Universal and culturally specific aspects of managerial influence: A study of Japanese managers

UNIVERSAL AND CULTURALLY SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF MANAGERIAL INFLUENCE: A STUDY OF JAPANESE MANAGERS

Asha Rae” Rutgers University

Keiji Hashimoto McGill University

Aruna Rao Temple University

International research on managerial influence has primarily been conducted using constructs and measures developed in the United States. In so doing, researchers exclude information on managerial influence tactics that are unique to other cultures, providing a limited view of influence by managers around the world. In this study we use factor analysis and content analysis to identify culturally specific aspects of managerial influence, and extend the applicability of a popular North American measure of managerial influence (POIS) to Japanese managers. We find that Japanese managers use some influence tactics and strategies previously reported by North American managers, such as assertiveness, sanctions, and appeals to higher authority. Yet, they also use other strategies and tactics that can be misinterpreted in cross-cultural situations because they are unique to Japanese managers, such as socializing or personaldevelopment.

The phenomenal growth in trade across borders through exports, foreign direct investment, strategic alliances and other forms of collaboration has led to an interest in how managers influence their subordinates from different national cultures (e.g., Thomas & Rawlins, 1995; Rao & Hashimoto, 1996; Schmidt & Yeh, 1992). But, cross-cultural studies of managerial influence are potentially flawed because they use North American constructs and measures which ignore unique tactics that managers use in other cultures.

* Direct all correspondence Street, Newark, NJ 07 102.

to: Asha Rao, Faculty of Management,

Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 295-312. Copyright 0 1997 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 1048-9843

Rutgers

University,

#314 MEC, 81 New

296

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 8 No. 3

1997

This study seeks to explore the etic and emit aspects of Japanese managerial influence. Constructs and measures originally created by Kipnis, Schmidt and Wilkinson (1980) are used to examine the extent to which Japanese managers use tactics identified in North American research. We also attempt to identify culturally specific Japanese strategies and tactics used by managers in Japan.

CONSTRUCT ORIGIN AND APPROACHES IN CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH A construct has meaning “deliberately and consciously invented or adopted for a special scientific purpose” (Kerlinger, 1986, p. 27). In research on managerial influence, each influence strategy construct was inductively derived from the shared meaning emerging from the items or tactics that loaded onto a factor (Kipnis et al., 1980). The process of construct development implies that the deliberate meaning assigned to each strategy in earlier studies is culturally specific to North American managers. In examining construct origin, cross-cultural researchers make the etic versus emit distinction (Berry, 1980). An etic approach assumes that constructs are universal, but manifested differently in various cultures. Differences and commonalities across cultures can be identified using functionally and metrically equivalent concepts and measures (Peng, Peterson, & Shyi, 1991). An emit approach assumes that constructs and measures are culture-specific and not comparable. Here, American influence strategies may not exist in other cultures, negating the possibility of cross-cultural comparisons. Studies of managerial influence conducted across the globe consistently take an etic approach and use American constructs of influence developed with American subjects (e.g., by Falbo, 1977; Kipnis et al., 1980; Yulk & Falbe, 1990) in examining relationships between managerial influence and other constructs in their cultures. This is a pseudo or false etic approach because the construct was developed in one culture (American) rather than drawn from all specific cultures (Triandis, 1977). An unintentional pseudo-etic approach assumes universality, ignoring issues of equivalence (Peng et al., 1991), and the potential for losing culture-specific (emit) information on managerial influence needed to understand constructs and create practical tools for international managers. The trade-off in using either approach is that “. . .without etics, comparisons lack a frame; without emits, comparisons lack meat” (Berry, 1980, p. 13). To solve this dilemma, that is, enable comparisons without making false assumptions of universality or eliminating culture specific information, Earley and Mosakowski (1996) suggest a middle ground where researchers iteratively examine phenomena in different cultures to identify universal and culture-specific constructs. They call this an intentionally pseudo-etic approach because the researchers attempt to discover if a construct is similar in different countries, yet begin with a construct that has an emit (North American) origin. In our study we take this approach to identify the universal aspects of managerial influence common to American and Japanese managers, and identify unique Japanese tactics untapped by previous studies. Our choice of constructs, instruments and sample was based on several factors. Our review of international research on influence published in English language journals between 1980 to 1994 indicates a growing interest in the study of managerial influence with research being conducted in many countries including Japan, India, Taiwan, Saudi

Aspects of Japanese Managerial

297

Influence

Arabia, and Spain. The POIS (Profile of Organizational Influence; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1982) is perhaps the most frequently used instrument in international research on managerial influence. The inductive methodology used to build the POIS is well suited to our pseudo-etic approach. In addition, the POIS and various related measures of influence (e.g., Yukl & Falbe, 1990) are frequently used in research and training in the United States (Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990). We focused on Japanese influence to build on previous studies that examined the nature of Japanese managerial influence and the applicability of American measures to Japanese managers (Hirokawa & Miyahara, 1986; Imai & Ryutsu, 1991; Rao & Hashimoto, 1996; Schmidt & Yeh, 1992; Yeh, 1995). Finally, a study of Japanese managerial influence has practical significance for Japanese and Americans because of the dramatic rise in Japanese investments in North America. Investment by Japanese firms in the United States increased from $10 billion to $84 billion between 1982-1992, and in Canada, increased from $0.6 billion in 1980 to $5.2 billion in 1990 (Goldenberg, 1991; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992). Japanese firms place Japanese managers in key management positions overseas, suggesting that a number of North Americans are managed by Japanese bosses (March, 1991).

REVIEW OF LITERATURE Managerial influence is an important aspect of leadership wherein managers intentionally influence their subordinates (Yukl, 1989). Whereas influence refers to the behavioral strategies that managers use to change the attitudes and behaviors of subordinates to reach organizational and personal goals (Kipnis et al., 1980; Rao & Schmidt, 1996; Yukl & Falbe, 1990), leadership is limited to downward managerial influence directed to achieve organizational goals (Yukl, 1989). The Kipnis, Schmidt and Wilkinson

Scales

Kipnis et al. (1980) inductively derived a typology of interpersonal influence strategies from reports of business students on how they got their way with their bosses, subordinates or peers. Their responses were content and factor analyzed to develop a seven strategy typology of influence consisting of assertiveness, sanctions, coalitions, higher authority, reason, friendliness, and exchange. Assertiveness refers to attempts to influence subordinates by being forceful, or giving the impression of being “in charge.” Sanctions involve using organizationally derived rewards or punishments. Coalitions involve mobilizing others in the firm to support the manager’s influence attempts. In using higher authority managers rely on more powerful members of the organization to gain subordinate compliance. Higher authority can be used both formally through the chain of command or by asking superiors to informally deal with a subordinate. Reason involves relying on data and information, on primarily using factual and logical arguments to convince subordinates. In exchange, a manager offers her time, effort, skills or access to organizational resources in exchange for compliance. Friendliness, also called ingratiation, involves using tactics that create a favorable impression with subordinates and cause them to think well of their manager (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1982). The responses from managers were refined to

298

develop three questionnaire (POIS; Kipnis & Schmidt, subordinates and peers.

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 8 No. 3 1997

instruments called the Profile of Organizational Influence 1982) that assessed interpersonal influence with superiors,

Japanese Managerial

Influence

In recent years, researchers in Japan and North America have begun to examine the nature of Japanese managerial influence (Fuchigami, 1992; Imai & Ryutsu, 1991; Rao & Hashimoto, 1996; Sakata & Kurosawa, 1992; Schmidt & Yeh, 1992). In Japan, Fuchigami (1992) examined the relationship between the upward influence strategies of nurses and their impact on the superior-subordinate relationship. In the United States, Imai and Ryutsu (1991) examined the impact of Japanese subordinate’s upward influence tactics on performance appraisals when the managers were either Japanese or Americans employed in Japanese firms in the United States. While both authors cite the work of Kipnis et al. (1980) and Kipnis and Schmidt (1983) the strategies they studied included several of the seven POIS strategies, excluded others, and had several additional strategies such as enthusiasm (Fuchigami, 1992) or self presentation (Imai & Ryutsu, 1991). Unfortunately, the authors provide no explanations for their inclusion or exclusion of strategies. Yet, their approach suggests that they adapted constructs and measures because the original Kipnis et al. (1980) framework lacked face validity in Japan. To examine the universal aspects of managerial influence and locate cultural differences, Schmidt and Yeh (1992) factor analyzed the responses of Japanese, Australian, English, American and Taiwanese managers to the POIS. Their factor analysis of Japanese responses indicated that there were significant cross-loadings of items suggesting that the distinction between influence strategies, that is, constructs such as assertiveness and reason, was not clear. The American, British and Australian samples had similar factor structures reflecting an underlying shared meaning of influence in western cultures (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992). Their investigation had two limitations. First, Schmidt and Yeh (1992) surveyed Japanese managers in charge of Taiwanese subordinates, that is, only in intercultural interaction. Cross-cultural research indicates that while managerial influence is rooted in the culture of the influencer, managers do try to adapt their style in managing people from other cultures (Thomas & Rawlins, 1995). Hence, Japanese managers in Taiwan may use tactics with Taiwanese employees that they would not use with Japanese subordinates, thus providing a distorted view of Japanese influence. To further our understanding of Japanese managerial influence, we need to identify Japanese influence tactics and strategies with subordinates of their own culture, along with the adaptive process in intercultural influence. Rao and Hashimoto (1996) sought to provide a more accurate picture of Japanese managerial influence by examining the structure of influence in Japanese manager-subordinate dyads in Canada. Their exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of manager’s responses to POIS tactics indicated strategies consistent with Kipnis et al. (1980) strategies of assertiveness, sanctions, reason and higher authority. But, bargaining and friendliness appeared to reflect a single construct, with items assessing these strategies loading onto a single factor. The two strategies share an underlying element of reciprocity. In exchange, reciprocity is explicit, while in friendliness it is implicit, wherein the subordinate is offered friendship, respect, and esteem in exchange for compliance. As in Schmidt and Yeh’s (1992) study, coalitions

Aspects of Japanese Managerial

299

Influence

failed to emerge as an independent factor, indicating that American coalitions tactics were not viewed as such by Japanese managers. A second, more important, limitation of both studies (Rao & Hashimoto, 1996; Schmidt & Yeh, 1992) was that they did not identify any culturally specific Japanese tactics and limited tactics to those listed in the POIS. Potentially, Japanese managers use strategies such as coalitions with their subordinates through tactics not reported by American managers. Research on Japanese management consistently describes the coalition building and behind-the-scenes maneuvering that managers use to persuade their peers to support their goals and proposals (Pascale & Athos, 1981). Identifying these tactics is important because Japanese managers using them interculturally with American subordinates may find that their subordinates do not understand or respond to their influence tactics.

METHODS The sample consisted of Japanese managers from the Tokyo office of a large Japanese international trading company with headquarters in Tokyo, Japan. The firm employs over 11,000 people in 200 cities and 90 countries, and annually conducts transactions with an aggregate value in excess of $120 billion. The firm agreed to participate in the study because a significant number of employees potentially needed to develop expertise in managing across cultures. We sought a managerial rather than a student sample because we wanted managers to draw upon their own experiences to describe their influence tactics and strategies in influencing subordinates, as opposed to the more generalized or theoretical views that students may offer. Questionnaires (150) were mailed to the Human Resources (HR) manager of the Japanese firm to survey potential expatriates. The profile of the responding managers was matched to that of the firm’s Japanese managers in Canada. The mean age of respondents was 46.89 years (SD = 4.31). They had an average of 6.29 years of overseas experience (SD = 3.29) and had 23.7 years of work experience in the firm (SD = 4.64). All respondents were male. The questionnaire was administered to managers with a cover letter from the firm’s top management, and from the Dean of the business school, encouraging managers to respond. Sealed, anonymous responses were mailed back to the HR department, which then forwarded the envelopes to us. Respondents were given a summary report in exchange for their participation. Influence Strategies

We used a Japanese version of the Profile of Organizational Influence-POISN, based on the instrument developed by Kipnis and Schmidt (1982) and Yeh (1986). To ensure that the language was appropriate for Japanese managers, and to reduce the ambiguity in items, we had the research instrument translated and backtranslated by two independent translators (Brislin, 1990). Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they used each tactic on a five point Likert type scale ranging from (1) never, to (5) very frequently, with their Japanese subordinates. At the end of the list of 33 POIS/M tactics, we asked managers to indicate additional tactics they used which were not in the POIS. By making our request for new tactics following the list of POIS/M tactics, we sought to create an appropriate response frame in our respondents. One hundred and thirty-five questionnaires were

LEADERSHIP

300

Table 1 Factor Loadings of Japanese Managers’ influence Items

1 (C) support

2

-15

feel important 3 (R) Wirte detailed action plan 4 (A) Demand compliance 5 (E) Offer exchange 6 (F) Act humble and polite 7 (S) Ensure no salary increase 2 (F) Make subordinate

10 10 -08 %I 12

3

40

-06

04

34

29

23

09

41

27 01

-01

24

-06

-03

a

23

07

a

-09 30

-04 I8

-05

11

79

07

23

13

22

-11

55

05

-10

-07

14

45

9 (A) Direct subordinate

03

10 (E) Recall past favors

56 26

-06 10 -07 16 -10

07 31

34

-02

15 (S) Threaten no promotion

50 09

00

10

16 (F) Sympathize

43

22

4800

17 (A) Work done as specified

10

19 (E) Job related benefits 20 (F) Wait for receptive mood 21 (A) Set date/time deadline

-11

72.

15

@

01

20

70

-08

81 29

07

15

27

-08

05

56

06 -16

-00

-04

19

-06 01

18 (R) Logical arguments

18

39

11

-01

13 (S) Threaten with bad appraisal

32

5$ 06

14 (HA) Send to higher management

6

-12

-34

32

5

06

-08

40 -01

4

35

24

feel good

3 1997

-08

05

11 (HA) File report with superior

8 No.

47

8 (HA) Appeal to superior

12 (F) Make subordinate

Vol.

Responses to POIS Items I

of peers

QUARTERLY

14 -17 14

10 -27 01 27 -21

08 +I 05 -10 zo 09

-09 -25 24 12 -03 26 25

22 (F) Act friendly

32

54

19

23 (R) Give facts/figure

01

55

4x

24 (C) Support from peers

06

56

15

23

25 (S) Hint/threat job loss

07

02

-10

63

00

17

26 (HA) Management

21

26

18

13

51.

04

27 (E) Offer personal sacritice

24

41

41

20

09

-13

28 (A) Scold

00

I1

39

28

11

44

44 45

17

-13

37

-12

28

30

04

48

05

23

06

52

25

-07

16

42

05

31 12

29 (S) Promise/give

support (informal)

pay raise

30 (E) Offer help 3 1 (R) Carefully

explain

32 (A) Repeated reminders 33 (A) Organizational rules N~rs: Decimal points are omitted. (F) friendlineaa, CC) coalitions, (E) exchange.

returned,

providing

addition, Japanese subordinates.

a response

managers

rate

listed

(R) reason, (S)

of 90%

73 new

12 sanctions,

(HA)

18 -09

-10 40 31

-08 11 -07

27 20 18 62 11 I1 15 09 higher authority. (A) aasertivenea~,

to this selected, non-random sample. In influence tactics that they used with

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used in analysis. We factor analyzed the Japanese managers responses to the POIS items to discover if the structure of Japanese

Aspects of Japanese Managerial

Influence

301

influence was similar to that of the POIS. We also qualitatively content analyzed the 73 new tactics reported by the Japanese managers in Japan into coding categories based on the POIS as described in the Appendix. Factor Analysis

Following the approach taken by Kipnis et al. (1980) and Schmidt and Yeh (1992), we used a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation. First specified was a seven factor structure based on the POIS, but the data failed to converge to a solution. We then specified a six factor structure which yielded interpretable factors accounting for approximately 49% of the total variance. The factor loadings for the six factor model, which is similar to that in other Japanese samples (Rao & Hashimoto, 1996; Yeh, 1986), are presented in Table 1. Factor loadings greater than .40 were considered significant (Hair et al., 1995). Four items that loaded onto more than one factor were eliminated from further analysis. While an observation/variable ratio of five or ten is recommended, researchers have conducted factor analysis with lower ratios (Hair et al., 1995). Table 2 provides a description of the items loading onto each factor. Factor 1 contains mainly exchange items. Factor 2 contains the two POIS coalitions items and some friendliness items. We interpret these to be indirect, low pressure tactics which can be called friendliness in the Japanese context. Factor 3 contains both assertiveness and reason items. The two assertiveness items of setting deadlines to get work done or asking the subordinate to work in a certain fashion unless he has a better plan appear to be rational tactics within the Japanese work context. Subordinate participation in decision making is rather common in Japanese firms, hence the latter strategy essentially invokes the norm of participation (Pascale & Athos, 1981). Factor 4 contains all four POIS sanctions items, indicating that Sanctions are clearly interpreted across the two cultures. Factor 5 contains the appeals to higher authority items, and an assertiveness item invoking the higher authority of the firm. In reliability analysis the assertiveness item was excluded because it reduced scale reliability. Factor 6 consists of five assertiveness items. The factor analysis indicates that the meaning of strategies of assertiveness, sanctions and higher authority transfers well across cultures. There are some inconsistencies in shared meaning across cultures on the strategies of reason, friendliness, and exchange, as conceived in previous North American research. Means, standard deviations and correlations between the POIS strategies are also presented in Table 2. Reason was the most often used strategy, followed by assertiveness and friendliness. This parallels the Kipnis et al. (1980) finding that friendliness and rationality were most likely to be used by managers with subordinates, followed by assertiveness. There are strong correlations between certain strategies, such as exchange and friendliness, similar to previous research (Rao & Hashimoto, 1996) suggesting that Japanese managers do not conceptually distinguish between the strategies. Other correlations, such as assertiveness with reason, indicate that there are relationships between the direct and indirect influence strategies, as suggested by Schmidt and Yeh (1992). Cronbach’s reliability alpha’s were acceptable for all scales (DeVellis, 199 1).

LEADERSHIP

302

QUARTERLY

Vol. 8 No. 3

1997

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Description of Items in Japanese Managerial Influence Strategies Injluence

Mean

Strategy

(SD)

1.Assert

3.11

(a = .61)

.58

2. Exchange

I .39

(a = .68)

.38

3. Friend

2.7 1

(a = .62)

.57

4. High

1.30

(a = .67)

.47

5. Reason

3.5

(a = .63)

.6X

6. Sanction

1.10

(a = .62)

.21

Correlations 2

3

4

5

6

.18*

.21**

.17*

.4x***

.23***

x

.42***

.39**

.23**

.26**

x

.32***

.20*

.20*

x

.13

.24***

x

.I6 x

Exchange

Sanctions

E

Recall past favors

F

Make subordinate

feel good

s

Threaten with bad appraisal

S

Threaten not to promote

HA

Send to higher management

S

Hint or threaten termination

E

Provide job related benefits

S

Ensure no salary increase

E

Offer exchange

Friendliness C

Support of other peers

HA

File report with boss

F

Act friendly

HA

Management

R

Write detailed action plan

HA

appeal to higher management

C

Obtain support of coworkers

R

Carefully

F

Act humble and polite

explain reason

Assertiveness

Reason A R A Notes:

support

Work done as specified unless

A

Scold

subordinate

A

Repeatedly

A

Demand compliance

A

Simply direct subordinate

has a better way

Logical arguments Set time or date deadline N=l38,p>.001=***,p>.Ol=**,p>.05+*,

remind

(a) Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.

Content Analysis A parallel translation process of the responses was used to ensure equivalence. Tactics were translated from Japanese to English by two independent translators. Both translations were compared by a third person to ensure accuracy. Two coders independently coded items into the influence categories based on the POE (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1982), created

Aspects of Japanese Managerial

Influence

303

new categories, and identified items that were not influence. The relevant POIS (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1982) categories are described in the Appendix. Interrater reliability, assessed by the ratio of coding agreements to the total number of coding decisions, was 49%, rather low (Kassarjian, 1977). While agreement was high on items placed in POIS categories, two problems reduced intercoder reliability. The first and most important problem was whether an item was an influence tactic if it did not focus on a specific act within an influence episode. For example, an item describing behavior used to gain compliance for a request reads as follows. attempt to continuously inform my subordinates of my opinions, and provide information about our group [division] so that they can understand the situation and reasons for my request.

I

Unlike tactics in the POIS, the above behavior occurs continuously and is not bound within a specific influence episode between a manager and subordinate. A specific influence episode refers to the process where a manager needs to change a subordinate’s behavior or attitudes to reach a specific goal, exercises influence, and either fails or gains compliance. Recalling our definition of influence as the composite behavioral strategies that managers use to change the behavior/attitudes of subordinates to reach organizational goals indicates that a tactic need not be confined to a specific influence episode. In support of this argument, Japanese managers repeatedly indicated that POIS items were too specific and “American” and that they influenced their subordinate in less obvious, more indirect ways. Therefore, we expanded our classification of influence to include tactics that met our definition of influence but were not limited to a specific influence episode. A second problem was with the labels created in coding items. For example, while one author created a new version of assertiveness, defined as assertiveness based on using the power of the firm, the other created a similarly defined version of higher authority to classify the same items. Prior North American studies indicate that these strategies are often correlated and cluster together (e.g., Kipnis & Schmidt, 1983). Because Japanese managers often referred to their firms as superior agents or entities, we grouped these tactics into a new category of “Firm’s authority.” Similarly, items reflecting the Japanese practice of after-work socialization were classified by one author as friendliness, and the other as a new Japanese strategy of socializing. While the social setting suggested friendliness, the content of the tactics were assertive, unlike the friendliness tactics in the POIS, leading us to create an influence strategy called “Socializing.” The items were then reclassified with a common list of coding categories. Resolving the two problems raised interrater reliability to 87%. The items and categories where we reached agreement are listed in the Appendix. Managers reported many tactics that fit into POIS strategies of reason, coalitions, friendliness and assertiveness. Also identified were culturally specific strategies of socializing, firm’s authority, personal development, open communication and being a role model. DISCUSSION Our study of Japanese managerial influence indicates that three of the seven American influence strategies assessed by the POIS transfer well across cultures. Influence tactics group together on factors similar to those found in previous research with American

304

LEADERSHIP

QUARTERLY

Vol. 8 No. 3 1997

managers (Kipnis et al., 1980). But Japanese managers use some culturally specific tactics and strategies with their subordinates indicating that existing influence measures developed in North America provide us with a partial view of influence in Japan. Towards

Identifying

Universal

Strategies

The factor analysis of Japanese managers’ responses to POIS items presented some striking similarities to the factor structure reported by American managers in previous studies (Kipnis et al. 1980; Schmidt & Yeh, 1992). Tactics of appeals to higher authority, sanctions and assertiveness loaded cleanly onto different factors in our analysis indicating some measure of universality because they represent the same strategies in Japan and North America. These findings imply that Japanese and American managers can use them across both cultures without fear of misinterpretation. Similar to the findings of Rao and Hashimoto (1996) in their study with Japanese expatriates in Canada, exchange includes tactics denoting explicit and implicit exchange. The strategy includes a POIS sanctions tactic of promising or implying a raise in salary in exchange for compliance, and a POIS friendliness item of making the subordinate feel good in exchange for compliance. It also includes POIS coalition items where a manager enlists the support of other subordinates in an influence attempt. In a culture where indirectness is the norm and maintaining harmony in the work group is crucial, a manager is being sensitive to the cultural norms and the needs of subordinates by exerting indirect influence through other subordinates (Pascale & Athos, 1981; Linowes, 1993). Two POIS reason items also fall into this factor perhaps because the manager seeks to be nice and build a relationship with his subordinate by sharing his knowledge and expertise. The emergent Japanese strategy of reason contains two POIS assertiveness items. On closer examination these items are not forceful and demanding in the Japanese context. Because of participative decision making in Japanese firms (Hain, 1992; Linowes, 1993), a manager suggesting that his subordinate do the work in a specific way unless he can come up with a better idea is more of a questioning, rational tactic than a demanding assertive one. In content analyzing the new tactics reported by Japanese managers, we found that a number of tactics could be grouped into existing POIS strategies of reason, friendliness, assertiveness and coalitions. We describe and explain these tactics in the context of Japanese culture and management. Reason

In using reason, Japanese managers provided their subordinates with examples, shared their knowledge and gave them information on their goals. Some tactics were similar to the POIS reason tactics, such as presenting examples or explaining the significance of the work. Others involve sharing information, knowledge and expertise on a continuous basis. The tactics differ from the original POIS tactics because they are used continuously and not necessarily within a specific influence episode. Research on cross-cultural communication indicates that Japanese culture is characterized by high context communication where much of the message is embedded in the context of communication and subordinates pick up relevant information from environmental cues (Hall & Hall, 1988). For example, if a Japanese manager wants his subordinate to focus on the South Korean market for a

Aspects of Japanese Managerial

Influence

305

company product, then he sees to it that the subordinate is channeled information on the market and expects the subordinate to pick up on this cue and begin researching the market. In contrast, the United States is a low context culture where messages are transmitted through the content of direct verbal communication between a manager and subordinate (Hall & Hall, 1988). Hence, direct rational tactics found in the POIS where managers provides facts and figures to support a particular course of action for subordinates are common in the United States. In Japan, managers seem to use rational tactics that are broader in scope and might appear vague to American subordinates. Friendliness

The friendliness tactics reported by Japanese managers were more subtle and indirect than POIS friendliness tactics. Two such tactics are: “I interact with subordinates as an equal, not taking advantage of my position as their superior” and “I attempt to take up a fair share of the work load in assigning tasks.” These tactics would not be viewed as friendliness in North America because they are interpreted in the light of underlying cultural values. Compared to the United States and Canada, Japanese culture ranks high in power-distance (Hofstede, 1991), and there is a greater acceptance of inequalities in power between bosses and subordinates. Hence, democratic behavior such as interacting with subordinates as an equal can be described as friendliness on the part of the manager. Coalitions

In previous studies with Japanese managers, the strategy of coalitions was not assessed because POIS coalitions items were not internally consistent (e.g., Rao & Hashimoto, 1996; Yeh, 1986). Yet, studies of Japanese culture and management suggest that coalitions are often used by Japanese managers. The Japanese are a collectivist, group-oriented people who value harmony and place the welfare of the group over that of the individual (Hofstede, 199 1; Nakane, 1970). Coalitions tactics are formalized in the Japanese management system through processes such as ringi and nemewashi, which are based on the principle that decisions will be made by groups (Whitehill, 1991; Van Zandt, 1970; Yoshino, 1968). The coalition tactics we identify emphasize the link between the subordinate and his group. For example, a manager has subordinates “understand the importance of teamwork and the meaning of my request in this context.” In the Japanese cultural context, reminding a subordinate that his compliance is necessary for the group can be construed as a coalition tactic. Rather than explicitly obtaining support from coworkers to influence a subordinate as described in the POIS, managers invoke the spirit of group welfare. Assertiveness

Two new items were classified as assertiveness. For instance, a manager makes “explicit the job responsibilities of subordinates.” Directly reminding subordinates of their duties is a forceful tactic in Japan, where communication is characterized by indirectness. A second item addressed the issue of professional norms where the manager attempts to shame the subordinate into compliance.

LEADERSHIP

306 Unique

Tactics and Culturally

QUARTERLY

Vol.

8 No.

3 1997

Specific Strategies

We tentatively identified five culturally specific influence strategies of the firm’s authority, personal development, open communication, socializing, being a role model, and normative influence. These strategies are similar to assertiveness, exchange, reason, and friendliness respectively. But they differ in important ways leading us to characterize them as culturally specific influence strategies. Firm’s Authority

North American managers report appealing to people higher up in the organizational hierarchy to influence their subordinates (Kipnis et al., 1980). Japanese managers appear to rely on the authority of their firm as an entity, independent of their superiors, in influencing their subordinates as, for example, “I explain to my subordinates the firm’s need for their compliance,” or “I have my subordinates understand what the division is expected to do by the company.” These tactics are linked to the fact that managers and subordinates share a view of the firm as a family, and emphasize the emotional rather than contractual relationship with the firm evinced by Japanese employees (Whitehill, 1991; Yoshino, 1968). Personal Development

Rather than overt bargaining where managers offer a direct trade, as in the American strategy of exchange, Japanese managers more subtly focus on a subordinate’s skill development and career enhancement within the firm. For example, a manager states “I convince my subordinates that complying with my request is beneficial to their career.” These tactics may be very effective in the Japanese context of lifetime employment, where a subordinates’ career is usually limited to movement within a single firm (Amano, 1982). In North America, where employees are more mobile, Japanese managers using this strategy need to focus on personal skills that subordinates can take with them when they leave (Amano, 1982; Pascale & Athos, 1981). While similar to the POIS strategy of exchange, in this Japanese strategy managers imply that subordinates can reap future benefits for complyimg with requests today. Open Communication

This strategy refers to tactics focusing on information exchange, but not within the context of a specific influence episode. For example “I attempt to convey my requests by discussing business issues and plans.” Because most communication in a Japanese cultural context is embedded in the environmental context, this strategy enables subordinates to pick up information which is not explicitly given or requested. Hatveny and Pucik (198 1) describe the strategy of open communication in Japanese firms. Because the Japanese emphasize self-management, freely providing information is a managerial strategy that forces subordinates to take responsibility for getting work done. American subordinates may also respond to these tactics when used by Japanese managers because they are similar to the consultative tactics reported by Yukl and Falbe (1990). Role Model

Japanese managers appear to use an American impression management strategy of self presentation (Gardiner & Martinko, 1988) by acting as role models and setting an example

Aspects of Japanese Managerial

Influence

307

for their subordinates to follow. For example, “I do what I think is good [for my subordinates to follow]; or “I use the public phone for personal calls, instead of the office phone.” Symbolic of a high-context culture, managers expect their subordinates to pick up on cues set by the managers’ behavior, rather than direct requests. Socializing

Japanese managers reported socializing after work (in bars) to influence subordinates. Socializing enables informal, frank interaction between managers and subordinates that is not possible in the formal workplace. While similar to friendliness, these tactics are fairly assertive involving being blunt, or candid, in a relatively informal setting. Socializing emphasizes the context of influence. Similar tactics used with the physical environment of the firm would be viewed as assertive, demanding tactics. The strategy has implications for cross-cultural management. Japanese managers in Canada were disappointed when their Canadian subordinates declined to socialize after work (Rao & Hashimoto, 1996). Eliminating socializing potentially reduces the Japanese manager’s repertoire of influence and can lead to their using assertive tactics at work in North America. In sum, Japanese managers use tactics and strategies that are used by American managers, along with other tactics unique to their culture. Japanese tactics differ from American influence tactics in specific ways. First, Japanese managers use a number of tactics outside an influence episode. These tactics include socializing after work to build relationships or learning about the subordinates personal life to build trust. The tactics are interesting because they reduce the need for interpersonal influence tactics within specific influence episodes in the long run. Second, Japanese managers prefer subtle, indirect tactics. This difference may be rooted in cultural communication norms differentiating high versus low context cultures and differences in cultural values (Hall & Hall, 1988; Nakane, 1970). A society that values harmony prefers indirect to direct influence in situations that could lead to conflict (Nakane, 1970). Third, managers use culturally rooted tactics relying on the power of the firm and group cohesion. There tactics are associated with management practices such as lifetime employment and consensus decision making which in turn are based on unique elements of Japanese culture such as collectivism (Amano, 1982; Pascale & Athos, 1981). Taken together the findings suggest that while managerial influence in North America is primarily interpersonal and exercised within the context of a specific influence episode, Japanese managers closely link interpersonal and organizational influence at work. Managerial

Implications

These findings have implications for Japanese managers and their subordinates in Japan and in North America. Japanese managers may have difficulty in influencing foreign subordinates while using uniquely Japanese strategies such as socializing or personal development, in lieu of strategies that North Americans are familiar with such as friendliness or bargaining. North Americans may not understand or respond to indirect tactics used by Japanese managers. We suggest that managers and subordinates in both cultures understand culture specific strategies such as those identified in this study. By developing a common language of influence both parties can prevent misunderstandings arising in multicultural workplaces.

LEADERSHIP

308

QUARTERLY

Vol.

8 No.

3 1997

The findings of our study must be reviewed in the context of its limitations. Our analysis is based on retrospective self-report data. While there is some evidence for the rigor of this method (Crampton & Wagner, 1994), the study may suffer from biases inherent to this method of data collection (Kidder & Judd, 1986). Japanese men and women use different tactics in conflict (Ohbuchi & Baba, 1988; Sakata & Kurosawa, 1992). None of our respondents were women, reflecting the paucity of female managers in Japanese firms, and the findings may not apply to women in Japanese corporations. The responding managers were from a single firm, and the findings apply mainly to managers in similar large Japanese firms with significant levels of overseas business. Also, some tactics may be unique to Japanese managers in this firm. Unfortunately, Japanese firms conduct most of their research, training and development in-house and are reluctant to allow outsiders access to their personnel if the findings are not confidential. Finally, the strategies we have identified in this exploratory study are tentative, and must be subject to more rigorous development.

APPENDIX Influence

Tactics Reported

by Japanese Managers

A. PO/S Strategies (Note: S = Subordinates)

Reason. A strategy of attempting to influence information to support a manager’s requests.

subordinates

by relying

on data and

1. Continuously share my opinions and information on our group to help them understand the situation and reasons for my requests, 2. On a daily basis provide S with criteria for business decisions and information on business context so that they will fulfill my request. 3. Clearly present my thoughts and policies. 4. In regular meetings, explain the group’s short and medium term goals to enhance S’s sense of responsibility for their work [so that they agree with my requests]. 5. Make my request to S, keeping in mind that only a Japanese can understand Japanese style vague instructions [people understand request without being told very much]. 6. After carefully explaining reasons, I simply ask my S to do what I want them to do. 7. Present examples [to illustrate what I want done]. 8. Explain to S the objectives and significance of their work. 9. Share my knowledge and expertise with S [so that they learn what I want them to do]. 10. Explain to S why my request is important. 11. Share business information so S understand why my request is important to the firm. 12. Have S participate in the process of decision-making. Friendliness. well of you.

A strategy of attempting

1. Take care of my S [offer concern].

to influence

subordinates

by causing them to think

Aspects of Japanese Managerial

309

Influence

Fairly allocate work to group members and appeal to my fairness. 3. Interact with S as an equal, not taking advantage of my position as a superior. 4. While not getting unnecessarily involved, I help S with my advice on personal matters. 5. Take up a fair share of my team’s work in assigning tasks to S, to foster team spirit. 6. Solve anxiety that emerges in the process of S’s work which helps them get the work done. 2.

Assertiveness. demanding.

A strategy of attempting

to influence

subordinates

by being forceful and

1. Make explicit S’s responsibilities [which are usually not explicitly defined in Japan]. 2. Remind S that we are all professionals in the business [normative/shame]. Coalitions/Interdependence. A strategy of mobilizing the manager in influencing a subordinate.

other people in the firm to assist

1. Emphasize that superiors and S share a common fate [responsibility and prosperity]. 2. Have S understand importance of teamwork and meaning of my request for the team. 3. Make sure that S understand the objectives and problems of the group. (No items were classified Sanctions.) B. Culturally

into the POIS strategies of Exchange,

Higher authority

and

Specific Strategies

Firm’s authority. A strategy of treating the firm as a superordinate the firm’s goals, norms and requirements.

entity and referring to

1. Explain to S, very specifically, that my request is based on the firm’s policies (hohsin). 2. Explain to S the firm’s need for their compliance, in making my request. 3. Convince S of my views and the firm’s goals. 4. Have S understand what the division is expected to do by the company. 5. Explain to S the consequences of our performance (sales) for the firm. 6. Have S understand my basic policies and goals. 7. Explain significance of S’s compliance for the sake of the firm and for themselves. 8. Emphasize to S the meaning and significance of their work for the firm. 9. Have S clearly recognize their rights [privileges] and their responsibilities [to the film]. Personal development. within the firm.

A strategy of emphasizing

the subordinate’s

career development

1. Convince S that complying with my request is beneficial to their career. 2. Frequently discuss career plans with S [so that they understand my requests]. 3. Explain to S how their jobs will develop in the future [career development].

LEADERSHIP

310

4.

Explain to S that complying

Open

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

communication.

QUARTERLY

Vol. 8 No. 3 1997

with my request will help in developing

A strategy of information

exchange unlinked

their abilities.

to specific request.

Attempt to facilitate communication with S. Make an effort to keep S aware of what I expect them to do. Attempt to convey my requests by discussing business issues and plans. Attempt to talk with S often to facilitate communication on job and personal matters. Attempt to communicate with S often to understand one anothers’ positions. Attempt to reach conclusions by talking frankly with S and not force my request. Interact closely with S for fear that they have something to conceal. Provide S with total information to motivate S [to fulfil my requests when they arise]

Role model.

A self presentation

strategy where managers model behavior.

1. Pay attention to my own work behavior so that I can receive the respect of S (e.g., arriving at office early; separating corporate and personal matters). 2. Set a good example to my S. 3. Do what I think is good for S to follow (e.g., using public phones for personal calls). 4. Talk to S about my failures, so that S are more willing to take risks and be creative or to indicate that a manager is just human and therefore accessible. 5. Make myself a good example and encourage them to be aggressive in business. Socializing.

1.

2. 3. 4.

A strategy of making requests in social situation.

Facilitate communication with S (e.g., by going to a bar after work). Convey my policies and ideas through frank discussions after work, often in bars. Raise informal after hours communication so that S are easily influenced. Make requests candidly, talking to S when we relax in bars after work.

Acknowledgments:

Funding

for this project

was provided

by McGill

University,

Canada. REFERENCES Amano, M.M. (1992). Motivational orientation differences between Japan and the United States: The key to worker productivity Management

by Japanese

successes

and problems.

In SM. Lee & G. Schwendiman

(Eds),

systems (pp. 237-287). New York: Praeger.

Berry, J.W. (1980). Social and cultural change. In H.C. Triandis & R.W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of cross cultural psychology (pp. 2 1 l-280). Boston: Bacon Allen. Brislin, R.W. (1990). Applied cross-cuZturu/psychoZogy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Crampton, S.M., & Wagner, J.A. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in micro-organizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(l), 67-76. DeVellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Earley, C.P., & Mosakowski, E. (1996). A framework for understandingexperimental research in an international and intercultural context. In B.J. Punnett & 0. Shenker (Eds.), Handbook of international management research . New York: Blackwell.

Aspects of Japanese

Managerial

Influence

311

Falbo, T. (1977). The multidimensional scaling of power strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 537-547. Fuchigami, K. (1992). Effects of leader behavior on subordinates’ upward influence tactics and relationships between subordinate and leader. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 63(2), 107113. Gardiner, W.L., & Martinko, M.J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of Management, 14(2), 321-338. Goldenberg, S. (1991). Global pursuit. Toronto: McGraw-Hill, Hain, T. (1982). Japanese management in the United States. In S.M. Lee & G. Schwendiman (Eds.), Management by Japanese systems (pp. 433-449). New York: Praeger. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, WC. (1995). Multivariate data analysis, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hall, E.T. & Hall, M.R. (1988). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press. Hatveny, N., & Pucik, V. (1981). An integrated management system: Lessons from the Japanese experience. Academy of Management Review, 6(3), 469-480. Hirokawa, R.Y., & Miyahara, A. (1986). A comparison of influence strategiesutilized by managers in American and Japanese organizations. Communications Quarterly, 34(3), 250-265. Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations-Software of the mind. Berkshire, UK: McGraw Hill. Imai, Y., & Ryutsu, K. (1991). Effects of influence strategies, perceived social power and costs on compliance with requests. Japanese Psychological Research, 33(3), 134-144. Kassarjian, H.J. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal ofconsumer Research, 4,818. Kidder, L.M., & Judd, C.M. (1987). Research methods in social relations, 5th ed. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Kerlinger, F. (1986). Foundations ofbehavioral research. New York: Holt, Reinhartand Winston. Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S.M. (1983). An influence perspective of bargainingwithin organizations. In M.H. Bazennan & R.J. Liwicki (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (p. 303-319). Beverly Hills: Sage. Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S.M. (1982). Profiles of organizational influence strategies. San Diego: University Associates. Kipnis, D., Schmidt, SM., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 440-452. Linowes, R.G. (1993). The Japanese manager’s traumatic entry into the United States. Academy of Management Executive, 7(4), 21-40. March, R.M. (1991). Western manager, Japanese boss. Intersect, January, 11-16. Nakane, C. (1970). Japanese society. University of California Press. Ohbuchi, K., & Baba, R. (1988). Selection of influence strategies ininterpersonal conflicts: Effects of sex, interpersonal relations and goals. Tohoku Psychological Folia, 47( l-4), 63-73. Pascale, R.T., & Athos, A.G. (1981). The art of Japanese management application for American executives. New York: Simon & Schuster. Peng, T.K., Peterson, M.F., & Shyi, Y.P. (1991). Quantitative methods in cross-national management research: Trends and equivalence issues. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 87-107. Rao, A., & Hashimoto, K. (1996). Intercultural influence: A study of Japanese expatriate managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3), 443-466. Rao, A., & Schmidt, S.M. (1995). Influence strategies in intercultural interaction: The view from Asia. Advances in International Comparative Management, 10,79-98. Rao, A., & Hashimoto, K. (1996) 27, (3), 443-466

312

LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY Vol. 8 No. 3 1997

Sakata, K., & Kurosawa, M. (1992). Sex differences in leader behavior from the perspective of attitudes toward sex roles and influence strategies. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3I(3), 187-202. Schmidt, S.M., & Yeh, R.H. (1992). The structure of leader influence: A cross national comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23(2), 251-262. Schriesheim, C.A., & Hi&in, T.R. (1990). Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson Subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(3), 246-257. Thomas, D.C., & Rawlins, E.C. (1995). Responses of employees to culturaladaptation by a foreign manager. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 133-146. Triandis, H.C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. U.S. Department of Commerce. (1992). Survey of current business. Washington DC: DOC. Van Zandt, H.F. (1970). How to negotiate in Japan. Harvard Business Review, 48,45-5 1. Whitehill, A.M. (1991). Japanese management: Tradition and transition. Kent, UK: Mackeys of Chatham. Yeh, R.S. (1995). Downward influence styles in cultural diversity settings. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 6(3), 627641. Yeh, R.S. (1986). Values and interorganizational influence: A comparativestudy of Taiwanese, Japanese and American firms in Taiwan. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. Yoshino, M.Y. (1968). Japan’s managerial system: Tradition and innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Y&l, G. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C.M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2) 132-140.