Leadership Across Thailand, The United Kingdom, and Germany - Essay Example

? LEADERSHIP ACROSS THAILAND, THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND GERMANY by of the of the of the School June 28, 2013 Introduction Companies and work places today are more diverse and intricate than ever before. Unlike the managers in earlier times, managers today have to work across cultures, time, and distance, due to the structures of today’s organisations, whose employees and customers are spread all over the world. It is therefore important for managers to consider the similarities and differences that exist across the different nations they work in, in case of multinational companies, and the people they work with, since they might also come from different cultures, so as to establish and nurture relationships that promote efficiency at work. This is due to the fact that such differences influence how employees view their leaders, the kind of attitude they have towards work, their expectations, as well as other significant issues. Leadership across cultures therefore calls for cultural adaptability on the part of managers, since managerial work gets more complex across cultures. According to Deal and Prince, “cultural adaptability is the willingness and ability to recognise, understand, and work effectively across cultures” (2011, n.p.). Cultural adaptability therefore supports that despite the fact that management across cultures is a complex task, success can be attained through satisfaction of the diverse employees, achievement of goals, and completion of tasks. Managers who want to be successful in a global environment are therefore called to embrace cultural adaptability as a value. This paper reviews leadership across Thailand, the United Kingdom (UK), and Germany focussing on how managers from Thailand may need to change their leadership style, when working in subsidiaries in the United Kingdom and Germany. Review of Literature Regarding Leadership across Cultures Increased pressures for change and competitiveness in companies have been heightened by globalisation. These make appreciating the changing environment and establishing cooperatively beneficial multicultural and interpersonal relations with people from across the globe a challenge that managers need to tackle. Steers, Nardon, and Sanchez-Runde point out that the challenges faced by managers leading in a multicultural environment include lack of clarity on which culture to follow and maintain, the challenge of coming across many cultures within a short time making it difficult to learn about them due to time constraints, and the event of multicultural encounters taking place virtually through video conferencing and computers rather than through physical interactions (2013). Lack of clarity on which culture to embrace mostly takes place if an international project team, comprises of individuals from different cultures. Melkman and Trotman also support that “in large multi-national companies, young managers will often find themselves working in virtual teams with colleagues from all over the world, sometimes without ever meeting face to face” (2005, p. 4). This makes it difficult for these managers to discuss what each one of them believes are the roles of a leader and come to an agreeable conclusion, as well as how to measure success and a range of other essential factors. In addition, Melkman and Trotman point out communication is also a challenge (2005). According to Biech, “communication in a multicultural setting is much more complex and can result in inefficiencies” (2011, n.p.). Complexity in communication increases greatly when a team and customers are dispersed within different geographical regions. Deal and Prince assert that despite the fact that it is impossible for managers to exactly know how different people in different places behave, they should possess cultural adaptability skills (2011). Bhattacharyya supports this point when he asserts that at any time that managers of a certain company are need to travel and work in a culturally different country “it is better to do some homework to know about their cultural issues and how such issues exert influence on their business practices” (2010, p. 293). Trevino and Nelson on the other hand mention that leaders “who are heading overseas are encouraged to learn about the additional cultural dimensions that are more relevant for other aspects of the overseas business experience” (2011, p. 402). If managers fail to do this, they may not understand some culture signs that may have unfavourable consequences on their work, especially team work. By making it a point to meet face to face, managers eliminate problems that may be brought about by communication challenges. Communication through video conferencing, e-mails and telephone calls has often been understood. According to Bhattacharyya, “face to face or direct communication, though not akin to all cultures may work better while communicating with the cross cultural team” (2010, p. 293). The Leadership Culture in Thailand The culture of leadership in Thailand is very similar to that of China. It can thus be said to be authoritarian. This can be attributed to the fact that most companies in Thailand are owned and controlled by Chinese immigrants. Despite this Thai values have also influenced the leadership style in enterprises. According to Warner, “the quintessential leader in Thai society would be one who is primarily benevolent, though utilises authoritarian approaches as needed” (2003, p.239). By being benevolent, leaders are expected to establish cooperation and harmony in the hierarchical relationships, to show empathy, kindness, and generally treat others with general consideration, regardless of their rank in the hierarchy. Leaders are however not expected to be self sacrificing and moralistic. In Thai society, status differences exist and this determines the hierarchical structure employed in companies and businesses in Thai. This means that there are company owners, lower level managers, and subordinates. In Thai, the values stress that in the presence of their superiors, subordinates should be very reserved and modest. Obedience to authority is held with high regard in Thailand; hence, both leaders and subordinates are expected to obey rules and regulations at work. The male gender in Thailand is perceived as superior to the female gender, and this has been the basis of a variety of aspects in the enterprises and social life in general. The Leadership Culture in the United Kingdom In Britain, people view effective leadership as one that is visionary, innovative and risk oriented” (Yardley, Kakabadse and Neal, 2012, n.p.). All employees in a company, including managers are expected to be committed to innovation through experiment. The readiness to meet challenges and adapt to changes here is key. This kind of a culture is known as adhocracy. Rather than focussing on exercising the power and authority bestowed upon them, leaders focus on empowering their employees to be innovative. Servant leadership has also been embraced in Britain. This has mainly been driven by the belief that leadership is all about service and not control. According to Nair, this kind of leadership “has become the approach many businesses are taking in defining a new form of leadership based on service rather than hierarchical controls” (2011, n.p.). Rather than being a leadership style, servant leadership is a lifestyle that comes from the belief that a manager’s role “as a leader is to continually challenge others, to encourage them and to give them a chance to develop their talents” (Trompenaars, 2009, n.p.). The Leadership Culture in Germany There are different styles of leadership in Germany. Traditionally, satisfactory leadership and management in Germany were not viewed as attributes that could be taught, but rather as personal charm. According to Nees, “this has begun to change however and professional managers are now beginning to receive more respect and credibility in the German business community” (2000, p. 104). Germany has a strong inclination towards management hierarchy and the autocratic style of leadership. Despite this, the nation places emphasis on cooperation and consensus through a democratic approach to management. “Both tendencies can be found at most levels both inside German organisations and in the external socioeconomic environments in which they operate” (Nees, 2000, p. 104), despite being somewhat contradictory. Daft defines an autocratic leader as “one who tends to centralise authority and derive power from position, control of rewards and, coercion” (2008, p. 44). Democratic leadership can be said to be the opposite of this since, “a democratic leader delegates authority to others, encourages participation, relies on subordinates’ knowledge for completion of tasks, and depends on subordinate respect for influence” (Daft, 2008, p. 44). According to Nees, the autocratic style is characterised by little regard to equality, open subordinate criticism, as well as powerful and direct orders (2000). The main reason behind this is the fact that German leaders traditionally upheld obedience and command, and individuals in the higher classes of a hierarchy dominated those in the lower classes. Germans today have however embraced democracy, and have been sensible in appreciating and maintaining the importance of a hierarchy in industries and organisations. According to the GLOBE research “charismatic, transformational leadership, team orientation, and participation” (Kessler and Wong-MingJi, 2009, p. 135), are viewed as desirable characteristics in leadership. With the presence of a hierarchy, subordinates in Germany are expected to respond to orders from managers and to adhere to their job descriptions and organisation policies. Unlike in some nations such as the United States, a non nonsense approach is employed in work, and cases of friendships among members in different levels of a hierarchy are viewed as inefficient and counterproductive. In Germany, “objective and external criteria are cited as measures of performance, and if these criteria are not met, the manager is expected to inform the employee in an explicit impersonal manner” (Nees, 2000, p. 105). How a Manager from Thailand may need to change his Leadership Style, when working in Subsidiaries in the United Kingdom and Germany The Case of the United Kingdom according to Hofstede’s Four Dimensions According to the model of national culture conceived by Hofstede, whose four dimensions include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity (Cullen and Parboteeah, 2013), a manager from the Thailand working in the United Kingdom may need to change his leadership style. In case of power distance, the manager will be expected to make an effort and get to be close to his subordinates, which is a good step in mentoring them to be innovative. This is because in the United Kingdom servant leadership is encouraged. Thus, rather than focussing on exercising the power and authority bestowed upon him, the manager will focus on empowering his employees to be innovative. In terms of uncertainty, the manager will be required to clearly stipulate rules, regulations, and policies to be strictly followed by his subordinates, in order to ensure that they all focus on set goals. In terms of individualism, he will be required to view his subordinates as unique individuals, with different ways of thinking and levels of innovativeness, as well as in a collective way, since both individual effort and team effort are encouraged in the United Kingdom. In terms of masculinity, the United Kingdom does not pay much attention to gender; hence, the manager will be required to learn to treat his subordinates equally, whether male or female. The Case of Germany according to Hofstede’s Four Dimensions In terms of power distance, the manager will be required to keep a considerable distance between himself and his subordinates. This is because as seen earlier, a non nonsense approach is employed in work, especially by managers, and cases of friendships among members in different level of a hierarchy are viewed as inefficient and counterproductive in Germany. In terms of uncertainty avoidance, the manager will be required to clearly stipulate rules, regulations and policies to be strictly followed by his subordinates, in order to ensure predictability and order (Cullen and Parboteeah, 2013). In addition, he will need to clear stipulate the duties of each employee. This is because in Germany are expected to respond to orders from managers and to adhere to their job description and organisation policies. In terms of individualism, he will be required to view his subordinates as unique individuals, with distinct roles, who are expected to perform even as individuals, and to be responsible. This is because nonsense at work is not entertained in Germany and friendships are not encourages, hence unless when working in groups, employees have to be responsible and to perform as individuals. In terms of masculinity, Germany does not pay much attention to gender and therefore the manager will have to view and treat his subordinates equally, whether male or female. The Case of the United Kingdom according to Schwartz 7 Values Schwartz developed 7 values, which he called the dimensions of societal cultures. These include embeddedness, hierarchy, mastery, effective autonomy, intellectual autonomy, egalitarianism, and harmony (Gutternman, n.d.). In terms of autonomy versus embeddedness, the manager will be required to promote both embeddedness and autonomy, in order to ensure that his subordinated are productive working in teams and as individuals. This is because vision, innovation, and risk taking, which are encouraged in the United Kingdom, require different levels of individual and team work. Rather than maintaining a hierarchy which is the norm in Thailand, the manager will be required to promote some level of egalitarianism. The Case of Germany according to Schwartz 7 Values In terms of autonomy versus embeddedness, the manager will be required to promote reasonable levels of embeddedness and autonomy, which respectively promote team work and individual work. He will also need to maintain a hierarchy, rather than a system of egalitarianism in the organisation, since Germany places a lot of emphasis in definition of roles and adherence to rules and regulations by employees in different levels of an organisation’s hierarchy. The Case of the United Kingdom according to Trompenaars 7 Scales Trompenaars seven scale include universalism versus particularism, individualism versus collectivism, specific versus diffuse, neutral versus affective, achievement versus ascription, time perspective, and relationship with the environment (Steers, Nardon, and Sanchez-Runde, 2013). In terms of universalism versus particularism, the manager will be required to choose universalism, since in the United Kingdom, formal rules and policies are equally applied among all subordinates. In terms of individualism versus collectivism, the manager will have to choose both, since in the United Kingdom; reasonable levels of individualism and collectivism are encouraged. In terms of being specific versus diffuse, he will need to specific and accommodate some level of diffusion, since sometimes innovative ideas can come from the least expected sources and all subordinates in the United Kingdom are encouraged to share any innovative thoughts they might have. In terms of a neutral versus affective approach, the manager is not required to display any emotions (Steers, Sanchez-Runde and Nardon, 2013); however, he should not be too hard hearted towards his employees and should show some level of consideration. This is because in the United Kingdom, good treatment of employees is also a plus in encouraging productivity and innovation. In terms of achievement versus ascription, the manager needs to concentrate on the achievements of his subordinates in order to accord them respect, rather than due to status they may have inherited. In terms of time perspective, the manager will need to focus on the future and plan for it, while in terms of relationship with the environment, he will need to be directed towards promoting productivity and innovation among his employees, rather than being inner directed, which only encourages exercising authority that may sometimes not bear fruit. The Case of Germany according to Trompenaars 7 Scales In terms of universalism versus particularism, the manager will be required to choose universalism, since in Germany, formal rules and policies are equally applied among all subordinates. In terms of individualism versus collectivism, the manager will have to choose individualism, since individual achievement is highly regarded in Germany. In terms of being specific versus diffuse, he will need to specific and define the roles and duties of each employee, a culture that is highly regarded in Germany. In terms of a neutral versus affective approach, the manager is not required to display any emotions (Steers, Sanchez-Runde and Nardon, 2013), since work is viewed as a no nonsense matter in Germany, and managers are required to inform employees of any eventualities at work in an explicit impersonal manner. In terms of achievement versus ascription, the manager needs to concentrate on the achievements of his subordinates in order to accord them respect, rather than due to status they may have inherited. In terms of time perspective, the manager will need to focus on the future and plan for it, while in terms of relationship with the environment, the manager will have to opt towards being inner directed, and therefore control his subordinates and the company, using the power and authority bestowed upon him. Reference List Bhattacharyya, Dipak K., 2010. Cross-Cultural Management: Text and Cases. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited. Biech, E. ed.., 2011. The 2012 Pfeiffer Annual: Consulting. California: Pfeiffer Publishers. Cullen, John B. and Parboteeah, K. P. ed., 2013. Multinational Management. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Daft, Richard L. ed., 2008. The Leadership Experience. Mason: Thomson Higher Education. Deal, Jennifer J. and Prince, Don W., 2011. Developing Cultural Adaptability: How to Work Across Differences. Colorado Springs: Center for Creative Leadership (CCL). Gutter man, Alan S. nod. Shalom Schwartz’s Dimensions of Societal Cultures [puff] Available at: < http://alangutterman.typepad.com/files/cms---schwartzs-cultural-dimensions-1.pdf> [Accessed 29 June 2013]. Kessler, E. H. and Wong-Mengzi, Diana J. ed., 2009. Cultural Mythology and Global Leadership. Cheltanham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Melkman, A. and Trotman, J., 2005. Training International Managers: Designing, Deploying and Delivering Effective Training for Multi-cultural Groups. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Limited. Nair, M., 2011. Strategic Business Transformation: The 7 Deadly Sins to Overcome. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Nees, G., 2000. Germany: Unraveling an Enigma. Maine: Intercultural Press, Inc. Steers, Richard M., Nardon, L. and Sanchez-Runde Carlos J. ed., 2013. Management across Cultures: Developing Global Competencies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trevino, Linda K. and Nelson, Katherine A., 2011. Managing Business Ethics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Trompenaars, F., 2009. Servant Leadership across Cultures: Harnessing the Strength of the World's. Oxford: Infinite Ideas Limited. Warner, M. ed., 2003. Culture and Management in Asia. London: RoutledgeCurzon. Yardley, I., Kakabadse, A. and Neal, D., 2012. From Battlefield to Boardroom: Making the Difference Through Values Based Leadership. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Read More