Analysis of the Leadership Styles - Coursework Example

? Cross cultural Management Introduction In simple terms, leadership is defined as the activity of leading a team of group of individuals. It involves establishment of clear visions and sharing those visions with team members so that they follow the vision in a willing manner. Leadership is also characterised by a management’s ability to make effective and sound decisions so that the company is always in a path of development and growth. The current research report investigates the interaction between elements such as leadership styles and national culture. In this empirical research, the leadership style of Indian, UK and US managers have been compared. The basic theory used in this research is Hofstede theory of culture. As the leadership styles are influenced by cultures of different nations, it is important to understand the basic culture of the nation. Thus, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory will help in evaluating strategies which leaders need to apply while working in different nations (Hofstede, 2007). Leadership styles Leadership styles across the globe are diverse and influenced by specific attributes dominating the environment. Various leadership styles have been researched and identifies by scholars. These include; 1. Autocratic Leadership It is described as an extreme transactional leadership style. The leader exerts a lot of power over individuals. There is a little opportunity for staffs and team members in terms of making suggestions or decisions. The style is best used during crisis situation. 2. Bureaucratic Leadership In bureaucratic style, rules are followed vigorously and the major objective of the leader is to make sure that every team member follows the guidelines and procedures. This style of leadership will work best on organisations having routine tasks such as factories and manufacturing units. 3. Charismatic Leadership It is a type of transformational leadership. Here, the objective of the leader is to inspire enthusiasm in their groups. The major downside of this style is that the leaders might end up focussing on themselves rather than team members. 4. Democratic Leadership Leaders of this style make final decisions. However, they also actively include team members in the decision making process. They encourage creativity and engagement. Leadership studies Leadership can be defined as an individual’s ability to influence and inspire the attitude, behaviour and thinking of other individuals. The principle objective of a leader is to assure that synergy is achieved in the organisation where the leader works. A leader is expected to bring mutual understanding and coordination in the workplace through joint efforts from the employees working in the organisation (Dowling, Welch and Schuler, 1999). Researches from various studies conducted all over the world have suggested that leadership styles vary from nation to nation and even from region to region. In some nations leadership means authority, control and power (Fatehi, 1996). While in other nations it may signify motivating employees and subordinates, in a manner which is non-coercive. Thus, it is becoming increasingly important for leaders to understand the culture and perception of people/employees, where the company has established its subsidiary (Aycan, et al., 2000). Countries and leadership styles USA Most of the US leaders tend to use participative, charismatic or directive leadership styles. Freedom of action is less for board of directors and executives in America. There is no congruent culture and the general tendencies include dominance, individualism and functionalism. UK Individualistic, informative and descriptive leadership styles are followed by managers in UK. They have a particular affinity to details and in-depth analysis. They are more willing to take decisions on individual basis and also delegate responsibilities and tasks to others. Comparison of the US, UK and Indian leadership Styles In order to compare leadership styles of America and India, Hofstede Cultural model have been used. 1. Uncertainty Avoidance Uncertainty avoidance is the degree of accepting unexpected events in an organisation or a culture. There has been a slight difference in uncertainty avoidance between the two nations (India and USA). It is a common belief that societies that are more traditional will have a higher degree of uncertainty avoidance or high chances of avoiding risk. The uncertainty avoidance index for India is 46 while for United States it is 40. This can be explained because capitalistic societies in west are much dynamic and aggressive compared to the eastern part of the globe and work environment is much tougher and harder (Aycan, 2005). India is more traditional in its economic and social structure (Das, 2007). In order to avoid any conflict Indian managers visiting US should be more open to ideas and strategies and the decision making skills should be more aggressive and result oriented (Katou and Budhwar, 2008). Similar to United States, the uncertainty avoidance index of United Kingdom is lower than India. While UAI for India is 46, for UK it is 35. People in Britain crave for innovation and creativity and they are not afraid of any sudden changes in strategies or organisational culture. However, any sudden change in structure or pre-defined plans might be unpleasant for Indians working in UK. In order to avoid this situation, Indian managers will have to be detail oriented and more open. They should have all information and should be aware of the current progress in the projects so that any sudden change or diversion from the plans is already known or expected (Baruch and Budhwar, 2006). 2. Power Distance Power distance is the acceptance of power by an organisation or a society. Power distance is much higher for Indian leaders compared to US leaders. The PDI for India was found to be 77 compared to US which were 40. In Indian society preference is given to individuals of the higher order and managers are always dependent on their boss. This is different is case of United States where leaders take their own decision. When a leader from India goes to United States, conflict may occur as the power distance is low in United States. This can be avoided by having proper communication between leader and team members about the general perception of leadership among employees in US (Kim, 2002). In case of United Kingdom and Indian leaders, there is a huge difference in power distance. The PDI for India was found to be 77 compared to UK which was 35. According to the culture of Britain, inequalities should be minimised in society as well as business. Indian leaders working in United Kingdom might find similar conflict of interest as in United States. In order to pacify the conflicts, proper communication and mutual understanding is important. 3. Individualism Individualism is the tendency to work independently while collectivism is the tendency to work in groups and teams. IDI for India is very low that is 48 compared to 91 for US. Indian leaders are highly collective compared to United States. For Indian leaders focus is on lower mobility, family and team work for the completion of any task. Individuals working in USA are known to be highly independent and ready to make personal sacrifices. Thus, an Indian leaders going to United States will find it difficult adjusting with the subordinates and team members. In order to cope with this, informal meeting and sessions might be arranged between the team leader and other members (Bjorkman et al., 2008). This will help in minimising the lack of confidence in the manager and help in better communication and understanding. In terms of individualism, UK is very close to America. The IDI score for UK is 89 while for India it is 48. People in Britain are highly individualistic, independent and private. Personal fulfilment is taught as the route to happiness. Unlike India, people in Britain do not open up to strangers quickly (Fisher, 2000). This might cause tension between Indian and UK workers. Indians have the habit of gelling quickly and asking information which are not limited to profession only. 4. Long term or future orientation Long term orientation can be regarded as the vision of a society’s future and its views on tradition as well as social culture (Trompenaars, 1993). Cultures scoring low on future orientations are prone to various changes and are bottom lined. However, cultures having high long term orientation expect stability in the organisation and their strategies are driven towards long term goals (Budhwar and Sparrow, 2002). In this case, Indian culture has a higher future orientation index (61) than United States (49). Unlike India, managers from US are highly mobile, both in terms of business and geography and they tend to change jobs in a frequent manner. These situations might decrease the overall morale of the leader who might start feeling responsible for these. While in US, proper communication with the team members and understanding the actual reason for resignations or transfers will help in keeping the confidence up. United Kingdom is an extremely short term oriented nation. Their LTO is 25, even lower than US. People are extremely practical and expect quick gain over their investments. Future planning is usually on short term basis and businesses are particularly interested in quick or short term results. However Indian managers are basically long-term oriented and their goals and objectives oversee short term losses for long term sustainable gains. This might create a difference of opinion among managers working in UK. In order to avoid this, managers from both nations must settle on a strategic plan which can be accepted by all. Proper communication and information will help Indian leaders to understand more about the business and market of UK (Chang, Wilkinson and Mellahi, 2007; Kanungo and Mendonca, 1994). Thus, they will be able to mend their strategies in order to achieve the objectives and goals. Reference List Aycan, Z., 2005. The Interplay between cultural and institutional/structural contingencies in human resource management practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(7), pp. 1083–119. Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J. and Stahl, G., 2000. Impact of culture on HRM practices: A 10 country comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 4(1), pp. 192-221. Baruch, Y. and Budhwar P., 2006. A comparative study for career practices for management staff in India and Britain. International Business Review, 15(1), pp. 84–101. Bjorkman, I., Budhwar, P., Smale, A. and Sumelius, J., 2008. Human resource management in foreign-owned subsidiaries: China versus India. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(5), pp. 964 - 978. Budhwar, P. and Sparrow, P., 2002. An integrative framework for determining cross-national human resource management practices. Human Resource Management Review, 12(3), pp. 377–403. Chang, Y. Y., Wilkinson, A. J. and Mellahi, K., 2007. HRM strategies and MNCs from emerging economies in the UK. European Business Review, 19(5), pp. 404-419. Das, N., 2007. The emergence of Indian multinationals in the new global order. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 1(1/2), pp. 136-150. Dowling, P. J., Welch, D. E. and Schuler, R. S., 1999. International human resource management: Managing people in a multinational context. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College. Fatehi, K., 1996. International management: A cross-cultural and functional perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Fisher, C. D., 2000. Mood and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job satisfaction? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, pp. 185-202. Hofstede, G., 2007. Asian management in the 21st century. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24, pp. 411-420. Kanungo, R. and Mendonca, M., 1994. Culture and performance improvement. Productivity, 35(4), pp. 447-53. Katou, A. A. and Budhwar, P. S., 2008. The effect of business strategies and HRM policies on organizational performance: The Greek experience. Global business and Organizational Excellence, 27(6), pp. 40-57. Kim, S., 2002. Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62(2), pp. 231-241. Trompenaars, F., 1993. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. Chicago, IL: Irwin. Read More