Managerial cross cultural interaction

Management STYLE IN THE United States

Cultural Values and Business

Theory X vs. Theory Y

Management the High Tech Way

Management STYLE IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

CULTURAL VALUES AND Business

Role of Entrepreneurship

In the United States, management values, beliefs and attitudes have undergone a gradual shift away from the simplistic stance of planning, organizing and directing. Valuable managerial skills, no matter what culture is being considered, have traditionally been masculine skills, highlighting the dominant, assertive, and decisive elements of management behavior and downplaying the team and supportive aspects that are more readily identified with women. This traditional view is now giving way in the United States to an approach where team behaviour is seen as increasingly important to a truly successful management style.

The global leadership skills of the future will evolve from a combination of individual/group and masculine/feminine traits involving strategic thinking and communication skills. The final result of this evolution will make organizations more competitive and more successful. In addition, "appropriate" managerial skills will take into account cultural awareness, which is simply the awareness and tolerance of differences.

Openness and acceptance of cultural differences will lead to synergy, and that in turn will allow change and promote excellence in business and communication on all levels.

In the Dominican Republic, rules of social behavior, including the use of accepted forms of address, courtesy, and respect toward others, are critical social control mechanisms. Politeness is an over-arching theme in all relationships. Dominican group interests are always paramount to individual interests and there is a strong emphasis on values that parallel the interests of family. The emotion of shame becomes an important aspect of social and managerial control.

Managers in the Dominican Republic place a great deal of emphasis on values that serve the interests of the group, rather than on values that serve only individual interests.

An Examination of Managerial Cross-Cultural Interaction in the Dominican Republic and the United States Today

Introduction

Management has never really been a simple task. It was difficult in an era when the only things that were required of a good manager was planning, organizing, and directing. In those nostalgic days there was a "boss" who gave orders, and there were workers who carried out those orders. Slackers and troublemakers were summarily fired, easily replaced with any number of interchangeable workers, who were, at least theoretically, lined up at the gate waiting for an opportunity (Callaway, 1999). Managers were primarily hired on the basis of conformity to the corporate or societal norm, along with their ability to please the boss. To be a "boss" took little training, which was fortunate, because there really was none. Training was not considered a necessity in the organization, because a new manager was only expected to keep the lower classes in line and act as a link in the assembly line of information that flowed from the top down. For the rare managers who wanted to learn new management techniques, to improve their existing style, or just to impress the boss by filling up their office bookshelf, there were plenty of tomes flowing from learned consultants and academics (Callaway, 1999).

According to one U.S. management consulting firm, there are six basic "managerial styles" found in various organizations. These styles are dependent not only upon individual personalities, but on the cultural context within which they are used (McBer, 1980). These styles are described as coercive (do it the way I tell you), authoritative (firm but fair), affiliative (people first, task second), democratic (participative), pace setting (do it myself), and coaching (I want to help you be better) styles (McBer, 1980). Of course, there is no single managerial style that is effective in all situations, in all cultures, and with all people.

Studies of management have shown time and again that effective management is the art of using the appropriate managerial style to deal with specific people in specific situations.

Careful study of varied cultures suggests that certain attitudes, situations, and issues are what differentiate one culture from another (Bakhtari, 1995). American culture contains a number of unique qualities not seen in other cultures, as does the culture of the Dominican Republic. This paper will explore the differences in those cultures and how that impacts managerial values, beliefs and attitudes in the two countries.

Management Style in the United States

Cultural Values and Business

Some of the specifics of American culture, which affect the way managers in the United States interact with their subordinates and get their jobs done, include informality, directness, competitiveness, achievement orientation, independence and individualism, inquisitiveness, disliking silences in conversation, punctuality, discomfort with uncertainty, cleanliness and ethnocentricity (Bakhtari, 1995). These cultural elements all contribute in some way to the values, beliefs and attitudes found in American businesses.

Social and cultural studies not only categorize people by country, region, ethnicity, religion or language but also by gender, generation and social class. Within each category, cultural differences are found with four dimensions to these differences, which are very useful in understanding management styles in the U.S. (Hofstede, 1980; 1991). These four dimensions are individualism/collectivism (loose or tight group bonds), power distance (inequality of power), femininity/masculinity (emphasis on relationships and caring vs. money, progress, success) and uncertainty avoidance (the degree to which individuals feel threatened by unknown or uncertain situations).

Americans, culturally rank high on individualism and masculinity, and low on power distance and uncertainty avoidance (Claes, 1999).

Hofstede goes on to describe in more detail the masculine and feminine poles as fighting (may the best man win) vs. negotiation and compromise; rewards to the strong vs. solidarity with the weak; economic growth vs. protection of the environment; and arms spending vs. aid to poor countries. Of course, no culture is either completely feminine or totally masculine. There are many gradations, and a culture may be more or less feminine in one respect and more or less masculine in another. What people look for from their work also varies along these masculine and feminine poles, according to their values, as with good income vs. good relations with boss; recognition vs. collaboration, promotion vs. pleasant environment; and challenge vs. security (Hofstede, 1991).

Looking at them from a cross-cultural perspective, the managerial skills that have been valued are those described as "masculine" skills. They highlight the dominant, assertive, and decisive elements of management behavior and downplay the team and supportive aspects that are more readily identified with women. This traditional view is now giving way in the United States to a more subtle and all-encompassing approach to management. Cultural evolution necessitates different management styles, as expressed in communication, leadership, negotiation, organization and control (Claes, 1999).

Although it is more important in a discussion of American vs. Dominican management styles to look at the difference between an individualistic (American) and a collectivist (Dominican) culture, some management styles can be clearly be characterized as "feminine" or "masculine," though they are seldom completely one or the other. International management has finally begun to understand and accept differences in national management styles. As a result, there has been a reappraisal of feminine styles relative to the dominant "American management style," which is mostly masculine. Team behaviour is seen as increasingly important to a truly successful management style in the U.S.

The effective manager of today is less concerned with giving instructions and controlling subordinates (the coercive or authoritative styles) and more involved with maintaining a network of relationships within the organization, as well as with those outside (Barham, Fraser & Heath, 1988).

For over a decade, new values have appeared in business. These values are in sharp contrast with the competitive and authoritarian style that is usually associated with traditional masculine management. They are increasingly based on consensual relations, inspiring a new management approach to communications, leadership, negotiation, organization and control. This rebalancing of values is more and more seen as key to business success.

The workplace today is radically different than in years past. Flexibility and innovation are two concepts that characterize global economic conditions and constantly changing technology (Claes, 1999).

This "shift in the culture of Anglo-American capitalism" (Cameron, 1995, p. 199) is clearly moving away from the traditional (aggressive, competitive, individualistic) and heading towards a new management style that stresses flexibility, teamwork and collaborative problem solving.

Commercial capitalism calls on a calculative masculinity and the class struggles of industrialization call on a combative one. Their combination, competitiveness, is institutionalized in 'business' and becomes a central theme in the new form of hegemonic masculinity" (Connell, 1987, p. 156).

There seems is a true structural change under way. The American business world is questioning the hierarchy it copied directly from the military at the end of the Second World War. The masculine culture of giant corporations does not adapt well to a context of uncertainty and constant change. Both the team orientation and the supportive behaviors that have been solely identified with women in the past are now perceived as being much more important for management in general (Hirsh & Jackson, 1989). Women's more interactive management style is often better suited to dealing with the problems that face business in today's global marketplace.

Feminine styles of management have been called "social-expressive," meaning that personal attention is given to employees and a positive working environment is created. In contrast, the masculine management style is described as instrumental and instruction giving.

Management cultures have clearly changed over time. In the 1960s, great value was placed on narrow expertise, on mastering prescribed skills and on conforming to the corporate norm. There was no requirement for integrating an employee's workplace and private-sphere responsibilities (Claes, 1999).

In today's organizations, hierarchies have given way to less formal structures. The economy is more diverse, innovation and fast information exchange are the focus, and great value is placed on breadth of vision, as well as on the ability of managers and employees to think creatively. Top-down authoritarianism has gone the way of the dinosaur (or is heading in that general direction), and instead has been replaced with a networking style, in which each person is a resource (Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1986).

While a shift in values towards the "feminization" of management is appearing, there is also an apparent shift away from individualism and extreme directness. This can be thought of as a shift from a left-brain concept of organizational structure, with analysis, logic and rationality predominating, towards a right-brain view, where intuition, emotion, synthesis are more important. In practice, management styles are evolving towards valuing a mixture of the so-called masculine and feminine characteristics (Claes, 1999).

Flexibility and teamwork are among the characteristics that are defined as feminine, with team behavior being seen as increasingly important for management.

It has been pointed out that, in knowledge work (adding value to information), teams become the work unit rather than the individual (Drucker, 1994). The idea of emotional intelligence, or empathy, that is so helpful in a team environment, seems to result much more frequently from the cultural socialization of girls in the U.S. And much less from that of boys (Claes, 1999).

A changing management style requires a change in language and behaviour in business communication. Since women are concerned not just with content but also with relationships, their aims when communicating are naturally different, as are the modes and strategies they use. There is now a need within American business organizations to create a favorable context for the coexistence of the male and the female approaches, in order to make the most of their synergy (Claes, 1999).

At a time in history when the ability to manage change is becoming critical, communication plays a major role. A significant source of dissatisfaction in many organizations today is the lack of a good structure and network for mediating and diffusing knowledge, values and experience. As more women assume leadership positions the shift will continue away from the traditional, hierarchical organization toward one based on partnership and teamwork. Improved communication, cooperation, team spirit and commitment within organizations are all qualities that are essential in today's management style for achieving excellence and maintaining the necessary networks of contacts and relationships (Claes 1999).

The leadership skills of the future, on a global basis, appear to be evolving into a combination of masculine and feminine traits involving strategic thinking and communication skills. As a result, women and men have something to learn and to gain from working together (Powell, 1988). The final result of this evolution will contribute to making organizations more competitive and more successful. In addition, "appropriate" managerial skills now tend to take into account cultural awareness, which is simply the awareness and tolerance of differences.

Openness and acceptance of cultural differences will lead to synergy, and that in turn will allow change and promote excellence in business and communication on all levels (Claes, 1999).

Theory X vs. Theory Y

Another way to look at the evolution of management styles in U.S. businesses is through a comparison of Theory X and Theory Y management. Theory X is considered "classical" management, and consisted of several beliefs. First, that people dislike work and will avoid it if at all possible. Second, that most people must be "coerced, controlled, directed, and threatened with punishment to get them" to work (McGregor 1960, 33-34).

Third, that the average human prefers to be told what to do, wants to avoid responsibility, has little ambition, and craves security.

These assumptions have lead managers to deny employees control over their own work environment and to use direct and harsh methods of influence. Managers following Theory X emphasize the chain of command, reward vs. punishment motivational techniques, close supervision of employees and rigidly followed rules. Classical management practice has hindered rather than helped organizations in solving problems, meeting goals, and delivering a product in a reliable manner (McGregor, 1960; 1961).

Theory X manager assumes that all people are interested more in safety and physiological needs, rather than higher needs, but McGregor believed that workers in the 1950s had moved beyond lower needs and were seeking to meet their social or esteem needs (McGregor, 1960). Based on this conclusion, he proposed a whole new set of managerial assumptions, which he called Theory Y management.

1. The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest.

2. External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bringing about effort toward organizational objectives.

3. Man will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which he is committed.

4. Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement.

5. The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept responsibility but also to seek it.

6. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population.

7. Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilized (McGregor, 1960, p. 47-48).

Theory Y managers assume that their employees are just as committed to work and as able to find solutions to work-related problems as they are themselves (McGregor, 1960). They also assume that people have an inherent preference for working rather than not working. These managers tend to push responsibility for work down the chain of command, giving employees autonomy within their areas of responsibility. They structure the workload so that employees have good opportunities to identify problems and find creative solutions to them. Theory Y managers try to set up the work environment so that employee goals coincide with organizational goals, believing that this results in greater creativity and productivity (McGregor 1967).

Managers, according to McGregor, choose between the assumptions of Theory X and Theory Y management in defining their management style. Once that choice is made, their management behaviors fall in line with the decision. A manager who chooses a Theory Y orientation will also elect to use strategies that are more collegial and more likely to transfer power to subordinates. At the very least, they will create reciprocal relationships between their employees and themselves.

This is a core component of McGregor's approach to management. Managers truly desire for employees to perform well, and, given the right environment and incentives, employees will also want to perform well. McGregor's model of motivation and management revolutionized the field of management theory. Grounded in psychological theory, a clear definition of creativity, and many years of observations, McGregor's model is persuasive, appealing, and simple (Bobic & Davis, 2003).

Since the publication of McGregor's work there have been dramatic changes in the work environment. There are four fundamental aspects of work in America that have changed, including career paths, the sense of job security, job satisfaction, and the degree to which employees prefer security to creativity. Employees today engage in an ongoing search for new jobs, even if they are satisfied with their current positions. This is clearly in contrast with McGregor's assumption that entire careers would exist within the same company.

Workers have far less security in their prospects for continued employment at any given company than they did in the 1960s and 1970s. The impact of lowered job security and less loyalty has completely changed what employees seek from jobs. When employees believe that corporations will not be loyal to them and they see no particular reason to be loyal to companies, then managers have a much more difficult time in linking individual needs to those of the companies.

Americans became more dissatisfied with their jobs throughout the 1990s. According to a Conference Board survey of five thousand households, conducted by NFO Research Incorporated, there was an 8% decline in overall job satisfaction among U.S. workers in the last half of the decade (58.6% were satisfied or very satisfied in 1995, and only 50.7% were satisfied or very satisfied by 2000 (TCB, 2000). Each of these areas of concern is important to take into consideration, but they do not truly constitute any reason to reject McGregor's Theory Y management theories.

Technological industries and the rise of Internet companies have led to a resurgence of interest in McGregor's ideas (Bennis, Heil & Stephens, 2000). These types of companies present managers with the very kinds of challenges McGregor foresaw, with employees working at home and requiring greater flexibility and more understanding from managers in order to produce the quality products that are necessary to compete in today's world. Internet companies and software companies all stress creative solutions to various business, academic, and information control issues.

Popular characterizations of those who work at such companies emphasize the free-spirited and unorthodox approach to work.

Moreover, information technology (IT) workers indicate that they are satisfied (and dissatisfied) with the very sane same things as other workers. Interestingly, they believe they are underpaid and that they lack adequate vacation time. But most IT workers seem to like their bosses and would simply appreciate somewhat clearer direction in their job assignments (Bobic & Davis, 2003).

Management the High Tech Way

No look at management values, beliefs and attitudes in the U.S. would be complete without a side-trip into what has been dubbed as the "Silicon Valley Management" (SVM) style. Ushered in by the Internet era and spawned by technology and knowledge-based businesses, it has its own set of priorities. The management style of the IT companies primarily found in the Silicon Valley in California is distinctly different from that found in most "old economy" companies (Towers, 2004).

It was actually born in companies such as Varian Associates back in the 1940's.

To attract top-flight researchers for the development of its medical linear accelerators for the treatment of cancer, Varian by forming a co-operative owned by its employees with stock option agreements. Coupling this ownership structure with an environment where employees could generate ideas without any traditional restrictions led to numerous important breakthroughs and hundreds of innovation awards.

Although Varian was initially unprofitable, it was sustained by enthusiastic employees, who eventually catapulted it into a position of world leadership. The ideas born at Varian spread quickly into the high-tech community to become a way of life that eventually characterized Silicon Valley. The stylistic difference was personified by Hewlett Packard (HP), which spelled out a new style of management in 1957 focused on team work, ownership innovation and the ability to manage rapid change and called it the HP Way.

Approaches with creative and catchy names, such as Management by Wandering Around, differed completely from traditional top-down structured management approaches, like Theory X Leadership and innovation were actively encouraged. The people working in this environment spread the new philosophy to create the global center of innovation that today powers the computer industry. The HP Way stands for respect for the individual, contribution to the customer and the community, integrity, teamwork, and innovation.

Today it is accepted wisdom that treating employees well, making sure that they are satisfied in their work and treating them with dignity are positive things. This model of doing business, fostering a risk-taking culture where penalties are attached to not trying something new, rather than for failure, has created a whole new breed of entrepreneurs who learn lessons quickly and create successful businesses.

SVM does not necessarily have all the answers. It is wise to think through the challenges and opportunities and reframe them in the appropriate context of specific personal and organizational needs.

The lessons learned from SVM are simple. The first is to trust your people. The second is to match the right people to the right jobs. The third lesson is to hire the best people, diverse and highly self-motivated. The fourth is to continually learn, especially through listening to customers. The fifth is to motivate by vision, rather than by fear. The sixth lesson is to manage through processes that can grow and evolve in response to changing customers and market forces.

The companies in the Silicon Valley, and their many offshoots in other parts of the country, provide an alternate organizational model to counterbalance the traditional, hierarchical and bureaucratic model of business.

It may not be perfect, but it offers lessons for the future (Towers, 2004).

Management Style in the Dominican Republic

History and Overview

To understand the values, beliefs and attitudes of managers in the Dominican Republic, it is helpful to have a sense of the country's history, people and culture. Dominican history departs from that of any other single country in Latin America in that it is the only country in the region to receive its independence from a neighboring country, Haiti, rather than from Spain. How Haiti came to rule the whole island is a fascinating story, as is the history of the Ta'no Indians, who were the occupants of the island at the time of Columbus' arrival.

These elements have shaped the culture of the country, and hence, the cultural framework within which managerial values, beliefs and attitudes exist. The history of the Dominican Republic is also sadly unique due to the brutality of the long dictatorship of Rafael Leonidas Trujillo. Trujillo's rule is considered among the most savage of the many tyrannical Latin American dictatorships.

Today, in the opening years of the twenty-first century, the Dominican Republic finally has a democratically elected president (Brown 1999).

As a people, Dominicans are frequently described as gregarious, kind, and generous. These admirable qualities appear to extend across racial lines and class distinctions, from rural to urban environments, and across both males and females. The past couple of decades have seen major changes in the structure of Latin American economies in general, and the Dominican Republic specifically. Privatization, trade liberalization and market deregulation have occurred cross the region. In many countries, attempts at economic and market reforms have been limited or halfhearted. In some cases they have not yet trickled down to the microeconomic level (Global Competitiveness Report, 2000).

By the end of 1989 the average per capita GDP of Latin America and the Caribbean was 8% smaller than it had been in 1980, roughly equivalent to the 1977 figures (Bonilla, 1990). According to PREALC (Programa Regional del Empleo para America Latinay y el Caribe), almost 33% of this population lived below the absolute poverty line in 1980, but by 1985, that figure had risen to 39% of the region's households. Although economic restructuring took place across all of Latin America during the 1990s, real growth in GDP per capita from 1990 to 1999 varied widely.

Cultural Values and Business

From a casual greeting to the celebration of a major religious holiday, people adhere to very specific practices in the Dominican Republic, with these customs being passed down from one generation to the next. These customs and practices clearly affect management style in the country. Generally, many Dominican customs are very like those in other Latin American countries, as well as in Spain and Portugal. What generally distinguishes Dominican customs from those of other Latin American societies are the traditions that stem directly from its unique history and the complexity of the Catholicism combined with voodoo that makes up the religion of the Dominican Republic (Brown, 1999).

Dominican customs originate from the Cibao area, which was settled by ranchers and farmers, vs. In the capital, which is a port city and more influenced by outside influences. Dominicans have traditions and a world-view that date back to Spanish colonial times. Many Dominicans, at least subconsciously, evidence a mentality that is dictated by persistent racism, conservatism, misogyny, homophobia, Euro-centrism, and upper-class bias, which reflects the pronouncements of Catholic Church leaders, mainstream politicians, and state-funded intellectuals (Torres-Saillant & Hernandez, 1998).

Dominicans typically start the workday at 8:00 AM and continue through to 5:00 PM. This schedule, reflecting the effects of international globalization, allows managers to maintain continuous communication with businesses worldwide. As recently as ten years ago, the workday began at 8:00 AM and ended at 1:00 PM, followed by a long lunch and a nap, with businesses reopening at about 4:00 PM and staying open through 8:00 PM. Although Dominicans are famous for a lack of punctuality at social affairs, they are scrupulously punctual for business activities.

Meetings quite often begin with a small delay, for which an appropriate excuse is provided, even though all attendees fully expected the delay from the beginning.

Another important element of managerial style in the Dominican Republic stems from various traits of communication that Dominicans share with their Hispanic Caribbean neighbors, the Cubans and the Puerto Ricans. Dominicans tend to gesticulate and make varied facial expressions while speaking. The use of profanity is also a well-rooted custom in the Dominican Republic. Lying is socially acceptable, as long as an oath has not been taken to uphold the lie. Dominican customs and language tend to be colorful and distinctive, lending a unique flavor to managerial style. While the widespread use of modern technology, such as the Internet, has a negative effect on the ability to preserve certain customs, those based on human relationships in the Dominican Republic appear to survive any threats of universal homogenization (Brown, 1999).

When measured against Hofstede's four dimensions of culture, Latin American cultures exhibit clear tendencies toward high power distance, collectivism, and a masculine orientation (Hofstede, 1980). (In comparison, the U.S. has lower power distance and is individualistic.) Power distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations within a country accept that power is distributed unequally. In countries with a high power distance, such as the Dominican Republic, the rules of social behavior, including the use of accepted forms of address, courtesy, and respect toward others, are critical social control mechanisms.

As a result, the values that reflect these rules are highly respected.

In Dominican society, politeness is an over-arching theme in all relationships. Although there may be a high power distance involved, even those who are fairly low on the social scale expect to be treated with respect and dignity (Hofstede, 1980).

On Hofstede's individualism/collectivism scale, Latin cultures tend to have the lowest individualism scores. In application, this means that within collectivist societies, group interests are always paramount to individual interests. In the Dominican Republic, the family is the primary group that influences individual and managerial behavior, with no institution taking precedent over the family. Therefore, there is a strong emphasis on values that parallel the interests of family (Johnson & Lenartowicz, 2003).

Looking further at collectivist societies, an individual's behavior is very much governed by social norms and obligations. The emotion of shame becomes an important aspect of social and managerial control.

Other values that are closely associated with group interests, such as maintaining good social relationships, observing the norms of behavior of society in general, and safeguarding one's family security, also ranked high in importance in the Dominican Republic. Thus, it is clear to see that managers in the Dominican Republic place a great deal of emphasis on values that serve the group interests, rather than on values that serve only individual interests (Johnson & Lenartowicz, 2003).

The strong focus of managerial style in Latin cultures on the norms of social behavior, for example, stands in stark contrast to the U.S. This attention to social norms extends far beyond the managerial elite, including employees, customers and suppliers. A hallmark of Latin American managerial style is the belief that others should be treated with dignity and respect. Managers also expect to be treated in the same way. An emphasis on the human being clearly highlights a proclivity to cultivate an extensive social network within the context of conducting business (Johnson & Lenartowicz, 2003).

It is a well-known fact that a variation in values is likely to affect workplace issues, including the delegation of authority and responsibility, motivation of employees, and compensation and reward systems. Differences in values also have an impact on marketing, such as the relationship between a firm and its vendors and distributors. The fine-tuning of these relationships is reliant on human interaction and human values. Typically, in Latin and Caribbean countries, there are very few large-scale distributors, meaning that managers must develop a large number of small, independent outlets for their products or services (Arnold and Quelch, 1998).

Using consumer retailing as an example, the limited store space available in a small market such as the Dominican Republic necessarily means that effective marketing of products through traditional methods, such as point-of-sale displays and in-store promotions, is extremely dependent upon cultivating a good relationship with retailers. This emphasis on human relationships requires an extensive investment of both time and effort. In addition, consumers' propensity to try new products, or a new brand, may rely more on general word-of-mouth and recommendations from trusted friends or family members than on the mass-market advertising techniques commonly used in the U.S.

Since Dominicans, and Latin American consumers overall, put a much greater emphasis on group-oriented values, the amount of time that a vendor's representatives must invest on a sales visit, especially on the personal aspects, certainly differs from the norm in the U.S., where these values are not as high on the scale of importance. Obviously, this will affect not only how sales representatives are trained, but also how they are managed and how exactly their performance is evaluated and rewarded (Johnson & Lenartowicz, 2003).

In many firms in the Dominican Republic, there is a clear gender division, with supervisory and professional jobs being reserved almost exclusively for men. This is partially due to the limited education of Dominican women in technical fields.

Agro-industry managers report a much higher resistance to hiring women as plant supervisors and administrators, than to be employed as technical staff (FundApec, 1992). Managers commonly echo the view that men make better bosses because they push the workers harder. This suggests that the gender hierarchy may be much more strongly rooted in managers' interest in using manipulating these cultural notions of patriarchal domination in order to maximize the labor extracted from workers (Raynolds, 1998).

Even among production workers, there is a clear division of labor by gender. In tomato processing, for instance, an approximately equal number of males and females work in production, yet women predominate in the fastest assembly line operations, where dexterity and speed are required. Women are responsible for washing and selecting the tomatoes for ripeness and color, as well as for preparing, filling, labeling, and putting the lids on the cans. On the other hand, men supervise the processing machinery and prepare and store cardboard cartons.

The only job in which men and women work together is in the washing, cooling, and boxing of the cans.

Here again, managers draw on socially enforced gender traits to explain this unequal division of labor. The clear suggestion is that tasks that can are assigned to both sexes require no particular talents. Managers go on to explain that many jobs are the exclusive domain of men because of their "greater strength and facility with machinery." Women are given certain jobs because "they are more careful and conscientious" and "are better able to coordinate rapid eye/hand movements" (Raynolds, 1998, p. 150).

These attributes are, of course, assumed and job assignments made with no regard for accurate measurement of workers' individual capabilities. Male equipment overseers are paid higher wages. Other workers are defined as "unskilled" and paid base wages, regardless of dexterity, conscientiousness, or strength.

Managers in the Dominican Republic both ideologically and economically undervalue the work done by their female employees when they describe, as a "natural" female ability, multifaceted observational capacities and stamina that are required to successfully pack variably sized produce into boxes of equal weight quickly and consistently for 12 hours at a time.