Introduction


Management practices are not developed in a vacuum but within corporate organizations and social environments that cannot be easily replicated. They cannot be introduced overnight like managerial directives but have to be integrated in corporate visions and immersed in the appropriate social values and attitudes. Substantial progress has been made in cross-cultural and comparative management studies depicting those differing values and practices (Richter 2002).  Asian management has been perceived as a counter body of thought in delimitation of Western management practices. Management of the firm in Asia is different. In order to understand the differences between Asian and Western management, one must recognize that there is not merely a cultural divide between two societies, but a civilizational chasm (Scarborough 1998). In the management of business there are different values that are used as a basis to determine the best action for a company.  Asian and Western values give ideas on what are the acceptable and unacceptable actions for business. Asian values give importance to the welfare of individuals while Western values focus on the idea of professionalism in the workplace (Bowles & Morden 1998).  This paper intends to validate the idea that Asian cultures are different to those in the West. Therefore, management writings based on Western values and practices have limited application, if any, for Asian business managers in helping them respond successfully to the challenges they face in early twenty-first century. This paper will make use of the companies such as Samsung and Honda to validate the above statement.


 


Main body


Organizational leadership theory


There are different leadership approaches. Two ideas on Organizational leadership theory belong to Fiedler and Japanese management. A leadership theory is the Fiedler model. Fiedler proposed that effective leadership is a function of a proper match between the leader’s style of interacting with followers and the degree to which the situation gives control and influence to the leader (Storey 2004).  According to Fiedler, a leader’s style could be identified based on how the leader describes an individual he or she last enjoyed working with (Bergman, et al., 2006 When a leader describes this person in favorable terms, this indicates that the leader is interested in good relationships (Sims 2002). Fiedler’s theory concentrated on the relationship between the leader and his/her subordinate.  In that theory it is vital that leaders know how to handle their relationship with the subordinates. The leaders need to relate with the various feelings of the subordinates without stepping over the boundaries of business structure. The subordinates need to know that the leader might have a good relation with them but the leader still has a position that needs respect.  Leaders and members need to have mutual trust for them to work well and achieve the firm’s goal. Leaders and the subordinates need to communicate well so that tasks can be clearly explained to both parties. 


 


Other authors on leadership include Toyohiro Kono and Stewart Clegg.   Kono and Clegg explained that the Japanese management style may give focus on people but they also consider the changes in the global environment. Their article focused on how Japanese management can be adjusted to current world trends.  One of the most striking features of the Japanese management system is lifetime employment. The term is, however, something of a misnomer and is better described as long-term employment with a single firm. In contrast with much western practice, large firms in Japan aim to recruit all their employees, both blue and white collar, directly from the education system (Thomas 2003).  Regular employees enter the firm at its lower levels and are then expected to remain with it for the rest of their working lives. Although some movement between firms is tolerated, this is usually restricted to young employees at the start of their careers (Harris 2004). Beyond this, there is an understanding between employer and employee that to leave the firm amounts to a severe breach of mutual obligation. This system is self-maintaining because large firms seldom recruit personnel from other firms. Once the initial exploration period is over, employees cannot leave without severely damaging their career prospects (Jackson & Tomioka 2003). To westerners, lifetime employment seems puzzling, not least because it seems to constrain a firm’s ability to adjust its labor costs in response to changing business conditions. But the system is underpinned by the use of temporary workers who can be laid off as the need arises. Lifetime employment is therefore far from universal in Japan, even in large firms. Furthermore, women are excluded from the systems (Harris 2002).  The leadership theory of Japanese Management shows that Asian business give due reward to their loyal personnel. Japanese management focuses on the notion that loyal personnel should be rewarded with lifetime employment.


 


Comparison of Asian and Western Values on management


The gist of Fiedler’s theory focuses on the need for a good relationship between the leader and the personnel but there is neglect for what the personnel feels and what should be the proper reward for personnel. The gist of Japanese management is the concern for the personnel and proper reward for their loyalty.  The use of Fiedler’s theory will lead to a company to focus well on the welfare of the clients since there are lesser issues within a certain workplace. On the other hand such leadership practice causes an employee to be not loyal since they will have a notion that no matter how long they stay within the company they will not receive their just rewards.  The use of Fiedler’s theory creates a good relationship between the personnel and the managers wherein there is decentralized decision making.  When there is decentralized decision making the tendency is too many ideas coming from various parties. This creates new conflicts and poor decisions.  The use of Japanese management tends to create loyal and trustworthy employees. This in turn will cause the personnel to lose their desire to give the proper service to clients since they have already work security. When employee believes that their job is intact once they acquired significant years of service to the company the result is the lost of drive and motivation to provide an excellent service to clients.   Japanese management focuses on centralized decisions wherein only one serves as the main decision making body of the company. It results to lesser input but lesser ideas on how to solve a problem. When centralized decisions are implemented, decision makers tend to focus on their idea on what is the best for the firm.


 


Organizational learning theory


Authors on Organizational learning theory are Ricardo Chiva and Joaquín Alegre. Their theory focuses on the idea that organizational learning has experienced important growth but organizational learning is currently facing a series of problems such as theoretical confusion and discord. Organizational learning is an attempt to engage with some complex and difficult issues associated with organizing. As a result of all this, organizational learning is a fascinating and an enduring metaphor, one that continually yields fresh insights about organization. In addition, however, there are frustrations about the study of organizational learning (Vince 2004).   There are many theories and perspectives that claim to inform and to represent organizational learning, some of which are poorly thought through; prescriptions for organizational learning in action are at best temporary, but new prescriptions are nevertheless being invented constantly; and almost every senior manager has either done that and moved on, is doing it continually, has her or his own way of defining it in practice, or wants to be told how it can be done (Greve 2003).  One thing that is generally agreed about the meaning of organizational learning is that it is a process that is connected to action. There is a difference between individual learning in an organization and organizational learning. The sum of individuals’ learning in an organization is frequently assumed to equate with organizational learning. Such an interpretation is based on the idea that the combined impact of individuals’ applied learning in an organization probably means that organizational learning or change will take place (Dosi, Nelson & Winter 2001).


The other author on organizational learning is Meinolf Dierkes. He believed that there is minimal representation of the learning experiences of various companies that are located in non-Western countries. He believed that there is diversity in learning strategies and the learning strategies have similarities with western sources. Organizational learning was based on different things such as individual learning, training and development. Organizational learning is not a new concept in business; this kind of learning has merged with other aspects of organizational management (Berends, Boersma & Weggeman 2003). Organizational learning helps in determining the methods used by organizations to learn and adapt to the changes done within the environment of a company. When there is increase in the changes in the environment there should be increase on learning for an organization (Alegre & Chiva 2005).  Efforts to understand organizational learning have been assisted in recent years by the general shift of interest away from organizations and towards organization and organizing. An increasing focus on collective learning, situated learning, communities of practice, and on politics, power relations and learning has helped to shift the academic study of organizational learning away from individual learning, towards social, political and relational interpretations of learning and organizing (Evans, Hodkinson & Unwin 2002). The current understanding of strategic learning is that it is a form of organizational learning whereby assumptions that underpin corporate-level knowledge are reframed or where the sense making and knowledge management structures of an organization are altered in potentially radical ways (Boreham, Fischer & Samurçay 2002).


 


Comparison of theories on Organizational Learning


Knowledge-intensive capitalism is increasingly a global system and the knowledge-intensive organization is increasingly a global actor. All aspects of R&D and product development to production and marketing must be oriented to and increasingly take place in major markets throughout the globe. To be effective in this increasingly borderless global economy, regions must be defined by the same criteria and elements which constitute a knowledge-intensive firm: continuous improvement, new ideas, knowledge creation and organizational learning (Gertler & Wolfe 2002). Without proper management of knowledge, the conduct of organizational learning would be incomplete since important things needed in the learning process would not be available. The western side of organizational learning theory believes that organizational learning still needs to know itself further so that it can achieve its goals.  Western organizational learning principles point out that Organizational learning has some flaws which need to be studied and changed. If some aspects of the Western organizational learning theories will be combined with Asian organizational learning strategies, the result would be improved systems to gather important information and make important business decisions. The Asian side of organizational learning points out that organizational learning strategies used in non western countries is ignored even if it has the same capabilities as its counterparts. If some aspects of Asian organizational learning strategies would be combined with western organizational theories the result would be the emergence of strategies that would be popular to both Western and non Western businesses.


 


Examples to validate the statement


Samsung group is one of the most important business groups in Korea. The weight of the Samsung group is critical in the national economy. It has grown rapidly. The share of the Samsung group in the national economy has increased. The Samsung group covers a wide area of industries, from food to electronics and now automobiles (Shimotani & Shiba 2003). Having started out as a trade company, it has entered almost all the manufacturing and service sectors, step by step. Samsung’s corporate governance style is hat of the owner Lee and his family management system, which has never changed (Shimotani & Shiba 2003). Samsung is one of the most successful firms in Korea. Samsung group is composed of numerous international businesses, all united under the Samsung brand Samsung makes use organizational learning strategies and leadership strategies that are based from the Western principles and ideas. Samsung’s organizational learning strategies and leadership strategies were given some unique Asian flavor and this helped the company achieve its status.  Honda was by far the most internationalized of all the world’s major automobile producers in terms of sales; was second only to Ford, which had long-standing European investments, in the proportion of manufacturing outside its home region; and was now expanding production operations in a fourth world region (Cox 1997).  Honda became the first Japanese automobile producer to manufacture more than half its automobiles outside Japan. Honda appeared to be a clear-cut case of a company breaking its ties with its home base, both in terms of sales and in terms of production activity, and considering the whole world as its theater of operations (Cox 1997). Honda is the 5th largest automobile manufacturer in the world as well as the largest engine-maker in the world. Honda manufactures automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, scooters, robots, jets and jet engines, ATV, water craft, electrical generators, marine engines, lawn and garden equipment, and aeronautical and other mobile technologies. Honda makes use of the Asian centralized methods of management in making decisions. It based its organizational learning strategies from Western studies. This helped the company adapt well in opening branches or subsidiaries in Western markets.


 


Conclusion


The management writings based on Western values and practices have helped businesses to respond to the challenges faced by businesses in current times. The ideas of Western values added with Asian Values provided a clearer perspective for businesses and it provided solutions to current problems of a changing global environment. Western organizational learning principles point out that Organizational learning has some flaws which need to be studied and changed. The Asian side of organizational learning points out that organizational learning strategies used in non western countries is ignored even if it has the same capabilities as its counterparts The gist of Fiedler’s theory focuses on the need for a good relationship between the leader and the personnel but there is neglect for what the personnel feels and what should be the proper reward for personnel. The gist of Japanese management is the concern for the personnel and proper reward for their loyalty. 


 


References


Alegre, J & Chiva, R 2005,’Organizational learning and


organizational knowledge: Towards the integration of two


approaches’, Management Learning, vol. 36, no.1, pp.49-68. 


 


Berends, H, Boersma, K & Weggeman, M 2003, ‘The


structuration of organizational learning’, Human Relations,


vol. 56, no.9, pp. 1035-1056.


 


Bergman, R, Coulter, M & Robbins, SP, Stagg, I 2006,


Management, 4th edn, Pearson Prentice Hall, Sydney.


 


Boreham, N, Fischer, M & Samurçay, R (eds.) 2002, Work


process knowledge, Routledge, New York.


 


Bowles, D & Morden, T 1998,’Management in South Korea: a review’, Management decision, vol. 36, no.5, pp. 316–330


 


Clegg, S & Kono, T 2001, Trends in Japanese management:


Continuing strengths, current problems, and changing


priorities, Palgrave, New York


 


Cox, KR (eds.) 1997, Spaces of globalization: Reasserting


the power of the local, Guilford Publications, New York.


 


Dierkes, M 2001, Handbook of organizational learning and


knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford.


 


Dosi, G, Nelson, RR & Winter, S (eds.) 2001, The nature and


dynamics of organizational capabilities, Oxford University


Press, Oxford, England.


 


Evans, K, Hodkinson, P & Unwin, L (eds.) 2002, Working to


learn: Transforming learning in the workplace, Kogan Page,


London.


 


Gertler, MS & Wolfe, DA (eds.) 2002, Innovation and social


learning: Institutional adaptation in an era of


technological change, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.


 


Greve, HR 2003, Organizational Learning from performance


feedback: A behavioral perspective on innovation and


change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. 


 


Harris, E 2004, ‘European leadership in cultural synergy’, European Business Review, vol. 16, no.4, pp. 358–380.


 


Harris, TE 2002, Applied organizational communication:


Principles and pragmatics for future practice, Lawrence


Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.


 


Jackson, K & Tomioka, M 2003, The changing face of Japanese


management, Routledge, New York.


 


Richter, F 2002, Redesigning Asian business: In the


aftermath of crisis, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.


 


Scarborough, J 1998, The origins of cultural differences


and their impact on management, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.


 


Shimotani, M & Shiba, T (eds.) 2003, Beyond the firm:


Business groups in international and historical


perspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.


Sims, RR 2002, Managing organizational behavior, Quorum


Books, Westport, CT.


 


Storey, J 2004, Leadership in organizations: Current issues


and key trends, Routledge, New York.


 


Thomas, A 2003, Controversies in management: Issues,


debates, answers, Routledge, London.


 


Vince, R 2004 Rethinking strategic learning, Routledge, New York.



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top