Perceptual Biases

During the first week of class, you have read about the importance of culture within the company. This involves both understanding the diverse cultures within our company as well as creating a positive corporate culture within the company itself. Using the terms from this week’s reading, please explain how this relates to an organization that you are familiar with (past or present employment). Is this organization successful in dealing with diversity? How? What is the culture within this company? While you are not required to formally cite your sources within the forum, you should make sure that you are incorporating information from the readings into your responses. Your responses should clearly show that you have read the material.

Please use the Frito Lay Corporation

Minimum of 300 words

APA format with credible references

Use only the attached readings as references, not your own!!!

Please pay close attention to these instructions

C O L U M N

B y S a r a h L . S i m o n e a u x
a n d C h r i s L . S t r o u d

Sarah L. Simoneaux, CPC, and Chris L. Stroud, MSPA,
MAAA, EA, provide consulting services to third-party admin-
istrators and financial institutions through Simoneaux & Stroud
Consulting Services. The firm specializes in strategic business
planning, general consulting, industry research, customized brain-
storming sessions and professional development workshops, and
Webcasts for the retirement services industry. They are both past
presidents of ASPPA.

Defining Corporate Culture
So exactly what is “corporate culture”? Investopedia

defines it as

The beliefs and behaviors that determine how a company’s

employees and management interact and handle outside

business transactions. Often, corporate culture is implied,

not expressly defined, and develops organically over time

from the cumulative traits of the people the company

hires. A company’s culture will be reflected in its dress

code, business hours, office setup, employee benefits,

turnover, hiring decisions, treatment of clients, client sat-

isfaction and every other aspect of operations. [http://www.

investopedia.com/terms/c/corporate-culture.asp, last accessed on

June 16, 2014]

Many factors shape and impact corporate culture.
Here is a list to start with, but you can do an objec-
tive “cultural walk” around your office to develop your
own list of factors.

• Corporate values;
• Symbols (logos, jargon, status symbols like corpo-

rate cars or offices)
• Environment (layout, community areas and open

space, desks, bulletin boards, objects and artifacts,

dress, how employees interact—tone and emotion,
email etiquette);

• Organizational structures (flat or hierarchical, for-
mal or informal lines of authority)

• Control systems (What is monitored and/or
reported on? Where are the strongest controls?
Where are the weakest controls? Are employ-
ees rewarded for good work or punished for bad
work?);

• Power structures (Who has “real” power? How are
decisions made? Is power abused? Who are the
“influencers”?);

• Rituals and ceremonies (rewards, celebrations, rou-
tines, awards);

• Stories (reputation of firm, history, heroes and vil-
lains, what new employees are told).

A strong culture also shapes how people work
together and ultimately what they are able to achieve
together. To support the culture, management should
encourage employee involvement and accountability at
all levels and exhibit consistency in applying company
policies. Holding town hall meetings or retreats and
conducting facilitated brainstorming sessions to solicit
employee input are effective ways to keep employees
engaged and informed. You can generate excitement
by creating new rituals or a slogan or mantra—or
simply just by hosting some fun activities. Social com-
mittees (with revolving cross-generational employee
members) that are given a budget are a great way to
take the burden off management for generating ideas
for social activities that appeal to all ages in order to
build a stronger culture.

Corporate Culture and the Hiring Process
There are a number of things you can do to

strengthen and evolve your culture. A good place to
start is by reinforcing the firm’s mission and values,

Business Best Practices

A Strong Corporate Culture Is Key to Success
A strong corporate culture reflects the values of the owners, the management team, and the employees.

It also reflects the company’s mission and has a direct impact on company policies and strategies.

The corporate culture defines how employees interact with each other and with clients and other stakeholders.

Successful firms exhibit strong and vibrant corporate cultures.

52 JOURNAL OF PENSION BENEFITS

or creating them if they do not already exist. The
values are the cornerstone of your culture and should
permeate everything you do, starting with hiring
and firing. When you conduct interviews with pro-
spective employees, you should not only consider
the person’s technical skills but also whether the
person is a good cultural fit and exhibits values
consistent with the firm’s corporate values. Hiring
like-minded managers and executives is especially
important in driving culture. If the people at the
top do not share the company’s values or demon-
strate those values in their actions, it is likely they
also will not hire people who fit the culture. The
number one reason employees leave a company today
is because of a bad manager. Bad managers create
bad cultures.

An effective orientation program, which reinforces
the mission and the values, and relates company
history, goals, and strategies, should be created for
new employees. Initially, equal time should be spent
explaining the elements of the firm’s culture as well
as teaching technical skills. Job descriptions, perfor-
mance evaluations, and reward systems should all be
reviewed during orientation, and each should contain
references to the corporate values. Zappos, an online
retail firm known for its extraordinary customer ser-
vice, puts all employees through a four-week orienta-
tion class, with an intense focus on company values.
At the end of the first week, they offer employees
$2,000 to leave if they do not feel they fit the cul-
ture. Although the offer stands through all four
weeks, less than 1 percent leave. Zappos’s process
underscores how important culture is in attracting
and retaining employees and living out corporate
values.

Corporate Culture in Action
Successful retirement services firms typically exhibit

the following six traits, with corporate culture being
an important core element:

1. Corporate culture is strong and vibrant.
2. Strategic planning is an ongoing journey—

not an event.
3. The planning process is transparent and

includes top-down and bottom-up input and
communication.

4. Values, goals, objectives, and strategies are
clearly articulated and communicated.

5. Strategic implementation includes account-
ability, metrics, and monitoring controls.

6. Strategic plans are aligned with core com-
petencies, structure, hiring practices, job
descriptions, rewards, and culture.

Strategic planning is a process that includes set-
ting a strategic direction and figuring out ways to
get to where we want to go. Sometimes it may be a
fairly straight-forward path, and sometimes we know
it might be a stretch. But what we often do not think
about are the unseen obstacles that might get in
our way, such as things in our corporate culture that
might prevent us from maximizing our success. As
author Kevin Craine says, “Corporate culture provides
the human glue that can rally the collective energy
of your company toward improvements and accom-
plishments, or it can be the glue that fastens your
organization to the way things have always been.”
[DOCUMENT magazine, Feb. 2004, “Supporting Your
Document Strategy”]

For a firm to be vibrant and relevant in today’s fast-
paced world, the firm’s culture must be aligned with
its values, strategies, and driving forces. For example,
too much discipline at Apple would stifle innovation.
Too many rules and policies for Ritz Carlton employ-
ees would limit their ability to make decisions and
respond quickly to hotel guests’ needs. If one of your
firm’s values is continuous learning, then there should
be a sizable budget for resources, educational oppor-
tunities, seminars, webinars, credentialing, and other
learning opportunities. If you value collaboration, then
create task forces across departments and age groups
or organize large group social events to encourage
interaction. Create rituals and celebrate successes that
reinforce your values.

Google is a great example of a successful firm
that carefully aligns its corporate culture with its
goals and strategies. Google is an innovative com-
pany that promotes an employee-friendly, uncon-
ventional corporate culture, which has earned it
repeated high ratings on Fortune magazine’s list
of “100 Best Companies to Work For.” Numerous
perks and on-site services, including flex time,
tuition reimbursement, free lunches, onsite doctors,
oil changes, massages, and fitness classes, blend the
line between work and home and encourage high
productivity and keep people in the office longer.
Employees can use in-office “fun slides” instead of
elevators to go down to a lower floor, and conference
rooms contain pool tables to promote creativity. The
atmosphere is very appealing to creative, young,
energetic employees and makes work fun, and the

BUSINESS BEST PRACTICES 53

rewards for Google are big in the way of new, inno-
vative products.

Conclusion
Firms with strong positive cultures experience many

benefits. It is easier to implement strategic initiatives

because these firms are better able to focus, change,
and adapt. Morale is high, which makes employee
recruitment and retention much easier—and happy
employees translate to happy customers! Productivity
is high, which yields higher profits. When a firm has
a strong and vibrant culture—life is good! ■

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Is Diversity Management Sufficient? Organizational Inclusion to Further Performance
Sabharwal, Meghna
Public Personnel Management; Summer 2014; 43, 2; ProQuest Central
pg. 197

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

P E R F O R M A N C E I M P R O V E M E N T Q U A R T E R L Y , 2 8 ( 3 ) P P . 7 1 – 9 3
© 2015 International Society for Performance Improvement
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/piq.21197

Managerial Practices
and Organizational Conditions
That Encourage Employee
Growth and

Development

Jerry W. Gilley, EdD, Anne M. Gilley, PhD, Sherry Avery Jackson, PhD,
and Heshium Lawrence, PhD

Employee growth and development is best facil-itated by creating plans that identify employ-ees’ strengths, weaknesses, and areas requiring
improvement, and creates specifi c action-oriented
strategies for continuous improvement (Lines, Selart,
Espedal, & Johansen, 2005). According to Kuvaas and
Dysvik (2009), employee growth and development
plans are long-term developmental strategies, mutu-
ally designed by managers and employees, that are
linked to reward strategies to modify employee per-
formance behaviors.

Managers are a critical factor in the growth and
development of employees. Given the importance to
the organization, it is important to determine whether,
in fact, managers do support

employee growth and
development.

Manager traits or behaviors can aff ect
a number of employee outcomes, both positive and
negative. To date, research has not addressed spe-
cifi cally which manager traits or behaviors improve
employee growth

and development.

Our research
seeks to address this gap in the literature by specifi –
cally identifying those traits or behaviors that have a signifi cant positive
or negative impact on employee growth and development. Accordingly,
our research questions are: (a) Do managers support employee growth
and development, and (b) Which manager traits or behaviors have the
most impact on employee growth and development?

This paper focuses on seven major
managerial practices and three negative
conditions that must be managed to
enhance employee growth and devel-
opment. These managerial practices
and conditions have signifi cant poten-
tial for human resource development
practitioners and performance improve-
ment technologists by providing new
perspectives to improve employee per-
formance through employee growth
and development activities. Surveys
measuring employee perceptions of
manager behaviors were administered
to 503 MBA and PhD students from the
United States, resulting in 463 useable
responses. The hypotheses were tested
using linear regression and structural
equation modeling. Based on the analy-
sis, the researchers found that involving
employees in decision making, motivat-
ing employees, treating employees as
unique individuals, and making certain
that managers are eff ective have the
highest infl uence on employee growth
and development.

72 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Theoretical Foundation

Th e theoretical foundation of this article is
based on the concept of developmental leader-
ship. According to Gilley, Shelton, and Gilley
(2011), developmental leadership is the process
of equipping managers with the knowledge,
skills, and abilities they need to develop their
employees so employees can be more eff ective.
Such leadership occurs whenever and wher-
ever a need arises—bolstering the relationship

between managers and employees. Developmental leadership involves
creating a synergistic relationship with employees, the primary benefi t
of which is the establishment of a collegial partnership with employees
(McIntyre, 2010). Th is partnership is based on two-way communication,
trust, honesty, and interaction, and should be nonjudgmental, free of fear,
personal, and professional (Gilley & Gilley, 2009). Additionally, develop-
mental leadership allows managers the opportunity to better serve their
employees through a variety of activities such as integrated communi-
cations, performance evaluations, employee growth and development
activities, and reward and recognition systems used to improve employ-
ees’ accomplishments and development (McIntyre, 2010).

Stone (1999) contends that developmental leadership provides orga-
nizations and their employees with creative opportunities to provide
innovative and creative solutions to complex problems. It enables organi-
zations to identify and incorporate procedures and approaches that help
them rebuild their market share and create successful business strategies
(Gilley et al., 2011).

Developmental leadership is a process of ultimate sharing, providing
managers the opportunity to unlock the mysteries of the organization
for their employees (McIntyre, 2010). Developmental leadership helps
employees avoid the errors so damaging to their careers while helping
them adjust to the organization’s culture and better assimilate into the
organizational work environment (Gilley & Gilley, 2009).

Recently, Gilley et al. (2011) identifi ed 10 principles of developmental
leadership, each of which is foundational to enhancing employee growth
and development. Th ey are:

1. Principle of personal accountability: Demonstrate personal
accountability for managers and leaders own behavior, actions,
and results, including the policies, procedures, incentives, inter-
ventions, and plans they advocate and implement.

2. Principle of trustworthiness: Build relationships based on truth,
respect, character, and integrity.

3. Principle of employee advocacy: Develop others to assume new
roles and responsibilities, which is quintessentially a growth and
development strategy.

Managers are a critical
factor in the growth and

development of employees.
Given the importance to the
organization, it is important

to determine whether, in
fact, managers do support

employee growth and
development.

Volume 28, Number 3 / 2015 DOI: 10.1002/piq 73

4. Principle of employee self-esteeming: Create working climates
where employees feel good about themselves, their contributions,
experiences, skills, and abilities.

5. Principle of performance partnership: Develop performance initia-
tives that benefi t the organization and its members simultaneously.

6. Principle of organizational performance improvement: Create work
climates and environments where employees are challenged to
perform at maximum levels, encouraged to demonstrate creative
solutions to complex problems, and engaged in quality initiatives
for the purpose of achieving organizational results.

7. Principle of eff ective communications: Use all interpersonal mecha-
nisms available to stimulate and challenge employees to perform to
the best of their abilities.

8. Principle of organizational consistency: Filter decisions through
a set of guiding principles that demonstrates consistent behavior
and action.

9. Principle of holistic thinking: Articulate a vision for the organiza-
tion, identify an actionable game plan designed to achieve this
vision, and critically refl ect upon actions as a means of improving
and maximizing future opportunities.

10. Principle of organizational subordination: Place the contribu-
tions, involvement, and loyalty of employees above those of the
institution, striving to guarantee organizational subservience to
employees’ eff orts to improve their performance, productivity,
effi ciencies, and approaches essential to organizational readiness
and renewal (Gilley et al., 2011, p. 391).

Literature Review

Gilley and Gilley (2007) believe that employee growth and development
plans allow managers to identify employees’ performance improvement
needs, address organizational cultural issues, and determine the barriers
that prevent learning acquisition and transfer and, thereby, reduce employee
motivation. Th ey contend that growth and development plans help manag-
ers identify confl icting job tasks and activities that diminish learning yet
provide performance feedback on the job. Poon (2013) contends such plans
should be specifi c, attainable, realistic, and tied to a timetable.

Lee and Bruvold (2003) believe that “investing in employee develop-
ment is vital in maintaining and developing the skills, knowledge and
abilities of both individual employees, and the organization as a whole”
(p. 981). Further, Hameed and Waheed (2011) contend, “the success or
failure of the organization depends on employee performance. Th erefore,
organizations are investing huge resources on employee development”
(p. 224). Hurtz and Williams (2009) suggest that managers are critical in
the employee and growth and development process because they are the
ones who encourage and reinforce performance improvement, which is
the outcome desired of the process. Finally, improving employee growth

74 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

and development requires managers to encourage cooperation, create
fear-free and positive work environments, develop partnerships and link-
ages with common goals, and serve as a catalyst for renewal and perfor-
mance capacity (Daniels & Daniels, 2004; Hill, 2004; Smollan, 2012).

A crucial element of the growth and development process is the per-
formance appraisal. It is used to discuss the means by which an employee
can improve his or her performance results. Th is conversation includes
the examination of employee strengths, weaknesses, and areas requiring
improvement, which becomes the focus of employee growth and devel-
opment plans (Buckingham & Coff man, 1999).

Gilley and Maycunich (2000) believe that managers and employ-
ees should mutually design growth and development plans that focus
on long-term development strategies that enhance an organization’s
competitive readiness and capacity. Further, growth and development
plans are enhanced by developing a partnership between managers and
employees that allows employees to acquire critical competencies that
enhance their performance and career development opportunities while
the organization enjoys better business results.

Treating employees as unique individuals often produces compassion-
ate actions by managers, which other researchers have noted as assisting
with the creation of trust (Twenge, 2010). Once trust is established, employ-
ees are more likely to participate in growth and development activities.

Motivation is a critical ingredient when managing employee perfor-
mance and is a key element in the growth and development process (Hurtz
& Williams, 2009). In this study, we discovered that motivation by man-
agers positively infl uences employee growth and development. Eff ective
managers solicit creative solutions to complex problems (Grant & Berry,
2011) and eliminate fear in the workplace, expect success of employees,
encourage performance excellence, and allow individuals to make mistakes
and govern their own performance, all of which motivates employees.

Pellerin (2009) suggests that improved teamwork, often referred to
as team building, is an important component in improving employee
eff ectiveness because it requires performance improvement of every
employee. Th is promotes self-development and participatory decision
making on the part of employees.

Managers who eff ectively involve employees in decision making are
player-centered, which means they collaborate with employees (Guttman,
2008). Such managers rely on the input of employees’ experiences or
perspectives when making decisions (Emerson, 2012). Managers who
involve employees early in decision making provide a work environment
that encourages employees to participate in growth and development
activities (Robbins & Finely, 1995).

Brown and Cregan (2008) suggest that employees are more likely to
embrace opportunities for involvement in decision making when a par-
ticipatory style of leadership is used. West and Markiewicz (2004) believe
that eff ective organizations create a high level of constructive controversy,
which enables employees to feel that their decision-making competence

Volume 28, Number 3 / 2015 DOI: 10.1002/piq 75

is valid rather than diminished. As a result, a climate of cooperation and
trust prevails that facilitates high quality decision making on the part of
employees. In other words, true involvement means giving authority and
responsibility for decision making to employees, which encourages them
to embrace growth and development opportunities (West, 2004).

When employees participate in decision making, organizations are
more effi cient and their results improve (Hashim, Alam, & Siraj, 2010).
Further research reports that engaged employees are closely connected
to their organizations and are willing to devote time and energy to ensure
the organization’s success (McShane & Von Glinow, 2003).

Th e literature suggests that eff ective coaches possess highly devel-
oped interpersonal skills (Hameed & Waheed, 2011). Eff ective coaching
is based on good questioning, facilitation, feedback, listening skills, shar-
ing benefi ts of personal experience, teaching, mentoring, counseling, and
providing feedback (Kroth, 2007).

Kroth (2007) identifi ed the most common coaching skills that
enhance employee growth and development as:

♦ Interpersonal skills
♦ Conceptual skills
♦ Technical skills
♦ Integrative skills
♦ Objectivity
♦ Political awareness
♦ Organizational awareness
♦ Confl ict resolution

skills

However, there have been no empirical tests to determine which skills
make a diff erence in coaching eff ectiveness (Kampa & White, 2002) and,
as Joo (2005) state, “no universal credential seems to exist to identify com-
petent coaches” (p. 476). However, coaching skills can be used to improve
communication with employees, which is an essential in improving the
relationship between managers and employees. Such an improvement
will help managers encourage their employees to participate in growth
and development activities.

Well-designed reward systems that encourage employee growth and
development exhibit the following attributes:

♦ Rewards are linked to business strategy.
♦ Program objectives are clearly articulated (participants know what

is being rewarded and why).
♦ Rewards support the organization’s culture (Bartol & Srivastava,

2002).

Presslee, Vance, and Webb (2013) report that such systems are
adaptable to changing business conditions, are clearly communicated
and fully understood by employees, and are related to actual business

76 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

performance. Finally, Randolph and Kemery (2011) believe that such
systems allow employees to participate in their design, are regularly
reviewed for eff ectiveness in meeting stated goals and objectives, and are
perceived by employees as having value.

When an attitude of managerial indiff erence exists, managers
often refuse to develop their employees and ignore responsibility for
their employees’ growth and development (Randolph & Kemery, 2011).
Consequently, as these employees fail to meet performance expectations,
they are quickly dismissed (Mujtaba, 2007). Th ese behaviors degrade
employee morale and productivity, severely limiting loyalty and commit-
ment, and when these behaviors exist it is diffi cult to encourage employ-
ees to participate in growth and development activities.

Work environments that are free of hostility and fear allow managers
and employees to communicate and work collectively together in devel-
oping long-term growth and development plans that enhance employ-
ees’ future career development (Gilley, Anderson, & Gilley, 2008). As
such, conditions are created in which creativity fl ourishes and employ-
ees are challenged and encouraged to collaboratively participate in their
future growth, which allows managers and employees the opportunity
to build a supportive environment that ultimately benefi ts the organiza-
tion. Managers may also be surprised at the eff ects of such encourage-
ment, in that employees actively own their career development initiatives
(Shelton, Waite, & Makela, 2010).

Shelton et al. (2012) report that managers who do not exhibit the
above referenced behaviors fail to conduct eff ective performance apprais-
als, do not establish positive relationships with their employees, and do
not establish priorities. However, organizations recruit, select, and pro-
mote them anyway, which negatively aff ects employees’ participation in
growth and development activities (Robbins & Judge, 2012).

Organizations that hire or retain unskilled or ineff ective managers, those
who have a negative impact on organizational results and success, engage in
managerial malpractice (Gilley & Gilley, 2009). A real cause of this condi-
tion is rooted in organizational policies and practices that encourage and
support unproductive, ineffi cient, and incompetent managers. Managerial
malpractice occurs when managers are poorly trained, unqualifi ed, or
inadequately prepared to engage employees and improve organizational
performance. Gilley and Gilley (2009) identifi ed symptoms of managerial
malpractice within organizations that include but are not limited to:

♦ Hiring or promoting managers who lack the understanding and
skills necessary to eff ectively manage others

♦ Hiring or promoting managers because they are the “best performers”
or “highest producers,” without regard for their interpersonal skills

♦ Wasting valuable time and resources attempting to “fi x” ineff ective
or incompetent managers

♦ Retaining managers who are ineff ective in securing results through
others

Volume 28, Number 3 / 2015 DOI: 10.1002/piq 77

♦ Failing to reprimand, demote, or fi re managers who are ineff ective
or incompetent (p. 343)

Method

Th is study explores leadership practices that infl uence employ-
ees’ perceptions that their organization managers encourage employee
growth and development. Employees’ assessments of managerial behav-
ior provide accurate ratings of leadership performance (Hogan, Curphy,
& Hogan, 1994). Although this study was part of a larger, long-term study
of managerial practices, our primary research questions focused on how
frequently organization leaders or managers are perceived as encour-
aging employee growth and development and which of their behaviors
infl uenced employees’ perceptions that organization managers encourage
employee growth and development.

Survey Development
Th e previously validated “Managerial Practices” survey instrument

(see Gilley, Gilley, & Kouider, 2010) was derived from seminal and exist-
ing literature related to managerial competencies, traits, and behaviors
(Argyris, 1962; Bucur, 2013; Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey,
2011; Levenson, Van der Stede, & Cohen, 2006; Leverty, 2012; Spencer
& Spencer, 1993; Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001; Zaccaro,
2001; Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004). Th e survey instrument contained
19 perceptual-based questions (see Measures) about leader or manager
behavior and organizational practices, and nine questions pertaining to
respondent demographics (i.e., gender, age, industry type and size, orga-
nization size, and gender and age of respondents’ managers).

Population
The voluntary, written survey instrument was offered to 503 full-

time and part-time students in MBA and organizational development
(OD) master’s and PhD programs at five four-year, public institu-
tions in diverse locations (the Mountain West, the Midwest, and the
South). Data collection took place over six semesters. Master’s and
PhD students at varying locations were chosen to enhance diversity
among industries, job titles and positions, and respondent demo-
graphics. Respondents represented all organizational levels (front-line
to executive) in service, manufacturing, educational, professional, and
governmental entities. The response rate was 92%, with 463 usable
responses.

Measures
Th e dependent variable in the study was a perceptual measure of

employee development. Respondents were asked to specify, in their

78 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

opinion, how frequently organization managers encourage employee
growth and development. Responses were collected using a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from never (1) to always (5). Th e independent
variables examined in this study were derived from research on lead-
ership skills and managerial behaviors. Using the same 5-point scale,
respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with which organiza-
tion managers exhibit eighteen managerial behaviors:

1. Treat employees fairly and consistently
2. Coach employees
3. Eff ectively evaluate employees
4. Appropriately reward employees
5. Communicate appropriately
6. Eff ectively implement change
7. Motivate employees
8. Involve employees in decision making
9. Treat employees as unique individuals
10. Encourage teamwork and collaboration
11. Are ethical
12. Are trustworthy
13. Positively infl uence culture
14. Promote work–life balance
15. Are held accountable for employee results
16. Create hostile or fearful work environments
17. Do not possess appropriate supervisory/management skills, yet are

promoted to or hired for management positions
18. Are promoted despite being ineff ective or poor managers

Results

Population characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Table 2 reports the frequency of employees’ perceptions that orga-

nization managers encourage employee growth and development.
Respondents indicated the organization managers “never,” “rarely,” or
only “sometimes” encourage employee growth and development 70.6% of
the time, as compared with 29.4% for “usually” or “always” eff ective.

Table 3 refl ects descriptive statistics and between-subject correla-
tions for all signifi cant variables identifi ed by step-wise linear regression
(see Table 4). Strong correlations indicated by a p < .01 signifi cance level exist between all variables, except fi rm size only correlated with employee growth and development and accountability of managers.

Common Method Bias

As the survey item responses for both independent and dependent
variables came from the same group of respondents, it may result in

Volume 28, Number 3 / 2015 DOI: 10.1002/piq 7

common method bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). We conducted a
Harmon one-factor test to determine whether common method bias pre-
sented a threat. Th is technique assumes there is common method bias if
a single factor is present, or one factor accounts for most of the variance
(Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Our results indicated that more than one

TABLE 1 SAMPLE CHARACTERISTIC

DESCRIPTION PERCENT

Respondent’s gender

Male 49.5

Female 50.5

Respondent’s Age

<25 22.9

26–35 36.7

36–45 22.9

46–55 13.8

56–65 3.7

Respondent’s Years Employed at Organization (years)

<1 21.8

1–3 47.3

4–6 19.2

7–10 6.7

11–14 3.9

<15 1.1

Industry

Manufacturing 6.5

Service 30.7

Education 24.0

Professional 23.3

Government 9.7

Nonprofi t 5.8

Number of employees in organization

<100 29.4

101–500 18.8

501–1,000 11.0

1,001–2,500 12.7

2,501–5,000 4.1

5,001–10,000 7.3

>10,000 16.7

n = 463

80 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

n = 463, M = 3.05, SD = .89

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always

TABLE 2 ORGANIZATION MANAGERS ENCOURAGE EMPLOYEE
GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

factor was extracted, with a total variance of 58%. Th e most covariance
explained by one factor was 47%, indicating that common method bias
did not appear to present a problem.

Data Analysis

Linear regression and structural equation modeling were used to ana-
lyze the relationship between the independent variables and the depen-
dent variable “employee growth and development.” Both methods rely
upon similar assumptions about the distribution of the data. Th e depen-
dent variable exhibited a reasonably normal distribution (Hair, Black,
Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2006). Additionally, there was no evidence of
collinearity (all VIF factors < 3.0).

Regression Analysis
To identify the signifi cant item measures that aff ect employee growth

and development, a step-wise regression was run on all 18 indepen-
dent variable items (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994; Vogt, 2005). Of those 18
items, eight measures had a signifi cant infl uence on employee growth
and development at p < .05. Subsequently, a multiple regression analysis of the eight item measures and the demographic variables of industry, fi rm size, and employee position was performed. Industry, fi rm size, and employee position were included in the analysis to determine whether they had an eff ect on the employee’s perception of managerial support of employee growth and development. Industry type includes manufactur- ing, service, education, professional, government, and nonprofi t. Firm size is based on the number of employees. Employee positions include front-line employee, supervisor, mid-level manager, and senior manager.

Volume 28, Number 3 / 2015 DOI: 10.1002/piq 81

TA
B

LE
3

EA
N

S,
S

TA
N

D
A

R
D

D
E

V
IA

T
IO

N
S,

A
N

D
C

O
R

R
EL

A
T

IO
N

V
A

R
IA

B
LE

M
EA

N
S

D
1

2
3

4
5

6
7

8
9

1.
G

ro
w

th
3.

04
.8

2.
U

n
iq

u
e

2.
87

.8
9

.6
4

3.
M

o
ti

va
te

2.
97

.7
8

.6
2*

*
.5

4*
*

4.
T

ea
m

w
o

rk
3.

35
.7

9
.5

9*
*

.4
9*

*
.5

7*
*

5.
D

ec
is

io
n

m
ak

in
g

2.
72

.8
9

.6
0*

*
.6

0*
*

.5
3*

*
.5
0*
*

6.
A

cc
o

u
n

ta
b

e
3.

09
.9

4
.5

1*
*

.4
6*

*
.4

7*
*
.4
9*

*
.3

9*
*

7.
R

ew
ar

d
2.

81
.7

6
.5

4*
*
.4
9*
*
.5

2*
*

.5
1*

*
.4

6*
*

.4
8*

8.
C

o
ac

h
2.

91
.8

8
.5

2*
*

.5
0*

*
.5
4*
*
.4
8*
*
.3
9*
*
.4
6*
*
.4

3*
*

9.
P

o
o

r m
an

ag
em

en
t

sk
ill

s
2.

97
.7

3
–.

–.
39

**
–.

40
**

–.
30

**
–.

33
**

–.
32

**
–.

25
**

–.
36

10
. F

ir
m

s
iz

e
3.

32
2.

2
.1

0*
.0

01
–.

00
1

.0
3

.1
0*

.0
3

–.
01

.0
7

n
=

4
63

, *
p

< 0

.0
5,

*
*p

< 0

.0
1

82 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Th e results of the regression analysis are provided in Table 4. Firm
size is the only control variable with a statistically signifi cant positive
impact. Industry and employee position did not have an impact on the
dependent variable of employee growth and development. Th e manage-
rial behaviors of treating employees as unique individuals, motivating,
encouraging teamwork, involving employees in decision making, holding
managers accountable for employee results, rewarding or recognizing
employees, and coaching have a statistically signifi cant positive impact,
while retaining managers with poor management skills has a statistically
signifi cant negative impact on employees’ perception that fi rm managers
encourage employees’ growth and development. Th e model explained
59.9% (R2 adjusted = .599) of the variation of the dependent variable
“managers encourage employee growth and development.”

Structural Equation Modeling
Amos 20.0 was used to analyze the model using maximum likeli-

hood estimation. Th e two-step approach recommended by Anderson and
Gerbing (1988) was followed. In the fi rst step, confi rmatory factor analysis
was used to validate the measurement model. In the second step, struc-
tural equation modeling was used to evaluate the full model, including
both the measurement and structural model covariance structure analysis.

Measurement Model Assessment
Th e management behaviors of treating employees as unique

individuals, motivating, encouraging teamwork, involving employees in

TABLE 4 REGRESSION ANALYSIS

B SE

Constant –.57** .22

Industry –.01 .08

Firm size .03** .01

Employee position .004 .02

Unique individual .25*** .04

Motivate .22*** .05

Teamwork .17*** .05

Decision making .17*** .04

Accountable .08** .04

Reward .12** .05

Coach .10** .04

Poor management skills –.09** .04

F 63.63***

n = 463, **p < .05, ***p < .001,

Volume 28, Number 3 / 2015 DOI: 10.1002/piq 83

decision making, coaching, rewarding or recognizing employees, and
holding managers accountable for employee results were included in the
positive traits construct, while organizational behaviors of creating hos-
tile work environments, retaining those with poor management skills,
and hiring or promoting ineff ective managers were included in the nega-
tive trait construct.

Th e reliability and validity of the measures were assessed. Th e item
measures and factor loadings along with the reliability values for the
constructs are presented in Table 5. All items were statistically signifi cant
at p < .05. All of the individual item factor loadings, except for hostile work environment at .46, exceeded the minimum threshold of .50 rec- ommended by Hair et al. (2006). Th e composite reliabilities for both constructs exceeded the minimum threshold of .70 (Hair et al., 2006) and the average variances extracted for both constructs were very close to the threshold of .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Th ese results provide evidence that the measurement model is valid.

Structural Equation Modeling Assessment
Th e fi t indices for the structural model demonstrate a good fi t with

χ2 = 121.29, GFI = .96, AGFI = .94, NFI = .95, RFI = .95, IFI = .97, TLI = .96,
CFI = .97, and RMSEA = .05. (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Th e model and results
are reported in Figure 1. Th e positive trait construct had a positive
infl uence (p < .01) on employees’ perceptions that managers encourage employee growth and development. In contrast, the negative trait con- struct had a negative infl uence (p < .01) on employees’ perceptions that

TABLE 5 INDIVIDUAL ITEM RELIABILITIES, COMPOSITE
RELIABILITY, AND AVERAGE VARIANCE EXTRACTED

ITEMS ITEM RELIABILITIES AVE

Positive Behaviors .87 .49

Treat employees as unique individuals .76

Motivate employees .67

Involve employees in decision making .70

Coach their employees .67

Encourage teamwork and collaboration .71

Eff ectively reward and recognize employees .66

Are held accountable for employee results .63

Negative Behaviors .71 .46

Create hostile or fearful work environments .46

Promote or hire individuals who do not possess
appropriate supervisory/management skills for
management positions

.73

Promote ineff ective or poor managers .80

Note: Composite reliabilities in bold.

84 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

managers encourage employee growth and development. Additionally,
fi rm size has a positive impact on the dependent variable. Th is suggests
that as the fi rm size increases, employees’ perceptions that managers
encourage employee growth and development increases.

Discussion

Earlier in the article, we defi ned our research questions as: (a) Do
managers support employee growth and development and (b) Which
manager traits or behaviors have the most impact on employee growth
and development? Our research provides evidence that employees do not
perceive that organization managers consistently encourage their growth
and development. Only 29.4% of the respondents indicate that organiza-
tion managers usually or always encourage their growth and develop-
ment. Given the importance of employees to the long-term strategy and
health of the fi rm, these results indicate that managers need to focus
more on the development of employees. Th is naturally leads to the next
research question: specifi cally, which manager traits or behaviors have an
impact on the development of employees. Th e next section discusses the
traits identifi ed in our research study.

n = 463, **p < .05, ***p < .001

Positive TraitsPositive Traits

Negative TraitsNegative Traits

Growth and
Development
Growth and

Development

Firm SizeFirm Size

Unique
Individuals

otivateMotivate

Poor
management

skills

Poor
management

skills

Hostile
environment

Ineffff ectiveIneffective

.67* * *

.76* * *

.73* * *

.80* *

.46* *

.98* * *

-.23* * *

.03* * *Decision
making

Decision
making

CoachCoach

.70* * *

.67* * *

RewardReward

AccountableAccountable

TeamworkTeamwork

.71* * * .66* * *

.63* * *

FIGURE 1. STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL

Volume 28, Number 3 / 2015 DOI: 10.1002/piq 85

Implications for Adopting Managerial Practices
and Organizational Conditions That Positively Enhance
Employee Growth and Development

In this section, we will discuss the seven managerial practices and
three organizational conditions identifi ed in our research study that posi-
tively enhance employee growth and development and how each practice
or condition can help create an organizational culture that embraces the
continuous improvement of employees.

Seven Managerial Practices
Seven managerial practices that positively enhance employee growth

and development were identifi ed and were statistically signifi cant. Th ey
are: treating employees as unique individuals, motivating employees,
encouraging teamwork and collaboration, involving employees in deci-
sion making, coaching employees, rewarding employees, and holding
managers accountable for employee results.

Treating Employees as Unique Individuals. Th e idea of equitable treat-
ment has been recognized as a behavior important to managers (Gilley
& Gilley, 2009). In fact, we found that managers who treat employees
as unique individuals will positively infl uence employee growth and
development. Treating employees as unique individuals is anchored in
attitudes refl ected by compassion, care, and concern (Gilley, Heames,
& Gilley, 2012).

Motivating Employees. According to Katzenbach and Smith (2003),
motivation increases as employees get more acquainted with the proj-
ects in which they participate. Th ey also believe that motivation is a pro-
cess because, without it, employees will fail to exert the necessary eff ort
to improve their skills, knowledge, and abilities. Th us, a manager’s abil-
ity to motivate others signifi cantly improves employees’ participation in
growth and development activities (Hurtz & Williams, 2009).

Developing an incentive system that creates alignment between
desired performance and the rewards that employees’ value is essen-
tial in achieving desired performance results (Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2009).
Incentives that motivate employees include demonstrating trust, making
compensation fair and competitive, making job assignments more com-
prehensive and challenging, and empowering employees (Kroth, 2007).

Encouraging Teamwork and Collaboration. Our fi ndings suggest
that managers who encourage teamwork positively infl uence employee
growth and development. Team building improves work environments,
motivates employees to work together, encourages employees’ self-
management strategies, and identifi es and utilizes the strengths of each
employee. Team building is important when there is a need to quickly

86 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

respond to ever-changing conditions. Moreover, team building is the
process of helping individuals and groups to become more eff ective in
accomplishing tasks while satisfying the needs of all employees. As
such, eff ective managers create environments that bring the best out of
employees by encouraging collaboration, imagination, and vision (Gilley
et al., 2012).

Involving Employees in Decision Making. Redsteer (2012) states
“employee empowerment generally involves management recogniz-
ing that employers are in a better position to oversee their own duties
and work processes such as decision-making” (p. 2). Further, McShane
and Von Glinow (2003) argue that when there is involvement, employ-
ees have some level of authority in making decisions that were not pre-
viously within their mandate. Th ey stated that employee involvement
extends beyond controlling resources for one’s own job; it includes the
power to infl uence decisions in the work unit and organization. Emerson
(2012) believes that many managers “are reluctant to empower their
employees with decision-making abilities because they feel that they are
relinquishing their responsibility to lead and control the organization”

(p. 2). However, managers who involve employ-
ees in decision making are able to break down
the barriers that prevent open and honest com-
munications. Accordingly, our fi ndings suggest
that managers who ensure employee participa-
tion and involvement in decision making will
positively infl uence employee growth and devel-
opment.

Coaching Employees. We specifi cally addressed the issue of whether
there was a positive relationship between managers who coach and
employee growth and development. Our fi ndings suggest that manag-
ers who assume the role of coach enhance their employees’ growth and
development within the organization. Coaching is designed to maxi-
mize employee strengths and minimize weaknesses (Hill, 2004). Mujtaba
(2007) suggests:

. . . coaching is about enhancing human capacity and development,
and is focused on developing a trusting relationship with others, as
well as on clarifying expectations and goals, which leads to specifi c
action plans for their achievement. Eff ective coaching is, and it can
be, one of the most important functions managers perform because
it communicates performance levels, expectations, importance of
the tasks and responsibilities, and a caring attitude. (p. 1)

Coaching is a person-centered management technique that requires per-
sonal involvement with employees that motivates them to improve their

. . . our fi ndings suggest
that managers who ensure

employee participation and
involvement in decision

making will positively
infl uence employee growth

and development.

Volume 28, Number 3 / 2015 DOI: 10.1002/piq 87

performance and face-to-face communications (Kroth, 2007). Hameed
and Waheed (2011) suggest that “coaching is not formal . . . it involves
treating employees as a personal partner in achieving both personal
and organizational goals” (p. 225). Additionally, Gilley and Gilley (2007)
state, “research reveals that coaching involves establishing a collegial
partnership between leaders and their employees, one based on two-
way communication that is nonjudgmental, free of fear, personal and
professional” (p. 2).

Rewarding Employees. Our study found that managers who adequately
reward employees positively infl uence employee growth and develop-
ment. Th e result is motivated, productive employees ready to accept
challenges and take initiative for professional development (Bartol &
Srivastava, 2002). According to Presslee et al. (2013), developmentally
oriented managers do not develop employees; they equip employees to
develop themselves.

To create an organizational culture that rewards employee growth and
development eff orts, managers create reward systems in which employ-
ees are given the autonomy and freedom required to do their respective
jobs (Wang, Li, & Huang, 2012). Eff ective reward systems support an
organizational culture in which members feel a sense of ownership of the
fi rm’s vision, mission, and strategy (Randolph & Kemery, 2011).

Holding Managers Accountable for Employee Results. Findings of our
study suggest that managers who are held accountable for employee
results positively enhance employee growth and development. However,
many managers believe that employees are easily replaced (Gilley &
Gilley, 2009). Consequently, they develop policies and procedures that
demonstrate a revolving door philosophy toward employees. Under these
circumstances, employees are often treated with a lack of dignity and
respect due to a manager’s belief that employees are disposable and that
an abundant quantity of qualifi ed replacements exists in the marketplace
(Randolph & Kemery, 2011).

Three Conditions That Must Be Managed and Controlled
by the Organization

Negative conditions occur when organizations create hostile or
fearful work environments, hire or promote individuals with poor man-
agement skills, and retain ineff ective managers. Th ese three negative
conditions were found to be statistically signifi cant and must be man-
aged and controlled by the organization to positively enhance employee
growth and development.

Eliminating Hostile or Fearful Work Environments. Trust cannot be
established when managers create hostile or fearful work environments

88 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

(Gilley et al. 2008). Hardy and Schwartz (2006) believe that such envi-
ronments create self-defeating and dysfunctional behavior on the part
of employees, which discourages them from participating in growth and
development activities. Scott (2005) reports that hostility and fear-based
work environments are commonly characterized by reprisals and intimi-
dation.

Hiring or Promoting Individuals with Poor Management Skills.
According to our fi ndings, managers who lack the supervisory and man-
agerial skills to be eff ective are perceived as having a negative eff ect on
employee participation in growth and development activities. Many
managers have poor feedback, listening, and interpersonal relation-
ship skills and are the ones that do not develop their employees (Gilley,
McMillan, & Gilley, 2009).

Retaining Ineff ective Managers. Th e results of our study demonstrate
that organizations should select managers for their people skills and
hold them accountable for securing results through people. Th is requires
managers to become involved with their employees by encouraging face-
to-face communications, establishing rapport, and embracing mutual,
two-way feedback, which all enhance employee growth and development.

Limitations

Our study is subject to several limitations, most of which involve the
potential ambiguity of language and imprecise measurement of respon-
dent opinions. Further, our research solicited employees’ perceptions of
the behaviors and eff ectiveness of their organizations’ managers, which
yields highly subjective opinions fi ltered through participants’ under-
standing of terminology, biases and stereotypes, experiences, and poten-
tially inaccurate or incomplete information (Burke, Sims, Lazarra, &
Salas, 2007).

Our research relied on self-ratings, imprecise measures, and percep-
tual data, which leads to concerns about methods variance and attribu-
tion bias. Self-selection has been shown to distort results (Podsakoff ,
MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990); consequently, we utilized mul-
tiple groups at diff ering locations to lessen this threat. Th e self-rating,
convenience sampling methodology used in this research may also
detract from our ability to generalize results. Graduate students in MBA
and OD master’s and PhD programs may not refl ect the composition
of the population in a manner that yields transferrable conclusions. We
issued 503 questionnaires to MBA, OD master’s, and PhD students from
fi ve universities in the Mountain West, Midwest, and South regions and
received 463 or 92% usable responses. Th ese students attended classes at
these respective universities, which made it easier to collect a higher than

Volume 28, Number 3 / 2015 DOI: 10.1002/piq 89

normal response rate. However, our collection techniques did not bias
the responses of individuals or aff ect the data collected.

Conclusion

Employee growth and development is a critical activity for managers,
leaders, and human resource development and performance improve-
ment practitioners. Th e seven major managerial practices and three neg-
ative conditions that must be managed to positively enhance employee
growth and development are critical to successfully achieving perfor-
mance improvement and desired organizational results. Th e end result
is improved renewal and performance capacity on the part of employees
and the organization.

As stated previously, seven managerial practices that positively
enhance employee growth and development were identifi ed as statisti-
cally signifi cant. Treating employees as unique individuals and motivating
employees had the biggest impact on employee growth and development,
with beta weights of .25 and .22. Encouraging teamwork and collabora-
tion and involving employees in decision making were the next highest
infl uence, with beta weights of .17. Rewarding employees was .12, coach-
ing employees was .10 and holding managers accountable for employee
results was .08.

We also identifi ed three negative conditions that must be managed
and controlled by an organization to enhance employee growth and devel-
opment. Th e combined impact of these three negative conditions had a
statistically signifi cant negative impact of .23 on employee growth and
development. Accordingly, organizations must make certain that manag-
ers do not create a hostile or fearful work environment, or hire or promote
individuals with poor management skills or retain ineff ective managers.

References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A

review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–
423.

Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational eff ectiveness. Homewood,
IL: Dorsey Press.

Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of
organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
9(1), 64–76.

Brown, M., & Cregan, C. (2008). Organizational change cynicism: The role of employee
involvement. Human Resource Management, 47(4), 667–686.

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest
managers do diff erently. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Bucur, I. (2013). Managerial core competencies as predictors of managerial performance,
on different levels of management. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78,
365–369. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.312

Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazarra, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level
review and integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606–632.

90 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Daniels, A. C., & Daniels, J. E. (2004). Performance management: Changing behav-
ior that drives organizational eff ectiveness (4th ed.). New York, NY: Performance
Management Publications.

Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral
theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative
validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7–52.

Emerson, A. L. (2012, February). The benefits of employee empowerment. Credit Union
Times. Retrieved from http://www.cutimes.com/2012/02/15/the-benefits-of
-employee-empowerment

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Structural equation models with unobserved variables
and measurement errors: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 39–50.

Gilley, A., & Gilley, J. W. (2009). Managerial malpractice. In A. Gilley, J. W. Gilley, S. Quatro,
and P. Dixon, The Praeger Handbook of Human Resource Management and Workplace
Policy, Vol. 2 (pp. 342–345), Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Gilley, A., Gilley, J. W., & Kouider, E. (2010). Characteristics of managerial coaching. Per-
formance Improvement Quarterly, 23(1), 53–70.

Gilley, A., Heames, J. T., & Gilley, J. W. (2012). Leaders and change: Attend to the
uniqueness of individuals. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship,
17(1), 69–83.

Gilley, J. W., & Gilley, A. (2007). The manager as coach. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Gilley, J. W., & Maycunich, A. (2000). Beyond the learning organization: Creating a culture of

continuous growth and development through state-of-the-art human resource prac-
tices. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Gilley, J. W., Anderson, S., & Gilley A. (2008). Human resources management as a
champion for corporate ethics: Moving ethical integration and acculturation in
the HR function and profession. In S. Quatro and R. Sims (Eds.), Executive ethics:
Ethical dilemmas and challenges for the C-suite (pp. 191–213). Armonk, NY: M. E.
Sharpe, Inc.

Gilley, A., McMillan, H. S., & Gilley, J. W. (2009). Organizational change and characteristics
of leadership effectiveness. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 16(1),
38–47.

Gilley, J. W., Shelton, P. M., & Gilley, A. (2011). Developmental leadership: A new
perspective for HRD. Advances in Human Resource Development. 13(3), 386–405.

Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention:
Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96.

Guttman, H. M. (2008). Great business teams: Cracking the code for standout performance.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hardy, R. E., & Schwartz, R. (2006). The self-defeating organizations: How smart companies
can stop outsmarting themselves (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis. Eaglewood Cliff, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

Hameed, A., & Waheed, A. (2011). Employee development and its affect on employee
performance: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 2(13), 224–229.

Hashim, F., Alam, M. G., & Siraj, S. (2010). Information and communication technology for
participatory based decision-making-E-management for administrative efficiency
in higher education. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 5(4), 383–392.

Hill, L. A. (2004). New manager development for the 21st century. Academy of Manage-
ment Executive, 17(4), 64–72.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, M. (1994). What we know about leadership:
Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49, 493–504.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Model-
ing: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.

Volume 28, Number 3 / 2015 DOI: 10.1002/piq 91

Hurtz, G. M., & Williams, K. J. (2009). Attitudinal and motivational antecedents of
participation in voluntary employee development activities. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(3), 635–653.

Joo, B. K. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from an integrative
review of practice and research. Human Resources Development Review, 4(4),
pp.462-488.

Kampa, S., & White, R. P. (2002). The effectiveness of executive coaching: What we
know and what we still need to know. In R. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of organiza-
tional consulting psychology: A comprehensive guide to theory, skills, and techniques
(pp.139–158). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2003). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-perfor-
mance organization (3rd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Kroth, M. (2007). Manager as motivator. Hartford, CT: Praeger.
Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2009). Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic

motivation and work performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(3),
217–236.

Lee, C. H., & Bruvold, N. T. (2003). Creating value for employees: Investment in employee
development. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(6), 981–
1000.

Levenson, A. R., Van der Stede, W. A., & Cohen, S. G. (2006). Measuring the relationship
between managerial competencies and performance. Journal of Management,
32(3), 360–380.

Leverty, J. F. (2012). Dupes or incompetents? An examination of management’s impact
on firm distress. Journal of Risk & Insurance, 79(3), 751–783.

Lines, R., Selart, M., Espedal, B., & Johansen, S. (2005). The production of trust during
organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 221–245.

McIntyre, M. G. (2010). Developmental leadership. Your Offi ce Coach website.
yourofficecoach.com

McShane, S. L., and Von Glinow, M. A. (2003). Organizational behavior. Emerging realities
for the workplace revolution (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Mujtaba, B. (2007). Coaching and performance management: Developing and inspiring.
Davie, FL: ILEAD Academy, LLC.

Nunally, I. H., & Bernstein, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hall.

Pellerin, C. J. (2009). How NASA builds teams: Mission critical soft skills for scientists, engi-
neers, and project managers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–147.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems
and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–542.

Poon, J. M. L. (2013). Effects of benevolence, integrity, and ability on trust-in-supervisor.
Employee Relations, 4(35), 396–407.

Presslee, A., Vance, T. W., & Webb, R. (2013). The effects of reward type on employee
goal setting, goal commitment, and performance. Accounting Review, 88(5),
1805–1831.

Randolph, W. A., & Kemery E. R. (2011). Managerial use of power base in a model of
managerial empowerment practices and employee psychological empowerment.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18(1), 95–106.

Redsteer, A. (2012). What is employee participation and empowerment? The Houston
-Chronicle. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/employee-participation
empowerment-42037.html

Robbins, H., & Finley, M. (1995). Why teams don’t work: What went wrong and how to make
it right. Princeton, NJ: Petersons/Pacesetter Books.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2012). Organizational behavior (15th ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

92 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

Scott, E. D. (2005). The ethics of human resource management. In J. W. Budd and J. G.
Scoville (Eds.), The ethics of human resources and industrial relations (pp. 173–202).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Shelton, P., Waite, A., & Makela, C. (2010). Highly effective teams: A rational analysis
of group potency and perceived organizational support. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 12(7), 93–114.

Smollan, R. K. (2012). Trust in change managers: The role of affect. Journal of Organiza-
tional Change Management, 4(26), 725–747.

Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior perfor-
mance. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Stone, F. M. (1999). Coaching, counseling, mentoring: How to choose and use the right
technique to boost employee performance. New York, NY: AMACOM.

Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in
work attitudes. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 201–210.

Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership
matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived
environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 134–143.

Wang, R., Li, X., & Huang, M. (2012). Channel management through selective
announcement of reward and punishment decisions. Journal of Business-To-Busi-
ness Marketing, 19(2), 129–146.

West, M. A. (2004). Eff ective teamwork: Practical lessons from organizational leadership
(2nd ed.). Malden, MA: BPS Blackwell.

West, M., & Markiewicz, G. (2004). Motivate teams, maximize success: Eff ective strategies for
realizing your goal. San Francisco, CA: Chronicle Books.

Vogt, W. P. (2005). Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A nontechnical guide for the
social sciences (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis
of success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp. C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. In J. Antonakis,
A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership pp. 101–124.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

JERRY W. GILLEY

Jerry W. Gilley, EdD, is a professor of human resource develop-
ment with a specialization in organizational development and change
at the University of Texas at Tyler (2010–present), and served as a prin-
cipal (senior partner) and director of organizational development for
Mercer Human Resource Consulting (1989–2005). He has authored and
co-authored 26 books and more than 120 articles, book chapters, and
monographs.
E-mail: jgilley@uttyler.edu

ANN M. GILLEY

Ann M. Gilley, PhD, is a professor of management at the University
of Texas at Tyler, where she teaches graduate courses in strategy, OD,
and change. She is an author, co-author, and editor of numerous books
and articles, including Manager as Change Leader, Th e Performance
Challenge, and the Praeger Handbook of Human Resource Management.

Volume 28, Number 3 / 2015 DOI: 10.1002/piq 93

Her business background includes approximately 15 years in insurance
and fi nancial services for large corporations, primarily in marketing and
strategy, and nearly 15 years in management consulting as a partner
for Trilogy Performance Group. She consults in leadership develop-
ment, change management, and strategic planning. Her areas of research
include change, the organizational immune system, and managerial
malpractice.
E-mail: agilley@uttyler.edu

SHERRY AVERY JACKSON

Sherry Avery Jackson, PhD, is an assistant professor of management
at the University of Texas at Tyler, where she teaches in the areas of
operations management and management science. Her current research
focuses on the impact of internal (manager and employee) and external
(buyer and supplier) relationship on performance.
E-mail: sjackson@uttyler.edu

HESHIUM LAWRENCE

Heshium Lawrence, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of
Texas at Tyler in the Department of Human Resource Development and
Technology. He currently teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in
Six Sigma, total quality management, and project management. He has
research experience in the pedagogy of undergraduate students in indus-
trial technology programs and is a certifi ed Lean Six Sigma black belt.
E-mail: hlawrence@uttyler.edu

Copyright of Performance Improvement Quarterly is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.

Journal of Social Change
2016, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 39–47
©Walden University, LLC, Minneapolis, MN
DOI: 10.5590/JOSC.2016.08.1.04

Please address queries to: Gene E. Fusch, Walden University. Email: gene.fusch@waldenu.edu

Why Culture Matters in Business Research

Gene E. Fusch
Walden University

Christina J. Fusch
Walden University

Janet M. Booker
Walden University

Patricia I. Fusch
Walden University

Organizations today are changing rapidly due to technology, globalization, and cutting-edge

production, subsequently morphing into new structures and workflow processes.

Organizations are becoming more diverse in terms of gender, age, race, ethnicity, veteran

status, sexual orientation, and others. The business workplace is not the melting pot that

many were taught about, but that of the ethnic salad, blended yet distinct. The core of

organizational composition worldwide still remains within the human resource realm for a

shared and cohesive culture is behind the success of every company. The study of workplace

culture is important for business research to ascertain the construct of the successful

organization. The article begins with a discussion about culture, relates culture to the

workplace, and ends relating important business research to workplace culture. The

intended audience is business management majors and instructors.

Keywords: culture, ethnography, organizational success, productivity and performance, business

research

Introduction

Why does culture matter, or, more importantly, what is culture? In the Middle East, archaeologists

search for ancient cultures in giant hills of dirt called tells, derived from the Arabic word for hill (Al-

Nahar, 2010). This is one way to think of culture. Think of lives as hills of culture: holistic,

integrated, learned, linguistic, and shared (C. J. Fusch, 2014). Culture is holistic, all

inclusive. Everything in one’s life, whether it be the economy, the workplace, family, religion,

hobbies, table manners, or education, makes up one’s culture (Botz-Bornstein, 2012). Culture is the

way in which each interacts with another, a set of rules for beliefs and behavior that all follow to be

members of society (Botz-Bornstein, 2012). Business related to cultural theory is “unlike studying

culture in well-defined communities, organizational scholars study its assumptions and beliefs

alongside strategies, structures, control systems, technologies, and business models” (Murphy,

Cooke, & Lopez, 2013, p. 662).

Fusch et al., 2016

Journal of Social Change 40

Culture is integrated, with each element connected and influencing another (Abdollahi-Guilani,

Yasin, Hua, & Agahaei, 2012). One cannot isolate certain aspects of a culture without producing a

distorted viewpoint (Abdollahi-Guilani et al., 2012). These aspects are interlinked, directly impacting

one another to create the current situation (Abdollahi-Guilani et al, 2012). Culture is learned; in fact,

it must be learned. It is not biological. For example, eating is necessary to live, but how and what

one eats may be determined by one’s culture (C. J. Fusch, 2014). Religious sanctions on certain types

of food in the Middle East best represent the learned nature of a culture (Ambail & Bakar,

2013). These food restrictions are not self-evident, rather they must be taught in order to be followed

(Ambail & Bakar, 2013).

Culture is shared; for a belief or behavior to be considered cultural, it must be shared (Harris, Mayo,

Prince, & Tooey, 2013). It must be considered appropriate by the society to be a custom (Nnadi,

2013). Language is one of the most obviously shared elements of a culture (Abdollahi-Guilani et al.,

2012). Along with shared history, language is often used to define what scholars consider a culture

(Abdollahi-Guilani et al., 2012; C. J. Fusch, 2014). In this sense, culture is also linguistic (C. J.

Fusch, 2014).

So then, to take one back to the original question, why does culture matter in business research? An

anthropological answer would be because culture defines everything that one is from childhood to

elderly age and it encompasses all one does and tries to do (C. J. Fusch, 2014). All breathe in a

biological system, but one must live in a cultural context so one knows what to do beyond the

biological necessities of eating and sleeping (C. J. Fusch, 2014). Indeed, whether from the Tells of

ancient civilizations to the modern business world of today, culture is human interaction (C. J.

Fusch, 2014) and the core of every business is within the human resource realm.

History of Culture in the Workplace

Globalization has a profound impact on today’s leader and the workplace (Weadick, 2005). The

leader must adapt management style, roles, duties, and strategies (Kumar, Anjum, & Sinha, 2011;

Matviuk, 2010; Müller, Spang, & Ozcan, 2008; Seah, Hsieh, & Huang, 2014) in order to work with

diverse peoples of cultures other than his or her own (Jyh-Shen, & Tung-Zong, 2009; Prewitt, Weil, &

McClure, 2011; Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore, 2012; Sultana, 2013). The workplace may be in

the leader’s own country, or the leader may be transferred elsewhere in the world to work (Littrell,

2013). The leader must also deal with post-9/11 concerns with safety and security, as well as

anticapitalism backlash in addition to the outsourcing of essential jobs (Deitchman, 2013).

At the turn of the 20th century, managerial skills were based upon the functional approach, wherein

performance was based upon the achievement of set goals (G. E. Fusch & Gillespie, 2012; Godfrey &

Mahoney, 2014). Therefore, it was the manager’s responsibility to monitor the attainment of the set

goals, as well as correct methods and procedures as needed to reach those goals (Godfrey &

Mahoney, 2014). Researchers such as Frederick Taylor, Henry Mintzberg, and Henri Fayol appeared

to be more focused on the task at hand, rather than the persons performing the tasks (G. Fusch,

2001); therefore, workplace culture did not necessarily matter. The research of Robert Katz as well

as Fred Luthans emphasized the human resource dimension of management, recognizing that some

of the best managers of the functional approach may be competent on the technical end, yet unable

to achieve organizational goals through inability to motivate people (Peterson & Van Fleet, 2004).

Indeed, organizational behavior is an applied behavioral science that utilizes and combines other

disciplines into a model effective for the understanding of organizations (Babcock-Roberson &

Strickland, 2010; Down, 2012). The field of anthropology has been referred to as the forgotten science

Fusch et al., 2016

Journal of Social Change 41

of behavioral studies due to factors specific to this discipline (Morey & Luthans, 2013). Anthropology

may be perceived as an inexact science with no formal rules, a combination of art and science, due to

its emphasis on ethnography (Bernard, 2011). The anthropologist becomes the participant/observer

in the native culture, looking out from the native eyes, to study and better understand humans and

human activity (Lavenda & Schultz, 2010). Particular attention is paid to observing and interacting

using qualitative methods as opposed to using quantitative statistical models in other disciplines

(Jackson, 1990).

Perhaps anthropology’s greatest contribution to organizational behavior is its emphasis on the

ability to facilitate understanding between peoples in other countries or organizations (Down, 2012;

Lavenda & Schultz, 2010). This learning about cultures is accomplished by noting differences in

values, attitudes, and behavior (Lavenda & Schultz, 2010). Rather than focusing on the individual,

as in other disciplines, the focus here is on the macro level, as in group processes and organization

(Anand, 2013). This cultural understanding is particularly important in today’s workplace as people

and organizations learn to manage diversity and globalization, whether one is assigned to another

country or becomes a member of a virtual team (Daim et al., 2012).

The Cultural Context of Leadership and Management: Managing Across
Timelines, Continents, and Culture

In the contemporary business environment, company leaders face continual change that can hamper

attempts to remain profitable (Dekkers, 2011). Organizational leader attempts at mergers and

reengineering attempts often fail, consultants are of little help, and strategic planning is ineffective

(Boniface & Rashmi, 2012). Management and leadership lack adequate understanding of problems

and their solutions because they cannot see the issues, are unaware of choices and alternatives, and

lack the skill to implement a correction (Bolman & Deal, 2013). When companies become more

flexible and fluid, the company leaders are able to respond to an ever-fluctuating business

environment (Dominici & Palumbo, 2013). These challenges encompass rapid technological change,

the pressure of the competitive marketplace, rising production costs, cutting-edge alterations,

scarcity of resource input, changing worker needs and demands, increasing operational costs and

potential taxes, and intensifying governmental regulations regarding health care (Laroche &

Wechtler, 2011; Meadors, 2010; Söderholm & Norrbin, 2013).

Organizational behavior now has a global face. Organizational leaders need to personify the different

values of cultures in different countries, in order to be effective (Sultana, Rashid, Mohiuddin, &

Hudam, 2013). Globalization was perhaps the most frequently used buzz word of the 1990s

(Weadick, 2005). The word is still popular today and often misused by most, its definition used to

describe whatever the user wishes it to mean, whether positive or negative (Weadick, 2005). The

descriptive term globalization has also been used in place of international and multicultural, as well

as transnational (Cristian & Raluca, 2010). Its definition over time has become so muddled as to

facilitate the pejorative term globaloney (Lutz, 1989), a word coined by Representative Clare Boothe

Luce in her inaugural speech to Congress in 1943.

Transglobal companies now reflect the increasing diversity of the workforce rather than representing

a host country (Brimhall, Lizano, & Mor Barak, 2014). Furthermore, organizational culture now has

a greater impact on productivity than national culture, as workers adapt to a workplace that

transcends their nationality (Uddin, Luva, & Hossian, 2013). This is posited to have an impact on

managerial practices for the future as management actively seeks to “create, maintain, and change

the organizational culture” (Naor, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2010, p. 195).

Fusch et al., 2016

Journal of Social Change 42

To be sure, leaders in contemporary multicultural organizations must master context to understand

culture (Bennis, 2009) while managing and leading in an environment where there are no common

definitions of efficient outcome or effectiveness. It is imperative that organizations address cultural

differences when managing diverse work forces (Brimhall et al., 2014). Symbolic assumptions are not

what happens but what it means, events have multiple meanings, and people create meanings

(Barrett, 2012). Moreover, “[c]ulture is the glue that holds an organization together and unites

people around shared values and beliefs…the interwoven patterns of beliefs, values, practices, and

artifacts that defines for members who they are and how they are to do things” (Bolman & Deal,

2003, p. 243). Culture has a specialized language, a history, values, shared identity, ritual, and

ceremony (C. J. Fusch, 2014). It is important to find the meaning, for “. . . human actions cannot be

understood unless the meaning that humans assign to them is understood” (Marshall & Rossman,

2016, p. 101). Furthermore, the world is made of multiple realities rather than a static state;

therefore, all realities are relevant and valid (Elanain, 2013; Erlingsson & Brysiewicz, 2013).

Research Regarding Culture in the Workplace

Booker (2011) noted that ethnographic researchers explore a culture from the views of those on the

inside of the culture. Corporate ethnographers use “. . . technical reports, powerpoint presentations,

workshops, diagnostic exercises, video presentations, etc.” (Fayard & Van Maanen, 2015, p. 6) to

present findings. In the same respect, leaders could internally analyze what is working in their

culture and what is not in an effort to build a work culture that supports the objectives of the

organization (G. E. Fusch, 2001; P. I. Fusch & Fusch, 2015; Hodson, 2008). One distinctive strategy

for business leaders to follow might be to focus on what type of culture makes an organization

“succeed instead of fail” (Booker, 2011, p. 105). The motivators that subcultures create can lead to an

increase in organizational performance (Booker, 2011). The significance to business leadership may

be to examine the subcultures they “could apply to the population of workers they are attempting to

motivate, which could include the importance of continued job training” (p. 106), and winning the

approval of others such as a boss, coworkers, or family members (Booker, 2011). Leaders need to

know what to build into their culture to help implement change tactics into existing programs to

produce the desired results for the organization (G. E. Fusch, 2001). Workers want to feel they have

worth and understanding and it is their work culture that can breed a sense of satisfaction into their

daily tasks (P. I. Fusch & Fusch, 2015; Yafang, 2011). To be sure, in terms of business research, the

use of an ethnographic design and of cultural perspective demonstrates the importance of the study

(Freeman & Spanjaard, 2012; Gordon, 2011).

G. E. Fusch (2001) found that in a culture where leadership promoted and demonstrated validation

and valuing behaviors, workers wanted to go to work in the morning and endeavored to help the

company succeed. In contrast, a rapidly changing workplace environment where workers feel out of

control, unaware of the changes, and sometimes afraid can lead to reluctance to the interest of the

organization (Palombo, 2013). In Palombo’s (2013) mini-ethnographic study, he found strategies the

leader in one small machine shop used to improve the workplace culture while overcoming resistance

to change. From a research perspective, the importance of studying the culture enables one to look at

the interactions in the workplace for “although we cannot see attitudes, we can see working

behavior” (G. E. Fusch & Gillespie, 2012, p. 94). Every workplace has a specific culture and

ethnographic research enables the researcher to understand that culture.

Fusch et al., 2016

Journal of Social Change 43

Conclusion

The diversity of the workforce impacts the leader of today. Organizations are becoming more diverse

in terms of gender, age, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation (Robbins & Judge, 2014). These

differences are those among people within a given country and include such categories as gender,

age, race, ethnicity, veteran status, sexual orientation and others. Indeed, the organization today is

not the melting pot that many were taught in public school, but that of the ethnic salad, blended yet

distinct. Moreover, culture must be socially acceptable and consistent with needs and values.

Organizations are composed of people who get the job done, united by a common workplace culture

(Bolman & Deal, 2013), for a shared and cohesive culture is behind the success of every company.

The core of organizational composition remains in the human resource realm, where needs and

wants remain basically the same as they have always been, for meaningful, creative work, and

recognition and reward in the workplace (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Indeed, organizations today are

changing rapidly due to technology, globalization, and cutting-edge production, subsequently

morphing into new structures and workflow processes (Narasimhan, Krull, & Nahm, 2012; Voegtlin,

Patzer, & Scherer, 2012). A common culture in the workplace is essential for business success

(Booker, 2011; G. Fusch, 2001; P. I. Fusch & Fusch, 2015); therefore, the study of workplace culture

is important for business research.

References

Abdollahi-Guilani, M., Yasin, M. S. M., Hua, T. K., & Agahaei, K. (2012). Culture-integrated

teaching for the enhancement of EFL learner tolerance. Asian Social Science, 8, 115–120.

Retrieved from http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/16543

Al-Nahar, M. (2010). Tell Abu Suwwan, A neolithic site in Jordan: Preliminary report on the 2005

and 2006 field seasons. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 357, 1–18.

Retrieved from http://www.asor.org/pubs/basor/_baks/357 .0001.b0e0.bak

Ambail, A. R., & Bakar, A. N. (2013). Halal food and products in Malaysia: People’s awareness and

policy implications. Intellectual Discourse, 21, 7–32. Retrieved from

http://journals.iium.edu.my/intdiscourse/index.php/islam/article/view/504

Anand, V. (2013). Organizational behavior: A conceptual study required for organization

performance and existence. International Journal of Organizational Behaviour and

Management Perspectives, 2, 629–633.

Babcock-Roberson, M., & Strickland, O. J. (2010). The relationship between charismatic leadership,

work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Psychology, 144,

313–326. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/vjrl20/current

Barrett, L. F. (2012). Emotions are real. Emotion, 12, 413–429. doi:10.1037/a0027555

Bennis, W. (2009). On becoming a leader (4th ed.). New York, NY: Basic.

Bernard, R. H. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fusch et al., 2016

Journal of Social Change 44

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (5th

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boniface, M., & Rashmi, M. (2012). Outsourcing: Mass layoffs and displaced workers’ experiences.

Management Research Review, 35, 1029–1045. doi:10.1108/01409171211276927

Booker, J. M. (2011). A descriptive analysis of high school student motivators for success (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 3471687)

Botz-Bornstein, T. (2012). What is the difference between culture and civilization? Two hundred fifty

years of confusion. Comparative Civilizations Review, 66, 10–28.

Brimhall, K. C., Lizano, E. L., & Mor Barak, M. E. (2014). The mediating role of inclusion: A

longitudinal study of the effects of leader-member exchange and diversity climate on job

satisfaction and intention to leave among child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services

Review, 40, 79–88. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.003

Cristian, S., & Raluca, I. O. (2010). Beyond the borders of globalization EU-Africa, economy and

conflict. Annales Universitatis Apulensis: Series Oeconomica, 12, 589–593.

Daim, T. U., Ha, A., Reutiman, S., Hughes, B., Pathak, U., Bynum, W., & Bhatla, A. (2012).

Exploring the communication breakdown in global virtual teams, International Journal of

Project Management, 30, 199–212. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.06.004

Deitchman, S. (2013). Enhancing crisis leadership in public health emergencies. Disaster Medicine

and Public Health Preparedness, 7, 534–540. doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.81

Dekkers, R. (2011). Impact of strategic decision making for outsourcing on managing manufacturing.

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31, 935–965.

doi:10.1108/0144357111116583

Dominici, G., & Palumbo, F. (2013). Decoding the Japanese lean production system according to a

viable systems perspective. Systemic Practice & Action Research, 26, 153–171.

doi:10.1007/s11213-012-9242-z

Down, S. (2012). A historiographical account of workplace and organizational ethnography. Journal

of Organizational Ethnography, 1, 72–82. doi:10.1108/20466741211220679

Elanain, H. M. A. (2013). Examining the relationship between leader-member exchange and

subordinate outcomes: The mediating effects of role clarity. A study from an Arabic cultural

context. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 18, 76–96. Retrieved from

http://www.huizenga.nova.edu/Jame/

Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2013). Orientation among multiple truths: An introduction to

qualitative research. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 3, 92–99.

doi:10.1016/j.afjem.2012.04.005

Fayard, A., & Van Maanen, J. (2015). Making culture visible: Reflections on corporate ethnography.

Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 4, 4–27. doi:10.1108/JOE-12-2014-0040

Freeman, L., & Spanjaard, D. (2012). Bridging the gap: The case for expanding ethnographic

techniques in the marketing research curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 34, 238–

250. doi:10.1177/0273475312455334

Fusch, C. J. (2014). Why culture matters: An anthropological approach to our lives. Humanities

Washington. Retrieved from http://www.humanities.org/programs/speakers/current-

speakers/christina_fusch

Fusch et al., 2016

Journal of Social Change 45

Fusch, G. E. (2001). Work/Life and the workplace: An ethnographic case study of a high-performance

working environment (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations and

Theses database. (UMI No. 3030899)

Fusch, G. E., & Gillespie, R. C. (2012). A practical approach to performance interventions and

analysis. 50 models for building a high-performance culture. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Finance Times Press

Fusch, P. I., & Fusch, G. E. (2015). Leadership and conflict resolution on the production line. International Journal

of Applied Management and Technology, 14, 21–39. doi:10.5590/IJAMT.2015.14.1.02

Godfrey, P. C., & Mahoney, J. T. (2014, April 22). The functions of the executive at 75: An invitation

to reconsider a timeless classic. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23, 360–372.

doi:10.1177/1056492614530042

Gordon, W. (2011). Behavioral economics and qualitative research-a marriage made in heaven?

International Journal of Market Research, 53, 171–185. doi:10.2501/IJMR-53-2-171-186

Harris, R., Mayo, A., Prince, J. D., & Tooey, M. J. (2013). Creating shared campus experiences: The

library as culture club. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 101, 254–256.

Hodson, R. (2008). The ethnographic contribution to understanding co-worker relations. British

Journal of Industrial Relations, 46, 169–192. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8543.2007.00670.x

Jackson, J. E. (1990). I am a fieldnote: Fieldnotes as a symbol of professional identity. In R. Sanjek

(Ed.), Fieldnotes: The making of anthropology (pp. 3–33). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University

Press.

Jyh-Shen, C., & Tung-Zong, C. (2009). The effect of management leadership style on marketing

orientation, service quality, and financial results: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Global

Marketing, 22, 95–107. doi:10.1080/08911760902767961

Kumar, R., Anjum, B., & Sinha, A. (2011). Cross-cultural interactions and leadership behaviour.

Researchers World: Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce, 2, 151–160.

Laroche, P., & Wechtler, H. (2011). The effects of labor unions on workplace performance: New

evidence from France. Journal of Labor Research, 32, 157–180. doi:10.1007/s12122-011-9106-

Lavenda, R. H., & Schultz, E. A. (2010). Core concepts in cultural anthropology (4th ed.). New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Littrell, R. F. (2013). Explicit leader behavior: A review of literature, theory development, and

research project results. Journal of Management Development, 32, 567–605.

doi:10.1108/JMD-04-2013-0053

Luthans, F., Rhee, S., Luthans, B. C., & Avey, J. B. (2008). Impact of behavioral performance

management in a Korean application. Organization Development Journal, 29, 427–443.

doi:10.1108/01437730810887030

Lutz, S. (Ed.). (1989). Respectfully quoted: A dictionary of quotations requested from the

Congressional Research Service. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Matviuk, S. (2010). A correlational study of culture and leadership expectations in a Mexican

manufacturing plant. The Business Review, Cambridge, 15, 14–19.

Fusch et al., 2016

Journal of Social Change 46

Meadors, G. M. (2010). Healthcare reform: Regulations issued on early compliance requirements.

The Journal of Medical Practice Management, 26, 163–165. Retrieved from

http://www.greenbranch.com/article_872_The-Journal-of-Medical-Practice-Management.cfm

Morey, N. C., & Luthans, F. (2013). Anthropology: the forgotten behavioral science in management

history. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 2, 82–91. doi:10.1108/JOE-04-2013-0007

Murphy, P. J., Cooke, R. A., & Lopez, Y. (2013). Firm culture and performance: Intensity’s effects

and limits. Management Decision, 51, 661–679. doi:10.1108/00251741311309715

Müller, R., Spang, K., & Ozcan, S. (2008). Cultural differences in decision making in project teams.

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2, 70–93.

doi:10.1108/17538370910930527

Naor, M., Linderman, K., & Schroeder, R. (2010). The globalization of operations in Eastern and

Western countries: Unpacking the relationship between national and organization culture

and its impact on manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management, 28, 194–

205. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.11.001

Narasimhan, R., Krull, T. J., & Nahm, A. (2012). Alternative relationships among integrative beliefs,

time-based manufacturing and performance. International Journal of Operations &

Production Management, 32, 496–524. doi:10.1108/01443571211223112

Nnadi, I. (2013). Son preference—a violation of women’s human rights: A case study of Igbo custom

in Nigeria. Journal of Politics and Law, 6, 134–141. Retrieved from

http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jpl/article/view/25154

Palombo, V. J. (2013). Exploring turnaround strategies for small machine shops (doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis database. (UMI No.

3602392)

Peterson, T. O., & Van Fleet, D. D. (2004). The ongoing legacy of R. L. Katz: An updated typology of

management skills. Management Decision, 42, 1297–1308. doi:10.1108/00251740410568980

Prewitt, J., Weil, R., & McClure, A. (2011). Developing leadership in global and multi-cultural

organizations. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2, 13–20.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2014). Organizational behavior (16th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and

culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 97, 1097–1130. doi:10.1037/a0029978

Söderholm, P., & Norrbin, P. (2013). Risk-based dependability approach to maintenance performance

measurement. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 19, 316–329.

doi:10.1108/JQME-05-2013-0023

Sultana, M. A., Rashid, M., Mohiuddin, M., & Huda, M. (2013). Cross-cultural management and

organizational performance: A content analysis perspective. International Journal of

Business & Management Studies, 8, 133–146. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v8n8p133

Uddin, M. J., Luva, R. H., & Hossian, S. M. M. (2013). Impact of organizational culture on employee

performance and productivity: A case study of telecommunication sector in Bangladesh.

International Journal of Business and Management, 8, 63–77. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v8n2p63

Weadick, T., (2005). All the world’s a stage. The Safety & Health Practitioner, 23, 10–12.

Fusch et al., 2016

Journal of Social Change 47

Voegtlin, C., Patzer, M., & Scherer, A. (2012). Responsible leadership in global business: A new

approach to leadership and its multi-level outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 1–16.

doi:10.1007/s10551-01100952-4

Yafang, T. (2011). Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job

satisfaction. BMC Health Services Research, 11, 98–106. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-11-98

The Journal of Social Change, sponsored by Walden University, welcomes manuscripts focusing on
interdisciplinary research in social change that improves the human condition and moves people,
groups, organizations, cultures, and society toward a more positive future.

Walden University Publishing: http://www.publishing.waldenu.edu

http://www.publishing.waldenu.edu/

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Perceptual Biases ”

Get high-quality paper

Guarantee! All work is written by expert writers!

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now