Case 1: A challenging workplace

Prepared by Journey

Agenda❖Problem Statement & Solution

❖Executive Summary

❖Overview

❖Cultural Analysis

❖Case Analysis

❖Alternatives

❖Implementation2

Problem Statement and SolutionQuestions

❖ What similarities and differences can you identify between North American and Japanese working styles?

❖ In what way did this company reflect the characteristics of other Confucian Asian countries?

❖ Why do you think Samira was not seen as a team player?

❖ What universal leadership attributes did Samira exhibit?

❖ What other suggestions would you have for Samira in this situation?

Answers❖ Similarities: North American and Japanese= Getting

things done; indirect-style feedback. Differences: North American= Superior; independent; fast decision making and work fewer hours; Japan= Inferior; dependent; slow decision making and work more hours.

❖ Establishing harmonious relationships; filial piety between management and employees; flexible work arrangements. (The achievement of virtue ‘Ren’ and the practice of propriety ‘Li’)

❖ She’s not bounded to the team; self-motivated; disinclined toward teamwork decisions; the habit of doing more than planned individually.

❖ Charismatic; participative; autonomous; self-protective.

❖ Identify conflicts and the best ways to handle them; request for collective training on which type of decision; prepare checklist-type exercises to make differences explicit, legitimate, then negotiate with peers; highlighting strengths and relevance experience up-front and use the strength.

3

Executive Summary ❖ Samira facing cultural dilemma, our proposed solutions.

❖ Erin Meyer’s cultural map and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory backs up our solutions.

❖ Samira was not seen as a team player.

❖ This is because she thinks it is best to solve problems directly and quickly with as little emotional fuss as possible even if it means disrupting the feelings of others.

❖ She needs to excel in the workplace, at the same time, to work well with her Japanese peers.

❖ If she can manage her strategic alliances properly, she can achieve her goal of being an emerging leader at the company.

❖ Here is our proposal.4

Overview (Key Points)The gap between University and the workplace, addressing issues related to cultural differences.Samira (Individualism and self-assertion)

❖ Pragmatic approach is needed to deal with her uncertainties

❖ Time must be harnessed as effectively as possible to enable progress

❖ ‘Bottom-line’ in the short term

Peers (Collectivism and cautious)

❖ Reflects a degree of collaborative behaviour and consensus building within the company. (The concept of ‘’Wa’’)

❖ Take time through the need to go into detailed discussions and to give the feeling that everyone participates in the decision-making process

❖ Groupism and insularity 5

Overview (Key Challenges)Adapting to the Japanese workplace, the dilemma. Should she?

6OECD Data, 2016

Cultural Analysis

7Harvard Business Review, 2014

Cultural Analysis (Cont.)

8Geert Hofstede, 2016

Case Analysis

9

Source of Difference

Samira’s Force(As Is)

Peers’ Expectations (To be)

Experienced as

National culture of origin

Independent thinking Dependent relationship

Perceived bias in accepted norms

Values around team behaviour

Forceful personality Passive obedience Missed timing and anger at inappropriate reciprocity

Preferred ways of decision making

Display confidence and self-knowledge

Risk and cautious shift Lack of loyalty to decision and team

Expectation around team interaction

Speaks ‘out of turn’ Verbalize ‘at a time’ Feeling misunderstoodand irritation

Alternatives Decision Criteria

❏Samira’s Force vs Peers’ Expectations

10

IndependentThinking

Forceful Personality

Display of Confidence and Self-

Knowledge

Speaks ‘out of turn’

AL. (Cont) Option 1: Well-structured participative process (eg. have the same status; do not have contradictory interest; and do not feel that identity is threatened)

11

AL. (Cont) Option 2:Clarify how decisions are taken and by whom (eg. request for a facilitator outside of the team who is well trained in techniques for developing the team’s reflection)

12

AL. (Cont) Option 3:Prep Japanese peers with meeting specifics beforehand so they are prepared for debate and structure the meeting dialogue. (eg. a meeting guide)

13

AL. (Cont) Key Issues and Related Solutions

14

Independent thinking

Forceful display Display of confidence and self-knowledge

Speak ‘out of turn’

Option 1: Participative process

Reduce(Samira)

Reduce(Samira)

Reduce(Samira)

Reduce(Samira)

Option 2: Role delegation

Raise(Both)

Eliminate(Samira)

Raise(Both)

Eliminate(Samira)

Option 3: Structured meetings

Unchange(Samira)

Reduce(Samira)

Reduce(Samira)

Eliminate(Samira)

AL. (Cont) RecommendationOption 2: Clarify how decisions are taken and by whom (eg. request for a facilitator outside of the team who is well trained in techniques for developing the team’s reflection)

Pros: It helps identify needs, finding ideas, formulating plans, executing ideas, and establishing team organisation.

15

ImplementationAdaptation plan

❖Analyse and highlight Japanese colleagues’ strengths and relevant experiences upfront and using their strengths.

❖A good representation of all team roles, as can be seen in the next slide.

16

Implementation (Cont)

17

Team role Descriptors and strengths

Completer-finisher Conscientious, introvert, delivers on time

Implementer Conservative, reliable, turns ideas into practical actions

Team worker Extrovert, co-operative, avoids friction

Specialist Serious, provides knowledge and skills in rare supply

Monitor evaluator Introvert, open to change, judges accurately

Co-coordinator Dominant, good chairperson, delegates well

Plant Trustful. creative , solves difficult problems

Shaper Emotional, impatient, has the drive to overcome obstacles

Resource investigator Diplomatic, persuasive, communicative, develops contract

Belbin, 1933

Implementation (Cont)Recap

❖At this point, a third party must enter the conversation to provide clarification and expectations about each employee’s assignments.

❖To truly fix the problem, Samira and the Japanese employees must rethink the situation and ask, “What does it take for the two people with different culture to win?” If they prioritize the important tasks and share them, then both employees can win.

18

ReferenceBlake, R. R. and J. S. Moulton. (1962). The managerial grid. Advanced Management Office Executive 1(9).

Browaeys, M. J. and Roger, P. (2015). Understanding Cross-Cultural Management, Harlow, UK: Pearson.

Cooper, R. and C. A. Raiborn. (1995). Finding the missing pieces in Japanese cost management systems. Advances in Management Accounting (4): 87-102.

Crawford, R. J. (1998). Reinterpreting the Japanese economic miracle. Harvard Business Review (January-February): 179-184.

Dillon, L. (1990). Can Japanese methods be applied in the western workplace? Quality Progress (October): 27-30.

Hayes, R. H. (1981). Why Japanese Factories Work, Harvard Business Review (July-August): 57- 66.

Champion, D. (2014). A tool that maps out cultural differences. Retreived from https://hbr.org/web/infographic/2014/04/comparing-management-cultures

Hiromoto, T. (1988). Another hidden edge: Japanese management accounting. Harvard Business Review (July-August): 22-25.

Howell, R. and M. Sakurai. (1992). Management Accounting (and other) Lessons from the Japanese. Management Accounting (December): 28-34.

Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The Key To Japan's Competitive Success. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

Johnson, D. W., G. Maruyama, R. Johnson, D. Nelson and L. Skon. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin (89): 47-62.

McGregor, D. M. (1957). The human side of enterprise. Management Review (November): 22-28. Reprinted from the Proceedings of the Fifth Anniversary Convocation of the School of Industrial Management, MIT, April 9, 1957.

O'Clock, P. and K. Devine. (2003). The role of strategy and culture in the performance evaluation of international strategic business units. Management Accounting Quarterly (Winter): 18-26.

OECD Data. (2016). Labour productivity and utilization. Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/labour-productivity-and-utilisation.html

Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanisms. Management Science (September): 833-848.

Ouchi, W. G. and A. M. Jaeger. (1978). Type Z organization: Stability in the midst of mobility. Academy of Management Review. (April): 305- 314.

Porter, M. E., M. Sakakibara and H. Takeuchi. (2000). Can Japan Compete? (Perseus).

Sakurai, M. (1995). Past and future of Japanese management accounting. Journal of Cost Management (Fall): 21-30.

Takeuchi, H. (1981). Productivity: Learning from the Japanese. California Management Review (Summer): 5-18.

19

Short Snippet

20

Thank youfor your time

21