Manager-subordinate Attribute

This attribute could well be represented as having a third element to it, being the organisation. The manager acts as the immediate representative of the organisation with the subordinate and also has a personal working relationship with the subordinate. However, regarding a subordinate’s performance it is evident from this research that the working relationship with the manager, is more likely to act as a driver of performance, than the subordinate’s relationship or identity with the organisation. Obviously the organisation is a legal entity and not a human being, and therefore the relationship can only be formed with representatives of the organisation: the manager, HR personnel, and the leadership team. It therefore must be on a formal basis, rather than a personal basis. This collective of representatives of the organisation are intrinsic to the organisation’s systems, which from the perspective of this research, emerge as a constraint in cross-cultural PM. Therefore the relationship with the organisation is analysed within the Constraint Domain; refer PM Systems/Organisational Structures – Chapter 5, p. 105.

The hierarchical trait of the Thai society places expectations of norms and standards of behaviour upon one, in regards to their relationships to others within the hierarchy. The values that underpin relationships with Thais can impede a farang’s ability to achieve efficacy in a working relationship, if they are unfamiliar with them and therefore unable to interpret the cultural motivating forces associated with them. This can lead to a deleterious effect on the efficacy of a manager’s PM, where the manager’s behaviour does not accord the expectations placed upon them by their subordinates and associates. Equally, these values can be exploited to tap into a latent efficacy that exists within the situation, and can also build a latent efficacy in the relationship, which may prove beneficial at a future time, such as the strong loyalty value of bun khun (บุญคุณ)—refer to Glossary of Thai Terms, p. xi.

Respect, trust and honesty were the key values that participants referred to most frequently, in terms of building a productive working relationship, or bond with their Thai counterparts and subordinates. A fundamental component of this is to act empathetically with regard to the Thai customs and beliefs, particularly regarding their Buddhist beliefs, the Royal Family, weddings, funerals, and the like, as highlighted by a farang case subject:

There are many, many cultural activities that happen. There are 17 or I think 18 holidays a year, public holidays. Half of them are tied around Buddhism. Probably a quarter of them are around the royal family or whatever and then there are some others. It is not necessary that you over engage in those activities from my experience, but it's important that you don't

disrespect them, and on the other hand, you actually acknowledge why they are doing it, particularly in relation to the Buddhist and the royal family piece, you would never be disrespectful to any of that… So, talking positively about some of the things that maybe the King has done, or acknowledging the birthday…[also] the Loi Krathong Festival [ลอยกระทอง - annual ‘Thai floating festival’]...talk about it… “I went to Loi Krathong and saw the boats floating in the water” and ask them about it, just to engage in conversation.

Don't say anything negative about it…just keep it honest, show an interest in understanding and I think that actually bonds…It is interesting, some of the [customs]…like learning about how funerals happen and the reason certain things happen at certain points. The funerals go on for five or six days or whatever. It doesn't mean you need to go for five or six days like perhaps the Thais might, but showing some respect and come along…So my approach is acknowledging it, talk about it, never talk it down, show some interest and respect to it, and that's bonding [the relationship]. (FCS01)

As a manager—the boss—is an elevated position within the hierarchy of the relationship, which implies a strong ‘power distance’ value, which, in turn, has a significant influence on the terms of the relationship, and the norms or expectation of behaviour within that relationship. In the example above, it is the expectation that the boss respects their beliefs, their institutions, and will attend funerals and weddings on occasions. Thai staff would be disappointed if the boss did not show respect for their staff by doing so. While the Thais will be forgiving of a farang boss in not doing so, since it is not their culture, by reaching out and showing respect in such a manner helps cement the relationship, building a bond for efficacy of performance.

Whilst the hierarchical nature of the Thai social system implies a strong power distance relationship, it doesn’t necessarily mean that as a boss one has strong power, as illustrated by a farang case subject:

Thais have hierarchies that are more important than the work hierarchies…You will see them in the traffic every day: it's more important to talk to your mum than driving although there are 20 cars [stuck] behind you. We're thinking now you are driving, you have to do what you are supposed to do for driving, but those are all people [stuck behind them] that she/he doesn't know. They couldn't care less. It is mum on the phone because mum is the priority, obviously. So, there are circles that are so strong that apply pressure, not necessarily knowingly, that makes you have to tread very carefully. Thais leave jobs readily; easily, change jobs very easily. So you lose that sort of inherent power you have as a boss; if they don't like a job, no, they don't care! (FGP07)

This example tends to support the Holmes, Tangtongtavy and Tomizawa’s (2003) three concentric circle model of Thai relationships. To establish an efficacious relationship a boss

must earn their elevation within the Thai circle of relationships, beyond the transactional of formal relationship, to one the attaches to the Thai sense of ego or self (Komin 1998).

The hierarchical trait can be a two-edged sword. In the first instance it can provide a state of order, as typically noted by a farang general participant:

They like to have a full hierarchy; everybody likes to know their spot so you don't complicate that too much. (FGP08)

In the second instance it can make staff reticent to express their opinions to their bosses, which can stifle creativity and access to the latent efficacy within the situation, as evidenced by a Thai general participant:

The Thai working style is still very hierarchical…people defer very much to their bosses and respect the bosses and would be more likely to go out of their way to please their boss, whereas in and Western environment, a Western company and the Western people, I think they do their jobs as per less restriction, and there is less personal respect, I find, unless it seems the boss is really, really good: but the general people get on with their job as per their job description. But, in Thailand, I think there is more personal respect and hierarchy and people I think stick to it. You would never question your boss in public [to lose] face or any of those sort of things… Thai workforce is less reluctant to speak up or to show their ideas, to share their ideas when their superiors are around. When they are in a room, they always think that it's for them to listen and for the boss, the more senior person, to do the talking.

(TGP04)

Such reticence by Thai subordinate staff may be viewed as an impediment to drawing on the full capability of the staff, or team resource—the efficacy—latent within the means available to the performance situation:

So, the biggest problem is trying to get them to talk out, and even though I've got that staff that have been with me—the management level of been 14, 17 years, and the younger generation—some of them are still young—but they…will still go quiet. (FGP03)

It's very difficult for me; [as a manger] I am very team oriented, to work as a team, because I would say, “what are we to do here, I would like to hear your opinion?” but I won't get it. It will only be my opinion. So you can be 10 people, but you only get the thinking of one, which to me is very awkward. (FGP07)

A Thai cannot go up to say to the farang boss “I want to say something to you”, it never happens, not in this life, or next life, and life after [laughter] because even if the boss is Thai, we will say I do not do also, and when [the boss is] farang, Thais will say okay maybe farang

we don't understand because, you know, different place they come from, and so on and so forth, and the Thai does not want to challenge anyone. (TGP04)

In the previous four examples there are a multitude of values that interplay or vie for influence to determine efficacy for the individual, for example, respect for seniors in the order of hierarchy, an expectation that the boss is in command, knows what he wants done and will advise accordingly. This also invokes greng jai (เกรงใจ), and face-saving where the subordinate does not want to cause any discomfort to the boss, or loss of face: ‘you would never question your boss in public [to lose] face or any of those sort of things’ (TGP04).

Further, there are issues of self-efficacy, on behalf of subordinates, who may fear that their contribution may not be of value causing them a loss of face. Worse is fear of retribution from the boss, who is in a position of power, as explained by a Thai HR director working for a large American multinational organisation (and an Australian boss):

If a subordinate does something or they say something not good [they fear] the boss will judge them, and [they will think]: “quickly he will talk to [HR Director] to fire me, or he will not like me; he will remember me and he will be biased, and it is not good for my progress in the company”. (TGP10)

As a foreigner manager, acting within the social norms of one’s own culture, in a manner that may be contradictory to the social norms of the local national culture, may also have an adverse effect on the performance situation:

I had [training] exercises in my BCP [business continuity plan]… I had a Thai manager resign on the spot because that person took a certain action in front of their staff and 10 minutes later it was found to be the wrong thing, it was just in the scenario we did—a make-believe—he knew it, he lost face and he quit in the middle of training exercise. (FGP01)

On the surface this might appear to be associated with that one particular event, but truth be known, it might just as well have been the ‘last straw’, something brewing from an accumulation of incidents over time, as evident in the following example:

A situation I've seen a lot. A valued person, if you talk to [them] “how are they going?

Good? No? Very happy?” You have a discussion with them: “Yeah, you know I’m very happy, it’s all good”, and everything like that, and then the trouble next minute they've handed in a letter of resignation! (FGP08)

Thais also expect managers to be in control, not only of the situation, but also in control themselves. They expect a manager to be able to act calmly (jai yen - ใจเย็น), to promote harmony in accord with Buddhist teachings. When things go wrong they expect a manager to

be able to not become emotionally attached to the situation, but to be able to let the issue go and move forward in the manner of mai pen rai (ไม่เป็นไร), and give guidance. This is illustrated in the following examples:

A Thai general participant recounts their experience with a farang boss, whose behaviour ultimately caused them to resign:

Tell me how to fix it. If you are in a bad temper or get angry, or something, tell me how to fix it, and I will do it. If just only yelling at me and don’t explain why, I cannot fix it for you, even now or in the future! (TGP09)

Such behaviour undermines the relationship through a loss of respect in the manager, as a farang case subject informs; the manager becomes the problem, not the issue:

When you lose your temper don't throw things on the table or stamp around. That's what Thais will see as the problem, not what you are describing. They will see your behaviour as the problem and not why you were being upset. (FCS04)

And can severely undermine the relationship and the efficacy of the situation:

The Thais generally will be more sensitive, so if a boss calls somebody out for making a mistake in the office in front of somebody it's very bad. It's about the worst thing you can do, right. And, how is that person going to respond? If it's a Thai they're going to be deeply hurt by it. They might have to resign. They might hold a grudge and get even with you by sabotaging something or doing something…If it's American [subordinate], he'll probably get over it; Australian [subordinate], he might fight back, but he'll get over it. (FGP15)

With these previous examples the tension of expectations mostly led to unfavourable outcomes, or a failure to achieve desired outcomes or effect, because of differing cultural expectations rooted in a differing suite of cultural values. However with a greater understanding of the other culture and willingness to make compromises, the latent efficacy within a situation may not be lost or compromised. This aspect is analysed in the proceeding examples.

Farang case subject, in the example below, talks of it being ‘very easy to get commitment’, but what they are referring to is that it is very easy to get ‘apparent’

commitment. Thai subordinates will often say ‘yes’ to a request or instruction, but the outcome can be completely different for a variety of cultural value reasons. These may include face-saving, where the subordinate does not want to look foolish if they did not understand the instruction; or deferring to the boss, not wanting to contradict the boss because the boss must know best (power distance), or because of the conflict avoidance trait. In

reference to team meetings, the case subject in this example, post a team meeting uses a softer, more circuitous approach through their relationships, to ensure that they have the commitment they sought to the task:

It’s very easy to get commitment in meetings, but the insight that I’ve found here is that you need to go and re-establish that commitment later on and sometimes you actually need to drill down on the detail outside the meetings, so you can do that two ways, you can have the trust that people drill down to a certain extent before the meeting, but more particularly, you have to go and ask the questions after the meeting. Typically they [Thais] may even say it happened in the meeting, where there’ll be discussion in the native language, which you know there’s an issue, but won’t be talked about—in a way—or in English or… language that you or I can understand, and a lot of it is about keeping face; not being disrespectful or putting someone on the spot in front of everybody such that, they don’t look like they’re capable of doing what they should be doing. So, there is a process here around double-checking and third double-checking, and continually following up on things, that requires a lot more focus and understanding than you would typically see in a more experienced westernized environment. (FCS01)

This approach is akin to going with the flow of the efficacy of the situation, seeking to influence rather than dominate the situation. A more direct, forceful approach—one that crosses cultural norms of behaviour—could jeopardise the manager-subordinate relationship, or alienate the staff and meet with resistance, resulting in a less favourable outcome, as presented in earlier examples.

An effective way to go with the flow in this manner is for a manager to act with sum ruam (สำรวม) to be respectful, courteous, and calm:

Buddhist teach you to be sum ruam, because the Buddhist believes that when you’re sum ruam your physical, you’re heart or your mental, can be - - sa~ngop [สงบ] peaceful, calm...as a boss (or even as a junior) you have to be sum ruam and once you are not sum ruam you will be penalised at once, like you’re bad. (TCS02)

This is a pathway to efficacy in relationships, according to Buddhist teachings, because to be sum ruam (สำรวม) enables one to think more clearly, to be better able to see the reality of the situation. By promoting harmony one does not exacerbate the problem, which might otherwise occur by being clouded by emotions and motives unclear to one’s self.

To act with sum ruam (สำรวม) does not mean that a manager needs to act without authority in the relationship. Quite the contrary, an effective management style would be to

act within their position in the hierarchy. Being senior, the manager is looked up to by their Thai subordinates, and are expected to have the knowledge, skill and experience to be in control, and to give guidance, as would a parent-child relationship: firm, fair and caring. This managerial charismatic trait, or value, in Thai culture is referred to as baramee (บารมี) being comprised of pradait (พระเดช), the authority and control of a manager, and prakhun (พระคุฌ) being the kind, caring and benevolent aspects of a managerial style—refer to the Glossary of Thai Terms, p. xi.

To be an effective manager, it is necessary to display both traits of management. A Thai general participant explains:

That [prakhun - พระคุฌ] you buy them heart and they will be very honest to you, very respectful and loyal to you, this is the way to build up the relationship with your Thai staff…but you have to keep distance too, and act that you are the boss [pradait - พระเดช], good boss, to help the employee. (TGP19)

A farang case subject explains how it is important to be balanced (in pradait-prakhun), for being too far one way may lead one to miss the nuances (the latent efficacy) in performance situation:

If you are too far one side—and it can be either side—and you want to make ground, so [much so] to the point that if you're too authoritarian, and new to the market you won't understand the nuances here [in Thailand], and have preconceived ideas about what does and doesn't work. Some of the things you bring to the market will work, but other things are going to cause some extreme heartache. (FCS01)

Exercising a balanced managerial style in this way, especially extending pradait (พระเดช) in times of need, may cement the powerful value loyalty of bun khun (บุญคุณ) in the relationship with their subordinate, as typified in the examples that follow.

A farang case subject recounts a situation where he resurrected the career of a Thai subordinate through coaching, mentoring and supporting the subordinate beyond the subordinate’s expectations:

I took him on, and it was sort of like a renaissance for this guy, and the more I gave him the

I took him on, and it was sort of like a renaissance for this guy, and the more I gave him the