International Journal of Management (IJM)

Volume 7, Issue 3, March-April 2016, pp. 213223, Article ID: IJM_07_03_019

Available online at
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=7&IType=3
Journal Impact Factor (2016): 8.1920 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com
ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510
IAEME Publication

MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS AND

SELF-MONITORING: A CULTURAL
PERSPECTIVE
Dr. Assissi Menachery
Professor, Loyola Institute of Technology and Science,
K.K Dist, T.N, India
Dr. R. Venkatapathy
Professor & Director, BSMED, Bharathiar University,
Coimbatore, T.N, India
ABSTRACT
The cultural diversity among todays labour force is influenced by the
demographic changes all over the world. Impact of multicultural differences
has accompanied with the rising number of companies expanding into
international markets. Many of the studies have focused on cultural
differences in terms of values, norms, and assumptions (Adler, 1991; Hofstede,
1980; Schwartz, 1994; Triandis, 2001). This study analyses the similarities
and differences that Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness could
impose across cultures. The study has observed and analyzed the similarities
or differences among Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness among
managers across India & U.A.E working in hospitality industry. The impact of
levels of Self-Monitoring on various Managerial Effectiveness dimensions
are also analyzed and discussed. Specific hypotheses were formulated. Testing
of hypotheses, Analysis of data and recommendations are advanced based on
the findings.
Key words: Self-Monitoring, Managerial Effectiveness, Cross cultural
research, Diversity, Hospitality Industry.
Cite this Article: Dr. Assissi Menachery and Dr. R. Venkatapathy,
Managerial Effectiveness and Self-Monitoring: A Cultural Perspective.
International Journal of Management, 7(3), 2016, pp. 213223.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JType=IJM&VType=7&IType=3

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp

213

editor@iaeme.com

Dr. Assissi Menachery and Dr. R. Venkatapathy

1. INTRODUCTION
The cultural diversity among todays labour force has been largely influenced by the
demographic changes all over the world. Many of the studies have focused on cultural
differences in terms of values, norms, and assumptions (Adler, 1991; Hofstede, 1980;
Schwartz, 1994; Triandis, 2001). To the extent that culture share objective elements
(such as language, religion, political systems or economic systems) or subjective ones
(values, attitudes, beliefs, norms, roles), they are considered similar (Triandis,
Kurowski & Gelfand, 1994). Hospitality involves high degree of service orientation
and is considered a high-impact area for the development of economy. In hospitality
industry, the international managers are exposed not only to the cultural diversity of
co-workers but also they are vulnerable to the heterogeneous type of customers across
countries, cultures and races. Service orientation holds few unique characteristics such
as intangibility, inseparability of production and consumption, heterogeneity and
perishability (Ruderman & Hughes-James, 1998). Similarly, most services involve the
simultaneous production and consumption too. In a shorter span of time, India has
increasingly cemented its position as one of the must-see hospitality locations across
the world. India is famous for its rich and varied culture, heritage and natural
resources. Hospitality Industry provides opportunities for employment directly and
indirectly in several related areas such as hotels, tour operators, and travels by means
of Health and Spiritual Tourism. Each year an ever-increasing number of people are
flocking into this country to relish its beauty and rich, but varied culture. Kerala
tourism department achieved the Super brand (2003-05) status known as Gods own
country, across the globe, and is considered one of the prime destinations because of
its scenic beauty, natural resources and Ayurveda. U.A.E. has been able to create a
niche for itself in the world tourism map with its excellent infrastructure and
hospitality, various leisure and sporting facilities, shopping malls, high levels of
safety and a welcoming adjustable society. Dubai, which has lesser reserves of oil are
being able to create a stable economy based on tourism or hospitality industry and
retail business, which often complement each other. Studies indicate that the tourism
accounts for 20% of Dubai's GDP. Hospitality Industry or Tourism in both the
countries are the two sides of the coin. Indias unique selling proposition is Health or
Medical tourism, scenic beauty and natural resources. Middle East countries thrust on
infrastructure; man made wonders and other facilities & amenities.
Even though there are a few studies on cross-cultural issues and Managerial
Effectiveness, the results of these studies have been inconsistent, contradictory, and
inconclusive (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1994). Studies conducted in the western countries,
are often referred to as consideration and initiation and in eastern studies as
production and maintenance. Davis and Luthans (1979) concluded that the models on
which they are based lacked the ability to predict success. The majority of these
studies are based on frequency of behaviours and not skill of managerial behaviours
(Bernadin & Beatty, 1984; Schriesheim & Kerr, 1974; Shipper, 1991; Shipper &
White, 1999; Van Velsor & Leslie, 1991; Yukl, 1994). The skill or how well a
manager engages in a behaviour has been posited (Blake and Mouton, 1981; Van
Velsor & Leslie, 1991) and supported empirically (Shipper, 1991; Shipper & White,
1999) to be more relevant to success than the frequency of that behaviour or skills
(Cullen, 1999). Outside North America, few studies examine effectiveness of
managerial behaviour or skills (Cullen, 1999). There are multiple studies of what
managers do or should do (Kipnis, Smith & Wilkinson, 1984; Schmidt & Yeh, 1992)
or employee attitudes toward management (Hofstede, 1983, 1991).

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp

214

editor@iaeme.com

Managerial Effectiveness and Self-Monitoring: A Cultural Perspective

It has been observed that due to the pace of internationalization of business,

understanding managerial skills associated with different cultures have become
necessary (Hadjikhani & Johanson, 2002). Moreover, culture is a pattern of values,
attitudes, and beliefs that affect the behaviour of the people within a region. Emotions
are partially influenced by ones attitude and beliefs (Hofstede, 2001; Scherer &
Wallbott, 1994). It is observed that culture varies on a variety of fundamental values,
attitudes, and assumptions (Hofstede, 2001; House & Javidan, 2001; Ronen &
Shenkar, 1985). Hence, it is probable that Managerial Effectiveness is likely to vary
across cultures. Cultural differences on Managerial Effectiveness are likely to derive
from two sources (Shipper, Kincaid, Rotondo & Hoffman, 2003). The first of these
are cultural differences in certain characteristics related to self-awareness. Secondly,
the cultural variations have been observed in research on the effectiveness of
managerial behaviours and skills. Hence, Managerial Effectiveness is considered to be
related to Self-Monitoring. However, there are limited studies available across
cultures.
Managerial Effectiveness is the ability of an executive to achieve the positional
objective with optimal effort under the influence of given set of situational variables
and environmental conditions. Further Self-Monitoring refers to an individuals
ability to adjust his or her behaviour to external, situational factors or environmental
conditions. Individuals high on Self-Monitoring show considerable adaptability in
adjusting their behaviour to external situational factors. Thus, the trait SelfMonitoring seems to be potentially related to Managerial Effectiveness. The
relationship between Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness are yet to be
empirically established. The hospitality industry is a growing field with vast potential.
Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness make high impact on hospitality
industry in various dimensions. It is appropriate and relevant to carry out such a study.
It is expected that the knowledge derived from this study would augment, add, or
expand the existing knowledge that pertains to the specific relationship between the
variables. However, an effort has been made to study the impact of Self-Monitoring
on Managerial Effectiveness on different cultures. This study will analyse the
similarities and differences that Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness could
impose across cultures.

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The study aims at observing and analysing the similarities or differences among SelfMonitoring and Managerial Effectiveness among managers across cultures (India &
U.A.E.) working in hospitality industry. The main objectives are:
1. To study the Self-Monitoring characteristics of managers working in different
cultural environment.
2. To study the similarities or differences with special focus on the dimensions of
Managerial Effectiveness among the managers working in different cultural
environment.
3. To study the impact of levels of Self-Monitoring on various Managerial
Effectiveness dimensions.

2.1. Hypotheses
The respondents working in India & U.A.E. and the high and low levels of SelfMonitoring would remain to be homogenous on their scores on each Managerial
Effectiveness sub-scales viz.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp

215

editor@iaeme.com

Dr. Assissi Menachery and Dr. R. Venkatapathy

1. Future Orientation, (2) Drive Strength, (3) Problem Solving, (4) Giving and
Receiving Feedback and (5) Decisiveness

Based on the above hypothesis, a detailed hypothesis could be advanced as follows:

2.1.1 (a)
Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring would remain
to be homogenous on their scores on the Future Orientation sub-scale of
Managerial Effectiveness scale.
(b)
Managers working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be
homogeneous on their scores on the Future Orientation sub-scale of
Managerial Effectiveness scale.
(c)
Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring, working in
India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on the scores of Future
Orientation sub-scale of the Managerial Effectiveness scale.
2.1.2 (a)
Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring would remain
to be homogenous on their scores on the Drive Strength sub-scale of
Managerial Effectiveness scale.
(b)
Managers working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be
homogeneous on their scores on the Drive Strength sub-scale of Managerial
Effectiveness scale.
(c)
Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring, working in
India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on the scores of Drive
Strength sub-scale of the Managerial Effectiveness scale.
2.1.3 (a)
Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring would remain
to be homogenous on their scores on the Problem Solving sub-scale of
Managerial Effectiveness scale.
(b)
Managers working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be
homogeneous on their scores on the Problem Solving sub-scale of Managerial
Effectiveness scale.
(c)
Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring, working in
India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on the scores of Problem
Solving sub-scale of the Managerial Effectiveness scale.
2.1.4 (a)
Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring would remain
to be homogenous on their scores on the Giving and Receiving Feed-back
sub-scale of Managerial Effectiveness scale.
(b)
Managers working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be
homogeneous on their scores on the Giving and Receiving Feed-back subscale of Managerial Effectiveness scale.
(c)
Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring, working in
India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on the scores of Giving and
Receiving Feed-back sub-scale of the Managerial Effectiveness scale.
2.1.5 (a)
Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring would remain
to be homogenous on their scores on the Decisiveness sub-scale of Managerial
Effectiveness scale.
(b)
Managers working in India & U.A.E. would remain to be
homogeneous on their scores on the Decisiveness sub-scale of Managerial
Effectiveness scale.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp

216

editor@iaeme.com

Managerial Effectiveness and Self-Monitoring: A Cultural Perspective

(c)
Managers with high and low levels of Self-Monitoring, working in
India & U.A.E. would remain to be homogeneous on the scores of
Decisiveness sub-scale of the Managerial Effectiveness scale.

2.4 Sample
For the purpose of study, two star and three star hotels or resorts from Dubai and
Kerala have been selected as sample. The perusal of records at Department of
Tourism and Commerce Marketing, Govt. of Dubai and Department of Tourism,
Govt. of Kerala, resulted in seventy-eight registered two star and three star hotels or
resorts in Dubai and eighty-three two star and three star hotels or resorts in Kerala to
be included in the sample.
2.4.1. Sampling Frame and Characteristics
Permission was requested to conduct the study in all the above said registered hotels
or resorts from Dubai and Kerala. Sixty-nine hotels or resorts from Dubai and
seventy five hotels or resorts from Kerala, responded positively for the study. Hotels
or resorts were categorized alphabetically and numbered numerically as per the
alphabetical order. Further, one hotel from every two, based on the numerical
numbering was selected for the study. Systematic random sampling was adopted.
Thus, thirty-five hotel or resort from Dubai and thirty-eight hotel or resort from
Kerala formed the sample of the study. The response sheets with a covering letter
were sent to all functional heads of the selected hotels. After two weeks, the
respondents were requested and reminded to send back the completed response sheets.
Many of the respondents completed the questionnaire and sent it back to the
researcher. To collect the data from the few managers who did not respond in time,
the researcher went personally to the hotel or resort and collected the completed
response sheets. Totally 152 managers from Kerala and 141 managers from Dubai
responded. On perusal, it was found that a few response sheets were incomplete, a
few were marked haphazardly, and a few were not returned in the full version. Thus,
eliminating all the incomplete and inappropriate response sheets, the final sample
resulted in 145 managers from Kerala and 138 managers from Dubai. The middle
level managers or functional heads from the hotels (such as Operations; H.R.;
Marketing; Finance; Front office and Maintenance) were taken as the sample for the
study. The executives or managers with more than three years of experience were
considered to be included in the sample.

2.5. Technique
The response sheets with a covering letter, which explains the purpose and scope of
the study, were initially sent to the hotels or resorts. The respondents were given
information that they were participating in a research program on a cross-cultural
study on Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness. After two weeks, the
respondents were requested and reminded to send back the completed response sheets.
Many of the respondents completed the questionnaire and sent it back to the
researcher. To collect the data from the few managers who did not respond in time,
and when they had doubts or clarifications on certain aspects too, researcher went
personally to the hotel or resort and collected the completed response sheets.
Wherever the respondents confronted with ambiguous situations, they would explain
about the nature of each situation without disclosing the conceptual framework.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp

217

editor@iaeme.com

Dr. Assissi Menachery and Dr. R. Venkatapathy

2.6. Measures
2.6.1. Self-Monitoring Scale
The revised Self-Monitoring Scale developed by Lennox and Wolfe (1984) was used
to measure Self-Monitoring. The instrument contains thirteen Likert-type scale items
to be responded to a four point rating scale starting from always false, sometimes
false, sometimes true, and always true. The maximum possible score is fifty-two
and minimum thirteen. The total cumulative scores of the responses of all items yield
scores on Self-Monitoring. Of the thirteen items, eleven items were to be scored by
the direct method while two items were to be scored by the reverse method. Higher
scores relate to high level of Self-Monitoring and lower scores relate to low level of
Self-Monitoring.
2.6.2. Managerial Effectiveness Scale
The scale developed by Menachery, A & Venkatapathy R. (2009), called Managerial
Effectiveness Scale (MES) to measure Managerial Effectiveness. It comprises 110
items. It is a four - point Likert type rating scale had been designed for each question
(1 - Strongly disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Agree, 4 - Strongly Agree). There were
eleven negative items in the Managerial Effectiveness Index. It measures the five
composite factors which include (1) Future Orientation, (2) Drive Strength, (3)
Problem Solving, (4) Giving and Receiving Feedback and (5) Decisiveness

2.7. Results and Discussion

2.7.1. Classification of the respondents based on their scores on Self-Monitoring
The respondents are classified using their levels of Self-Monitoring as high and low.
The scores on Self-Monitoring scale of the respondents are arranged in an ascending
order. Based on the median (theoretical mean), scores of the respondents are divided
into two groups. Those respondents who have scored greater than the median score
are classified as high on Self-Monitoring. Those respondents who have scored less
than the median score are classified as low on Self-Monitoring. The scores
corresponding to the median score are removed from further analysis. This
classification resulted in the rejection of eight responses from respondents working
in U.A.E. and fourteen responses from the respondents working in India. Finally,
130 responses from the respondents working in U.A.E., and 131 responses from
the respondents working in India are subjected to further analysis. This includes 136
low Self-Monitoring respondents and 125 high Self-Monitoring respondents. The
data collected are analyzed using 2 x 2 ANOVA and the results are analysed and
discussed for the difference of the scores of the respondents working with the
criterion groups. During discussion, attention has been given in arriving at a
conclusive perspective on the analysis, hypothesis testing and interpretation of data on
the biographical variables and on specific constructs such as Self-Monitoring, and
Managerial Effectiveness.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp

218

editor@iaeme.com

Managerial Effectiveness and Self-Monitoring: A Cultural Perspective

Table 1 U.A.E. High & low Self-Monitoring V/S Managerial Effectiveness
Criterion group
Sub-scale
Future orientation
Drive strength
Problem solving skill
Giving and Receiving
feed back
Decisiveness

UAE Low Self-Monitors (49)

Mean
SD
60.73
6.18
59.49
5.99
76.04*
3.36
63.37
4.83
75.04

3.21

UAE High Self-Monitors (81)

Mean
SD
60.27
5.77
58.89
5.49
79.42
2.76
69.61*
2.83
78.04*

2.90

Table 2 Indian High & low Self-Monitoring V/S Managerial Effectiveness

Criterion group
Sub-scale
Future orientation
Drive strength
Problem solving skill
Giving and Receiving
feed back
Decisiveness

Indian Low Self-Monitors (87)

Indian High Self-Monitors (44)

Mean
69.46*
70.89*
70.75
57.00

SD
8.55
7.98
4.40
5.29

Mean
65.66
68.11
76.93*
63.14*

SD
5.91
5.44
3.36
3.80

69.80

4.15

75.77*

3.87

Table 3 U.A.E & Indian Managers V/S Managerial Effectiveness

Criterion group
Sub-scale
Future orientation
Drive strength
Problem solving
Giving and
Receiving feed back
Decisiveness

UAE managers (130)

Mean
SD
60.45
5.91
59.12
5.66
78.15*
3.41
65.72*
4.78

Indian managers (131)

Mean
SD
68.18*
7.94
69.95*
7.32
72.82
5.02
61.08
5.63

76.91*

71.81

3.34

4.94

Table 4 High & Low Self-Monitors V/S Managerial Effectiveness

Criterion group
Sub-scale
Future orientation
Drive strength
Problem solving
Giving and
Receiving feed back
Decisiveness

Low Self-Monitors (136)

Mean
SD
66.32*
8.82
66.78*
9.13
72.65
4.78
61.13
5.99
71.69

4.59

High Self-Monitors (125)

Mean
SD
62.17
6.34
62.14
7.02
78.58*
3.20
65.74*
4.41
77.24*

3.43

Table 5 Average mean score UAE and India

Total (261)

Criterion group
Sub-scale
Future orientation
Drive strength
Problem solving skill
Giving and Receiving feed back

Mean
64.33
64.56
75.48
63.39

S.D
7.99
8.50
5.04
5.71

Decisiveness

74.35

4.92

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp

219

editor@iaeme.com

Dr. Assissi Menachery and Dr. R. Venkatapathy

2.7.2. A comparison on the levels of Self-Monitoring

The managers high on Self-Monitoring are high on Problem Solving Skill, Giving and
Receiving Feedback and Decisiveness dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness scale.
The managers high on Self-Monitoring are low on Drive Strength and Future
Orientation dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness scale.

2.7.3. A comparison between different cultures

The managers working in different countries and the levels of Self-Monitoring failed
to differentiate on Drive Strength, Future Orientation and Giving and Receiving
Feedback dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness Scale. The managers working in
different countries and the levels of Self-Monitoring differ on Problem Solving Skill
and Decisiveness dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness Scale.

2.7.4. High and Low levels of Self-monitoring, Cultures and Managerial

Effectiveness
Table 6 High and Low levels of Self-monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness of India and
UAE Managers:
Criterion group

Indian and UAE

Managers

Low and High

Self-monitoring

Interaction
Sub-scale
Drive strength
0.05
0.05
NS
Future orientation
0.05
0.05
NS
Problem solving skill
0.05
0.05
0.05
Giving and Accepting
0.05
0.05
NS
feed back
Decisiveness
0.05
0.05
0.05
NS: Homogeneous and failed to achieved statistical significance P 0.05 level of significance

2.8. Cultural Implications

The managers working in India are high on Drive Strength and Future Orientation
dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness. The managers working in U.A.E. are high
on Problem Solving Skill, Giving and Receiving Feedback and Decisiveness
dimensions of Managerial Effectiveness. While analysing the countries together, high
Self-Monitoring managers score high on Problem Solving and Decisiveness
subscales of Managerial Effectiveness Scale and low Self-Monitoring managers score
high on Future Orientation, Drive Strength and Giving and Receiving Feedback
sub scales. However, when these parameters are analysed taking the countries
individually, the result is different for the both. It is likely that the culture would have
influenced the Self-Monitoring and Managerial Effectiveness of managers. The
cultural implication could be viewed in yet another perspective. From the pattern in
the result, it may be inferred that culture could have moderated the scores of the
various sub-scales of Managerial Effectiveness Scale. Thus, the dimensions of culture
could possibly moderate the Managerial Effectiveness dimensions. Culture of the
respondents working in two nations has an implication on the Self-Monitoring of the
managers working in the hospitality industry. Thus, it may further be inferred that
Managerial Effectiveness is influenced by the respondents across culture.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp

220

editor@iaeme.com

Managerial Effectiveness and Self-Monitoring: A Cultural Perspective

2.9. Future research directions

The following leads are suggested for the future research endeavor in this area of
study and research.
1.
2.
3.
4.

A comparative study emphasising on the sex differences.

A cross-national study to understand the cross-cultural issues.
A cross section of the hospitality industry may be carried out.
A longitudinal study may be initiated to evolve cross cultural differences and
management of diversity.

3. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is aimed at studying the empirical relationship between personality (SelfMonitoring) and Managerial Effectiveness. Based on the outcome of the analysis of
the results it is possible to extricate the skills and capabilities unique for the high
complexity competitive scenario in hospitality industry at the global level. Hospitality
industry requires hiring the right personnel, to excel among the competitors.
Hospitality industry includes travel, tourism, hotels and resorts. This essentially
makes the manager of the company to face customers or clients across cultures. Based
on the results of the study the following recommendations are advanced.
Nurturing and developing the managerial skills suiting to the country specific
training needs. The management of hotels and hospitality industries may implement
the programmes with an integrated approach to emphasise the mix of Personality and
Managerial Effectiveness to achieve the maximum benefit. Drive strength and Future
Orientation capabilities are low for the managers working in U.A.E., compared to the
managers in India. These two attributes are the requirements for entrepreneurs and
managers. Drive-Strength, trigger the urge for a person to strive and achieve success
in personal and professional life. Need for achievement is a product of Drive strength.
This attribute is found lacking in the managers working in U.A.E. Hence, the industry
leaders or government may conduct a study to identify the root cause for the lack of
Drive Strength and Future Orientation attributes and employ corrective actions to
enhance the same. Adequate awareness programmes may be designed for the
managers working in U.A.E. hospitality industry to improve on Drive Strength and
Future Orientation attributes. Training and retraining programmes may be designed
to fill the knowledge and competence gap.
Scores on Giving and Receiving Feedback is less for managers working in India
compared to managers from U.A.E. Giving and Receiving feedback is a mechanism
or methodology to enhance interpersonal skill. People who are successful in all
businesses requiring active interaction with other people, such as salespeople,
managers, counsellors, consultants, and lawyers all have a high degree of interpersonal skills. They give and receive feedback very effectively. Hence, the industry
leaders or government may conduct a study to identify the root cause for the lack of
Giving and receiving feed-back dimensions and can implement correction and
corrective actions to enhance the same. Adequate awareness programmes may be
designed for the managers working in Indian hospitality to fill the knowledge and
competence gap. Problem solving skill and Decisiveness is less for Indian
managers when compared to U.A.E., managers. Problem Solving entails the ability to
identify and define problems as well as to generate and implement the potentially
effective solutions. To identify the potential problems and taking preventive action to
avoid the occurrence of problems is the preventive measure. In case of confronting
with a problem, identifying the root-cause of the problem, identifying alternative
http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp

221

editor@iaeme.com

Dr. Assissi Menachery and Dr. R. Venkatapathy

solutions, choosing the best alternative and correcting the problem are the subsequent
phases of Problem Solving skill.
Decisiveness is the ability to take effective decisions from alternatives by
balancing the risk factor thereby integrating resource allocation and goal achievement.
An effective manager with Decisiveness, capability exercises good judgment by
making sound and well-informed decisions. Adequate awareness programmes may be
designed for the managers working in Indian hospitality industry on Problem Solving
Skill, and Decisiveness. Training and retraining programmes may be designed to
fill the knowledge gap on these two dimensions. Self-Monitoring is related to
Managerial Effectiveness. Development of the manager in any of the dimensions of
Managerial Effectiveness will enhance his ability in Self-Monitoring. Self-Monitoring
is one of the most important qualities of a manager in the hospitality industry, hence,
the above recommendations.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]

[11]

[12]
[13]

[14]
[15]

Adler, N. J. (1991). International Dimensions of Organisational behaviour (2 nd

ed.). Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills handbook of leadership: Theory,
research and managerial applications (3rd ed.), New York: Free Press.
Bernadin, H. J. & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Preformance appraisal: Assessing
human behaviour at work. Boston: Kent Publishing.
Cullen, J. B. (1999). Multinational Management: A Strategic Approach.
Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing.
Davis, T. R. V. & Luthans, F (1979). Leadership reexamined: A behavioural
approach. Academy of management review, 4, 237-248.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work
Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American
theories apply abroad? Organisational Dynamic, Summer, 42-63
Hofstede, G. (1983) "The cultural relativity of organizational practices and
theories", Journal of International Business Studies, Vol.14, No. 2, pp 75-89.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organisations: Software of the mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, Geert (1993). "Cultural Constraints in Management Theories",
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7(1), pp.81-94. Maastricht, the
Netherlands: Academy University of Limburg.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's recent consequences: Using dimension scores in
theory and research. International Journal of cross cultural management, 1 (1),
11-30.
Menachery, A & Venkatapathy R. (2009). GIM Journal of Management, ISSN
0974-0708, Volume 4, No.2 July December.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond Individualism-Collectivism: New cultural
dimensions of values. In K. Uichol, C. Kagitcibasi, H.C. Triandis & G. Yoon
(eds.). Individualism and Collectivism. Newbury Park: Sage. 85-119.
Shipper, F. (1991). Mastery and frequency of managerial behaviours relative to
sub-unit effectiveness. Human Relations, 44, 371-388.
Shipper, F & White, C. S. (1999). Mastery, frequency and interaction of
managerial behaviours relative to subunit effectiveness. Human Relations, 52,
49-66.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp

222

editor@iaeme.com

Managerial Effectiveness and Self-Monitoring: A Cultural Perspective

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]
[20]
[21]

[22]

[23]

Shipper, F. M., Kincaid, J. F., Rotondo, D. M., & Hoffman, R. C. (2003). "A
cross-cultural exploratory study of the linkage between emotional intelligence
and managerial effectiveness," International Journal of Organizational Analysis,
2 (3), 171191.
Shipper, Frank (2004). A cross-cultural, multi-dimensional, nonlinear
examination of managerial skills and effectiveness, Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies.
Triandis, H., Kurowski, L. & Gelfand, M. (1994). Workplace diversity. In H.
Triandis & M. Dunnette (Eds.) Handbook of Industrial/Organizational
Psychology, 4, 769-815, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc: Palo Alto, CA.
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism Collectivism and Personality. Journal of
Personality, 69, 907-924.
Yukl, G. A. (1994). Leadership in organisations (3 rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
S.M. Denis Amirtharaj, S. Kalist Raja Role of Training and Development In
Promoting The Growth of Hospitality Industry. International Journal of
Management, 2(1), 2011, pp. 126133.
Ms. Shaheeda Banu S., Ms. Vidya Muthyal and Ms. Bharathi Desai. Role of
Training and Development in Promoting The Growth of Hospitality Industry.
International Journal of Management, 4(3), 2013, pp. 170176.
Yukl, G. A. (1998). Leadership in organisations (4 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp

223

editor@iaeme.com