To uphold harmonious relationship between the management and labor force, what is

the ideal management approach in the Philippine context? Why?

Although local organizations have most of the structures and formal procedures of
Western Business, actual-day-to-day business processes and interaction necessarily
proceed within matrix of Filipino culture and values. Theories, models and ideal types
taught in Western-oriented MBA programs are based on certain assumptions, many of
which are invalid in the Philippines. The question is, are Western Theories applicable in
Philippine setting? Before I jump into conclusion, let’s first define what is business
management in Asian way. According to Redding and Martyn, Asian management style
can be summarized into following notions:

▪ Oriental managers typically rely less on interpersonal confrontations

▪ Conformity to socially acceptable behaviors (e.g losing face) is done through
morality
▪ Time has no beginning nor an end
▪ Businesses tend to be small scale
▪ Individualism is less relevant
▪ Managerial decisions consider effects on other people involved
▪ Control of performance is less formal
▪ Managerial beliefs shift towards the autocratic end
▪ Maintaining and developing guanxi (connection and relationship)

Kao, Sinha & Wilpert (1999) identified patterns of management and organization in
East and South Asian countries as well as in many parts of other non-Western regions
are often regarded as exemplifying what is known as indigenization – a process by which
organizations in their functioning are adapted to the socio-cultural soil of the host country,
so that, the end product is fit, appropriate, as well as unique.

Furethermore, Newman (1984) thought that values and attitudes affect but do not
invalidate the transfer of American management concept. Thus, a transfer of an effective
device from one culture to another should undergo careful attention to underlying
grounds. The management of American and Japanese is 95 percent the same but differ
in all important respects (Kao, Sinha & Wilpert, 1999). In other words, the pattern that
emerge demonstrate a kind of adaptation of the requirements of work and modern
technology to specific elements of culture, wherein, they constitute a synergistic blend of
traditional indigenous roots and modern techniques.

According to Ernesto A. Franco (1986) who coined Pinoy Management Theory as ‘No
one Management Theory or Style’, the components under the formal organization include
informal organizations. He recognized the unknown cultural ambiance among people and
systems wherein formal organizations is like a battlefield of behavioral styles among
managers and employees. Seeking to comprehend the Filipino manager’s values and
inclinations, Franco identified five types of Filipino managers:

1. Manager by “Kayod” (The Realist Manager) - Kayod is a Filipino word that

means to give oneself to hard work. This manager are rather serious manners,
and an introvert. He is a type of leader who is committed and action-hungry, and
would not give in to bribery or any anomalous deals.
2. Manager by “Lusot” (The Opportunist Manager) - Lusot means availing on a
loophole. This manager utilize an excuse for failure and will always find loopholes
to avoid hard work. Given to shortcuts and unconventional or illegal means to attain
objectives. Generally an introvert, he deals with people informally.
3. Manager by “Libro” (The Idealist Manager)- Libro is a Spanish term for “book.”
This manager is a thinker, technocrat and literally goes by the book. Scientific,
thorough and analytical, he generally has adequately formal training in
management.
4. Manager by “Oido”- This manager acquires his managerial skills by playing it by
ear. (Oido comes from Spanish oir, “to listen”). Depends on practical experience
to compensate for his lack of normal management education- the opposite of the
“Libro” manager.
5. Ugnayan-Management (The Hybrid)- The hybrid of the above-mentioned types.
He/she is a gifted reconciler of all philosophies and beliefs held by the various
types of managers.
 Participatory and coordinative, the ugnayan-management integrates various styles
depending on the organizations’ needs and conditions. Mary Parker Foller, a theorist talks
about the ‘Law of Situations’, thought that primary responsibility of leadership is to
discover the sense-making thread that structures understanding the ‘total situation’,
establish the ‘common purpose’ that emerges from this, and by leading, ‘anticipating’,
make the next situation- which are all qualities of the ugnayan-management type.

Foller thought that a leader will be most effective when his features and styles of
leadership will match with the situation and environment around him. Her leadership style
and law of situation belong to the modern management approach with huge significant
influence to Contingency Theory. A leader’s effectiveness is contingent on his/her style
matching the situation, not adapting to it.

This is true for me, with my experience working in a construction company run by
a Canadian boss. Certain dominant western characters/traits including punctuality;
control authority; dealing with problems; manners of speech like expressing anger and
giving opinions often give Filipino employees a hard time. Arbitration later urged our boss
to change his style in managing employees which is more Filipino in nature. Later, it did
create harmony and cooperation among the workers.

Leadership style should fit Filipino values and inclinations. At one point, the Human
Relations School, for example Organizational Behavior and Human Resource
Management, seemed to be an ideological in defining the sociocultural and behavioral
profiles organizations in the Philippines. In my opinion, Contingency approach and
Strategic Human Resource Management is very promising scheme in the context of a
Filipino enterprise. There does not seem to be the ‘one best way’ in management yet the
best way to do this will be contingent on the situation- therefore, situation is always
supreme.
Henry S R Kao, Durganand Sinha, Bernhard Wilpert .1999. Management and Cultural
Values: The Indiginization of Organizations in Asia

Ernesto Franco, 1986. Pinoy Management

Nanette Monin & Ralph Bathurst.2008. Mary Follett on the Leadership of ‘Everyman’

Dickon Stone, 2019. East Vs. West: 10 Corporate Cultural Differences All Interns Abroad
Should Know

William Newman, 1984. World Executive Digest

Redding and Martyn, 1984. World Executive Digest
http://blog.coinpip.com/east-meets-west-15-cultural-differences-that-affect-business/