You are on page 1of 31

Comparison of Management Styles in different countries

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY: Ms. Manpreet kaur KAMBOJ II (B)

SAKSHI MBA ROL

L. NO. 5450

School of Management Studies


Punjabi University, Patiala.

1.Japanese Management Style


Japan is a democratic country. Life is in many ways restrained, stylised and formal. Strikes are legal and the workforce does strike. In Western democratic countries pressure is exerted on the working population, persuading and compelling them to work and to serve, by the fear of dismissal, by the fear of being unemployed and by fear of the resulting hardship and deprivation. In Japan pressure is exerted in a different way. For centuries the Japanese were governed by means of a strict code of adherence to the collective will of the group. 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 conform then one is ostracised, if one disagrees then one of the two parties may lose 'face' (which is 'standing') and it is this which is to be avoided. There is pointed and almost direct co-operation and team work by those at the top who put Japan's economic progress above all else. Japan, now the third most powerful country in the world, is very much looking after 'Japan Incorporated' with government, owners, and other institutions co-operating closely together. Profit was of secondary consideration to Japanese companies and shareholders accepted minute profit margins, the general aim being 'seiko', which is 'growth'. The Japanese do not start a project until some kind of agreement has been reached. For example a larger capital investment programme would be discussed by the company, by the union, by the ministry, with the banks and of course within the enterprise. It would be discussed extensively until it takes a firm form. The discussions within the enterprise are called 'Ringi'. The style of management would appear to be strongly authoritarian but paternal. The Ringi process is timeconsuming and formalised but aims to involve younger and junior employees in the decisions and in the fate of the company. Sharp changes are taking place in the life of the country and in the economy and there is a felt need for speeding up the decision-making process. All decision cannot be

made at the top, delegation of authority is increasing and the scope for independent decision-making is being widened. Group decision-making is being modified in the light of increasing size and complexity of modern organisations so that instead of a large group making decisions concerning a broad area of policy or operations, small groups make decisions concerning areas of particular concern to them and these are then approved by their superiors. Participation in policy setting is being downgraded into implementing policy, and this is a downgrading of participation, of the level of decision making, by employees. It seems that large and important companies are on the whole not allowed to go bankrupt. Creditors, shareholders and other financially interested parties all participate in the reorganisation of the company . To be laid off does not mean being made redundant. Workers in large companies are likely to be turned to other work or are sent home while receiving full pay and benefits.This is on the whole soon heartily disliked by Japanese workers who do not feel comfortable if they do not 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's influence is felt in many areas of the workers' lives, loyalty to the company is fostered (for example all company workers are likely to wear the same lapel badges) and conformity is expected. About one-third of the employed labour force are members of trade unions, distributed through something like 60,000 unions, based mostly on enterprises. Such enterprise unions negotiate primarily at the factory, site or enterprise level, although there are some negotiations between national trade union federations on the one hand and employers' associations on the other. Roughly three-quarters of the trade union membership are in the private sector and exercise the right to free collective bargaining. Loyalty to the company is strong and many workers normally strike during their lunch break, in this way making their opinion felt. They would not do so if it were

not effective and this implies that management takes note. Then there is the 'Shunto' (spring offensive) which is used to deal with the annual wage claim by establishing an acceptable general increase. A certain selected group of employees or union goes on strike. The results of that strike are gradually used for the bulk of the settlements throughout the country. The general picture would appear to be one of democratic government and authoritarian but paternal management, combined with a system of management consultation and co-operation which is sound in principle. The cost to the Japanese of authoritarian management is already considerable. For example, waste products were dumped over a considerable number of years by a commercial concern into the Bay of Minamata with tragic results to many of the local population who suffered organic mercury poisoning in severe degree through eating polluted fish caught by the local fishermen. Fish is a staple diet. The Japanese eat fish rather than meat and fishing is a source of livelihood for many Japanese. Much of the fish around the shores of Japan is affected by pollution and the Japanese government has apparently already issued guidelines advising people to limit the amount of fish they eat. But there are also bitter confrontations between employees and employers as a result of the impact of foreign ideology. There are also demonstrations, at times violent, concerning popular protest issues. Leaders of left-orientated Japanese unions are said to regard co-operation with capitalists as impossible and confront for the sake of confronting, in line with other marxist movements. To them it appears as if enemies cannot co-operate because they would be traitors to their individual ideologies and they apparently eliminate dissenters from among their own leading personalities {17}. Seeing everything according to pre-conceived ideas, according to what one is told to do by those above, in terms of black and white or right and wrong, is typical of the authoritarian mind. Democracy rests firmly on voluntary co-operation between informed and

knowledgeable citizens and groups able to evaluate differing points of view according to the situation existing at the time. Hence Japan is fairly authoritarian in its style of management. There is little or no power sharing. People have the right to strike but striking is limited by the Japanese equivalent of the Western fear of the sack, by pressure to conform. Hence I put Japan close to the UK but consider it to be somewhat more authoritarian. Japanese management emphasises the need for information flow from the bottom of the company to the top. This results in senior management having a largely supervisory rather than 'hands-on' approach. As a result, it has been noted that policy is often originated at the middle-levels of a company before being passed upwards for ratification. The strength of this approach is obviously that those tasked with the implementation of decisions have been actively involved in the shaping of policy.The higher a Japanese manager rises within an organisation, the more important it is that he appears unassuming and unambitious. Individual personality and forcefulness are not seen as the prerequisites for effective leadership. The key task for a Japanese manager is to provide the environment in which the group can flourish. In order to achieve this he must be accessible at all times and willing to share knowledge within the group. In return for this open approach, he expects team members to keep him fully informed of developments. This reciprocity of relationship forms the basis of good management and teamwork. Japan as it stands today, is due to the efforts of Japanese people who were smart enough to adopt the foreign technology and management philosophy and develop suitable technological and management systems that can be effectively and efficiently applied for the development of the country.

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 management practices mainly focus o personnel and human resources management aspects like the life-time employment, the seniority system and the groupism where as the work oriented management practices manly focus on Production and engineering functions which include, the just-in Time production system, the subcontracting and the Quality control. These specific features of Japanese style of management have been developed as a result of the socio-cultural characteristics of Japanese society, which has largely contributed to the built up competitiveness of the Japanese companies leading to make Japan a super-economic power in the world. Corporate Structure: The top-management in Japanese companies has an extremely closed structure. Although two or three directors may be invited to join the company from outside, in most cases, directors are appointed from within the company's former management level-staff. Moreover, employees are not considered to be consumable physical resources, but as important corporate members in the corporate structure. Company Strategy: The distinctive characteristics of the strategies that most of 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

Providing importance to process rather than results.

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN JAPAN


The personnel and human resources management practices of Japanese companies are mainly oriented towards people and their development. There are some specific characteristics, which are not found in the traditional western management system. Some of these distinct characteristics are the life time employment, seniority based promotion and wage system and groupism. Lifetime Employment: The lifetime employment system involves hiring people who have just graduated a high rate of stability among employees and guaranteeing work until the mandatory retirement age. The system is oriented towards human relations, human development and training guaranteed employment, equality, participation and welfare. Thus, in a Japanese company, employees are "born", and develop in terms of work. Seniority based promotion and wage system: The promotion from lower level to immediate higher level is mostly based on seniority. However, the pace of promotion is very slow though. It does not mean to say that promotion does not take account of performance evaluation and qualification of the employee. Higher weight age is given to senior person, or on the number of years he or she has worked with the company. Wage structure is also based on seniority. Groupism: The special cultural quality of Japanese society has a great deal of impact on the Japanese management practices. The typical Japanese ways of thinking "Uchi" (insider) and "Soto" (outsider) is actually practiced in Japanese management system. The special character of "WE" is very strong in Japanese companies.

2. UK Management Style

The Industrial Relations Act came into effect in 1971. This made 'unofficial' strikes illegal and in this way transferred the responsibility for deciding whether to strike or not from the men on the spot, that is from their elected shop steward, to the union head office official. Agreements between management and unions became enforceable at law which meant damages could be claimed, it being possible to prosecute unofficial strike leaders. Before the Act there was no legal limitation to the right to strike but ownership was private so that the UK occupied roughly position 1 on the scale (see Figure 6e). I am told that the Industrial Relations Act was somewhat tougher than the corresponding Taft-Hartley Act but not as severe as Australia's compulsory arbitration. Hence with the passing of the Industrial Relations 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 300,000 to about the 1 million mark and there had been much reporting of strikes which stressed that there were many strikes and that many of them were 'unofficial' or 'wildcat' strikes. The name 'wildcat' is but another name for an unofficial strike. Clearly there were many strikes and we seemed to have relatively more strikes than countries such as Australia and America. But when the Act came into force there began a bitter struggle between the working population and those who run the country, a hard and tough struggle which year by year increased in severity and in extent. It was in some ways a most remarkable conflict, its major confrontations taking place in winter after winter in increasing order of severity. Winter is the sensitive time for Britain, heating is necessary for comfort and there was countrywide confrontation with each winter more and more industries and services becoming involved on a nation-wide scale. The Post Office was affected, followed by the supply of gas, electricity, the docks and coal. The government, deeply involved in this confrontation, was finding loopholes to prevent strike leaders from either winning their cases in the courts or else from becoming popular heroes. It still continued to battle with the miners three months after oil prices had been vastly increased and threatened the economic independence of the country.

Such a fierce, fundamental and protracted confrontation involving directly and indirectly the well-being and comfort of probably the whole population of the country would not have taken place about a matter such as whether an agreement was binding on the parties, was legally enforceable. What then was the point at issue between them? Management and worker representatives in the United Kingdom are trained to negotiate, form agreements and stick to them. Bargaining may be hard and prolonged but in the end you can only work with people you can trust and that means with people whose word means something. Agreements reached at the end of the bargaining process were on the whole being implemented and maintained unless there was good reason to do otherwise. There are a few, some small percentage, who believe in conflict and confrontation for its own sake. They see it as an end in itself. It is they who may break their word and who could fail to maintain the bargains they have struck. Restraining them by law would not have caused this kind of battle and confrontation. Clearly a very fundamental and most important basic right and freedom was at stake. In addition, the effect the Industrial Relations Act would have was known in advance. The introduction of similar legislation in the United States and Australia had, of course, drastically reduced the number of strikes. Unofficial strikes were out, strikes recognised and set by union headquarters were in. A large number of relatively small strikes, in individual factories all across the country, had been replaced by nationwide confrontation, by whole industries being shut down at the same time. In the United States it isn't just one little or even one large dock or harbour which is immobilised due to strike, it is just about the whole seaboard which is shut down. Replacing the large number of small strikes by the few countrywide ones increased the economic damage done enormously, multiplying it by about four. This is what happened in the United Kingdom. The number of strikes were reduced drastically but the economic damage caused by the fewer but 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 of heavy loss, this kind of damage to the economy of the country and to its well-being. From their point of view also, what was at stake was a basic shift in the balance between the authority and power of those who work as compared with the authority and power of those who run the country.

The slave has to work whether he likes it or not, the free man may withdraw his labour. What was at stake was a most essential right and freedom, the right of every ordinary worker to withdraw his labour, to go on strike. The enterprise may be located anywhere in the country, away from the capital. Union head office or the local officials are too busy doing whatever they are doing to sort out the local grievances. In the end the men put pressure on their shop steward and strike. This is an 'unofficial' strike, which means that it has not been recognised by the head office of the union. It is a relatively small strike affecting only a few people in the locality. The strike may then receive publicity in the national newspapers and a union negotiator or official dashes to the scene, sorts out the grievances, negotiates an agreed settlement or at least gets negotiations going. The strike is over. The men have succeeded in bringing their grievances to the notice of both union and management and negotiations are proceeding. An unofficial strike is not just a way of getting management to the negotiating table, of impressing management with the strength of feeling about a particular grievance. It is also a way of getting the union establishment to act for the membership. The union establishment, far removed from the membership, is far too often too busy pronouncing about politics, economics, the state of the country and the world, wining and dining with members of the establishment on the other side and so 'sorting out' abstract vague general matters which could not be further removed from the problems of the workplace. The shop steward is elected by the workforce, he represents the working people in their place of work, he talks for them to the management, he negotiates for them, it is he who is backed by the union in the work that he is doing. And generally, although there are a few exceptions, he exercises a restraining influence and it is pressure from the working people which pushes him into open confrontation, into leading them in strike. This then is the central, relevant and utterly important issue at the root of the confrontation. The Industrial Relations Act and any similar legislation takes away the right to strike from the working population and gives it to the union establishment, takes away from them the ability to decide their own course of action, to agree voluntarily to work for the employer or to decide when to withdraw their labour, takes away from the working population the ability to make their voice heard, the power to express their opinion, the power to influence events, to negotiate in their own interest.

The Industrial Relations Act took away power from the ordinary working people and gave it to a few people at the top of the union establishment. It replaced upward flowing authority (from the people) by downward flowing authority (from the top). It removed and destroyed a basic freedom by taking the power to withdraw their labour away from the workforce. It did not just limit the right to strike, it took it away from the workforce and together with the corresponding authority and power gave it to the few people at the top, to the establishment. The result of the ensuing confrontation and struggle was that the Industrial Relations Act was repealed and other legislation took its place. This brought back the right to strike but the 'closed-shop' provisions compelled the worker to belong to the union if he wished to work. It gave the union and thus its establishment the power to decide who should work and who should not. The changes would thus seem to have been aimed at increasing the power of the establishment rather than 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 by giving greater power to the union's establishment. One is left with the impression that the style of management moved further towards a more authoritarian style of management, under a supposedly pro-Labour government.

Style of Management in Individual Countries The left wing opposes co-operation and opposes the appointment of worker directors. Increasing nationalisation means increased state ownership and generally results in greater centralisation and more authoritarian management. But the Post Office unions have shared out among themselves worker-directorships on the Post Office board, both on the main board and on the eleven regional boards, this being a twoyear experiment in union participation. The material point is not whether it is a left wing or right wing dictatorship but whether and to what extent it is a dictatorship. What

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

Being a Manager in United Kingdom


To ensure successful cross cultural management should treat all people with respect and deference and to not waste anyone's time. This means that you should arrive at meetings prepared and ready to discuss the matter at hand. Expect your British colleagues to not be very emotive with their facial expressions and word choices. And keep in mind, the British are known for their dry wit. In the UK, even though traditional organizations may be somewhat hierarchical, there is a sense that most people in the company have an important role to play and are valued for their input. Therefore, managers lose no respect by consulting employees to gather background information and or by sharing the decision-making process. More and more often, employees expect to be consulted on decisions that affect them and the greater good of the organization, and not doing so may have a negative impact on moral for those who want to feel responsible for the success of the organization.

The Role of a Manager


Cross cultural communication will be more effective when working in United Kingdom when you remember that the most productive managers in United Kingdom recognize and value the specialized knowledge that employees at all levels bring. Employees expect to be consulted on decisions that affect them and the greater good of the organization.

Approach to Change
The United Kingdoms intercultural adaptability and readiness for change is developing all the time. United Kingdom is seen to have a medium tolerance for change and risk. It is important for innovations to have a track record or history noting the benefits if they are to be accepted and implemented. The fear of exposure, and the potential of embarrassment that may accompany failure, brings about aversion to risk and the need to thoroughly examine the potential negative implications so some intercultural sensitivity may be required.

Approach to Time and Priorities


The UK is a controlled-time culture. Global and intercultural expansion has meant that adherence to schedules is important and expected. Missing a deadline is a sign of poor management and inefficiency, and will shake peoples confidence. People in controlled-time cultures tend to have their time highly scheduled, and its generally a good idea to provide and adhere to performance milestones. Since Brits respect schedules and deadlines, it is not unusual for managers to expect people to work late in order to meet target deadlines. Successful intercultural management will depend on the individuals ability to meet deadlines.

Decision Making
The management style in the United Kingdom is undergoing a metamorphosis, so you will find a variety of styles. In old-line businesses, the managing directors are the overall decision-makers. In other industries, managers strive for consensus and make a concerted attempt to get everyone's input before a decision is reached. The manager may still make the ultimate decision, after consultation with the staff. Teamwork is becoming increasingly important in most organizations. Brits believe the best ideas and solutions often come from having many stakeholders meet to discuss an issue. They also prefer for the highestranking person to make the decision (and then perhaps clear it with someone 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. Most British 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 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 the direction of the plan or spawn a new track entirely. In successful, dynamic teams, all members are valued for their actual and potential contribution, and all are treated with equal respect.

Communication and Negotiation Styles


Communication will be direct and reserved. Avoid confrontational behaviour or high-pressure tactics. Avoid displays of emotion and do not argue on the basis of feelings. Decision-making is slow and deliberate and so patience may be a necessary cross cultural attribute. It is a good idea to send a letter summarizing what was decided and what the next steps are.

3. USA Management Style


The United States is a democratic country and it is more difficult to determine to what extent authority is centred at the top and to what extent it is balanced by the authority of the working population exercising their power through the withdrawal of their labour. The TaftHartly Act limits the right to strike, seemingly shifting responsibility for declaring a strike from the factory floor to the union head office. A cooling-off period may be ordered which delays the beginning of a strike by some months, in this way giving management and workers another chance to negotiate an agreement before engaging in open confrontation, giving both sides another chance to avoid large scale national economic damage which could otherwise arise. The relative position of one country with respect to another on the scale seems fairly clear. The right to strike exists and is openly used but the right to strike is limited. Ownership is in private hands rather than in the hands of the state as in Russia and so we place the USA a good bit further towards the participative style of management, roughly just over half of the way along the scale towards participative management.

American management style can be described as individualistic in approach, in so far as managers are accountable for the decisions made within their areas of responsibility. Although important decisions might be discussed in open forum, the ultimate responsibility for the consequences of the decision lies with the boss support or seeming consensus will evaporate when things go wrong. The up side of this accountability is, of course, the American dream that outstanding success will inevitably bring outstanding rewards. Therefore, American managers are more likely to disregard the opinions of subordinates than managers in other, more consensus or compromise- 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 the U.S., it is safest to treat all people with an equal amount of respect and deference (within the informal framework of America, in general), focus on schedules and maximizing time, and expect that people will want to be dealt with as individuals. In the U.S. there is a sense that all people in the organization have an important role to play and all are valued for their input. Therefore, managers consult employees to gather background information and often have them share in the decision-making process. The American working environment has changed drastically. With one eye on costs and the other on retention, employers are increasingly offering 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 Manager


Cross cultural communication will be more effective when working in United States when you remember that the most productive managers in United States recognize and value the specialized knowledge that employees at all levels bring. Employees expect to be consulted on decisions that affect them and the greater good of the organization.

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

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

Approach to Time and Priorities


The U.S. is a controlled-time culture. Global and intercultural expansion has meant adherence to schedules is important and expected. Missing a deadline is a sign of poor management and inefficiency, and will shake peoples confidence. Successful intercultural management will depend 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. They empower employees and expect them to take responsibility. Employees freely cross management levels and speak directly to senior managers. This freedom is particularly apparent at meetings, where everyone 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, groups collaborate well together as teams. Members are generally chosen to participate 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 the direction of the plan or spawn a new track entirely. In successful, dynamic teams, all members are valued for their actual and potential contribution, and all are treated with equal respect.

Communication and Negotiation Styles


The American negotiating style tends to be a "hard sell"sometimes characterised as sledgehammer subtlety combined with missionary zeal. A strong pitch may sound boastful but is meant to inspire confidence and trust. It is also consistent with the penchant for logical reasoning, directness and comfort with self-promotion. American negotiators may have little familiarity with, or patience for, the formal business protocol, indirect communication style, or consensual decision-making practices of other countries (a fact that savvy international negotiators often use to their advantage). Their focus is on the short term and the "big picture" --securing the best deal in a timely

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

4. Indian Management Style


Being a Manager in India
To ensure successful cross cultural management in India, you need be aware of the strict protocols and rituals that exist. The official caste system 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 each person has a very distinct role within the organization, and maintaining that role helps to keep order.

The Role of a Manager


In India, as in other hierarchical societies, managers may take a somewhat paternalistic attitude to their employees. They may demonstrate a concern for employees that goes beyond the workplace. This may include involvement in their family, housing, health, and other practical life issues. It is the supervisors job to regularly check on the work of a subordinate and to provide regular constructive feedback. This may include monitoring work quality and the timing of its completion.

Approach to Change
Indias intercultural adaptability and readiness for change is developing all 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 history noting the benefits if they are to be accepted and implemented. Failure in India causes a long-term loss of confidence by the individual as well as by others. Because of this attitude, intercultural sensitivity is going to be required, especially when conducting group meetings and discussing contributions made my participating individuals.

Approach to Time and Priorities


Indians are generally quite careful about time guidelines in business situations where schedules and deadlines are regarded seriously. In addition, however, Indian society is concerned with relationships so there may be instances where there is some flexibility to strict standards of adhering to schedules. When working with people from India, its advisable to reinforce the importance of the agreed-upon deadlines and how that may affect the rest of the organization. Successful cross cultural management will depend on the individuals ability to meet deadlines. Global and intercultural expansion means that some managers may have a greater appreciation of the need to enforce timescales and as such, agreed deadlines are more likely to be met.

Decision Making
The culture in India is very relationship and group-oriented, so a strong emphasis is placed on maintaining harmony and proper lines of authority in the workplace. Some Indians, however, are extremely direct, in which case you can deal with them in the same way. The manager makes decisions and accepts responsibility for work performed by subordinates. The middle manager may consult with subordinates before reaching a decision, although it is more likely that he will confer with trusted advisors or relatives. To ensure successful cross cultural management, you will need to bear in mind the importance of people in the office maintaining the proper behaviour relative to their position. For instance, it would be inappropriate for a manager to make copies or move a piece of furniture because these are tasks that lower level people do. To engage in behaviour beneath you would lower your esteem in the office.

Boss or Team Player


If you are working in India, it is important to remember that honour and reputation 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 that are raised in a gentle manner, protecting the reputation of those bringing up ideas, so no one is shamed.

Communication and Negotiation Styles


Cross cultural management will be more effective if you understand the importance of personal relationships. They are crucial to conducting business and are based on respect and trust. It takes time to develop a comfortable working relationship and you will need patience and perseverance. Indians are non-confrontational. It is rare for them to overtly disagree, although this is beginning to change in the managerial ranks. Decisions are reached by the person with the most authority but reaching that decision can be a slow process. Never appear over legalistic in negotiations; in general Indians do not trust the legal system and someones word is sufficient to reach an agreement. Successful negotiations may be celebrated over a meal. India is an enormously hierarchical society and this, obviously, has an impact on management style. It is imperative that there is a boss and that the manager acts like a boss. The position of manager demands a certain amount of role-playing from the boss and a certain amount of deferential behavior from his subordinates Anglo-Saxon concepts of egalitarianism where the boss is the primus-inter-pares are virtually incomprehensible in a society still dominated by the historical conventions of the caste system Managing people in India requires a level of micro-management which many western business people feel extremely uncomfortable with but, which is likely to bring the best results.

5. Chinese Management Style


Every fourth person is Chinese and to this already large number of Chinese should probably be added the many Chinese who live outside China. What the Chinese are taught to think, the way in which they are taught to behave and what they do is thus of importance to the rest of humanity. Just as it is of concern that the Japanese who make up about 3% of the world population have become the third most powerful economic power in the world, so the thought and action of the Chinese rulers, establishment and people is important to the rest of us. In January l975 the 4th National People's Congress was held in secret and produced a new constitution to replace that of l954. The National People's Congress remains the highest organ of state power, "under the leadership of the communist party of China". The chairman of the Central Committee of the communist party assumes "command of the country's armed forces," thus ensuring that the party controls the armed forces. However, the constitution states that the masses have the right of free speech. They may hold debates and "write big-character posters" as they did during the cultural revolution. Chinese workers again "enjoy the freedom to strike" which they have not in theory been able to do since l954. About seven months later there were newspaper reports in Moscow about purges and deportations which took place in China following worker and peasant uprisings in several provinces because of economic problems. About three months later there were reports from Bonn that dockers and railway workers in Shanghai, the world's most densely populated city, had gone on strike in the last few months for higher wages and better working conditions. It seems that four strikes closed the main dockyards and railway stations. It seems that radicals opposed the eight-grade wage scale endorsed by the constitution and demanded immediate moves toward an egalitarian wage. Many older workers, however, were demanding "more co-operation" from the higher-paid cadres - which is a roundabout Chinese way of demanding higher wages and better working conditions {15}.

Any Chinese institution down to a primary school or small factory had been run by a revolutionary committee consisting of veteran administrators, representatives of the younger staff and often military men as well. But during the previous few years they had been used to challenge the parallel party committees. It seems that the present leadership is emphasising control by communist party committees at all levels and it seems that the lower-level revolutionary committees, such as those in schools and factories, are to be abolished. The lives of all citizens are in the hands of the state and it seems that the Chinese worker lives all his life inside his commune and that the quality of life - how well he is treated - depends largely on the leadership 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 to travel. Families are normally given food coupons which are valid only in their own province. But if one wants to travel one must also get national food coupons to buy food elsewhere. Since then more protesting voices have been heard and there have been some demonstrations. But there have also been subsequent trials and heavy punishment for some outspoken dissidents who disagreed with the 'official' point of view. But there has been no news of people in fact being able to strike freely as 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 is increasing or that any protests or strikes have had impact or caused change. And now we have to place China on the scale of style of management. Before the l975 constitution there was no problem. Authority clearly centred at the top, strikes illegal, China placed right on the vertical line of completely authoritarian management (see Figure 6h, position 1). Following the l975 constitution there were strikes, and people were able to express their feelings through posters. There was discussion and an attempt was made to create a system of self-management which apparently rested on the people and paralleled the party control structure. It would seem to have been a move towards selfmanagement and freedom, shown by the move from position 1 to position 2.

It seems to me that the movement was then reversed and that the Chinese people allowed themselves to be pushed back from position 2 to say position 3. Overall it would seem after this backsliding towards more authoritarian government that China moved again a little towards a more participative form of government since there have been protests, since there have been demonstrations and strikes although so far they have been few in number and have not as yet produced noticeable change. This movement 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 all issues are looked at from the same vantage point - how will this benefit China or Chinese business. The Chinese always want to know what your company can do that they cannot already do for themselves. Communication is both formal and indirect. Since China is an extremely homogeneous country, there is much that can be said without using words. Cross cultural communication can often be difficult as westerners find it difficult to appreciate the subtleties of certain situations.

The Role of a Manager


Successful cross cultural management in China is more likely if you bear in mind that each person has a very distinct role within the organization, and maintaining that role helps to keep order. In general, the manager may function autocratically and dictate to his subordinates. At the same time, managers will not compliment or chastise an employee publicly. In fact, should they want to communicate bad news to their employees, they might use an intermediary.

Approach to Change
Whereas China has traditionally had a medium tolerance for change and risk its intercultural adaptability is rapidly improving due to the increasing demands of the global marketplace.

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

Approach to Time and Priorities


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

Decision Making
Effective cross cultural management needs to bear in mind the hierarchy of this culture. There may be informal networking between employees themselves or supervisors and employees, although actual power is generally held in the hands of a few key people at the top of the organization. Although changing, China's ingrained bureaucracy is still evident in government offices and all but the most entrepreneurial companies. Departments tend to work quite independently of each other and only share selected information. Rivalries often exist within the same company.

Boss or Team Player


In China there is a significant deference to authority and generally an inhibition to speaking out. This may be a particular challenge in a collaborative or team environment. More recently, this trait has been changing in the younger generations who have found employment in multinational companies and have embraced the idea of teamwork and participation.

Communication and Negotiation Styles


Make sure you bring along a senior level executive to be part of the negotiating team. The Chinese will enter a room based on rank and you must make sure you do the same. Only the most senior person will speak during discussions. Cross cultural success is more likely if you are aware of some of the negotiating tactics that are often deployed. These can include using silence to put pressure on you to concede points and delaying everything until the last minute so that you feel pressured to push things

through quickly. It is worth maintaining your composure at these times. Under no circumstances should you lose your temper or you will lose face and irrevocably damage your relationship. Avoid cross cultural miscommunication by ensuring written material is available in both English and Chinese, using simplified characters and try to phrase your questions so that they require more than a yes or no response. This will allow you to make certain you were understood. It is imperative in writing contracts to have independent legal advice from someone intimately familiar with the business environment in China. Spell out everything. Do not overlook national laws and be extremely cautious about those you 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 demands that these inequalities are respected: Older person should automatically receive respect from the younger, the senior from the subordinate. This is the cornerstone of all the China management thinking and issues such as empowerment and open access to all information are viewed by the Chinese as, at best, bizarre Western notions Management is directive, with the senior manager giving instructions to their direct reports who in turn pass on the instructions down the line. Subordinates do not question the decisions of superiors that would be to show disrespect and be the direct cause of loss of face (mianzi) for all concerned.

CROSS-CULTURAL TRAINING

IN

CHINA

There is limited literature that addresses the issue of cross-cultural training 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, with regards to training programmes, five key issues are identified: area studies, cultural assimilation, language preparation, sensitivity training, and field experience. For example, area studies include useful geographical and demographic business information; cultural assimilation involves an introduction to business theories and cultural practices; language preparation considers the wider aspects of business language and communication; sensitivity training illustrates interpersonal skills, e.g. in the interaction between employees and customers; and field experience tests theories and practices in the work

place and supported by study visits to overseas sites on a regular basis with a view to improving overall managerial performance. Mendenhall and Oddou (1985) go further to offer a three-stage methodology including information giving, affective and immersion. An analysis of the above builds on Brislins (1979) model which classifies cross-cultural training methods into three types: cognitive (the learning of information and skills from lecture-type non-participatory lessons), affective (the learning of cultural insights through techniques that raise affective responses including culture assimilator training, role-play, and case study), and behavioural/Experiential (programmes involving sensitivity training, field experience, simulations). Some elements of the cross-cultural training framework have been adopted by the case (which will be discussed in the next Section). Nevertheless, the training framework is not panacea. The success of its application to any multi-national corporations, such as Tasty Food Ltd, is contingent upon the commitment of the management and the extent of its integration into the overall human resource strategy. The present case has shown the complexity of the problems in the implication of their training framework.

6. Turkey Management Style


Being a Manager in Turkey
The business set up in Turkey is very formal and cross cultural management will be more successful if you bear in mind the importance of being courteous at all times. In other words, in business it is crucial that 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 with whom you do not have a close relationship. Let your Turkish business colleagues determine when your friendship has progressed to the point where you may use the singular form. Turks are polite and formal in their business dealings, at least until a personal relationship has been developed. Good manners and proper etiquette are seen as a symbol of good breeding. Proceed slowly and cautiously. Traditional attitudes abound under a cosmopolitan veneer. Many businesspeople are not as westernized as they first appear.

The Role of a Manager


Cross cultural communication will be more effective when managing in Turkey, if you keep it in mind that each person has a very distinct role within the organization. In Turkey, as in other hierarchical societies, managers may take a somewhat paternalistic attitude to their employees. They may demonstrate a concern for employees that goes beyond the workplace.

Approach to Change
Turkeys intercultural adaptability and readiness for change is apparent although changes are still made slowly, requiring a considerable amount of thought, planning and evaluation. It would be perceived as imprudent to introduce rapid change, and yet it would be recognized as poor management to resist change unnecessarily. Cross cultural sensitivity is important with Turkeys attitude toward risk dramatically impacted by the negative ramifications of failure on both the individual and the group.

Approach to Time and Priorities


Deadlines and timescales are fluid in Turkey. Patience will play an essential part in successful cross cultural management. While timescales and deadlines need to be set well in advance and reiterated carefully, it should be understood that these will be viewed as flexible. Global and intercultural expansion means that some managers may have a greater appreciation of the need to enforce timescales and as such, agreed deadlines are more likely to be met.

Decision Making
Turkish business is hierarchical and the management style tends to be more autocratic than the western style of leadership. Social class distinctions exist in business, since the higher echelons generally come from the upper class. Managers tell subordinates what they want done. They do not attempt to reach a consensus. Managers often treat their subordinates as they would their extended family. The way one dresses is considered indicative of their seriousness towards 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 stand when their superiors enter the room, in much the same way young people are expected to behave to older people in social situations.

Boss or Team Player


Cross cultural knowledge and understanding of the hierarchical system is essential. Successful intercultural management will understand the importance of maintaining their positions of authority. Subordinates are expected to open doors for their superiors and stand when their superiors enter the room, in much the same way young people are expected to behave to older people in social situations.

Communication and Negotiation Styles


Personal relationships are the foundation for a successful business relationship. There will be a great deal of small talk before getting down to the business discussion. Patience may be a necessary cross cultural attribute. Never appear impatient or attempt to rush a Turk to make a decision. This is a hierarchical society where decisions are reached at the top of the company. Expect a great deal of bargaining and haggling.

Turks are tough negotiators. High-pressure sales tactics may be used. It is a good idea to hire an interpreter unless you are certain of the English language proficiency of the people you will be meeting in order to avoid any possible cross cultural miscommunication. There are intricate rules governing taxation, permits, and procedures. Be certain you have everything lined up properly.

7. The Middle East Management Style

The Middle East

Before discussing the Middle East as a region it is important to bear two things in mind. Firstly the Middle East is not a homogenous region. The area is not solely populated by Arabs but also Kurds, Turks, Iranians and more. In addition it not only inhabited by Muslims. There are many manifestations of Islam across the region that lives alongside Christianity, 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 of social (and business) interaction. Relationship driven cultures usually have the following traits: 1. Collectivist - this means that in such cultures the "we" takes precedence over the "I". This group mentality means the interests, opinions and decisions of the group carry much more weight than that of the individual.
2. The Family - the family or tribe takes central focus in daily life. In

such cultures very tight relationships are built with a small group of people whereas in more individual cultures people tend to have loose relationships with many people. Such family centred cultures tend to put the interests of the family first. Manifestations of this are that nepotism is seen as natural and protecting the honour of the family is a very high priority.
3. Hierarchy - a hierarchical society it used to levels of authority. A

good example of how a hierarchical society differs to a more level one is in management styles. In less hierarchical cultures a subordinate is expected to use initiative, share in the decision making process, can say "no" to the boss and most of the time has an informal relationship with the boss. In hierarchical societies the boss takes sole control because that is what they are paid for. Staff will expect explicit orders and guidance, meetings will be where decisions are implemented rather than discussed and very formal relationships exist with the boss.

4. Honour/Shame/Face - In relationship driven cultures there is

usually an emphasis on maintaining face, i.e. upholding the family/tribal honour. As a result there are usually very complex rules of engagement and communication styles. For example in the Middle East, saying "no" or blatantly disagreeing with people is not usually done in order to save people's face. We therefore see a lot of "beating about the bush" as people try to phrase sentiments in a way that does not make someone lose 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 of favours and reciprocation are part of daily life, from being introduced to the right people or getting past red tape. Being part of a network gives you access to resources.
6. Consensus - in hierarchical societies decisions are usually made on

a group basis. Although in the Middle East final decision making is usually made by the head of the family or tribe, there is still a level of consultation with others called "shura". Shura means surveying the opinions of those who are most knowledgeable in order to reach a decision that is best. Therefore within the business world it is important not to only concentrate on building relationships with decision makers but also those that advise them.