Motivational Management Approaches and
Multicultural Management Groups
Bachelor Thesis Economics and Business – Business Administration
Date: June 26th, 2018 Author: Jean-Luc Freens Student number: 10722599 Supervisor: Mrs. Vromans
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Jean-Luc Freens who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine how managers of a multicultural management group use a set of management approaches to improve the work motivation of group members. This research is based on theories and findings regarding the concept of work motivation, managerial traits and the influences of cultural background. The author collected qualitative data through five semi-structured interviews with multicultural management group managers. The data collected was analysed by means of a grounded theory approach and supported with the use of NVivo qualitative data analysis software. The results indicate that there are six management approaches that can be conducted in culturally diverse management groups, in order to improve work motivation. These six management approaches will positively influence work motivation and decrease the influences of different cultural backgrounds held in the management group.
Table of contents: Abstract 2 1. Introduction 4 2. Literature review 6 2.1 Work motivation 6 2.2 Personal performance 6 2.3 Intrinsic motivation 7 2.4 Employer adjustments 8 2.5 Managerial traits 9 2.6 Management guidelines 9 2.7 Communicational trust 10 2.8 Managerial knowledge 11 2.9 Feedback 11
2.10 Cultural diverse management groups 12
2.11 Conceptual model 13
3. Research method 14
4. Results 15
4.1. Interviewee introduction 15
4.2 Communication strategy influences 16
4.2.1 Face-to-face interaction 16 4.2.2 Trust 17 4.2.3 Bilaterals 19 4.3 Frequency 20 4.4 Rules 21 4.5 Empowerment 23 4.6 Success/Target 25 4.7 Feedback 27 4.8 Career opportunities 29 4.9 Adaptivity 29 5. Discussion 31
5.1 Communication techniques and influences 31
5.1.1 Face-to-face communication 31
5.1.2 Bilaterals 32
5.2 Rules of engagement and empowerment 32
5.3 Target setting and rewards 33
5.4 Feedback 34
6. Conclusion, limitations and further research 34
6.1 Conclusion 34
6.2 Limitation and future research 35
References 36
1. Introduction
Globalization is causing societal diversity to increase worldwide. Research shows that people are increasingly looking for job opportunities across the border. 74 percent of the people that are moving to the Netherlands consider ‘work’ to be the main reason to migrate (Nicolaas, 2006). This movement has resulted in the concentration of a great variety of cultural backgrounds in Dutch organizations (CBS, 2016). A more culturally diverse group of employees may cause conflict situations and negative consequences for an organization. Not finding a balance in managing of culturally diverse employee groups may lead to an amplification of contradicting values of beliefs among employees. Leading to a resistance against each other’s points of view and to the failure of achieving company goals (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). To avoid the occurrence of the negative consequences that a multiplicity of cultural backgrounds and personal characteristics within organizations may bring forward, behavioral adaption within these organizations is required (Watson, Johnson, & Zgourides, 2002).
Managerial contribution to the accomplishment of a company goal involve, among other things, structural management of internal conflicts. It has been shown that creating management groups consisting of people of mixed cultural backgrounds, helps to expand mutual insights and personal characteristics and consequently increases the chance of achieving a company goal (Ang et al., 2007; Kearney & Gebert, 2009). Not only culturally shaped characteristics contribute to the development of personal norms and values (Dinges & Lieberman, 1989). Cultural heritage also is an influencing factor for the modelling of personal characteristics and individual reactions to external incentives (Brayfield & Crockett, 1955). However, since cultures have their own guidelines and specific influences on personal characteristics, managing a cultural diverse management group holds several challenges for a manager (Robbins & Judge, 2016). A multicultural management groups manager therefore needs to be able to handle these challenges, in order to obtain a clear vision and to maintain a similar goal (Maznevski & Distefano, 2015).
Wiley (1997) concluded that a high level of work motivation significantly contributes to the duration of effort that is being delivered by an employee into its own work and other work-related tasks. Furthermore, work motivation accumulates the quality of work, participation in extracurricular organisational activities and the amount of individually produced work (Sadri & Bowen, 2011). Consequently, a high level of work motivation among employees is a valuable personal characteristic for organizations and forms an interesting working area for managers. Therefore, improving the level of a management group member’s
work motivation, is one of the important challenges managers have to deal with (Latham & Pinder, 2005).
Organisations want to hold on to employees that are motivated and are performing well (Earley, 2002). In practice, there are several ways management group leaders try to keep employees committed to their organisation. For instance, management group leaders can opt for granting a bonus to employees that reach their targets. Showing appreciation for the work done by an employee is useful when it comes to mediation of employee cohesion and increasing work motivation, work performance and the reciprocal relationships between a management group leader and its group members, which in turn reduces the chance of internal conflicts (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).
In practice, there are various questions centred around the concept of multicultural management groups, and the way these groups are influenced by managers. For instance, the effect of structured leadership approaches used (Shapiro, Baldwin, Williams, & Trawalter, 2011). In addition, it can be difficult to measure how management group leaders have a direct influence on the personal and collective level of their group members’ work motivation (Chen, Kanfer, DeShon, Mathieu, & Kozlowski, 2009).
This research strives to create clarity on two factors that influence management groups and its members. The first factor this research focuses on, is the concept of work motivation. Secondly discussed is the question whether management group leaders perform a specific set of management activities to cope with the different points of view that follow from varieties of cultural backgrounds. The scope of this research is limited to managers with a Dutch cultural background. The research question is as follows:
How do managers of a multicultural management group use a set of management approaches to improve the work motivation of group members?
The aim of this research is to be able to provide multicultural management group managers with advice in how to develop and solve motivational issues of their subordinates.
Previous research conducted shows that the improvement of motivation, in combination with cultural backgrounds, has to be looked at from various standpoints. First, motivation is a personal characteristic that is influenced by a multiplicity of factors. Second, Personal performance is of influence, but this also accounts for incentives coming from management
group co-workers. Third, managerial approaches can vary, resulting in the analyses of a selected amount of management theories
As to answer the research question, this study will be divided into sections. The first section will consist of a literary review. Providing previous research findings and a theoretical background in motivation, managerial traits and cultural influences. Followed up with the research method section, stating the qualitative research method of this study and further explaining how the data from the five interviews will be collected and processed. The third section will consist of the result section. Providing the research findings, that have been collected during the interviews. The fourth segment will bring forward the discussion section and elaborate on the implications of the results found in combination with previous research findings. The final segment will provide the conclusion and limitation section, also implementing suggestions for future research.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Work motivation
The affiliation that a person has with his/her work have become, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, more interesting for professional coordinated psychological research disciplines (Vroom, 1964). Most of the research that has already been conducted, focuses on the influence of financial compensation and how these premiums influence employee motivation (Wiley, 1997). Motivation therefore became a basis element to conduct research on about employees coping with work related incentives, targets and internal concepts.
2.2 Personal performance
Work motivation of an employee is influenced more through personal motivation than by job performance (Vroom, 1964). Whereas job performance is not significantly influenced by work motivation. This being said, there is a personal perception towards what is considered performing well and how cultural background takes part in this viewpoint (Jaskyte, 2004). Personal beliefs do take up an essential role in personal wants and performance delivered.
Pressure of performing well is of major influence towards work motivation, being held by a person, but also holding the belief of being capable of delivering up to expectation (Gabriel, 2002). Set beliefs and expectations, in which management group managers appoint targets, influences work motivational control and the mindset towards subordinates (Armitage & Conner, 2001). Leading to a decrease in communication and attention paid by management
group members, when managers cannot obtain a correct sight of personal beliefs and where these assumptions come from (Gabriel, 1992).
It is up to management group managers to create a group climate in which members can open up about their beliefs and boast subordinate motivation in doing this (Robbins & Judge, 2016). A management group climate, that suits the group members well, will also accounts for incentivising personal motivation towards obtaining a level of work motivation that management group members need to hold when wanting to reach an impactful role in strategies implemented.
Motivation can be derived from personal tasks. The expectancy-value theory of motivation states that the direction of energy channelled toward a particular task is based upon the confidence of succeeding and valuing success (Ang et al., 2007). Succeeding in a task will lead to a gain in work motivation (Denisi & Pritchard, 2006).
2.3 Intrinsic motivation
Obtaining work motivation from accomplishing a task that came forward out of personal interest, is dependent of personal level of motivation. The level of motivation held, influences capacities to deal with external factors (Ang et al., 2007). Creating an understanding of cultural differences can influence personal mindset toward reaching a set target. With a greater understanding of cultural differences comes the increase in cross-cultural empathy and personal motivation (Bandura, 2002). Cultural values make a difference in role and task setting of management groups assumptions (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Cultural differences, when not being understood, can set a wrong mindset of performance appraisal and interactions made. This will create a problem in reaching set and the personal aim of doing so (Stone-Romero, Stone, & Salas, 2003). Resulting in a decrease in task accomplishment and influencing personal work motivation of management group members.
Intrinsic motivation is a characteristic that is continuously influenced by personal motivational factors (Nicholson, 1995). The level of intrinsic motivation can increase through various interactions (Wiley, 1997). Being able to take control over job tasks and feeling empowered in doing so, can make an employee feel more proactive and enhances work motivation (Grant, 2007). The feeling of proactiveness can increase through creation of personal opportunities (Grant & Parker, 2009). Whereas delivering effort, that comes forward from interpersonal incentives, creates a connectivity with personal work delivered (Grant, 2007).
Robbins and Judge (2016) state that personal satisfaction is obtained from work moderating incentive. Furthermore, intrinsic motivational factors consist of: responsibility, recognition and development. In addition, the external factors, the hygiene factors, include: salary, company regulations/culture, working conditions and supervision (Judge & Robbins, 2016). Individuals who have a higher level of perceived work satisfaction generate a greater connectivity between their intrinsic motivating factors (Grant & Shin, 2012). Intrinsic factors have to be emphasized to create a greater level of work related motivation (Kovach, 1987). Positive contributions effects work performance of employees, especially when those influencing factors are coordinated well. However, the positive contribution of work performance influences flatten when motivating factors are only fulfilled to a less than accounted for extent (Ikwukananne, 2009).
2.4 Employer adjustments
Being employed and performing a job has become normal. People therefore do sometimes not look into the specific motivation of performing a job and what motivates them to carry out this job well (Kovach, 1987). It is from uttermost importance that companies understand what motivates their employees and influences them to execute their responsibilities. Griffin (1990) therefore stated that employee performance is determined by three factors: skill, motivation and work environment.
Specific training courses can be applied to ensure the improvement of personal skills (Griffin, 1990). The improvement of an employee’s capabilities will result in development of effectively performing job tasks (Denisi & Pritchard, 2006). Employee capabilities itself have a direct influence on profession tasks performed and how these tasks need to be coordinated by managers. Tasks well performed, will result in positive feedback and an improve of work motivation (Grant & Shin, 2012). For example, employees can be frequently asked what it is that they like about a particular job and whether the employee has the intention to complete this job for a longer period of time (Wessler, 1984). Also will the gain in capabilities help an employee to increase the level of contribution, leading to a greater role of self-effacing and team fulfilment, boosting employee motivation and the feeling of successfulness (Geister, Konradt, & Hertel, 2006). This is different from the environment employees need to work in. The environment a person has to work in is decisive in taking part in and the willingness of appropriate task performance.
However, the question remains whether there is a true foundation set by Griffin for these three factors, and if they do not only count as motivating but also as hygienic factors (Maidini, 1991). Herzberg’s two-factor theory and the set beliefs towards obtaining success could argue with Griffins insights (Judge & Robbins, 2016). Although the two-factor theory is aimed more at investigating what an employee expects to receive from performing work tasks instead.
2.5 Managerial traits
Leadership can come forward in vision and achieving goals. Leadership can therefore be defined as the art of influencing people to accomplish goals (Grimm, 2010). Managers need to be able to mobilise a group of resources and people to achieve visionary insights and making a change. The alignment of people and resources can be difficult, especially when having a different sense of what is being expected or believed in. As a result, managers need to appeal to their subordinates in the best way possible in order to carry forward their vision (Latham & Pinder, 2005). There is a set of traits that managers need to hold when dealing with a group of subordinates: confidence, communication, trust, knowledge, self-esteem, cohesion (Caligiuri, 2006). Traits that need to be held to endure outside factors of a competitive landscape with businesses that strive to accomplish similar goals.
Confidence is one of the traits that need to be held by a manager (Sadri & Bowen, 2011). It has been proven that managers whom are not able to get recognition from their management group members, are hardly able to accomplish set goals. Showing confidence influences greatly how strictly jobs are being done and it is of a necessity to be held by the person performing the leading role in a management group (Grimm, 2010). This being said, it is essential to clearly hold confidence, or otherwise encounter problems in reaching a goal which is in line with visionary set targets (Ang et al., 2007). Creating confidence can be done through showing passion for work tasks and communicating appreciation. Resulting in a gain of recognition and the feeling of management group members that they are putting their time into something purposeful.
2.6 Management guidelines
Performing a role in a team comes with obeying to a management structure (Chen et al., 2009). It is up to the management group manager to provide the management group with a framework, that gives group members an understanding of the practices that they need to apply to. There has to be communication between group members to accomplish and develop a structure that will allow a management group to strive for goals set (Schein, 2010).
Managers can provide a management group with behavioural and other work-related guidelines, in order to help their subordinates in striving to achieve a goal. Those protocols or rules can come forward in horizontal or vertical regulations and to whom an employee has to report to (Slangen & Beugelsdijk, 2010). Next to that are rules able to explain procedures. This being said, guidelines that have to be strictly followed can limit employees in their work performance (Stone-Romero et al., 2003). In creating a correct image of how these rules need to be followed without limiting a management group member in a negative way (Denisi & Pritchard, 2006). Schein (2010) states that it is critical for managers to obtain a culture in a management group in which communication takes up a big role. Not being able to properly communicate when dealing with internal and external environmental factors will make it hard to achieve goals that are being pursued.
2.7 Communication trust
Communication comes together with trust. A person is firstly gauged and judged if trustworthy enough to share information with (Leonardi & Neeley, 2017). Not knowing if you can trust someone can lead to feeling vulnerable, resulting in miscommunication or misalignment of work done. Though, when management group members do not trust each other, yet, communication interactions can be interpreted as an act of vulnerability (Bandura, 2002). It is therefore satisfying when management group managers make it pleasant for management groups to build trust. This can be done with casual face-to-face meetings or through socializing together for a period of time before a project starts (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). It could also be the case that team members do not see each other often. When dealing with a multicultural team not located on the same location that can lead to different types of trust. Swift trust and passable trust are of value for culturally diverse groups (Geister et al., 2006).
Swift trust is the act of believing in something is true after only one interplay. This can be accomplished through a set up (video)meetings by the management group manager and its subordinates. Resulting in a chat between management group members and allowing them to create a bond of trust with another team member (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999). Therefore, managers try to build up stronger trust because it is one of the components driving effort, communication and structure (Meyerson & Weick, 1996). Passable trust is a different kind of trust that can be of value for multicultural teams that are not stationed at the same location (Leonardi & Neeley, 2017). Because passable trust needs to be developed throughout a period of time by sharing knowledge on media channels. Giving another management group member the opportunity to discover who other participants are. With keeping in mind that, as a
participant of a management group, you need to know the other participants well enough to improve your own performance (Leonardi & Neeley, 2018). This also brings forward a management problem, regarding the failure of managing cultural dimensions and gaining a shared comprehension. Because managers think there is an understanding between management group members when there actually is none. Resulting in stereotyping, bringing forward misinterpretation and judgement (Meyerson & Weick, 1996). Therefore, obtaining knowledge in the understanding of co-workers, in a management group, is of importance for a manager and takes up an important role.
2.8 Managerial knowledge
Encouraging other group members and creating an atmosphere to know each other brings forward direct knowledge (Wikforss, 2004). Direct gain of knowledge can for example be seen as learning about the personal characteristics and behavioral norms of distant colleagues (Leonardi & Neeley, 2017). Knowing more about a person is of value, especially when getting to know certain behavioral routines. Management group managers therefore could allow their subordinate co-workers to speak with each other after a (video)meeting. This would allow for a greater understanding of characteristics, that could also be based upon cultural differences (Wikforss, 2004).
Next to building knowledge in a direct way there also is a reflected way of building knowledge. Reflected knowledge can be seen as an actor of gaining trust through the understanding of someone else (Mortensen & Neeley, 2012). The understanding of other management group employees can come forward through reflection of experiences. Experiences with co-workers, which performed tasks in a different way or coped with information differently than you would have done, lead to the gain of building reflected knowledge (Leonardi & Neeley, 2017). When building direct and reflective knowledge this will result in the development of trust. Gain in trust will lead to more communication, boosting one’s confidence and in doing so, achieving set goals (de Swaan Arons, van den Driest, & Weed, 2014).
2.9 Feedback
In the contrary to holding confidence, employees can have a lack of self-esteem (Robbins & Judge, 2016). Low self-esteem can result in insecurity and behaviour that would not be beneficial for their own key performance indicators and eventually for management group performance. Wiley (1997) states that it is of great importance to give feedback and showing
appreciation when reflecting on the abilities and competences of a management group member. When reflecting on these findings, management group managers should be aware of their personal interpretation (Glinow, Shapiro, & Brett, 2004). Directly concluding what a co-worker has done can lead to misinterpretation, caused by cultural differences, which could negate any positive feedback given. Burris (2012) mentions that paying attention to the underlying motive of where the insecurity comes from has to be found, because it would clear up any discrepancy of cultural or social contrast. Furthermore, honesty is of value when dealing with different cultural backgrounds (Earley, 2002). Being honest is a trait not being implemented in every culture. Though when the environment created by a manager of a management group allows for honesty and openness, the best feedback and clarity in communication is created (Ashford & Black, 1996).
2.10 Cultural diverse management groups
Organisational teams are more diverse than a couple of decades ago and managers need to cope with managerial hurdles that are created by cultural differences (Ang et al., 2007). Management group managers need to incorporate different management techniques in order to develop a management structure that can effectively handle differences in cultural background, held by subordinates (Earley, 2002). Holding differences in cultural heritage in a management team is of importance because cultural diverse teams hold differences in point of view (Kelli, Mayra, Allen, & Karl, 2014; Maznevski & Distefano, 2015).
With the differences in cultural background in management teams, comes the task for managers in creating strategies that are able to cope with diversity in characteristic (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Management style adaptations need to take place regarding: decision making, persuasion, providing feedback, communication, adaptation and target setting and scheduling; in order to handle the most recurring disputes (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Watling, Driessen, Van der Vleuten, Vanstone, & Lingard, 2013). When multicultural management group managers need to make decisions, problems can develop because of different standpoint of how direct subordinates can be approached (Caligiuri & Tarique, 2016).
2.11 Conceptual model
Figure 1 represents an explanatory model of the influences of managerial approaches and traits towards cultural background and work motivation of management group members. The influence of a variable can be followed by means of a directory arrow.
3. Research method
By means of exploring the influences between managerial approaches, cultural backgrounds and work motivation, a qualitative research methodology was adopted. An interview model was created in order to collect data from five managers, during five semi-structured interviews. A qualitative research method was used because it allowed the researcher to analyse and diversify the influences of management approaches towards dealing with cultural differences and motivation held by management group members. On account of the qualitative character of this research, grounded theory was used. Theoretical information, found in already existing theories and concepts, was integrated to formulate the semi-structured interview questions, in order to guide the conversation.
The managers interviewed, randomly applied to taking part in the interview, after hearing about the researcher his thesis by word of mouth. The five interviewed managers would provide information of holding a Dutch cultural background and leading one or more management groups, which contained participants with multiple cultural backgrounds. Each manager would receive an e-mail, at least three days before the interview would take place. This email held information on the essence of: why the research was conducted, the managers role in the research, that the interview would be recorded and transcribed, that the interviewee will stay anonymous, that the interviewee would be able to stop the interview at all time. The interviewees were also informed that the recording of the interview would be destroyed immediately after transcribing the interview.
The information found during each interview, was tested during the interviews that would follow up. This supported the verification of findings and created an understanding of shared but also between different points of view that the interviewed managers held. The interview questions were updated between each interview, to optimise data collection. But also for bettering substantiation of theories and testing the influence of variables and factors.
In order to analyse the data found during and after the five interviews, NVivo coding software was used. The analysis of the data followed the process consisting out of three stages. The first stage consisted out of the open coding stage. Open coding accounted for a wide variety of coding nodes which concentrates on categories of themes that were found in the data. Every line of transcript was inspected, in order to let the researcher become deeply involved in the research data. When the data was checked, the original nodes were given a label. Allowing to conduct the second stage of data cogitation, axial coding. During the axial coding stage, the researcher combined inductive and deductive thinking processes in order to explore and
interconnect the relations between the categories. The final stage of data coding consisted of the selective coding stage. The relation between the categorised nodes were associated with each other and information, that still needs to be clarified, was constructed during this part of data analysis. This involved the re-administration of nodes and categories. Eventually leading to the finding of the categories that form the most important segments related to the research question.
4. Results
The result section will consist of an introductory note on the five interviewees. Followed up with segments presenting and interpreting the data obtained from the interviews.
4.1 Interviewee introduction
Interviewee one, name anonymised to N, works for a company that has multiple facilities across Europe. N is part of a team that consists of seven managers. Every manager provides leadership to multiple facilities in Europe and Asia. N has less experience than the other four interviewees. Though out of the five interviewed managers, N does work most frequently in foreign countries. Interviewee two is a company owner and codified with the letter H. H has been a company owner for several decades and coordinates various management teams. Having worked and lived in foreign countries, allowed H in developing a great understanding of dealing with different cultures.
Interviewee three, given the letter L as reference name, is Vice President and CFO of a multinational organisation. L has to cope with an extensive set of cultural influences and travels from one continent to another. L also works together with an international group of top tier managers.
Interviewee four, given the name of S, works for an industry leading firm. S has to deal with project-based management group members, located all over the world. The projects change every 12 to 18 months and S coordinates multiple projects at ones.
Interviewee five is CSO and manager of various teams, coordinating a total of a few thousand employees. Interviewee five has been given the anonymised name of C. C works for a company that focuses on business to consumer communication.
4.2 Communication strategy influences
Multiple variables influence communication methods when corresponding information from one to each other. According to the data collection, communication is based upon the following three influences: face-to-face interaction, trust and bilaterals.
4.2.1 Face-to-face interaction
Four out of five managers stated a clear preference for face-to-face interaction towards management group members. This in comparison to internet-based interaction. Face-to-face interaction, between information provider and receiver, allows for direct information sharing. This creates a better understanding of conversational purport and allows for quicker information transfer. According to N:
I will travel to a location when I have the opportunity to do so, because face-to-face contact is always better than digital contact. But, unfortunately, that’s not always possible. But when having a digital meeting, I do notice that there is less of an understanding or it does take more time.
When not being able to meet in person, all of the interviewed managers would have comments regarding the use of internet-based video calls, even when making use of software that should make the communication through internet easier. Three out of five managers had a strong negative affiliation with video calls because of connection problems, which would lead to irritations and a loss of time. This resulted in an adverse reaction to using this type of communication. Traveling a distance, to speak to a person face-to-face, was not favourable in each and every case, because the amount of traveling would take up a lot of energy and time. As described by manager L:
We use special software [zoom] when you need to make a video call, but that’s only the case if you cannot travel to a location in person. You just need to accept it in some cases. But when you need to conduct a business review, you always prefer to see a person in person. Because there can always be some issues with the internet connection or you are both at a crowded place, so you cannot understand each other very clear. When you see someone in person, those influences become of lesser importance because you both need to deal with them and can therefore react to it easier.
Another manager described a preference for personal contact out of a necessity. C stated:
Because we provide a piece of tailor made advice, the best way of contact is necessary, which implies traveling to the client. And it does give great pleasure to provide a result to a client in person. You know, seeing someone’s gratitude and receiving thanks like that is worth the time travelled. And to be honest, I have never taken notice of any difference when looking at cultural background.
Face-to-face communication was the favourable way of having contact, making it possible to get rid of influences that can have a negative influence on a conversation. Next to that, an in-person conversation allows for physical gestures that clarify what a in-person is trying to say. Something that can be an advantage when dealing with a person with a different cultural background, especially when wanting to discuss information that needs to be corresponded with no room for error. To make the margin for faults even smaller, it became clear during the data collection that trust is of great influence.
4.2.2 Trust
Being trustworthy is a variable that came forward frequently during the interviews when talking about communication influences. Developing trust, between manager and subordinate, allows for a more natural conversation, approachability and improvement of conversational flow. Next to that, trust plays a major role in confidence and achieving a set goal. Trying to create a structure and implement a management style seemed to begin with the creation of swift trust. Though, the interviewed managers stated that more than one meeting is required to develop a bond of trust with a subordinate. As described by manager N:
Yes, I do notice when my employees trust me, that they do come forward and talk to me more easily. And they would not do that if they did not know me that well and especially not when they do not trust me.
Next to manager N did manager H state the following:
They never tell me the core of something personal. Shortly, you know, it does come down to trust and being trustworthy.
There was a conflict at H his Dutch office and as company owner H had to discuss what went wrong. The quote above is about a discussion and why trust is important to come to the point of discussion where a person is willing to say what he or she wants. This can be related to believing in the trustworthiness of another person and what the information is used for.
Developing trust between manager and management group member is not only necessary for conversational purposes but also when wanting to get something done. L described a situation in which trust was needed to accomplish a process to be done:
You need to obtain trust first before getting anything done in Brazil. Especially if you need to change processes that are being done for a long time. It does not matter if you perfectly know how to describe a process or are well known with personal relations. You cannot achieve anything without knowing those managers and they know that they can trust you. There is pride involved and that is something really valuable to them. That does not only account for Brazilian managers but also other South-American countries and for example Middle-Eastern countries too.
During four out of five interviews, information came forward that culture and trust can be of influence when management group members need to perform a set of tasks. But interestingly, N said that the influence of trust does not change per culture. The difference in perception, between the statement of manager H and N, comes forward in the following quote of manager N:
I do not think that culture plays a too big of a role in how easily people trust one and another. It does maybe change a bit thorough Europe, but I do not have the feeling it changes that much. But trust does influence a lot in conducting almost every process.
Managers can also development a sense of trust with their subordinates when showing gratitude for work they have delivered. In doing so, a manager stimulates personal work motivation as stated very clearly in a quote of C:
If you create a team-goal and make them accountable for their own group success. That’s what will stimulate the growth of pride, trust and their personal work motivation.
Every manager has their own techniques to bring structure to their way of communication. Trust plays a huge role in this process. It did not matter which industry the manager was active in. Being able to communicate without the influence of a distance between manager and subordinate would create a climate in which the communication would be at its best. Allowing for the most optimal knowledge transfer and making the chance of miscommunication smaller, which would result in boasting personal motivation. The five interviewed managers were aware of this, therefore would they conduct bilaterals to make communication more natural.
4.2.3 Bilaterals
Next to conversations that would be focussed on sharing work related topics, three out of five managers would structurally plan bilaterals, resulting in the creation of direct knowledge. In learning more about a person his characteristics and background eventually felt natural for the managers who would conduct bilaterals. The bilaterals would allow for better understanding of daily habits and make it easier to explain differences that could be caused by cultural background, which will make it easier to understand personal reactions and communication structures. For example, manager S said:
With all my subordinates that are remotely distant, I do have a one hour long informal chat on a weekly base, we do call those a bilateral. Those bilaterals help me to understand an employee and provides me with information about what is happening in their environment… This is my personal management style, and I do put a lot of time and effort into knowing a person next to work. I want to know what he or she is conducting next to work and if there are any issues that could influence work.
Next to manager S did manager H state the following:
What I always do is a twenty minute long bilateral. This normally happens on a weekly basis. During those bilaterals, we do keep each other up-to-date about not work-related topics. I do always conduct my bilaterals in person and on location.
The interviewee data shows that managers are interested in what kind of activities their employees take part in next to work, allowing them to better understand their subordinates and helping them to know what is happening in their lives. This results in making them feel more comfortable and stimulated in taking part in management group processes. None of the interviewed managers were negative about creating a better understanding of their co-workers, even if they would not specifically conduct bilaterals. Next to that did two out of the three managers, that would conduct bilaterals, explicitly mention that cultural background has an influence. Employees, with a culture that would be part of a collective, would open up easier. On the contrary, employees with a more individualistic cultural background would not want to share private life with co-workers and are more influenced by hierarchical structures.
Two managers noticed a clear difference per person, with regards to habitation and trust, to taking part in a bilateral. Mentioning a lesser influence of cultural background, because it would not just happen in one region or continent. In developing trust comes the timing and amount of conversations a manager has to conduct with management group members. The analysis of the finding revealed that the frequency of conversations was of importance to managerial processes.
4.3 Frequency
Structured scheme’s and the creation of recurring patterns can lead to the development of norms and reliability. Working routines were differently used by the five interview managers. Manager C mentioned that a frequent communicative chat does lead to a better understanding of co-workers:
Yes, yes, I frequently talk to my clients and subordinates, preferably in person, but unfortunately that is not always possible. At my former job I would always make a small talk to my employees during the morning. So, every morning I
would chat or just see at least one hundred of them. You do learn so much by just looking straight into their eyes, five times a week.
This personalised way of creating a structure by C would eventually lead to a better understanding of his management group members. The ability to notice small differences is very impactful, resulting in a more stable working environment, better communication and improvement of the personal understanding between management group members, regardless of background.
4.4 Rules
There are a lot of rules that need to be followed when taking part in a management group. Problems arise when management groups have members that are geographically remote from each other. The management group managers then have to cope with rules that are specified towards local standards. Local rules can differ greatly when compared with the rules that have been set up at other offices. But not only is there a difference in rules that need to be followed per office, there can also be a personal difference in following the rules as said by N:
We use pre-written guidelines to structure our processes. Every person that signs a contract to work for my company has to sign a contract that they have also read the company guidelines. Though they are not used in the same way by every person. Of course, there is some room for some personal interpretation. But you do want to state some global guidelines that allow own interpretation. Because you don’t want to limit someone in his capabilities because of a flaw in a company rule.
The advice that multiple interviewees gave is that rules should not limit an employee too much. Rules should be there as a well written guideline, with the opportunity for an employee but also for a manager to create an own interpretation of the rule. As summarised by C:
Eventually something like that develops itself. At the end you will notice that someone will find its own way in doing something. The path I have found focuses on the creation of vision and setting clear targets that everyone can understand. It is all about creating a clear goal and putting that goal in reach of someone else, so you can motivate them to strive for that specific goal.
As being said by C, the result of a rule is something that is built upon past action that will define how something has to be structured. H mentions that this can also be an irregularity that will provoke an action to be made:
Rules and taking action is something that has been done or written down because of something happening in the past. At some given moment, I think it was back in 2010. At that time, I had a moment of evaluation and from that moment onwards I have been a bit stricter. Because my subordinates did not follow the rules the way I wanted them to be followed. But I noticed that it was different per country and culture how strictly the rules would be followed. In the Netherlands they would not be followed that correctly at all. But in Asia nobody would do anything but just follow them. Which was difficult to cope with and I therefore had to change in per facility.
In the case of most management group managers, developing a set of rules or codes of conduct, with the freedom for the members to interpret these rules with a personal point of view, would lead to less conflicts and more work delivered. The managers would use these codes of conduct at multiple locations. So, the manager would also understand what rules applied to all of their subordinates. During the interviews of C, the following information came forward regarding this problem:
So, I have created a four-p structure: perspective, planning, proactive communication and pleasure. I always refer back to those four p’s. Because I have taken notice of my employees willing to put more energy and time into their work when they have some freedom. At the start of my career I would have a set of about 25 codes of conduct. But how more you write down, the more you will limit others and the level of strictness in following a pattern. When using a set of about four pillars, you will create space for someone to interpret it on a personal level. All of my management group subordinates know what to do, but in their own way. Though, they are still following the same set of rules and it does really end up in less conflicts and better work done.
This is in line with information that came forward during the interview with L:
I would write down so many rules, thinking it would make my managing process easier. Maybe it did, but I did not like it very much, because all of my employees would feel very much bound to the rules. They know what to do and just do it. But with room for own interpretation. So I therefore make them follow a few rules which all imply room for interpretation. So, I still know what rules are used but it does also help with differences in culture or per person. And it is up to me how to deal with problems that could possibly are caused because of that.
The data that came forward during the interviews clearly show that managers do not want to limit their management group members too much. In doing so, managers create a more productive management team with an increased level of work motivation. Moreover, it can be noted that managers need to deal with rules that do change according to culture and location. Knowing how to interpret those local rules, with an understanding of the cultural influences in mind, can be difficult. The managers would therefore try to limit the influence of cultural perception. For example, by developing basic rules that will allow for personal analysis but would be in line with the global rules of conduct of their organisation. Five out of five managers did not like to deal with negative circumstances all the time. Drowning their own work motivation and creating a generalised negative image towards employees. When allowing employees to subjectively follow rules comes empowerment.
4.5 Empowerment
A manager can empower management group members. Providing more power and/or freedom to act on personal behalf. Empowerment is an act of rule adaptability. Being able to take control over job tasks, and feeling empowered in doing so, can make a person feel more proactive and enhances work motivation. Accomplishing a sense of proactiveness and creating a better interpersonal relation is a recurring theme within the research findings. As being stated by H:
I always give my managers the freedom to act on their own and take action when needed. They can come up with their own way of solving a dispute, most of the times something more creative than I would have been able to come up with. Because they are much more integrated with their own process. As a
general manager you want your employees to lead their department on their own. I just want everyone to do so with all the capabilities they have and the best way possible.
L describes taking an act of freedom with making a process more efficient:
Creating efficiency on the sub-departments, should allow for the improvement of efficiency on even a greater scale then just their own department. Employees will be creative, and you should allow space to do so. This is something that goes quicker within some regions or cultural backgrounds because, for instance, Asian employees do not want to do anything they are not asked to do. It does take some time or even years, to make them realize that they can and are allowed to take action on their own. In one of my Indian departments one girl took action when her supervisor was ill. At that time, she showed leadership skills and was eventually promoted because she did well.
Taking action, by the Indian employee, shows that she feels empowered enough to take action. Whereas in other cultures, for instance Asian, as described in the statement of L, this would not be the case. It is up to the manager to create a working environment where subordinate employees, in the management group, feel empowered enough to conduct action when needed. As described by L, this can be beneficial for the employee itself too. Empowering people can be done through a multiplicity of actions, one of them being stated during interview four with S:
We do have teams that provide presentation to create awareness within our employees at every single one of our locations. Focusing on personal empowerment and that they have the opportunity to ask for more responsibilities or extra projects. Because when it comes from intrinsic motivation to undertake action, it will lead to some really interesting results. Which will eventually benefit our company but also the employee itself.
When managers create a management group culture, in which participants are given the freedom of conducting a task on their own, the efficiency of a group goes up. Resulting in achieving more goals that had been set. This is the result of work being done more efficiently
and because of group members feeling part of a bigger whole. Followed up by improvement of intrinsic motivation and further increasing the need to perform for a management group. With performing comes setting targets and trying to succeed in the goals being set.
4.6 Success/Target
Managers set targets and push their subordinates to succeed in achieving those targets. In doing so, there is a multiplicity of factors that all need to work together in accomplishing goals. All interviews mentioned the importance of targets being set. Especially with the focus on long time management group cohesion, because achieving a target set, does boost group motivation and strengthen the bond between management group member. Targets are also used as guidelines and key performance indicators, allowing management group members to show their personal impact and create the feeling of being important, as described by C:
You cannot work without having any vision or final target in mind. You need to have a certain goal, otherwise everything done beforehand is worthless. Showing that you have taken part in accomplishing a goal will make a person push to obtain that set target. Making them feel good when they have accomplished that goal.
The importance of reaching targets can be stressed during structured meetings. As stated in the bilateral section and by S. Furthermore, reaching a target is of the greatest importance for employers. When targets are not being met, it can result in firing employees, which is something you do not want as management group manager, because cohesion can go down and negatively influence other management group members. For example, S mentions the following:
Yes, for sure. At the end of each year we have closure conversations with every employee. Those meetings are meant to look back at the achievements of an employee over the last twelve months. You could state that performance is key during those conversations. We do stress how a person reached a goal. The route that a person takes to achieve this goal will be discussed thoroughly. We will then make an overall scheme to look at negative and positive points and how to make an employee perform even better. Because it is all about reaching targets. If you do not make a profit for our company, you are out.
With achieving a target, or not, managers could opt for granting their management group member a bonus. Granting a bonus was something every interviewee had done. Though, none of them is still working with bonus-structures anymore. The following was being said about bonus-structures by C:
We have company-, team targets and personal targets. Those are always linked with each other. Employees always focus on reaching their personal target first. Where you want them to work together, I see them doing the opposite. I need to say, I have gradually become smarter.
Interesting to see is a clearly similar answer by H:
We have a variety of targets, so to speak company-, team-, personal and interwoven targets. You do see that employees always strive to complete their personal targets first, even if this would have a lesser priority for the company itself. So, when they say they will work together, they actually do not, because they are so self-focused. I need to say, I have learned this the hard way. Because in the beginning I would prioritize the personal targets for my employees. But that would always end up creating complications for the team targets.
Intrinsic motivational factors allow for greater work-related motivation. Though, five out of five managers state that bonuses are not beneficial for achieving a target, set for a whole management group. The managers identified that succeeding in the achievement of a target set, has to come from intrinsic motivation. If this is not the case, the level of work motivation held, by management group members, will not be of benefit for achieving management group successes. Bonus structures should therefore not be a part of the set of rules that management group managers use, in order to achieve their targets being set. Neither of the managers stated a specific influence of cultural background, influencing the need for bonus structures.
4.7 Feedback
Managers should give their management group members feedback. Feedback given from a manager to a management group member but also vice versa, can hold information of multiple processes, either positive and/or negative. Starting with positive feedback, the analyses of the research findings brought forward information on the benefits of providing positive feedback, as described by H:
I always give my management group members positive feedback. I think it is actually fun to provide people with feedback they can use.
Three out of five managers state that providing management group members with positive feedback will give them a pleasant feeling too, boosting the level of subordinate confidence and improving their personal work motivation. Next to that do co-workers get a direct notice of performing their task successfully. It is also of importance to make clear that good news is spread within a group, as stated by S:
I think it is very important to emphasize what someone has done well. Because employees will cherish the times their ordinates supervisors tell them they did well. And I have gotten back feedback that they found it very nice to receive a positive comment about what they had done. Resulting in them being more energetic and stuff like that. But you can also make people feel good about themselves if you send them an email about their work done with a superior in the CC. Because you know that you are able to promote easier when your name is known at the higher rankings of a company.
Negative feedback has to be brought differently when compared to positive feedback. According to four out of five managers, more variables influence how a management group member reacts to negative feedback. When consulting a management group member, the feedback given should never be negative feedback only, but always combined with positive feedback. Even though, providing negative feedback does help to improve group processes, because employees now know what they can improve. However, negative feedback can act as a burden, especially when made clear that the lack of personal progress has resulted in failure of achieving a target set for the whole management group. It therefore is of great importance
that personal negative feedback is never communicated in front of multiple management group members, but in private. As mentioned by manager L:
You never want to put your disagreements in front of more employees. I think backstabbing is one of the worst moves you can do. And when it has started, it is really hard to fix it.
In analyses of the findings, it also became clear that cultural background does play a role in providing feedback. Managers do need to understand the cultural background of a management group member to make clear what the feedback is about, as being said by N:
For example, you can be incredible hard towards Chinese employees. Face-to-face but also when giving them digital feedback. That is the only way they will understand what you want to tell them. If you act as a softy, they will start and play with you. They really want you to show some punctuality in what you are saying about them.
Next to manager N did manager H state the following:
Of course, I do sometimes provide negative feedback. But in a different way. It depends on cultural background how straight forward you can be. I must say that there is a big difference in how to provide the feedback.
Therefore, feedback can be seen as a method that is of big influence on work motivation held by management group participants. Moreover, the providing of feedback is a method in which managers need to understand what they want to accomplish and what techniques to use. This is different when regarding career opportunities, which can be seen as a personal target being set from out intrinsic motivational perspectives.
4.8 Career opportunities
With feedback comes the option in building your career or it may stall. This does involve clarity between sender and receiver, manager and subordinate. It is important for both parties to set the right expectation. There is a difference in how managers tell their findings and how career opportunities are being made. But the goal of a manager is to know how a management group member wants to grow towards a future career role. In knowing this, a manager can trigger an employee to push even more in accomplishing a personal goal. This can be done with providing them with training methods to strengthen fields of expertise. In providing employees with the opportunity to better their skills, it benefits a company and stimulates growth. Though, a clear understanding of a person’s interest and cultural implications is necessary, as stated by C:
In India they just job-hop to another company that is able to provide them with a better paid job. Money is a great motivator for employees over there because it will give them more opportunities.
Trial and error is part of a management group manager when building an understanding of cultural influences towards the need for personal growth. Nevertheless, management group managers eventually need to gain understanding of adapting quickly towards personal differences based upon differences in cultural background.
4.9 Adaptivity
Cultural differences and feeling the necessity for managerial adaptation varied greatly throughout the interview managers. In adapting to cultural differences ought to be a combination of knowing how to deal with personality traits, room for experimentation and the willingness to fail. C said the following regarding personal adaptation towards different cultural backgrounds:
You just need to discuss the differences that cultures take with them. Dutch employees are really straight forward and could sometimes be considered rude, that is not the case at all in other parts of the world. Though, it does every so often lead to miscommunication. When that happens, you sometimes have no clue what is going on, that could be because you did not grasp the red line of something being said. It is all about creating clarity. A Chinese person will
never tell you what he really thinks about anything. If they give any signal that is less positive, you need to interpreter this as really negative.
When managers eventually know how to deal with cultural differences, it can be of use in strengthening management group capabilities. When combining employees that hold various personality traits, with the knowledge how to structure these employees, better results can be reached as stated by N:
We always create a profile and try to fit in a certain type of person within a team. We do not want to put to many employees with the same type of personality traits within the same management group. You want to have some kind of diversity. Because we have noticed that having diversity can lead to better results. And when you know that people would have a diverse set of interests but also some similar ones, a group will then end up with some interesting conversations. Creating a stronger group at the end. It always applies to employees when there is cohesion. I did also notice an increase in the output of my teams, it really did result in a higher level of work done, even when the pressure is on. So, we do really believe in conducting personality tests, and knowing who we need to place where.
Next to N did three other managers mention the importance of conducting a characteristic test and how useful it can be to know subordinate characteristics. These managers would conduct a specific company character test to find out what kind of personal characteristics their employees hold. Through these characteristic tests, the employer wants to make sure how their employees would fit in with other management group members. Resulting in a group of employees that hold a diverse set of characteristics profiles that complement each other. As quoted by N:
You try to create the best personality profile possible, so you can relate back to this information when something is not going well. A personal profile will end up telling me how I should act with a person. Because I then know what kind of characteristics an employee holds and how they could react. It is all about being as personal as you could be. This will result in the most honest and trustworthy conversations.
Furthermore, management group participants will perform with more work motivation when they know their contribution is of importance (Griffin, 1990). Reinforcing the strengths of a management group, even if it holds a great variety of cultural backgrounds and personal interests. It is therefore important for management group managers to understand how to adapt to these differences. Specifically, in the selection of employees and the understanding of how group members can amplify another employee’s skillset. In knowing how to cope with characteristic changes, motivation itself is also privy to continuous changes.
5. Discussion
This section of the research paper will summarise the factors influencing the managerial activities that multicultural management group managers perform, in order to improve work motivation of their group members. With regards to the influences of communication, structure, empowerment, target setting and feedback. These factors will be illustrated in Figure 2, the selective coding model and discussed in the coming subsections. Figure 2 will hold + (improve) and – (decrease) signs, in showing the influence of the management group managers approaches used and how these methods influence work motivation held by culturally diverse management group members. The influence of a variable can be followed by means of a directory arrow.
5.1 Communication techniques and influences
Two influential communication strategies came forward, during this research, in which a multicultural management group manager, influences subordinate work motivation, in performing specific communication interaction. The two strategies are face-to-face communication and conducting bilaterals.
5.1.1 Face-to-face communication
Face-to-face interaction allows for the most direct information sharing method and a more personal conversation. Making information sharing quicker and without the influences of communication hinder from external factors. These findings are in line with those of previous research in which the influence of direct communication benefits both sender and receiver (Chen et al., 2009; Wikforss, 2004). Next to that is personal interaction of great importance for the structure that a management group holds (Leonardi & Neeley, 2017). When dealing with management group participants with different cultural background, including direct interaction will limit the influence of cultural background (Denisi & Pritchard, 2006). Management group
participants therefore feel part of a group more quickly, resulting in an increase of group cohesion and motivational gain to perform (Berkowitz & Levy, 1956).
5.1.2 Bilaterals
Integrating bilaterals to communication techniques strengthens the bond between employees within a management group (Figure 2). Group members develop a greater understanding of personal characteristics and build group cohesion (Hofstede, 1983). Thus, bilateral make it easier for managers to gain personal trust. Resulting in a more natural way of having conversations with management group members and building up perceived cooperation and gain of feeling of value (Wiley, 1997). Next to that does taking part in a bilateral illustrate the increase in trust and the make it easier to discuss in-depth topics (Schein, 2010). Resulting in feeling less vulnerable as an employee and a decrease in miscommunication because of cultural influences (Bandura, 2002).
The results of the study revealed that the frequency of communication between managers and management group members becomes easier when conversations feel more natural. Lowering the perceived pressure of performing and boosting work motivation (Gabriel, 2002). When the stress to perform lowers, this does lead to improving personal belief and performance delivered. The accomplishment of gain in performance stimulates the ability in coping with external influences (Schein, 2010). Being able to feel less influenced because of a cultural difference (Ang et al., 2007).
5.2 Rules of engagement and empowerment
Research findings of the interviewed managers suggests that multicultural management groups should have a set of rules that allow for personal interpretation. In allowing management group members to freely follow written down codes of conduct, task performance goes up. Resulting in the gain of a more productive team, trust, and enlarging personal work motivation. This is in line with research findings of Englyst et al. (2008) and Latham and Pinder (2005). Though, allowing for own interpretation can lead to misalignment especially when dealing with a variety of culturally diverse standpoints. The base rule therefore has to be very clearly structured (Stone-Romero et al., 2003). This being said, the understanding of a manager and the insight in how management group members are going to deal with room for own interpretation, is based upon personal knowledge and in developing trust. These factors are then combined with vision and managerial appeal (Caligiuri, 2006).
Allowing management group members to subjectively interpret codes of conduct involves empowerment from their manager. Empowerment allows for shifting of responsibilities taken, creating the opportunity for employees to take charge of more tasks. In allowing management group members to take more control over their tasks, the feeling of personal proactiveness goes up (Grant, 2007). Feeling a sense of more responsibility increases the level of intrinsic motivation (Figure 2) and an employee will feel more connectivity towards work delivered (Grant & Parker, 2009; Wiley, 1997).
5.3 Target setting and rewards
The participating managers indicate a strong need for target setting and providing management group members with the tools in doing so. It is of great importance for managers that goals are being reached, especially to obtain long time management group cohesion and fulfilling the need for future career opportunities that employees have. This is in line with the research findings of Latham and Pinder (2005) and of Wiley (2009) and Earley (2002). Though, managers do not change the structuring of to come targets or the adaptation of their management style, in order to cope with cultural differences. This is also the case with rewarding management group members. Intrinsic motivational factors allow for greater work-related motivation, group cohesion (Figure 2) and reaching of targets (Kovach, 1987; Locke & Latham, 1990). When rewarding a bonus, the motivation of striving to reach a target set changes. The research findings indicate that employees lose track of group targets and will point their focus towards personal success.
There is an inconsistence between the research findings in gain of cohesion from a bonus with the findings of Latham and Pinder (2005). None of the interviewed managers state an increase in work motivation and performance delivered for a management group target, when granting a bonus. The managers do notice appreciation for showing approval of work delivered. Especially when achievements are shared with other management teams and managers. This is in line with the research finding of Geister, Konradt and Hertel (2006) that feeling a sense of fulfilment boosts employee motivation. Cultural background does not seem to play a significant role of influence in appreciating gratitude shown. Therefore, managers do not adapt their managerial style because of cultural background.
