Search results

Less educated supervisors create worker status incongruence, a violation of social norms that signals advancement uncertainty and job ambiguity for workers, and leads to negative behavioral and well-being outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to compare education levels of supervisors with their workers and measure the correlation between relative supervisor education and worker job satisfaction.

Using the only wave of the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth that identifies education levels of both supervisor and worker, a series of ordered probit estimates describe the relationship between supervisor education levels and subordinate worker well-being. Extensive controls, sub-sample estimates and a control for sorting confirm the estimates.

Worker well-being is negatively correlated with having a less educated supervisor and positively correlated with having a more educated supervisor. This result is robust to a number of alternative specifications. In sub-sample estimates, workers highly placed in an organization’s hierarchy do not exhibit reduced well-being with less educated supervisors.

A limitation is the inability to control for worker fixed effects, which may introduce omitted variable bias into the estimates.

The paper is the first to introduce relative supervisor–worker education level as a determinant of worker well-being.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the trajectory of cultural stereotypes on Uncertainty Avoidance emergent from two French multinational corporations. The exploration of respondents' comparisons of their own culture with other cultures illustrates that cultural stereotypes are derived from structural conditions that had developed over time, but came to be (mis)attributed to innate and prevalent cultural habits.

Data were collected from both primary and secondary sources, characterized by qualitative methodologies. Primary data respondents were predominantly ethnic Chinese Singaporeans, and secondary data respondents were predominantly French. In‐depth interviews were introduced in three phases.

The stereotype of the “uncertainty avoidant” Chinese Singaporean employees was employed by the top manager in one of the case studies (ECI) to lend legitimacy to the employees' exclusion from top management positions. The converse argument was made that “uncertainty avoidance” is absent among the French, who are hence more qualified as ECI top managers. Both claims were unfounded in this inquiry. Further evidence points to structural factors mediating employee behavior.

Structural factors were found to lend greater credibility in accounting for employee behaviors outlined in this study, more so than cultural ones. Future research surfacing complementary statistical insights will provide more concrete and representative evidence to this exploratory inquiry.

An alternative view of Uncertainty Avoidance through a structural account is proposed, based on evidence from qualitative inquiries.

For many of the current leadership theories, models, and approaches, the answer to the question posed in the title, “Is leadership more than ‘I like my boss’?,” is “no,” as there appears to be a hierarchy of leadership concepts with Liking of the leader as the primary dimension or general factor foundation. There are then secondary dimensions or specific sub-factors of liking of Relationship Leadership and Task Leadership; and subsequently, tertiary dimensions or actual sub-sub-factors that comprise the numerous leadership views as well as their operationalizations (e.g., via surveys). There are, however, some leadership views that go beyond simply liking of the leader and liking of relationship leadership and task leadership. For these, which involve explicit levels of analysis formulations, often beyond the leader, or are multi-level in nature, the answer to the title question is “yes.” We clarify and discuss these various “no” and “yes” leadership views and implications of our work for future research and personnel and human resources management practice.

However skilled we may be at managing our subordinates, many of us fail to apply similar principles in our relationships with our bosses. Somehow the fact that a person exercises power and authority over us seems to blot out any considerations that he or she might be a human being — just like the rest of us. Bosses not only think, but they feel too; and they can be hurt by the behaviour not only of their own boss but also of their subordinates.

Have you ever considered the mental processes which a diligent employee goes through before asking for a pay rise, a promotion or extra responsibilities? Examines workplace issues from the employee’s point of view.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how cultural differentiation can affect the successful transplantation of lean management and production techniques from the parent country to subsidiary countries in the developing world. In particular, the focus will be on car manufacture in India and the role of hierarchy in Indian society, with reflection on how this seeps into workplace and power relations.

Lean production techniques have been hailed as revolutionising modern manufacturing, particularly in the automotive sector. In developed world countries, car manufacturers have made significant gains in efficiency and productivity as a result of their implementation. However, as many of these multinational companies (MNCs) have expanded production into rapidly-developing nations to take advantage of both their market and low-labour costs, the introduction of lean production practices have met some resistance. This is because certain underpinning concepts and values of the lean system, such as team work, delegation of authority and upward communication can be considered incompatible with aspects of local culture and employees’ attitude towards work and their superiors. The analysis presented is based on a series of semi-structured interviews with managers and workers from an India-based subsidiary of a MNC car manufacturer and engagement with the existing literature.

It concludes that paternal relationships, religious values and group orientation in Indian society have a significant impact on the dynamics of the workplace and result in a brand of power distance that is specific to this national context, raising questions about the suitability of universal implementation of lean production practices.

“Power distance” has become a catch-all term for cultures with an orientation towards hierarchy and status in society. However, this categorisation masks some of the factors belying the phenomenon and intricacies relating to how it plays out in the workplace. It is simplistic to postulate that high power distance cultures might be incompatible with management approaches that decentralise authority and increase worker participation. Rather than rely on overgeneralisations, the analysis provided has attempted to deconstruct the composition of power distance in the Indian context and document systematically how features of Indian culture conflict with the principles of lean production techniques, using a case study from an Indian subsidiary of a MNC. In particular, the study finds that religion, caste and paternalism create an India-specific power distance that manifests itself in worker behaviour and workplace relationships.

Explains that the first step in getting positive reinforcement from your boss is to realize that you want and need it. Next, thought needs to be given regarding how and why your boss withholds positive reinforcement. Now you are ready to meet with your boss, ask for more positive reinforcement, cite examples of when he/she has given it and how it benefits both parties. End by giving him/her positive reinforcement for discussing this with you.

Practical advice to those wishing to develop a mentoring relationship with their boss (or other senior member of an organisation) is presented. Role‐play dialogues are drawn on, and a checklist is included. The author isolates four stages in developing a mentoring relationship and develops areas within those stages.

Discusses the frustrating situation of the boss telling your employees what to do without informing you. Suggests various strategies to deal with this: being prepared to ask; presenting your case; requesting that no more bypassing occurs; giving positive reinforcement; and follow‐ups.

Describes a four‐step procedure to stop your boss watching you. Discusses preparing to talk to your boss, meeting and talking about the situation, agreeing to a solution, and concluding the meeting.