Comparison of Management Styles in Different Countries

8/3/2019 Comparison of Management Styles in Different Countries

1/31

Comparison

of

Management Styles indifferent countries

SUBMITTED TO:

SUBMITTED BY:Ms. Manpreet kaur SAKSHIKAMBOJ

MBAII (B)

ROLL. NO. 5450


2/31

School of ManagementStudies

Punjabi University, Patiala.


3/31

1.Japanese Management Style

Japan is a democratic country. Life is in many waysrestrained, stylised and formal. Strikes are legal and the

workforce does strike.In Western democratic countries pressure is exerted onthe working population, persuading and compelling themto work and to serve, by the fear of dismissal, by the fearof being unemployed and by fear of the resulting hardshipand deprivation. In Japan pressure is exerted in a differentway. For centuries the Japanese were governed by meansof a strict code of adherence to the collective will of thegroup. At home, in school, at work or at play, individualism

is frowned upon. It is the need to conform, the fear of'losing face', which motivates. If one does not conformthen one is ostracised, if one disagrees then one of thetwo parties may lose 'face' (which is 'standing') and it isthis which is to be avoided.

There is pointed and almost direct co-operation and teamwork by those at the top who put Japan's economicprogress above all else. Japan, now the third mostpowerful country in the world, is very much looking after

'Japan Incorporated' with government, owners, and otherinstitutions co-operating closely together. Profit was ofsecondary consideration to Japanese companies andshareholders accepted minute profit margins, the generalaim being 'seiko', which is 'growth'.

The Japanese do not start a project until some kind ofagreement has been reached. For example a larger capitalinvestment programme would be discussed by thecompany, by the union, by the ministry, with the banks

and of course within the enterprise. It would be discussedextensively until it takes a firm form.

The discussions within the enterprise are called 'Ringi'.The style of management would appear to be stronglyauthoritarian but paternal. The Ringi process is time-consuming and formalised but aims to involve youngerand junior employees in the decisions and in the fate ofthe company.Sharp changes are taking place in the life of the country

and in the economy and there is a felt need for speedingup the decision-making process. All decision cannot be


4/31

made at the top, delegation of authority is increasing andthe scope for independent decision-making is beingwidened. Group decision-making is being modified in thelight of increasing size and complexity of modern

organisations so that instead of a large group makingdecisions concerning a broad area of policy or operations,small groups make decisions concerning areas ofparticular concern to them and these are then approvedby their superiors. Participation in policy setting is beingdowngraded into implementing policy, and this is adowngrading of participation, of the level of decisionmaking, by employees.It seems that large and important companies are on the

whole not allowed to go bankrupt. Creditors, shareholdersand other financially interested parties all participate inthe reorganisation of the company .

To be laid off does not mean being made redundant.Workers in large companies are likely to be turned toother work or are sent home while receiving full pay andbenefits.This is on the whole soon heartily disliked by

Japanese workers who do not feel comfortable if they donot work.

There is much life-time employment in one company.Workers' homes are likely to be owned by the company,all will go on holiday together as a group. The company'sinfluence is felt in many areas of the workers' lives, loyaltyto the company is fostered (for example all companyworkers are likely to wear the same lapel badges) andconformity is expected.About one-third of the employed labour force aremembers of trade unions, distributed through somethinglike 60,000 unions, based mostly on enterprises. Suchenterprise unions negotiate primarily at the factory, site orenterprise level, although there are some negotiationsbetween national trade union federations on the one handand employers' associations on the other.Roughly three-quarters of the trade union membership arein the private sector and exercise the right to freecollective bargaining.Loyalty to the company is strong and many workersnormally strike during their lunch break, in this waymaking their opinion felt. They would not do so if it were


5/31

not effective and this implies that management takesnote.

Then there is the 'Shunto' (spring offensive) which is usedto deal with the annual wage claim by establishing an

acceptable general increase. A certain selected group ofemployees or union goes on strike. The results of thatstrike are gradually used for the bulk of the settlementsthroughout the country.

The general picture would appear to be one of democraticgovernment and authoritarian but paternal management,combined with a system of management consultation andco-operation which is sound in principle.

The cost to the Japanese of authoritarian management is

already considerable. For example, waste products weredumped over a considerable number of years by acommercial concern into the Bay of Minamata with tragicresults to many of the local population who sufferedorganic mercury poisoning in severe degree througheating polluted fish caught by the local fishermen. Fish is astaple diet. The Japanese eat fish rather than meat andfishing is a source of livelihood for many Japanese. Muchof the fish around the shores of Japan is affected by

pollution and the Japanese government has apparentlyalready issued guidelines advising people to limit theamount of fish they eat.But there are also bitter confrontations betweenemployees and employers as a result of the impact offoreign ideology. There are also demonstrations, at timesviolent, concerning popular protest issues.Leaders of left-orientated Japanese unions are said toregard co-operation with capitalists as impossible andconfront for the sake of confronting, in line with othermarxist movements.

To them it appears as if enemies cannot co-operatebecause they would be traitors to their individualideologies and they apparently eliminate dissenters fromamong their own leading personalities {17}.Seeing everything according to pre-conceived ideas,according to what one is told to do by those above, interms of black and white or right and wrong, is typical ofthe authoritarian mind. Democracy rests firmly onvoluntary co-operation between informed and


6/31

knowledgeable citizens and groups able to evaluatediffering points of view according to the situation existingat the time.Hence Japan is fairly authoritarian in its style of

management. There is little or no power sharing. Peoplehave the right to strike but striking is limited by the

Japanese equivalent of the Western fear of the sack, bypressure to conform. Hence I put Japan close to the UK butconsider it to be somewhat more authoritarian.

Japanese management emphasises the need forinformation flow from the bottom of the company to the

top. This results in senior management having a largelysupervisory rather than 'hands-on' approach. As a result, ithas been noted that policy is often originated at themiddle-levels of a company before being passed upwardsfor ratification.

The strength of this approach is obviously that thosetasked with the implementation of decisions have beenactively involved in the shaping of policy.The higher a

Japanese manager rises within an organisation, the moreimportant it is that he appears unassuming andunambitious. Individual personality and forcefulness arenot seen as the prerequisites for effective leadership.

The key task for a Japanese manager is to provide theenvironment in which the group can flourish. In order toachieve this he must be accessible at all times and willingto share knowledge within the group. In return for thisopen approach, he expects team members to keep himfully informed of developments. This reciprocity ofrelationship forms the basis of good management andteamwork.

Japan as it stands today, is due to the efforts of Japanesepeople who were smart enough to adopt the foreigntechnology and management philosophy and developsuitable technological and management systems that canbe effectively and efficiently applied for the developmentof the country.


7/31

Special Features:

The Special features of Japanese management practices

can be broadly classified into two areas People-oriented, and Work-oriented.

The Japanese style of People-oriented managementpractices mainly focus o personnel and human resourcesmanagement aspects like the life-time employment, theseniority system and the groupism where as the workoriented management practices manly focus onProduction and engineering functions which include, the

just-in Time production system, the subcontracting andthe Quality control. These specific features of Japanesestyle of management have been developed as aresult of the socio-cultural characteristics of Japanesesociety, which has largely contributed to the built upcompetitiveness of the Japanese companies leading tomake Japan a super-economic power in the world.

Corporate Structure:

The top-management in Japanese companies has anextremely closed structure. Although two or threedirectors may be invited to join the company from outside,in most cases, directors are appointed from within thecompany's former management level-staff. Moreover,employees are not considered to be consumable physicalresources, but as important corporate members in thecorporate structure.

Company Strategy:The distinctive characteristics of the strategies that mostof the Japanese companies adopt as:

Investment in equipment and human resources development for long-term profit,

Quality or customer oriented decision,Bottom-up problem solving rather than top-down

command,Continuously improving products rather than

developing innovative new products,Improving market share for long term profit, and


8/31

Providing importance to process rather than results.

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENTPRACTICES IN JAPAN

The personnel and human resources managementpractices of Japanese companies are mainly orientedtowards people and their development. There are somespecific characteristics, which are not found in thetraditional western management system.Some of these distinct characteristics are the life timeemployment, seniority based promotion and wage systemand groupism.

Lifetime Employment:The lifetime employment system involves hiring peoplewho have just graduated a high rate of stability amongemployees and guaranteeing work until the mandatoryretirement age. The system is oriented towards humanrelations, human development and training guaranteedemployment, equality, participation and welfare. Thus, ina Japanese company, employees are "born", and developin terms of work.

Seniority based promotion and wage system:The promotion from lower level to immediate higher levelis mostly based on seniority. However, the pace ofpromotion is very slow though. It does not mean to saythat promotion does not take account of performanceevaluation and qualification of the employee. Higherweight age is given to senior person, or on the number ofyears he or she has worked with the company. Wagestructure is also based on seniority.

Groupism:The special cultural quality of Japanese society has a greatdeal of impact on the Japanese management practices.

The typical Japanese ways of thinking "Uchi" (insider) and"Soto" (outsider) is actually practiced in Japanesemanagement system. The special character of "WE" isvery strong in Japanese companies.

2. UK Management Style


9/31

The Industrial Relations Act came into effect in 1971. This made'unofficial' strikes illegal and in this way transferred the responsibility fordeciding whether to strike or not from the men on the spot, that is fromtheir elected shop steward, to the union head office official. Agreementsbetween management and unions became enforceable at law whichmeant damages could be claimed, it being possible to prosecuteunofficial strike leaders.

Before the Act there was no legal limitation to the right to strike butownership was private so that the UK occupied roughly position 1 onthe scale (see Figure 6e).

I am told that the Industrial Relations Act was somewhat tougher thanthe corresponding Taft-Hartley Act but not as severe as Australia'scompulsory arbitration. Hence with the passing of the IndustrialRelations Act, the United Kingdom moved from position 1 to position 2.

What happened then was predictable and devastating.

A good deal of pressure had been used to have the Act passed.Unemployment seemingly had been allowed to rise from about 300,000to about the 1 million mark and there had been much reporting of strikeswhich stressed that there were many strikes and that many of themwere 'unofficial' or 'wildcat' strikes. The name 'wildcat' is but anothername for an unofficial strike. Clearly there were many strikes and weseemed to have relatively more strikes than countries such as Australiaand America.

But when the Act came into force there began a bitter struggle betweenthe working population and those who run the country, a hard and toughstruggle which year by year increased in severity and in extent. It was insome ways a most remarkable conflict, its major confrontations takingplace in winter after winter in increasing order of severity. Winter is thesensitive time for Britain, heating is necessary for comfort and there wascountrywide confrontation with each winter more and more industriesand services becoming involved on a nation-wide scale. The Post Officewas affected, followed by the supply of gas, electricity, the docks andcoal.

The government, deeply involved in this confrontation, was findingloopholes to prevent strike leaders from either winning their cases in thecourts or else from becoming popular heroes. It still continued to battlewith the miners three months after oil prices had been vastly increasedand threatened the economic independence of the country.


10/31

Such a fierce, fundamental and protracted confrontation involvingdirectly and indirectly the well-being and comfort of probably the wholepopulation of the country would not have taken place about a mattersuch as whether an agreement was binding on the parties, was legallyenforceable. What then was the point at issue between them?

Management and worker representatives in the United Kingdom aretrained to negotiate, form agreements and stick to them. Bargainingmay be hard and prolonged but in the end you can only work withpeople you can trust and that means with people whose word meanssomething. Agreements reached at the end of the bargaining processwere on the whole being implemented and maintained unless there wasgood reason to do otherwise.

There are a few, some small percentage, who believe in conflict andconfrontation for its own sake. They see it as an end in itself. It is theywho may break their word and who could fail to maintain the bargainsthey have struck. Restraining them by law would not have caused thiskind of battle and confrontation.

Clearly a very fundamental and most important basic right and freedomwas at stake.

In addition, the effect the Industrial Relations Act would have wasknown in advance. The introduction of similar legislation in the UnitedStates and Australia had, of course, drastically reduced the number ofstrikes. Unofficial strikes were out, strikes recognised and set by unionheadquarters were in. A large number of relatively small strikes, inindividual factories all across the country, had been replaced by nation-wide confrontation, by whole industries being shut down at the sametime. In the United States it isn't just one little or even one large dock orharbour which is immobilised due to strike, it is just about the wholeseaboard which is shut down. Replacing the large number of smallstrikes by the few countrywide ones increased the economic damagedone enormously, multiplying it by about four.

This is what happened in the United Kingdom. The number of strikeswere reduced drastically but the economic damage caused by the fewerbut countrywide strikes was multiplied by a factor of four or even more.In the end much of Britain's industry was working a three-day week.

Those who managed the country were prepared to face this kind ofheavy loss, this kind of damage to the economy of the country and to itswell-being. From their point of view also, what was at stake was a basicshift in the balance between the authority and power of those who workas compared with the authority and power of those who run the country.


11/31

The slave has to work whether he likes it or not, the free man maywithdraw his labour. What was at stake was a most essential right andfreedom, the right of every ordinary worker to withdraw his labour, to goon strike.

The enterprise may be located anywhere in the country, away from thecapital. Union head office or the local officials are too busy doingwhatever they are doing to sort out the local grievances. In the end themen put pressure on their shop steward and strike. This is an 'unofficial'strike, which means that it has not been recognised by the head officeof the union. It is a relatively small strike affecting only a few people inthe locality. The strike may then receive publicity in the nationalnewspapers and a union negotiator or official dashes to the scene, sortsout the grievances, negotiates an agreed settlement or at least getsnegotiations going. The strike is over. The men have succeeded inbringing their grievances to the notice of both union and managementand negotiations are proceeding.

An unofficial strike is not just a way of getting management to thenegotiating table, of impressing management with the strength of feelingabout a particular grievance. It is also a way of getting the unionestablishment to act for the membership. The union establishment, farremoved from the membership, is far too often too busy pronouncingabout politics, economics, the state of the country and the world, winingand dining with members of the establishment on the other side and so'sorting out' abstract vague general matters which could not be furtherremoved from the problems of the workplace.

The shop steward is elected by the workforce, he represents theworking people in their place of work, he talks for them to themanagement, he negotiates for them, it is he who is backed by theunion in the work that he is doing. And generally, although there are afew exceptions, he exercises a restraining influence and it is pressurefrom the working people which pushes him into open confrontation, intoleading them in strike.

This then is the central, relevant and utterly important issue at the rootof the confrontation. The Industrial Relations Act and any similarlegislation takes away the right to strike from the working population andgives it to the union establishment, takes away from them the ability todecide their own course of action, to agree voluntarily to work for theemployer or to decide when to withdraw their labour, takes away fromthe working population the ability to make their voice heard, the powerto express their opinion, the power to influence events, to negotiate in

their own interest.


12/31

The Industrial Relations Act took away power from the ordinary workingpeople and gave it to a few people at the top of the union establishment.It replaced upward flowing authority (from the people) by downwardflowing authority (from the top). It removed and destroyed a basicfreedom by taking the power to withdraw their labour away from theworkforce. It did not just limit the right to strike, it took it away from theworkforce and together with the corresponding authority and powergave it to the few people at the top, to the establishment.

The result of the ensuing confrontation and struggle was that theIndustrial Relations Act was repealed and other legislation took itsplace. This brought back the right to strike but the 'closed-shop'provisions compelled the worker to belong to the union if he wished towork. It gave the union and thus its establishment the power to decidewho should work and who should not. The changes would thus seem tohave been aimed at increasing the power of the establishment ratherthan that of the workforce and its elected representatives.

Hence it would seem in this case that movement along the scale,towards greater freedom to withdraw one's labour, was countered bygiving greater power to the union's establishment. One is left with theimpression that the style of management moved further towards a moreauthoritarian style of management, under a supposedly pro-Labourgovernment.

Style ofManagement in

Individual Countries

The left wing opposes co-operation and opposes the appointment ofworker directors. Increasing nationalisation means increased stateownership and generally results in greater centralisation and moreauthoritarian management. But the Post Office unions have shared outamong themselves worker-directorships on the Post Office board, bothon the main board and on the eleven regional boards, this being a two-year experiment in union participation.

The material point is not whether it is a left wing or right wingdictatorship but whether and to what extent it is a dictatorship. What
http://www.solhaam.org/images/cl2fig06.html


13/31

matters is whether management is authoritarian or participative. That is,what matters is whether the people are free or whether they areoppressed, whether they have the right to strike and whether they canexercise this right.

Being a Manager in United Kingdom

To ensure successful cross cultural management should treat all peoplewith respect and deference and to not waste anyone's time. This meansthat you should arrive at meetings prepared and ready to discuss thematter at hand. Expect your British colleagues to not be very emotivewith their facial expressions and word choices. And keep in mind, theBritish are known for their dry wit.

In the UK, even though traditional organizations may be somewhathierarchical, there is a sense that most people in the company have animportant role to play and are valued for their input. Therefore,managers lose no respect by consulting employees to gatherbackground information and or by sharing the decision-making process.More and more often, employees expect to be consulted on decisionsthat affect them and the greater good of the organization, and not doingso may have a negative impact on moral for those who want to feelresponsible for the success of the organization.

The Role of a ManagerCross cultural communication will be more effective when working inUnited Kingdom when you remember that the most productivemanagers in United Kingdom recognize and value the specializedknowledge that employees at all levels bring. Employees expect to beconsulted on decisions that affect them and the greater good of theorganization.

Approach to Change

The United Kingdoms intercultural adaptability and readiness forchange is developing all the time. United Kingdom is seen to have amedium tolerance for change and risk. It is important for innovations tohave a track record or history noting the benefits if they are to beaccepted and implemented.

The fear of exposure, and the potential of embarrassment that mayaccompany failure, brings about aversion to risk and the need tothoroughly examine the potential negative implications so some

intercultural sensitivity may be required.


14/31

Approach to Time and Priorities

The UK is a controlled-time culture. Global and intercultural expansionhas meant that adherence to schedules is important and expected.

Missing a deadline is a sign of poor management and inefficiency, andwill shake peoples confidence. People in controlled-time cultures tendto have their time highly scheduled, and its generally a good idea toprovide and adhere to performance milestones. Since Brits respectschedules and deadlines, it is not unusual for managers to expectpeople to work late in order to meet target deadlines. Successfulintercultural management will depend on the individuals ability to meetdeadlines.

Decision Making

The management style in the United Kingdom is undergoing ametamorphosis, so you will find a variety of styles. In old-linebusinesses, the managing directors are the overall decision-makers.

In other industries, managers strive for consensus and make aconcerted attempt to get everyone's input before a decision is reached.The manager may still make the ultimate decision, after consultationwith the staff.

Teamwork is becoming increasingly important in most organizations.Brits believe the best ideas and solutions often come from having manystakeholders meet to discuss an issue. They also prefer for the highest-ranking person to make the decision (and then perhaps clear it withsomeone at a higher level), so decision-making can be laborious.

British managers will praise employees, although not generally in public.Subordinates expect their efforts to be recognized and rewarded. MostBritish are suspicious if praise is excessive or undeserved.

Boss or Team Player

In United Kingdom, groups collaborate well together as teams.Members are generally chosen to participate based on tangible skills orthe knowledge base they bring, and are equally welcome to contributeto any discussion that may arise. They are encouraged to generate newideas that may further the direction of the plan or spawn a new trackentirely. In successful, dynamic teams, all members are valued for theiractual and potential contribution, and all are treated with equal respect.


15/31

Communication and Negotiation Styles

Communication will be direct and reserved. Avoid confrontationalbehaviour or high-pressure tactics. Avoid displays of emotion and do

not argue on the basis of feelings. Decision-making is slow anddeliberate and so patience may be a necessary cross cultural attribute.It is a good idea to send a letter summarizing what was decided andwhat the next steps are.

3. USA Management Style

The United States is a democratic country and it is more difficult todetermine to what extent authority is centred at the top and to whatextent it is balanced by the authority of the working populationexercising their power through the withdrawal of their labour. The Taft-Hartly Act limits the right to strike, seemingly shifting responsibility fordeclaring a strike from the factory floor to the union head office. A

cooling-off period may be ordered which delays the beginning of a strikeby some months, in this way giving management and workers anotherchance to negotiate an agreement before engaging in openconfrontation, giving both sides another chance to avoid large scalenational economic damage which could otherwise arise.

The relative position of one country with respect to another on the scaleseems fairly clear. The right to strike exists and is openly used but theright to strike is limited. Ownership is in private hands rather than in thehands of the state as in Russia and so we place the USA a good bit

further towards the participative style of management, roughly just overhalf of the way along the scale towards participative management.


16/31

American management style can be described as individualistic inapproach, in so far as managers are accountable for the decisionsmade within their areas of responsibility. Although important decisionsmight be discussed in open forum, the ultimate responsibility for theconsequences of the decision lies with the boss support or seemingconsensus will evaporate when things go wrong. The up side of thisaccountability is, of course, the American dream that outstandingsuccess will inevitably bring outstanding rewards.

Therefore, American managers are more likely to disregard the opinionsof subordinates than managers in other, more consensus orcompromise- oriented cultures. This can obviously lead to frustrations,which can sometimes seem to boil over in meeting situations.

Being a Manager in United States

To ensure successful cross cultural management when working in theU.S., it is safest to treat all people with an equal amount of respect anddeference (within the informal framework of America, in general), focuson schedules and maximizing time, and expect that people will want tobe dealt with as individuals.

In the U.S. there is a sense that all people in the organization have animportant role to play and all are valued for their input. Therefore,managers consult employees to gather background information andoften have them share in the decision-making process.

The American working environment has changed drastically. With oneeye on costs and the other on retention, employers are increasinglyoffering part-time or shared jobs, or outsourcing to external contractors.Change is constant as companies are restructured, work teams become"virtual," and flexible work arrangements become more common.

The Role of a ManagerCross cultural communication will be more effective when working inUnited States when you remember that the most productive managersin United States recognize and value the specialized knowledge thatemployees at all levels bring. Employees expect to be consulted ondecisions that affect them and the greater good of the organization.

Approach to Change

Cross cultural management is more likely to succeed if you understandthat businesses in the U.S. have a high tolerance for risk and a ready


17/31

acceptance for change. The underlying mindset is that change, whiledifficult, usually brings improvements and enhancements with it.


The U.S. is a controlled-time culture. Global and intercultural expansionhas meant adherence to schedules is important and expected. Missinga deadline is a sign of poor management and inefficiency, and willshake peoples confidence. Successful intercultural management willdepend on the individuals ability to meet deadlines.

Decision Making

American managers are viewed as facilitators--people who help

employees do their best work--and not simply decision makers. Theyempower employees and expect them to take responsibility.

Employees freely cross management levels and speak directly to seniormanagers. This freedom is particularly apparent at meetings, whereeveryone in attendance is encouraged to participate openly.

Boss or Team Player

Cross cultural management is more likely to succeed if you understand

the mindset behind the work force. In The United States, groupscollaborate well together as teams. Members are generally chosen toparticipate based on tangible skills or the knowledge base they bring,and are equally welcome to contribute to any discussion that may arise.They are encouraged to generate new ideas that may further thedirection of the plan or spawn a new track entirely. In successful,dynamic teams, all members are valued for their actual and potentialcontribution, and all are treated with equal respect.


The American negotiating style tends to be a "hard sell"sometimescharacterised as sledgehammer subtlety combined with missionaryzeal. A strong pitch may sound boastful but is meant to inspireconfidence and trust. It is also consistent with the penchant for logicalreasoning, directness and comfort with self-promotion.

American negotiators may have little familiarity with, or patience for, theformal business protocol, indirect communication style, or consensualdecision-making practices of other countries (a fact that savvy

international negotiators often use to their advantage). Their focus is onthe short term and the "big picture" --securing the best deal in a timely


18/31

manner. Their approach is informal, cordial and straightforward. TheU.S. team will reveal its position and expect the other party to engage ina competitive bargaining process. If an impasse is reached, Americantenacity, creativity, and persuasiveness will come to the fore. Despitethe "hard sell" tactics, negotiating partners should not feel pressuredinto making a decision. The Americans expect their counterparts acrossthe table to be similarly pragmatic and single-minded in trying to securea favourable deal.

4. Indian Management Style

Being a Manager in India

To ensure successful cross cultural management in India, you need beaware of the strict protocols and rituals that exist. The official castesystem may be illegal, but a strong hierarchical structure, based upon

job title, still exists in business.

When managing in India, it is important to keep in mind that eachperson has a very distinct role within the organization, and maintainingthat role helps to keep order.

The Role of a Manager

In India, as in other hierarchical societies, managers may take asomewhat paternalistic attitude to their employees. They maydemonstrate a concern for employees that goes beyond the workplace.This may include involvement in their family, housing, health, and otherpractical life issues.

It is the supervisors job to regularly check on the work of a subordinateand to provide regular constructive feedback. This may include

monitoring work quality and the timing of its completion.


19/31

Approach to Change

Indias intercultural adaptability and readiness for change is developingall the time. India is seen to have a medium tolerance for change and

risk. It is important for innovations to have a track record or historynoting the benefits if they are to be accepted and implemented.

Failure in India causes a long-term loss of confidence by the individualas well as by others. Because of this attitude, intercultural sensitivity isgoing to be required, especially when conducting group meetings anddiscussing contributions made my participating individuals.


Indians are generally quite careful about time guidelines in businesssituations where schedules and deadlines are regarded seriously. Inaddition, however, Indian society is concerned with relationships sothere may be instances where there is some flexibility to strict standardsof adhering to schedules. When working with people from India, itsadvisable to reinforce the importance of the agreed-upon deadlines andhow that may affect the rest of the organization. Successful crosscultural management will depend on the individuals ability to meetdeadlines.

Global and intercultural expansion means that some managers mayhave a greater appreciation of the need to enforce timescales and assuch, agreed deadlines are more likely to be met.

Decision Making

The culture in India is very relationship and group-oriented, so a strongemphasis is placed on maintaining harmony and proper lines ofauthority in the workplace. Some Indians, however, are extremelydirect, in which case you can deal with them in the same way.

The manager makes decisions and accepts responsibility for workperformed by subordinates. The middle manager may consult withsubordinates before reaching a decision, although it is more likely thathe will confer with trusted advisors or relatives.

To ensure successful cross cultural management, you will need to bearin mind the importance of people in the office maintaining the properbehaviour relative to their position. For instance, it would beinappropriate for a manager to make copies or move a piece of furniture

because these are tasks that lower level people do. To engage inbehaviour beneath you would lower your esteem in the office.


20/31

Boss or Team Player

If you are working in India, it is important to remember that honour andreputation play an important role. The risk becomes amplified in a team

or collaborative setting. When meeting together and moderating ideas,intercultural sensitivity is necessary. It is important to qualify ideas thatare raised in a gentle manner, protecting the reputation of thosebringing up ideas, so no one is shamed.


Cross cultural management will be more effective if you understand theimportance of personal relationships. They are crucial to conductingbusiness and are based on respect and trust. It takes time to develop a

comfortable working relationship and you will need patience andperseverance.

Indians are non-confrontational. It is rare for them to overtly disagree,although this is beginning to change in the managerial ranks. Decisionsare reached by the person with the most authority but reaching thatdecision can be a slow process. Never appear over legalistic innegotiations; in general Indians do not trust the legal system andsomeones word is sufficient to reach an agreement. Successfulnegotiations may be celebrated over a meal.

India is an enormously hierarchical society and this, obviously, has animpact on management style. It is imperative that there is a boss andthat the manager acts like a boss. The position of manager demands acertain amount of role-playing from the boss and a certain amount ofdeferential behavior from his subordinates Anglo-Saxon concepts ofegalitarianism where the boss is the primus-inter-pares are virtuallyincomprehensible in a society still dominated by the historicalconventions of the caste system Managing people in India requires alevel of micro-management which many western business people feel

extremely uncomfortable with but, which is likely to bring the bestresults.


21/31


22/31

Any Chinese institution down to a primary school or small factory hadbeen run by a revolutionary committee consisting of veteranadministrators, representatives of the younger staff and often militarymen as well. But during the previous few years they had been used tochallenge the parallel party committees. It seems that the presentleadership is emphasising control by communist party committees at alllevels and it seems that the lower-level revolutionary committees, suchas those in schools and factories, are to be abolished.

The lives of all citizens are in the hands of the state and it seems thatthe Chinese worker lives all his life inside his commune and that thequality of life - how well he is treated - depends largely on theleadership of the commune.

The Chinese worker has apparently {l6} to live where he is told to live,has to work where he is told to work, has to do what he is told to do.One has to ask for permission to leave one's work and for permission totravel.

Families are normally given food coupons which are valid only in theirown province. But if one wants to travel one must also get national foodcoupons to buy food elsewhere.

Since then more protesting voices have been heard and there havebeen some demonstrations. But there have also been subsequent trialsand heavy punishment for some outspoken dissidents who disagreedwith the 'official' point of view.

But there has been no news of people in fact being able to strike freelyas and when they want to or of successful demonstrations or strikes.

On the whole there is little if any indication that the standard of living isincreasing or that any protests or strikes have had impact or causedchange.

And now we have to place China on the scale of style of management.Before the l975 constitution there was no problem. Authority clearlycentred at the top, strikes illegal, China placed right on the vertical lineof completely authoritarian management (see Figure 6h, position 1).Following the l975 constitution there were strikes, and people were ableto express their feelings through posters. There was discussion and anattempt was made to create a system of self-management whichapparently rested on the people and paralleled the party controlstructure. It would seem to have been a move towards self-management and freedom, shown by the move from position 1 toposition 2.


23/31

It seems to me that the movement was then reversed and that theChinese people allowed themselves to be pushed back from position 2to say position 3.

Overall it would seem after this backsliding towards more authoritariangovernment that China moved again a little towards a more participativeform of government since there have been protests, since there havebeen demonstrations and strikes although so far they have been few innumber and have not as yet produced noticeable change. Thismovement is indicated by the move from position 3 to position 4.

Being a Manager in China

The first thing you will notice when doing business in China is that allissues are looked at from the same vantage point - how will this benefitChina or Chinese business. The Chinese always want to know whatyour company can do that they cannot already do for themselves.

Communication is both formal and indirect. Since China is an extremelyhomogeneous country, there is much that can be said without usingwords. Cross cultural communication can often be difficult aswesterners find it difficult to appreciate the subtleties of certainsituations.


Successful cross cultural management in China is more likely if youbear in mind that each person has a very distinct role within theorganization, and maintaining that role helps to keep order.

In general, the manager may function autocratically and dictate to hissubordinates. At the same time, managers will not compliment orchastise an employee publicly. In fact, should they want tocommunicate bad news to their employees, they might use anintermediary.

Approach to Change

Whereas China has traditionally had a medium tolerance for changeand risk its intercultural adaptability is rapidly improving due to theincreasing demands of the global marketplace.


24/31

In the more traditional companies cross cultural sensitivity is essentialas the fear of exposure, and the potential of embarrassment that mayaccompany failure, still brings about aversion to risk. Any ideas raisedby an individual need to be raised gently to avoid exposing that person.


China is a moderate time culture and typically there may be someflexibility to strict adherence to schedules and deadlines. Nevertheless,the expectations of global and intercultural expansion have caused theChinese to adopt relatively strict standards of adhering to schedules.

Decision Making

Effective cross cultural management needs to bear in mind thehierarchy of this culture. There may be informal networking betweenemployees themselves or supervisors and employees, although actualpower is generally held in the hands of a few key people at the top ofthe organization.

Although changing, China's ingrained bureaucracy is still evident ingovernment offices and all but the most entrepreneurial companies.Departments tend to work quite independently of each other and onlyshare selected information. Rivalries often exist within the same

company.

Boss or Team Player

In China there is a significant deference to authority and generally aninhibition to speaking out. This may be a particular challenge in acollaborative or team environment. More recently, this trait has beenchanging in the younger generations who have found employment inmultinational companies and have embraced the idea of teamwork andparticipation.


Make sure you bring along a senior level executive to be part of thenegotiating team. The Chinese will enter a room based on rank and youmust make sure you do the same. Only the most senior person willspeak during discussions.

Cross cultural success is more likely if you are aware of some of thenegotiating tactics that are often deployed. These can include using

silence to put pressure on you to concede points and delayingeverything until the last minute so that you feel pressured to push things


25/31

through quickly. It is worth maintaining your composure at these times.Under no circumstances should you lose your temper or you will loseface and irrevocably damage your relationship.

Avoid cross cultural miscommunication by ensuring written material isavailable in both English and Chinese, using simplified characters andtry to phrase your questions so that they require more than a yes or noresponse. This will allow you to make certain you were understood.

It is imperative in writing contracts to have independent legal advicefrom someone intimately familiar with the business environment inChina. Spell out everything.

Do not overlook national laws and be extremely cautious about thoseyou are choosing to do business with. It is worth checking the financial

status of all related companies.

China management style tends to follow Confucian philosophy:Relationships are deemed to be unequal and ethical behavior demandsthat these inequalities are respected: Older person should automaticallyreceive respect from the younger, the senior from the subordinate. Thisis the cornerstone of all the China management thinking and issuessuch as empowerment and open access to all information are viewedby the Chinese as, at best, bizarre Western notions Management isdirective, with the senior manager giving instructions to their directreports who in turn pass on the instructions down the line. Subordinatesdo not question the decisions of superiors that would be to showdisrespect and be the direct cause of loss of face (mianzi) for allconcerned.

CROSS-CULTURAL TRAININGIN CHINA

There is limited literature that addresses the issue of cross-culturaltraining in China. A number of researchers have attempted to

categorise the content of cross-cultural training programmes (Tung,1981; Early, 1987; Mendenhall and Oddou, 1985). For example, withregards to training programmes, five key issues are identified: areastudies, cultural assimilation, language preparation, sensitivity training,and field experience. For example, area studies include usefulgeographical and demographic business information; culturalassimilation involves an introduction to business theories and culturalpractices; language preparation considers the wider aspects ofbusiness language and communication; sensitivity training illustratesinterpersonal skills, e.g. in the interaction between employees and

customers; and field experience tests theories and practices in the work


26/31

place and supported by study visits to overseas sites on a regular basiswith a view to improving overall managerial performance.

Mendenhall and Oddou (1985) go further to offer a three-stagemethodology including information giving, affective and immersion. Ananalysis of the above builds on Brislins (1979) model which classifiescross-cultural training methods into three types: cognitive (the learningof information and skills from lecture-type non-participatory lessons),affective (the learning of cultural insights through techniques that raiseaffective responses including culture assimilator training, role-play, andcase study), and behavioural/Experiential (programmes involvingsensitivity training, field experience, simulations).

Some elements of the cross-cultural training framework have beenadopted by the case (which will be discussed in the next Section).Nevertheless, the training framework is not panacea. The success of itsapplication to any multi-national corporations, such as Tasty Food Ltd,is contingent upon the commitment of the management and the extentof its integration into the overall human resource strategy. The presentcase has shown the complexity of the problems in the implication oftheir training framework.


27/31

6. Turkey Management Style

Being a Manager in Turkey

The business set up in Turkey is very formal and cross culturalmanagement will be more successful if you bear in mind the importanceof being courteous at all times. In other words, in business it is crucialthat you treat people formally and with proper respect and deference.This includes using titles and surnames and the plural word for you("siz") when addressing someone of a higher status or someone withwhom you do not have a close relationship. Let your Turkish business

colleagues determine when your friendship has progressed to the pointwhere you may use the singular form. Turks are polite and formal intheir business dealings, at least until a personal relationship has beendeveloped. Good manners and proper etiquette are seen as a symbol ofgood breeding.

Proceed slowly and cautiously. Traditional attitudes abound under acosmopolitan veneer. Many businesspeople are not as westernized asthey first appear.


Cross cultural communication will be more effective when managing inTurkey, if you keep it in mind that each person has a very distinct rolewithin the organization.

In Turkey, as in other hierarchical societies, managers may take asomewhat paternalistic attitude to their employees. They maydemonstrate a concern for employees that goes beyond the workplace.

Approach to Change

Turkeys intercultural adaptability and readiness for change is apparentalthough changes are still made slowly, requiring a considerableamount of thought, planning and evaluation. It would be perceived asimprudent to introduce rapid change, and yet it would be recognized aspoor management to resist change unnecessarily.

Cross cultural sensitivity is important with Turkeys attitude toward riskdramatically impacted by the negative ramifications of failure on both

the individual and the group.


28/31


Deadlines and timescales are fluid in Turkey. Patience will play anessential part in successful cross cultural management.

While timescales and deadlines need to be set well in advance andreiterated carefully, it should be understood that these will be viewed asflexible.

Global and intercultural expansion means that some managers mayhave a greater appreciation of the need to enforce timescales and assuch, agreed deadlines are more likely to be met.

Decision Making

Turkish business is hierarchical and the management style tends to bemore autocratic than the western style of leadership. Social classdistinctions exist in business, since the higher echelons generally comefrom the upper class. Managers tell subordinates what they want done.They do not attempt to reach a consensus. Managers often treat theirsubordinates as they would their extended family.

The way one dresses is considered indicative of their seriousnesstowards work. Subordinates are expected to wear their jackets buttoned

when in the presence of their manager or anyone above them in status.They are also expected to open doors for their superiors and standwhen their superiors enter the room, in much the same way youngpeople are expected to behave to older people in social situations.

Boss or Team Player

Cross cultural knowledge and understanding of the hierarchical systemis essential. Successful intercultural management will understand theimportance of maintaining their positions of authority. Subordinates are

expected to open doors for their superiors and stand when theirsuperiors enter the room, in much the same way young people areexpected to behave to older people in social situations.


Personal relationships are the foundation for a successful businessrelationship. There will be a great deal of small talk before getting downto the business discussion. Patience may be a necessary cross culturalattribute. Never appear impatient or attempt to rush a Turk to make a

decision. This is a hierarchical society where decisions are reached atthe top of the company. Expect a great deal of bargaining and haggling.


29/31

Turks are tough negotiators. High-pressure sales tactics may be used. Itis a good idea to hire an interpreter unless you are certain of the Englishlanguage proficiency of the people you will be meeting in order to avoidany possible cross cultural miscommunication. There are intricate rulesgoverning taxation, permits, and procedures. Be certain you haveeverything lined up properly.


30/31

7. The Middle East ManagementStyle

The Middle East

Before discussing the Middle East as a region it is important to bear twothings in mind. Firstly the Middle East is not a homogenous region. Thearea is not solely populated by Arabs but also Kurds, Turks, Iraniansand more. In addition it not only inhabited by Muslims. There are manymanifestations of Islam across the region that lives alongsideChristianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism.

Relationship Driven Cultures

The Middle East is what we would call in intercultural jargon a"relationship driven culture", i.e. personal relationships form the basis ofsocial (and business) interaction. Relationship driven cultures usuallyhave the following traits:

1. Collectivist - this means that in such cultures the "we" takesprecedence over the "I". This group mentality means the interests,

opinions and decisions of the group carry much more weight than thatof the individual.

2.The Family - the family or tribe takes central focus in daily life. Insuch cultures very tight relationships are built with a small group ofpeople whereas in more individual cultures people tend to have looserelationships with many people. Such family centred cultures tend to putthe interests of the family first. Manifestations of this are that nepotismis seen as natural and protecting the honour of the family is a very highpriority.

3. Hierarchy- a hierarchical society it used to levels of authority. Agood example of how a hierarchical society differs to a more level one isin management styles. In less hierarchical cultures a subordinate isexpected to use initiative, share in the decision making process, cansay "no" to the boss and most of the time has an informal relationshipwith the boss. In hierarchical societies the boss takes sole controlbecause that is what they are paid for. Staff will expect explicit ordersand guidance, meetings will be where decisions are implemented ratherthan discussed and very formal relationships exist with the boss.


31/31

4. Honour/Shame/Face - In relationship driven cultures there isusually an emphasis on maintaining face, i.e. upholding the family/tribalhonour. As a result there are usually very complex rules of engagementand communication styles. For example in the Middle East, saying "no"or blatantly disagreeing with people is not usually done in order to savepeople's face. We therefore see a lot of "beating about the bush" aspeople try to phrase sentiments in a way that does not make someonelose face. A simple example would be that instead of "no" you may get"I will try", "Let's do our best" or "God willing".

5. Networks - due to such cultures relying on bonds and relationships,networks are usually the way things get done. An intricate means offavours and reciprocation are part of daily life, from being introduced tothe right people or getting past red tape. Being part of a network givesyou access to resources.

6. Consensus - in hierarchical societies decisions are usually made ona group basis. Although in the Middle East final decision making isusually made by the head of the family or tribe, there is still a level ofconsultation with others called "shura". Shura means surveying theopinions of those who are most knowledgeable in order to reach adecision that is best. Therefore within the business world it is importantnot to only concentrate on building relationships with decision makersbut also those that advise them.

Documents

Comparison of Management Styles in Different Countries