Methods of Effective Management: Comparing Bulgaria to Japan - Coursework Example

 Methods of Effective Management: Comparing Bulgaria to Japan Introduction In three years, there will be a need to manage teams of local individuals in Japan, upon accepting an expatriate management role from the home country of Bulgaria. In order to successfully manage these teams and ensure that an appropriate and effective management system is developed to meet the cultural needs of Japanese employees, it is necessary to Understand The Cultural Idiosyncrasies In Japan That Differ From Bulgaria. This essay compares the elements of culture in both Bulgaria and Japan in an effort to align strategy with cultural awareness to ensure that this cultural transition meets with anticipated success. Comparing Bulgaria and Japan In terms of power distance, a measure of whether or not less powerful members of society are willing to tolerate unequal distribution of power (Leng and Botelho 2010; Kelley 2009), Bulgaria scores very high on this measurement factor. This means that Bulgarian society accepts hierarchical command structures in which there are clearly defined roles of authority between subordinates and management team members (Hofstede Centre 2013). In the workplace, Bulgarian workers will function well under autocratic or bureaucratic control structures where there is little opportunity for autonomy and shared decision-making. In Japan, however, there are marked differences regarding the level of unequal power that will be tolerated by workers. Japan scores only moderately on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework, meaning that there are going to be expectations for shared decision-making whilst there is also evidence that Japanese workers can function under some bureaucratic systems of management. “Japanese workers are conscious of hierarchy and will always act accordingly in these structures” (Hofstede Centre 2013, p.1). This means that there might be opportunities to establish appropriate power boundaries, such as through control system methodologies, so long as there are opportunities for some team development and shared decision-making authority that is disseminated from the bottom-up in the organisational structure. Japan is also unique in relation to individualism versus collectivism, the measure by which group values are considered to be paramount or whether there are expectations for recognition for job accomplishment as an individual. Japan again scores moderately on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework related to this phenomenon of culture. In-group status in Japan is considered to be situational, rather than being bound by paternalistic structures in which group membership is a dominant social need. When attempting to translate these cultural characteristics into an effective management process and philosophy, this means that group reward would likely be valued in the same proportion as individual rewards. Bulgaria, however, scores very highly in collectivism, meaning that group consciousness and group rewards would be the preferred method of remuneration and establishment of appropriate bonus structures for performance management. Collectivist cultures maintain a we-conscious mentality where an individual’s identity is strongly linked to the social attitudes and opinion of group membership and where reputation sustainability is a paramount need (Cheung et al. 2008). When attempting to determine the type of management system that would be most appropriate in Japan, the moderate scoring associated with collectivism versus individualism has many advantages. Transactional leadership in which rewards are strongly tied to established performance expectations (Antonakis, Avolio and Sivasubramaniam 2003) would be effective, whilst a more transformational management system that involves shared decision-making and individual development and coaching would likely also have its merits and be accepted by the organisational population. The Japanese cultural propensity to function well in both group and individual settings maintains many opportunities for establishing balanced human resources policies as compared to Bulgaria where collectivist rewards are generally going to be the most favoured management process. Japan is also highly paternalistic, maintaining a strong inclination toward competition and aggressiveness in business; masculine traits versus feminine traits against Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework. Japanese workers are often motivated to achieve maximum performance when they are thrust into situations where they are competing against other corporate-based groups (Hofstede Centre 2013). This is a significant disparity between the cultural values of Bulgaria, which is considered to be a more feminine oriented society. In Bulgaria, conflicts are often resolved only through consensus, negotiation and compromise, which is aligned with more feminine characteristics in society. The management team in Japan must be prepared for this aggressive corporate competition that drives performance and establish the appropriate management systems to allow for group antagonism. When attempting to determine appropriate management or leadership systems, it would be highly probable that Japanese employees would achieve greater productivity and performance results if given direction to compete inter-organisationally for a variety of established performance-based rewards. Furthermore, there are marked similarities between Bulgarian culture and Japanese culture when it comes to avoiding uncertainty in business scenarios and decision-making. Bulgaria and Japan score highly on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework as having a considerable distaste for accepting projects that include elements of risk. Japan is a culture that is borne of many historical beliefs in customs and ritual (Hofstede Centre 2013) which drives their desire for predictability that is often extended into the corporate world. Though transition into the Japanese business culture would not be much of a change or struggle, as Bulgaria is quite similar in these dimensions, it should be recognised that without incorporating logical and consistent strategies it is likely that Japanese workers will resist changes where the potential outcome is risky and without perceptions of dependability. Geert Hofstede also established a framework of measuring the short- versus long-term orientation of a foreign culture. Long-term orientation represents a propensity for thrift, perseverance, and maintaining an orientation toward future rewards (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005). Short-term orientation is fostering values and principles associated with the past, such as fulfilment of social obligations and respect for tradition (Hofstede 2001; Hofstede 2001). Japanese workers tend to view the future as an opportunity and maintain a practical view of the shortness of their life span. This drives cultural decision-making that is associated with attainment of future remuneration through dedication and perseverance in their job roles. Bulgarian workers, however, maintain a more balanced view, with some elements of respecting traditionalism and group harmony whilst also seeking attainment for future objectives and rewards based on their individual performance expectations. Management systems in Japan will be moderately different than in Bulgaria, whereby managers should be establishing performance goals associated with achievement into the future with much less emphasis on traditionalism and ritualism. After assessing the differences and similarities between Bulgarian work culture and Japanese work culture, the appropriate management frameworks can be established that will be most effective after making this cultural transition. In Japan, it is likely that a balanced organisational structure be implemented, in which there are clear distinctions between authority figures and subordinate roles, with some elements of shared decision-making. A balanced blend of control systems and also autonomy and shared decision-making would likely motivated Japanese workers. It is probable that transactional leadership philosophy would be considered effective management style, as it establishes the specific objectives and parameters expected of performance whilst at the same time provides for aggressive group and individual competition. Rewards remuneration can be founded on transactional leadership. One empirical study involving Japanese participants found that participative leadership works very well in Japan and workers tend to appreciate some dimensions of bottom-up decision-making processes (Wu 2006). Participative leadership involves dimensions of consensus, consultation and delegation, which is aligned with a more balanced system of management that includes controls and also negotiation (Mullins 2005; Yousef 2000). The World Values Survey defines human empowerment as a series of entitlements and aspirations founded on democratic systems in which an individual is able to achieve positive self-expression (Inglehart 2010). In Japan, democratic systems that provide opportunities for empowerment in job role would likely achieve more positive responses and motivation from workers. In Bulgaria, where there is a marked difference in the power distance that is tolerated by unequal power holders, this provided opportunities to establish more rigid, hard human resource management policies and procedures. When making the management transition into Japan, the management team may find considerable problems adjusting to removing pre-established Bulgarian methods of control to provide Japanese workers with more consensus-based environments and workplace scenarios. This means that the management team must make preliminary cognitive and emotional adjustments to prepare for operating in a corporate environment where there are going to be expectations for compromise to avoid change resistance and also achieve positive motivational performance results. It is likely that there will be demands for negotiated changes rather than change that is forced through autocratic management philosophy. Though it cannot be concretely stated that Japanese workers would completely reject an authoritarian-style leader, there should be some dimensions of sensitivity and empathy built into the human resources and management models being used upon transition to this country. It would also be probable that in Japan there will need to be an organisation-wide focus on risk management, which would involve Japanese workers in much higher fashion than in Bulgaria. Because of the cultural propensity to avoid risky decision-making, which in most Western countries is acceptable and desired, managers should involve Japanese workers in identifying methods of creating more predictable strategic management policies. Practical application of research findings After assessing all cultural dimensions that differ, and those which are similar between the two countries, it is likely that the preferred organisational structure that would be accepted in Japan is one in which managers maintain both discretion and also visibility within the organisational environment. There are some cultural characteristics in Japan, based on paternalistic influence from years of cultural evolution, that does maintain respect for traditionalism. This, however, does not supersede the rather pragmatic and logical rationale at the social level in this country that values attainment of future rewards associated with aggressive and competitive job performance. It is clear, based on all findings, that Japanese workers can successfully maintain their professional decorum within a group dynamic whilst also valuing recognition for individual accomplishment. From the management perspective, this has many advantages in developing policies that give managers considerable control liberties, whilst also focusing on development of a streamlined and cohesive organisational culture that is unified in direction and strategic intention. It should be much easier than in Bulgaria to establish human resources policies using a variety of different, respected management models without having to focus on a singular style or philosophy. In essence, the balanced approach to professionalism found in Japanese workers that highly value performance achievement will make it much easier to establish appropriate reward remuneration strategies for productivity and goal-attainment than in Bulgaria, a country that prizes collective reward strategies in much greater proportion than individual rewards. To avoid resistance to change in Japan, the management team must adjust its previous Bulgarian-based strategies to include dimensions of negotiation all throughout the business model when operating in the Japanese corporate environment. Negating the cultural tendency for Japanese workers to be considered valuable and trusted resources, a human capital advantage, will likely meet with considerable de-motivation unless incorporated into management and leadership processes. Conclusion As indicated by the research, the Japanese cultural dimensions that drive organisational and social behaviour will make it easier to develop management philosophies and models. This is due to a more equalised and sensible set of cultural characteristics in Japanese workers that make these employees more diverse in attitude and behaviours. It is clear that management of Japanese workers, in some critical areas, will be much easier than in Bulgaria, as many cultural dimensions of Bulgarian business preferences are rigid and unyielding due to the powerful collectivist values and principles that drive management philosophy. By making small adjustments to Bulgarian management, the team will thrive well in this new expatriate management role in Japan. Recognising that management will have less liberty for establishing clear and distinct differences in authority structures which will require more inclusion and consent between differing ranks of power within the organisation will provide the foundation for excellence in management upon transitioning to this unique Japanese culture. Japan represents multitudes of opportunities to include variety into the management and human resources practices to achieve competitive results long-term. References Antonakis, J., Avolio, B.J. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, The Leadership Quarterly, 14(2), pp.261-295. Cheung, F., Cheung, S., Zhang, J., Leung, K, Leong, F. and Yeh, K. (2008). Relevance for openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), pp.261-295. Hofstede Centre. (2013). Bulgaria: What About Bulgaria?. [online] Available at: http://geert-hofstede.com/bulgaria.html (accessed 22 January 2013). Hofstede Centre. (2013). Japan: What About Japan?. [online] Available at: http://geert-hofstede.com/japan.html (accessed 22 January 2013). Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind, 3rd Millennium ed. McGraw-Hill Irwin. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures and Organisations: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. London: Harper Collins Business. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences, 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications. Inglehart, R. (2010). Values Change the World: World Values Survey. [online] Available at: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_110/files/WVSbrochure4.pdf (accessed 24 January 2013). Kelley, J. (2009). Global consumer culture: Consumers’ global brand attitudes in Brazil and Germany, p.6. [online] Available at:http://home.ku.edu.tr/~globalbrand/files/Kelley.pdf (accessed 24 January 2013). Leng, C. and Botelho, D. (2010). How does national culture impact on consumers’ decision-making styles? A cross-cultural study in Brazil, the United States and Japan, Curitiba Brazilian Administration Review, 7(3), pp.260-274. Mullins, L.J. (2005). Management and Organisational Behaviour, 7th ed. [online] Available at: www.pearsoned.co.uk (accessed 23 January 2013). Wu, M. (2006). Compare participative leadership in three cultures, China Media Research, 2(3), pp.19-30. Youself, D.A. (2000). Organisational commitment: A mediator of the relationships of leadership behaviour with job satisfaction and performance in a non-Western country, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(1). Read More