CHAPTER V


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION


 


            This chapter presents the summary and conclusions of the researcher in relation to the comparative study of leadership styles of the United States and Japan. After conducting an extensive period of doing research and probing, the researcher accomplished the results of the study through qualitative research approach guided by descriptive and analytical skills. The researcher came up with the following summary and conclusions.


Leadership is a complex area of empirical probation because it is deemed to be studied in various terms and application. Leadership extends beyond the performance of organisational management functions. The globalisation of the world necessitates the evaluation of leadership styles as it is an important component of organisational success. It is said that good leadership style includes establishing rapport with subordinates, identifying with their needs and concerns, setting good example, and others. The value of leadership is more than managing people for an organisation to work effectively. Aside from the personality of the leader, leadership style exists and makes difference. Such styles reflect relatively stable patterns of response to situations especially within given setting.  In this research, leadership styles of the United States and Japan are compared using secondary data obtained from previously published studies.


            In summary, the United States is highly masculine-oriented and individualistic country while Japan is also masculine-oriented but values the practice of collectivism. These cultural attributes is a persuasive indicator of the leadership styles employed by both American and Japanese leaders. Individualist leaders, like the Americans, emphasise on individual action and self-interest while collectivist leaders, like the Japanese, recognise collective action and view themselves more as group members. Both American and Japanese leaders use the participative leadership style. However, Japanese participative leadership style is more charismatic and directly incorporated with dominant Japanese cultural values and traditions. Both leaders support and work to perform within the working environment where staff participation is encourage. The involvement of members of the staff is crucial mainly in significant organisational functions such as decision-making processes, communication, and performance. Also, Japanese leaders are admired for their functions extend beyond social setting. They are both result-oriented, where organisational objectives are completely achieved. Japanese leaders call attention to results predominantly on innovations; however, perform not on the expense of staff members.


            In motivation, American leaders also use directive leadership style aside from participative approach. This is because of the presence of standardised rules for behaviour and rewards achievement that affects individual advancement. They include contingency reward and punishment as form of motivation. Japanese leaders, on the other hand, use participative approach alone and focus on commitment and loyalty as form of motivation. In relationship management, the process of communication on both leaders is given significant priority. Specifically, American leaders are less relationship-oriented while Japanese leaders are more relationship-oriented as they show outstanding concern on personal lives of their staff members. Employee relationships on American leaders are directed to maximum achievement of goals and disregard personal attributes of employees. For American leaders, results should benefit the whole organisation while Japanese leaders, results should benefit both the organisation and the individual. Trust is extremely dominant among Japanese leaders. Since relationship is governed by respect, guidance and consultation, Japanese leaders value equality and group harmony.


            Both American and Japanese organisational designs are structured and ordered according to hierarchical positions. A set of governing organisational rules and policies affects the execution of leadership styles. American leaders strictly adhere to all established organisational rules and policies while Japanese are less in organisational rules and policies. On personal characteristics, American leaders possess the tendency to focus on self-interest and acquisition of wealth. This is attributed to the individualistic cultural orientation. Self-enhancement is prioritised over self-criticism. They avoid criticisms about themselves. American leaders have higher indication for extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability. They are more conscientious and open to experience than Japanese managers. For Japanese leaders, they are group-oriented. They do not have more analytical tools to analyse the workplace situations and functions. They value self-criticism and explore many fields of expertise rather than restricting themselves to single area of specialisation. Japanese leaders have a consistent overturned causation explanation of personality mainly influenced by culture.


On this study, both countries were chosen because of its identified cultural differences to Hofstede’s four dimension model. Aside from cultural differences, both countries are identified similar, or do not differ significantly on most cases. For example, communication process and skills, goal setting and achievement, performance and productivity feedback, follower’s or subordinates feedback, and overall leadership behaviours are most likely identical. Significant differences in their leadership styles is seen in the application of management functions including motivation, employee relationships, and some aspects of decision-making, supervising, forecasting ability, and training progression. For American leaders, focus on result is outstanding. Japanese leaders, on the other hand, are remarkable on work-process. It is known that with the differing nature and characteristics of work, more effective and productive leadership styles are needed. The participative leadership styles of the United States and Japan is highly effective given that it is applied in specific areas with and maximum carefulness. The investigation of the consequences of this leadership style is important for leaders to have underlying knowledge on how to lead and motivate the members of the organisation.


            In this research study, it was noted that a given leadership style effectively applicable in one country (e.g. the US) may not be easily transferable or even applicable to another (e.g. Japan). Looking on the entire analysis and discussion, the leadership styles of both countries are somewhat similar and different in their own given rights. Because leadership styles are largely complex and designed to cater a specific area of management and practice, their specific relevance in various counties is uncertain. This uncertainty is a potential subject for further empirical exploration. It could be concluded that leadership styles are conceptually different and independently constructed because various styles can be displayed contemporaneously while empirically associated. The emphasis of leadership theory is centred on its essential contribution towards the unity and productivity of the entire organisation.


            The research implications adhere to the dynamics of business management and managerial leadership in all industries and parts of the world. By providing this evaluative research effort, the leadership styles of both Japan and the United States is further illuminated particularly its relevance and application to the current environment. This study is also directed to providing additional literatures that focus on the examination of Japanese and American management practices. It similarly signifies the importance of looking on the leadership dimensions of Japan and the U.S. Moreover, it applies definite answer to the varying differences in leadership styles as commonly identified in past leadership publications. Finally, this research emphasises the interrelatedness of conventional and contemporary leadership paradigms. Overall, the findings obtained in this study acknowledge the role of change and culture in terms of leadership and leadership styles employed by leaders and managers alike.


            In the case of American and Japanese participative leadership style, it has been pointed out that concern and consideration is bounded on different ways in different cultures. It is argued that for a specific leadership style to be successful in serving the needs of today’s contemporary workplace, it will call for retreat from hierarchical position-based authority to a more knowledge-based control. Leadership styles used at any given workplace settings or countries must adjust to existing changes in the global workplace and for the purpose of meeting the budding demands and aspirations of different generations of knowledge workers. Therefore, due to the dynamic condition and nature of the international workplace as well as the job/task itself, leadership styles have also had to undergo transformation. Leadership styles must be created to address the demands of the current environment, adapt to these changes, and meet the organisational goals for productivity and success. In light of above findings, it seems likely that a leader’s style is directly influenced by culture and other considerations yet leadership styles work well in one environment may not be effective in different cultural background.


 


 


 


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top