Abstract:This paper provides longitudinal data on the leadership beliefs of Australian managers: a comparison is provided between the results of Clark and McCabe's 1970 study ( I ) , itself a replication of Haire, Ghiselli, and Porter's 1966 work ( 2 ) , and data gathered in Australia in 1982. Haire. et d . ' s research was based on the responses of managers in 14 countries (Australia not included) to eight statements, each of which was classified on a pn'ori grounds by the researchers as falling into one of four belief categories: belief in the individual's innate capacity for initiative and leadership, belief in sharing information and objectives, belief in participative management, and belief in internal vs external control. Noted were an inconsistency in manager's beliefs about capacity for initiative and leadership and beliefs about sharing information and objectives and beliefs in participative management. While holding autocratic views about the former they espoused democratic beliefs regarding the latter. Though this finding held for each of the 14 countries, intercountry differences permitted the identification of five clusters: Nordic-European (Denmark, Germany, Norway, Sweden), Latin-European (Belgium, France, Italy, Spain), Anglo-American (England, United States), Developing (Argentina, Chile, India), and Japan. Wark and McCabe's research confirmed the existence of the autocratic-democratic inconsistenq in respect of Australian manages. Further, the results suggested that the leadership beliefs of Australian managers warranted their being included in the AngloAmerican cluster. In the present study, questionnaires were mailed to a randomly drawn stratified sample of 746 fellows, associate fellows, members and affiliates of the Australian Institute of Management in three states (South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia). The questionnaire comprised the same eight statements as used in the earlier studies and requested responses on five-point Likert scales. Responses were received from 500 managers, representing a response rate of 67%. A comparison of the 1970 and 1982 results indicated a move towards more democratic managerial beliefs, consistent across all four categories. Specifically, the means for each category were as follows (1970 results in parentheses) : capacity for leadership and initiative, 3.14 (2.72) ; sharing information and objectives, 3.53 (3.49) ; participation, 3.43 (3.35); internal control. 3.71 (3.45), higher scores representing a stronger endorsement of democratic beliefs. Statistically significant differences ( P < .01) existed for all four categories except that relating to sharing information and objectives. Clearly, though, the most dramatic change was recorded in Australian managers' beliefs concerning the capacirg for leadership and initiative: while the autocratic-democratic inconsistency persists, it is of less importance than in 1970. The result for Australian managers in 1982 with regard to the capacity for leadership and initiative category is almost identical to the result for U.S. managers in Haire, et al.'s 1966 study (3.13).

Japanese Managerial Attitudes at Home and Abroad

JAPANESE AND BRITISH MANAGERIAL COLLEAGUES?HOW THEY VIEW EACH OTHER

Direct and Stereotype Cultural Differences

Japanese Managers in Southeast Asia: Amiable Superstars or Arrogant Upstarts?

Stereotypes of the Japanese Manager in Singapore

Mutual Perception Of Managerial Performance And Style In Multinational Subsidiaries

The Overseas Assignment Preferences of Japanese Managers

Job Attitudes and Organizational Justice in Joint Venture Hotels in China: the Role of Expatriate Managers

Managerial Stereotypes in Singaporean Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations

INTERCULTURAL INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTIONS

The Cultural Context of Expatriate Adaptation: American and Japanese Managers Abroad.

SOME EVIDENCE FOR AN INTERNATIONAL MANAGERIAL CULTURE

Response Styles in A Cross-Cultural Managerial Study

The Effect of Match or Mismatch between Individual and Organization Expectations on Expatriate Performance

STEREOTYPING IN AMERICAN, BRITISH, AND JAPANESE CORPORATIONS IN HONG-KONG AND SINGAPORE

Coping with Cultural Differences: Comparison of American Managers in Japan and Thailand

Psychological Availability Between Self-Initiated Expatriates and Host Country Nationals During Their Adjustment: the Moderating Role of Supportive Supervisor Relations

Learning and work satisfaction in Asia: a comparative study of Japanese, Chinese and Malaysian managers

Differences in the Organizational Context for Managerial Career Progress among Chinese State-owned, Sino-foreign Joint Venture, and Japanese Corporations: A Comparative Study

Australian Managers' Leadership Beliefs, 1970/82

Multiple Aspects of Readjustment Experienced by International Repatriates in Multinational Enterprises: A Perspective of ‘Changes Occurring Over Time’ and ‘Changes due to Cultural Differences’