American Theories of Motivation and Leadership - Assignment Example

The paper outlines impact of American theories of motivation and leadership on organizations in other countries with respect to their national cultures. An in-depth discussion based on Hofstede’s dimensions and applicability of the American theories of motivation and leadership in other countries organizations has been outlined highlighting the behavior of these dimensions in specific countries. The paper discusses the extent to which these theories and methodologies are being applied in other countries, and the implications of these theories on people and management, with specific emphasis on the human resource management perspectives. International Organizational Behavior A thorough understanding and analysis of human resource policies and practices n different countries based on the similarities and variations of national and organizational cultures are required for effective management of people. Cascio (2006; p.630) refers culture as “characteristic way of doing things and behaving that people in a given country or region have evolved over time. It helps people to make sense of their part of the world and provides them with an identity.” Extensive research work and evidences in the areas of human resource policies and practices with respect to approaches used in managing people are attributed to various determinants of cross-national similarities and variations. As explained by Professor Hofstede (in 2007) about the interrelations between corporate cultures and national cultures, and their link to the personality traits and national cultures in an exclusive interview with Fink, G, organizational cultures within the same area differed from national cultures in great proportion and had no pattern of correlation with any culture. Hofstede’s explanation was based on a research conducted by his team in various organizations in Denmark and Holland involving people at all levels and categories. A very interesting conclusion made by the team is the relationship between levels of human learning with respect to various stages of their lives, which can be attributed to the existing differences between nations and organizations; where, the study relates organizational cultures to practices being followed upon links with organizations and national cultures to the values that are acquired from childhood. Their project revealed many similarities with respect to the national culture dimensions among the countries such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, long/short term orientations. However, the project arrived at six mutually independent dimensions of organizational cultures that were already explained-they were process-oriented versus result-oriented, job-oriented versus employee oriented, professional versus parochial, open systems versus closed systems, tight versus loose control, pragmatic versus normative. (Hofstede, G & Fink, G. 2007) Hofstede’s analysis, with respect to culture, states that organizations’ and nations’ economic activity and management are largely influenced by social values. The studies proposed that different contingency variables such as focus on similarities between societies and focus on differences between societies, rather than ‘culture’ explain differences between organizations in different societies. His study revealed that work-related values between management and organization are culture-bound and can be used to mediate ‘social norms’ of an organization between the people and their behavioral outcomes. (Rowley, C & Lewis, M (ed) 1996 p 121) A very important point stressed by Hofstede (2007), in this regard, is the influence of national culture reflecting on the corporate culture of its founders. Nationality, in the form of values of founders, gets converted into practices of the followers. Culture is an antecedent to human thought and behavior (Berry, J, Poortinga, Y & Pandey, J.1997; p 61). Cross-cultural research on leadership competencies, as explained by James Hunt, in his paper ‘A Comparative Analysis of the Management & Leadership Competency Profiles Reported by German, US and Australian Managers’ emphasizes the differences in Leadership as perceived through about 91 management and leadership competency items across three nations. His studies revealed about 70% differences in their approaches from each of the three nations. A broad difference was seen among managers of Germany, and managers of USA and Australia. The US and Australian leadership was more inclined to motivation and team-building than to managerial functions such as short-term planning and establishing control systems. Conversely, sensitivity towards national differences and avoiding spontaneous decisions where appropriate, were more highly regarded as central to managerial effectiveness by German executives. These variations in leadership were assumed to be adopted from the inherent national culture that had been deeply rooted in their values (Connell, J, Cross, B & Parry, K2008; p.141). Many multinationals have applied their organizational designs, systems and practices in their foreign subsidiaries that are derived from, and are successful in their own culture. Pay-for Performance, which is a US management practice, has been applied to many of the US subsidiaries in UK, Germany, Scandinavia and parts of Asia. While it was successful in the UK, did not adapt to the German, Scandinavian, and Asian cultures to the same extent. The assumption that management practices are universally accepted or rejected was challenged by Hofstede through theoretical analysis. His study and focus on American theories of motivation, leadership, and organization and on their applicability in other cultural contexts laid important implications for the management subsidiaries (Gooderham, P & Nordhaug, O 2003; p138). Motivational theories Gooderham and Nordhaug have referred to the David McClelland, Abraham Maslow and Fredrick Herzberg’s motivational theories as peculiarly for the Americans. Hofstede’s experiments of application of these theories across other nations have shown interesting results. Impacts of national culture based on four dimensions explained by Hofstede have shown huge differences in their behavior in each of the countries. United States, according to Hofstede, has been one of the largest exporters of management theories in the areas of motivation, leadership and organization. The fact that world market and globalization has a great influence of the United States market and businesses cannot be taken for granted that their management practices and theories also apply universally and lead to successful business collaborations. Analyzing Freudian concept of culture on Hofstede’s dimensions shows that Austria scores considerably lower on power distance, high on uncertainty avoidance, lower on individualism, and high on masculinity. This kind of behavior has been reported in German, Swiss, Israeli, and Finnish cultures as well. These nations which show strong uncertainty avoidance are characteristic of hard working as an inner way of relieving stress. High Invidualism of the United States leads to a need to explain every act in terms of self-interest, and expectancy theories of motivation, which certainly cannot be applied in the European nations (Hofstede, G 1980; pp. 55). Leadership theories: The famous leadership theories of the United States are Theory X versus Theory Y by Douglas McGregor, System 4 Management by Rensis Likert, and the Managerial Grid by Robert R Blake and Jane S. Mouton. All these theories advocate participative management which could be a reason for low power distance. In such circumstances, leadership theories advocating participative management can be of huge success. Theoretically speaking, such practices can be implemented in organizations of countries with high industrial democracy such as Sweden, Norway, Germany, and Israel. However, considering the dimension of uncertainty avoidance, behavior of these leadership theories differs significantly. Hence, an experimental evidence of its impact would be preferable. These dimensions also reveal attitudes, values, or beliefs that individuals hold regarding social relationships or decision making (Harris, P & McDonald, F 2004; p.114). Hofstede credits leadership of any culture to its subordinateship (1980; p 57). According to him, and as proven at many instances, leadership styles cannot be chosen; leadership style adopted largely depends on the culture and conditions of the subordinates. Thus, in this context, the famous leadership theories of the United States can work best for countries with similar power distances that of the United States, such as for Australia and Canada. Another aspect of the leadership theories of the U.S is their formalized management by objectives concept that fits very well in the US dimensions. Organizational culture that supports meaningful negotiations between subordinates and superiors (low power-distance), willingness to take risks (weak uncertainty avoidance), performance driven (high masculinity) can fit this form of leadership driven by objectives. This has been seen in organizations in German speaking countries too. Though they show high uncertainly avoidance, MBO has been recorded by Joint Goal-Setting practices i.e., team objectives indicating lower individualism in these countries (Lewis, D 2001; p.101). MBO has also been evidenced in France in early 1960s indicating democratization of organizations, however not very successful due to higher power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Implementation of global performance management system is difficult as it depends on factors such as nature of overseas job, support from and interaction with the parent company, nature of environment, and degree of expatriate and family adjustment (Cascio, W. 2006; p.178) According to Triandis (1998), culture has its impact on people’s social behavior and their actions. It has embedded assumptions that in turn influence thinking, emotions and the actions without their knowledge. For organizations and nations who fail to recognize and appreciate this fact, international business would be disastrous. He also states this in contexts of vertical and horizontal individualism and collectivism, which emerge as a result of the type of society and culture influence on individuals’ behavioral trends. According to him four universal dimensions of cultural impact are ‘definition of the self,’ ’structure of goals,’ emphasis on norms versus attitudes’ and ‘emphasis on relatedness versus rationality.’ The two important implications and patterns of variations present in the differences of culture are goal setting and reward systems with respect to individual versus team-wide or organization-wide, and communications with respect to gestures, eye contact and body language in high-context cultures versus precision with words in low-context cultures. Studying these variations, Cascio, W (2006; p186) has made a few interesting propositions- managers in individualistic and collectivist cultures find excuses for poor performance; Individualistic and Collectivist cultures prefer individual goals and rewards and team goals and rewards, respectively; participative approach in performance management is more common in horizontal culture than vertical culture; methodology of performance feedback will be different at different levels, though the frequency may be the same. For example, some cultures (in India) view it disrespectful to question one’s supervisor’s decision. Self-appraisals were used more frequently in Western than in Eastern cultures. Though self-appraisal systems have been introduced in many multinational companies in the East, their validity considered to be lower in Eastern than in Western cultures (Cascio, W, 2006; p.184-186). Performance feedback is yet another important aspect of performance management, and is undoubtedly influenced by culture. While, a two-way performance feedback is given high importance in individualistic cultures such as US, UK and Australia, collectivist nations such as Korea, Guatemala, and Taiwan treat it as an unacceptable behavior and they use indirect methods such as communication through intermediary source to deliver feedback. A high level of sensitivity has to be applied to the process of performance management and feedback by understanding local customs and appropriately using the methods suitable, and this is a challenge for the parent company as it would involve many modifications and adjustments from their end for implementation of these processes. From a corporate point, the corporate principles and core program should be reflected in human resource management practices throughout the company but with adaptations depending on local culture and institutions. Theoretically speaking based on these dimensions, application of the U.S leadership theories in various other countries may seem irrelevant; however, globalization has changed the view of corporate and organizational culture in many other countries. Like, for in India, though management practices of the U.S might not seem fit, yet, many companies in India have been able to successfully grow with some modifications. For example, the pay for performance module has been successfully adopted by US multinationals operating in India. Diffusion and reverse diffusion Another aspect of existing multinational cultural influence on organizations has been seen in diffusion of human resource management practices from one organization to another. This process has been observed in two ways: one being ‘forward diffusion’ explained as transfer of practices from home country to plants in other countries (explained in works of Edwards 1998, 2000 & Ferner/Varul 1999, 2000) and another being reverse-diffusion (RD) wherein practices from foreign subsidiaries were transferred to native organizations. In either case, deliberate transfers happen as a part of best practice sharing, leading to mutual benefit of all the organizations and people involved in terms of enhanced efficiency, improved initiatives, adapting to international markets-thus, making organizations stay in tune with globalization and confidently face the challenges thereby. Sometimes, the practices adopted may even have negative consequences if they are not verified with respect to existing organizational culture. (Edwards, T & Ferner, A. 2004 p 49-51). This process of diffusion and reverse diffusion of ideas and practices are assuming potentially endless cycle. A lot of ideas adopted by the Japanese firms from the U.S firms are now returning back to the US with slight modifications (Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J, Nitta, M and Barret, B. 1998; p 43). Contradictions: According to Trompenaars’s findings (Mead, R 1998; p 45), companies from Universalist cultures negotiating with a potential joint venture partner in China must recognize that relationships matter and take time to develop. They form the basis of trust, and contracts may be regarded merely as rough guideline or documentation. Introduction of individualistic incentives in countries such as Germany or Japan may not be successful due to their communitarian cultures. Multinational teams consisting of individuals from highly neutral and highly affective cultures will have to be very careful while dealing with each other to avoid any misunderstandings and misinterpretations due to their nature. Managers of specific cultures such as Denmark should be careful while dealing with people of diffuse cultures such as Russia as a face-to-face feedback by the former may be regarded as loss of face by the latter party. A few nations had developed their own unique HRM practices based on their business groups which had deep roots in core institution such as family business, Confucianism, and socio-cultural background of their respective societies (Rowley, C 1998 p 11). In countries such as India, where hierarchal culture predominates, a young manager from the native company could face challenges in handling the business and people. Conclusions and way ahead: Globalization is a multi-faceted concept. It involves not only increased trade and an increased scope for multinational companies but also the dissemination of ideas and values. Cross-cultural diffusion of ideas, linked with the knowledge of the workforce, is rapidly becoming primary source of competitive advantage in the world economy. Anyone who is working either outside their country of origin or with others from outside their country needs to demonstrate an effective blend of global competencies. This is even more critical for leaders and requires blending cultural definitions of leadership with multiple geographic influences. As quoted by Warren Bennis in his book, On Becoming a Leader, “the release and full use of an individual’s potential is the organization’s task” (Hamilton, B, 2007; p.199) To achieve this, an incorporated scaffold demarcating the significant aspects associated with national cultures, conditional differences, and organizational and HR policies and practices is required to highlight different roles human resource management needs to play in people management. The arbitrary element of leap for Hofstede’s ultimate research related to culture’s influence on nations organizations that came from his analysis on IBM’s data and lead to his employment, which paved way for his insights into the patterns of responses and his further research thereon, has been the fundamental essence of bringing globalization to its present status. This awareness has given a different outlook to ‘cultures’ of different nations and have from then on been aligned, like iron filings along the magnetic lines of the cultural dimensions. For the future, propositions related to connection between culture and personality is yet to be discovered (Bing, W. 2004, pp 80-87). Whatever be the situation, fact that culture and communication are inseparable cannot be ignored. For example, American’s view of negotiation to resolve conflicts is highly appreciated in the US, whereas Japanese or Chinese do not appreciate it (Zhang, T & Hui, Z 2008 pp 103- 109). Intercultural communication involving different nations and cultures should consider differing perceptions, attitudes and interpretations. A thorough awareness and research in these fields will help in tackling the difficult negotiation issues involved influenced by intercultural communication. Compositions of negotiations need to be understood by all parties involved in order to achieve the objective at the cross-cultural or international levels. References Cascio F, W. 2006. Global Performance Management Systems. In Stahl K, G (Ed.), Bjorkman, I (Ed.), Ott, Attiat and Cebula, R Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management. p 176-188. Retrieved from: http://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xNT9lUwmELcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA49&dq=Scullion,+H.,+Starkey,+K+Corporate+HR+google+book+results&ots=Frz20c5nAq&sig=B9-coZEguR2dSBw5guIvs1YbY_M#PPA176,M1 Cascio F, W. Managing human resources: productivity, quality of work life, profits. Seventh Edition. Published by McGraw-Hill, 2006 Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J, Nitta, M and Barret. Knowledge-driven Work: Unexpected Lessons from Japanese and United States Work Practices. Published by Oxford University Press US, 1998. Retrieved from http://books.google.co.in/books?id=LTE-pqNP9QAC&pg=PA43&dq=diffusion+and+reverse+diffusion+US+organizations Hamilton, B (2007) Global People Strategy. (Ed) Cohen, E and Rath, T. In Leadership Without Borders: Successful Strategies from World-Class Leaders. Published by John Wiley and Sons, 2007. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=KFEMmzaHxmwC&pg=PA240&dq=multinational+company+management+leadership#PPA199,M1 Connell, J, Cross, B & Parry, K. Leadership in the 21st Century, where is it leading us? International Journal of Organizational Behavior, pp 139-149. ISSN 1440-5377. http://209.85.175.132/search?q=cache:Ynh8ySqW73EJ:www.usq.edu.au/extrafiles/business/journals/HRMJournal/InternationalArticles/ConnellCrossParry2.pdf+International+Dimensions+of+organizational+Behavior+google+book+results&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=45&gl=in Gooderham, P and Nordhaug, O. International management: cross-boundary challenges. Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 2003. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3w_ydrZJZxAC&pg=PA138&dq=American+theories+of+motivation+and+leadership#PPA138,M1 Harris, P and McDonald, F.European business and marketing, 2nd Edition. Published by SAGE, 2004. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=qUfsCIrWyYoC&pg=PA114&dq=Hofstede%27s+dimension+application+of+theories+to+other+cultures#PPA114,M1 Hofstede, G and Fink, G ‘Culture: organizations, personalities and nations. Gerhard Fink interviews Geert Hofstede, European Journal Internatonal Management, Vol 1, Nos 1/2, pp 14-22. Copyright 2007 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd. Viewed on 20 April 2009 http://inderscience.metapress.com/media/eafy7jxqlq4rnb7hlhw3/contributions/6/d/9/e/6d9ebbk5vv5vuhkx.pdf Lewis, D. The management of non-governmental development organizations: an introduction. Published by Routledge, 2001. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=HFnrz-6k_MIC&pg=PA101&dq=Managing+by+objectives+Hofstede#PPA101,M1 Mead, R. International management: cross-cultural dimensions. 2nd Edition. Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 1998 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=2CK7Um6t7yUC&pg=PA46&dq=Trompenaars+findings+on+cross+cultural#PPA45,M1 Berry, J, Poortinga, Y and Pandey, J. Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology: Theory and method. Ed by Berry, J. Edition 2. Published by John Berry, 1997. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=PB3xzjIzyOwC&pg=PA61&dq=Triandis+theories+culture Journals Bing W, J 2004 (Cross-ref). Hofstede’s consequences: Impact of his work on consulting and business practices. Academy of Management Executive Vol 19, No 1. pp 80-87. Viewed 20 April 2009 http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:vq0ajmibOXcJ:home.sandiego.edu/~pavett/docs/gsba532/hofstede_cons.pdf+John+W+Bing+2004+Hofstede%27s+Consequences+pdf&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=in Hofstede, G. Motivation, Leadership, and Organization. Do American Theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 1980. p 42-63 http://users.ipfw.edu/todorovz/teaching/401/readings/Motivation%20Ldrshp%20and%20Orgn%20Do%20American%20Theories.pdf Edwards, T and Ferner, A 1/2004. Multinationals, Reverse Diffusion and National Business Systems,. Management International Review, viewed 24 December 2008, Journal of International Business, Vol 44.pp 49-79. Viewed on 20 April 2009. http://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=z9iQmaIx2ZcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA49&dq=%22Edwards%22+%22Multinationals,+Reverse+Diffusion+and+National+Business+...%22+&ots=JKQdsI-_47&sig=Ft2CzxxTE9o0jxotF9rAevHhGBQ#PPA51,M1 Rowley, C (ed.) and Lewis, M (ed.) 1996 Greater China. Political Economy, Inward Investment and Business Culture. Retrieved from: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=hZQsNrKlxJsC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=Rowley+Lewis+HRM&source=bl&ots=wXIJe2BBfR&sig=5GTgLT-xzZaYBysfghArvDCSPg0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA12,M1 Zhang, T and Zhou, H. February 2008. The Significance of Cross-cultural Communication in International Business Negotiation, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol 3 No 2. pp 103-109. Viewed 20 April 2009 http://www.ccsenet.org/ijbm/IJBM200802.pdf Read More