“THE CULTURAL DIVERSITY OF WESTERN CONCEPTIONS OF MANAGEMENT”

BY ANDRÉ LAURENT

Norm Grunsfeld

Marco Lei

Austin Lee

Erin Wright

Angelo Zuazo

Background

Laurent noticed:

French managers had a difficult time contemplating alternative management styles

In particular, matrix organizational structures directly opposed their view of “single chain of command” structure

“Each manager has his own management theory… that in some way guide his potential behavior in organizations”

The Study

The purpose was not to simply analyze the structure of individual opinions, but to compare how individuals from the same country seem to share a similar managerial ideology.

Method of Research A questionnaire consisting of 56 statements to be rated on a

5 point agree/disagreement scale.

60 upper-mid-level managers attending INSEAD executive development program; 40 French, 20 European

Between 1977 – 1979: Several more studies were conducted at various INSEAD executive development programs

The Presentation Study:

10 Western countries; 9 European, 1 United States 817 Respondents of varied function, education, age, industry Common element: upper-mid-level management

The Findings

The statistics analysis found 4 Clusters

Organizations as:

Political systemsAuthority systemsRole formalization systemsHierarchical-relationship systems

Organizations as Political systems

Some managers see the organization as a political system and this have a profound effect in the organizational behavior of the company

Insight into the extent to which managers from different countries tend to interpret their organizational experience in power terms

Organizations as Authority systems

Different nationalities have a different perception concerning authority and how this is a huge factor in their day to day behavior

Organizations as Role formalization systems

Focuses on the relative importance of defining and specifying the functions and roles of organizational members

Organizations as Hierarchical-relationship systems

Differences in management attitudes toward organizational relationships

How some countries believe that the managers should have all the answers and that bypassing is no more than subordination.

Political Systems

France, Italy Highly political Low org. structure

Danish, British Less political More org. structure

Authority Systems

Belgium, Italy, France Hierarchy = AuthorityAuthority regulates relationships

U.S., Switzerland, Germany Organizations ≠ Authority SystemsAuthority regulates tasks, functions

Role-Formalization Systems

Sweden, U.S., Netherlands Low need for “detailed job descriptions, well-defined functions, and precisely defined roles”

Hierarchical-Relationship Systems

Sweden, N. Europe, U.S. More likely to bypass authority in time of needRecognize boss may not have all the answers

Italy, Latin Countries Less open to matrix structures

Contemporary Relevance of the Study

The quotes correlate from those of the United States in Laurent’s study.

Interview Questions: (US participants)

Do you think it is a good strategy to boast your authority around employees so they know you are the top boss?

When employees continually causes a small to medium problem that does not affect other employees, how is it best to address the problem?

Personal example

Dr. Dee Ellington:

“Forcing your authority, making it well known that you are the boss is a bad idea.”

“One on one. Discuss problems, express opinions, no third parties.”

“Managers need to be more hands on, not micromanaging, but more hands on caring more about the employees.”

Dr. Marilyn Kaplan:

Personal example: “Having a strategic vision is most important for managers to be successful with employees.”

Dr. Laurie Ziegler:

“One of the most important things managers misconceive is that all employees are the same. America is a low content country; other countries are the exact opposite.”

Findings in the QuestionnaireSupport Laurent’s findings (USA)

Organizations are not authority systems

Low need for detailed job descriptions, well defined functions, and precisely defined roles

Most likely to bypass authority in time of need

Contemporary Relevance of the Study

German and US managers seem to report a more rational and instrumental view of authority that regulates interaction among tasks and functions.

“Leadership styles and cultural values among managers and subordinates: a comparative study of four countries of the former Soviet Union, Germany, and the US” by Alexander Ardichvili and K. Peter Kuchinke, 1999

Conclusion

Cultural differences in respect to management styles and notions about the role of managers cannot be ignored

When directing any employee at the corporation with a different background, it must be explained in terms of their cultural perceptions.

Conclusion

Without connecting the firm’s managing style to the cultural perceptions of individual managers within the organization, it will be difficult to effectively reach the collective goals of the organization.

Conclusion

Insight on employees and realizing that not everyone is the same and the world is becoming global is another aspect of the new-faced manager

Weaknesses of the article

The composition of questions themselves and their aims to isolate specific information

The origin of the author as it relates to the countries being evaluated

The number of countries evaluated by the questionnaire and

The group size and aspect constraints

Strengths of the article Studies such as the MNC-A study and

the MNC-B continue to show continuity in results.

“People from the same culture will act upon similar and familiar assumptions about situations, people, and things in their everyday lives”.

Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business. London: The Economist Books (page 3).

Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrJTf97Ev8o