Sourced through The Maquiladora Portal, a 2005 edition CD disc copy of. Solunet: Info-Mex, Inc. âThe Complete Twin Plant Guideâ is used in this study. The CD.
COMPARING RELATIONAL MODELS ACROSS CULTURES: DISCOVERING HOW MAQUILADORA AND PARENT COMPANY MANAGERS CONSTRUCT THEIR SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AT WORK
A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the College of Business Administration of Touro University International in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of: Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration
by Mark David Woodhull October 2006
October 24, 2006
Copyright © 2006 Mark David Woodhull, Ph.D.
iii
Figure 1: Dissertation Signature Page
iv BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dr. Mark David Woodhull was born in Akron, Ohio on October 17, 1952, the son of Ralph Everett Woodhull, Jr. and Ruth Marie Woodhull. After completing high school at Colegio Bolivar in Cali, Colombia, South America in 1971, he entered the United States Air Force. While serving in the military, he completed his B.S.B.A. in Marketing at Missouri Western State University in 1983 and went on to receive his M.S.A. in International Administration from Central Michigan University in 1998. Dr. Woodhull retired from the United States Air Force the same year after having served the nation for twenty-seven years. Since his retirement from the military, Dr. Woodhull served as Regional Sales Manager for Africa, Middle East, and South Asia with Heil Environmental Industries (Dover Industries); Export and Government Sales Executive with CompUSA Corporate; and Director of Keller Graduate School of Management at Miami Center (DeVry University). Dr. Woodhull entered the graduate school at Touro University International to begin his doctoral studies in 2001 and completed his dissertation work in 2006. Dr. Mark David Woodhull is now Assistant Professor of Business Administration and director of the marketing major program at Schreiner University in Kerrville, Texas. Dr. Woodhull resides in Boerne, Texas near San Antonio and is married to Karen Diane Woodhull. Dr. and Mrs. Woodhull have eight children; Anastasia, James, Keiska, Melody, Ian, Brandy, Timothy, and Joshua; and three grandchildren; Enrique, Baylee, and Ashton.
v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS I wish to acknowledge and dedicate this dissertation to the people and organizations that provided their advice, assistance, support, and funding of my efforts to complete this international dissertation research project. To my wife, Karen Woodhull: who throughout this entire period of exhilaration and setbacks continually encouraged me to stay focused and forge ahead on my mission. Karen, you never really complained (much) about being a dissertation widow, although I imagine the thought crossed your mind a time or two (or three). You’re my rock in life. To my eight children: Anastasia, James, Keiska, Melody, Ian, Brandy, Timothy, and Joshua; and three grandchildren: Enrique, Baylee, and Ashton; for silently reminding me that there are other elements to life than my dissertation and for seriously honing my multi-tasking skills to a fine degree during my dissertation. Let’s go fishing, kids. To my parents, Ralph and Ruth Woodhull: who have supported me in all my educational endeavors with both encouragement and financial help; love always. To my outstanding dissertation chair, Dr. Debra Louis and the attentive members of my dissertation committee; Dr. Alan Fiske, Dr. Edward Murphy, Jr. and to former chair, Dr. Amit Mukherjee; to Dean Watkins, Dr. Gold, Dr. Flaschner, Dr. Shackman, Dr. Afrookhteh, Dr. Eveland, Dr. Blancero, and Dr. Herbert; for all the time, support, and critical advice that you gave me during this effort. Not once did I feel that I was second priority in any of your very busy lives. Special thanks to the following citizens of Mexico: Inigo Arzac from CitiCorp Financial Services; Humberto Mireles from the Mexican Consulate in San Antonio; Armegol Guerra, and Valeria Pena; all previous international management students of
vi mine at The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA): for all your hard work during the management survey effort in Mexico. All of you were instrumental to the successful production of Mexican maquiladora management data in Mexico. Without your hard work, the cross-border data process would have been infinitely more difficult. To my professional business Spanish translators in Cali, Colombia; Noeme Kattan and Luisa Hurtado Gomez: for professionally translating my survey instrument into global Spanish and to Mexican citizens, Inigo Arzac and Humberto Mireles, for adjusting the global Spanish translation to reflect Mexican maquiladora regional dialects. To my Schreiner University colleague, Dr. Charles Torti, who I talked into starting his Ph.D. at Touro University International after I started and who somehow finished before me; for then acting as my cheerleader along the way (possibly out of a strong urge for revenge). To Touro University International: for providing me Provost scholarships as a graduate assistant and later having the confidence in my abilities to appoint me as a parttime Assistant Professor of Business Administration during my research that helped defray the cost of my graduate education. To The University of Texas at San Antonio: for having confidence in my teaching abilities. By allowing me to teach graduate and undergraduate students in international management, you deepened my international knowledge and teaching experience. Finally, to President Tim Summerlin, VPAA/Provost Mike Looney, and Dean John Jones of Schreiner University: for providing several faculty development grants and for employing me full-time in university teaching these past five years. You added stability to my dissertation research efforts. Thanks to all.
vii CONTENTS BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH..................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS...................................................v LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................xv LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. xvii ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... xxiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH TOPIC ........................................1 The Purpose of the Research .......................................................................................1 Definition of Terms .....................................................................................................7 What is a Maquiladora? ......................................................................................7 What is a Parent Company? ................................................................................8 What is Relational Models Theory (RMT)? .......................................................8 What is Communal Sharing (CS)?......................................................................8 What is Authority Ranking (AR)? ......................................................................8 What is Equality Matching (EM)? ......................................................................9 What is Market Pricing (MP)? ............................................................................9 Summary......................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER II THE LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................11 A Review of Expatriate Attrition Factors..................................................................11 A Review of Cross-Cultural Management Research.................................................14 A Review of Cultural Factors in Mexico, United States, and Canada ......................14 A Review of Maquiladora Studies ............................................................................22 A Review of the Theoretical Foundation ..................................................................29 Fiske’s Four Relational Models ........................................................................29 Communal Sharing (CS)...........................................................................29
viii Authority Ranking (AR) ...........................................................................30 Equality Matching ....................................................................................30 Market Pricing (MP).................................................................................30 The Contextual Domains...................................................................................35 The Domain of Exchange .........................................................................35 The Domain of Distribution......................................................................36 The Domain of Work................................................................................38 The Domain of Morals..............................................................................39 The Domain of Decisions .........................................................................41 The Domain of Influence..........................................................................44 The Domain of Identity ............................................................................46 The Research Hypotheses..........................................................................................49 Communal Sharing (CS) Hypothesis ................................................................50 Authority Ranking (AR) Hypothesis ................................................................50 Equality Matching (EM) Hypothesis ................................................................50 Market Pricing (MP) Hypothesis ......................................................................50 CHAPTER III THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY......................................................52 The Research Design.................................................................................................52 The Variables.............................................................................................................52 The Participants .........................................................................................................54 Key Source Information and Research Tools............................................................54 The Sample ................................................................................................................55 The Sample Size................................................................................................57 The Instrumentation...................................................................................................59 The Study Instrument Scales and the Pilot Test................................................60
ix The Pilot Study Conclusions.............................................................................62 The Reliability of the Instrument ......................................................................64 The Validity of the Instrument..........................................................................66 The Research Procedures ..........................................................................................68 The Data Analysis Procedures...................................................................................69 Statistical Tests .................................................................................................69 The Conceptual Model ..............................................................................................72 The Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations of the Study ................................74 The Assumptions...............................................................................................74 The Limitations .................................................................................................75 The Delimitations..............................................................................................77 Summary....................................................................................................................77 CHAPTER IV THE RESEARCH RESULTS ...................................................................80 A Quick Review of the Research Purpose ................................................................80 How the Data Was Prepared......................................................................................81 Analysis of the Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................82 The Distribution of the Sample by Organizational Affiliation .........................83 The Distribution of the Study Sample by Region Working in Mexico.............83 The Distribution of the Study Sample by Region Working in US/Canada.......86 Analysis of the Relational Models Data....................................................................90 Evidence of Social Relational Differences .......................................................92 Addressing the Hypotheses ...............................................................................93 Communal Sharing (CS) Hypothesis........................................................93 How NAFTA Managers Use the Communal Sharing (CS) Model...................95 Authority Ranking (AR) Hypothesis ........................................................97
x How NAFTA Managers Use the Authority Ranking (AR) Model ...................99 Equality Matching (EM) Hypothesis......................................................101 How NAFTA Managers Use the Equality Matching (EM) Model.................103 Market Pricing (MP) Hypothesis............................................................105 How NAFTA Managers Use the Market Pricing (MP) Model.......................107 Descriptive Cross-Tabulation Analysis of the Research Data by Domain..............109 Graphical Analysis of Results by Domains.............................................................110 How NAFTA Managers Organize in the Domain of Exchange.............110 How NAFTA Managers Organize in the Domain of Distribution .........114 How NAFTA Managers Organize in the Domain of Work ...................117 How NAFTA Managers Organize in the Domain of Morals .................120 How NAFTA Managers Organize in the Domain of Decisions.............123 How NAFTA Managers Organize in the Domain of Influence .............126 How NAFTA Managers Organize in the Domain of Identity ................129 Repeated Measures ANOVA Analysis ...........................................................132 Multivariate Tests ...................................................................................132 Mauchly’s Test of Sphericity..................................................................133 Parameter Tests.......................................................................................134 Test of Within-Subjects Effects..............................................................141 Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts ........................................................142 Significance of the Data Results .....................................................................146 Test Statistic and p-Value Comparisons.................................................147 Composite Analysis of the Mann-Whitney U Statistics .........................154 Strong Evidence of Social Relational Differences..........................................156 Some Cross-Cultural Commonalities..............................................................159
xi CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH ...............161 Interpretation of Results: The Research Questions.........................................161 Interpretation of Results: The Hypotheses......................................................162 The Communal Sharing (CS) Hypothesis ..............................................165 The Authority Ranking (AR) Hypothesis...............................................165 The Equality Matching (EM) Hypothesis...............................................166 The Market Pricing (MP) Hypothesis.....................................................166 Graphical View of Composite Results ...................................................167 Interpretation of Results: The Relational Models Theory...............................168 Summary of the Results...........................................................................................172 Implications and Contributions to Relational Models Research .............................174 Implications and Contributions to NAFTA Managers ............................................174 Post-Study Limiting Factors....................................................................................176 Some Suggestions for Future NAFTA and Relational Models Theory Research...180 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................184 APPENDIX A SUBJECT CONSENT AND SURVEY INSTRUMENT ......................193 IRB Review Form....................................................................................................193 Woodhull-Louis-Fiske-Murphy Relational Models Survey....................................194 APPENDIX B PILOT STUDY ......................................................................................206 Pilot Test Analysis...................................................................................................210 APPENDIX C CROSS-TABULATION OF DATA ......................................................213 Differences within the Relational Model of Communal Sharing (CS) ...................213 Communal Sharing (CS) in the Domain of Exchange ....................................213 Communal Sharing (CS) in the Domain of Distribution ................................214 Communal Sharing (CS) in the Domain of Work...........................................215
xii Communal Sharing (CS) in the Domain of Morals ........................................216 Communal Sharing (CS) in the Domain of Decisions ....................................217 Communal Sharing (CS) in the Domain of Influence.....................................218 Communal Sharing (CS) in the Domain of Identity .......................................219 Differences within the Relational Model of Authority Ranking (AR)....................220 Authority Ranking (AR) in the Domain of Exchange ....................................220 Authority Ranking (AR) in the Domain of Distribution.................................221 Authority Ranking (AR) in the Domain of Work ...........................................222 Authority Ranking (AR) in the Domain of Morals.........................................223 Authority Ranking (AR) in the Domain of Decisions ....................................224 Authority Ranking (AR) in the Domain of Influence .....................................225 Authority Ranking (AR) in the Domain of Identity........................................226 Differences within the Relational Model of Equality Matching (EM)....................227 Equality Matching (EM) in the Domain of Exchange ....................................227 Equality Matching (EM) in the Domain of Distribution.................................228 Equality Matching (EM) in the Domain of Work...........................................229 Equality Matching (EM) in the Domain of Morals.........................................230 Equality Matching (EM) in the Domain of Decisions ....................................231 Equality Matching (EM) in the Domain of Influence.....................................232 Equality Matching (EM) in the Domain of Identity........................................233 Differences within the Relational Model of Market Pricing (MP)..........................234 Market Pricing (MP) in the Domain of Exchange ..........................................234 Market Pricing (MP) in the Domain of Distribution.......................................235 Market Pricing (MP) in the Domain of Work.................................................236 Market Pricing (MP) in the Domain of Morals...............................................237
xiii Market Pricing (MP) in the Domain of Decisions ..........................................238 Market Pricing (MP) in the Domain of Influence...........................................239 Market Pricing (MP) in the Domain of Identity..............................................240 APPENDIX D NONPARAMETRIC TESTS BY CONTEXTUAL DOMAIN.............241 The Domain of Exchange ........................................................................................242 The Domain of Distribution ....................................................................................243 The Domain of Work...............................................................................................244 The Domain of Morals ............................................................................................245 The Domain of Decisions........................................................................................246 The Domain of Influence.........................................................................................247 The Domain of Identity ...........................................................................................248 APPENDIX E NONPARAMETRIC TESTS BY RELATIONAL MODEL .................249 The Communal Sharing (CS) Relational Model .....................................................250 The Authority Ranking (AR) Relational Model......................................................251 The Equality Matching (EM) Relational Model .....................................................252 The Market Pricing (MP) Relational Model ...........................................................253 APPENDIX F REPEATED MEASURES ANOVA ......................................................254 Repeated Measures ANOVA Descriptive Statistics................................................254 Profile Plots .............................................................................................................270 Composite Domains Profile Plot.....................................................................270 Profile Plots by Contextual Domain ...............................................................271 APPENDIX G CURRICULUM VITA...........................................................................278 Education.................................................................................................................278 Professional Experience ..........................................................................................278 Publications .............................................................................................................279
xiv Conference Papers and Presentations......................................................................279 Works in Progress....................................................................................................279 Invited Edits and Reviews .......................................................................................280
xv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Dissertation Signature Page................................................................................ iii Figure 2: A Conceptual Model of the Study..................................................................... 73 Figure 3: Maquiladora Response Regions in Mexico (By Percentage)............................ 85 Figure 4: Parent Company Response Regions in the United States (By Percentage) ...... 88 Figure 5: Parent Company Response Regions in Canada (By Percentage)...................... 89 Figure 6: How NAFTA Managers Use the Communal Sharing (CS) Model................... 96 Figure 7: How NAFTA Managers Use the Authority Ranking (AR) Model ................. 100 Figure 8: How NAFTA Managers Use the Equality Matching (EM) Model ................. 104 Figure 9: How NAFTA Managers Use the Market Pricing (MP) Model ....................... 108 Figure 10: How NAFTA Managers Organize in the Domain of Exchange ................... 112 Figure 11: How NAFTA Managers Organize in the Domain of Distribution................ 115 Figure 12: How NAFTA Managers Organize in the Domain of Work .......................... 118 Figure 13: How NAFTA Managers Organize in the Domain of Morals........................ 121 Figure 14: How NAFTA Managers Organize in the Domain of Decisions ................... 124 Figure 15: How NAFTA Managers organize in the Domain of Influence ..................... 127 Figure 16: How NAFTA Managers Organize in the Domain of Identity....................... 130 Figure 17: Estimated Marginal Means of Measure_1..................................................... 167 Figure 18: OrgAffil*MODELS Profile Plot ................................................................... 270 Figure 19: OrgAffil*MODELS*EXCHANGE Profile Plot ........................................... 271 Figure 20: OrgAffil*MODELS*DISTRIBUTION Profile Plot ..................................... 272 Figure 21: OrgAffil*MODELS*WORK Profile Plot ..................................................... 273 Figure 22: OrgAffil*MODELS*MORALS Profile Plot................................................. 274
xvi Figure 23: OrgAffil*MODELS*DECISIONS Profile Plot ............................................ 275 Figure 24: OrgAffil*MODELS*INFLUENCE Profile Plot ........................................... 276 Figure 25: OrgAffil*MODELS*INFLUENCE Profile Plot ........................................... 277
xvii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions: Mexico, United States, and Canada ............. 15 Table 2: Comparative Table - Cultural Factors ................................................................ 17 Table 3: Comparative Table - Management Style ............................................................ 19 Table 4: Comparative Table - Education Level................................................................ 20 Table 5: Relation of Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism ................ 32 Table 6: Organizational Affiliation Distribution of Managers ......................................... 83 Table 7: Region Working in Mexico - Category: Organizational Affiliation .................. 84 Table 8: Region Working in US/Canada - Category: Organizational Affiliation ............ 87 Table 9: Relational Model Preference for Communal Sharing (CS)................................ 94 Table 10: Relational Model Preference for Authority Ranking (AR) .............................. 98 Table 11: Relational Model Preference for Equality Matching (EM) ............................ 102 Table 12: Relational Model Preference for Market Pricing (MP) .................................. 106 Table 13: Model Selection in the Domain of Exchange - Organizational Affiliation .... 111 Table 14: Model Selection in the Domain of Distribution - Organizational Affiliation 114 Table 15: Model Selection in the Domain of Work - Organizational Affiliation........... 117 Table 16: Model Selection in the Domain of Morals - Organizational Affiliation ........ 120 Table 17: Model Selection in the Domain of Decisions - Organizational Affiliation .... 123 Table 18: Model Selection in the Domain of Influence - Organizational Affiliation..... 126 Table 19: Model Selection in the Domain of Identity - Organizational Affiliation ....... 129 Table 20: Multivariate Tests (b) ..................................................................................... 132 Table 21: Mauchly's Test of Sphericity (b) .................................................................... 133 Table 22: Parameter Estimates for OrgAffil*MODELS*EXCHANGE ........................ 134
xviii Table 23: Parameter Estimates for OrgAffil*MODELS*DISTRIBUTION .................. 135 Table 24: Parameter Estimates for OrgAffil*MODELS*WORK .................................. 136 Table 25: Parameter Estimates for OrgAffil*MODELS*MORALS.............................. 137 Table 26: Parameter Estimates for OrgAffil*MODELS*DECISIONS.......................... 138 Table 27: Parameter Estimates for OrgAffil*MODELS*INFLUENCE ........................ 139 Table 28: Parameter Estimates for OrgAffil*MODELS*IDENTITY............................ 140 Table 29: Tests of Within-Subjects Effects .................................................................... 141 Table 30: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts ................................................................ 143 Table 31: Statistical Tests p-Value Summary - Exchange.............................................. 147 Table 32: Statistical Tests p-Value Summary - Distribution .......................................... 148 Table 33: Statistical Tests p-Value Summary - Work .................................................... 149 Table 34: Statistical Tests p-Value Summary - Morals .................................................. 150 Table 35: Statistical Tests p-Value Summary - Decisions.............................................. 151 Table 36: Statistical Tests p-Value Summary - Influence .............................................. 152 Table 37: Statistical Tests p-Value Summary - Identity................................................. 153 Table 38: Composite Analysis of Dominant Groups by Model & Domain with MannWhitney U Statistics ............................................................................................... 155 Table 39: Treatment of the Research Hypotheses by Model and Domain ..................... 164 Table 40: Solution Choice by Exchange - CS - Organizational Affiliation ................... 213 Table 41: Solution Choice by Distribution - CS - Organizational Affiliation................ 214 Table 42: Solution Choice by Work - CS - Organizational Affiliation .......................... 215 Table 43: Solution Choice by Morals - CS - Organizational Affiliation........................ 216 Table 44: Solution Choice by Decisions - CS - Organizational Affiliation ................... 217
xix Table 45: Solution Choice by Influence - CS - Organizational Affiliation .................... 218 Table 46: Solution Choice by Identity - CS - Organizational Affiliation....................... 219 Table 47: Solution Choice by Exchange - AR - Organizational Affiliation................... 220 Table 48: Solution Choice by Distribution - AR - Organizational Affiliation ............... 221 Table 49: Solution Choice by Work - AR - Organizational Affiliation ......................... 222 Table 50: Solution Choice by Morals - AR - Organizational Affiliation ....................... 223 Table 51: Solution Choice by Decisions - AR - Organizational Affiliation................... 224 Table 52: Solution Choice by Influence - AR - Organizational Affiliation ................... 225 Table 53: Solution Choice by Identity - AR - Organizational Affiliation ...................... 226 Table 54: Solution Choice by Exchange - EM - Organizational Affiliation .................. 227 Table 55: Solution Choice by Distribution - EM - Organizational Affiliation............... 228 Table 56: Solution Choice by Work - EM - Organizational Affiliation ......................... 229 Table 57: Solution Choice by Morals - EM - Organizational Affiliation....................... 230 Table 58: Solution Choice by Decisions - EM - Organizational Affiliation .................. 231 Table 59: Solution Choice by Influence - EM - Organizational Affiliation ................... 232 Table 60: Solution Choice by Identity - EM - Organizational Affiliation...................... 233 Table 61: Solution Choice by Exchange - MP - Organizational Affiliation................... 234 Table 62: Solution Choice by Distribution - MP - Organizational Affiliation ............... 235 Table 63: Solution Choice by Work - MP - Organizational Affiliation ......................... 236 Table 64: Solution Choice by Morals - MP - Organizational Affiliation ....................... 237 Table 65: Solution Choice by Decisions - MP - Organizational Affiliation................... 238 Table 66: Solution Choice by Influence - MP - Organizational Affiliation ................... 239 Table 67: Solution Choice by Identity - MP - Organizational Affiliation...................... 240
xx Table 68: Mann-Whitney U Mean of Ranks: Domain of Exchange .............................. 242 Table 69: Mann-Whitney U for Group Differences (a), Domain: Exchange ................. 242 Table 70: Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, Domain: Exchange ...................... 242 Table 71: Mann-Whitney U Mean of Ranks: Domain of Distribution........................... 243 Table 72: Mann-Whitney U for Group Differences (a), Domain: Distribution.............. 243 Table 73: Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, Domain: Distribution................... 243 Table 74: Mann-Whitney U Mean of Ranks: Domain of Work ..................................... 244 Table 75: Mann-Whitney U for Group Differences (a), Domain: Work........................ 244 Table 76: Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, Domain: Work ............................. 244 Table 77: Mann-Whitney U Mean of Ranks: Domain of Morals................................... 245 Table 78: Mann-Whitney U for Group Differences (a), Domain: Morals...................... 245 Table 79: Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, Domain: Morals........................... 245 Table 80: Mann-Whitney U Mean of Ranks: Domain of Decisions .............................. 246 Table 81: Mann-Whitney U for Group Differences (a), Domain: Decisions ................. 246 Table 82: Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, Domain: Decisions ...................... 246 Table 83: Mann-Whitney U Mean of Ranks: Domain of Influence ............................... 247 Table 84: Mann-Whitney U for Group Differences (a), Domain: Influence.................. 247 Table 85: Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, Domain: Influence ....................... 247 Table 86: Mann-Whitney U Mean of Ranks: Domain of Identity.................................. 248 Table 87: Mann-Whitney U for Group Differences (a), Domain: Identity..................... 248 Table 88: Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, Domain: Identity.......................... 248 Table 89: Mann-Whitney U for Group Differences (a), Communal Sharing (CS) ........ 250 Table 90: Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Communal Sharing (CS) ..................... 250
xxi Table 91: Mann-Whitney U for Group Differences (a), Authority Ranking (AR)......... 251 Table 92: Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Authority Ranking (AR)...................... 251 Table 93: Mann-Whitney U for Group Differences (a), Equality Matching (EM) ........ 252 Table 94: Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Equality Matching (EM)...................... 252 Table 95: Mann-Whitney U for Group Differences (a), Market Pricing (MP) ............ 253 Table 96: Two-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Market Pricing (MP)............................ 253 Table 97: Between-Subjects Factors for All Within-Subjects ANOVA Tables............. 254 Table 98: ANOVA Descriptive Statistics in the Domain of Exchange .......................... 255 Table 99: ANOVA Descriptive Statistics in the Domain of Distribution ...................... 255 Table 100: ANOVA Descriptive Statistics in the Domain of Work............................... 256 Table 101: ANOVA Descriptive Statistics in the Domain of Morals ............................ 256 Table 102: ANOVA Descriptive Statistics in the Domain of Decisions ........................ 257 Table 103: ANOVA Descriptive Statistics in the Domain of Influence......................... 257 Table 104: ANOVA Descriptive Statistics in the Domain of Identity ........................... 258 Table 105: ANOVA Within-Subjects Factors ................................................................ 259 Table 106: Multivariate Tests (b) ................................................................................... 260 Table 107: Mauchly's Test of Sphericity (b) .................................................................. 261 Table 108: Tests of Within-Subjects Effects .................................................................. 262 Table 109: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts .............................................................. 263 Table 110: Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts (Continued) .......................................... 264 Table 111: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ............................................................... 265 Table 112: Parameter Estimates for the Domain of Exchange ....................................... 265 Table 113: Parameter Estimates for the Domain of Distribution ................................... 266
xxii Table 114: Parameter Estimates for the Domain of Work.............................................. 266 Table 115: Parameter Estimates for the Domain of Morals ........................................... 267 Table 116: Parameter Estimates for the Domain of Decisions ....................................... 267 Table 117: Parameter Estimates for the Domain of Influence........................................ 268 Table 118: Parameter Estimates for the Domain of Identity .......................................... 268 Table 119: ANOVA Estimates ....................................................................................... 269 Table 120: Pairwise Comparisons .................................................................................. 269 Table 121: Univariate Tests ............................................................................................ 269
xxiii
ABSTRACT COMPARING RELATIONAL MODELS ACROSS CULTURES: DISCOVERING HOW MAQUILADORA AND PARENT COMPANY MANAGERS CONSTRUCT THEIR SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AT WORK Mark David Woodhull, Ph.D. Touro University International 2006 This cross-cultural business anthropology study focuses on how Mexican maquiladora managers and United States/Canada parent company managers construct social relationships at work. Lifting the veil of national culture, the study focuses on the cultural environment of organizational-level management. High attrition among NAFTA management expatriates and the regional importance of NAFTA partner relationships requires a better understanding of managerial differences in collectivistic Hispanic Mexico and individualistic Anglo United States and Canada. The study relies on Alan Page Fiske’s 1991 Relational Models Theory (RMT) to form a theoretical basis for research. Relational Models Theory describes all human social relationships as behavior manifestations of four fundamental constructs; Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, and Market Pricing. The models are compared across the contextual domains of Exchange, Distribution & Use, Work, Morals, Decisions, Influence, and Identity that serve to define the management environment. The study employs survey and empirical methodology on rank-ordered ordinal data. Results indicate highly significant scope and scale differences and some commonalities in how Mexican maquiladora managers and parent company managers from the United States and Canada organize relationships in their respective work environments. Implications for Relational Models
xxiv
Theory and NAFTA-related research are discussed and future international management research directions suggested.
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH TOPIC This chapter introduces the research by stating the core thesis statement and outlining the purpose and intent of the research. This chapter briefly introduces the applied theory of Relational Models Theory (Fiske, 1991, 1992, 1999) and the contextual domains that serve to frame the study (Fiske, 1991; Haslam, 1994a; Haslam & Fiske, 1999). This chapter states the research questions posed by this study and briefly outlines the major findings of the study. Finally, this chapter defines key terms used in the study. The Purpose of the Research Mexican maquiladora managers and parent company managers from the United States and Canada construct their social relationships differently in the workplace. The presence of social relational differences are culturally related and cultural factors often lead to high levels of expatriate manager attrition (Mendenhall and Oddou, 1985, 39-47; Tung, 1988; Naumann, 1992; Harrison, 1994, 17-36; Torbiorn, 1994, 5-17; Harzing, 1995, 457-474; Lindsley and Braithwaite, 1996; Shannonhouse, 1996, 8A; Forster, 1997, 414-433; Kotabe and Helsen, 1998; Daniels and Insch, 1998, 13-23; Dolins, 1999, 1-11; Mezias and Scandura, 2005, 519-538). High expatriate attrition is just one adverse consequence of cross-cultural misunderstanding and incongruence. Cultural conflict in the workplace can also wreck product and service quality, management and workforce efficiencies and morale, and adversely impact contractual negotiations, and business-to-consumer and business-tobusiness relationships. Companies that form cross-cultural project teams need also worry about the confluence of the team environment to be successful.
2
To overcome the effects of cultural conflict in the workplace environment, managers must understand what causes cultural conflicts and be able to determine how to avoid further conflict or repair the existing work environment. None of this can be accomplished by managers without having some specific knowledge about the relational dynamics between the conflicting groups or individuals. The ideal would be for managers to be able to measure or map relationship behavior within and between organizations, departments, teams, or individuals and by doing so, be able to fully understand relationship dynamics before conflict occurs or be proactive in shaping management relationships for positive outcomes. Knowledge and knowledge management are important tools to managers in all cultures. For example, many corporations and universities who do business or interact with China have compiled knowledge of the Chinese social-relational concept of Guanxi. Managers must be highly knowledgeable and trained in recognizing the many pitfalls of ignoring Guanxi when doing business in China. Managers in possession of specific knowledge regarding the relationship behavior of culturally dissimilar co-workers, negotiating partners, suppliers, parent organizations, or even customers, are better poised for successful outcomes in their business relationships. This is especially true of the unique relationships that are formed in the culturally diverse North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between principals from Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Many of the cross-cultural conflicts that plague NAFTA partnerships center about issues like expatriate attrition, quality control and production efficiency issues, environmental, labor and gender fairness issues, and adverse working conditions and workplace relationships. There is very little in the way of constructive knowledge of the cross-
3
cultural work environment available to NAFTA managers to use as tools to avoid or resolve conflict. While the aforementioned ideal of mapping relationship behaviors for constructive managerial purposes may seem vastly unachievable, the ability to present more specific knowledge of cross-cultural relationship behavior differences or commonalities to managers is achievable. This study focuses on seeking out new methods of gathering knowledge about cross-cultural managerial relationships in NAFTA between Mexican maquiladora managers and parent company managers from the United States and Canada. The benefit to NAFTA managers is the presentation of a new way of increasing the body of knowledge that surrounds their cross-cultural relationships and that could help NAFTA managers fully understand the dynamics of their relationships in much the same way as other managers seek out understanding of Guanxi to better their working relationships with Chinese business partners. This study takes a first step in developing a measurement instrument that will help determine how Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S./Canadian parent company managers organize work relationships in their respective organizations. The availability of a reliable measurement instrument ideally could serve to map cultural relationship patterns at the plant level and individual level rather than reliance on much broader definitions of cultural interactions at national culture levels (Hofstede, 1980). As a minimum, it could serve to increase the body of knowledge available to NAFTA managers regarding their cross-cultural workplace environment. This study’s core research question asks if there are culturally-based relational
4
differences between Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S./Canadian parent company managers in how they form social relationships in their respective work organizations. This study finds that cultural differences do exist between the study groups and are likely to play a significant role in shaping managerial social relationship construction in the workplace. The research results are based on the discovery and empirical comparison of cross-cultural survey data that illuminates specifically how maquiladora managers from Mexico and parent company managers from the United States and Canada construct social relationships in their respective organizations. Offered as a study in business anthropology, this research effort reveals the social relational differences and similarities among maquiladora managers in Mexico and parent company managers in the United States and Canada; a managerial relationship which forms a Hispanic/Anglo cultural dyad within the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partnership. This study looks at the formation of managerial social relationships through the theoretical framework of Relational Models Theory, described in brief as RMT. Relational Models Theory emerged from the social science of anthropology. Anthropology is the study of humankind. Managers are a subset of that broadest human group description. With this concept in mind, this research study’s theoretical framework is based on Relational Models Theory (Fiske, 1991, 1992, 1999); an anthropological socio-cultural theory developed by University of California at Los Angeles anthropology professor and socio-cultural researcher, Dr. Alan Page Fiske.
5
Relational Models Theory describes all human social relationships as human behavior manifestations of four structurally distinct social relational models. These distinct models are: Communal Sharing (CS), Authority Ranking (AR), Equality Matching (EM), and Market Pricing (MP) (Fiske 1991; Haslam, 1994a, 1994b). Comparing differences in the construction of workplace relationships within the management cultures of Mexico and the management cultures of the United States and Canada requires a common contextual domain framework. Seven contextual workplace domains serve to frame this study; Exchange, Distribution & Use, Work, Morals, Decisions, Influence, and Identity (Fiske, 1991; Haslam, 1994a; Haslam & Fiske, 1999). Research results serve to render the general cultural assumptions of the social relational differences between maquiladora managers and parent company managers; into a specific organizational level of understanding. This study serves to advance the acceptance of Fiske’s Relational Models Theory (1991, 1992, 1999), as a reliable theoretical basis for cross-cultural management research and act as a new starting point for research streams using Relational Models Theory in cross-cultural management research; specifically in the body of knowledge that describes Relational Models Theory and cross-cultural management relationships in the NAFTA international partnership. The measurement instrument used in this study serves as an initial tool that can be further developed to map cultural dyads within the confines of the present study; and be adapted to other cultural dyadic relationships within the boundaries of cross-cultural management research. This research project endeavors to study the social relational differences between
6
Mexican maquiladora managers and their U.S. and Canadian parent company managers through the variable of culture. By understanding the social relational construct differences across the two cultures, this research study adds to the body of knowledge that will assist maquiladora and parent company managers in integrating their management functions in a more efficient and culturally attuned manner and add a reliable measurement tool that managers can use to promote continued research and identifying managers who are a good fit in maquiladora expatriate management positions. Statement of the Research Questions With cross-cultural managerial relationships as a driving focus, there are three guiding questions to which this study seeks answers. Are there culturally-based social relational differences between Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S./Canadian parent company managers in how they form social relationships in their respective work organizations? If so, which relational models do Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S./Canadian parent company managers draw on to form their social relationships in their respective workplace environs? Are ordinal, rank-ordered, scenario-based management survey instruments an effective means with which to measure Relational Models cross-cultural management environments? Analysis of the research data within the framework of Relational Models Theory (RMT), contextualized by seven selected workplace domains, provides answers to these guiding questions.
7
This study departs from the broader values-based research and seeks to explore a more defined and focused relationship-based avenue of cross-cultural research by focusing on specific managerial relationships patterns found in maquiladora manufacturing partner work environments in Mexico and in the United States and Canada. This study employs a newly developed relational models survey instrument as a means for data production. This management-oriented bilingual (Spanish/English) survey instrument is built upon contextual domain elements previously used in three surveys developed by Fiske and Haslam (1999) and were provided to this researcher for the development of a cross-cultural management survey instrument (A.P. Fiske, personal communication, October 9, 2003). The current survey instrument draws its’ scenario-based format and ordinal rank order measurement design from unpublished survey instrument work developed by Connelley (1998). From this precedence of work, this researcher developed a new instrument with a cross-cultural management-oriented focus and a bilingual (Spanish/English) capability designed to measure the social relational environment of Mexican maquiladoras and parent companies in the United States and Canada. Definition of Terms What is a Maquiladora? Manufacturing assembly plants in Mexico, usually concentrated along the Mexican border with the United States. Maquiladoras are owned by non-Mexican corporations and produce finished goods for the U.S. market using components supplied through reduced tariff importation. Maquiladoras are attractive because they offer
8
significantly lower labor costs and regional location to the U.S. market. Maquiladoras are one of Mexico's primary sources of export income. What is a Parent Company? In maquiladora terms, a parent company is a non-Mexican company that has expanded portions of its manufacturing assembly operations to Mexico in order to reduce labor costs and to return the finished goods to the U.S. market in order to compete with competitive global products being imported into the U.S. under modern free trade agreements. What is Relational Models Theory (RMT)? A social anthropological theory developed by Dr. Alan Page Fiske of the University of California at Los Angeles. The theory describes all human social interaction within the bounds of four primary social constructs: Communal Sharing (CS); Authority Ranking (AR); Equality Matching (EM); and Market Pricing (MP). The theory has broad applications within the social sciences, including business and organizational behavior. What is Communal Sharing (CS)? Communal Sharing (CS) is a relationship in which people treat some dyad or group as kinship or even family, equivalent and undifferentiated with respect to the social domain in question (Fiske, 1992, p. 689). What is Authority Ranking (AR)? In Authority Ranking (AR) people have asymmetric positions in a linear hierarchy in which subordinates defer, respect, and (perhaps) obey, while superiors take precedence and take pastoral responsibility for subordinates (Fiske, 1992, p. 689).
9
What is Equality Matching (EM)? In Equality Matching (EM) relationships people keep track of the balance or difference among participants and know what would be required to restore balance (Fiske, 1992, p. 689). What is Market Pricing (MP)? Market Pricing (MP) relationships are oriented to socially meaningful ratios or rates such as prices, wages, interest, rents, tithes, or cost-benefit analyses (Fiske, 1992, p. 689). Summary The primary research question answered in this study is: Are there culturallybased relational differences between Mexican maquiladora managers and parent company managers in how they form relationships in their respective work organizations? Adjunct to the core research question, this study defines the patterns of reliance on the Relational Models by both Mexican maquiladora managers and parent company managers in the United States and Canada. This study also addresses the utility of a rank-ordered, scenario-based, managerial survey instrument to resolve research questions in the cross-cultural management environment. Relational Models Theory (Fiske, 1991, 1992, 1999) is used as a theoretical basis in this study. The study combines bilingual and management research context; and employs a modified survey instrument based on relational survey instrument work developed by Alan Fiske (personal communication, October 9, 2003) and additional
10
organizational behavior instrument work developed by Debra Louis (personal communication, June 16, 2004). The bilingual management research instrument is used to produce data from maquiladora managers in Mexico and their parent company managers in the United States. The resultant ordinal data is tested for reliability and subjected to rigorous nonparametric tests. Specific tests that the data is subjected to for analysis are: descriptive cross-tabulation and graphical analysis of the data; the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for grouped data; and Repeated Measures ANOVA. Conclusions are drawn based on hypothesis testing, the analysis results presented, and future avenues for further study defined.
CHAPTER II THE LITERATURE REVIEW A thorough review of the available research literature draws attention to three areas of interest. The first area of interest is the important cultural differences between Mexico and the United States and Canada. The second area of interest is the history of maquiladora managerial studies. The third area of interest is the theoretical foundations of Relational Models Theory. A thorough review of each of these literature areas was conducted; resulting in the formation of the core research question addressed by the series of related hypotheses. A Review of Expatriate Attrition Factors High turn-over among maquiladora managers and workers has been a longstanding issue of concern for maquiladora and parent management. While most research in this area concerns alarmingly high worker and skilled labor turnover, this study’s underlying concern is management turnover; especially turnover of expatriate managers. Conflictive communication between Mexican managers and U.S. and Canadian managers working in maquiladoras and in parent companies is problematic. North Americans, due to differing cultural communication norms, often violate Mexican communication norms which can lead to organizational conflict and problems such as increased absenteeism, turnover, and reduce productivity (Lindsley & Braithwaite, 1996). A recent expatriate adjustment study conducted by Mezias and Scandura (2005, 519-538) cites Harzing (1995, 457-474); Forster (1997, 414-433); and Daniels and Insch (1998, 13-23); estimating that expatriate failure rates range from 8% to 12% to as high as 40% as estimated by Mendenhall and Oddou (1985, 39-47). Mezias and Scandura citing
12 Dolins (1999, 1-11), reveals that 10% of expatriates leave their firms early in their assignment and another 14% are no longer engaged as expatriates with the firm after 2 to 3 years. Mezias and Scandura also compile the costs of expatriate failure. Citing Torbiorn (1994, 5-17) and Shannonhouse (1996, 8A), Mezias and Scandura estimate that the cost of expatriate failures among MNCs in the United States now exceeds $1 million per failure. Citing Harrison (1994, 17-36) and Kotabe and Helsen (1998), Mezias and Scandura contend that total economic costs associated with expatriate failure ranges from $2 billion to $2.5 billion. Expatriate turnover researcher Naumann (1992, 499-532), citing expatriate turnover research by Tung (1988); presents a series of relationship proposals on expatriate satisfaction, commitment, and involvement. Naumann (1992, 499-532) proposes that, “There is a positive relationship between work group homogeneity and expatriate satisfaction, commitment, and involvement.” Mexico and the United States and Canada are considered to be far apart in terms of homogeneity by most accounts; especially in national culture terms of collectivism and individualism as outlined by Hofstede (1980). Naumann (1992, 499-532) also proposes that, “There is a positive relationship between the similarity of a firm’s predominant corporate culture and local foreign corporate culture and expatriate satisfaction, commitment, and involvement.” Hence, the greater the cultural divide in the workplace in terms of unfamiliar corporate culture, the more conflict and expatriate turnover a firm can expect. This is easily the case in many maquiladoras.
13 Naumann (1992, 499-532) continues by proposing that, “There is a positive relationship between a expatriate’s tenure, organizational level, performance, years of international experience, linguistic ability, age, and relational ability and expatriate satisfaction, commitment, and involvement.” These are all experiential, cross-cultural, and most importantly; relational elements of organizational embeddiness that contribute positively to expatriate success and longevity. Finally, Naumann (1992, 499-532) proposes that, “There is a positive relationship between the degree to which an expatriate’s pre-international expectations are met in subsequent international experiences, and satisfaction, commitment, and involvement.” In essence, if managers are not culturally suited or actively fitted to a maquiladora expatriate position, their pre-international expectations will likely conflict with their international assignment in a culturally divergent maquiladora corporate culture environment. Naumman (1992, 499-532) in agreement with Tung (1988) laments that, “Given the comparatively high expatriate turnover rates, managers in U.S. MNCs apparently have a poor understanding of the turnover process.” The efforts of Naumann and Tung provide a troublesome background for expatriate turnover and give life and purpose to this study. To date, no measurement instrument has been developed that measures relational and cultural aspects of management at the organizational plant level in the maquiladora and parent company partnership. This study takes that initial step. The development of a successful measurement instrument gives rise to further research opportunity, adds to the body of knowledge and incrementally progresses research efforts in the areas of international management, business anthropology, and Relational Models Theory.
14 A Review of Cross-Cultural Management Research There is increasing interest in cross-cultural management research issues as companies globalize their operations and find their operations colliding with cultural differences. Steers & Sanchez-Runde (2002) state that: Today, most contemporary management scholars realize that cultural differences can have a profound impact on work motivation and job attitudes. What remains elusive, however, is a solid understanding of how and why culture influences fundamental motivational processes. (Steers & Sanchez-Runde, 2002, 191) Cross-cultural research is both regional and global in nature. Many current studies seek to understand the broader scope of how many different cultures interact, versus the interaction between two cultures, as was the case in this study. An example of this broader scope of research is detailed Lenartowicz and Johnson (2003). The study measures similarities and differences in managerial values among twelve Latin American countries using the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) as an instrument (Rokeach, 1973). The Lenartowicz and Johnson study strives to define cultural differences in terms of the terminal and instrumental values of culturally diverse managers and finds both similarities and differences in managerial values across cultural lines. A Review of Cultural Factors in Mexico, United States, and Canada Pioneering cross-cultural researchers such as Hofstede (1980) and Trompenaars (1997) have shown that national cultures can define management attitudes, customs, and practices. In fact, noted cross-cultural researcher, Geert Hofstede, developed the Hofstede Dimension of Cultural Scales; a cross-cultural ranking system that compares national cultures on the basis of power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and long-term orientation (1980).
15 When comparing Mexico, United States, and Canada, Hofstede demonstrates that there are significant dimensional scale differences between the Hispanic culture of Mexico and the Anglo cultures of the United States and Canada (see Table 1). Acknowledgement of these scale differences between Mexico and the United States and Canada form part of the intellectual baseline of knowledge that describes the dyadic relationship between these NAFTA global neighbors. Forming hypotheses under Relational Models Theory cannot be accomplished without a basic understanding of the existing cultural conditions that define the two cultural groups. Hofstede’s work helps form this foundation of cultural knowledge and understanding. Hofstede is cited in most cross-cultural research and forms the bedrock of information from which to compare modern cross-cultural research efforts. Therefore, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions for Mexico, United States, and Canada are presented as starting points for comparison in this study as noted in Table 1. Table 1: Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions: Mexico, United States, and Canada
Country
Power Distance
Individualism
Uncertainty
Long-Term
Avoidance
Orientation
Masculinity
Mexico
81
30
69
82
*
United States
40
91
62
46
29
Canada
39
80
52
48
23
* No data. Hofstede did not rate long-term orientation within the Mexican culture. Source: http://international-business-center.com/geert-hofstede/index.shtml ("Hofstede's Dimension")
While Hofstede provides pioneering research in the area of cultural dimensions, it is cross-cultural researcher Eva Kras and international business and cultural analyst Ned
16 Crouch who have been able to clearly and specifically define cultural factors, management style, and educational differences between Mexico and the United States; especially related to maquiladoras (Kras, 1995; Crouch, 2004). As such, this study relies heavily on the work of Kras and Crouch to help define differences within Mexican maquiladoras and their U.S. and Canadian parent companies. One such culturally defining study was published by Kras in 1995. Titled “Management in Two Cultures,” the study outlines both cultural factors and managerial style differences between Mexico and the United States. Of greater importance, Kras uses the maquiladoras of Mexico as the contextual basis for her study. Kras defines ten cultural factor dimensional differences between Mexico and the United States (see Table 2). It is very apparent from Kras’s analysis of the overt cultural differences, that Mexico and the United States are quite distinct from each other. The work of Hofstede, Kras, and Crouch help strengthen the case that relational differences in maquiladoras might follow similar patterns of behavior when measured with Relational Models Theory instruments. Though this study focuses on the specific managerial relational differences within the maquiladora industry, Kras’s cultural factors help illustrate the multiple levels of culture that impact the maquiladoras. The dimensions used by Hofstede (power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity, and long-term orientation) also speak to organizational and national cultural pressures on individuals and do guide researchers to an understanding that there are indeed multi-level differences between Mexico and the United States and Canada on many levels.
17 Table 2: Comparative Table - Cultural Factors Feature
Family
Mexico
United States
•
Family is first priority
•
Family usually second to work
•
Children sheltered
•
Children independent
•
Executive mobility limited
•
Executive mobility unrestricted
•
Long Roman Catholic tradition
•
Mixed religions
•
Fatalistic outlook
•
“Master of own life” outlook
•
Memorization
•
Analytical approach
•
Theoretical emphasis
•
Practical emphasis
•
Rigid, broad curriculum
•
Narrow, in-depth specialization
•
Very nationalistic
•
Very patriotic
•
Proud of long history and traditions
•
Proud of “American way of life”
•
Reluctant to settle outside Mexico
•
Assumes everyone shares his/her materialistic values
•
Sensitive to differences of opinion
•
Separates work from emotions
•
Fears loss of face
•
Sensitivity seen as weakness
•
Shuns confrontation
•
Puts up tough business front
•
Old-world formality
•
Formality often sacrificed for efficiency
•
Etiquette considered measure of breeding
•
“Let’s get to the point” approach
•
Dress and grooming are status symbols
•
As long as appearance is reasonable, performance is most important
•
Title and position more important than money in eyes of society
•
Money is main status indicator and is reward for achievement
•
Aesthetic side of life is important even at work
•
No time for “useless frills”
•
Truth tempered by need for diplomacy
•
Direct yes/no answers given and expected
•
Truth is a relative concept
•
Truth seen as absolute value
Religion
Education
Nationalism
Emotional Sensitivity
Etiquette
Grooming
Status
Aesthetics
Ethics
Source: Kras, Eva S. (1995) “Management in Two Cultures: Bridging the Gap between U.S. and Mexican Managers”, Intercultural Press, Inc., Yarmouth, ME., p. 68-70.
Of greater importance to this study is the work conducted by Kras on management styles between Mexico and the United States. Kras defines 10 management
18 style dimension differences that help frame the cultural management style found in the United States and Mexico (see Table 3). Kras identifies stark differences in management style between the two neighboring NAFTA countries. The management style differences are interrelated with the cultural factor differences. Kras’s management style dimensions are work/leisure, direction/delegation, theory versus practice, control, competition, training and development, time, staffing, loyalty, planning. Kras defines seven educational level dimensional differences between Mexico and The United States. While this research effort does not deal directly with the impact of the differing educational systems (merely measures education levels for demographic purposes), it is fodder for future research studies on the impact of educational differences (see Table 4 for educational differences between Mexico and the United States).
19 Table 3: Comparative Table - Management Style Feature
Work/Leisure
Mexico •
Works to live
•
Lives to work
•
Leisure considered essential for full life
•
•
Money is for enjoying life
Leisure seen as reward for hard work
•
Tradition managers autocratic •
•
Younger managers starting to delegate responsibility
Managers delegate responsibility and authority
• •
Subordinates used to being assigned tasks, not given authority
Executive seeks responsibility and accepts accountability
•
Basically theoretical-minded
•
Basically pragmatic-minded
•
Practical implementation often difficult
•
Action-oriented, problemsolving approach
•
Still not fully accepted
•
•
Sensitive to being “checked upon”
Universally accepted and practiced
•
Avoids personal competition; favors harmony at work
•
Enjoys proving her/himself in competitive situations
•
Training highly theoretical
•
Training concrete, specific
•
Few structured programs
•
Structured programs widely used
•
Relative concept
•
Categorical imperative
•
Deadlines flexible
•
Deadlines and commitments are firm
•
Family and friends favored because of trustworthiness
•
Relatives usually barred, favoritism not acceptable
•
Promotions based on loyalty to superior
•
Promotion based on performance
•
Most loyal to superior (person rather than organization)
•
Mainly self-loyalty
•
• Beginnings of self-loyalty
Performance motivated by ambition
•
Mostly short-term
•
Mostly long-term
Direction/Delegation
Theory versus Practice
Control
Competition
Training and Development
Time
Staffing
Loyalty
Planning
United States
Source: Kras, Eva S. (1995) “Management in Two Cultures: Bridging the Gap between U.S. and Mexican Managers”, Intercultural Press, Inc., Yarmouth, ME., p. 70-71.
20 Table 4: Comparative Table - Education Level Feature National Median
Educational Structure
Teacher Education
Mexico •
5 years
•
Primary – 6 years (Secundaria)
•
Senior high – 3 years (Preparatoria)
•
University – 4 years
•
Primary teachers have high school plus teachers college
•
University and most senior high teachers have first university degree; a few have higher degrees
•
Large companies: most executives are university graduates and a few have postgraduate study
United States •
12 years
•
Elementary – 6 years
•
Junior high – 3 years
•
Senior high – 3 years
•
University – 4 years
•
All elementary and high school teachers are university graduates
•
All university faculty have higher degrees
•
All executives are university graduates and many have postgraduate study
•
Four-year university, or twoyear college degree
Executives
Middle Management
•
Smaller firms: some executives are university graduates, many of older generation have only senior high school degrees
•
Great variation in levels
•
Many junior executives are graduates; nearly all have completed high school plus further studies
•
In supervisory group, younger generation mostly have senior high and/or technical school degrees; older generation often have less education
•
All have completed primary and some, junior high; in Monterrey area educational levels are generally higher than elsewhere
•
Nearly all have completed senior high school
•
All have at least completed junior high and training in typing; most have shorthand and elementary book-keeping skills
•
All have senior high, junior college or university degree, and/or other office skills
Workers
Office and Secretarial
Source: Kras, Eva S. (1995) “Management in Two Cultures: Bridging the Gap between U.S. and Mexican Managers”, Intercultural Press, Inc., Yarmouth, ME., p. 72-73.
A study by Griffith, Hu, and Ryans (2000) looks at process standardization across intra-cultural and inter-cultural relationships among distributors in United States and Canada (Type 1 cultures) and Chile and Mexico (Type 2 cultures). The study measures construct correlations between trust, commitment, conflict, and satisfaction.
21 The Griffith, Hu, & Ryans study is important in that it finds that manufacturerdistributor efforts to globally standardize relational development strategies such as “operational economies and uniform best practices” (2000, 303), are hindered by significant differences found in the trust, commitment, conflict, and satisfaction intercultural and intra-cultural relational factor correlations. The Latin cultures of Mexico and Chile were found to maintain social harmony and promote conflict avoidance while the culturally similar distributors from the United States and Canada were consistent with more individualistic, shorter power-distance, and lesser uncertainty avoidance cultural traits (Griffith, Hu, & Ryans, 2000). The researchers conclude: Businesses operating in multiple international markets may be able to achieve some economies by standardizing the process of their relationship strategy, including employing standard selection procedures, evaluation criteria or feedback mechanisms, when expanding to additional nations within a particular cultural type. (Griffith, Hu, & Ryans, 2000, 316) The researchers further conclude: A relationship development (and maintenance) process that was viable in the U.S. and Canada, a culturally similar market, is likely to be less appropriate in Mexico, Chile, and other Type 2 cultures. And, it strongly suggests that firms could find it advantageous to culturally standardize the process of relationship strategy rather than follow a strict global standardization policy. (Griffith, Hu, & Ryans, 2000, 317) Finally, Griffith, Hu, & Ryans suggest that “U.S. manufacturers may need to modify their development and administration policies along cultural lines, possibly being more attentive, or using informational or other non-coercive influence strategies, in their relationships with Type 2 culture partners” (Griffith, Hu, & Ryans , 2000, 316). The importance that this research has on this study is the recognition that cultural relational factors impact relational interaction between culturally separated groups. The researchers’ conclusion that both inter-cultural and intra-cultural construct factors
22 combine to effect organizational relationships make the study even more interesting and applicable. A Review of Maquiladora Studies Maquiladora manufacturing plants have been a business, economic, environmental, and social phenomenon in Mexico since the early 1960s; started by parent companies from the United States and other nations. The creation of maquiladora plants was rapidly accelerated by the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993. By 2003, maquiladora facilities grew to exceed 3,800 plant facilities and employ an estimated 1,069,911 people in Mexico (Instituto Nacional, 2003). The maquiladora industry is important to both the economies of Mexico and the United States and Canada (Vargas, 1999), despite the cross-cultural variance in attitudes, values, and relationships found between Mexico and the United States and Canada. Noted maquiladora researcher Lindsley stated the need for a more relationshipbased research focus: Problematic communication often occurs when people with differing cultural experiences interact. Many studies have examined cultural differences in communicative styles, but actual intercultural interaction processes have not received the attention they merit. (Lindsley, 1999a, p.145) Lindsley’s suggestion to researchers to shift to a more relationship-based focus of study fits well with Relational Models Theory. Managers are interactive social beings and as a subset of the broader human group, can be studied under the distinct models of Relational Models Theory (Fiske, 1991, 1992). Within the models, humans, or in this case, managers; exhibit one or more of four elementary models: that of Communal Sharing (CS), of Authority Ranking (AR), of
23 Equality Matching (EM), and Market Pricing (MP) (Fiske, 1991). The employment of one or more of these Relational Models by managers from differing cultures within the contextual domains of Exchange, Distribution & Use, Work, Morals, Decisions, Influence, and Identity (Fiske, 1991) provides insight into maquiladora managerial relationships. A thorough search of peer-revue research literature reveals large gaps in maquiladora research specific to management studies. No studies were found that use Relational Models Theory (Fiske, 1991) as a basis for maquiladora managerial study. Researcher John Slocum, Jr. (1971) early maquiladora study explores psychological need satisfaction factors effecting American and Mexican blue-collar workers. Using human psychological needs descriptions (Porter, 1961), Slocum measures the security needs, social needs, esteem needs, autonomy needs, and self-actualization needs of a defined group of Mexican and American blue-collar workers. Slocum concludes that there are significant differences between Mexican and American blue-collar workers in every need item. Slocum finds that Mexican blue-collar workers place more importance on the needs and are more satisfied in their needs as compared to American blue-collar workers. Additional Porter-inspired research was accomplished by researchers Toyne and de la Torre in a series of early maquiladora studies (Toyne, 1976; Toyne & de la Torre, 1978; Toyne, 1980) that center on an exploratory dissertation study conducted by Toyne (1975). Toyne and de la Torre look at the need patterns of Mexican nationals working as managers at U.S. subsidiaries and American managers. The researchers find results
24 similar to Slocum’s 1971 study of Mexican and American blue-collar workers; that there are similar significant differences in the need patterns between Mexican managers and American managers of local firms. Toyne and de la Torre (1978) further conclude that needs importance, satisfaction, and fulfillment are affected by education, age, exposure to foreign environments, and managerial positions. These variables denote a difference between Slocum’s focus on blue-collar workers and Toyne and de la Torre’s focus on managers. Interestingly, Toyne and de la Torre find that Mexican managers of U.S. subsidiaries fall between the two independent management groups in belief and need patterns, thus exposing the possibility of cross-fertilization of managerial approaches in maquiladoras (Toyne, 1976; Toyne & de la Torre, 1978; Toyne, 1980). Researchers Morris and Pavett (1992) defining study of productivity and management style differences between the Mexican maquiladora management and U.S. parent company management in a single twin-plant firm uses Likert’s System 4 Theory as a basis of comparison. Morris and Pavett’s research finds significant differences in management systems of the equally productive maquiladora and parent company plants. Morris and Pavett measure the Mexican and U.S. parent company management against the five organizational dimensions of Leadership, Motivation, Communication, Decision-Making, and Control in order to determine management positioning among the four defined management styles of Exploitative Authoritative, Benevolent Authoritative, Consultative Management, and Participative Management styles. Morris and Pavett find that U.S. parent company managers employ Consultative Management styles across all five organizational dimensions. In contrast to this result,
25 Mexican managers employ Benevolent Authoritative style in all organizational dimensions except Decision-Making; where Exploitative Authoritative style is predominant among the Mexican managers. The Morris and Pavett study concludes that American managers expect participation in decision-making while Mexican managers expect authority figures to make major management decisions, which is reflective of paternalistic societies like Mexico (Morris & Pavett, 1992). Researchers Vargas and Johnson (1993) empirical study of the organizational, technical and non-technical challenges of maquiladora operations in Mexico reaches four general conclusions from their study: (a) Core manufacturing management programs can be transferred, implemented and still retain validity within the different socio-economic environments of U.S. and Mexico, (b) “Conventional wisdom” on offshore manufacturing must be adjusted in the key fields of organization, competitive rationale, innovativeness, comparative advantages, quality, personnel and logistics when operating within the U.S./Mexico maquiladora program, (c) Substantial benefits can be realized in offshore manufacturing by exploiting combined competitive and comparative advantages through integrative operations planning and control and human resources management, (d) There already exists a high level of organizational and managerial integration between the U.S. and Mexico, with the potential facilitation that this represents for future North American economic integration. (Vargas & Johnson, 1993) Vargas and Johnson clearly show that business success is possible within the differing social and economic business environments of Mexico by North American firms as long as the differences are recognized and addressed. Researchers Lindsley and Braithwait (1996) ethnographic communications study of cultural norms for conflict communication among Mexican and U.S. Americans working in maquiladoras warns that North Americans often violate Mexican
26 communication norms which can lead to organizational conflict and problems such as increased absenteeism, turnover, and reduced productivity. Lindsley and Braithwait (1996) recognize the need for managers to demonstrate intercultural communications competency to promote better organizational communications and business success in Mexico. Lindsley’s study of the core symbols of “stability” and “trust” in Mexican communication within Mexican maquiladora plants finds that “analysis of core cultural symbols is a powerful framework for understanding the ways both structural conditions and dyadic behaviors influence satisfaction and effectiveness in organizational relationships” (Lindsley, 1999b, 1). Lindsley’s studies and research methods have contributed greatly to maquiladora studies by illuminating the cultural differences between the work forces of Mexico and the United States. Researchers Miller, Hom and Gomez-Mejia (2001), focus on compensation practices of American-owned maquiladora plants in Mexico within the context of national culture; specifically focusing on compensation plans that would affect worker turnover in maquiladora plants in Mexico. Miller, Hom and Gomez-Mejia (2001) find that profit-sharing and savings plans have a positive affect on turnover while pay plans do not. Cultural familial values and cross-border pay differences on the Mexican/U.S. border are strong reasons for workers to enter and exit the maquiladora workforce. Benefits that complement Mexican cultural values are preferential to pay enticements. Miller, Hom, & Gomez-Mejia (2001) further posit that Mexican cultural collectivism points to why Mexican workers favor profit-sharing over more
27 individualistic pay plans. Miller, Hom, & Gomez-Mejia conclude that, “American emphasis on material inducements fits with individualist cultures that extol pursuit of self-interests better than collectivist societies that give higher priority to group goals and view employer-employee relationships as communal” (2001, 592). The Miller, Hom, & Gomez-Mejia (2001) study is valuable to the current study in that it further demonstrates significant cultural differences between North Americanbased managerial concepts and a differing cultural reality in Mexican maquiladoras. Gomez and Ranft (2003) compares traditional, control-oriented management practices; to organizational learning approach in Mexican maquiladora manufacturing plants. Gomez and Ranft conclude that innovation and organizational-learning factors affected individual behaviors to a greater positive extent than traditional control methods. The implication of the Gomez and Ranft research is that such organizationallearning methods may moderate the effect of national value differences on the implementation of new management practices in Mexico (2003). Not all maquiladora studies reviewed follow the traditional cultural difference patterns previously discussed. Researchers Howell, Romero, Dorfman, Paul, and Bautista (2003) in a crosscultural managerial leadership study of Mexican and U.S. leaders in Mexican maquiladoras, find interesting dynamics at work in modern maquiladoras. Howell, Romero, Dorfman, Paul, and Bautista use S.I.T., self-categorization theory (Turner, 1981) to determine if leader ethnicity, regional Mexican culture, and organizational affiliation impact leadership behavior. Howell, Romero, Dorfman, Paul, and Bautista suggest from their findings that though there is little difference in the effect that Mexican and U.S. leaders have on the
28 workforce, there may be regional differences. Howell, Romero, Dorfman, Paul, and Bautista find that Mexican leaders along the border with the United States are more prone to be similar to their American counterparts, suggesting a convergence of leadership styles, whereas Mexican leaders in the interior of Mexico demonstrate a more traditional (and expected) patriarchal leadership style. The researchers posit that these differences suggest that there is a traditional and a transitional leadership type that is dependent on location and organizational affiliation, but that does not imply a similar convergence of national cultures (Howell, Romero, Dorfman, Paul, and Bautista, 2003). The Howell, Romero, Dorfman, Paul, and Bautista study is important to this study in that it demonstrates the possibility that cultural factors at the maquiladora plant level may not follow traditional Hofstede concepts of the preeminence of national cultures. As such, the use of Relational Models Theory (Fiske, 1991) to measure plant-level work environment culture is both germane and worth pursuing. The significant scarcity of social relational research in cross-cultural maquiladora management studies provides ample rationale to conduct such research. The migration of the focus of cross-cultural research from the study of national culture; to a new focus on the cultural dynamics in plant-level management relationships is equally important to the advancement of international management. This is an exploratory Relational Models Theory study conducted in a crosscultural maquiladora management study context and serves to offer up a research stream; inviting further follow-on research by all who are interested in maquiladoras, international management, cross-cultural research, business anthropology, and Relational Models Theory.
29 As the maquiladora literature demonstrates, existing maquiladora management studies reflect clear and significant cultural differences between the national cultures of Mexico and the national cultures of the United States and Canada. The maquiladora management literature illustrates the significant cultural differences in attitudes, beliefs, values, needs, processes, management practices and leadership styles that define the differences in national culture between the NAFTA nations. It was therefore important to consider the cross-cultural literature to shed light on why these cultural differences exist and to present the powerful force of culture for examination and review in this research study. A Review of the Theoretical Foundation Fiske’s Four Relational Models Despite an air of complexity, Relational Models Theory (Fiske, 1991) is easy to understand. In brief, Fiske contends that relational interchange between and among dyads and groups of humans can be described by one or more relational models. Relational Models Theory proposes that people are inherently social creatures and will always use one or more of the models as a basis for relational exchange with others regardless of the nature of the exchange. Fiske defines these four relational models as: Communal Sharing (CS), Authority Ranking (AR), Equality Matching (EM), and Market Pricing (MP). The four relational models are described as follows: Communal Sharing (CS) Communal Sharing (CS) is a relationship in which people treat some dyad or group as kinship or even family, equivalent and undifferentiated with respect to the social domain in question. (Fiske, 1992, 689)
30 Authority Ranking (AR) In Authority Ranking (AR) people have asymmetric positions in a linear hierarchy in which subordinates defer, respect, and (perhaps) obey, while superiors take precedence and take pastoral responsibility for subordinates. (Fiske, 1992, 689) Equality Matching In Equality Matching (EM) relationships people keep track of the balance or difference among participants and know what would be required to restore balance. (Fiske, 1992, 689) Market Pricing (MP) Market Pricing (MP) relationships are oriented to socially meaningful ratios or rates such as prices, wages, interest, rents, tithes, or cost-benefit analyses. (Fiske, 1992, 689) Relational Models Theory (Fiske, 1991) is a direct approach to cross-cultural management research. With its roots in social anthropology, Relational Models Theory is gaining prominence in contextual applications in organizational behavior and social justice research and now shows equal promise in cross-cultural management research as this study demonstrates. In a recent anthology on Relational Models Theory, Fiske describes the relevance of relational models to the human research fields such as management, organizational behavior, and cross-cultural research. Describing the theory, Fiske states: Everyone uses this repertoire of relational capacities to plan and to generate their own action; to understand, remember, and anticipate others; to coordinate the joint production of collective action and institutions; and to evaluate their own and others’ action. In different cultures, people use these four relational models in different ways, in different contexts, and in different degrees. In short, four innate, open-ended relational structures, completed by congruent socially transmitted complements, structure most social action, thought, and motivation. (Fiske, 2004, 3) Recent efforts to apply Relational Models Theory to management and organizational behavior research center on understanding and predicting the strategies of
31 corporations (Sheppard & Tuchinsky, 1996); using relational models to define institutional conflict (Connelley, 1993; Connelley & Goodrick, 2002; Connelley & Folger, 2004); reframing relational models into organizational terms and encouraging the application of relational models to organizational behavior research (Sondak, 1998); discovering the role relational models play in conflict and negotiation processes (Gelfand, Dominguez, & Nishii, 1998); associating relational models with the dimensions of individualism and collectivism (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998); and recognizing the use of relational models by culturally diverse work groups in defining group outcomes in process, conflict, and task management resolution (Vodosek, 2003). Sheppard and Tuchinsky (1996) take a macro approach and assert that relational models can be used to describe the relational interactions between corporate firms versus focusing on individuals or internal groups (Sheppard & Tuchinsky, 1996; Haslam, 2004). Sheppard and Tuchinsky note in Haslam (2004, 43) that, “American management thinkers, dominated by economic, network, and behavioral negotiation theories have relied too much on hierarchy and the market (AR and MP) as organizing principles.” Sheppard and Tuchinsky suggest that firms reorganize along CS and EM lines to allow the firm to be more responsive to complex products and rapidly changing markets and technologies (Haslam, 2004, 43). Triandis and Gelfand (1998) study linkages between the vertical and horizontal dimensions of self with the constructs of collectivism and individualism (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1995); and pair Communal Sharing (CS) with collectivism and Market Pricing (MP) to individualism. They further couple Authority Ranking (AR) with the vertical self
32 and Equality Matching (EM) with the horizontal self as depicted in Table 5 (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Table 5: Relation of Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism
Dimension
Collectivism Self different from others
Individualism Self different from others
Vertical Self o
Communal Sharing
o
Market Pricing
o
Authority Ranking
o
Authority Ranking
(Ranked and Unequal)
Self same as others
Self same as others
Horizontal Self o
Communal Sharing
o
Market Pricing
o
Equality Matching
o
Equality Matching
(Egalitarian and Similar)
Source: Adapted from Triandis & Gelfand, 1998, Table 1, p. 119 & Haslam, 2004, p. 50.
The efforts of Triandis and Gelfand (1998) to differentiate the use of relational models by cultural distinction push the use of relational models into the realm of comparative cultural research. In 1998, Sondak conducts a Relational Models Theory review and surmises that the models can be used to help understand organizational problems. Sondak concludes that a Relational Models Theory (Fiske, 1991) approach offers a new and useful way to think about traditional issues in organizational behavior. Sondak states: Fiske shows that the 4 relational models pertain not just to the allocation of scarce resources, but to widely varied domains of social interaction, many of which are important for organizational studies. The thesis of this article is that Fiske's relational models approach offers a new and useful way to think about traditional issues in organizational behavior. (1998, 83) Sondak thus lays down a research path in Relational Models for future researchers to pursue that now includes organizational behavior. Management-related research using Relational Models is the next rational step in this direction of thinking.
33 Sondak (1998) also describes the Relational Models in organizational terms understandable to MBAs and management researchers. Sondak’s description of the Relational Model of Communal Sharing (CS) can be further described as a homogeneous organizational collectivism: When communal sharing dominates, all members of the group work towards accomplishing the group task without accounting for various levels of individual input; each individual feels that his/her self-perception depends on group membership, which in turn is seen to depend on common origins or common fates; and group members are motivated by intimate connections to others in the group. (Sondak, 1998, 85) Sondak’s description of the Relational Model of Authority Ranking (AR) best describes a vertical and hierarchical organizational system: When the operating model is authority ranking, superiors direct and supervise subordinates and control the product of the work; each individual’s notion of self depends upon rank and the corresponding social imperatives of obedience or noblesse oblige; and individuals are motivated by desire for power. (1998, 85) Sondak’s description of the Relational Model of Equality Matching (EM) reflects the collectivistic nature found in Communal Sharing (CS); but adds the importance of the individual as peer to others in the relationship: In the case of equality matching, each does the same work as all, either in the terms of quantity or effort, turn taking or synchronizing tasks; each perceives him/herself as a peer; i.e. equal to the others in the group; and each is motivated to stay even with the others. (1998, 85) Sondak describes the Relational Model of Market Pricing (MP) in terms of individualism and materialism and by gaining competitive advantage over others in the relationship: “Finally, when market pricing dominates, work is performed in exchange for wages; social identity depends on occupational success; and individuals are motivated to achieve” (Sondak, 1998, 85).
34 Sondak’s work serves as a gateway to spanning relational models to other disciplines. Sondak foresaw that relational models had considerable relevance to organizational and management research. The first known research stream into management-related applications of Relational Models was conducted by Connelley (1993). Connelley uses qualitative analysis of research data produced by focus groups (Haslam, 2004a), to develop a research stream (Connelley & Goodrick, 2002; Connelley & Folger 2004) that looks at conflict and trust issues in hiring, performance, promotion, and retention among women and minority employees at a global Fortune 100 manufacturing firm. Connelley et al. find that the White male “establishment” relies on Communal Sharing (CS) to define their work environment while White females tended to draw on Market Pricing (MP). By contrast, African-American minority employees favor Equality Matching (EM) to describe their work environment (Haslam, 2004a). Connelley et al. demonstrate that culturally diverse groups as framed by gender and race can rely upon different Relational Models to define their work environments. Connelley continues building upon the organizational behavior research stream in several subsequent works (Connelley & Goodrick, 2002; Connelley & Folger 2004). Connelley et al. is important research in that it establishes Relational Models as being productive and germane to organizational behavior research with equal potential for cross-cultural management research. Vodosek (2003) uses culturally diverse chemistry student research groups to measure their intra-group application of Relational Models to form group outcomes. Vodosek’s research is one of the first efforts to apply Relational Models Theory (Fiske, 1991) to culturally diverse work groups.
35 Vodosek looks at the role that Relational Models play on group outcomes by analyzing group processes and task conflict in culturally diverse groups. Vodosek finds that dissimilarity is greater among culturally diverse groups resulting in negative outcomes in terms of satisfaction and commitment to the group (Haslam, 2004a). The Vodosek (2003) study illuminates the value of Relational Models in determining cultural differences in the formation of intra-group relationships. Vodosek’s social research has salient applicability to group dynamics within maquiladoras and parent company management teams. The Contextual Domains In order to understand the dynamics of Relational Models Theory (Fiske, 1991) in the cross-cultural workplace, a contextual framework is required. This study relies exclusively on seven of the fifteen contextual domains described by Fiske (1991). The seven domains that frame this study bear relevance to relationships that are commonly present in a typical workplace environment. The domains selected for this study are: Exchange, Distribution, Work, Morals, Decisions, Influence, and Identity. The Domain of Exchange Fiske describes the Domain of Exchange as a domain of reciprocal exchange. Reciprocal exchange is a dyadic, dual or sometimes unidirectional exchange of tangible objects and intangible social justice (1991, 53). Fiske describes manifestations of the Relational Models within domains in table form. In manifestations of exchange within the Communal Sharing (CS) model, “People give what they can and freely take what they need from pooled resources. What you get does not depend on what you contribute, only on belonging to the group” (Fiske, 1991, 42).
36 Exchange in the Authority Ranking (AR) model is evident when, “superiors appropriate or preempt what they wish, or receive tribute from inferiors. Conversely, superiors have pastoral responsibility to provide for inferiors who are in need and to protect them” (Fiske, 1991, 42). Manifestations of reciprocal exchange in the Equality Matching (EM) model reveal, “Balanced, in-kind reciprocity. Give and get back the same thing in return, with appropriate delay” (Fiske, 1991, 43). Finally, reciprocal exchange within the Market Pricing (MP) model manifests itself through, “Pay (or exchange) for commodities in proportion to what is received, as a function of market prices or utilities” (Fiske, 1991, 43). In managerial settings, instances of managerial exchange can range from the reciprocal exchange of managerial tasks and responsibilities, professional equipment or professional advice, exchanging work schedules or vacation periods, exchanging clients and customers, exchanging data or information, exchanging business or personal gifts, and exchanging business cards. The domain of reciprocal exchange was selected as a contextual domain in the study because it is germane to the management work environment. For this study, it is termed as the Domain of Exchange, or in brief; Exchange. The Domain of Distribution Fiske describes the Domain of Distribution as a domain of distributive justice of common resources (Fiske, 1991, 53). Distribution of common corporate and managerial resources is essential for work to be accomplished and businesses to function. Fiske aptly describes manifestations of distributive justice related to the relational models.
37 In Communal Sharing (CS), “Corporate use of resources regarded as a commons, without regard for how much any one person uses; everything belongs to all together. Individual shares and property are not marked” (Fiske, 1991, 42). Distributive justice in the model of Authority Ranking (AR) implies that, “The higher a person’s rank, the more he or she gets, and the more choice he or she has. Subordinates receive less and get inferior items, often what is left over” (Fiske, 1991, 42). Distribution in the model of Equality Matching (EM) contends, “To each the same. Everyone gets identical shares (regardless of need, desire, or usefulness)” (Fiske, 1991, 43). Finally, distributive justice manifested in the Market Pricing (MP) model indicates, “To each in due proportion. Each person is allotted a quota proportionate with some standard (e.g., stock dividends, commissions, royalties, rationing based on a percentage of previous consumption, prorated strike benefits or unemployment compensation)” (Fiske, 1991, 43). In managerial settings, instances of managerial distributive justice can range from the assignment and distribution of managerial tasks, duties, responsibilities, projects, clients and customers; distribution and use of company office equipment, computers, printers, and work supplies; and the distributive justice that allocates pay and benefits to managers and employees. The Domain of Distributive Justice was selected as a contextual domain in the study because it is germane to the management work environment. For this study, it is termed as the Domain of Distribution, or in brief; Distribution.
38 The Domain of Work Fiske describes the Domain of Work as the organization of labor in all its’ forms (Fiske, 1991, 63). According to Fiske, the CS, AR, and MP models closely overlap Karl Marx’s historical stages of labor (1991, 66). In any organized social relational group, the organization of labor is essential to the success of the group. Maquiladoras and parent companies are no exceptions to this need for the organized division of labor. Fiske aptly describes manifestations of the division of labor related to the relational models. Fiske describes work within the relational model of Communal Sharing (CS): In the CS form of work everyone pitches in and does whatever they can until the job is done. There is no task assignment and no specification of individual responsibilities. Any given job is “our work” and it does not matter how much or how little each person does, merely that everyone is doing something, working together. (1991, 66) Fiske’s description of the division of labor within the model of Authority Ranking (AR) adds a hierarchal element to the division of labor. In the Authority Ranking (AR) model: Superiors direct the work of subordinates, controlling the manner in which it is done while not necessarily engaging in the productive activities per se. It may also mean that the lower one’s rank, the more one must work and the more onerous the tasks one is assigned. High rank may bring entitlement to prestigious, “cushy,” or otherwise desirable tasks and roles. (1991, 66) When implementing the Equality Matching (EM) Relational Model, Fiske says, “People match each other’s work one-for-one” (Fiske, 1991, 6). Fiske citing Udy (1970, 67-71) states that Equality Matching (EM) can be of a discrete nature; or take the form of rotational reciprocity; or by forming mutual associations (1991, 67).
39 Finally, Fiske contends that work manifested in the Market Pricing (MP) model, “takes the form of wage labor (or piece work) in a labor market” (Fiske, 1991, 67). In managerial settings similar to distribution and use, instances of managerial work can range from the accomplishment of managerial tasks, duties, responsibilities, projects, clients and customers. Whether that managerial work is accomplished by individualist or collectivistic methods or means depends on model selection or combinations. Likewise, managerial work objectives and expectations derived from the accomplishment of work are governed by the same relational models selection process. Fiske’s Domain of Labor (or Work) was selected as a contextual domain in the study because it is germane to the management work environment. For this study, it is termed as the Domain of Work, or in brief; Work. The Domain of Morals The application of each of Fiske’s four Relational Models to the Domain of Morals, “entails a basic, irreducible, intuitive, moral ideal and a moral standard of evaluation” (Fiske, 1991, 116). Fiske shows that the four relational models take on a unique distinctiveness or irreducible and autonomous moral presupposition within the Domain of Morals; and that culture defines the circumstances of their use (Fiske, 1991, 116). The Domain of Morals is important to the managerial environment as it is the compass by which obligation to self and community defines socially accepted managerial decision actions and behavior. Fiske aptly describes manifestations of morality related to the four Relational Models.
40 Fiske specific describes the Communal Sharing(CS) model in the Domain of Morals as “the axiom that people should be altruistic, sharing generously with others of their kind, and placing the needs of the community ahead of their own personal needs” (Fiske, 1991, 116). In the Communal Sharing (CS) model, Fiske describes the Domain of Morals as “widely manifest as a morality of service to the community, in which the good is defined as that which fosters collectivity and sustains the corporate group” (Fiske, 1991, 117). Fiske’s description of morality in the model of Authority Ranking (AR) is one that describes “an attitude of respect, deference, loyalty, and obedience by subordinates, complemented by the pastoral responsibility of the authority to exercise his or her strength to provide security and protection for subordinates and to give wise directive guidance” (Fiske, 1991, 117). Morality in the model of Equality Matching (EM) include “the precepts of equality, of justice as equal treatment, in-kind compensation, or the righteousness of strictly reciprocal revenge, together with fairness as even distribution and uniform contributions” (Fiske, 1991, 118). Fiske expands upon Equality Matching (EM) within the Domain of Morals as “the autonomy of domains and kinds of transactions: each distinct distribution, transaction, or turn-taking rotation should be kept entirely independent of all others, without intermodal trade-offs or adjustments” (Fiske, 1991, 118). Fiske concludes that, “what is right is everyone concerned getting the same thing--once people are included in the relationship in the first place, differences among people are irrelevant” (Fiske, 1991, 118).
41 Fiske states that morality manifested in the Market Pricing (MP) model is: represented in the libertarian ideology of absolute freedom of rational choice, together with the sanctity of voluntarily negotiated contracts or promises: people should be trusted and entitled to calculate their own utilities, costs and benefits, and maximize them as best they can. (Fiske, 1991, 118) Fiske explains further: In this ethical framework, each person should be autonomous and should enter into transactions with others only when it increases his or her individual utility to do so. The only legitimate, enforceable, obligations; are those commitments people freely undertake when they voluntarily bind themselves in return for profitable considerations. (Fiske, 1991, 118) In managerial settings, instances of managerial morality can range from a manager’s feeling of obligation to act in culturally appropriate and socially accepted ways; to maintain a ethical stance with external and internal clients and customers; to an internal feeling of individual or collective obligation to arrive to work on time or stay late if the job circumstances warrant it; to a sense of obligatory duty to the organization’s success or to the reporting of unethical events from others or from the self. A manager’s own moral inclination formed by upbringing, religious indoctrination, application of social and cultural moralistic norms all combine to impel managers towards adhering to managerial ethics or it can be the source of individual and collective managerial guilt for violating some moral or ethical standard. Fiske’s Domain of Morality was selected as a contextual domain in the study because it is germane to the management work environment. For this study, it is termed as the Domain of Morals, or in brief; Morals. The Domain of Decisions Fiske describes the relationship of the four models to the Domain of Decision as a decision scheme that illustrates the process interaction of how humans make collective or
42 group decisions (Fiske, 1991, 73). Decisions and decision-making are an integral part of corporate and industrial managerial job descriptions. Decisions are essential for the work planning process and must occur if businesses are expected to function. Fiske aptly describes manifestations of decision-making related to the Relational Models. Communal Sharing (CS), “…is a collective process resulting in consensus…Everyone should participate and contribute ideas, comments, and convictions, taking careful account of what others say and the emerging sense of the group” (Fiske, 1991, 73). Fiske goes on to explain the disposition of the end results of the Communal Sharing (CS) decision process: People generally defer to the wisdom of the group as a whole, unless someone has a fundamental objection of conscience, in which case the group will try to respect that position by not making the decision in question. The decisions jointly arrived at are decisions of the group, and everyone stands behind them. (1991, 73) Group decision-making is commonplace in management environments, but the reliance on the Communal Sharing (CS) model in decision-making is closer to the “phenomenon of groupthink” according to Fiske (1991, 73). Fiske also comments that Americans shun reliance on Communal Sharing (CS) because they view it as a “subversion of individual judgment and responsibility” (1991, 74). Fiske describes collectivist cultures, such as Japan (like Mexico in this study), as being far more committed to consensus in decision-making. Despite whatever private positions any particular group member may hold; the group is the essential entity (Fiske, 1991, 74). Decision-making in the model of Authority Ranking (AR) is described by Fiske as a, “…hierarchal chain of command, like most military systems, in which command and obedience are the basic operating principles” (Fiske, 1991, 75). Fiske likens reliance on Authority Ranking (AR) in decision-making to bureaucratic decision environments
43 and concludes that, “Each person has the prerogative to decide for and direct subordinates; or to delegate decisions to them (while still being held responsible for the consequences)” (Fiske, 1991, 75). According to Fiske, decision-making in the model of Equality Matching (EM) matches the one-person, one-vote paradigm (Fiske, 1991, 75). Fiske contends that reliance on Equality Matching (EM) means that each “person’s expression of his or her judgment and interest has equal weight” (1991, 75). Within the Equality Matching (EM) model, it is also logical to take turns deciding or to match or trade decisions with another or to accomplish decisions through a fair lottery system (1991, 75). Finally, decision-making manifested in the Market Pricing (MP), as conceptualized by Fiske states simply that when it comes to decision-making, “the market decides” (Fiske, 1991, 75). Fiske gives many examples of how the market controls human decision-making: What kinds of computers, restaurant meals, or house paints should be available and who should use them? The market is the major middle-level, middle-term mediator of such decisions. How much wheat and how many tires should people produce? The market decides. Who shall be professors and what will they be paid? The market is a major determinant. (1991, 75) To apply this market decision-making concept to a maquiladora operation allows managers to ask similar questions that result in market-influenced decisions. How many units of product will the maquiladora management decide to produce this month? The market will influence that decision. What hourly wage rate will management decide to pay new production employees? The market decides. In managerial settings, multiple instances of managerial decision-making can be identified in the workplace. Who gets access to computers or new technology? What will
44 be produced and in what quantity? To what measure of quality will products or services be produced or delivered? Who will accomplish a particular task or project? Who gets a company car? Who deserves a pay raise or have their vacation time approved? Who gets reprimanded, laid-off, or terminated? Management is all about decision-making. The Domain of Decision-Making was selected as a contextual domain in the study because it is germane to the management work environment. For this study, it is termed as the Domain of Decisions, or in brief; Decisions. The Domain of Influence Fiske describes the Domain of Influence as a domain of social influence. “People orient their behavior to others (who may or may not intend for them to do so) and modify their behavior accordingly” (Fiske, 1991, 76). By definition, all managers have influence on people and processes and are equally influenced by other people, processes, or experiences in return. Fiske aptly describes manifestations of social influence related to the relational models. In Communal Sharing (CS), Fiske states that, “…people imitate the actions of others whom they perceive to be similar, or whom they want to resemble. Citing Festinger (1954, 117-140) Fiske states, “The more similar the people, the stronger their influence” (Fiske, 1991, 76). Citing Allport (1962, 3-30) Fiske explains, “The other side of the same CS orientation is that people may go along with others when they fear the derision and embarrassment of standing out as disparate or opposed to the group. That is, conformity may result from identification and the desire to belong” (Fiske, 1991, 76). Fiske citing Milgram (1974) demonstrates that social influence in the model of Authority Ranking (AR) exists, “when they obey a superior who has legitimate authority,
45 charisma, prestige, or simply the requisite situational role. Such influence; is a consequence of the subordinate’s sense of awe, duty, loyalty, respect, or deference” (Fiske, 1991, 76). Social influence in the model of Equality Matching (EM) requires reciprocal and balanced relationships between people. Managers in this type of relationship will continually try to bring the influential aspects of the social relationship back into balance between the parties. Fiske explains this further: People take this course out of a sense of fairness, a desire to appear—and to be— just and reasonable. The desire and anticipation of receiving the same aid in the future also may motivate compliance with such requests. People also may comply with a request to undertake an onerous task because they acknowledge it is their turn to do so. And people will comply to make up for harm they have done to another with a compensating good that balances or offsets the harm with a corresponding good and thus restores the relationship equilibrium. (1991, 77) Finally, social influence manifested in the Market Pricing (MP) model revolves around people seeking compensation in several forms to achieve influence. Fiske explains that: People will generally do something for you if you pay them enough, or if you offer them sufficient compensation in some other form—everyone has his price. In the United States there are moral and legal constraints on what may be purchased. It is illegal to buy or sell political influence, sexual services, or slaves (including yourself). (1991, 77) In managerial settings, instances of managerial social influence can be described by all aspects of the manager-employee relationship found in the workplace, including the ability of a manager to gain, maintain, or lose influence with a superior or subordinate. It can represent the ability of a manager to influence suppliers or customers, either on behalf of the company or for individual benefit. The Domain of Social Influence was selected as a contextual domain in the study
46 because it is germane to the management work environment. For this study, it is termed as the Domain of Influence, or in brief; Influence. The Domain of Identity Fiske describes the Domain of Identity as “the constitution of groups and social identity” (Fiske, 1991, 82). Fiske observes that the four Relational Models provide the framework for people to form a sense of identity or self, in relationship to some collective dynamic or reference group. Fiske explains his assumptions: A person defines his or her self largely in terms of the most focally meaningful social relationships in which he or she engages, or seeks to engage. Thus the self is the person who relates to others in specified ways, and for us to understand a person’s self we need to know the nature of the relationships that person assumes to be most valid. (1991, 82-83) Managerial identification with groups or their sense of collective and individual identity serves to orient managers within their respective work environments. It is an important element within the management environment in that it serves to form effective teams, motivates managers, and fosters manager interest and manager loyalty through their self identification with the group, team, or organization. It can also take on negative effects when work environment conditions do not promote the development of collective or individual identification with the group. Dysfunctional teams can result or managers can become disgruntled or disengaged from the group without the strong bond of identity with the group or self. Fiske also asserts that the sense of identity has cultural implications in that culture can effect the selection of model or models used to implement identity collectively or individually. Fiske aptly describes manifestations of social identity related to the relational models.
47
Fiske describes social identity in the Communal Sharing (CS) model in stratified cultural group terms: People may constitute a group because they have a sense of common substance (flesh and blood), a feeling of being the same kind, of unity, and of belonging— whether to a family, town, college, club, team, gang, ethnic group, or nation. Members’ identities (and the identities of those who intend to associate themselves with the group) involve a merging of self into the greater whole that is the group, often conveyed by emblematic clothing, jewelry, hair styles, facial or bodily scarification, or dialect. (1991, 83) Social identity in the model of Authority Ranking (AR) as defined by Fiske explains that: Authority Ranking gives rise to a group when it forms around a charismatic or duly appointed leader, so that the group consists of his or her followers; in that case people may identify with the leader wishing to emulate or simply obey the leader, so that a member defines his or her social self as a loyal follower. (1991, 88) Fiske citing Mead (1900, 1930/1934, 256-7, 284-6, 311-17) states that authoritative identity “also describes the ways in which a social relationship of dominance, or leadership through force of personality, involves the realization of the self in superiority over others (AR), with or without becoming the basis of administering a community” (Fiske, 1991, 89). Fiske describes social identity within the model of Equality Matching (EM) as social self-identity derived from reciprocal relationships between individuals or derived from identification with social reference groups (Fiske, 1991). Fiske states: Peer groups may form among people who reciprocate favors or gifts or take turns, or among other sorts of exchange partners (EM). A person’s social identity, and hence his standards of fairness and justice expectations, may derive from such a reference group to which he is oriented, whether or not he is strictly a participant member. That is, a person may think of himself as one of a set of equals who
48 reciprocate fairly, share and contribute equally, a partner on a par with his fellows” (Fiske, 1991, 89). Finally, Fiske describes social identity manifested in the Market Pricing (MP) model as the basis for the formation of groups and organizations based on contractual terms. Fiske states: Market Pricing certainly is the manifest catalyst for the formation of many kinds of groups, including corporations, partnerships, franchise chains, and other business enterprises, labor unions, trade associations, chambers of commerce, and cartels, as well as stock, commodity, and futures exchanges. (1991, 90) Fiske goes on to describe the contractual nature of social identity in Market Pricing (MP) and hints at the difficulty of forming common or collectivistic identities within the domain: In these contexts and others, contracts or other interactions based on prices frequently create social groups linking buyers to sellers, or grouping either buyers or sellers separately. Not all such linkages construct face-to-face groups or ones that interact directly, however, or even give people any sense of common identity. (1991, 90) In managerial settings, instances of managerial social identity can range from loyalty to or identification with superiors, coworkers, shifts, teams, organizations, companies, nationalities, cultural groups, or any other organizational or cultural group manifest within the discipline of management. Social identity can include supply chain contractual relationships or supplier preferences and the concept of brand loyalty between customers and clients with the managers and marketers responsible for developing brand loyalty for the firm. The Domain of Social Identity was selected as a contextual domain in the study because it is germane to the management work environment. For this study, it is termed as the Domain of Identity, or in brief; Identity.
49
The Research Hypotheses Four directional hypotheses that reflect the Relational Models Theory (Fiske, 1991) model differences between Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S. and Canadian parent company managers serve as the framework for this research project and to aid in resolving the primary research question: Are there culturally-based social-relational differences between Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S./Canadian parent company managers in how they form their social relationships in their respective work organizations? Because there are no known Relational Models Theory cross-cultural studies that have been specifically conducted between Mexico and the United States and Canada or among maquiladoras and parent companies, the direction of each hypothesis is guided by Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions (1980) for the dominant Hispanic culture of Mexico and for the dominant Anglo cultures of the United States and Canada as reference points. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions studies indicate that Mexico’s culture is more collectivist and less individualistic than the general cultures of the United States and Canada (see Table 1). The cultural factors and management style comparative studies of Mexicans and North Americans conducted by Kras (1995) provide a cultural context of existing research to which comparisons can be made. Against a theoretical background of the pioneering cultural dimensions of Hofstede (1980) and the defining comparative studies between Mexico and the United States of Kras (1995), four Relational Models research hypotheses are used in this study.
50
These Relational Models hypotheses are: Communal Sharing (CS) Hypothesis H1cs Mexican maquiladora managers will draw on the communal sharing (CS) model in their management relationships in greater measure than will U.S. and Canadian parent company managers. Authority Ranking (AR) Hypothesis H2ar Mexican maquiladora managers will draw on the authority ranking (AR) model in their management relationships in greater measure than will U.S. and Canadian parent company managers. Equality Matching (EM) Hypothesis H3em U.S. and Canadian parent company managers will draw on the equality matching (EM) model in their management relationships in greater measure than will Mexican maquiladora managers. Market Pricing (MP) Hypothesis H4mp U.S. and Canadian parent company managers will draw on the market pricing (MP) model in their management relationships in greater measure than will Mexican maquiladora managers. Testing the significance of these four Relational Models hypotheses reveal the nature of relational differences between Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S. and Canadian parent company managers from the contextual framework of Relational Models Theory. By understanding the differences in how plant level managers employ the theory’s Relational Models in the cultures of Mexico and the United States and Canada, this research adds to the body of cross-cultural management knowledge available to managers and academics.
51 The research results further the ability of maquiladora managers and parent company managers to integrate their management functions in a more efficient and culturally attuned manner by offering them a better understanding of each others’ relational norms within their respective cultures and work environments.
CHAPTER III THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This chapter discusses the research design, the variables, the participants, the sample, the statistical and analysis methods, and the instrumentation used in this study. This study uses survey methodology to produce data from the NAFTA countries of Mexico, the United States, and Canada for analysis. The data is used to discover and compare social-relational differences between dyadic cultural groups of managers in the Mexican maquiladora industry and to North American parent companies in the United States and Canada. The Research Design The methodological design is simply assessing survey issues. The study uses basic survey methodology and takes a quantitative, non-experimental design approach to the production and analysis of the data. As the respondents are not directly observable and the study is dependent on the expressed views of the respondent; a hypothetical construct anchors the study process. The analysis objective is to determine group differences by testing the respondent data in order to accept or reject the stated hypotheses of the research study. The Variables The survey subjects are defined by the categorical attributes of the nominal variable of Culture, operationalized by the independent variable named Organizational Affiliation. The two categorical attributes represented by Organizational Affiliation are: Mexican maquiladora managers, and U.S./Canadian parent company managers.
53 A manager’s preference of Relational Models to resolve domain-framed management scenarios are operationalized by the Relational Models management scenario solutions. Selection of any particular solution preference or order by managers is hypothesized to be affected by organizational affiliation as either a Mexican maquiladora manager or a U.S./Canadian parent company manager. Selection choice and selection order results in predictable manager relationship behavior patterns. Categorical separation by cultural dyad effects relational model selection by the two groups of managers in both scope and scale. The study seeks to determine Manager Relationship Behavior. This is operationalized by surveying respondent managers from the studys’ cross-cultural organizational affiliation dyad; each considered four relational models within seven contextual workplace domains that produce rank-ordered (preference) measures. These ranked measures of relational models within contextual domains, when subjected to statistical analysis, are used to predict the effect of Organizational Affiliation on the dependent variable: Manager Relationship Behavior. The four distinct Relational Models (Fiske, 1991) of Communal Sharing (CS), Authority Ranking (AR), Equality Matching (EM), and Market Pricing (MP) serve as empirical indicators of predicted relational model preference patterns by managers and is the basis for the four study hypotheses. A respondent managers’ reliance on any given Relational Model (Fiske, 1999) indicator is observed within the guiding context of seven human anthropological domains. These domains are: Exchange, Distribution & Use, Work, Morals, Decisions, Influence, and Identity (Haslam, 1995a; Haslam & Fiske, 1999). The seven domains are
54 used as context for the four Relational Models to construct measures of management relationship behavior. The Participants The subjects of note in the study are Mexican maquiladora managers and parent company managers from the United States and Canada. Respondents were categorized as senior-level executives, middle-level managers, and supervisor-level managers. Depending on their location and assignment, the respondents are engaged in various levels of hierarchal management as plant managers, purchasing managers, materials managers, MIS managers, plant engineers, production managers, accountants and comptrollers, personnel and human resource managers, and production line supervisors. The study data is produced from across the broad spectrum of maquiladora industries versus from a single maquiladora industry. This is accomplished by design in order to enhance the general applicability of results to the maquiladora industry as a whole versus to a single industry or region. This broad spectrum approach is supported by a recent expatriate study by researchers Shay and Baack (2004) that recommends in its directions for future research that using cross-industry samples instead of single industry samples helps improve the generalizability of analysis results across industries. Key Source Information and Research Tools To conduct an effective survey, a communications conduit to the maquiladora industry is essential. According to The Maquiladora Portal, the online portal maquiladora organization is the only specialized web-site covering maquiladora trade information that
55 represents the broad spectrum of maquiladoras and their parent companies (The Maquiladora Portal, 2003. http://www.maquilaportal.com/cgi-bin/public/index.pl). Sourced through The Maquiladora Portal, a 2005 edition CD disc copy of Solunet: Info-Mex, Inc. “The Complete Twin Plant Guide” is used in this study. The CD disc contains the principal management officers of all Mexican maquiladora, border twinplant, and international parent companies, along with address, telephone, e-mail, and company web page contact information. This is used in the study as the primary source of contact information for survey distribution. The study survey instrument is resident in bilingual electronic form on a sophisticated online survey service company; QuestionPro.com (www.questionpro.com). E-mail invitations, data production and download, and survey control is accomplished through QuestionPro.com. The Sample To test the study hypotheses, analysis is conducted on data produced from two independent sampling efforts directed towards Mexican maquiladoras in one independent sample; and North American parent companies in the United States and Canada in a second independent sample. A total of 2,312 e-mail survey invitations were distributed to Mexican maquiladora and U.S./Canadian parent company facility locations. Of the 2,312 e-mail survey invitations distributed, 1,475 (63.8 percent) were filtered, bounced, deleted, or ignored by potential managers or company network servers. Of the original 2,312 invitations, 837 (36.2 percent) were viewed by targeted managers.
56 Of the 837 surveys viewed by managers, 484 (57.8 percent) managers chose to start the survey. There were 353 (42.2 percent) managers who viewed the survey and elected not to continue past the consent question in the survey by responding “No” to the consent question. This provided an initial sample of 484 managers. Of the 484 managers who started the survey, 348 (71.9 percent) completed the survey. There were 87 (18.0 percent) managers who respondent “Yes” to the consent question but provided no further data. There were 49 (10.1 percent) managers who dropped out of the survey at various points of completion. All partially completed surveys were from Mexican maquiladora managers. Thus, of the original 2,312 e-mail invitations, the survey effort produced 348 (15.1 percent) fully completed surveys. Of the 348 surveys completed, 141 (40.5 percent) were from U.S. and Canadian parent company managers; 72 (20.7 percent) were from parent company managers from non-NAFTA third nation countries; and 135 (38.8 percent) were from Mexican maquiladora managers. As this study is focuses on managers within NAFTA partner countries, the 72 non-NAFTA manager surveys are eliminated from the analysis pool. This is done to reduce sample error and sample bias and to prevent unwarranted stratification of the sample by not interjecting Asian, Middle Eastern, or European cultures into the sample used for analysis. It is understood that there are many companies from nations outside the NAFTA partnership countries that have a parent company relationship with Mexican maquiladoras. Managers in these parent companies represent many different cultures around the world and have their own cultural impact on relational interaction that can be
57 measured. However, they are not considered to be part of this particular study and are eliminated from the sample. The final tally yields 276 valid NAFTA manager respondents. This figure is comprised of 135 (48.9 percent) Mexican maquiladora managers and 141 (51.1 percent) U.S./Canadian parent company managers. This was the sample used for analysis in this study. The Sample Size According to Mexican industry statistics, there are approximately 1,076,045 people who are currently employed in the maquiladora industry (INEGI, 2004a). Additional INEGI statistics show that approximately 14.95 percent of Mexican employees are considered to be professional or technical personnel and approximately 2.54 percent are considered to be senior executives and management personnel. When considered together, management and professional/technical functionaries in Mexico could be as high as 17.49 percent as indicated by INEGI. When applied to the maquiladoras, this management percentage would indicate a population size of 188,200 managers. This figure seems to be inflated when applied to maquiladoras by definition. Maquiladoras are linked entities to their parent company counterparts and are not reflective of Mexican industry as a whole. Therefore a U.S. model for determining management population size in maquiladoras proved more accurate. By extrapolating U.S. managerial labor and total U.S. labor statistics from all occupations, a 5.6 percent management structure can be applied to the industry (U.S. Department of Labor, 2001, http://www.bls.gov/oes/2001/oes_11Ma.htm and http://www.bls.gov/oes/2001/oes_00al.htm). This provided an estimated population pool
58 of 60,258 managers for sampling in Mexico and an equivalent number in twin-plants in the United States. Using a ±3 percent confidence interval and a 95 percent confidence level for the study, an optimal sample size for a population of 60,258 managers would be 1,049 managers from each country (Zikmund, 2002). Achieving this level of response is difficult in a dual-group, dual-country, and dual-culture survey effort. The study intent was to labor towards capturing maximum response to the survey to minimize error and maximize generalizability of results. Studies have shown that 200 responses are the minimum sample size to be considered favorable to acceptable results. One such study provides a general evaluation scale for sample size parameters as follows: A sample size of 50 is considered to be very poor; 100 is considered to be poor; 200 is considered to be fair; 300 is considered to be good; 500 is considered to be very good; and 1000 or more is considered to be excellent (Comfrey & Lee, 1992, 217). The study’s intent was to strive to meet a fair to excellent result in response size; but use whatever valid responses return for analysis. The uniqueness of the group being surveyed and the expected interest in the survey topic among maquiladora and parent company managers served to maximize response to the survey. The survey effort yielded 350 fully completed surveys for analysis. This is considered good according to the defining criteria of Comfy and Lee (1992, 217). After eliminating non-NAFTA parent company managers from the analysis field, a final yield of 276 fully completed surveys remained to conduct the study analysis. This response is considered to be a fair response return by the aforementioned Comfy and Lee standards, well within the satisfactory confines of the study survey response criteria.
59 The Instrumentation This study employs an introductory e-mail cover letter and a modified relational models survey web instrument to measure how the variable of culture is influenced by the four relational model elements of Communal Sharing (CS), Authority Ranking (AR), Equality Matching (EM) and Market Pricing (MP) within the contextual framework of the domains of Exchange, Distribution, Work, Morals, Decisions, Influence, and Identity (Fiske, 1991). The web survey instrument is designed to measure within a cross-cultural, plant-level, management environment. An anthropological survey was acquired in October 2003 from Dr. Alan Fiske (UCLA) and required adaptation for use in a management study of business managers (A.P. Fiske, personal communication, November 22, 2003). The original survey, based on the four constructs of Relational Models Theory, contained 59 questions. Using the framework of the Fiske survey, a more abbreviated survey was produced, pilot tested, and reliability checked (see Appendix B). Because this is a cross-border measurement, the English language survey instrument was translated into Spanish language for use in Mexico. The survey was translated by two professional translators who independently translated and reversetranslated the survey instrument for accuracy of translation. A conference session was held between the translating parties to reconcile remaining differences in translation. The instrument was then reviewed by two business-oriented bilingual residents of Mexico who reviewed the document Spanish for Mexican maquiladora region dialect differences.
60 The Study Instrument Scales and the Pilot Test A pilot study was completed in May 2004 to test the survey instrument scales for reliability; to test the relational models management scenario survey design; to gain an understanding of the nature of cross-cultural studies between Hispanic and Anglo populations (reflective of Mexican maquiladora and U.S. parent company dominant populations); and to determine how dyadic cultures would use relational models in response to the management scenarios. Management students at several universities in Texas, California, Missouri, and Michigan and business members at several chambers of commerce in Texas and Missouri were sent invitations to complete the survey. A total of 186 people viewed the survey. A significant portion of that whole (N=148, 79.6%), decided to initiate the survey. Of those who initiated the survey (N=109, 73.6%), a sizeable portion were able to complete the survey. The pilot study survey instrument yielded satisfactory usable responses (N=109, 58.6%) from all those who viewed the survey (N=186) instrument. Of the 109 respondents, 83 were identified as White of non-Hispanic origin; 17 were identified as White of Hispanic origin; 4 Black or African American; 4 Asian; and 1 American Indian or Alaska Native. The pilot study used 7-point Likert scaling which proved to be less reliable (composite α = .733, N=109) in cross-cultural settings than 4-point, ordinal, rankordered, forced choice scales previously tested in other forms by Connelley (1998) and Fiske (1999). The pilot study served to highlight the usefulness of 4-point, ordinal, rankordered, forced choice scales when measuring Relational Models in cross-cultural settings.
61 Four related questions were formed to determine the viability of the study and its instrument. These questions were: 1. Are the pilot test anchored relational models 7-point Likert-like instrument scales a useful and reliable measure when using in dyadic cross-cultural studies? 2. Are the pilot test management scenarios an effective means to operationalize the domains and use of the relational models by dyadic respondents? 3. Are there differences shown in the pilot study as to how the dyadic Hispanic and Anglo cultures would use relational models in response to the management scenarios? 4. Will the instrument effectively serve the purpose of measuring social-relational differences when applied to the dyad of Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S. parent company managers? To form answers to the pilot study questions, a web-based survey instrument was produced through QuestionPro.com. The survey consisted of seven management scenarios representing the seven domains of Exchange, Distribution & Use, Work, Morals, Decisions, Influence, and Identity (Haslam, 1995a; Haslam & Fiske, 1998). Twenty-eight response items that reflected the occurrence of the four Relational Models of Communal Sharing (CS), Authority Ranking (AR), Equality Matching (EM), and Market Pricing (MP) (Fiske, 1991) in each of the seven domain-related management scenarios made up the survey questionnaire. A 7-point Likert-like scale anchored was used in the pilot study. Scale weights ranged from 1 through 7 and were anchored at both extremes as described by the response range Highly Acceptable to Not Acceptable.
62 The pilot study process ultimately produced a survey instrument scale that uses a 4-point, ordinal, rank-order, forced choice scale question format for respondents to react to. The scale weights range from numeric 1 through 4 with 1 signifying respondent first choice; 2 signifying respondent second choice; 3 signifying respondent third choice; and 4 signifying respondent fourth choice in declining hierarchy of acceptance of the management solution strategy as a preference. Following the survey and analysis process, the study results are presented in both tabular and graphical form. To help advance a more common view of the scale and to ease understanding of the results, inverse metric numerical values were assigned to each manager’s order of selection of the relational models and applied to the data. The first choice selection was assigned a value of four (4). The second choice selection was assigned a value of three (3). The third choice selection was assigned a value of two (2). The fourth choice selection was assigned a value of one (1). The Pilot Study Conclusions The pilot test analysis supports the hypotheses as stated in the proposal. In every domain, Hispanic respondents show contrast to Anglo respondents. Therefore it is reasonable to surmise that Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S. parent company managers will demonstrate similar results when asked to respond to a similarly constructed survey instrument. A detailed analysis of the pilot study clearly demonstrates that Hispanic respondents rely more heavily on the more collectivistic relational models of CS, AR, and EM than their Anglo respondent counterparts do. Even when the cultural dyad relies
63 on the same Relational Model within a domain, differences in the strength of the reliance are evident. The pilot test scales reveal predicted differences between the Anglo and Hispanic data. However, the Cronbach alphas (composite α = .733, N=109) are not as strong as would be desirable for a typical survey instrument. However, the Relational Models are anything but typical. Following the pilot test, a discussion formed with and between Relational Models researcher, Debra Louis; and Relational Models theorist, Alan Page Fiske, as to the advantage of Likert scales over what both Louis and Fiske both felt were stronger scales; 4-point, ordinal, rank-ordered, forced choice scales. This position is congruent with the literature in that Likert scales are traditionally used as 5-point to 7-point interval scales (Jamieson, 2004, 1212-1218). Jaccard and Wan (1996, 4) summarize, "for many statistical tests, rather severe departures (from intervalness) do not seem to affect Type I and Type II errors dramatically." All concluded that the 4-point, ordinal, rank-ordered, forced choice scales were more appropriate for the Relational Models, especially in cross-cultural research environs. The new scales are described as such in this study. The pilot study concludes that anchored Relational Models 7-point Likert instrument scales are useful and somewhat reliable measures when used in dyadic crosscultural studies, however, 4-point, ordinal, rank-ordered, forced choice scales are more compatible with Relational Model instruments (D. Louis, personal communication, June 16, 2004).
64 Informal feedback shows that respondents like the management scenarios. They find them to be interesting, fun, and different. This form spurs better response rates. From the simple cross-tabulation exercise, it is clear that the scenarios produce the predicted results. The pilot study concludes that the pilot test management scenarios are an effective means to operationalize the models and domains. The pilot test data shows surprisingly strong differences between Hispanic and Anglo response that supports the use of Relational Models to study management relationships between cultural dyads. As such, it is the ultimate finding of the pilot test that with a scale change to a 4-point, ordinal, rank-order, forced choice scale, the instrument effectively serves the purpose of measuring social-relational differences when applied to the dyad of Mexican maquiladora managers and parent company managers in the United States and Canada. The current research instrument scales (see Appendix A), were constructed by revising the pilot study instrument used in the May 2004 pilot study (see Appendix B). The Reliability of the Instrument Reliability of the survey instrument is centered on the instrument’s internal consistency. The dual key elements of the instrument are the seven domains of Exchange, Distribution, Work, Morals, Decisions, Influence, and Identity, and the four Relational Models of Communal Sharing (CS), Authority Ranking (AR), Equality Matching (EM), and Market Pricing (MP) (Fiske, 1991). The instrument uses seven management scenarios that relate directly to the seven domains addressed in the study. Each management scenario has four possible solution
65 strategies for respondents to rank order in their own level of preference as a solution. The four Relational Models are reflected by the four solution strategies. During the design of the management scenarios, care was taken through multiplelevel peer review to insure that the management scenarios accurately described the domains and that the solution strategies closely reflected the concepts of the four relational models. By doing so, the internal consistency of the instrument can be considered to be reliable. However, as the instrument is used over time, reliability of the instrument can be enhanced through the test-retest process, not feasible for this current study’s schedule or budget. Caution is heeded as to the reliability of dual-language survey instruments. To improve reliability in this area, the instrument is translated from English into Spanish and then back-translated from Spanish into English in order to insure consistency of meaning in the translations. The instrument is also checked for regional Mexican dialect by regional business-oriented residents as an extra measure to insure enhanced reliability of the survey instrument. By doing so, the dual-language instrument is rendered as reliable as possible for this study. Testing Relational Model instruments with Cronbach’s alpha may itself be unreliable. According to the constructs of Fiske’s Relational Models Theory (1991), the Relational Models are not mutually exclusive nor is there any assurance that human subjects will react to the same stimulus with one or more of the Relational Models on each occurrence. This makes measurement of alpha coefficients difficult to represent reliability.
66 Additionally, the reliance of the instrument on presenting the four Relational Models in each of seven domains limits the number of items available for alpha measurement. Increasing the number of items in the instrument may or may not raise the alpha coefficient due to the uniqueness of the Relational Models. The Validity of the Instrument The survey instrument has sufficient face validity determined through peer review and from a review by Relational Models theorist, Alan Page Fiske. Suggested changes were offered to peer-review by Fiske and were fully incorporated into the current instrument (D. Connelley, personal communication, June 16, 2004). Content validity is enhanced through the use of valid domains used in previously published human anthropological studies (Haslam, 1995a; Haslam & Fiske, 1998). Fiske and Haslam determined the validity of the Exchange, Distribution, Work, Morals, Decisions, Influence, and Identity domains as being entirely consistent with common human social domains. One may question whether there is a cultural component to content validity. As described by Fiske and Haslam, the seven domains used in this instrument are domains that are universal in nature to humankind. Additional human anthropological domains mentioned by Fiske (“love” being one such domain) that could have varied meanings between cultures are not used in this study. Care was taken during the development of the instrument to limit the domains to management-related traits that were cross-referenced as being valid in the distinct cultures of Mexico and the United States. By doing so, content validity is maximized.
67 Overall, external validity is supported by the research design. External validity is enhanced by not limiting respondents to a single maquiladora industry or region. By gathering a good cross-section of respondents from all maquiladora industries and regions, the study conclusions can be generalized across the spectrum of maquiladoras rather than to a specific industry or region. A recent expatriate study supports this direction by recommending in its directions for future research that using cross-industry samples instead of single industry samples will help improve the generalizability of analysis results across industries (Shay & Baack, 2004). Internally, criterion and construct validity are supported by the pilot test results. The pilot test clearly demonstrates that the scenario-based instrument can detect relational differences between two groups and reflect expected results between dyadic cultural groups. In summary, internal validity is difficult to determine in this study due to design. A lack of repeated measures renders most common internal validity threat concerns irrelevant in this initial effort. Internal selection bias is also not at issue in a relational models study in as much as selection bias depends on unequal distribution of the subject variables (Concept Definition, 2004). That is not the case in this study. The predictor variables are distinct groups and the Relational Model mediating variables by theory are applicable to all human populations in that uneven distribution would not threaten internal validity. The Relational Models are expected to show differences in how the distinct groups use the Relational Models in each domain. This study focuses on measuring those differences.
68 The Research Procedures This study employs a systematic, multi-modal, selection process to produce between a minimum of 200 survey respondents, to an ideal 1,053 or more survey respondents from an estimated total population of 78,400 managers. The survey response items (see Appendix A) are randomly scrambled prior to administration by the web survey system engine. The web survey engine provides a unique scramble response item of choices for each respondent. Paper versions of the survey listed in Appendix A, has the response items scrambled prior to publishing and dispersion of the survey. For the purposes of the example listed in Appendix A, the response items are left in a CS, AR, EM, MP order to illustrate the type of response choice available to the respondent that is linked to a specific Relational Model. The primary mode of data production employs a web version of the survey. Electronic mail invitations elicit the cooperation of the managers at maquiladora and parent company sites to participate in the survey. Additional e-mail and by telephone conversations between the study manager and human resources officials also serve to invited facility managers to respond to the survey via the Internet or through the optional paper survey. A survey cover letter (see Appendix B) and a survey questionnaire (see Appendix C) are surface mailed to the respondent along with a self-addressed stamped return envelope. All multi-modal responses in the study are collected by the study manager, examined for completeness, cleaned and prepared for analysis, and combined into a
69 single database source. The combination of all data production conduits is the best way to produce data in Mexico and in the United States and Canada. The Data Analysis Procedures Analysis of the survey response data determined the validity of the study hypotheses through findings in the data. Data analysis also is used to determine future avenues of study in cross-cultural maquiladora management and Relational Models Theory. Procedurally, the study scales (constructed from the pilot study survey items) were tested for reliability with Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951; Santos, 1999; Trochim, 2002). The overall raw instrument scales were found to be generally reliable (α = .733) and were used as predictors of the confidence criterion. The selection of statistical tests was determined using Wyllys and Trochim decision trees (Wyllys, 1999; Trochim, 2002). The group data was subjected to the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples (Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, & Barrett, 2004, 140); the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Easton & McColl, 1997); Repeated Measures ANOVA (Labovitz (1967, 1970; Kim, 1975; Binder, 1984; Zumbo & Zimmerman, 1993; Jaccard & Wan 1996; Jaccard, 1998; Rutherford, 2001; Garson, 2006); and to cross-tabulation and graphical analysis of the data (Morgan et al., 2004, 106). A statistical software package was used with this study (SPSS® version 11.5). Statistical Tests Under most conditions, nonparametric tests are used in lieu of parametric tests when assumptions are made about the study population’s distribution not being normal (Easton & McColl, 1997). Nonparametric tests do not assume that samples are normally
70 distributed, whereas parametric tests do. Nonparametric tests are powerful tools that can be used to detect population differences when assumptions of normality are not satisfied. This study relies on rank-ordered ordinal data. By definition, “All tests involving ranked data, i.e. data that can be put in order, are nonparametric” (Easton & McColl, 1997). This study uses the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test to compare two populations; maquiladora managers and parent company managers. The Mann-Whitney U test is one of the most powerful of the nonparametric tests for comparing two populations (Easton & McColl, 1997). The Mann-Whitney U test is “used to test the null hypothesis that two populations have identical distribution functions against the alternative hypothesis that the two distribution functions differ only with respect to location (median), if at all” (Easton & McColl, 1997). Easton and McColl go on to state that: The Mann-Whitney U test does not require the assumption that the differences between the two samples are normally distributed. In many applications, the Mann-Whitney U Test is used in place of the two sample t-test when the normality assumption is questionable. This test can also be applied when the observations in a sample of data are ranks, that is, ordinal data rather than direct measurements. (Easton & McColl, 1997) Graphical depictions of the nonparametric mean of ranks derived from MannWhitney U tests on the data are used in this study to visually represent the data results that describe the scope and scale with which maquiladora and parent company managers draw on the Relational Models to form their social relationships in the workplace.
71 This study also uses the nonparametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS-test) to determine if two data sets differ significantly. The KS-test makes no assumption about the distribution of data because the data is nonparametric and technically distribution free. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS-test), “will enable you to view the data graphically which can help you understand how the data is distributed” (Easton & McColl, 1997). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS-test) serves only as a cross-check on the results of the Mann-Whitney U test in this study in order to validate and increase confidence in the analysis results. This study also uses the parametric Repeated Measures ANOVA to analyze the main effects and contrast the main effects of Organizational Affiliation has on Relational Models within the contextual domains. Repeated Measures ANOVA Parameter Estimates are used to support the nonparametric results from the Mann-Whitney U and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and to measure main effects and contrasts in the data. Statistics and social science literature is replete with references that support use of parametric methods such as ANOVA and MANOVA with ordinal data (Labovitz (1967, 1970; Kim, 1975; Binder, 1984; Zumbo & Zimmerman, 1993; Jaccard & Wan 1996; Jaccard, 1998; Rutherford, 2001; Garson, 2006). It was determined through trial that parametric analysis results from Repeated Measures ANOVA did not depart from the assumptions of normality; has utility and applicability to this study; and was therefore added to the nonparametric tests to advance the rigor of the data analyses (see also section on study assumptions).
72 The Conceptual Model A conceptual model graphically reveals the research design and key analysis factors (see Figure 1).
73 Independent Variable Organizational Affiliation (Culture)
Contextual Domains
Mexican Maquiladora Managers
Exchange
U.S./Canadian Parent Company Managers
Distribution Work Seven Domain-Associated Management Scenarios
Morals Decisions Influence Identity
Empirical Indicators Communal Sharing (CS)
Fiske’s Four Relational Models
Authority Ranking (AR)
Market Pricing (MP)
Equality Matching (EM)
Measurement and Analysis Respondent Ranking Data from Survey Instrument Used to Measure Management Relationship Behavior Descriptive Cross-Tabulation of Data, Mann-Whitney U, and ANOVA to Test H1-H4 Managerial Relationships
Dependent Variable Management Relationship Behavior
Hypotheses H1cs
H2ar
Communal Sharing
Authority Ranking
H3em
Equality Matching
Figure 2: A Conceptual Model of the Study
H4mp
Market Pricing
74 The Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations of the Study The Assumptions Assumptions are defined as, “Statements that are assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn” (Wordreference.com, 2003/2005). This study makes necessary assumptions regarding statistical analysis and macro-cultural descriptions. Normally, this study would make the assumption that with ordinal data, distributions are not normal and nonparametric methods are called for. This study assumes that the consensus of the literature is correct in asserting that nonparametric statistical methods are powerful analytical tools for ordinal data. However, there is also a growing consensus in the literature that discusses departures from these assumptions (Garson, 2006). Jaccard and Wan (1996, 4) summarize, "for many statistical tests, rather severe departures (from intervalness) do not seem to affect Type I and Type II errors dramatically." Labovitz (1967, 1970), Kim (1975), Binder (1984) and Zumbo and Zimmerman (1993) all progressively demonstrated that the use of parametric tests are effective with respect to ordinal distortion (Garson, 2006). In contrast, Thomas Wilson (1971) opposes by concluding that "the ordinal level of measurement prohibits all but the weakest inferences concerning the fit between data and a theoretical model formulated in terms of interval variables." With such wide leeway given to this issue by the literature, it is important that researchers try to determine if the values of the ordinal variables depart severely from the assumption of equal intervalness before deciding to use parametric tests on ordinal data (Garson, 2006).
75 In this study, it was determined through trial that parametric analysis results from Repeated Measures ANOVA did not depart from these assumptions; has utility and applicability to this study; and was therefore added to the nonparametric tests to advance the rigor of the data analyses. This study makes the assumption based on the cultural literature; that Mexico, in macro, is a Hispanic culture and is identified with being collectivistic by cultural trait in its makeup. This is not to assume that examples of non-Hispanic persons or cultural traits other than collectivism are not present in micro within the Mexican culture. This study makes the assumption based on the cultural literature; that the United States and Canada, in macro, are Anglo cultures and are identified as being individualistic by cultural trait in their makeup. This is not to assume that examples of non-Anglo persons or cultural traits other than individualism are not present in micro within the cultures of the United States and Canada. The Limitations “Limitations, as used in the context of a research proposal, refer to limiting conditions or restrictive weaknesses. There are times when all factors cannot be controlled as part of a study design, or when the optimal number of observations simply cannot be made because of problems involving ethics and feasibility” (Locke, F., Spirduso, W., & Silverman, S., 1987). This study is limited by respondent willingness to participate in the survey. It is not known whether the attitudes of non-responding managers are significantly different than the measured attitudinal responses of those managers who participated in the study. This study is a snap-shot in time in the relationship characteristics of maquiladora
76 managers and parent company managers. Any future changes in these relational characteristics that may be fostered by the passage of time and the integrating effects of globalization are not reflected in this study. As a result, the survey sample and the study itself are not reflective of conditions that may exist at some future point in time, nor should the data be considered reliable for future studies. The study limits the variable of culture to two levels; the Mexican socioorganizational culture in the maquiladoras and the socio-organizational culture found in parent companies in the United States and Canada. The chance that some managers may be of blended cultures or non-Mexicans or non-Americans is not accounted for and therefore limits this study. The study is limited to Mexican maquiladora managers and parent company managers from the United States and Canadian and records, but does not consider the variable of a manager’s gender. The possibility that there may be significant differences within cultures between male and female managers limits this study. The study records, but does not consider the generational age variable of managers. Managers of varying ages may have significant differences in relational approach based on age and experience. As such, the impact of a manager’s age limits this study. This study records, but does not consider the education level of a manager. There may be significant differences in the way managers of different education levels and learned skills approach relationships. As education level is not a focus of this study; the study is further limited.
77 The Delimitations “Delimitations describe the populations to which generalizations may be safely made. The generalizability of the study will be a function of the subject sample and the analysis employed” (Locke, F., Spirduso, W., & Silverman, S., 1987). This study is delimited to social relational interactions between maquiladora managers from Mexico and parent company managers from the United States and Canada. While there are other nations whose parent companies operate maquiladoras in Mexico, this study delimits itself to a comparison between the two major maquiladora proponents; the Hispanic collectivistic culture of Mexico and the Anglo individualistic cultures of the United States and Canada. Cultural elements vary widely around the world. This reality makes a broader study that incorporates interpersonal activity from multiple cultures impractical and difficult to measure effectively. The study of social relational interactions between Mexican maquiladora managers and non-U.S./Canadian parent company managers from other separate and distinct cultures is left for future exploration, discovery, and enlightenment. Summary The study of cross-cultural management is in congruence with the impact that globalization has on management organization and cross-cultural corporate/industrial social relational systems. This research affords a small step in the direction of understanding social relationships as it pertains to Mexican maquiladora managers and parent company managers in the United States and Canada and serves to add to the body of knowledge in
78 this area of cross-cultural study by one small increment. This study uses survey methodology to produce data. The data is used to discover culturally-based distinct relational differences in how both U.S. and Canadian parent company managers and Mexican maquiladora managers utilize the four Relational Models independently or in combinations to construct their workplace social-relational exchange and interaction. The survey instrument designed for this study is comprised of seven management scenarios based on the seven contextual domains used in this study. The survey requires managers to rank order their preference of four management solutions, based on the four Relational Models, to resolve the management problems. A series of descriptive demographic questions follow the management scenarios in the survey and are used to define the managerial group populations. Only data described by Organizational Affiliation is used in this initial study. Other data available and reserved for future studies was compiled from survey demographic questions that define the manager’s management position; gender; age group; education level; the number of years of management employment tenure in either a maquiladora or a parent company; the number of years of cross-cultural experience living in Mexico or the United States and Canada; and the region in Mexico or the United States and Canada that the manager is currently working in. Analysis of the survey data uses both parametric and nonparametric methods. As such, this study uses nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples (Morgan, Leech, Gloeckner, & Barrett, 2004, 140); verified and cross-checked with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Easton & McColl, 1997); cross-tabulation and graphical
79 analysis (Morgan et al., 2004, 106) of grouped variables to test the relational data; and parametric Repeated Measures ANOVA to measure the effect of Organizational Affiliation on models and domains (Labovitz (1967, 1970; Kim, 1975; Binder, 1984; Zumbo & Zimmerman, 1993; Jaccard & Wan 1996; Jaccard, 1998; Rutherford, 2001; Garson, 2006).
CHAPTER IV THE RESEARCH RESULTS This chapter addresses data analysis and interpretation of results. Data analysis includes details on data preparation; analysis of the descriptive and nonparametric statistics set in a series of illustrative tables and figures. Results interpretation from the data is used to answer the research question and address the associated study hypotheses in relation to Relational Models Theory, key elements in the literature review, and the study purpose. The last section of the chapter will summarize results. A Quick Review of the Research Purpose This cross-cultural business anthropology study focuses on how Mexican maquiladora managers and parent company managers from the United States and Canada construct social relationships at work. Lifting the veil of national culture, the study focuses on the cultural environment of organizational-level management. High attrition among NAFTA management expatriates and the regional importance of NAFTA partner relationships requires a better understanding of managerial differences in collectivistic Hispanic Mexico and individualistic Anglo United States and Canada. This study uses Alan Page Fiske’s 1991 Relational Models Theory (RMT) as a theoretical basis for research. Relational Models Theory describes all human social relationships as behavior manifestations of four fundamental constructs; Communal Sharing (CS), Authority Ranking (AR), Equality Matching (EM), and Market Pricing (MP) (Fiske, 1991).
81 Fiske’s 1991 extensive work on domains is baseline resource for the domains used in this study. The domains of Exchange, Distribution, Work, Morals, Decisions, Influence, and Identity were selected to frame the management environment in this study (Fiske, 1991). This study employs survey and ordinal nonparametric analytical methodology. Study results indicate highly significant scope and scale differences in relationship formation between Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S. and Canadian parent company managers. How the Data Was Prepared Prior to commencing the data analysis process, the raw data was prepared for export to SPSS® 11.5 for statistical analysis. The raw data was downloaded from the web survey data export function on QuestionPro.com to an Excel spreadsheet workbook. All data respondent cases (N=484) were reviewed for completeness and some cases were found to contain no data (N=87) and were eliminated from further consideration. A second review of the raw data showed that some of the respondents (N=49) dropped out of the survey at various points during the administration of the survey. These respondent cases yielded varying amounts of partial data depending on where in the survey the respondent dropped out. The partially completed surveys were sorted to a separate Excel worksheet for further review. Analysis revealed that all partial responses were from Mexican maquiladora managers. These cases were identified as Mexican maquiladora responses by cross-referencing survey invitation batch codes sent to maquiladora addresses with an analysis of the system generated respondent return e-mail addresses generated by a partial response. There were no parent company partial
82 responses. The partial data was not used in the study in order to preserve the anonymity of the individual respondent and to adhere to the researcher’s preference to use fully completed surveys for analysis. A third review of the raw data revealed some cases (N=72) to have been received from non-NAFTA third country parent company managers. Completed surveys were received from India(N=8), United Kingdom (N=8), Australia (N=5), China(N=2), New Zealand (N=2), Pakistan(N=2), South Africa(N=2), Bangladesh (N=1), Denmark (N=1), Germany(N=1), Indonesia(N=1), Singapore(N=1), Syria(N=1), Ukraine(N=1), and from a group of unidentified parent company managers (N=36) who did not identify their affiliation with any study group. These cases were sorted out and sent to a separate Excel worksheet for consideration. Ultimately, it was decided not to use the non-NAFTA parent company manager responses so as to preserve cultural homogeneity in the study and to keep the study germane to differences between Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S./Canadian parent company managers. Once the data preparation process was complete, sufficient response cases remained (N=276) to render the study viable. The data preparation process yielded sufficient U.S. and Canadian management responses (N=141) and Mexican maquiladora management responses (N=135) to conduct nonparametric statistical analysis. Analysis of the Descriptive Statistics The data was analyzed for descriptive frequencies and percentages as represented by Table 29 through Table 56 (see Appendix C). Demographic variables from the survey data were analyzed to insure that the sample was reasonably representative of the general population of maquiladora and parent company managers.
83 The Distribution of the Sample by Organizational Affiliation Table 6 reports the distribution frequencies and percentages of the two organizational affiliations; U.S. and Canadian parent company managers and Mexican maquiladora managers. Table 6: Organizational Affiliation Distribution of Managers Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Mexican Maquiladora Managers
135
48.9
48.9
48.9
US/Canada Parent Company Managers
141
51.1
51.1
100.0
Total
276
100.0
100.0
The descriptive data in Table 6 shows that Mexican maquiladora managers (N=135) made up 48.9% of the total manager population (N=276) used in the study. Correspondingly, U.S./Canadian parent company managers (N=141) comprised 51.1% of the same total study population of managers. The Distribution of the Study Sample by Region Working in Mexico Table 7 reports the distribution frequencies and percentages of the various regions in Mexico where the responding maquiladora managers are currently working. Responses are distributed by specific regional state in Mexico. The illustrated map in Figure 2 reports the identical data graphically.
84 Table 7: Region Working in Mexico - Category: Organizational Affiliation Organizational Affiliation
Region
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Mexican
Baja California Norte
12
8.9
8.9
8.9
Chihuahua
10
7.4
7.4
16.3
Coahuila
2
1.5
1.5
17.8
Durango
1
.7
.7
18.5
Jalisco
3
2.2
2.2
20.7
Nuevo Leon
2
1.5
1.5
22.2
Sinaloa
1
.7
.7
23.0
San Luis Potosi
1
.7
.7
23.7
Sonora
39
28.9
28.9
52.6
Tamaulipas
62
45.9
45.9
98.5
Tlaxcala
1
.7
.7
99.3
Veracruz
1
.7
.7
100.0
135
100.0
100.0
Maquiladora
Total
Map Source: www.worldatlas.com
Figure 3: Maquiladora Response Regions in Mexico (By Percentage)
85
86
The descriptive data in Table 7 and the illustration data in Figure 2 show the distribution of Mexican maquiladora respondents in the study by percentage of the total survey response. Major areas of maquiladora manager participation came from the maquiladora intensive states of Tamaulipas (45.9%) and Sonora (28.9%). Significant response also came from the maquiladora regions of Baja California Norte (8.9%), Chihuahua (7.4%), Jalisco (2.2%), Coahuila (1.5%), and Nuevo León (1.5%). Additional response of less than 1% per region came from the states of Sinaloa, Durango, San Luis Potosí, Tlaxcala, and Veracruz. The Distribution of the Study Sample by Region Working in US/Canada Table 8 reports the distribution frequencies and percentages of the various regions in the United States and Canada where the responding parent company managers are currently working. Responses are distributed by specific regional state or province in the United States and Canada. The illustrated map in Figure 3 (United States) and in Figure 4 (Canada) reports the identical data graphically.
87 Table 8: Region Working in US/Canada - Category: Organizational Affiliation Organizational Affiliation US/Canada Parent
Region Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Florida Georgia Hawaii Illinois Indiana Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri New Jersey New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington District of Columbia Manitoba Newfoundland Ontario Quebec Total
Frequency 3 2 26 2 1 6 1 1 10 4 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 6 3 4 1 2 4 2 3 27 1 3 1 1 1 1 6 1 141
Percent 2.1 1.4 18.4 1.4 .7 4.3 .7 .7 7.1 2.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.1 2.1 1.4 .7 .7 1.4 4.3 2.1 2.8 .7 1.4 2.8 1.4 2.1 19.1 .7 2.1 .7 .7 .7 .7 4.3 .7 100.0
Valid Percent 2.1 1.4 18.4 1.4 .7 4.3 .7 .7 7.1 2.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.1 2.1 1.4 .7 .7 1.4 4.3 2.1 2.8 .7 1.4 2.8 1.4 2.1 19.1 .7 2.1 .7 .7 .7 .7 4.3 .7 100.0
Cumulative Percent 2.1 3.5 22.0 23.4 24.1 28.4 29.1 29.8 36.9 39.7 41.1 42.6 44.0 46.1 48.2 49.6 50.4 51.1 52.5 56.7 58.9 61.7 62.4 63.8 66.7 68.1 70.2 89.4 90.1 92.2 92.9 93.6 94.3 95.0 99.3 100.0
Figure 4: Parent Company Response Regions in the United States (By Percentage) 88
Figure 5: Parent Company Response Regions in Canada (By Percentage)
89
90
The descriptive data in Table 8 and the illustration data in Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the distribution of US/Canadian parent company respondents in the study by percentage of the total survey response. Major areas of parent company manager participation came from the US/Mexico bordering states of Texas (19.1%) and California (18.4%). Significant response was generated from the U.S. states of Illinois (7.1%), Florida (4.3%), New York (4.3%) and the Canadian province of Ontario (4.3%). The U.S. states of Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania each contributed 2.8% to the response database along with a response contribution of 2.1% from each of the U.S. states of Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. A response rate of 1.4% came from each of the states of Arkansas, Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon and South Carolina. Additional response rates of less than 1% per state region came from the U.S. states of Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, District of Columbia, and the Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Newfoundland and Quebec. The descriptive data shows that the US/Mexico bordering states share a strategic geographical advantage that is reflected in the number of responses received from those regions. Despite this geographical advantage, the descriptive data also clearly demonstrates that parent companies from the entire US/Canadian region are stakeholders in the Mexican maquiladora system and that NAFTA manufacturing participation is not limited to the parent companies of bordering states. Analysis of the Relational Models Data Graphical analysis of the research data shows clear differences in relational model choice between the study groups within the domains. The research data was filtered by
91 the two organizational affiliations (Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S./Canadian parent company managers). Inverse metric numerical values were assigned to each manager’s order of selection of the relational models for ease of understanding of the results. The first choice selection was assigned a value of four (4). The second choice selection was assigned a value of three (3). The third choice selection was assigned a value of two (2). The fourth choice selection was assigned a value of one (1). The data was then subjected to the nonparametric Mann-Whitey U test and for cross-checking of results; to the similar Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for independent samples. Graphs were constructed using the mean of ranks results derived from the Mann-Whitney U test. The mean of ranks of the two samples were determined for each of the seven domains (Exchange, Distribution, Work, Morals, Decisions, Influence, and Identity); and for each of the four relational models (CS-Communal Sharing, ARAuthority Ranking, EM-Equality Matching, and MP-Market Pricing). The mean of ranks were set in illustrative line graphs for ease of comparison. The graphed mean of ranks data show differences in selection between the study groups within each model by domain. The graphed data illustrate how each NAFTA manager group organizes in each domain. Management scenario solution choice frequencies from the cross-tabulation of the data were merged with the mean of ranks results from the Mann-Whitney U tests to depict group differences.
92 Evidence of Social Relational Differences Are there social relational differences in the way Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S./Canadian parent company managers form their relationships in the workplace? The basic research question posed by this study is clearly answered in the affirmative and is evident in the data. Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S. parent company managers show many differences and a few similarities in both scope and scale when selecting models as solutions to the managerial scenarios. Differences occur when data for all ranked solution choices are compared and when the scale of the response is compared between the groups by cross-tabulated frequencies of first choice solutions. The differences in scope and scale are quite striking. The cross-tabulation of data (amplified) can be found in Appendix C. The Mean of Ranks between the groups from the Mann-Whitney U test data (amplified MannWhitney U test and cross-checking Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) can be found in Appendix D and Appendix E. The Repeated Measures ANOVA results and associated profile plots can be found in Appendix F. A respondent manager’s first choice of relational model is reveals that manager’s dominant solution choice. By expanding the analysis to the subsequent second, third, and fourth relational model choices (see Appendix C), the data reveals similar patterns of differences between Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S./Canadian parent company managers. Subsequent relational model solution choices by the managers show the same pattern of scale differences in relational model selection as first choice solutions do. However, there are differences in scope that emerge from the data, showing that the two
93 groups draw on a differently ordered set of relational models to resolve managerial problems within each cultural group. Addressing the Hypotheses To resolve the hypotheses posed by this study, analysis of the descriptive data and the application of statistical analysis were used (Mann-Whitney U test, cross-checked with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; and Repeated Measures ANOVA). Communal Sharing (CS) Hypothesis When considering Communal Sharing (CS) relationships within the contextual domains, the study H1cs hypothesis states: H1cs
Mexican maquiladora managers will draw on the Communal Sharing (CS)
model in their management relationships in greater measure than will U.S. and Canadian parent company managers. Table 9 reports relational model preference for Communal Sharing (CS) by domain between Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S./Canadian parent company managers.
94 Table 9: Relational Model Preference for Communal Sharing (CS) Mean of Ranks
Mean of Ranks
Mann-Whitney U
Mann-Whitney U
Mexico
US/Canada
Z-Score
Asympt. Sig.
Exchange
155.57
122.16
- 3.620
P < .000
Distribution
165.01
113.12
- 5.606
P < .000
Work
159.09
118.79
- 4.355
P < .000
Morals
153.81
123.84
- 3.259
P = .001
Decisions
158.50
119.35
- 4.218
P < .000
Influence
169.82
108.51
- 6.927
P < .000
Identity
151.98
125.60
- 2.846
P = .004
Domain
Comparison Basis: (Mean of Ranks from Mann-Whitney U test)
Using mean of ranks of relational model preferences as the comparative criteria within each domain, the data shows that Mexican maquiladora managers draw on Communal Sharing (CS) in greater measure than parent company managers from the United States and Canada in all seven domains. Asymptotic significance from the MannWhitney U tests (see Table 9) show that the differences are highly significant in each domain and not likely due to chance. Both the descriptive analysis and nonparametric statistical results support the hypothesis that Mexican maquiladora managers draw on the Communal Sharing (CS) model in their management relationships in greater measure than U.S./Canadian parent company managers.
95 How NAFTA Managers Use the Communal Sharing (CS) Model The Communal Sharing (CS) graphic in Figure 5 illustrates differences in the mean of ranks of all management scenario solution choice values available to NAFTA managers in the survey. Graphical analysis of the model mean of ranks values for the Communal Sharing (CS) relational model shows distinct selection differences between Mexican maquiladora managers and U.S./Canadian parent company managers across all of the study domains (see Figure 5).
How NAFTA Managers Use the Communal Sharing (CS) Model Mexican Maquiladora Managers
US/CAN Parent Company Managers
200.0 165.01
Mean of Ranks
175.0
169.82
155.57
159.09
122.16
118.79
158.50
153.81
151.98
150.0 125.0 113.12
100.0
123.84
125.60
119.35 108.51
75.0 Exchange (p
