Compare and contrast two clusters
Comparing how the employees value the paternalistic style of leadership, the Japanese employees were found to value the style much as compared to their American partners. This can show that the developing countries value paternalistic style of management more than the Anglo-American partners. The Japanese managers were also found to have a greater belief in the capacity of the subordinate as compared to the American managers.
This study was also done on the Korean managers which also gave the same results. This study can, therefore, indicate that the developing country managers have a greater belief in their subordinate as compared to the Anglo-American managers. The study further indicates that the participation of a subordinate in decision making in Japanese companies is greater as compared to the American companies. The two clusters (Anglo-American and developing countries), therefore, show a greater distinction towards the management approach. The developing countries are seen as very flexible, where subordinate are appreciated, and information shared freely. On the contrary, Anglo-American countries are found to be very stiff, where the top managers do not appreciate subordinate and company information are regarded as the top secret.
Choose one country you’d like to then compare and contrast the leadership approaches with the American leadership approaches.
American leadership approaches are totally different with other countries around the world. Comparing the American leadership styles with those of developing countries like Japan, a bigger difference can be seen. In this case, Japan would be chosen as the country whose leadership approaches would be compared to that of America. To do this, Ouchi’s Theory Z which compared the Japanese management approaches, and the US management approaches would be used. Japanese leaders are found to be more ethnocentric as compared to their American partners. Japanese are very reluctant to abandon their way of thinking even if they are operating in another country far away from Japan. American managers, on the other hand, are found to be people who are flexible and can easily abandon their way of thinking so as to adapt those of the people surrounding them.
Performance and problem are another part where the two management styles differ. The Japanese are found to be people who concentrate more on problem as compared to the American managers who believe on opportunities. In a Japanese company, the manager would let one go on with his or her job even if such person is making a mistake so as to learn from the mistake. They believe that one can learn from the mistake and later take the necessary precautions to avoid the mistake. Americans on the other side would not allow any mistake to occur and in any case there would be any mistake done, the manager will swiftly move to curb it as early as possible.
The Japanese employment is often lifelong with very rare layoffs. This is in contrary with the American employment which is usually short with layoffs quite often. The performance of the workers in American companies, thus tends to be higher as everyone tends to meet the expectation and not to risk layoff. The promotion of the workers in the Japanese companies also tends to be low as compared to the American counterparts. Japanese companies can go to as far as ten years before promoting an employee. Americans, on the other hand, would look for employment elsewhere in case the promotion does not come as early as he, or she wished. Decision making in the two countries also leaves a lot to be discussed. In Japan, decision making is the responsibility of a group of people assigned the task. Individual decision, hence does not give any impact to the company. Americans, however, do not waste time collecting views from people who surprisingly are not willing to give any. An individual thus makes the decision making.
The similarities in the two countries that is evident are the team work that is seen both Japan and America. In both of the countries, team work amongst the employees and the managers is one factor that is highly appreciated. Japanese companies such as Sony are amongst the companies that have shown a greater sign of cooperation and team work amongst the employees. American companies have also practiced team work amongst themselves.
Communication between the top management and the employees is another factor that showed similarities between the American firms and the Japanese counterpart. In both the countries, it was found out that the top management gave their employees a chance to voice their views and contribute to the development of the company. The result of believing in the employees showed that the employees worked with confidence and cherished their profession. The productivity of the companies thus tends to skyrocket when employees have trust with the managers and vice versa.
Differences in the management styles give the MNC a point to worry about. A manager in China would find it difficult to practice the same management skill in America. This due to the way the employees would view his approaches. So as to avoid this scenario, an International management styles need to be formulated. The traditional methods of management that are not productive should be abandoned and in their place, adapt those that are efficient and productive. Managers across the world should be required to be flexible enough to use their skills irrespective of the place they work. With managers with the same skill and professions, the differences that are noted across the globe might reduce to minimal. The US MNC in that case should consider revising its management strategies. The best methods should be adopted. The appealing leadership strategies from other countries such as China should be revised so that they can be adapted.
The follower’s perspective can be termed as transformational leadership. In this case, leaders have visionary agents with a sense of mission and who are capable of motivating their followers to accept new goals and a new way of doing things. This kind of leadership has been found to be the most effective. The leaders usually tend to keep track of what their followers expect. In exchange, the leaders usually expect to maintain their status quo and not to diminish the pride they enjoy. The contact between the followers and the leader tends to be high making the production to be high. Follower’s perspective is thus very effective as compared to the other differing leadership skills.
Changing leadership style across the globe leaves a debate if changing the followers, or the leader can make things better. It will be very difficult to change, the followers because of the big number that they tend to have. A leader, on the other hand, can be changed, but the leader that takes after will be the determinant. A leader can be changed paving way for the worst leader. The two thus does not bring anything new. It is, however, advised that the way both the leader and the follower think towards management should change so as to have a common and effective management.
Koenigs, Robert. "An Interview With Dr. William Ouchi." Training & Development Journal 36.3 (1982): 38. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.