Culture and Environment - Case Study Example

Culture and Environment Name: Institution: Course: Lecturer: Date: Paper 1 Introduction Cultural difference forms part of an established issue regarding multinational businesses hiring different nationalities. International employees make a huge part of the global workforce thereby making the issue of cultural dimension an important issue. This section of the paper navigates through cultural minefields. The analysis touches on the different cultural issues, including problems surrounding global work-place environment. Through a framework that has been developed by Erin Meyer, a number of solutions have been put forward on how to navigate this area. According to Meyer (2014), it is always easy to succumb to racial stereotype in this respect. This is illustrated through examples where Americans herald anything negative using nice comments. This is in contrast to Frenchmen, Germans and the Israelis who get into the point in pointing ones faults. On the other hand, Latin Americans as well as Asians possess reputation of being precipitous whilst Scandinavians possess the opposite cultural attributes. According to Schein (2010), it is dangerous to over- generalize cultural issues. Mayer (2014) acknowledges this issue by asserting that truth exists over the matter which merit concern. She agrees that when an individual resides in a foreign country, he is likely to learn about a divergent of nuances overtime. For instance, while residing in India, an individual will learn that half nod regarding the head is not an indication of disagreement and or uncertainty as portrayed in other countries. To the contrary, it does suggest interest or attentive listening coupled with enthusiasm. The main challenge of cultural differences is intensified by both email and video-conferencing. Cameron & Quinn (2005) argues that absence of both visual as well as contextual clues which physical presence provides often results to huge misunderstanding. In this context, Meyer (2014) distinguishes between the higher-context countries and the lower-context countries. The higher context countries are represented by China and Japan where a ‘no’ is a sentiment used between the lines, and which is a common occurrence. O'Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell (1991) asserts that while considering different strategies geared at improving effectiveness, it is important to understand that communication pertains not only speaking but also listening. This entails clarification of questions coupled with receptiveness to body languages. Meyer (2014) claims that by searching for language cues, it is possible to ‘read the air’ a little more accurately. One of the mistakes exercised by lower context managers is the assumption that their seniors purposely omit information or else are unable converse explicitly. Cameron & Quinn (2005) asserts that such managers communicate using the style that they are accustomed. In this case, Meyer (2014) agrees that, asking for clarification is the best practice that such managers can undertake. She denotes that low context countries such as the United States prefer communicating in writing. For example, it is the culture of Americans to use organizational charts plus titles within their work environment. Paper 2 Introduction Businesses experience significant influence while defining company’s position. A substantial number of firms find it suitable to embrace turnaround strategy when face by critical conditions. While many firms fail to escape the turmoil, others make it successfully. A critical factor that determines success of the strategy is leadership. Characteristics of top level leaders play a crucial role. This section of the paper discusses the important characteristics exhibited by the top leaders and implementation of turnaround strategy conceptually. The paper also discusses mediatory effects of the concepts that prevail in form of strategic-orientation. Literature Review According to Harker & Sharma (2000), turnaround strategy is the company’s attempt concentrated within a particular period geared at sustaining the uniqueness of the firm while at the same time restoring its function of making profits. Day & Moorman (2013) acknowledge that such a strategy is initiated as well as triggered by turnaround situation caused by decline of the firm’s performance, absolutely or relatively to the industry at a degree that calls for the initiation of the strategy. Day and Moorman (2013) assert that during this period, a company is faced by a situation called severity that threatens the main core competency as well as the firm’s survival. Day and Moorman (2002) argue that turnaround strategy is the change that is embraced by a firm in response to issues regarding performance decline related to market share, prominence as well as efficiency. Such implementation requires great intervention plus a thorough transformation plan. One of the important interventions needed to boost success of the strategy is involvement of the top-level executives. The main reason of the need of top-level executives’ intervention is because turn-around strategy calls for abundant resources which in turn influence the firm’s long-term sustainability. According to Brandes & Brege (1993), turnaround strategy when used appropriately improves the firm’s worse performance to a more sustainable growth. Cameron (1987) acknowledge that firm’s performance is considered to be at a decline after experiencing grueling financial situation that in the end impact negatively on the firm and thus threatening its sustainability. Barker & Duhaime (1997) who possess similar position points out that in a turnaround situation, a company aspire to reverse the odds caused by the decline through adoption of strategy which restores functional situation. According to Lohrke (2014), the process of business turnaround contains three crucial steps. First, it is paramount for the firm to ascertain the main reason for the decline which is normally linked to environmental changes and firm’s weaknesses. Secondly, the management takes the initiative of formulating and implementing the most appropriate strategy to counter the decline. Thirdly, it is of essence to evaluate the results to find out whether the strategy will worsen or else improve the overall performance failures (Morrow, 2007). Through the upper echelon theory, Hambrick & Mason (1984) assert that an organization is normally a reflection of the top leaders. In such a context, the choices that the firm embrace emanates from the actors who possess big roles in the firm. Such choices that forms part of the company leadership ultimately define the actual performance of the firm. Moreover, Habrick & Mason (1984) describes the concept related to bounded-rationality. The concept is portrayed to be condition in which firm’s leaders obtains excess information that go beyond their capability and resources to make decisions. This compels leaders to filter information pertaining to their relevance as well as importance. Experiences and personality therefore originate from the leaders characteristics making these factors to influence their stand, selective perspective as well as interpretation. In regard to upper echelon perspective, the top level management acts as the sole decision makers of the firm’s policies. This means that any chosen strategy such as turnaround strategy is directly controlled by the executive. According to Evans, Chitnomrath & Christopher (2013), top level management needs to come up with the changes during the implementation of turnaround strategy. This includes system, culture as well as the employees’ altitudes. The changes should be grasped by each and every element of the firm. This is because it builds enormous trust towards the leaders as well as the overall result of turnaround. Lawson and Price (2003) assert that transformation process should be precise as well as effectively communicated to all elements of the firm. According to Day & Moorman (2013), success of the turnaround strategy requires not only the internal changes, but it still need to embrace the process of communicating with external stakeholders such as the consumers. The authors assert that both consumers and the public should know that the firm has initiated important changes. This assists in building the overall consumer trust and royalty towards the firm. However, Evans, Chitnomrath & Christopher (2013) hold the opinion that a minute possibility exists in which consumers can be influenced by initiated changes. On the other hand, Smith & Graves (2005) and Lawton, Rajwani & O’Kane (2011), argues that it is quite important for the firm to instill public awareness regarding its strategic action. Thus, such changes should be effected in every firm’s functionality particularly within the financial structure. Pretorius (2008) asserts that the turnaround process is done via set of efficiency-attempts as well as capital reconstructions. Schoenberg, Collier & Bowman (2013) acknowledge that efficiency is vital as an ingredient of restoring the business process of the company in the right path. Panicker & Manimala (2015) suggest that putting extra investment into the firm is vital in re-initiating fresh strategic attempts that require huge cost. Demographic of Leadership The theory of upper echelons describes the enormous impact of a leaders’ role. The application of the theory is linked to the bounded rationality theory that admits the existence of one’s limitations in regard to rationalizing information. According to Hamrick & Mason (1984), every person has limited vision while predicting any upcoming situation as well as analyzing information. This means that identical information is always interpreted differently by the different individuals. Finkelstein (2009) explains that factors of demographic traits play a huge role in determining rational limitation. Leaders who possess functional background traits always have different risk orientation. Therefore, this differentiates their perspective on the magnitude of information risk as well as the alternative decision. Jonah & Heri (2013) asserts that educational background, age, tenure as well as international experience also act as an important demographic dimension. Finskeilstein, Hambrick & Cannella (2009) acknowledge that certain demographic characteristics guide a leader to the various kind of information. In this respect, a leader possessing financial background applies such information as a consideration for decision making. On the other hand, a leader possessing alternative background such as marketing, prioritize information which originates from their respective functional background. Strategic orientation also depicts company’s tendencies in regard to application and implementation of the turnaround. The strategic practice which is always prospector gives various results of defender strategic orientation. The tendency of the firm to move prospectively at the turnaround period is likely to yield positive impact emanating from anticipative attitude on possible movement within the environment. Alternatively, the application of defender orientation strategy mandates better performance since the leaders exercise caution while making decisions (Panicker & Manimala, 2015). The main position in the strategic orientation of this paper mediates between leader’s traits as well as the overall performance regarding turnaround strategy reflected by the firm’s performance. There is always a possible relation occurring between top executive’s traits and the turnaround strategic performance. However, basic assumption is that meditative relation explains the turnaround performance of the company, from strategic leadership perspective (Evans, Chitnomrath & Christopher, 2013). Conclusion The business environment changes while mistakes arise while making and implementing decisions. This often leads the firm to critical conditions. Turn-around strategy is often embraced by firms that want to avoid succumbing to such conditions. Actually, this is often practiced by design. However, the success of passing through the turnaround pace guarantees sustainability of the firm (Day and Moorman, 2002). The success of implementing the strategy is often determined by the leaders’ factor. The leaders act as significant factor in determining implementation of decisions which yields the company’s success. Therefore, perspective regarding strategic leadership becomes fundamental augmentation. As such, limited rationality of the top executive results to a specific decision that ends at different performance level. This also reflects on achievements between the leaders and the company (Day and Moorman, 2002). Different leader’s traits prevail which are assumed as a prerequisite of implementing a successful turnaround strategy. The traits require further identification particularly on dimensions that are believed to possess massive influence. This includes educational background, international experience, tenure as well as age. References Reino, A., Kask, T. and Vadi, M., 2007. Organizational culture and environment: Dynamics in dynamics. Case of Ordi. Trames, (2), pp.124-138. Schein, E.H., 2010. Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons. Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E., 2005. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons. O'Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F., 1991. People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of management journal, 34(3), pp.487-516. Barker, V. III and Duhaime, I., 1997. Strategic Change in the turnaroundProcess: Theory and Empirical Evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 18(1), pp. 13-38. Day, G. and Moorman, C., 2013. Regaining Customer Relevance: The Outside-in turnaround. Strategy and Leadership, 41(4), pp. 17-23. Finkeilstein, S., Hambrick, D. C. and Cannella, A. A., 2009. Strategic Leadership: Theory An Research on Executive, Top Management Team, and Boards. Oxford University Press. Hambrick, D. C., 2007. Upper Echelons Theory: An Update. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), pp. 334-343. Hambrick, D. C. and Mason, P. A., 1984. The Organization as A Reflection of its Top Managers. Academy of Management Riview, 9(2), pp. 193-206. Harker, M. and Sharma, B., 2000. Leadership and the Company turnaroundProcess. The leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 21(1), pp. 36-47. Lawton, T., Rajwani, T. and O'Kane, C., 2011. Strategic Reorientation and Business turnaround: The Case of Global Legacy Airlines. Journal of Strategy and Management, 4(3), pp. 215-237. Lohrke, F., Bedeian, A. and Palmer, T., 2004. The Role of Top Management Teams in Formulating and Implementing turnaroundStrategies: A Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6(2), pp. 63-90. Pretorius, M., 2008. When Porter's Generic StrategiesAre Not Enough: Complementary Strategies for turnaroundSituations. Journal of Business Strategy, 29(6), pp. 19-28. Panicker, S. and Manimala, M. J., 2015. Successful turnarounds: The Role of Appropriate Enterpreneurial Strategies. Journal of Strategy and Management, 8(1), pp. 21-40. Evans, R. T., Chitnomrath, T. & Christopher, T., 2013. Successful turnaroundStrategy: Thailand Evidence. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 3(2), pp. 115-124. Read More