MANAGERIAL COMPETENCIES AND PROFILES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY IN SEVEN CULTURES AND

A SPECIAL ANALYSIS OF LATIN AMERICA

Mara Jos Bosch*

Pablo Cardona**

CCMN***

* Doctoral Student, IESE Business School, Avenida Pearson 21, 08034, Barcelona, Spain. Email: mjbosch@iese.edu ** Associate Professor, IESE Business School. Avenida Pearson 21, 08034, Barcelona, Spain. ***Prof. Csar Bullara, Instituto Superior de Empresa (ISE), So Paulo, Brasil. PhD. Helen Wilkinson, IESE Business School, Barcelona, Spain Prof. M Victoria Caparas. University of Asia & the Pacific School of Management, Manila, Philippines. Prof. Alexey Svishchev, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia. Prof. Michael Morley, Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. Prof. Sadia Nadeem, University of Computer and Emerging Sciences, Islamabad, Pakistan. Ph.D. Student Wei He, IESE Business School, Barcelona, Spain

-2-

ABSTRACT

Many authors have developed different models of competencies. These models try to

understand which competencies are related to better performance, but most of them

were developed in a single-country context. This paper tries to find measures of

managerial competencies that are reliable across cultures in order to develop a cross

cultural map of managerial competencies. Based on Cardona and Garcias framework

(2005) we measure managerial competencies for different cultural regions, including the

following countries: Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, China, Spain, Pakistan, Philippines,

Russia and Ireland. We found reliable competency measures across cultures and identify

three competency dimensions: external, interpersonal and personal. Finally we develop

a map of managerial profiles and evaluate those profiles for different cultures.

-3-

Many models of managerial competencies have been developed in the last thirty years

(R. E. Boyatzis, 1982; Harvey & Novicevic, 2005; Lobel, 1990; Spencer & Spencer,

1993). Most of these models were developed locally and it is questionable whether they

are applicable across different cultural contexts. Definitions, perceptions, and

attributions of competencies are culturally sensitive (Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque,

& House, 2006; Schwartz, 2004). However, some of these models are used by

international companies as if they were equally valid in different cultures. Given the

need that companies have to compare managerial talent in different countries, we

propose the following research question: is there any managerial competency structure

that is stable across cultures?

The concept of managerial competencies has evolved over time and has received

attention by many scholars (R. Boyatzis, 1993; Harvey & Novicevic, 2005; Mumford,

Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleischman, 2000; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). In its

beginnings, research on competencies identified characteristics of outstanding

performers (McClelland, 1961). Boyatzis (1982) defined managerial competencies as

underlying characteristics of a person which results in effective and/or superior

performance in a job (p.21). These characteristics include motives, traits, self-concept,

knowledge, and skills. The definition of managerial competencies has become more

precise over time, focusing on repetitive habits (Cardona & Chinchilla, 1999) and

observable behaviors (Woodruffe, 1993). In this paper we understand managerial

competencies as observable and habitual behaviors that make managers effective in

their job performance (Cardona & Garcia, 2005).

In the last years, there has been an increase of research related to leadership (Bass,

1990; Madlock, 2008; Northouse, 2007; Stogdill, 1974). There is some overlap between

-4-

leadership and managerial competencies. However, these two concepts are different.

Most leadership scholars agree that leadership can be defined as the influencing process

between a leader and followers that results in superior outcomes (Antonakis, Cianciolo,

& Sternberg, 2004). This influencing process depends on dispositional characteristics,

and behaviors of leaders, followers perceptions and attributes as well as context. Thus,

leadership focuses on the influence process while competencies focus on managers

behaviors. Most authors agree that leadership and management are different but

complementary (Bass, 1990). In this paper we are going to study only managerial

behaviors. In consequence, we will keep our focus on competencies rather than

leadership.

With globalization, cross cultural studies have become more relevant for both research

and practice. Hofstede (1984) proposed that cultures were like mental programming and

identified several culture variables such as: collectivism/individualism, masculinity,

feminism, and others. Hofstedes research has evolved over time and has been used in

many cross cultural studies (Casimir & Waldman, 2007; Euwema, Wendt, & van

Emmerik, 2007; Javidan et al., 2006; Yan & Hunt, 2005). Another important contributor

to this field is Schwartz. He proposes a framework of seven categories that identify

seven cultural regions (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2007). This approach has the advantage of

grouping the countries of the world in specific cultural regions.

In this study, we analyze managerial competencies based on Cardona and Garcias

competency framework in each of the Schwartzs cultural regions. Using factor

analysis, we find a managerial competency structure that is stable across cultures. With

this structure, we develop several managerial profiles that can help explain managerial

cultural differences.

-5-

Theoretical Background

Competency Models

Boyatzis (1982) developed the first model of managerial competencies. He found 12

competencies related to managerial effectiveness: efficiency orientation, proactivity,

diagnostic use of concepts, concern with impact, self-confidence, use of oral

presentations, conceptualization, use of socialized power, managing group process,

perceptual objectivity, self control, and stamina and adaptability. This list of

competencies does encompass different facets of managers. However, it is not clear

what these facets may be and whether the relationship is among them.

Mumford et al. (2000) developed a framework of managerial skills that distinguishes

three dimensions: problem solving skills, social judgment skills, and social skills.

Problem solving skills are associated with indentifying the problem, understanding the

problem and producing potential solutions. Social judgment skills are associated with

the improvement of potential solutions and its implementation in an organizational

context. Social skills are associated with motivating and directing others in the

implementation process. This framework structures the different facets of a managers

behavior using a process perspective: from creating an idea to its implementation in the

organization through people. However, this framework does not suggest specific

competencies for each dimension.

In the last few years, Boyatzis and Goleman (2006) developed a new model of manager

competencies based on the Emotional and Social Intelligence (ESI) framework. This

framework focuses on the ability to recognize, understand, and use emotional

information about oneself or others to achieve superior performance (Seal, Boyatzis, &

Bailey, 2006). This model distinguishes four dimensions: self awareness, self

-6-

management, social awareness and relationship management. Each of these dimensions

contains a list of several competencies.

In parallel, Peterson and Seligman (2004) developed another model of competencies

based on the Positive Psychology framework. Positive psychology studies strengths and

virtues that promote personal well being and effectiveness (Park, Peterson, & Seligman,

2004; Seligman, 2002; Wright & Goodstein, 2007). This framework proposes six

universal virtues: wisdom and knowledge, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and

transcendence. Each dimension contains a list of several competencies.

On the one hand, ESI and Positive Psychology contribute to the literature with sound

frameworks and new competencies that may be relevant to managers effectiveness. On

the other hand, however, their focus is broader than the managerial function and thus

they do not emphasize properly some critical dimensions that are important for

management performance. More specifically, Positive Psychology does not include

competencies related to organizational effectiveness and ESI only covers this dimension

partially.

This shortcomings are addressed by Cardona and Garcia (2005). They proposed a

competency framework specifically based on the analysis of the managerial function.

This analysis follows the model proposed by Perz-Lpez (1993) which distinguishes

three talents that are specific to managers. The first is the Strategic talent, that is, the

capacity to develop and implement strategies that lead to the achievement of good

financial results. The second is the Executive talent, that is, the capacity to develop

efficient relationships with collaborators. Third is the Personal talent, th