Tourism Management 79 (2020) 104018
a Dumlupınar University, Department of Tourism Management, Turkey b
Bursa Business Academy, Bursa, Turkey
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Management style Cultural
values
Tourism industry
Turkey
This study seeks to compare the management styles of local and foreign hotel chains operating in Turkey from a cultural dimensions perspective. It aims to build a link between cultural values and management styles. The data was collected through conducting survey with 596 mid-level and senior managers working in 101 foreign and 66 domestic hotel chains operating in Turkey. The empirical results confirm that there are similarities in all the supervision style, decision-making, communication pattern, control mechanism, interdepartmental relations and paternalistic orientation dimensions of Turkey/United States, France/United Kingdom and United States/United Kingdom-based hotel chains. Furthermore, the results also evidence that there are differences in the supervision style, communication pattern and paternalistic orientation dimensions of Turkey/France and Turkey/United Kingdom-based hotel chains.
1. Introduction
As a result of the increasing trend towards internationalization and the mutual relationship of enterprises in global terms, researchers have been prompted to conduct studies regarding the management style formed on the grounds of cultural values (House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002). The fact that the countries have different cultural characteristics (Hofstede, 1983; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997; Schwartz, 1999; House et al., 2002) and that the management styles of companies are formed within the scope of their own national and cultural values (Hofstede, 1983; Luthans & Doh, 2012) has aroused interest in forming a better understanding of their management styles. The comparative studies (Pascale, 1978; Poon, Evangelista, & Albaum, 2005; Tixier, 1994; Welge, 1994; Yeh, 1991) in the literature focus on both determining the differences and similarities between the management styles significant cultural differences, which also translates to different managerial styles. In order to successfully navigate operations in culturally diverse locations, firms in this particular industry should understand the role of cultural dimensions in shaping management styles and develop strategies in responding these differences.
E-mail addresses: eliftuba.beydilli@dpu.edu.tr (E.T. Beydilli),
* Corresponding author.
mkurt@bbakademi.org (M. Kurt).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104018
Received 18 March 2015; Received in revised form 11 February 2019; Accepted 11 October 2019
Available online 21 January 2020
0261-5177/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
of companies operating in different cultural environments.
Although there are some studies focusing on the interaction between cultural values and management style in various sector (Çulpan & Küçükemiroglu, 1993; Lu & Lee, 2005; Mikhailitchenko & Lundstrom, 2006; Hoang, 2008), there has been limited research investigating this relationship in tourism industry. It is well known that institutional and cultural contexts shape both firms and managerial styles. The nature of tourism industry makes these cultural and intuitional differences important dimensions of strategy formulation. Firms operating in tourism industry are embedded in multicultural contexts across different countries. Hence, they are faced to
2. Literature review: management style and cross-cultural diversity
Management style comprises the approaches of managers towards
the management process within the formal structure of the organization (Kras, 1995; Poon et al., 2005; Albaum et al., 2007; Albaum et al., 2010), along with the attitudes and behaviors that they display towards their employees during the management process (Athos & Pascale, 2000; Hoang, 2008). Çulpan and Küçükemiroglu (1993) express the management style as the behavior of the manager towards the juniors within the management style, supervision style, decision-making, communication pattern, control
In this vein, this study contributes to the literature by explaining management styles based on the cultural values in comparative manner with an empirical analysis of tourism sector in which managers need to work in multi-cultural environments. The findings offer important implications in helping practitioners to develop strategies to manage cultural differences and management styles. The paper is structured as follows. Firstly, the literature review about management style and cultural values is provided. Then research methods and findings are presented. The study is concluded with a discussion of the findings and their implications.
mechanism, interdepartmental relations and paternalistic orientation dimensions.
A number of studies have suggested that there would be differences between the management practices and the behaviors of managers in different countries throughout the world (Schollhammer, 1969; Negandhi, 1975; Negandhi, 1983; Ronen, 1986; Nath, 1988; Welge, 1994; Gutterman, 2010; Holt, 2011) increased in the 1980s especially in parallel to the developments in the global market with the success of Japanese managers and companies. These studies steered the researchers towards pursuing research based on a cultural point of view (Child & Tayeb, 1982; Tayeb, 1988; Wasti, 1994; Dogan, As¸kun, & Yozgat, 2007). From a cross-cultural comparison perspective, this study sees management style covering the national management practices and behaviors adopted within the framework of national and cultural values (Athos & Pascale, 2000; Hofstede, 1983; Morris & Pavett, 1992; Çulpan & Küçükemiroglu, 1993).
Previous studies, which aimed to prove the approach that management style would show similarities within the framework of national boundaries and common cultural values and would differ within the framework of cultural diversities, have focused on determining the similarities and differences between the management styles of the companies operating in different regions of the world (Tayeb, 1987; Çulpan & Küçükemiroglu, 1993; Wasti, 1994; Poon et al., 2005; Mikhailitchenko & Lundstrom, 2006; Albaum et al., 2010), while other studies have focused on determining the similarities and differences between the management styles of the enterprises with different cultural features operating in the same region (Bakhtari, 1995; Danıs¸man, 2011; Garg & Ma, 2005; Hoang, 2008; Yeh, 1991).
Additionally, some studies compared the country of origin and the host country in order to determine whether the fact that enterprises or joint enterprises operated outside their own national boundaries resulted in any difference between the management styles (Toyne, 1976; Pascale, 1978; Morris & Pavett, 1992; Schoenberg, 2004; Jimenez, Fasci, & Valdez, 2009). It is noteworthy that the studies conducted focus on the management style especially of those enterprises with a United States of America (USA) origin. We may assume that this is only to be expected, given that the initial point of origin of management practices is actually the USA (Hofstede, 1983). Therefore, the management style of the enterprises with USA origin was compared to the management styles of the enterprises with different cultural features. Within this scope, American enterprises were mainly compared to Japanese (Pascale, 1978; Çulpan & Küçükemiroglu, 1993), Mexican (Hackett, 2002; Morris & Pavett, 1992; Toyne, 1976) and Chinese enterprises (Chang, 1985; Mikhailitchenko & Lundstrom, 2006).
On the other hand, there are also studies comparing the management styles of European countries (Lindell & Arvonen, 1997; Pavett & Morris, 1995; Schoenberg, 2004; Tixier, 1994) and studies focusing on especially the recent Chinese management style and the management style of Chinese joint
enterprises (Albaum et al., 2007, 2010; Chang, 1985; Garg
& Ma, 2005; Lu and Lee, 2005, 2007; Mikhailitchenko & Lundstrom, 2006; Poon et al., 2005). All these studies conclude that cultural values affect management style in broad sense.
Moreover, many dimensions are proposed and used in order to explain management style in these studies. In the current research, we have referred to the dimensions of management style used by Çulpan and Küçükemiroglu (1993), namely supervision style, decision-making, communication pattern, control mechanism, paternalistic orientation and interdepartmental relations. These dimensions are explained as follows.
Supervision Style is related to the type of relationship between the managers in the organizations and their subordinates (Çulpan & Küçükemiroglu, 1993; Lu & Lee, 2005). This relation and their mode of participation in business processes (Hansel, 2006) refer to the leadership behavior adopted by the manager. There are studies which were developed based on these theories and which prove that managers in societies with different cultural features display different behaviors towards their subordinates (Hofstede, 1980; House et al., 2002; Morris & Pavett, 1992; Çulpan & Küçükemiroglu, 1993; Pavett & Morris, 1995; Bakhtari, 1995;
Lindell & Arvonen, 1997; Pas¸a, Kabasakal, & Bodur, 2001; House et al., 2002; Hackett, 2002; Lu & Lee, 2005, 2007; Garg & Ma, 2005; Mikhailitchenko & Lundstrom, 2006; Hoang, 2008; Jimenez et al., 2009; Aktas¸ & Sargut, 2011).
Through these studies, Hofstede (1983) concluded that leadership behavior varied depending on the culture and that the subservience and acceptance of authority behavior depended on the cultural values of the person. Again, according to the results of GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) research covering 61 countries and conducted by House et al. (2002), national culture directly affects the leadership behavior due to the leadership expectations of the society. Thus, leaders act in parallel to the expectations of the society. In addition to these studies, there are comparative studies in the literature examining the leadership behaviors of managers in different cultural environments. For example, in both studies conducted by Toyne (1976) and Morris and Pavett (1992), it was concluded that American and Mexican managers adopted different leadership styles. In their comparative study addressing the leadership styles of American and Japanese managers, Çulpan and Küçükemiroglu (1993) stated that the American management model often emphasized the Theory X type, task orientation and transactional leadership methods, and that the behavior style of American managers contained more task orientation and functional inspection methods than Japanese managers.
In their comparative study addressing the American, Russian and Chinese managers, Mikhailitchenko and Lundstrom (2006) stated that American managers had more task-oriented and work-specific inspection methods than Russian and Chinese managers. According to the mentioned studies above involving the cross-cultural comparisons regarding the leadership behaviors of managers, managers act in accordance with the characteristics of the culture which they are in. Based on this ground, it may be stated that supervision style varies depending on the culture.
Decision-Making indicates the level of participation of employees in the decision-making process and the decision-making style of managers (Mikhailitchenko & Lundstrom, 2006, p. 429). As one of the most important duties of managers (Ali, 1989; Martinsons & Davison, 2007), decision making is also affected by cultural values (Cascio, 1974; Ali, 1993; Athos & Pascale, 2000; Sagie & Aycan, 2003; Koçel, 2003; Albaum et al., 2007; Sargut, 2010; Podrug, 2011) while the managers evaluate the data and determine how to behave and what to do (Tichy & Bennis, 2009,). This is because managers with different cultural features will have different ways for detecting the problems, analyzing them and creating solution models, selecting between the alternatives, and implementing the decisions (Koçel, 2003). Regarding this, there are many studies determining the decision-making styles of managers with different cultural features in literature (Pascale, 1978; Yeh, 1991; Morris & Pavett, 1992; Lindell and Arvonen, 1996; Poon et al., 2005; Albaum et al., 2007). It may therefore be stated that the decision-making style of managers varies depending on the culture.
Communication Pattern is another dimension of the management style. As widely known, the national culture defines the quality of interpersonal communication (Dokmen, € 2012). Therefore, cultural differences may lead to the use of different communication patterns (Ronen, 1986; Park et al., 2012; Dokmen, € 2012). For example, in the cultures of countries such as Switzerland, Austria, Germany and USA, it is important to communicate via clear written and verbal messages. On the other hand, in the cultures of countries such as Japan, Latin America and India, not only the message itself, but also the non-verbal signs, past and present experiences and surrounding conditions covering the interpersonal relationships are taken into consideration (Boone & Kurtz, 2013; Steerss, Sanchez-Runde, & Nardon, 2010).
Similarly, there are various studies which support the proposition that cultural differences have an effect on communication styles in the literature. For example, in his comparative study addressing the Japanese managers and American managers, Pascale (1978) stated that Japanese managers tended to use face-to-face communication more often. Besides this, the dimension of face-to-face communication of American managers and the managers working in Japanese companies operating in the USA show similarity. This findings could be assumed as an indicator of the orientation of Japanese companies to the cultural environment which they are in. In addition to this study, there are also comparative studies regarding the communication pattern of companies in different cultural environments (Tayeb, 1987; Luthans, Welsh, & Rosenkrantz, 1993; Metcalf et al., 2006; Park et al., 2012). Based on the results obtained from these studies about, it may be stated that the communication pattern varies depending on the culture.
Control Mechanism which is under the responsibility of all administrative levels (Daft, 2001) and which is acknowledged as an obligatory function for the effectiveness of organizations (Tannenbaum, 1962), may be conceptualized as a process that enables behaviors or outputs to be monitored and assessed (Ouchi, 1977). The control mechanism is thus considered a significant factor in regulating the mutual relationships of employees and helps build and maintain the continuity of behaviors which are compatible with the rational plans of the organization (Tannenbaum, 1962).
Control mechanism is also affected by the cultural values of which the organization and the manager are a part. As stated by Tayeb (1988), while some managers prefer close inspection on the employees depending on their environmental features, some managers conduct self-control by giving responsibilities to the employees. This situation demonstrates that managers have an effect on the control mechanism of the cultural environment which they are in.
Interdepartmental Relations represents two basic approaches as interaction and collaboration (Ellinger, Daugherty, & Keller, 2000) involving the required interdepartmental exchange of information in an organization and the attitudes of the department members towards the other department members (Walton, Dutton, & Cafferty, 1969). In principle, both approaches refer to the interpersonal communication behavior on information sharing and decision-making issues (Larkey, 1996). Moreover, there are differences in the approaches in terms of the established communication behavior. The interaction approach involves the communication activities such as meetings and the exchange of documented information. These meetings also enable the fulfillment of interdepartmental exchange of verbal information (Kahn & McDonough, 1997). The interaction approach enables easy monitoring of activities as it requires an obligatory and formal structure in the interdepartmental exchange of information (Ellinger et al., 2000).
On the other hand, the collaboration approach explains that the interdepartmental relations are based on teamwork and having a team spirit in the group. In this approach, the sustainability of relationships is emphasized and each independent department works together in order to achieve the objectives (Kahn & McDonough, 1997). Comparative studies examining the interdepartmental relations (Çulpan & Küçükemiroglu, 1993; Kahn & McDonough, 1997; Hoang, 2008) reveals that cultural environment causes differences in the type and level of interdepartmental relations. For example, Çulpan and Küçükemiroglu (1993) state that the interdepartmental relations in Japanese companies have more communication and interaction than American companies, and that Japanese managers supported such collaboration.
Paternalistic Orientation is related to what extent the managers adopt the paternalism phenomenon. Paternalism is defined as the way that managers take care of their employees even on off-business matters as well, in order to improve the welfare of employees and to help them achieve their goals (Pas¸a et al., 2001). The manager feels responsible for making a decision even on the personal lives of the employees in order to protect them (Hicks, 1979). In this sense, the manager guides the professional and the personal lives of the subordinates in return for respect and loyalty as if within a family (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007). So this dimension accepted as a proper dimension in order to make cross-cultural comparison as it reflects the cultural features (Çulpan & Küçükemiroglu, 1993) and this is because paternalism is among the distinct cultural features of Asian and Middle-Eastern societies (Westwood, 1997; Ali, 1993; Pellegrini, Scandura, & Jayaraman, 2010), while it is an odd phenomenon in Western societies that do not recognize such an individualistic and authoritative structure.
The results of the GLOBE project also support this explanation. It states, paternalism is focused on the countries such as Mexico, Iran and China where high power distance and a sense of collectivism are dominant. Again, according to the results of another study in which the paternalism rates of ten countries were reviewed, it is concluded that the highest level of paternalism observed in India, Pakistan, China and Turkey; the medium level was observed in Romania, Russia, USA and Canada; while the lowest level was observed in Israel and Germany (Aycan et al., 2000). All this findings support that the paternalism may be seen as a significant in determining management style.
2.1. Cultural dimensions
After the detailed literature summary about management style mentioned above, it would now be useful to check the other literature that supports the transnational cultural differentiation. N the literature, culture is recognized as a mental coding shared by the society (Hofstede, 1980) and national culture comprises a set of values and beliefs which are learned beginning from early childhood within a society, and that it has a feature that separates that society from other societies (Hofstede, 1983, p. 75). National culture also has a significant effect on organizational and management practices (Lachman, Nedd, & Hinings, 1994; Child & Warner, 2003; Pas¸a et al., 2001) and manager’s behaviors (Sargut, 2010) as it is the source of the values and behavior models of employees in organizations (Doktor, 1990). Thus, management style are accepted as the consequence of the cultural environment in which they take place.Naturally, then, determining the cultural features of societies gains importance in order to clarify management style, and many author focused on conducting studies addressing cultural dimensions in order to reveal the cultural differences or similarities between societies (Hofstede, 1980; House et al., 2002; Trompenaars & HampdenTurner, 1997).
Hofstede (1980) occupies an important place in the literature among these studies conducted to determine the cultural differences which focused on the proposition that management practices vary depending on the national culture. National culture determined by Hofstede (1980) and six dimensions are defined such as individualism versus collectivism (IDV), power distance (PDI), uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) and masculinity versus feminity (MAS), along with the short-term normative orientation versus long-term orientation (LTO) and indulgence versus restraint (IND) cultural dimensions
which were added later (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010).
Individualism vs Collectivism focuses on the relationship between the individual and the society. In individualism, the personal interests of the individual are in the foreground, and separating from the society makes the individual freer. Collectivism, on the other hand, is related to being in a group and showing loyalty to the group (Hofstede, 1980). Regarding the sense of management, individuals are in management alone in individualistic societies. Therefore, subordinates are directed towards displaying individualistic behaviors. Awards are distributed in connection with the performances of individuals. On the other hand, in a collectivist society, the group is in management and group members are loyal to each other, and the awards are distributed on the basis of the performance of the group (Tüz, 2004).
Power Distance Index is related to the belief that human in society are unequal. The power distance accepted by the people living in society is also reflected in organizations in business place. Accordingly, the level of power in organizations is associated with the autocratic leadership level and centralization level of the authority. As the power distance increases, centralization and autocracy levels increase as well (Hofstede, 1983) and the tendency towards consulting the lower levels decreases. On the other hand, as the power distance decreases, the tendency towards centralization also decreases, while the frequency of consulting the lower levels increases (Sargut, 2010).
Uncertainty Avoidance is related to the behavior displayed by the society in uncertain and inexplicable situations. In organizations, where the rate of uncertainty avoidance is high, the individuals prefer avoiding risk and being managed within an organizational order, while the individuals in societies and organizations where the rate of uncertainty avoidance is low can take risk more easily (Hofstede, 1983).
Masculinity vs Feminity defines whether the effective and dominant value in a society is peculiar to the male or female (Hofstede, 1983, p. 83). Managers in societies with male characteristics tend to make decisions by themselves while managers with female characteristics take sides with low-level inspection, make intuitive decisions and take the initiative (Tüz, 2004).
Short-term Normative vs. Long-term Orientation; while the long- term orientation encourages the virtues regarding especially ambition and prudence for future awards, the short-term normative orientation is based on encouraging the virtues involving the social responsibilities and respect for the past and present traditions (Hofstede et al., 2010).
Indulgence vs. Restraint dimension; while indulgence refers to satisfaction, enjoying life and fun, restraint signifies that human desires usually cannot be satisfied, and therefore, that satisfaction needs to be restricted and regulated via strict social norms (Hofstede et al., 2010). After presenting all the concepts above, the values regarding the cultural by Çulpan and Küçükemiroglu (1993) was used in order to determine the similarities and differences of management styles. In the scale regarding the dimensions of management style, there are 46 items in total, expressed as supervision style dimension (11), decision-making dimension (13), communication pattern dimension (6), control mechanism dimension (7), interdepartmental relations dimension (7) and paternalistic orientation dimension (2). These items were measured with the Likert scale, one of the multi-scale types, in accordance with the objective of the research. In these sections where the 5-point Likert scale was preferred, the mid-level and senior managers who answered the questionnaire were asked to tick one of the options as “Strongly Agree”, “Agree”, “No Idea”, “Disagree” and “Strongly Disagree” for each statement.
The population of this research is the mid-level and senior managers working in hotel chains, the country of origin/headquarters of which are USA, France, UK and Turkey, and which operate in Turkey. In determining the foreign-capital and domestic-capital hotels, the data obtained from “Hotel Chains and Groups in Turkey-2011” and “Hotel Chains and Groups in Turkey2012” reports (Resort Dergisi, 2011 and 2012). Although the data shows 672 domestic-capital hotels and 142 foreign-capital hotels operating in Turkey (ResortDergisi, 2012 10), 66 domestic-capital hotels and 101 foreign hotels shown in Table 2 were included in the study with the criteria being member of the chains.
Regarding the data collection process, we conducted the questionnaire between January 1st and April 15th, 2013 and convenience sampling method was employed in our study. The respondents were reached via telephone since these hotels are geographically dispersed across the country. We contacted 604 mid-level and senior managers to conduct the questionnaire and we could obtain 596 responses for our research,
Table 2
Hotel Group
Number of Hotels in Turkey
Number of Hotels
Participating in
Sample
Number of
Managers
Providing Data
Foreign-Capital Hotel
Accor Hotels IHG Hotels
Hilton Hotels
Marriot
International
The Rezidor Hotel Group
Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Best Western Int. Hotels
Wyndham
Worldwide Hotel
Group
TOTAL
Domestic-Capital Hotel
Anemon Hotels Crystal
Hotels
Dedeman Hotels
Divan Hotels
Rixos Hotels
TOTAL
Chains
10
16
22
9
6
7
15
10
101 Chains
19
11
16 9
11
66
9 11 6
4
4
2
1
4
41
14 6
8
5
5
38
91
112 43
38
17
24
9
18
352
65
40
52
36
51
244
are accepted as 1–40 (low), 41–80 (medium), and 81–120 (high).
When the data of the subject countries in Table 1 is reviewed, it is observed that countries have both similar and different cultural values. Within this context, it can be expected that the dimension of management style of hotel chains with different cultural features in terms of the country of origin will differ as well, while the others have similar features will show similarity. This study presents empirical research to explain these assumptions expectations.
3. Research methodology
The objective of this study is to explain the management styles adopted by hotel chains operating in Turkey with different countries of origin namely USA, France, UK and Turkey, and to present the similarities and differences based on the dimensions. To this end, the study employs survey method to answer research question. A questionnaire form with two sections was used in determining the required data in the research. In the first section, there are items about some demographic features such as gender, age, marital status, level of education, department, position, and term of employment in the position and the term of employment in the organization of the managers.
In the second section of the questionnaire form, the scale developed
Table 1
Values regarding the cultural dimensions of the subject countries.
dimensions of the subject countries are presented in Table 1. The values
Countries
Cultural Dimensions
Turkey
66
85
37
45
46
49
France
68
86
71
43
63
48
UK
35
35
89
66
51
69
USA
40
46
91
62
26
68
Source: Edited from Hofstede et al., 2010.
Foreign-capital and domestic-capital hotel chains included in the study.
which demonstrates a very high response rate.
In terms of data analyses in the research, reliability analysis, meta- data analysis and difference measurement tests were employed. The demographic features of the surveyed managers in the sample were evaluated with frequency and percentage analyses. Difference analysis was executed in order to determine the similarities and differences of the dimensions of management style. Mann Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis H tests were used as the data did not display normal distribution.
4. Findings
At the end of the reliability analysis, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients of the all constructs were above the threshold 0.70, confirming the internal reliability of the constructs (Streiner, 2003). The demographic characteristics of the sample were examined and presented in Table 3.
In the following stage of the data analysis, the agreement levels of the participants to the statements regarding the dimensions of management style were studied. According to the findings in Table 4, participants state that the control mechanism (x‾: 4.037) in the hotel chains is more perceivable than
Table 3
Demographic features of participants. Main Variable
(%)
Gender
Female
181
30.4
Male
415
69.6
Age Group
Below 25
19
3.2
Between 25 and 34
347
58.2
Between 35 and 44
211
35.4
45 years and above
19
3.2
Marital Status
Married
356
59.7
Single
240
40.3
Educational Status
Primary/Secondary school
5
0.8
High school
98
16.4
Associate’s/Bachelor’s degree 480
80.5
Master degree
13
2.2
Department of
Front Line Department
136
22.8
Employment
Catering/Kitchen
141
23.7
Department
Housekeeping Department
62
10.4
Accounting & Finance
46
7.7
Department
Sales & Marketing
34
5.7
Department
Human Resources
59
9.9
Department
Technical Service and Security
15
2.5
Department
Administrative Units (Senior
54
9.1
Management)
Public Relations/Guest
49
8.2
Relations Department
Position
General Manager/
23
3.9
Coordinator
Department Manager/
378
63.4
Deputy Department
Manager
Officer/Chief
169
28.4
Assistant Chief/Specialist
26
4.4
the others. Control mechanism dimension is followed respectively by decision-making style (x‾: 3.923), paternalistic orientation (x‾: 3.713), supervision style (x‾: 3.650) and interdepartmental relations (x‾: 3.646) dimensions. The least displayed dimension among the dimensions of management style is assumed as the communication pattern (x‾: 3.307).
In the following stage of the analysis, the Kruskal Wallis H test, one of the non-parametric tests employed in the comparison of the management style differences of hotel chains based on their country of origin/ headquarters, and the test results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5 confirms that the management styles in hotel chains have a significant difference (p: 0.006, p <0.05) Within this scope, binary group comparisons were made in order to determine the source of the management style differences in hotel chains, and the findings are presented in Table 6.
When the results in Table 6 were examined, no difference is observed in the management styles of hotel chains based in Turkey and USA, USA and UK, and France and UK. On the other hand, there are differences in the management styles of hotel chains based in Turkey and France, Turkey and
UK, and USA and France. According to the analysis results,
E.T.
Beydilli
and
M.
Kurt
Tourism Management 79 (2020) 104018
Term of Employment in
Between 1 and 3 years
257
43.1
the Position
Between 4 and 7 years
146
24.5
More than 8 years
84
14.1
Non-response
109
18.3
Term of Employment in
Between 1 and 3 years
267
44.8
the Organization
Between 4 and 7 years
167
28.0
Between 8 and 11 years
53
8.9
Between 12 and 15 years
12
2.0
More than 15 years
14
2.3
Non-response Total
83
13.9
(N) ¼596 participants
the degree of influence of difference between the hotel chains based in Turkey and France is statistically close to medium-level (r: 0.20, r <0.30). It is seen that the degree of influence of difference between the hotel chains based in Turkey and UK is statistically low-level (r: 0.11, r <0.30). Finally, it is observed that the degree of influence of difference between the hotel chains based in USA and France is statistically low- level (r: 0.13, r <0.30).
In the following part, the dimensions of management style that revealed differences in hotel chains with different management styles (Turkey-France, TurkeyUK, USA-France) were determined. In the analysis where binary group comparisons are employed, the sub- dimensions of management style that caused difference in hotel chains depending on the country of origin are examined, and the results are presented in Table 7.
According to the findings in Table 7, in the comparison of the dimensions of management style of hotel chains based in Turkey and France, there are differences in the supervision style (p: 0.000), communication pattern (p: 0.006) and paternalistic orientation (p: 0.000) dimensions. The degree of influence of difference in the supervision style dimension is statistically medium-level (r: 0.36), and the degree of influence of difference in the paternalistic orientation dimension is close to medium-level (r: 0.27). It is revealed that the degree of influence of difference in the communication pattern, which is the last dimension in determining the difference, is relatively low (r: 0.15), yet statistically significant. Decision-making style, control mechanism and interdepartmental relations dimensions represent the similar dimensions of management style in hotel chains based in Turkey and France (p >0.05).
In the comparison of hotel chains based in Turkey and UK, there are differences in the supervision style (p: 0.000), communication pattern (p: 0.010) and paternalistic orientation (p: 0.000) dimensions. The degree of influence of difference in the supervision style (S.O: 209.10) and paternalistic orientation dimensions is statistically close to medium- level (r: 0.20). The degree of influence of difference in the communication pattern dimension is statistically low-level (r: 0.14). It was concluded that the decision-making, control mechanism and interdepartmental relations dimensions shows meaningful similarity in the hotel chains based in Turkey and UK (p >0.05).
When we take a look US and France comparison, it is seen that the difference results from the supervision style (p: 0.000), communication pattern (p: 0.000), control mechanism (p: 0.035) and paternalistic orientation (p: 0.000) dimensions. Based on the findings it is revealed that the degree of influence of difference in the communication pattern dimension (r: 0.24) is statistically close to medium-level. In addition, the difference in the supervision style (r: 0.27) and paternalistic orientation (r: 0.27) dimensions is statistically close to medium-level, and the
Table 4
Supervision Style (SS)
SS1
SS2
SS3
SS4
SS5
SS6
SS7
SS8
SS9
χ‾
3.20 3.95 4.05 4.00
4.06
3.48 2.59
3.70
3.61
3.48
s.s
1145
0,676
0,523
0,740
0,693 1023
1159
0,792
1027
1125 0,684
Dimension (χ‾) 3650
Interdepartmental Relations (IDR)
IDR1
IDR2
IDR3
IDR4
IDR5
IDR6
IDR7
Control Mechanism (CM)
CM1
χ‾
4.17 4.08 4.10 2.64 4.16 3.37
3.01 χ‾
4.22
s.s 0,568
0,590
0,610
1157
0,729 1173
1110
s.s 0,929
0,601
0,771
Dimension (χ‾)
3646
Dimension (χ‾)
SS10
4.04
CM2
3.89
0,683
4037
SS11
CM3
4.21
CM4
4.19
DM1
4.15
0,651
3923
CM5
3.45
1104
DM2
4.24
0,586
CM6
4.07
0,583
DM3
4.17
0,528
CM7
4.23
0,622
DM4
4.00
0,616
Communication Pattern (CP)
χ‾
s.s
Dimension (χ‾)
DM5
4.29
0,685
CP1
4.16
0,626
3307
DM6
4.09
0,864
CP2
4.12
0,801
DM7
4.03
0,526
CP3
4.08
0,645
DM8
4.14
0,615
CP4
4.14
0,803
7
E.T. Beydilli and M. Kurt Tourism Management 79 (2020) 104018
DM9
3.96
0,740
CP5
1.73
0,869
DM11
DM12
3.42
1043
2.76
1193
Paternalistic Orientation (PO)
χ‾
s.s
Dimension (χ‾)
PO1
3.58
0,898
3713
DM13
3.98
0,619
PO2
3.85
0,834
Table 5
Comparison of management styles in ho
tel chains based on the headquarters of or
ganizations.
Dependent Variable
Headquarter
N
Mean Rank
Chi-Square (X2) Value
Degree of Freedom (df)
P
Management Style (Total)
Turkey
244
276.75
12,368
3
0006*
USA
150
291.47
France
91
346.13
UK
111
316.77
*: p: significance level, if it is p < 0.05, the differences are significant.
Table 6
Binary group comparisons to determine the source of management style differences.
Dependent
Variable
Independent
Variable
N
Mean Rank
Z value
p
r
Management
Style (Total)
Turkey USA
244
150
194.98
201.61
0,562
0574
–
Turkey
244
156.42
3585
0000*
0.20
France
91
199.04
Turkey
244
170.35
2084
0037*
0.11
UK
111
194.82
USA
150
113.88
2037
0042*
0.13
France
91
132.74
USA
150
126.98
1001
0,317
–
UK
111
136.43
France
91
106.35
1069
0,285
–
UK
111
97.52
*: the differences are significant in p <0.05 level. r: z/pnffiffiffi. difference in the control mechanism (r: 0.14) is statistically low-level. Besides, it was concluded that the decision-making dimension and interdepartmental relations dimension showed similarity in hotels based in USA and France.
The last stage of the data analysis involves the comparisons of the dimensions of management style in terms of some demographic features of the managers (gender, age, level of education, department, position, term of employment in the position and term of employment in the organization). To this end, the Mann Whitney U test, one of the non- parametric tests, was employed when the number of groups with the said variables was two, and the Kruskal Wallis H test was used when the number of groups with the said variables was more than two, and the obtained results are presented in Table
8.
Based on the results in Table 8, it is concluded that the features such as the gender, position and term of employment in the organization of managers in hotel chains did not make a difference on the dimensions of management style. Moreover, there was a significant difference (p <0.05) in supervision style (p: 0.037) and communication pattern (p: 0.007) based on the age groups. The supervision style and communication pattern dimensions are different in the managers in the 25–34 age group and in the managers in the 35–44 age group. In addition, it was confirmed that the communication pattern of the managers younger than 25 and the managers in the 35–44 age group was different.
Similarly, level of education also causes differences in all of the supervision style (p: 0.000), decision-making (p: 0.000), communication pattern (p: 0.000), control mechanism (p: 0.006), interdepartmental relations (p: 0.010) and paternalistic orientation (p: 0.000) dimensions. The fact that high school graduate managers perceive the supervision style, decision-making, control mechanism, interdepartmental relations and paternalistic orientation dimensions less than associate’s degree/ bachelor’s degree-holding and postgraduate managers is effective in the general differentiation of the dimensions of management style in hotel chains. On the other hand, high school graduate managers care about the communication pattern more than associate’s degree/bachelor’s
Table 7
Binary group comparisons to determine the source of management style differences.
Dependent Variable
Independent Variable
N
Mean Rank
Z value
P
R
E.T. Beydilli and M. Kurt Supervision Style
Turkey
244
146.72
Tourism Management6601
79 (2020) 1040180000*
0.36
France
91
225.05
Turkey
244
163.85
3861
0000*
0.20
UK
111
209.10
USA
150
106.36
4199
0000*
0.27
France
91
145.14
Decision-Making
Turkey
244
168.57
0,176
0861
–
France
91
166.48
Turkey
244
177.99
0,003
0998
–
UK
111
178.02
USA
150
126.09
1463
0,143
–
France
91
112.61
Communication Pattern
Turkey
244
176.70
2728
0006*
0.15
France
91
144.67
Turkey
244
187.40
2591
0010*
0.14
UK
111
157.35
USA
150
134.03
3786
0000*
0.24
France
91
99.52
Control Mechanism
Turkey
244
165.99
0,629
0529
–
France
91
173.38
Turkey
244
173.75
1173
0,241
–
UK
111
187.33
USA
150
113.71
2111
0035*
0.14
France
91
133.01
Interdepartmental Relations
Turkey
244
162.70
1653
0,098
–
France
91
182.20
Turkey
244
175.41
0,711
0477
–
UK
111
183.69
USA
150
116.87
1192
0,233
–
France
91
127.81
Paternalistic Orientation
Turkey
244
152.63
4868
0000*
0.27
France
91
209.20
Turkey
244
164.43
3775
0000*
0.20
UK
111
207.82
USA
150
106.63
4180
0000*
0.27
France
91
144.69
*: the differences are significant in p <0.05 level.
Table 8
Comparison of management styles based on demographics.
Dependent Variable
Gender
Age
Educational Status
Group
Department of Employment
Position
Term of Employment in the
Position
Term of Employment in the Organization
Management Style (Total)
0,129
0189
0.000*
0,196
0153
0007*
0,073
Supervision Style
0,230
0.037*
0000*
0,192
0327
0001*
0,179
Decision-Making Style
0,427
0317
0000*
0,067
0584
0,578
0051
Communication Pattern
0,750
0.007*
0000*
0,795
0264
0025*
0,132
Control Mechanism
0,297
0240
0.006*
0,842
0175
0024*
0,710
Interdepartmental Relations 0,225
0949
0.010*
0,581
0150
0,459
0104
*: the differences are significant in p <0.05 level.
degree-holding managers. It was also concluded that the department of a manager, which is another feature, caused difference in the paternalistic orientation dimension (p: 0.038) and that this difference resulted from the fact that the participation level of housekeeping department and technical service department managers was higher compared to that of the other department managers.
Finally, it is revealed that the term of employment in the position causes differences in the supervision style (p: 0.001), communication pattern (p: 0.025), control mechanism (p: 0.024) and paternalistic orientation (p: 0.001) dimensions. The perceptional difference between the managers working in the same position for 1–3 years and the managers working in the same position for 8 years and above has an effect on the general differentiation of management styles. The perception of the managers working in the same position for 8 years and above towards the dimensions of management style is lower than that of the managers working in the same position for 1–3 years and 4–7 years.
5. Conclusion
The objective of the study is to compare the management style of hotel chains operating in Turkey with different countries of origin/ headquarters from a cultural value perspective. The study offers important theoretical contributions and managerial implications.
First, the study empirically reveals the relationship between cultural dimensions and managerial styles by comparing developed and emerging market contexts. Whereas the role of culture in defining management styles has been widely studied in other sub-field of organization and management research, tourism management research lacks research on this relationship. Hence, this research provides a theoretical ground for understanding the relationship between cultural dimensions and differences in tourism management styles. We believe this is an important and timely contribution, as tourism has been and is becoming more culturally diverse industry, as hotels are nowadays extending their operating to foreign markets faster than ever before. Hence, tourism management research field needs to develop a comprehensive theoretical understanding on this relationship, for which this study provides a ground.
In line with the previous research, the empirical results of the study demonstrate that differences in cultural values lead to different management styles in hotel industry, which confirms the impact of culture on management styles and practices (Inglehart, 1997; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997; Schwartz, 1999). For example, in their study, conducted in the industrial firms in USA and Japan, Çulpan and Küçükemiroglu (1993) state differences in all the dimensions of management style.
Similarly, Mikhailitchenko and Lundstrom (2006) emphasize differences in all the dimensions of management style of USA and China-based enterprises except decision-making, in all the dimensions of management style of USA and Russia-based enterprises, and in decision-making and paternalistic orientation dimensions of Russia and China-based enterprises. Hoang (2008) confirmed that there were significant differences in the control and communication dimensions and similarities in the other dimensions of the management style of USA-based enterprises and Vietnam-based enterprises operating in USA. In parallel with aforementioned studies, our empirical results also show that cultural values cause differences in the management style, and therefore the management styles of hotel chains with different cultural features show difference in some or all dimensions. However, managers should also keep in mind that there are some discrepancies in the relationship between cultural values and management styles. For instance, although the scores of US and France are fairly different in Hofstede’s scale, they are significant difference only in 2 out of 6 dimensions of management style.
Moreover, findings of the study also demonstrate that there are similarities in management style of hotel chains based in Turkey and USA although they have different cultural orientations. This result is different from the literature proving that the management practices of USA and Turkey demonstrate differences in terms of cultural values (Aycan et al., 2000; Hofstede, 1983; Pellegrini, 2006; Pellegrini et al., 2010). Furthermore, the fact that most of the modern management practices were developed in USA (Boyacıgiller & Adler, 1991) and that the valid management practices in Turkey are usually based on the theories and models developed in USA (Boyacıgiller, 2000; Erçek, 2004) may be considered as a factor that simplifies the clarification of the similarities.
Another reason for the fact that the dimensions of management style of Turkey and USA-based hotel chains show similarity could be associated with the fact that USA is in the leading position in the international hospitality industry (Ehtiyar, 2001). Thus, considering the fact that Hilton Hotels as well as USA-based hotel chains have been operating in Turkey since 1955 (Hilton, 2014)contributed to the development of the sense of hotel management in Turkey, this could be considered another reason behind the similarities in the dimensions of management style. On the other hand, differences in the management style of Turkish, French, British and American societies based on existing literature has proved in general comparison.
Along with the finding that the differences in the dimensions of management style of hotel chains result from the different cultural features of enterprises, another finding is that some demographic characteristics of managers such as gender, age, level of education, department and term of employment are effective in terms of causing differences in the dimensions of management style. Consequently, managers with different individual features create differences in management practices, and these differences gain significance for the activities of enterprises. Therefore, it is considered important also to pay attention to the individual features of managers while explaining the differences between their management styles.
The study also offers important managerial implications. Hotel chains are working in multi-cultural environments, hence, it is important to understand how cultural values shape managerial styles and thus adopt managerial strategies and practices to these differences. Whereas understanding the differences and their impact on managerial styles are crucial for all companies operating in this industry, hotel chains particularly from developed countries expanding their operations to emerging markets should spend more effort to understand the local context. This is mainly because of the significant institutional and cultural differences between developed and emerging countries. Moreover, since formal intuitional frameworks are weak in emerging markets (Khanna & Palepu, 1997), informal institutions (i.e. culture, norms) play more important role in the “rules of the game” (North, 1990). Hence, operating successfully in these institutionally weak and uncertain environments hugely depends on the ability of navigating through informal institutions (Sinkovics, Kurt, & Sinkovics, 2018). Thus, the empirical results of this study shed light on the different managerial styles that emerge as outcome of cultural differences. Therefore, managers can understand how cultural differences might lead different management styles and how they should develop strategies in operating in emerging market locations that have been popular tourist destinations recently.
As any other empirical research, the findings of this research should be interpreted together with some limitations. The limitations also shed light on the future research. Future studies should aim toinvestigate the subject deeper to provide more nuanced understanding contributing to the literature and offering industry-specific implementations.For instance, there could be further reserch focusing on the other elements of culture such as language and religion, which might have profound impact on management styles and firm activities (i.e. Kurt, Sinkovics, Sinkovics, & Yamin, 2020). Moreover, the studies to be conducted on both hotels and the other organizations in the tourism industry (such as travel agencies, catering firms, entertainment organizations), in order to compare the countries with different cultural features considering the characteristics of the industry, will make a major contribution in terms of determining the differences. As comparative studies regarding the managerial practices in the tourism industry are limited, it is assumed that it will significantly contribute to the literature as well. Investigating whether social networks among hotel managers affect the flow of management practices between local and foreign hotel chains might be a potential avenue for future studies (Kurt & Kurt, 2019).
Author contribution
The authors’ contributions are as follows. The research model and theoretical framework were developed by Mustafa Kurt; data collection and analysis were carried out by Elif Tuba Beydilli.
Appendix
Supervisory Style (SS):
Amount of discretion given to subordinates
Degree of delegation of authority to employees Soliciting for worker inputs
Freedom of employees to schedule their own work
Democratic supervision
Only supervisor handling work problems
Decisions and work problems delayed in supervisor’s absence
Supervisory back-up for his/her employees
Supervisor’s sacrifice for his/her employees Amount of direction given from top Close
supervision Decision Making (DM):
Soliciting for workers’ inputs
Tackling unusual work problems
Trying innovative methods and products
Number of suggestions from the unit members
Wasting time and effort by incorrect estimates
Accepting unpopular projects
Initiating improvements
Decision delegation to the lowest level Consensus
decision making
Employee participation in decision making
Amount of supervisory direction
Individual decision making
Employee freedom to select their own courses of action Communication Pattern (CP):
Supervisory awareness of unit performance meeting standards Free flow of information
Supervisors’ awareness of things happening within unit Complaints reaching top management
Employee unawareness of changes in policies and directives Communications are blocked Control Mechanism (CM): Managers being on top everything
Emphasis on production as a goal
Freedom of workers to schedule their own activities
Democratic supervision
Relying on the unit without checking
Following-up and checking on goal realization
Close supervision
Interdepartmental Relations (IDR):
Providing assistance to other units for favors
Making trades and deals with other units Bargaining with other units Frictions with other units
Coordination with other units
Criticism by other units for being uncooperative Getting into conflict with other units Paternalistic Orientation (PO):
Involving in family matters of employees Helping employees with non-work- related matters.
References
Aktas¸, M., & Sargut, S. (2011). Izleyicilerin_ Kültürel Degerlerine Gore€ Liderlige Duyulan
Gereksinme Nasıl Farklılas¸ır?:Kuramsal Bir Çerçeve. Amme Idaresi Dergisi, 44(4), 145–163.
Albaum, G., Herche, J., Yu, J., Evangelista, F., Murphy, B., & Poon, P. (2007). Differences in marketing managers’ decision-making styles within the Asia-Pacific region: Implications for strategic alliances. Journal of Global Marketing, 21(1), 63–78.
Albaum, G., Yu, J., Wiese, N., Herche, J., Evangelista, F., & Murphy. (2010). Culture- based values and management style of marketing decision makers in six western Pacific Rim countries. Journal of Global Marketing, 23(2), 139–151.
Ali, J. A. (1989). Decision style and work satisfaction of Arab Gulf Executives: A cross- national study. International Studies of Management & Organization, 19(2), 22–37.
Ali, A. J. (1993). Decision-making style, individualism, and attitudes toward risk of Arab Executives. International Studies of Management & Organization, 23(3), 53–73.
Athos, A. G., & Pascale, R. T. (2000). Japon Yonetim€
Sanatı. In Ü. Çaglar,
& Tran (Eds.)
Istanbul: Iz_ Yayıncılık.
Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., et al. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country comparison. Applied Psychology: International Review, 49(1), 192–221.
Bakhtari, H. (1995). Cultural effect on management style: A comparative study of American and Middle Eastern management styles. International Studies of Management & Organization, 25(3), 97–118.
Boone, L. E., & Kurtz, D. L. (2013). Çagdas¸ I_s¸letme. In A. Yalçın, & T. Edit (Eds.). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
Boyacıgiller, N. A. (2000). Orgüt€ Biliminden Türk Yoneticilerinin€ Alacagı Dersler: Bazı Uyarılar ve Oneriler.€ In I._ Z. Aycan (Ed.), Akademisyenler ve Profesyoneller Bakıs¸ Açısıyla
Türkiye’de Yonetim,€ Liderlik ve Insan_ Kaynakları Uygulamaları, (3-23). Ankara: Türk
Psikologlar Dernegi Yayınları.
Boyacıgiller, N. A., & Adler, N. J. (1991). The Parochial Dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 262–290.
Cascio, W. F. (1974). Functional specialization, culture, and preference for participative management. Personnel Psychology, 27(4), 593–603.
Chang, S. K. C. (1985). American and Chinese managers in U.S. Companies in Taiwan: A comparison. California Management Review, 27(4), 141-1.
Child, J., & Tayeb, M. (1982). Theoretical perspectives in crossnational organizational research.
International Studies of Management & Organization, 12(4), 23–70.
Child, J., & Warner, M. (2003). Culture and management in China. In M. Warner (Ed.), Culture and management in Asia (pp. 24–47). UK, London: Routledge.
Çulpan, R., & Küçükemiroglu,
O. (1993). A comparison of U.S. and Japanese management styles and unit effectiveness. Management International Review, 33(1), 27–42.
Daft, R. L. (2001). Organizational theory and design (7th ed.). USA: South Western College Publishing.
Danıs¸man, S. A. (2011). Yurtdıs¸ında Çalıs¸an Güney Koreli Yoneticilerin€
Kültürel Benzerlik ve
Farklılıklar Açısından Evsahibi ve Koken€ Ülkeleriyle Ili_ s¸kileri: Kars¸ılas¸tırmalı Bir Analiz (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Sakarya: Sakarya University, Institute of Social Sciences.
Dokmen,€ Ü. (2012). Sanatta ve Günlük Yas¸amda Ileti_ s¸im Çatıs¸maları ve Empati (47th ed.).
Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
Doktor, R. H. (1990). Asian and American CEOs: A comparative study. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 46–56.
Dogan, B., As¸kun, O. B., & Yozgat, U. (2007). Türkiye’de Yonetsel€ Degerlerve Yonetici€ Profili Üzerine Bir Aras¸tırma. Istanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dagıtım.
Ehtiyar, R. (2001). Uluslararası Konaklama I_s¸letmelerinde Farklı Kültürlere Baglı Yonetim€
Anlayıs¸larının Kars¸ılas¸tırmalı Analizi (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Ankara: Gazi University, Institute of Social Sciences.
Ellinger, A. E., Daugherty, P. J., & Keller, S. B. (2000). The relationship between marketing/logistics interdepartmental integration and performance in U.S. Manufacturing firms: An empirical study. Journal of Business Logistics, 12(1), 1–22.
Erçek, M. (2004). Çeviri, Aktor€ Agları
ve Eksik/Oncül€
Kurumsallas¸ma:
Türkiye’deki Mesleki Personel/InsanKaynakları_
Soyleminin€ Yeniden Kurgulanması,
1960-1999.
Yonetim€ Aras¸tırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 129–195.
Garg, R. K., & Ma, J. (2005). Benchmarking culture and performance in Chinese organizations.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12(3), 260–274.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior.
Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514.
Gutterman, A. S. (2010). Approachesto comparative management studies. http://alangutt erman.typepad.com/files/cms—wp-2-2010-february-2010.pdf. (Accessed 10 July 2013).
Hackett, R. D. (2002). Recent changes in management styles in Mexico and the United States and their consistency with likert’s system 4. Florida, USA: Nova Southeastern Unıversity. Hansel, J. E. (2006). The effect of supervisee humor style on supervision process and outcome. Kentucky, USA: University of Kentucky.
Hicks, H. G. (1979). In O. Tekok, B. Aytek, S. S¸en, & Tran (Eds.). Orgütlerin€
Yonetimi:€
SistemlerveBes¸eriKaynaklarAçısından (Edition I, Vol. II). Ankara: TurhanKitabevi.
Hilton (2014) Tarihce ve Miras. [Online]. [Accessed: 11 September 2014]. Available from: https://www.hilton.com/tr/corporate/#history.
Hoang, H. (2008). Culture and management: A study of Vietnamese cultural influences on management style. Minneapolis, USA: Capella University.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42–63.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories.
Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75–89.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill.
Holt, K. M. (2011). Culture-free or culture-bound?two views of swaying branches.
International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 1(3), 80–87.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE.
Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3–10.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, economic and Political change in 43 societies. UK, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Jimenez, M. B., Fasci, M. A., & Valdez, J. (2009). A comparison of management style for Mexican firms in Mexico and the United States. International Journal of Business, 14 (3), 251–263.
Kahn, K. B., & McDonough, E. F. (1997). Marketing’s integration with R&D and manufacturing: A cross-regional analysis. Journal of International Marketing, 5(1), 51–76.
Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. G. (1997). Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 41–51.
Koçel, T. (2003). I_s¸letme Yoneticil€
igi (Extended 9th ed.). Istanbul: BETA
BasımYayımDagıtım
A.S¸.
Kras, E. S. (1995). Management in two cultures: Bridging the gap between U.S. and Mexican managers (Revised Edition). USA, Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc.
Kurt, Y., & Kurt, M. (2019). Social network analysis in international business research:
An assessment of the current state of play and future research directions.
International Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2019.101633.
Kurt, Y., Sinkovics, N., Sinkovics, R. R., & Yamin, M. (2020). The role of spirituality in Islamic business networks: The case of international izing Turkish SMEs. Journal of World Business, 55(1), 101034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2019.101034.
Lachman, R., Nedd, A., & Hinings, B. (1994). Analyzing cross-national management and organizations: A theoretical framework. Management Science, 40(1), 40–55.
Larkey, L. K. (1996). Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse workgroups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 463–491.
Lindell, M., & Arvonen, J. (1996). The Nordic management style in a European context. International Studies of Management & Organization, 26(3), 73–91.
Lindell, M., & Arvonen, J. (1997). The Nordic management style in a European context.
International Studies of Management & Organization, 26(3), 73–91.
Lu, L. T., & Lee, Y. H. (2005). The effect of culture on the management style and performance of international joint ventures in China: The perspective of foreign parent firms. International Journal of Management, 22(3), 452–508.
Lu, L. T., & Lee, Y. H. (2007). The effect of supervision style and decision-making on role stress and satisfaction of senior foreign managers in international joint ventures in China.
International Journal of Commerce and Management, 17(4), 284–294.
Luthans, F., & Doh, J. P. (2012). International management: Culture, strategy and behavior (8th ed.). USA, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Luthans, F., Welsh, D. H. B., & Rosenkrantz, S. A. (1993). What do Russian managers really do? An observational study with comparisons to U.S. Managers. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 741–761.
Martinsons, M. G., & Davison, R. M. (2007). Strategic decision making and support systems: Comparing American, Japanese and Chinese management. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 284–300.
Metcalf, L. E., Bird, A., Shankarmahesh, M., Aycan, Z., Larimo, J., & Valdelamar, D. D. (2006). Cultural tendencies in negotiation: A comparison of Finland, India, Mexico, Turkey and the United States. Journal of World Business, 41(4), 382–394.
Mikhailitchenko, A., & Lundstrom, W. J. (2006). Inter-organizational relationship strategies and management styles in SMEs: The US-China-Russia study. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(6), 428–448.
Morris, T., & Pavett, C. M. (1992). Management style and productivity in two cultures.
Journal of International Business Studies, 23(1), 169–179.
Nath, R. (1988). Comparative management: A regional view. USA, Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Negandhi, A. R. (1975). Comparative management and organization theory: A marriage needed.
Academy of Management Journal, 18(2), 334–344.
Negandhi, A. R. (1983). Cross-cultural management research: Trend and future directions.
Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 17–28.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and organisations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Springer.
Ouchi, W. G. (1977). The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 95–113.
Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., Weber, R., Lee, H. E., Terra, L. I., Botero, I. C., et al. (2012). Individual and cultural variations in Direct communication style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(2), 179–187.
Pas¸a, S. F., Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2001). Society, organizations and leadership in Turkey.
Applied Psychology: International Review, 50(4), 559–589.
Pascale, R. T. (1978). Communication and decision making across cultures: Japanese and American comparisons. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(1), 91–110.
Pavett, C., & Morris, T. (1995). Management styles within a multinational corporation: A five country comparative study. Human Relations, 48(10), 1171–1191.
Pellegrini, E. K. (2006). A cross-cultural investigation of the relationships among organizational justice, paternalism, delegation and leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships. Florida, USA: University of Miami.
Pellegrini, E. K., Scandura, T. A., & Jayaraman, V. (2010). Cross-cultural generalizability of paternalistic leadership: An Expansion of leader-member exchange theory. Group & Organization Management, 35(4), 391–420.
Podrug, N. (2011). Influence of national culture on decision-making style. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 6(1), 37–44.
Poon, P. S., Evangelista, F. U., & Albaum, G. S. (2005). A comparative study of the management style of marketing managers in Australia and People’s Republic of China. International Marketing Review, 22(1), 34–47.
Resort Dergisi. (2011). Uluslararası Zincirler Türkiye’de Markalarına Yeni Halkalar Ekliyor. Resort Magazine. http://dergi.resortdergisi.com/index.asp?s¼102. (Accessed 25 June 2012).
Resort Dergisi. (2012). Türkiye’de Zincir ve Grup Oteller- 2012. http://dergi.resortdergisi. com/index.asp?s¼117a. (Accessed 18 July 2013).
Ronen, S. (1986). Comparative and multinational management. USA, New York: John Wiley&Sons.
Sagie, A., & Aycan, Z. (2003). A cross-cultural analysis of participative decision-making in organizations. Human Relations, 56(4), 453–473.
Sargut, A. S. (2010). Kültürler Arası Farklılas¸ma ve Yoneti€
m. Ankara: ImgeKitabev_ i.
Schoenberg, R. (2004). Dimension of management style compatibility and cross-border acquisition outcome. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 3, 149–175.
Schollhammer, H. (1969). Comparative management theory jungle. Academy of Management Journal, 12(1), 81–97.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work.
Applied Psychology: International Review, 48(1), 23–47.
Sinkovics, R. R., Kurt, Y., & Sinkovics, N. (2018). The effect of matching on perceived export barriers and performance in an era of globalization discontents: Empirical evidence from UK SMEs. International Business Review, 27(5), 1065–1079. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.03.007.
Steerss, R. M., Sanchez-Runde, C. J., & Nardon, L. (2010). Management across cultures:
Challenges and strategies. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient Alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103.
Tannenbaum, A. S. (1962). Control in organizations: Individual adjustment and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7(2), 236–257.
Tayeb, M. (1987). Contingency theory and culture: A study of matched English and the Indian manufacturing firms. Organization Studies, 8(3), 241–261.
Tayeb, M. (1988). Organizations and national culture: A comparative analysis. UK, London: Sage Publications.
Tichy, N. T., & Bennis, W. G. (2009). S¸irketKurtaranKararlar. In A. KarasuilErmis¸, & Tran (Eds.) (Istanbul: Martı Yayıncılık).
Tixier, M. (1994). Management styles across western European cultures. International Executive, 36(4), 377–391.
Toyne, B. (1976). Host country managers of multinational firms: An evaluation of variables affecting their managerial thinking patterns. Journal of International Business Studies, 7(1), 39–55.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. UK, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Tüz, M. (2004). I_s¸letmelerde Yonetim€ modelleri: Avrupa, Amerika, Japonya ve Türkiye
Uygulamalı. Istanbul: ALFA Akademi.
Walton, R. E., Dutton, J. M., & Cafferty, T. P. (1969). Organizational context and interdepartmental conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(4), 522–542.
Wasti, S. A. (1994). The influence of cultural values on work-related attitudes and organizational structure: A comparative study (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Ankara:
METU Institute of Social Sciences.
Welge, M. K. (1994). A comparison of managerial structures in German subsidiaries in France, India and United States. Management International Review, 34(1), 33–49.
Westwood, R. (1997). Harmony and Patriarchy: The cultural basis for ‘paternalistic headship’ among the overseas Chinese. Organization Studies, 18(3), 445–480.
Yeh, R. S. (1991). Management practices of Taiwanese firms: As compared to those of American and Japanese subsidiaries in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 8 (1), 1–14.
Elif Tuba Beydilli (Ph.D) currently staff member of Department of Tourism and Hotel Management, Dumlupinar University, Turkey. She obtained her PhD degree from Afyon Kocatepe University. Her research interests includes tourism and hotel management, cross-cultural management, organizational behavior.
Mustafa Kurt is Professor of management and currently working as a researcher and business consultant at Bursa Business Academy. He has previously held visiting scholar positions at various institutions including The University of Glasgow, The University of York, The University of Bradford, and Leeds Beckett University.
