our results show that the three-dimensional model of competencies holdsacross countries. The first dimension, external competencies, includes competenciesrelated to knowledge of the business and to use of resources that may affect theprofitability of the organization. The second dimension, interpersonal competencies,includes competencies related to the development of effective relationships withsubordinates. The third dimension, personal competencies, includes competenciesrelated to self-leadership and professionalism. Our results offer empirical supportof the validity of a three-dimensional framework of managerial competencies acrosscountries. In other words, managers would be expected to demonstrate these behav-ioral competencies to be effective in most countries (at least in the 15 countriescovered in this study).

We may not be able to infer complete universality of the three-dimensional modelof managerial competencies on the basis of only the 15 countries included in thisstudy. However, our study is, to our knowledge, the first that explicitly andempirically validates a model of managerial competencies at such a large scaleacross all key cultural regions of the world. It confirms the multidimensional natureof managerial competencies (Cheng et al, 2005; Delamare-Le Deist and Winterton,2005). Moreover, our study contributes to knowledge of the structure of managerialcompetencies across different situations and contexts, especially in terms of nationalculture.

For each competency dimension, several sub-dimensions were identified as invari-ant across countries (that is, they all loaded to the same competencies in terms offactor configuration). These are business vision, resource management, negotiationand networking for external competencies; integrity, communication, delegation andkindness for interpersonal competencies; and inspiration, initiative, humility anddiscipline for personal competencies. These results indicate a set of reasonably stablecompetencies for managers in multiple countries.



A

UTHOR COPY

Despite sharing a common factor structure, the three-dimensional framework ofmanagerial competencies may differ in more subtle ways across countries. In thisstudy, we tested possible differences in factor loadings, particularly between Asianand non-Asian countries. In line with our hypothesis, we found differences in theloadings of competencies between Asian and non-Asian countries. Specifically,we predicted that the loadings of the interpersonal competencies would be higher inAsian countries in comparison with non-Asian countries, and the results supportedour hypothesis. The results confirm the importance of interpersonal competencies inthe Asian contexts – managers need to develop such competencies so as to establishtrust and harmonious relationship with subordinates and colleagues. In the same vein,organizations also need to pay special attention to interpersonal competencies as theydevelop leaders, and select and train managers in Asian contexts.

Surprisingly, we also found differences in the loadings of the external and personaldimensions. For the external competencies, the loadings were also higher for theAsian countries, meaning that subordinates in Asian countries tend to put moreweight on their managers’ external competencies than subordinates in non-Asiancountries. Furthermore, for the personal competencies, the loadings were lower forAsian countries, meaning that subordinates in the Asian countries care less abouttheir managers’ personal competencies than their counterparts in non-Asian coun-tries. Although unexpected, such results may not be too puzzling. A possibleexplanation for the higher loadings on the external competencies may be related tothe rapid economic development in many Asian countries recently. Externalcompetencies such as business vision and negotiation can be particularly critical formanagers operating in such contexts. For the lower loadings on the personalcompetencies in the Asian countries, it is likely that managers are not expected toshow too much humility given the often higher power distance that characterizesthese cultural contexts (Hofstede, 1984; House et al, 2004). These possible expla-nations are to be further verified by future studies. As McKenna (2004) suggested,managerial competencies are situated, contextual and socially constructed. Furtherresearch is needed to shed more light on both stable as well as situational managerialcompetencies.

This study has important managerial implications. First, with empirical multi-cultural validation, the three-dimensional framework of competencies can be used byorganizations, domestic and multinational alike, to better select, assess and developmanagers with more confidence. Second, our study can help multinational companiesidentify and develop candidates with the appropriate managerial profiles that better fitin different countries (for example, putting more weight on external and interpersonalcompetencies in the Asian context). Interpersonal competencies need to be empha-sized when developing managers or leaders in the Asian context.

Our results need to be viewed in light of certain limitations. The first limitation isthat we did not control for the nature and origin of organization (that is, nationalversus multinational) from which participants were recruited. Managers and

Bosch et al


A

UTHOR COPY

subordinates working for multinational companies may hold an understanding ofmanagerial competencies that differs from that of managers and subordinates indomestic companies. Future research could control for this variable and analyze if thereare significant differences between managerial competencies in national and multi-national organizations within the same country. Second, in comparing Asian versusnon-Asian countries, we grouped very different cultures into the same non-Asiangroup. There may be significant internal variation within this non-Asian group, giventhe significant cultural diversity among these countries. In fact, our data suggest thatthe loadings of competencies do vary to some extent among non-Asian countries. Wefound difference between Latin America, West Europe, English-speaking countriesand East Europe. As these non-Asian countries differ significantly along well-established cultural dimensions such as collectivism, masculinity and power distance,among others, future research should examine both conceptually and empiricallypossible differences in the managerial competencies within the non-Asian group.

Another limitation is the imbalanced number of countries in the Asian versus non-Asian group in this study. Future research should include more Asian countries so asto obtain analytical results based on a more balanced sample composition. Moreover,the current study has not taken into account the diversity within countries (Au, 1999).In some countries (for example, China), there may be large regional cultural dif-ferences that may affect people’s emphasis on various dimensions of the competencymodel. Future research may explore possible within-country differences so as todevelop more fine-tuned models of managerial competency.

Another aspect to consider is that in this study managers identified three subordinatesto assess their managerial competencies. This could introduce bias, as managersmay have chosen those who would offer more favorable assessments. Wheneverpractically possible, future research should randomly sample subordinates or increasethe number of subordinates assessing each manager in order to avoid this bias.

Finally, it is important to recognize that we focused only on one situational factorin the study – national culture. Other possible situational factors, such as industry/sector, may also influence how competencies are conceived and structured. Futureresearch should incorporate more situational factors to capture the interactive naturebetween competencies and the situation.

About the Authors

María José Bosch is assistant professor at the Department of Organizational Behaviorand Director of the Work and Family Research Center, ESE Business School, Chile.She received her PhD from IESE Business School, Spain. Her research interestsinclude leadership competencies, work–family balance, motivations, trust, organiza-tional culture and cross-cultural differences. She teaches on several executiveprograms.



A

UTHOR COPY

Yih-teen Lee is associate professor at the Department of Managing People inOrganizations, IESE Business School, Spain. Originally from Taiwan, Republic ofChina, he received his PhD from the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. Hisresearch interests include person—environment fit, cultural identities and culturalcompetences, and leadership in multicultural teams. His works have been publishedin journals such as Journal of Management, Personnel Psychology, Personality andIndividual Difference and International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management. Heteaches leadership in several executive programs.

Pablo Cardona has extensive experience in graduate management education inEurope, the United States, Latin America, Africa and Asia and currently teaches atChina Europe International Business School (CEIBS) in China and in different Asiancountries such as Indonesia and Singapore. He has published in such academicjournals as Strategic Management Journal, International Journal of Manpower,Personnel Psychology and Group & Organization Management. He has editedand collaborated on several research books, such as Manager-Subordinate Trust:A Global Perspective and Handbook of Chinese Organizational Behavior, and haswritten several practitioner books on Leadership and Management. He has receivedthree awards from the Academy of Management (1999, 2003 and 2008).

References

Au, K.Y. (1999) Intra-cultural variation: eEvidence and implications for international business. Journal ofInternational Business Studies 30: 799–812.

Bartram, D. (2005) The great eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal ofApplied Psychology 90(6): 1185–1203.

Bliese, P.D. and Hanges, P.J. (2004) Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treatinggrouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods 7(4): 400–417.

Bollen, K.A. (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New Work: Wiley.Boyatzis, R.E. (1982) The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. New York: Wiley.Boyatzis, R. (1993) Beyond competence: The choice to be a leader. Human Resource Management Review

3(1): 1–14.Boyatzis, R. and Goleman, D. (2007) Emotional and Social Competency Inventory: University Edition

Workbook. Boston, MA: Hay Group Transforming Learning.Brislin, R.W. (1986) The Wording and Translation of Research Instruments. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Cardona, P. and Chinchilla, N. (1999) Evaluación y desarrollo de las competencias directivas. Harvard

Deusto Business Review ES(89): 10–19.Cardona, P. and Garcia, P. (2005) How to Develop Leadership Competences. Pamplona, Spain: Eunsa.Casimir, G. and Waldman, D. (2007) A cross-cultural comparison of the importance of leadership traits for

effective low-level and high-level leaders: Australia and China. International Journal of Cross CulturalManagement 7(1): 47–60.

Chen, X.P. and Li, S. (2005) Cross-national differences in cooperative decision-making in mixed-motivebusiness contexts: The mediating effect of vertical and horizontal individualism. Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies 36(6): 622–636.

Bosch et al


A

UTHOR COPY

Cheng, M.-I., Dainty, A.R.J. and Moore, D.R. (2003) The differing faces of managerial competency inBritain and America. Journal of Management Development 22(6): 527–537.

Cheng, M.-I., Dainty, A.R.J. and Moore, D.R. (2005) Towards a multidimensional competency-basedmanagerial performance framework: A hybrid approach. Journal of Managerial Psychology 20(5):380–396.

Chong, E. (2008) Managerial competency appraisal: A cross-cultural study of American and East Asianmanagers. Journal of Business Research 61(3): 191–200.

Cortina, J.M. (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal ofApplied Psychology 78(1): 98–104.

Cox, T.F. and Cox, M.A. (2001) MultidimenSIonal Scaling. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.Delamare-Le Deist, F. and Winterton, J. (2005) What is competence? Human Resource Development

International 8(1): 27–46.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 10(2): 219–256.

DeRue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D., Wellman, N.E.D. and Humphrey, S.E. (2011) Trait and behavioral theoriesof leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology64(1): 7–52.

Earley, P.C. and Ang, S. (2003) Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Garcia, P., Cardona, P. and Chinchilla, N. (2001) Las competencias directivas mas valoradas. Occasionalpaper. Barcelona, Spain: IESE Publishing.

Gilbert, P. (2006) La compétence: Concept nomade, significations fixes. Psychologie du Travail et desOrganisations 12(2): 67–77.

Harvey, M. and Novicevic, M. (2005) The challenges associated with the capitalizations of managerialskills and competencies. International Journal of Human Resource Management 16(8): 1374–1398.

Hofstede, G. (1984)Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. London: Sage.Hollenbeck, G.P., McCall, M.W. and Silzer, R.F. (2006) Leadership competency models. The Leadership

Quarterly 17(4): 398–413.House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004) Culture, Leadership and

Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hox, J.J. (2002) Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. New York: Routledge.Huff, L. and Kelley, L. (2003) Levels of organizational trust in individualist versus collectivist societies: A

seven-nation study. Organization Science 14(1): 81–90.Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., Sully de Luque, M. and House, R. (2006) In the eye of the beholder. Academy of

Management Perspectives 20(1): 67–90.Jeris, L., Johnson, K., Isopahkala, U., Winterton, J. and Anthony, K. (2005) The politics of competence:

Views from around the globe. Human Resource Development International 8(3): 379–384.Johnson, J., Lenartowicz, T. and Apud, S. (2006) Cross-cultural competence in international business:

Toward a definition and a model. Journal of International Business Studies 37: 525–543.Katz, R.L. (1974) Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review 52(5): 90–102.Kurz, R. and Bartram, D. (2002) Competency and individual performance: Modelling the world of work.

In: I.T. Robertson, M. Callinan and D. Bartram (eds.) Organizational Effectiveness: The Role ofPsychology. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 227–255.

Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J. and Bies, R.J. (1998) Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities.Academy of Management Review 23(3): 438–458.

Lobel, S. (1990) Global leadership competencies: Managing to a different drumbeat. Human ResourceManagement 29(1): 39–47.

Luo, Y., Huang, Y. and Wang, S.L. (2012) Guanxi and organizational performance: A meta-analysis.Management and Organization Review 8(1): 139–172.



A

UTHOR COPY

Mayer, R.C, Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, D. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academyof Management Review 20(3): 709–734.

McAllister, D.J. (1995) Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation inorganizations. Academy of Management Journal 38(1): 24–59.

McClelland, D.C. (1961) The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.McClelland, D.C. (1973) Testing for competence rather than for ‘intelligence’. American Psychologist

28(1): 1–14.McEvily, B. (2011) Reorganizing the boundaries of trust: From discrete alternatives to hybrid forms.

Organization Science 22(5): 1266–1276.McKenna, S. (2004) Predispositions and context in the development of managerial skills. Journal of

Management Development 23(7): 664–677.Morris, M.W. et al (1998) Conflict management style: Accounting for cross-national differences. Journal

of International Business Studies 29(4): 729–748.Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., Connelly, M.S. and Marks, M. (2000a) Leadership skills: Conclusions and

future directions. Leadership Quarterly 11(1): 155–170.Mumford, M., Zaccaro, S., Harding, F., Jacobs, O. and Fleischman, E. (2000b) Leadership skills for

a changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly 11(1): 11–35.Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (2007) Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Park, N., Peterson, C. and Seligman, M. (2004) Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social

and Clinical Psychology 23(5): 603–619.Pellegrini, E.K. and Scandura, T.A. (2008) Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future

research. Journal of Management 34(3): 566–593.Pérez-López, J.A. (1993) Fundamentos de la Dirección de Empresas. Madrid, Spain: Rialp.Peterson, C. and Seligman, M. (2004) Character Strengths and Virtues. New York; Washington DC:

Oxford University Press; American Psychological Association.Pun, K.F., Chin, K.S. and Lau, H. (2000) A review of Chinese cultural influences on Chinese enterprise

management. International Journal of Management Reviews 2(4): 325–338.Rabe-Hesketh, S. and Skrondal, A. (2008) Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata, 2nd edn.

College Station, TX: Stata.Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985) Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review and synthesis.

Academy of Management Review 10(3): 435–454.Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S. and Camerer, C. (1998) Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust.

Academy of Management Review 23(3): 393–404.Ruth, D. (2006) Frameworks of managerial competence: Limits, problems and suggestions. Journal of

European Industrial Training 30(3): 206–226.Sagiv, L. and Schwartz, S. (2007) Cultural values in organizations: Insights for Europe. European Journal

of International Management 1(3): 176–190.Sandberg, J. (2000) Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of

Management Journal 43(1): 9–25.Schwartz, S. (2004) Mapping and Interpreting Cultural Differences Around the World. Leiden, The

Netherlands: Brill.Seligman, M.E.P. (2002) Authentic Happiness. New York: Free Press.Simsek, Z. and Veiga, J.F. (2001) A primer on internet organizational surveys. Organizational Research

Methods 4(3): 218–235.Spencer, L.M. and Spencer, S.M. (1993) Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance. New

York: John Wiley & Sons.Tett, R.P., Guterman, H.A., Bleier, A. and Murphy, P. (2000) Development and content validation of

a ‘hyperdimensional’ taxonomy of managerial competence. Human Performance 13(3): 205–251.Thomas, D.C. et al (2008) Cultural intelligence: Domain and assessment. International Journal of Cross

Cultural Management 8(2): 123–143.

Bosch et al


A

UTHOR COPY

Tomlinson, E. (2012) The context of trust repair efforts: Exploring the role of relationship dependence andoutcome severity. Journal of Trust Research 1(2): 139–157.

Triandis, H.C. (1995) Individualism and Collectivism. Oxford: Westview.Van der Laan, L. and Erwee, R. (2012) Foresight styles assessment: A valid and reliable measure of

dimensions of foresight competence? Foresight 14(5): 374–386.Whitener, E.M., Brodt, S.E., Korsgaard, M.A. and Jon, M.W. (1998) Managers as initiators of trust: An

exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy ofManagement Review 23(3): 513–530.

Winterton, J. (2009) Competence across Europe: Highest common factor or lowest common denominator?Journal of European Industrial Training 33(8/9): 681–700.

Woodruffe, C. (1993) Assessment Centres: Identifying and Developing Competences. London: Institute ofPersonnel Management.

Wright, T. and Goodstein, J. (2007) Character is not ‘dead’ in management research: A review ofindividual character and organizational-level virtue. Journal of Management 33(6): 928–958.

Yamagishi, T. and Yamagishi, M. (1994) Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan.Motivation and Emotion 18(2): 129–166.



multicultural validation of a three-dimensional framework of … · 2013. 6. 13. · author copy...

Documents