MEXICAN MANAGEMENT STYLE

By Alan S. Gutterman
1


Abstract

In general, Mexican management style follows the high power distance and collectivism
found in Mexican societal culture and this means that Mexican firms are more likely to
adopt hierarchical structures with power vest at the top of the pyramid and introduce and
follow formalistic relationships between managers and workers; however, the apparent
rigidity of hierarchy and formalism is tempered to some degree by a relatively casual
approach to rules and regulations. Paternalism and a sense of extended family are
also important factors of Mexican management styles. There is evidence, however, that
the consultative management style is becoming more acceptable in Mexico.

Mexico is considered to be a high power distance society, at least in relation to countries
such as the US
2
, and this means that Mexican firms are more likely to adopt hierarchical
structures with power vested at the top of the pyramid and introduce and follow
formalistic relationships between managers and workers; however, the apparent rigidity
of hierarchy and formalism is tempered to some degree by a relatively casual approach to
rules and regulations. The hierarchical structure seen in Mexican business organizations
follows the model that has traditionally existed in the church and in government and there
is typically a director general or president who has come up through the ranks to
assume that position and who generally deals only with a small group of senior managers
who report to the executive and are expected to show respect to the executive and take
and carry out the executives directions without question. These senior managers,
assumed to have the trust of the executive, are given authority to make many decisions
relating to their division, department or function.
3




1
The material in this report is derived from a discussion that will appear in
Organizational Management and Administration: A Guide for Managers and
Professionals by Dr. Alan S. Gutterman and is presented with permission of Thomson
Reuters/West. Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters/West. For more information or to order
call 1-800-762-5272. Dr. Gutterman is the Director of the Center for Management in
Developing Countries [www.managingfordevelopment.org].
2
See, e.g., G. Hofstede, Motivation, Leadership and Organization: Do American
Theories Apply Abroad, Organization Dynamics, 9 (1980), 42-63, 51-54; M.
Marchese, "Matching Management Practices to National Culture in India, Mexico,
Poland, and the U.S.", The Academy of Management Executive, 15(2) (2001), 130 -132
and C. Robert, T. Probst, J. Martocchio, F. Drasgow and J. Lawler, "Empowerment and
Continuous Improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: Predicting Fit
on the Basis of the Dimensions of Power-distance and Individualism", Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(5) (2000), 643-658.
3
R. Schuler, S. Jackson, E. Jackofsky and J. Slocum, Jr., "Managing human resources in
Mexico: a cultural understanding". Business Horizons. FindArticles.com.

Non-managerial employees usually have little or no authority and are reliant on their
managers and supervisors for directions. Formalism is very important in Mexican firms
and managers rarely interact directly with employees at Mexican manufacturing plants
and construction facilities, instead managers give instructions to supervisors who then
pass them along to the employees. However, employees accept their distance from
managers as the way things should be and are willing to work hard to complete the
instructed tasks as long as they believe that their managers and supervisors are wielding
their authority in a kind, sensitive and respectful manner. If employees believe that the
executive, senior managers and supervisors can be trusted, then there is a strong
likelihood that there will be good labor and community relations. Loyalty of a firm to its
employees is highly valued and illustrative of Mexicos paternalistic management
system in which firms take care of their employees and their families.
4


The strong tendency toward high power distance and formalism observed in Mexican
firms would appear to rule out the effective use of certain management practices
commonly deployed in lower power distance countries such as the US. For example,
while employees, particularly employees who have been working with the firm for
extended periods, would certainly be able to make contributions to debates on how
particular projects and activities should be conducted, employee involvement in decision
making in Mexico is not typical and, in fact, managers that seek opinions from employees
may actually be perceived as weak and indecisive and lose respect and trust. Similarly,
efforts by managers to establish channels for upward communications that employees
might use to pose questions to management or make suggestions to management are
likely to go unused since Mexican employees are simply not comfortable with appearing
to raise problems or providing input on matters perceived to be outside of their place in
the overall hierarchy.
5


The paternalism referred to above also follows from the strongly collectivist nature of
Mexican societal culture, which is clearly evidenced in the way that Mexican companies
are expected to care for their workers and their families and preference for harmonious
relationships in the employer-employee relationship. It has been observed that having a
job is viewed as a social right in Mexico and that Mexican workers believe that society
owes them a job and that the job should not just be an exchange of money for labor but
should be a relationship in which the employer assumes moral and family responsibility
for all of its employees.
6
As such, employees are seen as the extended family of the
company executive and receive a wide range of services and benefits, all of which are not


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1038/is_n3_v39/ai_18348268/ [accessed June 12,
2011]
4
Id.

5
Id.

6
Id. The social responsibility of Mexican employers to their employees is reinforced by
labor laws and regulations that make it extremely difficult, and expensive, for employers
to terminate employees other than for causes specifically recognized by statute such as


dishonesty or violence.

seen as extra but as simply part of the way in which the employer is expected to fulfill
its societal obligations.
7
In return, Mexican workers are expected to be loyal and hard-
working.
8
Related to the notion of extended family is the desire for harmony and the
relatively low tolerance for adversarial relations in Mexican organizations. Obedience
and respect between managers and employees is the preferred situation and Mexican
managers generally avoid practices that may cause tension among groups of workers.
9


Notice should be taken, however, of interesting changes in Mexican managerial styles
and practices. For example, Jimenez et al. conducted a study of 20 manufacturers and
distributors in Mexico to determine, among other things, whether managers of those firms
continued to use the authoritative management style. The average number of employees
among the surveyed firms was 111 and they had average annual sales of approximately
$3.1 million. The researchers relied on data collecting using the shorter version of a study
instrument developed and popularized by Likert
10
and found that, based on
Likerts scoring system, managers in the surveyed firms tended to a dopt and follow the
consultative management style (System 3 on Likerts continuum of management styles),
which meant that employees had a modest level of interaction and communication with
managers regarding decisions but that although employees were consulted about
problems and decisions, management still made the final decisions.
11
This finding was
interesting in that earlier studies had indicated that the preferred management style in
Mexico was Likerts System 2 (Benevolent Authoritative)
12
and Jimenez et al. speculated



7
According to Teegen and Doh, the ideal workplace situation is Mexico follows the
family model, with everyone working together and doing his or her share in accordance
with his or her assigned roles, and it is assumed that authority is concentrated at the upper
levels of the organization and is not to be delegated. H. Teegen, and J. Doh, "U.S. -
Mexican Alliance Negotiations: Impact of Culture on Authority, Trust, Performance",
Thunderbird International Business Review, 44(6) (2002), 749-775.
8
Jimenez et al. also observed that trustworthiness, loyalty and reliability are important
to Mexican employers. M. Jimenez, M. Fasci and J. Valdez, A comparison of
management style for Mexican firms in Mexico and the United States, International

Journal of Business, 14(13) (2009).

9
DeForest has also found that Mexican have a low tolerance for adversarial relationships
in the workplace. M. De Forest, "Thinking of a Plant in Mexico?", Academy of
Management Executive, 8 (1) (1994), 33-40.

10
R. Likert and J. Likert, New Ways of Managing Conflicts (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1976).

11
M. Jimenez, M. Fasci and J. Valdez, A comparison of management style for Mexican

firms in Mexico and the United States, International Journal of Business, 14(13) (2009).
12
See, e.g., R. Likert and J. Likert, New Ways of Managing Conflicts (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1976); T. Morris and C.M. Pavett, "Management Style and Productivity in
Two Cultures", Journal of International Business Studies, 23 (1992), 169-179; and M. De
Forest, "Thinking of a Plant in Mexico?", Academy of Management Executive, 8 (1)
(1994), 33-40. A Benevolent Authoritative System is hierarchical; however, management
tends to be more paternalistic and provides employees with a modest

that changes in external conditions, notably increased global competitiveness and
exposure of Mexican managers to US management styles, might be leading to a
progressive change in Mexican management styles toward greater inclusion of employee
ideas while retaining the centralized decision making authority traditionally associated
with Mexican firms and the overriding societal culture.























































amount of freedom within limited boundaries for interaction, communication and
decision-making.