STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION STYLES OF MALAYSIAN, THAI AND HUNGARIAN MIDDLE MANAGERS

• Main Authors: Maheshkumar P. Joshi, Hugh D. Sherman, John R. Schermerhorn, Jr.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Universiti Sains Malaysia 2004-01-01
• Series: Asian Academy of Management Journal
• Online Access: http://www.usm.my/aamj/9.2.2004/AAMJ%209-2-2.pdf

There is a need for more comparative empirical research that examines middle manager roles in strategic change. This paper reports a study of middle managers in two dynamic settings: the Asia/Pacific region – Malaysia and Thailand; and Central/Eastern Europe – Hungary. Results of 213 respondents across three countries indicate that middle managers from all three tend toward use of authoritarian management styles even in proactive strategic change situations. However, Hungarians are less likely to use these styles than Thai and Malaysian middle managers. For all three countries, managers with less work experience were found to have lower tendencies to use an authoritarian style of implementation. When top managers exhibit an aggressive strategic posture, middle-managers from all three countries are also less likely to use an authoritarian style.Firms that want to stay competitive in the global market place must continuously evolve by successfully accomplishing strategic change (Struckman & Yammarino 2003). Although senior managers are critical in leading the strategic change process, even the best-planned strategic changes will not achieve their full potential unless they are well implemented. Part of the strategic leadership responsibility, therefore, includes establishing a climate in which the organization's rank and file will experience both a positive attitude about change and the confidence to actively seek change opportunities (Kanter 2003). Research attention is bringing more insight into the important roles of middle-managers in this process of implementing strategic change (Balogun & Jenkins 2003; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992, 1994; Wooldridge & Floyd 1990). Although there is little doubt that active support by middle managers is critical for the strategies to be well implemented (Guth & MacMillan 1986), there remain many important questions with regard to how middle managers participate in this process (Balogun 2003).The need for research on middle manager roles in strategic change is even more apparent in the international management area. Past cross-cultural studies have addressed how managers from different countries compare on managerial styles (Michailova 2000), value systems (Elsayed-Elkhouly & Buda 1997), managerial behavior and learning (Child & Markoczy 1993), and conflict tendencies (Swierczek & Onishi 2003). Yet very few comparative studies have specifically investigated middle manager style differences and assisting in the process of implementing strategic changes (Kustin & Jones 1996). As the processes of globalization continue, there is a corresponding urgency to learn more about the strategy implementation roles of middle managers around the world. The purpose of the present study, accordingly, is to examine middle manager styles of implementing strategic change in two dynamic and timely settings: (1) the Asia/Pacific region – focusing on middle managers in Malaysia and Thailand; and (2) Central/Eastern Europe – with a focus on middle managers in Hungary.