No abstract

Globalcompetitionhas motivatedan increasingnumber of United States firms to set up productionfacilities in Mexico. This study examines productivityand managementstyle differences in a Mexican maquiladoraoperation and its U.S. parent plant. Likert's System4 Theorywas used as the theoreticalbasis of comparison. As hypothesized, significant differences were found in the managementsystems while productivityat the two facilities was equal. Mexico is one of the fastest growing "production sharing" countries in the world [McCrayand Gonzalez 1989]. In response to internationalcompetitive pressures and the fact that the U.S. has one of the highest average direct labor rates in the world [WorldDevelopment Report 1989], hundredsof U.S. companies have takentheirlabor-intensiveoperationsto Mexico. Laborcosts are lower in Mexico thanin the U.S. and quality of outputcan be maintained [Gruben 1990]. Currently, there are more than 1,300 Mexican production facilities or "maquiladoras"[Jarvis1990] along the two-thousandmile U.S.-Mexican border. The rapid increase in the use of Mexico as a production partnerhas occurredin partbecauseof the Mexicangovernment'sliberalization of certaintarifflaws and laws pertinentto foreign ownershipof manufacturing enterprises [Gruben 1990]. Maquiladoras are Mexican production facilities that use raw materials, which have been temporarilyimported,to manufactureor assemble products in Mexico [Greene 1989]. The materials are moved back and forth across the bordertax free anddutyfree, allowingU.S. companiesaccess to inexpensive Mexican labor. While the U.S. is not the only country using maquiladoras, it is estimated that U.S.-owned plants account for between 65%-98% of all maquiladoras in Mexico [Greene 1989]. Although these plants are owned andoftenoperatedby U.S. nationals, businesscustoms,businesslaws, appropriate

This study examines participatory management systems and productivity in similar plants located in five different countries. Likert's System 4 theory was used as a tool to measure the nature and extent of participation. All five plants were engaged in identical operations that were designed and implemented by its U.S.-based owner. Each of the plants, however, was under the direction of host nationals. Data demonstrated that the degree of participation differed widely between the Italian, Mexican, Spanish, American, and English plants. It appears that the management systems in each of the plants reflects the expectations of the society and the local workforce. The data also revealed significant differences in the levels of productivity. While the most productive plants had the lowest levels of participation, the relationship between productivity and participation was not statistically significant across the five plants. The study concludes that management systems which are culturally congruent can produce equal levels of productivity independent of whether managers are empowered, or operate under centralized, autocratic control.

No abstract

Little empirical information is available on the nature of managerial work. Such information is needed, not only for training and development programs but also for managerial selection, appraisal, and utilization. The purpose of this study was to compare high level managerial jobs in public and private sectors by examining job content, job characteristics, and required skills, knowledge, and abilities. Mintzberg's (1973Mintzberg's ( , 1975 roles were used for the comparisons. Data were gathered from 210 public-sector and 220 privatesector managers and executives. Results indicate that managers in the public sector perform the same kind of activities as managers in the private sector in terms of complexity of job content and roles and in terms of job characteristics. The study has action implications for the selection, development, and appraisal systems of both public-and private-sector executives.Most of the literature on what constitutes management and how to select and develop effective managers is related to the private-sector manager. Consequently, little empirical information is available concerning similarities or differences between management functions in the private and public sectors. Much of the management literature since Fayol (1916) introduced POSDCORB (planning, organizing, staffing, etc.) has consisted of speculation regarding what managers or their subordinates say they do, could do, or should do. Relatively little of this information is based on what managers or executives actually do, and little pertains to top-level executives. The majority is directed at middleor first-level supervisors, or it treats management as a function that is the same across all hierarchical levels and functional areas.