Indian Managers

8/4/2019 Indian Managers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/indian-managers 1/30



Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997; Tayeb, 1988; Virmani and Guptan, 1991). These paststudies are treated in the survey of literature, but more studies are needed to focus onevolving patterns of speci c HRM practices, such as performance appraisal (PA), andtheir supporting management values.

The current study is based on an on-site survey that compares performance appraisal

(PA) practices and management values in India by rm ownership. The need to addressIndian PA practices and speci c managerial values arises for four reasons. First, high-performance work systems have been shown to be crucial to sustaining globalcompetitiveness and they rely upon objective, adequate PA processes (Marquardt andEngel, 1993; Cardy and Dobbins, 1994; Smither, 1998). However, in a recentcomparative analysis of global HRM practices, Sparrow and Budhwar (1997) highlightemployee PA as a relatively underemphasized factor in Indian managerial practices.Current Indian HRM practices that devalue or de-prioritize PA, therefore, jeopardize theexternal strategic competitiveness of Indian rms.

Second, the productivity of work cultures in Indian organizations is jeopardized byemployee PA practices that appear to be biased, ad hoc and unintegrated into a globallycompetitive HRM system (Mendonca and Kanungo, 1990; Shenkar, 1995; Virmani andGuptan, 1991). The lack of Indian PA practices formally integrated into a qualityperformance-based HRM system allows Indian managers to over-control and under-control employees (Lindsay and Petrick, 1997). This abuse of PA authority adverselyimpacts Indian employees who have already been described as low on ‘ef ciencyemphasis’, that is, low on initiative for process improvement, low on risk-taking

propensity to increase productivity and low on self-monitoring inclinations (Sparrowand Budhwar, 1997). When Indian managerial appraisals do not distinguish betweenemployee contributions and the limiting social, technical and environmental constraintson performance – over which the individual has no control – employees regard PA

judgements as unfair and withhold productive efforts (Mendonca and Kanungo, 1990;Virmani and Guptan, 1991; Sinha, 1990; Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997). Furthermore,when Indian managers rely exclusively on subjective biases in PA and do notobjectively evaluate and develop employees in order to reward and improve

performance, or remove constraints to performance, the integrated improvement of theHR quality system is threatened (Kanungo and Misra, 1985). Consequently, individualwork satisfaction and aggregate productivity in organizations, especially in the publicsector, declines.

Third, Indian managers have been criticized for not involving employees in the PAprocess (Virmani and Guptan, 1991; Mendonca and Kanungo, 1990). The presence of mutual in uence between Indian managers and their employees with regard to PA leadsto realistic and appropriate standards of performance, agreement about evaluation anddevelopment processes, and enhanced acceptance and commitment to performance

improvements. The prevailing absence of this mutual in uence in India, especiallymanagerial receptiveness to employee feedback, has provoked scepticism and resistanceto the implementation of formal PA systems.

Fourth, managerial values that are national culture-based, organizational culture-based and rm ownership-based can enhance or inhibit individual and organizationalperformance and satisfaction. Some speci c Indian managerial values relating to power,decision making, ethical priorities and ethical work climate pose HR challenges. Indianmanagerial values that centralize rather than decentralize power, reduce rather than

share decision-making information, neglect the ethical infrastructure and moral climateof workplaces, and avoid improvement of extra-organizational support for principled

Amba-Rao et al .: Performance appraisal practices in India 61



practices, can adversely affect the PA process and, in turn, individual and organizationalperformance and satisfaction (Ferrell et al ., 1998; Sekhar, 1997).

The above transformations in PA practices and speci c managerial values are evenmore signi cant because of the new liberalized business system, which compels rmsto make structural adjustments involving major movements of their workforce from

reduction to expansion, as well as to adopt entrepreneurial activities. This paper,therefore, is organized as follows: (1) the Indian socio-economic and cultural context;(2) literature survey; (3) hypotheses; (4) methodology; (5) ndings; (6) discussion; (7)implications; and (8) limitations and future directions.

Indian socio-economic and cultural context

The socio-economic and cultural forces shape PA and other HRM practices and theircontext of management values as much as, if not more than, global competition. To

understand the diversity of rm practices in India, therefore, it is necessary to appreciatethe broader socio-economic and cultural environments that shape them, whilerecognizing the growing diversity of subcultural in uences.

The Indian socio-economic context

Historically, three broad socio-economic forces shaped work organizations in India: thetraditional caste system, British colonization and post-independence socialism (Sinha,1990; Virmani and Guptan, 1991). The caste system originally was comprised of

interdependent occupational groups, which later evolved into a strati ed, hierarchicalsocio-economic class system. The British colonization resulted in administrativebureaucratization and polarization of manager and non-manager groups. Post-independ-ence, development goals with socialistic ideology strongly in uenced the businesscommunity.

These forces, in turn, in uenced work values and behaviour. While it is dif cult tocharacterize a common Indian cultural pattern because of its heterogeneous demograph-ics, some generic attributes were identi ed (Sharma, 1984; Sinha, 1990; Tayeb, 1988).Predominant among these were submissiveness, fatalism, clan orientation with in-

group–out-group distinctions and power consciousness. In addition, the managementcultural pro le included willingness to delegate but not accept authority, possessivenesstowards subordinates, fear of independent decision making and resistance to change(Kakar, 1971; Sharma, 1984). As professional managers entered the larger companies inthe late 1960s, they tended to be from elitist upper castes and classes exerting theirpersonal power, despite their Western education and experience in many cases.Decisions were ad hoc , varying with the personalities of individuals at the top, ratherthan being impersonally institutionalized into policies and practices to be uniformlyfollowed. In general, cultural norms and behaviours associated with hierarchicalauthority, paternalism, caste and class distinctions pervaded organizational life(Virmani and Guptan, 1991; Sinha, 1990). Traditional authority and relationships basedon power, social position and personal and group orientation were in con ict with thedictates of a globally competitive economy where relationships are based oncompetence, impersonal task roles and organizational commitment (Parikh and Garg,1990; Sinha, 1990; Thomas and Philip, 1994; Venkata Ratnam, 1995).

Such overall collectivism, however, weakened over the years due to variousin uences: urbanization, changes in the economy, government af rmative action

programmes in education and employment, competitive pressures which impelorganizations to rede ne their management values and HRM practices, and changes in

62 The International Journal of Human Resource Management



the demographics whereby the young, educated and trained employees – includingwomen – emerged at all levels with new expectations, particularly among professionaland managerial groups (Dunung, 1995; Financial Times , 1994; Venkata Ratnam,1995).

In compounding the debilitating elements in Indian socio-cultural dynamics, the

economic system in the post-independence period also had dysfunctional consequences.From 1947 until the 1980s, in striving to achieve a socialistic society with self-reliance,the government adopted centralized planning, highly regulated and restrictive of privatedomestic and foreign investment. State-owned public sector rms dominated theorganized or the ‘modern’ sector jobs, where two-thirds of the workforce was employed(Sodhi, 1994). The dual national goals of economic growth and social justice/workerwelfare were to guide business operations (Rao, 1964). However, welfare expectationsbegan to prevail without reciprocal efforts on the part of the workers. Public(government) and private sector enterprises responded to this welfare trend in differentways. Public sector enterprises, constrained by government and union pressures, werecompelled to accept this ‘entitlement’ approach, resulting in workforce in exibility andlower productivity. In contrast to this ‘soft’ work culture, the self-sustaining privatesector enterprises created a climate of mutual dependence of employee need satisfactionand organizational goal accomplishment, resulting in a ‘synergistic’ work culture(Sinha, 1990). Thus Sinha (1990) observed that centrality of work and life coexistedand ‘the same set of social values which interfere with work now facilitate work behavior’ (1990: 47). Work-oriented values, such as job achievement, emerged in the

private sector despite the socialistic ideology.The inef ciencies of centralized planning also created shortages in all sectors and ledto abuse of power and questionable practices by various of cials (Mathias, 1994;Tayeb, 1995). This situation and a political-bureaucratic-industrial nexus led to politicalinstability and economic stagnation in recent years. By 1991 India’s foreign exchangereserves declined to a minimal level, output was low, and in ation and government debtwere high (Budhwar and Sparrow, 1997). These and related economic forces stimulateda government policy of liberalization which resulted in major deregulation andprivatization efforts (Ahluwalia, 1994; Das, 1996). Accordingly, in its ve-year

economic plans, the government emphasized employment, productivity, as well ashuman resource development (HRD) for individual achievement ( Manorama , 1988:516). Both public and private sector rms were expected to have an active role ineconomic development ( Manorama , 1993: 501–2). Joint ventures and foreign directinvestment with full ownership were encouraged with few limitations.

Yet, many problems remain in implementing the new economic policy. One of themis the lack of an ‘exit policy’ regarding work-force reductions, in the absence of alternative income security measures. Employers are meeting the challenge usingeconomic incentives to address the need. Also, the once radical and sceptical unions areco-operating with management and assisting employees in the transition, while stategovernments encourage these practices in competing for investment capital (Das, 1996;Wall Street Journal , 1997). Still, problems and anxiety concerning job security abound,particularly with the huge public sector employment, where a proposed ‘NationalRenewal Fund’ to compensate and retrain laid-off employees is deemed inadequate(Sodhi, 1994).

Further, the pace of change has not prevented the exodus of skilled professionals. Forexample, the government has been reducing funding to institutions of higher learning

since 1993, and many graduates are disappointed with the economic and technologicalopportunities that a hierarchically paternalistic and collectivist-oriented India can offer.




situations found that the Hofstede dimensions were either unstable or had weak orselective links (Singh, 1990; Sinha, 1990; Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997). This problemof generalizing the pattern of the heterogeneous culture of India, with a diversity of sub-cultures based on various demographic characteristics such as education, occupationand membership in multiple social systems, besides contingency factors such as growth

stage and organizational types, was addressed in these and other recent studies(Budhwar and Sparrow, 1997; Gopinath, 1998; Sahay and Walsham, 1997). Further, theimpact of the transforming economic environment of the 1990s was discussed, alongwith the changing focus of HRM and its decision makers (Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997;Gopinath, 1998). The practical effects, including reinterpretation of Hindu scripturesand other traditional sources, were analysed as well (Chakraborty, 1993; Gopinath,1998). Thus, new insights into the cultural context that shapes Indian HRM practicesand management values emerged.

Literature survey

The literature survey is divided into two parts: comparative HRM and PA practices andcomparative management values.

Comparative HRM and PA practices

Discussion in this section is focused on the following comparative effects on HRM: (1)national culture; (2) institutional and demographic factors; and (3) rm group impacts.

In turn, comparative PA practices are treated.With regard to national culture, recent studies of Indian HRM practices haveemphasized indigenous national culture theories of HRM to meet the demands of thenew economic environment. Notable among these studies are those by Jaeger, Kanungoand associates. Jaeger and Kanungo (1990) co-ordinated studies involving uniqueadaptations of Western HRM practices and thereby developed theories suitable toindigenous management in developing countries. In their introduction (p.8), the authorspresented a framework of socio-cultural dimensions, and managerial beliefs abouthuman nature and work, and showed these to be diametrically opposite in developed

and developing countries. Others have identi ed national cultural elements that arefavourable and unfavourable to organizational effectiveness, and demonstrated howmanagement practices can be designed to incorporate the positive cultural elements andinhibit the negative elements (Jaeger, 1990). For example, Mendonca and Kanungo(1990) presented a suitable performance management process and Sinha (1990)developed a nurturant-task style of leadership to enhance national cultural impacts.

With regard to institutional and demographic factors, Sparrow and Budhwar (1997)demonstrated that national culture factors alone could not explain Indian HRMpractices, but required supplemental institutional and demographic elements. Theyexamined several HRM factors and their relationship to Hofstede’s (1980) four culturaldimensions, as part of a thirteen-country comparative study. They found almost nosigni cant correlation between the two in the case of India. As a comparison, theyfound greater similarities between the HRM factors of Japan and India than those of Britain and India. On a closer analysis, they found low ratings on three of fourimportant HRM factors, speci cally, empowerment, ef ciency and human resourcedevelopment (HRD) and a high rating on employee welfare. They attributed these

ndings not only to differences in the four cultural dimensions, but also to legislation,

unions and economic factors. Asked to predict for the year 2000, responses of the HRMprofessionals indicated a signi cant shift in HRM focus from the current ‘softer’ HRM




pro le to one of ‘hard’ HRD resulting from decreased power distance and risk avoidance. These differences were found between ‘modernizing’ and ‘traditional’groups of rms. The authors suggest that these changes may be HRM’s responses toseveral institutional and demographic factors: (1) liberalization demands; (2) theincrease in HRM professionalism; and (3) the adoption of management practices from

the East and the West (Chatterjee, 1992; Krishna and Monappa, 1994; Srinivasan,1990). The authors conclude that there is, thus, an interaction of the institutional anddemographic factors, along with external national cultural in uences, on Indian HRMpractices.

Budhwar and Sparrow (1997) further examined the institutional impacts through therole of HR managers in corporate strategy and line managers’ responsibility in HRM.The authors identi ed these processes as integration and devolvement (delegation).First, they found low levels of both integration and devolvement, and that speci c HRMfactors, such as human resource allocation and HRM status, rather than organizationalcontingency factors such as size, determine the level of integration and devolvement.However, there is greater devolvement of responsibility from HRM to line managers,but much less integration of HRM into business planning at the strategic level. Moresigni cantly, the practices chosen by the two levels were contradictory, for example,use of different recruitment strategies for new employees, which re ected con ictinggoals and created problems in meeting liberalization demands. Similarly, otherresearchers found discrepancies in strategic and operational levels in the increasinglyrecognized area of HRM in India (Rao and Abraham, 1986b; Rao et al ., 1994; Silveria,

1988). Therefore, there is a need for an effective institutional strategy linkage role forIndian HRM to contribute to global competitiveness.Finally, with regard to supplemental rm group impacts, Tayeb (1988) compared

management practices among private manufacturing rms in England and in India. Hersample of rms was small (seven each), although tightly matched, and all from a singlestate in western India. Tayeb’s conclusion was that both organizational contingencyfactors and national culture factors affected Indian HRM practices. In addition, Sparrowand Budhwar (1997) documented the differences between Indian rms and those rmsfrom Britain and the US on dominant HRM factors, despite India’s past af liation with

both countries’ systems. They explained that these differences were due not only to thenature of Indian rms, but also to institutional and cultural factors. These other factorsincluded the following: institutional (unions), economic (employment conditions),business system under liberalization, HRM competencies and professional status, andexternal in uences (US, British and Japanese) on dominant HRM practices, such asempowerment and HRD.

While the above two studies compared rms across countries, others examinedindigenous and foreign rms within India, in the same culture context. Lawler et al .(1995) conducted a comparative study of HRM practices within and between India andThailand to examine similarities and differences. On the one hand, they foundstatistically signi cant differences in HRM practices between the overall samples of thetwo countries, but only to a limited extent. On the other hand, no such differences werefound, in effect, between foreign and local rms within each country, and the authorssuggest MNC adaptations of local practices within each country as an explanation. Inanother empirical analysis of MNCs, public sector and private rms in India, Virmaniand Guptan (1991) concluded that all rms used similar management practices, anddiffered only in degrees. Similar rm ndings were reported by Amba-Rao (1994b). A

key difference that the former authors observed, however, was that the practices of theIndian rms were more personalized and ad hoc , subject to the whims of top




management, while the practices of the Western rms were more likely to beimpersonally institutionalized and stable.

In addition to the above analyses of comparative HRM activities, a few studiescompared PA concerns speci cally (Mendonca and Kanungo, 1990; Parikh and Garg,1990; Virmani and Guptan, 1991). Parikh and Garg (1990) explain the effect on

managerial responsibility for PA as an example of value dilemmas in Indian managerialroles. Indian managers often confound their professional role in an objective, rational,organizational system with their social hierarchical role with expectations of conformityand paternalism, resulting in a super cial commitment to the PA process. Thisambivalence, in turn, adversely affects Indian managerial attitudes towards theirprofessional responsibility to objective PA and subordinate self-worth. Virmani andGuptan (1991) point out, further, the resulting con ict of interest in India betweendevelopmental and promotional (evaluation) goals of the PA process.

By exposure to modern management philosophies and PA practices over the years,however, Indian managers have come to consider merit and equity as importantdimensions of performance management policies (Mendonca and Kanungo, 1990;Amba-Rao, 1994b). Yet, social in uences in decision making, with priority ascribed topast practices, as well as practical delivery system constraints, deter initiatives onprogressive PA changes (Amba-Rao, 1994b; Kiggundu, 1989; Nigam, 1984). Never-theless, a competitive environment and changing employee expectations requireresponsiveness by managers. Addressing this need, Mendonca and Kanungo (1990)presented a detailed analysis of the PA process and suggested interventions to make the

process culturally ‘ t’, that is, acceptable to both superiors and subordinates.Speci cally, the authors review each step of the PA process (for example, identifyingtasks and setting standards), and state the means to implement it by managers, withinthe Indian cultural framework (for example, the manager takes the initiative inestablishing and clarifying the objectives to be ful lled by the employee as a personalduty rather than as a contractual obligation). Further, the authors suggest using the‘nurturant-task leadership style’ (Sinha, 1990) and conclude with the relevant trainingand development needed for the managers to successfully implement the appropriatePA interventions. Underscoring the Indian willingness to prepare for the PA challenge,

Budhwar and Sparrow found, in their survey, that 70 per cent of Indian organizationstrained line managers in PA, the most frequent of all HRM activities reported for suchaction (1997: 490).

In conclusion, investigating how comparative Indian HRM and PA practices arein uenced by cultural factors, by institutional and demographic factors, and by rmownership factors aids Indian managers in more effectively meeting the new globaleconomic challenges. In this endeavour to change HRM and PA practices and to fostercompetitive organizational learning, the role of the HRM function in India also needsexamining.

Comparative management values

Empirical, comparative studies of Indian management values are rare and differentiallyemphasize organizational management and professional association values in contrast tonational cultural values (Amba-Rao, 1993; England, 1975; Narayana and Kantner,1992; Negandhi and Prasad, 1975; Sahay and Walsham, 1997; Singh, 1990). Theinvestigations of Singh (1990) and Sahay and Walsham (1997) are of particular

relevance. Singh demonstrated, based on a survey of manufacturing rms in variousregions of India, how Indian organizational managerial values could differ from




national Indian cultural values. He analysed Indian managerial values and attitudes interms of Hofstede’s (1980) four cultural dimensions, arriving at the followingconclusions: (1) as a group, Indian managers are low on all four dimensions, that is,they tend to underplay use of power (that is, managers prefer and use a consultativestyle and subordinates are not hesitant to disagree with supervisors), feel comfortable in

dealing with uncertainties at work and life, emphasize loyalty and belongingness, arecaring and do not consider managerial assertiveness to be important; (2) there aredistinct differences by rm groups: Indian public sector rms are more participativethan private sector rms, while managers in international private rms are participative,consultative, accessible, consider hierarchy a mere convenience, and value initiative;and (3) Indian managers’ attitudes varied selectively with age, education, occupation(function) and economic sector. For example, general managers differed fromfunctional department heads in their advocacy of centralized controls and protection of privileges.

On a different level, Sahay and Walsham (1997) developed a case study of technical/ managerial experts and their working relationships at strategic (central governmentdepartment) and operational (district of ce) levels in a scienti c project in India. Theauthors analyse the in uence of relevant national, societal and intellectual/professionalsystems and structures – in particular, the in uence of the intellectual/professionalsystem on the values, attitudes and behaviours of these key actors (the technicalexperts). In this process, these professionals’ actions were shown to exert a reciprocalin uence to reinforce or change the social structures and organizational practices. Thus,

these experts act as a catalytic force as professional change agents, to remove barriersto achieving institutional objectives.The study of international management values is a rich eld of inquiry (De George,

1993; Donaldson, 1989). For example, egalitarian trends in US management valuesemphasize accountability to internal and external stakeholders by introducing demo-cratic (non-hierarchic) processes and organizational ethics policies to the former group(Green, 1994; Petrick and Quinn, 1997; Petrick and Pullins, 1992) and proactivelydemonstrating socially responsible involvement to the latter group (Carroll, 1998;Petrick et al. , 1993; Petrick and Scherer, 1993).

Many of the errors in international business are due to the mismanagement of con icting social, cultural and economic values (Ricks, 1993). The traditional Indianhierarchic values that emphasize power distance run counter to progressive andegalitarian US management trends, and the extent of resistance to or acceptance of suchWestern management values is one indication of the transformational pressures thatexist in Indian rms today. Some authors observe that, since India is a hierarchical andcaste-based society with high power distance, with the resultant supervisor–subordinaterelationship of dependence, democratically based HRM practices may not be acceptedor encouraged (Gopalan and Rivera, 1997; Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997). For example,Sparrow and Budhwar (1997) found that Indian HRM practices were low on qualitycircles, empowerment and other elements that require individual and team involvementand development. Other researchers, however, found that managers and non-managerialemployees prefer or encourage participative leadership and involvement in decisionmaking (Kanungo and Misra, 1988; Negandhi, 1975; Singh, 1990). Even wherehierarchical relationships exist, employees expect and respond to consultative leader-ship with low controls, and to task-oriented nurturing leadership, with betterperformance and satisfaction (Kakar, 1971; Sinha, 1990; Virmani and Guptan, 1991).

Nevertheless, there is a need to examine the extent to which it occurs in different typesof rms in India to improve future managerial performance.




Furthermore, HRM practices involve ethical issues, for example, justice and equity inthe assessment, development and rewarding of human resources. Yet, research onethical issues in relation to HRM practices in India is lacking (Jain et al ., 1998; Rosenand Juris, 1995). Jain et al . (1998) and Rosen and Juris (1995) emphasize the imperativeof ethical considerations in HRM. Endorsing this need, business leaders in India shared

concerns about business ethical practices in a national conference (Mathias, 1994). Inaddition, Jain et al . question the adequacy of the focus on organizational effectiveness,with the exclusion or neglect of ethical practices in HRM research, in developingcountries. For example, Venkata Ratnam (1998) analysed business practices of MNCsin India and made several observations. Regarding employment practices, he found thatthe MNCs are bene cial to the educated and trained workforce, but have adverse effectson the lower levels of the Indian economy and society. He concluded that MNCs arecapital intensive and have fewer jobs, with highly competitive pay and better working

conditions, than indigenous rms. On the other hand, government PS rms providemore generous services and bene ts to workers and their communities than otherdomestic and foreign rms. Further, some managers in India regard US managementpractices as too aggressively market-oriented, in exible, impersonal and lacking socialand humanistic concerns, while the European system is more adaptable and responsive(Amba-Rao, 1994b). Referring to the British MNCs involved in the Amba-Rao studycited, Venkata Ratnam (1998) comments that, because of long association undercolonialism, the British have more empathy for the Indian ethos. Thus, in the case of thePA process, the analysis will inherently include the ethical dimension concerningprocedural and distributive justice.

Hypotheses

The impact of ownership on HRM system components as well as the impact of managerial values, therefore, stimulated the current empirical study. The authorsdecided to focus upon PA, which is a cornerstone of several other HRM activities.Employee PA in India has been a dif cult issue (Mendonca and Kanungo, 1990), yet itis fundamental to other HRM actions that involve developmental (for example,coaching and training) and evaluative (for example, pay and promotion) aspects. Thecurrent analysis includes the process (feedback to the employee and potentialadjustment of the assessment) and the purpose (developmental versus evaluative) of PA.

Managerial values are an important context for effective HRM practices and,therefore, to PA. This study speci cally focuses on four managerial values: (1) valuesrelating to approaches to power; (2) values in decision making; (3) values andorganizational ethics priorities; and (4) values relating to ethical work climate. These

managerial values re ect an organization’s orientation towards its employees and theirenvironment (Amba-Rao, 1993), and are of signi cance in adapting to a rapidlytransforming economy in the Indian cultural milieu. The unit of analysis is the rm interms of its ownership structure: multi-national corporation/joint venture (MNC/JV);Indian private family business (PF); Indian public sector enterprise (PS); and Indianprivate investor corporations (PI). Since Indian managers, like all other managers, aresocialized by their own national culture, that socialization impacts on their humanresource practices and managerial work values (Hofstede, 1997; Saha, 1992, 1993). The

authors focus their hypotheses upon the above four categories of rms in order toidentify the location of differences by virtue of economic ownership, but within the




same cultural environment. The practices of each sub-set of Indian rms are viewedwith reference to those of the MNC/JVs.

Hypotheses 1 and 2: performance appraisal (PA)

Most rms in India recognize and conduct some form of performance review forsupervisors and managers, but its process and purpose may differ among the rms(Mendonca and Kanungo, 1990; Virmani and Guptan, 1991). Use of PA for bothevaluative and developmental purposes is relevant for effective allocation of resourcesand for employee motivation and reward. These actions are consistent with other HRMcomponents as part of an integrated, strategic HRM system (Osterman, 1992). Further,an equitable system calls for employee feedback and adjustment of the PA procedureand outcome as warranted. These two basic elements of PA are addressed in thisstudy.

Despite common cultural effects on Indian rms, the evidence of PA practices andthe nature of the rms suggest a rationale for differences among the rms’ approaches.With formal policies and accountability to government regarding equal opportunityrequirements, the PS rms are expected to conduct and review their PA results withemployees, especially at the white-collar and supervisory levels. However, the PAresults are likely to be used for developmental purposes rather than evaluative purposes,the latter being based more on tenure and seniority, as in hierarchical organizations(Kerr and Slocum, 1987; Virmani and Guptan, 1991). The PF rms use informalappraisals with greater reliance for evaluative purpose (Virmani and Guptan, 1991), andare likely to discuss them, on a personal informal basis, with subordinates who are alsomembers of the extended family or friends. As for PI rms, these large corporationsincreasingly use professionals in the HRM function and are driven by a domesticcompetitive market. Hence, they are likely to use PA as an information system fordevelopmental and evaluative purposes (Schuler and Nair, 1996; Sodhi, 1994), althoughthe supervisors may not necessarily share and discuss the results at length with theemployees, keeping the results as con dential reports. (These postulations, however, donot necessarily preclude the social subjectivity of managers in PS or the PI rms.)

Hence, hypotheses 1 and 2 follow. Hypothesis 1 (H 1): MNC/JVs are more likely to discuss performance appraisal

results with their employees than PIs.

Hypothesis 2 (H 2): MNC/JVs, PIs and PFs are more likely than PSs to useperformance appraisal results for evaluative purposes.

Hypotheses 3 and 4: power and decision making

Re ecting the nature of hierarchy, power distance and large size, all types of organizations may have multiple levels, except for the smaller PFs. Reasons formultiple levels include ensuring co-ordination and control and providing promotionalopportunities. However, in general, Indian managers are characterized as favouringcentralized decision making with tight controls (Kakar, 1971; Hickson and Pugh, 1995)with personalized leadership prevailing over institutional arrangements on powersharing (Virmani and Guptan, 1991). Yet, employees who experienced low control andhad help from managers, attained more performance and satisfaction than those under

authoritarian managers (Kakar, 1971). Nevertheless, it is also argued that elitistbureaucrats in the PS rms are more likely to hold onto power and authority (Sodhi,




1994; Virmani and Guptan, 1991), regardless of its adverse impact on the organizationas a whole. While Singh (1990) found lower power distance among PS managers, it ispossible that the formal organization role and the traditional social role incompatibilitiescause greater value dilemmas among managers in centrally controlled governmentbureaucratic organizations (Parikh and Garg, 1990). Yet, as managers in public sector

organizations, they are expected to share information. Therefore, the PS rms mayallow a limited amount of employee input into decisions (Sinha, 1994). On the otherhand, the large PI rms may have less concentration of power and incline towardsdownward delegation, particularly under the new competitive environment. For the PFs,while multiple levels are not an issue in view of their size, they may reinforce the socialhierarchy culture and paternalism, and, based on the level of distrust of outsiders,information sharing and decision making may be very limited. Personal connectionsbecome more valued than task competence. Hence, even when they hire professionalmanagers, decision making remains with senior family members discouraging empow-ered, entrepreneurial activity by the professional managers (Mendonca and Kanungo,1990).

Regarding HRM’s role in integrating HRM with the corporate level and in delegatingresponsibility to line managers, Budhwar and Sparrow (1997) found that theirrespondents in India were low on both dimensions, but that delegation is increasing.They also found that, while these line managers were trained in HRM activities,including PA, they did not receive training in delegation, implying a lack of skills toparticipate effectively in HRM decision making. Once again, differences among type of

rms by ownership requires analysis. Consequently, hypotheses 3 and 4 follow. Hypothesis 3 (H 3): In PSs it is more likely than in MNC/JVs that managerial power

of hierarchy is perceived to be maintained through multiplelevels of bureaucracy.

Hypothesis 4 (H 4): The organizational structure and management style in PFs donot permit sharing information and decision making to theextent that such sharing exists in MNC/JVs.

Hypotheses 5 and 6: ethical priorities and climate

Besides considering the traditional Hindu societal norms, the ethical priorities of rmsare explored using the pyramid of social responsibility model (Carroll, 1998; Petrick and Scherer, 1993; Petrick et al ., 1993). Four ascending social responsibility values areincluded: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. These ethical priorities re ectbusiness character, and contribute to the well-being of organizational membership andsociety, while fostering a positive environment for domestic and foreign investment.The reputational capital of an organization is an important intangible asset thatcontributes directly to sustainable competitive advantage and goes beyond mere legalcompliance (Fombrum, 1996; Petrick et al ., 1999).

From the traditional Indian perspective, the normative concept of dharma , ful llingone’s duty to others and to oneself by acting in conformity with an accepted set of moral guidelines, is given a high priority in social and economic transactions. Thus, itcalls for business conduct that acknowledges and recognizes moral duties (Sekhar,1997; Sethi and Steidlmeier, 1996). Some argue that, in the process, dharma dictatesintegration of economic and moral values in Indian business activities. The concept

calls for one’s obligation to the primary group as well as to societal welfare (Sinha,1994). On the contrary, others argue that dharma applies only to the primary group




(kinship and caste), that is, limited to in-group loyalty (Gopalan and Rivera, 1997; Sethiand Steidlmeier, 1996). Hinduism also endorses universal dharma which entails regardfor nature and all humans, transcending arbitrary boundaries of moral concern (Jain andKussman, 1994), and empirical studies (Dhingra and Pathak, 1973; England, 1975)found Indian managers to have a more moralistic orientation than the pragmatic

orientation of US managers.Recently, however, the business community in India has expressed concern about the

erosion of ethical values in business over the last two decades, with personal values of managers compromised in business decisions (Mathias, 1994; Sekhar, 1997). Thiscondition was attributed to several developments in the Indian political-legal-economiccontext, besides managerial role con icts (Parikh and Garg, 1990), such as a socialisticeconomy, political instability and a pervasive, intricate web of government regulations.In addition, studies of managers in large public sector and private rms in the last twodecades found wide disparity between desired and actual practices (Cyriac, 1992;Cyriac and Dharmaraj, 1994; Monappa, 1977; Soares, 1981). At the same time, thestudies found ethical awareness among all respondents, notwithstanding following‘inappropriate’ practices. Despite such awareness, for example, Indian managers engagein unjusti able biases in PA decision making (Mendonca and Kanungo, 1990; Sekhar,1997). However, while the large PIs are bound by shareholder accountability, the PSsface more bureaucratic constraints in their daily operations and, therefore, the latter aremore prone to adopting short cuts in order to complete tasks. A common problem wasthe lack of ethical codes and policy guidelines to provide explicit standards and

organizational direction in a turbulent Indian competitive and regulatory environment(Mathias, 1994). This absence re ects the limited role of HR managers in collaboratingwith senior managers to institutionalize the capacity for integrity and develop asupportive ethical work climate (Petrick and Pullins, 1992; Petrick and Quinn, 1998). Inturn, such neglect of the ethical capabilities of organizations jeopardizes the rm’sintangible asset of reputational capital. Evidence was lacking about practices in family

rms, where more control over workplace moral decisions existed but fewer resourcesto resolve issues were available. The ethical-values and work-climate issues, therefore,warrant exploration, as Indian managers are now confronting intense global external

market competition and domestic privatisation of government enterprises. Thus,hypotheses 5 and 6 follow.

Hypothesis 5 (H 5): Managers in MNC/JVs and PFs are more likely than managersin PSs to accord ethical standards priority beyond economicef ciency and legal compliance in organizational decisionmaking.

Hypothesis 6 (H 6 ): Human resource managers in MNC/JVs are more likely than

those in PSs and PIs to be perceived as fostering a generalethical climate in the organization.

Method

The research method was determined by the indigenization of this study. A detailedtwo-part questionnaire consisting of 162 items was developed and administered inIndia. The rst part of the instrument consisted of statements related to managerialpractice in HRM and PA. These statements were scaled using a Likert-type scale with

1 for ‘not at all’ and 6 for ‘de nitely’, indicating the degree to which each element oractivity occurred in the rm with regard to managers and to non-managers. The




questions were framed to elicit the extent to which a systematic, formal or rationalapproach existed in the HRM and PA practices. For example, questions on PAaddressed the use of a formal system and explicit feedback to employees. The secondpart of the instrument consisted of questions on the rm characteristics, the HRMstructure and leadership, and management values.

The content of the questionnaire was based on the literature and established concepts,and designed to elicit new information on rms by ownership. The aim of the study wasto make a contribution to the knowledge base by locating statistically signi cantdifferences in HRM/PA and management values, selectively occurring by ownership, inIndian rms (Singh, 1990). The questionnaire was reviewed by three researchers in theUS, and was revised in India with the assistance of ve practitioners and academicians.The sample selection was done mainly by a random choice from the Kothari’s

Industrial Manual (1992) including different industries. In addition, in order to ensuresuf cient returns, rms were sought from a regional list. In all, 500 rms werecontacted. These were located in a half-a-dozen major metropolitan areas throughoutIndia and represent the organized sector of Indian industry. The questionnaires weremailed with an appropriate cover letter to general managers and HRM directors, andfollowed up personally by several individuals, including business students andpractitioners. Of the 500 mailed, 116 completed questionnaires were returned for aresponse rate of 23 per cent. Considering the dif culty in obtaining employer responsesin India to a mail survey (Thomas and Philip, 1994), and the fact that the major businesscentres were covered, this is a reasonable sample size from which to draw reliable

conclusions.The current analysis is focused on two critical PA practices, with regard tomanagerial employees, and four relevant management values (the dependent variables)adopted by working managers in India (see Table 1 for abbreviated questions). Firmownership (the independent variable) categorizes the reported practices and values. In

Table 1 Group means of rm practices (DV) by rm ownership categories (IV)

Firm practices (DV) PS PI PF MNC/JV Total

Performance appraisal results discussed 2.29(.75)

2.17(.85)

2.31(.85)

2.79(.63)

2.33(.80)

Appraisals used for evaluative purposes 1.78(.92)

2.57(.70)

2.85(.38)

2.61(.78)

2.35(.86)

Power maintained through multi-levels 2.31(.79)

2.07(.75)

2.08(.90)

1.61(.92)

2.07(.83)

Information/decision sharing not permitted 1.52(.71)

1.78(.79)

2.09(.94)

1.21(.42)

1.63(.77)

Ethics priority 2.23(.84)

2.52(.71)

2.83(.39)

2.67(.69)

2.49(.73)

HR foster ethical climate 2.27(.84)

2.38(.70)

2.73(.47)

2.78(.43)

2.45(.71)

NotesDV – dependent variables.IV – independent variables.PS – public sector rms.PI – private investor rms.PF – private family rms.

MNC/JV – multinational corporations /joint venture rms.Scale: 1–3, not at all/rarely – frequently /de nitely. Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.




order to enable comparisons and testing of hypotheses, the six response scales of individual statements are combined into three. The four types of rm ownership areidenti ed from the background information. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) wasdone on the PA practices and managerial values to test for statistically signi cantdifferences among rm groups by ownership. Then the Scheffe Test was utilized to

determine the exact location of differences among the four groups of rms: MNC/JV,PS, PI and PF (see Tables 2–4).

Findings

Pro les of the Firms

The responding rms by ownership are as follows: public sector (PS) thirty-seven,private investor corporations (PI) forty-six, private family rms (PF) fourteen, andforeign origin rms and joint ventures (MNC/JV) nineteen. In terms of size (by numberof employees) public enterprises are large (over 1,000 employees, several being over10,000); foreign and joint ventures are large as well as small (less than 500); privateinvestor corporations are predominantly large; and family rms are medium(500–1,000) and small. Subsidiaries and units of public enterprises and foreign rms arelarge; while those of the joint ventures and the two private groups are smaller.However, the sample does not duplicate the same rm’s units.

Regarding unionization, of the total, 17 per cent are non-union and the remainder aredivided evenly among political party-af liated and independent unions. By groups of

rms, two- fths of the private family rms are non-union, the rest leaning towardpolitical unions. Over two-thirds of the foreign rms and joint ventures havepredominantly independent unions, while a marginal majority of the public sector andprivate corporations have political unions.

Table 2 ANOVA – rm differences by ownership: performance appraisal

A Performance appraisal discusseda

Source Sum of squares Degrees of freedom F Probability

Between groups 5.21 3 2.81 .043Within groups 64.90 105Total 70.11 108

Notea Multiple comparison (Scheffe) tests yielded statistically signi cant differences (p , .05) in

means for MNC/JVs versus PIs.

B Performance appraisal used for evaluative purposes b



Note

b Multiple comparison (Scheffe) tests yielded statistically signi cant differences (p,

.05) inmeans for MNC/JVs, PIs, and PFs versus PSs.




The HRM function and organization

The HRM function is formalized among PS and MNC/JV rms, while PF rms have

informal single-person departments and PI rms have a mixture of formal and informalstructures. HRM’s role in policy formulation is reported to be signi cant among all the

Table 3 ANOVA – rm differences by ownership: power and decision making

A Power maintained through multiple levels a




means for MNC/JVs versus PSs.

B Lack of information and decision sharing b

Source Sum of squares Degrees of freedom F ProbabilityBetween groups 7.10 3 4.39 .006Within groups 56.09 104Total 63.19 107

Noteb Multiple comparison (Scheffe) tests yielded statistically signi cant differences (p , .05) in

means for MNC/JVs versus PFs.

Table 4 ANOVA – rm differences by ownership: ethical values and climate

A Priority to ethical responsibility a




means for MNC/JVs, and PFs versus PSs.

B Human resource department fosters ethical climate b


Between groups 4.02 3 1.34 .044Within groups 47.74 100

Total 51.76 103 Noteb Multiple comparison (Scheffe) tests yielded statistically signi cant differences (p , .05) in

means for MNC/JVs versus PSs and PIs.




allows and even encourages is not possible with the delayering required of globallycompetitive MNC/JVs, except to the extent needed for administrative and controlpurposes (Singh, 1990). In this approach, statistically signi cant differences betweenMN/JVs and the large PIs were not anticipated.

Hypothesis 4: (con rmed) The organizational structure and management style in PFsdo not permit sharing information and decision making to the extent that such sharingexists in MNC/JVs. The management values of Indian family rms are likely toreinforce the social hierarchy of the culture, where respect for paternalism and non-egalitarian sharing of information and decision making are the norm, and guard againstthe loss of key proprietary information essential to a small rm’s survival. On the otherhand, MNC/JVs need multiple competencies to handle globally complex issues rapidly,so the diffusion of information and sharing of decision making develop the collectivelearning capacities and response time of the rm.

Hypothesis 5: (con rmed) Managers in MNC/JVs and PFs are more likely thanmanagers in the PSs to accord ethical standards greater priority beyond economicef ciency and legal compliance in organizational decision making. Public sectormanagers are often evaluated on their degree of external compliance with legal andregulatory guidelines to sustain public trust and procedural fairness. However, if theregulatory environment becomes too severe and creates widespread inef ciencies, thePSs will be driven to bypass legal constraints to accomplish organizational goals. The

MNC/JVs and PFs have to do more to earn public trust and ensure a good reputation forcivic responsibility. In addition, MNCs may already have operated in a moredemanding ethical climate due to public policy pressures or more stringent legalenforcement in their home country or other host countries (Ferrell et al ., 1998).

Hypothesis 6: (con rmed) The HR departments in MNC/JVs are more likely thanthose in PSs and PIs to be perceived as fostering an ethical climate in the rm. MNC/ JVs are exposed to cross-cultural organizational ethics standards and usually have amore diverse workforce requiring explicit moral norms of conduct to ensure responsiblework behaviour that sustains global competitive advantage, regardless of the hostcountry environment. The HR department has often taken a lead in this area globallyand provides a model for other Indian organizations.

Discussion

Performance appraisal

With regard to the two hypotheses on PA practices, two major points are in order. First,hypothesis 1 that MNC/JVs will more likely have performance feedback than PIs wassupported. While both MNC/JVs and PIs as private sector rms are expected to useresources ef ciently as compared to PS rms (Sinha, 1990), MNC/JVs are exposed tomore globally competitive pressures to adjust to market forces rapidly than are Indian

rms. Hence, open discussions of PA are necessary for timely corrective actions. Ineffect, PA practice differences between MNC/JVs and PIs are accounted for by thegreater economic risk exposure that the former have from ineffective employees.

Until recently, Indian rms were under domestic competition, and, consistent with

ndings in some studies (Virmani and Guptan, 1991) they did not accord high priorityto performance feedback. It may be noted, however, that the mean responses of all three




groups of Indian rms ranged narrowly from 2.17 to 2.31, and two of the three meanswere not signi cantly different from MNC/JVs, whose mean was 2.79. To the extentthat there are differences, however, these group differences in appraisal feedback practice can be attributed to a combination of cultural, economic and structural reasons.These patterns are consistent with Sinha’s (1990) ‘soft’ (non-work) versus ‘synergetic’

work-oriented cultures explained earlier. Yet, lack of strong evidence of feedback among the Indian rms does not mean neglect of PA, particularly from both the privategroups as indicated by the next component of PA. The difference was in the extent of attention devoted to PA and the process of how it was handled.

Second, regarding hypothesis 2, the evaluative use of PA by private sector rms isgreater than by public sector organizations. This is due in large part to the former’seconomic orientation of increasing market value versus the latter’s welfare orientation.Private sector rms face the risk of bankruptcy when market demands are not ef cientlymet, whereas public sector organizations face no comparable risk, and, given thenational employment policies, are prone to keep employees who respect seniority andare loyal to the paternalistic hierarchy regardless of performance (Kerr and Slocum,1987). This practice might well change, as the new government mandate to the PSs tobe self-reliant and to enhance organizational performance takes effect fully and inanticipation of its privatization of PSs (Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997). Meanwhile, thegovernment is adopting a laissez faire approach towards unions regarding retrenchment,downsizing or other rationalization actions by employers to meet competitive demands(Ahluwalia, 1994; Sodhi, 1994; Wall Street Journal , 1997).

Two arguments have been used to explain the relative lack of relevance of PA inIndia: the traditional karma argument and the contemporary PA system-de ciencyargument. The rst cultural argument against effective use of PA in India is the Hindubelief that an individual’s fate ( karma ), based on past deeds in former lives, naturallylimits achievement and controls outcomes, so proactive actions to improve performanceare futile (Gopalan and Rivera, 1997). A counter-argument is that, while fate may belimiting the current state of affairs, individuals can and should prepare for the future(Sinha, 1994). Taking a similar view, Dunung (1995) adds that the concept of karma isused as an excuse to accept any adverse situation. Applying this approach to the case of

PA in India, karma has been used as a rationalization for accepting substandardperformance even when it becomes individually and collectively dysfunctional. Forexample, the absence of professional PA systems that evaluate and reward superiorwork performances at global standards provokes the braindrain of talented Indians(Kripalani et al ., 1998).

The second, structural argument is that subjectivity and arbitrariness embedded in thecurrent PA system provoke lack of reliance on it. Empirically, Virmani and Guptan(1991) found that the disdain for PA is due to lack of trust in the current PA system,particularly in PS rms where it was used subjectively, for controlling and formaintaining the loyalty of subordinates, without direct links to actual performance.Schuler and Nair (1996) argued that PA becomes contentious and Amba-Rao (1994a)found, further, that PA used for merit purposes in some rms had to be discontinued forstructural reasons, for example, lack of control of job tasks by the individual, roleambiguity and/or widespread perceptions of inequity. Speci cally, dependency andloyalty to superiors, rather than competent task performance, were rewarded (Gopalanand Rivera, 1997; Virmani and Guptan, 1991). Consequently, efforts, attitudes andpolitical alignments rather than productive results were structurally reinforced in the

traditional PA system. It is this system de ciency, along with the commonly arguedcultural considerations, that constrained the widespread use of formal PA systems. The




counter-argument, therefore, is that Indian rms can identify and rectify the de -ciencies, and use the improved PA systems to achieve both individual needs andorganizational goals (Mendonca and Kanungo, 1990).

Direct and indirect support for more effective use of PA was found from a variety of studies in India (Rao and Abraham, 1986a, 1986b; Sinha, 1990; Sodhi, 1994). A survey

of over 1,600 managers in forty-one rms in India indicated that over 60 per cent of these rms reported having a fairly objective PA system (Rao and Abraham, 1986a). Inanother survey of fty-three rms in ve major cities in India (Rao and Abraham,1986b), the authors noted positive trends in the use of PA where, recognizing the scopeof PA for various purposes, rms began changing their PA systems from ‘ritualistic’con dential reports to systems enabling employee development. Speci c characteristicsor uses of PA reported by 60–92 per cent of the rms are: (a) agreement between theemployee and his/her supervisor formed the basis for appraisal; (b) an open discussionto identify strengths and de ciencies, and opportunities for counselling; and (c) a meansof identi cation of training and developmental needs, assessment of promotion potentialand source of con dential ratings. All of these uses were reported by more rms in the1984 survey compared to a similar survey conducted in 1981. Some organizationsinvolved employees in developing the PA system and initially introducing it on anexperimental basis. Despite the progress, the authors noted a lack of systematic meansof assessment and development of management potential.

In addition, Singh (1990) found, in a study of managers in PS and private rms, thatthey expected intrinsic job needs such as ability utilization and achievement, to be

ful lled at their job and to be objectively rewarded. Further, Sodhi (1994) noted that, inview of the increasing globalization and privatization trends, rms are adoptingobjective HRM practices to meet individual and organizational goals. For example, ina survey of eighty-three rms by Sodhi (1994), half of the rms reported basingcompensation on individual performance and 25 per cent on group performance. These

ndings bode well for a new readiness in Indian rms to support systematic PA to ful lobjective evaluative as well as developmental needs, incorporating employee input.

However, since there is no widespread use of total quality, statistically based PAsystems or centralized managerial assessment centres, the MNC/JV and the PF

pacesetters in this study are valuable catalysts for improving the PA methods of allIndian rms.

Management values

Management values are included in this study as fundamental contextual factors thatin uence PA practices and business performance. Both factors in uence a rm’s abilityto obtain and retain an energized, productive work-force. The power factor and its rolein managerial actions is relevant in the socio-cultural milieu of hierarchical relations,

and the ethical environment factor is relevant in attracting domestic and foreigninvestment, leveraging reputational capital in the new economic environment (Pfeffer,1994; Petrick et al ., 1999). Hypotheses 3 and 4 relate to power and hypotheses 6 and7 relate to ethics as follows.

Power, information sharing and decision making In a culture of relatively highpower distance and hierarchical relationships (caste, class and family), which percolatesinto work relationships, we expected to nd an organizational structure that would

perpetuate this pattern in bureaucratic PS rms in contrast to MNC/JVs. While it is notunusual to have several levels in large organizations, their purpose may be merely for




convenience (Singh, 1990) or for practical reasons such as span of control andpromotions. Hence, with regard to Hypothesis 3, the management values re ected in thepractice of PSs’ reliance on multiple levels of bureaucracy to maintain the managerialpower of hierarchy is typical of this group of least competitive Indian organizations.

With regard to hypothesis 4, it is understandable that PFs do not share information or

decision making to the extent of other groups. Some of these rms have fewer than 500employees and will have few outside supervisors. However, others that are mediumsized (500–1,000) will have to depend on lower-level managers for organizationalef ciency and effectiveness under the new competitive environment, particularly if theyconsider growth strategies.

Such concentrations of power, information and decision making among certainIndian rms are not conducive for implementing growth strategies. In their study of Australian-Indian joint ventures, As-Saber et al . (1998) found that signi cant freedomof decision making by the joint venture management was a critical HRM-related factorin the venture’s success. The non-hierarchic, egalitarian sharing practices of morecompetitive Indian and foreign rms are having their impact (Sinha, 1990; Sparrow andBudhwar, 1997; Venkata Ratnam, 1992). The growing lack of support for hierarchicwork values and the endorsement of more democratic work practices may well indicatethat, while ‘authoritative bearing’ may be socially desirable in India in some traditionalwork contexts, modern workplace expectations are being transformed to encouragecompetent input, trust and initiative from lower-level managers and other employees(Hickson and Pugh, 1995; Rao and Abraham, 1986a, 1986b; Rao et al ., 1994), even

those in some PSs (Amba-Rao, 1994a, 1994b; Singh, 1990; Venkata Ratnam, 1992).These egalitarian managerial values, that is, employee involvement and total qualityparticipation, entail a normative shift from the paternalistic, authoritarian managerialstyle to the supportive, facilitative managerial style. This paradigm shift to total qualitymanagement values is paralleled by expectations that HR managers will take a moreproactive role to strengthen the PA system in assessing and developing the work culturethat will support commitment to excellent work performance (Petrick and Manning,1993; Petrick and Pullins, 1992; Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997). This argument isconsistent with Sinha’s (1990) ‘synergetic’ work culture and Yeung and Wong’s (1990)

economic orientation. A positive shift in this direction is indicated by HR managers inthe recent study by Sparrow and Budhwar (1997). As an intermediate stage of progression, Sinha’s (1990) ‘nurturant task leadership’ (NTL) style, involving employeeconcern and growth based on employee productivity, would be appropriate. As theemployee gains con dence and skill, the leader progresses to a participatory style.Support for this approach in practice was found in other empirical studies in India (Raoand Abraham, 1986a, 1986b; Rao et al ., 1994).

Managerial moral values and HRM role in work ethics With respect to hypothesis5 on ethics priority, the existence of public sector institutions already presupposesminimal public trust that only needs to be sustained by ensuring compliance with lawsand regulatory guidelines, as well as internal procedural fairness. Yet, the laws can beself-defeating if they sti e rm operations to the point of threatening survival, withoutinfusion of more public resources (Mathias, 1994). Foreign rms and family businesses,however, need to earn that public trust and credibility, and, therefore, are more likely toaccord ethical standards more priority than economic ef ciency and legal compliance inorganizational decision making. Large private investor corporations already have a

certain cultural legitimacy by virtue of their size, longevity and shareholder account-ability processes. Thus, it is possible that relative to PSs, MNC/JVs and family




businesses do more than what is legally required to build reputational capital as modelsof ethical responsibility (Fombrun, 1996; Chakraborty, 1991, 1993; Sekhar, 1997).

With respect to hypothesis 6, the difference in the role of HRM departments in MNC/ JVs, as opposed to PSs and PIs, in enabling and encouraging an ethical work climatemay re ect the different degree of in uence that HRM has on the MNC/JV strategic

policies and operational level tactics (Budhwar and Sparrow, 1997). In addition, thedifference can be attributed to three factors in the MNC/JV group: more employeeheterogeneity, greater exposure to the risks of diverse moral standards throughborderless competition, and more resources to devote to internal creation or externalcontracting of services to develop an explicit set of ethics policies (Petrick and Quinn,1997; Green, 1994; LeClair et al ., 1998). As work-force diversity and mobility increaseand external pressures for total quality performance escalate to MNC/JV levels, publicsector and private investor rms will need to match other rms in proactively fosteringan ethical climate through their HRM involvement. While not all MNCs in India haveacted responsibly (Jain et al ., 1998; Venkata Ratnam, 1998), initiating explicit ethicspolicies in order to attract and retain quality, principled managers who expect asupportive climate for responsible ethical decision making is a promising MNCpractice. In the United States, for example, there are compelling incentives for explicitorganizational ethics development systems in the form of the 1991 Federal SentencingGuidelines, which signi cantly reduce monetary nes for rms convicted of wrong-doing if they have such explicit ethics’systems in place (Ferrell et al ., 1998; Petrick andQuinn, 1997; Paine, 1994). Whether in the current Indian political environment such

enabling regulation will be feasible is uncertain. Hence, Indian business groups, publicinterest groups, professional associations and MNCs with their global experiences andthrough their Indian subsidiaries, should provide pacesetting leadership in theimplementation of organizational ethics development systems to improve workplace

justice and productivity, to retain talented Indian workers, attract domestic and foreigninvestment and build reputational capital to sustain global competitiveness advantages(Petrick and Quinn, 1997; Amba-Rao, 1993). Consequently, there is a need forcollaborative efforts on the part of foreign and Indian rms in adopting ‘bestorganizational ethics practices’ in the Indian environment.

Implications

This empirical study tested six hypotheses related to PA practices and managementvalues in foreign-joint venture and domestic organizations in India. All six weresigni cant and the results are summarized as follows. In comparison with MNC/JVs,PIs provide signi cantly less feedback of PA results; PSs are less likely to use PA forevaluation purposes; PSs perceive the need for multiple organizational hierarchicallevels to maintain power; PFs share information and decision making to a lesser degree;

PSs value ethics to a lesser degree than MNC/JVs and PFs as well, and the role of HRMin PIs and PSs in fostering an ethical climate is of a lesser degree than in MNC/JVs.Theoretical and managerial implications are now presented.

Theoretical implications

Four theoretical contributions of this study are indicated. First, the study resultsextended earlier comparative management research, delineating PA practices andmanagerial values of speci c groups of rms by ownership, with respect to MNC/JVs.

This nding also shows that Indian organizations are not as homogeneous as somestudies implied. Second, one HRM activity, PA, was examined in combination with




certain managerial values that are relevant to HRM, with the following two suggestivetheoretical issues: (a) while all types of rms practised PA, its process varied, and theuse of PA for evaluative purposes may be constrained in traditional rms by structuralimpediments, but the MNC/JVs and the ‘modernizing’ private rms (Sparrow andBudhwar, 1997) may provide better pacesetting PA models; and (b) the managerial

value orientations of power, information sharing/decision making and ethics may welldetermine whether a rm will fully implement objective PA systems that result in fairevaluations and appropriate individual and company developmental strategies. In otherwords, effective PA processes for useful individual and organizational purposes aretheoretically more likely if the managers engage in open communication with theirsubordinates, encourage input into the evaluation process, utilize the information toensure procedural and substantive justice, model an appropriate leadership style andbuild an organizational ethics development system that enhances reputational capital.Third, the area of organizational ethics in Indian workplaces is little researched and thisstudy provides a theoretical impetus for more research activity. Fourth, the results of this study also lend support to the idea of cultural and structural (management andorganization) contingencies in uencing HRM, but that traditional social values can beadapted, without destroying them, to the exigencies of a new economic environ-ment.

Managerial implications

The following six managerial implications are offered for PA, power, informationsharing, decision making, and ethical work climate improvement.

Performance appraisal First, in high-performance work systems, objective andequitable PA practices are used for both evaluative and developmental purposes. Theyneed to play a more important role in all Indian rm HRM practices, with opendiscussion of performance for timely actions to address structured empowermentopportunities (Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997). A caveat is that actual practices may notfollow espoused policies (Rao and Abraham, 1986b; Amba-Rao, 1994b). The new

demographics, managerial need expectancies regarding achievement, development andutilization of their abilities, and improved work culture, will all force managers to takeheed of these factors and implement an objective, performance-based and equitable PAsystem, identifying and clarifying key factors in job responsibilities, and providingcoaching and mentoring of employees (Mendonca and Kanungo, 1990; Sinha, 1990).This approach, in turn, can more closely link merit and seniority (Virmani and Guptan,1991), thereby strengthening job security and long-term performance expectations(Sparrow and Budhwar, 1997). Emphasis in India will eventually be on employeedevelopment and productivity rather than on over-control for punitive, hierarchicpurposes. Employee involvement and successful experiences in this process will helpreduce employee anxiety and scepticism towards PA and promote structured empower-ment in all Indian rms.

Second, to avoid ad hoc over-control and under-control of individuals by Indianmanagers, to preserve Indian relational orientations, and to incorporate PA formally intoa competitive integrated HRM system, changes based on total quality principles wouldbe bene cial (Lindsay and Petrick, 1997; Petrick and Furr, 1995). Total quality PAsystems specify and quantify upper and lower control limits for acceptable performance

variation in work settings independent of individual managerial preferences. In thisapproach, managers in India can avoid over-control of employees whose performances




are not statistically different and under-control of substandard performance by loyalfavourites, thereby preventing ad hoc biases. Employees are likely to perceive theresulting PA practices, assuming their input and feedback into the process, as equitableand acceptable. This total quality PA system will preserve the traditional, relationalsocio-cultural group values of India, while preparing individual managers and their

rms for sustainable competitive advantage by statistically identifying superiorproductivity ranges and accelerating organizational performance by objective evalu-ation and development rather than ad hoc biases. These total quality PA practices, inturn, need to be formally integrated into a supportive HRM system, so that recruitment,training, rewards and career development reinforce overall quality performanceexpectations (Virmani and Guptan, 1991; Lindsay and Petrick, 1997).

Power, information sharing and decision making Third, a careful selection of MNC/JVs that promote mutual bene ts of empowering people, information sharing andparticipative decision making can provide useful organizational role models forimproving organizational effectiveness of all types of rms in India. The authors’ studyindicates that indigenous Indian private and public rms have structural and proceduralimpediments to work-force empowerment, information sharing and participativedecision making, manifest in PA practices, that are less prevalent in MNC/JVs.Successful JVs in India, for example the Japanese-Indian hybrid, Maruthi AutomobileCompany of India (Chatterjee, 1992; Srinivasan, 1990), can provide organizationallearning opportunities for all Indian rms regarding progressive PA practices. Indian

national quality award processes, like the Baldrige Quality Award in the US, theDeming Prize in Japan or the European Quality Award in Europe can provide guidanceand incentives for improving Indian organizational performance.

Fourth, the growing cadre of talented expatriates of Indian origin who have beeneducated and exposed to Western social and work cultures can provide useful personalrole models for appropriate Indian nurturing leadership styles. Many technically trainedand educated graduates from India have been spotlighted as world-class technicalleaders capable of entrepreneurial leadership in the US (Kripalani et al ., 1998). As moreof these leaders can be induced to return periodically or permanently to India, they can

serve as change agents to promote new standards and practices (Sahay and Walsham,1997).

Management ethics and HRM role in work ethics Fifth, while Indian managers andemployees are personally aware of moral duties ( dharma ) towards others, the absenceof intra-organizational and extra-organizational standards for workplace ethics has ledto a perceived erosion of moral direction in the current turbulent economic andregulatory environment (Mathias, 1994). To address these concerns, the authorsrecommend the design and implementation of organizational ethics developmentsystems that explicitly address work norms. These organizational ethics developmentsystems can and should be an operational priority for Indian managers; successfulmodels already exist and have been proven to be effective (LeClair et al ., 1998; Petrick and Quinn, 1997; Petrick et al ., 1991). Indian managers can use the HRM function toimplement these systems in order to assess and improve the ethical climate of their ownwork organizations and provide evidence for ongoing moral progress in organizationalwork ethics (Petrick and Pullins, 1992; Petrick et al ., 1991).

Sixth, Indian managers need to take extra-organizational steps to improve the

politico-legal infrastructure within which their rms operate. In the absence of enablingregulation, the pluralistic support groups, mentioned earlier, that counter the adverse




impacts of globalization, privatization and government bureaucracy, can aid managersin India to collectively bring about political and professional consensus about the valueof a level playing eld for all rms in India and their stakeholders (Amba-Rao, 1993).The level playing eld is the best way to promote genuine productivity for rms inIndia rather than resorting to unethical practices that favour dysfunctional rms. This

broader involvement in extra-organizational moral development is a way to preserveIndian moral character and resist its corrosion from internal and external forces(Sennett, 1998).

Limitations and future directions

The rst limitation of this study is its narrow scope. As an exploratory study and inorder to maintain focus, the authors concentrated on a single HRM activity, the PAsystem, while including the contextual factor of management values. Other HRM

factors should be similarly analysed. A related research issue is to examine theinteractional effects of HRM and managerial values, in addition to the independentanalysis that was done in this study, to determine more directly whether the kind of value systems considered (empowerment and ethical integrity capacity) would, in fact,encourage broad-based effective HRM practices (Petrick and Quinn, 1998).

A second limitation is the relatively small sample of rms. However, most of thepublic sector and private corporations employ a large proportion of the ‘organized’sector which impacts on the economy. Further, their corporate of ce or divisions arelocated in all the areas from which the sample was drawn, although no responses werereceived from Calcutta in the East. Further, the statistical tests utilized are suf cientlyrigorous, adding validity to the ndings. In addition, due to the small number andoverlap of ownership, foreign and joint venture rms were combined in the currentanalysis. With the possibility of a greater number of joint ventures emerging in the newsetting, the two groups should be separated in future studies. Other factors such as typeof industry, business life-cycle, size and MNCs’ country of origin should beconsidered.

For future research directions, the following two points are made. First, in order toenhance the operational ef ciency of eld studies in India, partnering with aprofessional association is methodologically helpful. From the experience of the current

eld study, many of the impediments to data collection could have been avoided if aprofessional association of HR managers in India had sponsored such a survey, so thatindigenous institutional credibility would enhance the likelihood of completed surveysfrom all parts of the country.

Second, monitoring and evaluating the organizational effectiveness of rms in Indiathat adopt the authors’ recommendations are necessary. Firms can adopt internallongitudinal benchmarking to assess the effectiveness of the new initiatives. In addition,

comparative external benchmarking could provide incentives for rapid diffusion of improvements across rms by ownership and industry.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank many who helped us conduct this research. We are gratefulto Mr Y. Bharadwaja, Capintels Consultants, Hyderabad, India, for his assistance withthe logistics of our research and for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper, andto Professor C. S. Venkata Ratnam, International Management Institute, New Delhi, for

his insights and resources. Our special appreciation to all the experts who helped uswith the questionnaire and to clarify many points through discussions. The suggestions




of the anonymous reviewers for the IJHRM and the US Academy of Management gaveus the impetus to revise and rewrite our manuscript. This research was partially fundedby the Of ce of International Programs, Indiana University at Bloomington, a SummerFaculty Fellowship and a Grants-in-Aid of Research of Indiana University Kokomo,and the University Grants Commission at the College of Business Administration,

Osmania University, Hyderabad, India.

References

Agarwal, M. and Misra, G. (1993) ‘Socio-cultural Values and Relative Deprivation in Work Organisations’, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations , 28: 327–40.

Agrawal, N.M. (1984) ‘Determinants of Inter-generational Con ict in Organisations ’, Vikalpa ,9(2): 121–34.

Ahluwalia, M.S. (1994). ‘India’s Quiet Economic Revolution’, The Columbia Journal of World

Business , 29(1): 6–12.Amba-Rao, S.C. (1993) ‘Multinational Corporate Social Responsibility, Ethics, Interactions and

Third World Governments: An Agenda for the 1990s’, Journal of Business Ethics , 12:553–72.

Amba-Rao, S.C. (1994a) ‘US HRM Principles: Cross-country Comparisons and Two CaseApplications in India’, International Journal of Human Resource Management , 5(3):755–78.

Amba-Rao, S.C. (1994b) ‘Human Resource Management Practices in India: An ExploratoryStudy’, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations , 30(2): 190–202.

As-Saber, S., Dowling, P.J. and Liesch, P.W. (1998) ‘The Role of Human Resource Managementin International Joint Ventures: A Study of Australian–Indian Joint Ventures’, International Journal of Human Resource Management , 9(5): 751–66.

Budhwar, P.S. and Sparrow, P.R. (1997) ‘Evaluating Levels of strategic Integration andDevolvement of Human Resource Management in India’, International Journal of Human

Resource Management , 8(4): 476–94.Cardy, R. and Dobbins, G. (1994) Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives , Cincinnati,

OH: South-Western Publishing.Carroll, A.B. (1998) ‘The Four Faces of Corporate Citizenship’, Business and Society Review ,

100: 1–8.Chakraborty, S.K. (1991) Management By Values: Towards Cultural Congruence . Calcutta:

Oxford University Press.Chakraborty, S.K. (1993) Managerial Transformation by Values: A Corporate Pilgrimage . New

Delhi: Sage.Chatterjee, B. (1992) Japanese Management and the Indian Experience . New Delhi: Sterling.Cyriac, K. (1992) ‘The Ethics Wave in Management Education’, Management and Labor Studies ,

7(2): 5–12.Cyriac, K. and Dharmaraj, R. (1994) ‘Machiavellianism in Indian Management’, Journal of

Business Ethics , 13: 281–6.

Das, R. (1996) ‘Deregulation and Liberalisation in India: The Managerial Response’, Journal of General Management , 21(3): 48–58.

De George, R.T. (1993) Competing with Integrity in International Business . New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Dhingra, O.P. and Pathak, V.K. (1973) ‘Organisational Culture and Managers’, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations , 8(3): 387–405.

Donaldson, T. (1989) The Ethics of International Business . New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Dunung, S. (1995) Doing Business in Asia . New York: Lexington.

England, G.W. (1975) The Manager and His Values: An International Perspective from the USA, Japan, Korea, India and Australia . Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.




Ferrell, O., LeClair, D. and Ferrell, L. (1998) ‘The Federal Sentencing Guidelines forOrganisations: A Framework for Ethical Compliance’, Journal of Business Ethics , 17(4):353–63.

Financial Times (1994) ‘Financial Times Survey’, 8 November: 2–20.Fombrun, C. (1996) Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image . Boston MA: Harvard

Business School Press.Gannon, M.J. (1994) Understanding Global Cultures . London: Sage.Gopalan, S. and Rivera, J. (1997) ‘Gaining Perspective on Indian Value Orientations: Implications

for Expatriate Managers’, International Journal of Organisational Analysis , 5(2): 156–79.Gopinath, C. (1998) ‘Alternative Approaches to Indigenous Management in India’, Management

International Review , 38(3): 257–75.Green, R.M. (1994) The Ethical Manager: A New Method for Business Ethics . New York:

Macmillan College.Hickson, D.J. and Pugh, D.S. (1995) ‘Developing Countries (Africa, below the Sahara and India)’.

In Hickson, D.J. and Pugh, D.S. Managing Worldwide: The Impact of Societal Culture onOrganisations Around the Globe . Hammondsworth: Penguin, pp. 221–48.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values ,Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1997) Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind , 2nd edn. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1988) ‘The Confucian Connection: From Cultural Roots toEconomic Growth’, Organisational Dynamics , 16(4): 4–21.

Jaeger, A.M. (1990) ‘The Applicability of Western Management Techniques in DevelopingCountries: A Cultural Perspective ’. In Jaeger, A.M. and Kanungo, R.N. (eds), Management in

Developing Countries , London: Routledge, pp. 131–45.Jaeger, A.M. and Kanungo, R.N. (1990) Management in Developing Countries , London:Routledge.

Jain, N.C. and Kussman, E.D. (1994) ‘Dominant Cultural Patterns of Hindus in India’. InSamovar, L.A. and Porter, R.E. (eds) Intercultural Communication: A Reader , 7th edn.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Jain, H.C., Lawler, J.J. and Morishima, M. (1998) ‘Multinational Corporations, Human ResourceManagement and Host-Country Nationals’, International Journal of Human Resource Manage-ment , 9(4).

Kakar, S. (1971) ‘Authority Patterns and Subordinate Behavior in Indian Organisations ’, Administrative Science Quarterly , 16: 298–307.

Kanungo, R.N. and Misra, S. (1988). ‘The Bases of Involvement in Work and Family Contexts’, International Journal of Psychology , 23(3): 267–82.

Kerr, J. and Slocum, J.W. (1987). ‘Managing Corporate Culture Through Reward Systems’, Academy of Management Executive , 1(2).

Kiggundu, M.N. (1989) Managing Organisations in Developing Countries: An Operational and Strategic Approach , W. Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

Kluckhohn, F. and Strodtbeck, F. (1961) Variations in Value Orientations . Evanston, IL: Row &Peterson.

Kripalani, M., Engardio, P. and Nathans, L. (1998) ‘Whiz Kids: Inside the Indian Institutes of Technology’s Star Factory’, Business Week , 7 December: 116–21.

Krishna, A. and Monappa, A. (1994) ‘Economic Restructuring and Human Resource Manage-ment’, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations , 29: 490–501.

Lawler, J.J., Jain, H.C., Venkata Ratnam, C.S. and Atmiyananda, V. (1995) ‘Human ResourceManagement in Developing Economies: A Comparison of India and Thailand’, International

Journal of Human Resource Management , 6: 319–46.Lindsay, W. and Petrick, J.A. (1997) Total Quality and Organisational Development . Delray

Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.

LeClair, D., Ferrell, O. and Fraedrich, J. (1998) Integrity Management . Tampa, FL: University of Tampa Press.




MacClure, J. (1995) ‘India: Strong Tradition, New Frontiers’, Canadian Business Review , 22(3):40–3.

Manorama (1988) Year Book. Kochi, India: Malayala Manorama. Manorama (1993) Year Book. Kochi, India: Malayala Manorama.Marquardt, M.J. and Engel, D.W. (1993) Global Human Resource Development . Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Mathias, T.A. (ed.) (1994) Corporate Ethics . New Delhi: Allied Publishers.Mendonca, M. and Kanungo, R.N. (1990) ‘Performance Management in Developing Countries’.

In Jaeger, A.M. and Kanungo, R.N. (eds) Management in Developing Countries . London:Routledge, pp. 223–51.

Monappa, A. (1977) Ethical Attitudes of Indian Managers . New Delhi: AMA.Narayana, G. and Kantner, J. (1992) Doing the Needful . Boulder, CO: Westview.Negandhi, A. and Prasad, S. (1975) The Frightening Angels: A Study of U.S. Multinationals in

Developing Nations . Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Negandhi, A.R. (1975) Organizational Theory in an Open System: A Study of Transferring

Advanced Management Practices to Developing Nations , New York: Dunellan.Nigam, R.K. (ed.) (1984) The Management Philosophy of Prakash Tandon: Re ections on

General Management Issues and Problems of the Public Sector , New Delhi: DocumentationCentre for Corporate and Business Policy Research.

Osterman, P. (1992) ‘Internal Labor Markets in a Changing Environment: Models and Evidence’.In Lewin, D., Mitchell, O.S. and Sherer, P.D. (eds) Research Frontiers in Industrial Relationsand Human Resources , Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.

Paine, L.S. (1994) ‘Managing for Organisational Integrity’, Harvard Business Review , March–April: 106–12.

Parikh, I.J. and Garg, P.K. (1990) ‘Indian Organisations: Value Dilemmas in Managerial Roles’.In Jaeger, A.M. and Kanungo, R.N. (eds), Management in Developing Countries . London:Routledge, pp. 175–90.

Petrick, J.A. and Furr, D.S. (1995) Total Quality in Managing Human Resources . Delray Beach,FL: St. Lucie Press.

Petrick, J.A. and Manning, G.E. (1993) ‘Paradigm Shifts in Quality Management andOrganisational Ethics Development’, Business Forum , 18: 15–18.

Petrick, J.A. and Pullins, E.B. (1992) ‘Organisational Ethics Development and the ExpandingRole of the Human Resource Professional ’, The Healthcare Superviso r , 11: 52–61.

Petrick, J.A. and Quinn, J.F. (1997) Management Ethies: Integrity at Work , Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Petrick, J.A. and Quinn, J.F. (2000) ‘The Integrity Capacity Construct and Moral Progress inBusiness Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics , forthcoming.

Petrick, J.A. and Scherer, R.F. (1993) ‘Competing Social Responsibility Values and theFunctional Roles of Managers: Implications for Career and Employment Professionals ’,

Journal of Managerial Psychology , 8: 14–20.Petrick, J.A., Wagley, R.A. and von der Embse, T.J. (1991) ‘Structured Ethical Decision Making:

Improving the Prospects of Managerial Success in Business’, SAM Advanced Management Journal , 56(1): 28–34.

Petrick, J.A., Scherer, R.F., Wendt, A.C. and Cox, M.K. (1993) ‘Competing Social Responsibilit yValues and Managerial Level: Implications for Career and Employment Professionals ’, Reviewof Business , 15: 22–6.

Petrick, J.A., Scherer, R.F., Brodzinski, J., Quinn, J. and Ainina, F. (1999) ‘Global LeadershipSkills and Reputational Capital: Intangible Resources for Sustainable Competitive Advantage inthe 21st Century’, Academy of Management Executive , 42(1): 74–91.

Pfeffer, J. (1994) Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of the Workforce ,Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Rao, T.V. and E. Abraham, S.J. (1986a) ‘Human Resource Development Practices in Indian

Industries: A Trend Report’. In Rao, T.V. and Pereira, D.F. (eds) Recent Experiences in Human Resource Development . New Delhi: Oxford and IBH, pp. 20–41.




Rao, T.V. and E. Abraham, S.J. (1986b) ‘Human Resource Development Climate in IndianOrganisations’. In Rao, T.V. and Pereira, D.F. (eds) Recent Experiences in Human Resource

Development . New Delhi: Oxford and IBH, pp. 70–7.Rao, T.V., Silveria, D.M., Shrivastava, C.M. and Vidyasagar, R. (eds) (1994) HRD in the New

Economic Environment . New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill.

Rao, V.K.R.V. (1964) ‘The Role of the Public Enterprise in the Indian Economy’, Indian Journalof Public Administration , 10: 420–1.Ricks, D.A. (1993) Blunders in International Business . Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985) ‘Clustering Countries on Attitudinal Dimensions: A Review and

Synthesis’, Academy of Management Review , 10: 435–54.Rosen, S. and Juris, H. (1995) ‘Ethical Issues in Human Resource Management’. In Ferris, G.,

Rosen, S. and Barnum, D. (eds) Handbook of Human Resource Management . Cambridge, MA:Blackwell.

Saha, A. (1992) ‘Basic Human Nature in Indian Tradition and Its Economic Consequences ’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , 12(1–2): 1–50.

Saha, A. (1993) ‘The Caste System in India and Its Consequences’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , 13(3–4): 1–76.

Sahay, S. and Walsham, G. (1997) ‘Social Structure and Managerial Agency in India’,Organisation Studies , 18(3): 415–44.

Schuler, R.S. and Nair, A. (1996) ‘Management of Human Resources in India: A Societal Model’,Working Paper, Stern School of Business, New York University, New York.

Schuler, R.S., Dowling, P.J. and De Cieri, H. (1993) ‘An Integrative Framework of StrategicInternational Human Resource Management’, International Journal of Human Resource

Management , 4: 711–64.Sekhar, R.C. (1997) Ethical Choices in Business . New Delhi: Sage.Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character . New York: Norton.Sethi, S.P. and Steidlmeier, P. (1996) ‘Business Ethics and Hinduism’. In Werhane, P. and

Freeman, E. (eds) Business Ethics . London: Blackwell.Sharma, I.J. (1984) ‘The Culture Context of Indian Managers’, Management and Labor Studies ,

9(2): 72–80.Shenkar, O. (1995) Global Perspectives of Human Resource Management . Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.Silveria, D.M. (1988) Human Resource Development: The Indian Experience . New Delhi: New

India Publications.Singh, J.P. (1990) ‘Managerial Culture and Work-related Values in India’, Organisation Studies ,

11(1): 75–101.Sinha, D.P. (1994) ‘Indian Management: Context, Concerns and Trends’. In Patti, J.M. (ed.)

Management: Asian Context . New York: McGraw-Hill.Sinha, J.B.P. (1990) Work Culture in the Indian Context . New Delhi: Sage.Smither, J. (1998) Performance Appraisal: The State of the Art and Practice . San Francisco:

Jossey Bass.Soares, F. (1981) ‘Values of Indian Managers: The Basis of Progress’, Indian Management , 10:

32–8.Sodhi, J.S. (1994) ‘Emerging Trends in Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management in

Indian Industry’, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations , 30: 19–37.Sparrow, P.R. and Budhwar, P.S. (1997) ‘Competition and Change: Mapping the India HRM

Recipe Against World-Wide Patterns’, Journal of World Business , 32(3): 224–43.Srinivasan, A.V. (1990) Japanese Management: The Indian Context . New Delhi: Tata McGraw-

Hill.Tayeb, M.H. (1988) Organisations and National Culture . London: Sage.Tayeb, M.H. (1995) ‘The Comparative Advantage of Nations: The Role of Human Resource

Management and its Socio-cultural Context’, International Journal of Human Resource Management , 6: 588–606.




Thomas, E. and Philip, A. (1994) ‘Management in an Ancient and Modern Civilization’. InPunnett, B.J. and Shenkar, O. (eds) International Studies of Management and Organisation ,24(1–2): 91–115.

Thyagi, S. (1994) ‘The Giant Awakens: An Interview with Professor Jagdish Bhagwati onEconomic Reforms in India’, The Columbia Journal of World Business , 29(1): 14-22.

Trompenaars, F. (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business . London: Nicholas.

Venkata Ratnam, C.S. (1992) Managing People: Strategies for Success . New Delhi: GlobalBusiness Press.

Venkata Ratnam, C.S. (1995) ‘Economic Liberalisation and the Transformation of IndustrialRelations Policies in India’. In Verma, A., Kochan, T.A. and Lansbury, R.D. (eds) Employment

Relations in the Growing Asian Economies . London: Routledge.Venkata Ratnam, C.S. (1998) ‘Multinational Companies in India’, International Journal of

Human Resource Management , 9(4): 567–89.Virmani, B. and Guptan, S. (1991) Indian Management . New Delhi: Vision Books.

Wall Street Journal (1997) ‘Firms Find Loosening of India’s Business Practices’. 13 October A16,18.

Yeung, A.K.O. and Wong, Y.Y. (1990) ‘A Comparative Analysis of the Practices andPerformance of Human Resource Management Systems in Japan and the PRC’. In Nedd, A.Ferris, G.R. and Rowland, K.M. (eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management , Supplement 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 147–70.


Indian Managers

Documents

Transcript of Indian Managers