 |
| Source: http://www.cartoonstock.com/ |
In order to understand the dynamics of management styles and leadership, it is requeried to know the concepts involved.
Management: "Organization and coordination of the activities of an enterprise in accordance with certain policies and in achievement of clearly defined objectives. Management is often included as a factor of production along with machines, materials, and money. According to the management guru Peter Drucker (1909-2005), the basic task of a management is twofold: marketing and innovation. Practice of modern management owes its origin to the 16th century enquiry into low-efficiency and failures of certain enterprises, conducted by the English statesman Sir Thomas More (1478-1535)." http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/management.html#ixzz0z5PZirkI
Leadership: "Has been described as the "process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task." Definitions more inclusive of followers have also emerged. Alan Keith stated that, "Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen." Tom DeMarco says that leadership needs to be distinguished from posturing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership
Management Style: "Management styles are characteristic ways of making decisions and relating to subordinates. Different management styles can be employed dependent on the culture of the business, the nature of the task, the nature of the workforce and the personality and skills of the leaders. This idea was further developed by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt (1958, 1973)[1] who argued that the style of leadership is dependent upon the prevailing circumstance; therefore leaders should exercise a range of management styles and should deploy them as appropriate.."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_styles
"Issues of cross-national differences in management have long been discused in the management literature. (Adler, Doktor and Redding 1986; Hofstede 1980). Yet the debate has been couched in a contrast of two polar opposites. One, often labeled convergence, assumes that as countries develop, management systems will converge to a model found in developed countries. The other, the comparative cultural approach, is based on the assumption that a wider set of cultural norms in each society is a powerful force for differentiation across borders. These wider societal norms force business organizations to develop a set of management styles and institutions that match the internal environment."( Lee, Jangho, Thomas W. Roehl, & Soonkyoo Choe. 2000. What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct Across Borders? Growth, Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 631).
I want to share this video in order to show how management styles differs from one organization to another or simply from one boss to another. Nevertheless, management styles are not only different because of the purpose of an organization or the way CEOS manage their companies, but different cultures use to have different management styles that are discussed later on.
 |
| Source: http://www.polyvore.com/business/collection?id=85532 |
Management Styles - Authoritarian and Delegative
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymFmBLHn0AoList the main similarities and differences of Japanese and Korean management styles.
Similarities: (Lee, Jangho, Thomas W. Roehl, & Soonkyoo Choe. 2000. What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct Across Borders? Growth, Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 633-634).
- "Japan and Korea share a common cultural heritage of Confucianism and Budism."
"They share a common Asia geography."
"Japan has direct and indirect influence on Korea because Korea was annexed by Japan as a colony in 1910, when Korea had just started the modernization of its socitey, and Japan ruled Korea until 1945. This influenced on the development of the modern Korean management system."
"Some writers suggest that organizational structures in Korea are duplications of those in Japan" (Chang and Chang 1994; Lie 1988)
"Korea took Japan as the dominant model of economic development." (Amsdem 1988).
"The Korean government was heavily involved in the economic activities of the private sector (...)Thus it was natural that Korean firms also screened Japanese firm management structures for possible use as well."
Differences: (Lee, Jangho, Thomas W. Roehl, & Soonkyoo Choe. 2000. What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct Across Borders? Growth, Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 633-634).
"The lifetime employment practice in Korean firms is flexible, in that layoffs are more common than in Japanese firms. (Chang and Chang 1994; Lie 1990; Chang 1989; Shin 1985), and Korean workers tend to change jobs more freely."
"Top management in Korean firms tends to be authoritarian, and important decisions are made mostly by the top management". (Lee 1989; Chung and Lee 1989; Yoo and Lee 1987).
"Most large Korean firms belonging to Chaebol are managed by the family members of the founders". (Steers, Shin and Ungson 1989; Hattori 1989; Moskowitz 1989).
Explain the phenomenon of convergence in terms of management styles. What are the forces or factors pushing for convergence?
The phenomenon of convergence applied to the case of Japan and Korea, which have some relevant similarities in their national culture and organizations, stablishes that both models of economic growth and internationalization tend to get Korea closer to Japan. There are two primary hypothesis explaining this condition.
- Hypothesis I (Growth): "As Korean firms grow larger, the Korean management system will converge to the Japanese management style. Consequently the management styles of large korean firms will be very similar to those of large japanese firms".
- Hypothesis II (Internationalization): " As korean firms become internationalized, the korean management system will converge to the japanese management system. Consequently the management styles of korean firms with a high ratio of exports to total sales will be very similar to those of japanese firms with a high ratio of exports to total sales".
(Lee, Jangho, Thomas W. Roehl, & Soonkyoo Choe. 2000. What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct Across Borders? Growth, Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 637).
"Theoretically the findings in this study appear to indicate that a convergence of management across countries could be induced by two kinds of forces: the forces of domestic competition and of international competition. The findings suggest that the latter is a much more potent force for convergen". (Adler, Doktor and Redding 1986. Lee, Jangho, Thomas W. Roehl, & Soonkyoo Choe. 2000. What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct Across Borders? Growth, Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 646)Other less important factors pushing for converge are the similarities found in both countries. National culture "is an importan determinant of a national management system. The effect of culture tends to be subtle and difficult to separate from the effects of other social factors. Culture influences organizations through several intertwined paths such as legal, economic, and political systems as well as values, attitudes, behaviors, goals and preferences of the participants". (Adler, Doktor and Redding 1986. Lee, Jangho, Thomas W. Roehl, & Soonkyoo Choe. 2000. What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct Across Borders? Growth, Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 635).
Both growth and internationalization forces used in the hypothesis above, are strong factors that "lead the management style to have many similarities across nations. Firms would also attempt to solve managerial problems by actively imitating practices of other successful organizations that have similar need for efficient management". (Hannan and Freeman 1989; Dimaggio and Powell 1983. Adler, Doktor and Redding 1986. Lee, Jangho, Thomas W. Roehl, & Soonkyoo Choe. 2000. What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct Across Borders? Growth, Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 637)
Explain the phenomenon of differentiation in terms of management styles. What are the forces of factors pushing for differentiation?
"Some differences could be explained by the difference in the economic environments between Korean and Japan and the level of development of Korea management. For example, Korea managers`strong emphasis on market share may be due to the fact until recently the Korean economy has grown at a rate much higher that the japanese economy. Korean managers`relatively weak emphasis on flexible manufacturing and on the importance of information exchange with customers may reflect the fact that korean firms lag behind their japanese competitors in sophistication in these dimensions of management". (Adler, Doktor and Redding 1986. Lee, Jangho, Thomas W. Roehl, & Soonkyoo Choe. 2000. What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct Across Borders? Growth, Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 646).
In the case of Korean and Japanese management styles, do you think they tend to converge or diverge? Are they likely to converge to each other or to other management styles (Western, Asian, etc).
 |
| Source: http://www.jungiehan.com/ |
I think in the case of Korea and Japan, their management styles tend to converge. This study has demonstrated how similiar are these two asian cultures despite of some found differences. In the other hand I do not think that they are likely to converge to another management style like the western. Nevertheless, future studies may proof a convergence theory not only between two countries but in relation with the Asia culture or similars. "Some might even argue that we need a U.S. sample to make the test valid. Yet by testing for convergence within Asia, we have in effect broadened the definition of convergence and at the same time made it more defensible". (Adler, Doktor and Redding 1986. Lee, Jangho, Thomas W. Roehl, & Soonkyoo Choe. 2000. What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct Across Borders? Growth, Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 647).
What is isomorphism? Do you think organisations change management styles to adapt to the environment? Which environment is stronger: national environment or international environment?
"Informally, an isomorphism is a kind of mapping between objects, which shows a relationship between two properties or operations. If there exists an isomorphism between two structures, we call the two structures isomorphic. In a certain sense, isomorphic structures are structurally identical, if you choose to ignore finer-grained differences that may arise from how they are defined." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
According to the lecture organisations do change management styles to adapt to the environment. "Organizations are symbolically or institutionally isomorphic to the environment in that organizations adapt to each inconsistent environmental demandsymbolically, by creating a substructure that deals or pretends to deal with the problem". (Hannan and Freeman 1989, p.94. Adler, Doktor and Redding 1986. Lee, Jangho, Thomas W. Roehl, & Soonkyoo Choe. 2000. What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct Across Borders? Growth, Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 645).
I think international environment is stronger because local companies not only have to adapt to the domestic environment, but must adapt their business and strategies to what is imposed in the international market. As it is explained in the lecture: "Larger domestic korean firms had to adapt their management to the domestic environment whereas internationalized korean firms had to adapt their management to meet the requirements imposed by international competition". (Adler, Doktor and Redding 1986. Lee, Jangho, Thomas W. Roehl, & Soonkyoo Choe. 2000. What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct Across Borders? Growth, Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 31 (4): 646).
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario