Managerial Competency Appraisal - Essay Example

A Summary of the Managerial Competency Appraisal This is a report on the results of a research that was done on the use of managerial competency assessment method in appraising managers from United States and four countries in Eastern Asia. The aim of this paper is to indicate solutions to the extent that managerial competencies from one cultural environment can be employed to in a different environment. The method used in this is making use of a common appraisal technique acquired in the United States to appraise managers from different cultures. This helps to find out if non-American managers will be deprived or not. If they are, in what ways are they disadvantaged and how far will the appraisal, accurately and fairly reflect the competencies of office holders. The key reason that brought about this research is the fact that globalization has brought about an increase of organizations that have business interests in more than one nation. Such business organizations may require managers that are well informed and most importantly, competent in working with people from different cultures. As per nationality and organizational behavior, a culture is the collective programing of the mind which differentiates members of one group from those of another. Countries and organizations have groups with different cultural backgrounds. There are five different cultural dimensions that incorporate “long-term orientation, individualism, masculinity, power distance and uncertainty avoidance” (Chong 191). It is observed that both organization cultures and industrial cultures influence managerial practices and behavioral patterns. Both public and private sector organizations are also compared and it is found out that the two require distinct competency and exhibit behaviors. These competencies are an individual’s characteristics that are related to good job performance of management. If at all the characteristics are to be recognized as competencies, they need to outline broad differences between superior performance and average or poor performance. For effectiveness and competency, the individual’s personality plays a big role. There is therefore a statistical relation between personality factors and cultural dimensions. Management actions in some cases are dependent on cultural orientations. In cultures where Masculinity is valued, defining of goals is mostly facilitated. In such cultures as these, Masculinity is viewed in terms taking control fast and setting objectives that are quantifiable. Planning is made easier by an orientation for the future, but high Power Distance brings about effective planning where the individual fails to trust others (Chong 192). This also happens in a situation where Uncertainty Avoidance appears low as there will be no need for contingency plans. A culture with high Power Distance makes it easy for selection of persons into groups of management which are more external than internal. The level of self-esteem in personalities within a culture influences the managerial way of correcting any undesirable subordinate behavior. In high Power Distance cultures, it is found that the act of managers discussing performance with the subordinate is less regarded. Here managers are regarded as the final umpires of performance. A distinction is perceived between the high Individualism cultures and collectivism cultures, in that in high Individualism cultures teach their staff to become more independent while in collectivism cultures, managers view this kind of coaching as looking after their staff. Delegation is affected by Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance in two ways. One of these ways is that delegation of making decisions is found to be more risky in high Uncertainty avoidance culture. Secondly, managers in Power Distance cultures are regarded as more responsible for decisions made. This therefore expresses that decision making in organizations is an exclusive right and duty of the managers. There are significant differences between leadership, decision making, influencing skills and people development between North American and Asian cultures and need delimitating for accuracy. This makes an important significance on staff assessments across the culture. In the study of testing for cultural and competency differences, there are three different steps involved. In the first step, there is examination of wide distinctions in the evaluated competences of the American and Asian managers. In the second step, there is testing of the competency information from the public and private sector organizations to find out whether the practices of sector management in any way affect the result of analysis that focuses on cultural differences. The third and final step is where in relation to the prior research, hypothesis is tested on certain competences which are expected to be distinct across the cultures. One common finding is that American and East Asian cultural clusters are different. This therefore helps to interpret that the Asian managers are expected to be similar amongst themselves but different from the American managers. If the scores on instruments assessing managerial competency are used therefore, Asian managers will have comparable scores, which are radically different as compared to those of the American managers (Chong 192). Apart from nationality, different managerial practices within an organization could influence the competency needed of its managers. An instrument for competency evaluation created within a particular cultural setting is required to advantage managers that are familiar with the behaviors needed in moving together with others in the context. The managers’ evaluation from US and Singapore should not have significant distinctions. This is achieved by using an instrument that is created by Americans to evaluate managerial competency. The test method applied for differences attributed to culture is expected to include a managerial evaluation tool that minimizes the effects of different language proficiency, to view the social desirability factor and cover inconsistencies in the appraisal process across national boundaries. It also needs to have been used broadly in several nations for availability of cross-national details. Due to satisfaction of these requirements, the Managerial Assessment Proficiency instrument was used for the study. In this method, the candidate managers are offered details on an organization after which they are to follow a story line of a video that shows a character that plays managerial roles. The managers are then expected to provide answers to around one hundred and eighty seven multiple questions. This assessment takes only one day. MAP instrument is divided into four clusters that help in measuring twelve competencies. The first cluster is the administrative cluster, which deals with time management, prioritizing, setting of the objectives and standards, planning, and scheduling of tasks (Chong 193). The second cluster is the communication cluster that deals with listening and organization of clear information. Supervision, the third cluster, involves, “training, coaching and delegating, appraising people and performance and disciplining and counseling” (Chong 193). Finally, there is the cognitive cluster, dealing with “Identifying and solving problems, making decisions and weighing risks and thinking clearly and analytically” (Chong 193). For comparison purposes, the method uses information from individuals that are averaged into the organizational and national averages. These people are useful in indicating the differences of one group from another, though the aggregate scores do not describe individuals. In the results, it goes without saying that the characteristics of a group must be reflecting the characteristics of the group members. It is also argued that the complex national level attributes can be operationally worked on as the average of individual traits. It is expected that the on-going research into the multi-level models will offer an application that will be a contribution to the study. In this study, there were three levels of information that were incorporated. From familiar organizations, competency information was represented in the first level. In the second level, there was a representation of the average competency scores of persons in the interior of an organization. Finally, the third level showed scores averagely of competency of various organizations within a nation. Working out a higher level data from a lower one was possible as compared to working out a lower level data from a higher one. Just as stated earlier, ‘using the manager’s scores on an instrument that assesses managerial competency, managers from Asian countries are expected to have scores that are identical to each other, but different from those of the American managers’ (Chong 195). The American and East Asian managers were viewed as different ‘prior cluster’ in research done earlier. An investigation was carried out using the ‘Euclidean Distance Model’. The results expressed radical differences which meant the gap of the aggregated score of a nationality from the other, was much similar to the physical distance between cities in a road map. As per the results, the slant with zero digits showed its own distance. A greater value signified distance and dissimilarity. A lesser value showed proximity and similarity. Results of comparison of nations showed that American managers had the greatest distance from the managers of every East Asian nation. ‘The Taiwan managers appeared furthest from the American managers and those of Singapore were the closest to the Malaysian managers’ (Chong 195). In the evaluation of the distance and proximity, a Multidimensional Scaling was incorporated so as to achieve the Multidimensional perspective of the relative distances worldwide. The information achieved from both the private and civil sector organizations offers an opportunity to test whether sector distinctions affect the outcomes of the managerial competency appraisal. Another test two was used in comparing the public and private sector groups that were from the US and Singapore on every 12 MAP competencies. Results showed that measured competencies from the private sectors have significant differences from those of the competencies of the public sector in the case of both United States and Singapore. Competencies of same sector but distinguished nations were made so as to do away with the organization’s sector as ‘a possible intervening variable’ (Chong 195). To find out the competencies that were not similar between United States and Singapore managers, on most competencies for both public and private sector comparisons, the t-test was applied. Once an instrument that Americans have created is used, there will be no distinction with significance in the scores between the American and the Singapore managers on technical competencies such as the administrative and the cognitive competencies. In time management and prioritizing, “identifying and solving problems and thinking clearly and analytically, there are significant differences in both public and private sectors” (Chong 193). The geo-political proximity as well as historical links of the South-East Asian countries of Malaysia, Philippines and Singapore is reflected by results from the comparisons amongst the East Asian managers. As per results, the comparison in culture was distinguished in the same assessed competences in both civil and private sectors. In the every instance, United States scored better than the Singapore managers and there were effective differences in nine out of twelve competencies. This seemed very effective as even in the three competences which are not termed as significantly different, the American managers still scored higher than those of the Singapore. The distinctions observed in the Communication competency set can be ascribed to communication being less open between the managers and their subordinate in a higher Power Distance and lower individualism Singapore culture as compared to the United States culture. In conclusion, without considering the Singapore sample, only average information was availed for use in this study. This was as a result of the ‘sensitive nature of assessed managerial performance data on individuals’. This therefore means that as much as great distinctions could be discovered from the average organizational data, caution should be placed on the illations made on the individual manager’s behavior. Due to this and distinctions in the sample sizes, the full extent of comparability existing between all the samples could not be established. Again, it was not possible to establish if the sample of managers represented all managers in their nations. The outcome of this study shows that there is a distinction at the national level between the evaluated managerial competencies of American managers and that of the East African managers that can be attributed to cultural differences. Again, at an organizational level, cultural distinctions manifest themselves in some but not all assessed managerial competences. These results offer evidence that organizations should differentiate between the technical skills which are applicable across the cultures and people. . Works Cited Chong, Eric. “Managerial competency appraisal: A cross-cultural study of American and East Asian managers” Journal of Business Research, 61.1 (2008): 191-200. Print. Read More