Compare management practices like Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Leading and Controlling of key economies of the world namely United States of America, Japan, China, India, United kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and Brazil.
Recent events in Eastern Europe have given new meaning to the term dynamic change. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, much attention in the popular press has focused on the dramatic challenges facing managers of enterprises in the emerging Russian Republic. However, there is still very little empirical information about what Russian managers really do or any comparisons with U.S. managers. The assumptions coming out of the news media are that the Russians are failing badly because they know little about modern management techniques and, in fact, U.S. and Russian management systems are quite different. The time has come to assess these assumptions.
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN GERMANY
German management, as it has evolved over the centuries and has established itself since World War II, has a distinct style and culture. Like so many things German, it goes back to the medieval guild and merchant tradition, but it also has a sense of the future and of the long term.
The German management system is very formal with deep seated rules and regulations which are to be followed properly.
German management is sensitive to government standards, government policies, and government regulations.
Managers in Germany:-
1. Show strong leadership
2. Technically capable
3. Concentrates mostly on product quality and product service
4. Places high premium on customer satisfaction
5. Production orientation
6. Relations between managers and workers are often close
7. Cooperation and coordination with government
The chances for change in Germany are quite low and may threaten the social fabric.
The German management being quite regular with its rules and regulations is a controlled-time culture and adherence to schedules is very important.
For effective cross cultural management it is important to remember that in general, subordinates do not expect their managers to seek their concurrence. They are comfortable complying with decisions. Again, this may depend upon the industry, the professional level of the employees concerned, and the corporate culture. Germany is undergoing rapid changes which are impacting business life.
Germans like working in teams and collaborate quite well across hierarchical lines. The communication within a team is generally quite collegial, albeit somewhat direct and blunt. Role allocation within the team is generally quite clearly defined and people will take greater responsibility for their specific task than for the group as a whole.
French Management Style
The current French management practices are the result of several constraints such as strong and specific regulations, demography unique in Europe, the acceleration of internationalization of large organizations, and sociological upheaval. These practices are converging with those of other countries under pressure from similar factors. French managers are striving to adapt French organizations to their environment by relying on unique practices similar to those implemented in other countries. The business set up in France is egalitarian and to ensure successful cross cultural management it is important to remember to treat each and every person with equal respect and deference.
The Role of a Manager
French business behavior emphasizes courtesy and a degree of formality. Chief executives of French companies often come from a select group of universities and share a similar background. Consequently, it is best to send a senior executive to initiate the relationship with the French decision-maker, especially if it is someone whose credentials and experience are comparable.
Approach to Change
France’s intercultural adaptability and readiness for change is developing all the time. France is seen to have a medium tolerance for change and risk. It is important for innovations to have a track record or history noting the benefits if they are to be accepted and implemented.
Approach to Time and Priorities
France is a controlled-time culture, and adherence to schedules is important and expected. In France missing a deadline is a sign of poor management and inefficiency, and will shake people’s confidence. People in controlled-time cultures tend to have their time highly scheduled, and it’s generally a good idea to provide and adhere to performance milestones.
For effective cross cultural management it is important to remember that hierarchy is part of the French business culture. This is a country where rank has its privilege, often both literally and figuratively. Decision making is done at the highest levels, often without consultation with subordinates.
Boss or a Team Player?
French like working in teams and collaborate quite well. The communication within a team is generally quite collegial, albeit somewhat direct and blunt. Role allocation within the team is generally quite clearly defined and people will take greater responsibility for their specific task than for the group as a whole.
Communication and Negotiation Styles
French business emphasizes courtesy and a fair degree of formality. Wait to be told where to sit as there may be a protocol to be followed. Although English may be spoken, it is a good idea to hire an interpreter so as to avoid any cross cultural misunderstandings. Business is conducted slowly. You will have to be patient and not appear ruffled by the strict adherence to protocol. Avoid confrontational behavior or high-pressure tactics as it can be counterproductive
Most senior management in French companies is educated at the Grande Ecoles which are the elite schools of France.
These colleges champion an intellectual rigor in their students, which is rarely matched elsewhere in the world. This produces a highly educated management population, which approaches leadership with an unusual degree of academic precision. ‘Intellectualism’ is something to be cherished rather than sneered at and a comment once attributed to French management was that ‘this idea seems alright in practice but will it work in theory?’
Decisions, once taken at senior levels, will be passed down the chain to lower management for implementation.
This directive approach can be seen, especially by those from a consensus oriented, non-hierarchical background, as being overly authoritative and lacking in the necessary team-building elements.
JAPANESE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE:
In the post-World War II time a set of Japanese social examples and managerial practices came to be referred to all things considered as the Japanese administration style or Japanese administration methods. A significant number of these strategies were credited with helping vault the Japanese economy to its status as the world’s second biggest, behind just the United States, and with making Japanese organizations, especially in the assembling division, more aggressive than their global partners. In the wake of Japan’s delayed and challenging battle with subsidence all through a great part of the 1990s, be that as it may, numerous spectators both inside and outside Japan—have called into inquiry the viability of some conventional Japanese administration rehearses. Subsequently, at the beginning of the 21st century Japanese administration methods are like never before in a state of flux, as researchers and business pioneers much the same rethink which practices work and which don’t.
SPECIAL FEATURES OF JAPANESE MANAGEMENT:
• SCIENTIFIC SELECTION PROCESS
• LIFETIME EMPLOYMENT
• SENIORITY SYSTEM
• CONTINUOUS TRAINING
• EMPHASIS ON GROUP WORK
• DECISION MAKING
• COMPLICATED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
• FATHER LEADERSHIP
• GOOD BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES
• SIMPLE AND FLEXIBLE ORGANIZATION
1-SCIENTIFIC SELECTION PROCESS Few Japanese go to master’s level college and graduate preparing ready to go yet rate is uncommon on the grounds that there are just 30 top business universities who pick up concession and study in that schools just those learner have the opportunity to work in expansive organization. That extensive organization conduct focused examination. Those learner passed the examination they can addition employments yet organization give their preparation.
2- LIFE TIME EMPLOYMENT Lifetime business alludes to recruitment of representatives promptly upon graduation era of livelihood until retirement, and obligatory retirement. In spite of the fact that there is no formal contract, executives and representatives have an unwritten common comprehension with respect to their desire about the occupation. Under lifetime business a worker uses his whole living up to expectations existence with a solitary undertaking. This aides produce an inclination of employer stability in the representative and an inclination of having a place belonging-ness towards the venture.
3- SENIORITY SYSTEM This idea is nearly identified with the idea of lifetime job organizations after this idea, give benefits to more established representatives who have been with it for quite a while. Advancement and compensation expands are focused around representatives length of administration in the organization, not work execution.
4-CONTINUOUS TRAINING-The secret of the success of Japanese managers may lie in “continuous training” In western organizations, employees receive training only to acquire a new skill or to move to a new position. In Japanese firms however, every young manager has a godfather, who is never his boss or anyone in the direct line of authority. The godfather is not part of the top management, but is highly respected by others.
5- DECISION-MAKING The practice of managerial decision-making in Japan is built on the concept that change and new ideas should come primarily from personnel belonging to lower levels in the hierarchy. Thus in Japan lower level employees prepare proposals for higher-level personnel. The ‘ringi system’ refers to decision-making by consensus. The word ringi consists of two parts ‘rin’ which means submitting a proposal to one’s superior and getting his approval, and ‘gi’ meaning deliberations and decisions.
6-COMPLICATED PERFORMANCE EVALUATION When set of expectations are not decently characterized and when errands are performed by gatherings, it gets to be hard to assess individual occupation execution equitably. The assessment of laborers and directors in Japanese organizations takes quite a while up to ten years and obliges the utilization of qualitative and quantitative data about execution.
• Long term orientation
• Collective decision making with consensus
• Involvement of many people in preparing and making the decision
• Decisions flow bottom to top
• Slow decision making and fast implementation of the decision
• Collective responsibility and accountability
• Ambiguity of decision responsibility
• Informal organization structure
• Well-known common organization culture and philosophy; competitive sprite toward other enterprises
• Young people hired out of school; hardly any mobility of people among companies
• Slow promotion through the ranks
• Loyalty to the company
• Very infrequent performance evaluation for new employees
• Promotion base on multiple criteria
• Leader acting as a social facilitator and group member.
• Paternalistic style
• Common values facilitating cooperation
• Bottom-up communication
• Control by peers
• Control focus on group performance
• Saving face
• Extensive use of quality control circles.
The investigation of Japanese and Indian administration, the Japanese administration is picking up critical-ness in light of the fact that it manages the procedure of arranging, sorting out, staffing, heading and controlling is superior to Indian administration.
Management Practices in the People’s Republic of China
In China, the circumstances is truly distinctive. A large portion of the organizations are state-possessed, and it is just all the more as of late that some privately owned businesses have started to be.. In these organizations, both long- and transient arrangements are ready. The five year arrangement is ready at the top (the State Planning Commission) while more point by point arrangements are made at lower levels. The introduction is to meet destinations and attain the allotted arrangement, as opposed to be fruitful in the business. There is likewise the trouble of coordinating hierarchical and individual objectives on the grounds that the accomplishment of authoritative targets has small bearing on individual profits.
In China, significant choices are made by individuals at the top, yet numerous individuals are included in operational choices. Lower-level administrators have next to no power to decide. Choice making through the focal Planning department is under the immediate control of the state. This, lamentably, brings about an absence of adaptability in the usage of the choices. Despite the fact that there is an acknowledgment of the need to change, directors in the upper echelons of the progression oppose changes on the grounds that it would mean surrendering some of their benefits they have as authorities.
Chinese managerial practices are truly affected by the way that the organizations are claimed by the state and guided by government authorities. This results in a bureaucratic association structure that does not react well to changes in the earth. This might not have been significant previously (despite the fact that it is incapable) on the grounds that chiefs did not need to react to rivalry. While manufacturing plant supervisors, as individuals, are required to accomplish the yearly arrange, on lower levels the thought of an obscure aggregate obligation predominates. Inside the formal bureaucratic structure the connections among individuals are noticeably casual. As of late, endeavors have been made through the “manufacturing plant obligation framework” to delegate more power to lower levels. Actually, industrial facilities are permitted to make benefits, however these benefits are uncommonly exhausted. Like in Japan, there are solid hierarchical societies in Chinese organizations. Examination demonstrates that the level of ID with the business may fluctuate enormously. Indeed with a low level of responsibility to the organization, this does not bring about regular authoritative progressions in light of the fact that it is exceptionally hard to change employments among state-claimed associations. Furthermore there is an absence of focused soul among Chinese representatives.
The staffing practices in China have viewpoints like those in Japan. Like in Japan, representatives are enlisted from school. They are required to stay with the business for quite a while. All the more as of late, nonetheless, work force is likewise employed from different associations; however individuals are typically relegated to their positions by higher powers. As in Japan, workers are pushed gradually through the positions with consistent pay builds. Needing in China is the devotion and dedication to both organization (as in Japan) and to the calling (as in the U.s.). Execution surveys are carried out occasionally in China (generally once a year) which is positively more regularly than in Japan, and are more like the practice in the United States. Advancements should be built principally in light of execution, training, and potential capacity.
However,family ties and great relations with the unrivaled incredibly impact progression inside an association. Previously, preparing projects were accessible in China just to the picked few. As of late, be that as it may, preparing has been accommodated more directors by instructive TV and expert night schools. In addition, a few directors now need to pass an exam, supported by the State Economic Commission. Employments are secure; it intimates lifetime livelihood (known as “iron rice-vessel”) paying little respect to execution.
In China, control is practiced basically by gathering pioneers. The control center is on the gathering, additionally on the individual. Industrial facility directors, for instance, are required to meet their yearly amounts. Subsequently, Chinese control practices are a mixture of U.s. also Japanese managerial practices.in recognizing deviations from principles, there is a propensity to let the persons in charge of poor execution conceal any hint of failure face (like the Japanese hone). There is some utilization of value rings, however it is not a typical practice.
• Long-term and short-term orientation (5-year plan and annual plan)
• Decision-making by committees. At the top often individual
• Top-down-participation at lower levels.
• Top-down-initiated at the top
• Slow decision-making / slow implementation. (Now changing)
• Collective and individual responsibility
• Attempts to introduce the “factory responsibility system”
• Formal bureaucratic organization structure
• Identification with the company but no competitive spirit
• Most hired from school, fewer from other companies
• Slow promotion, but regular salary increase
• Lack of loyalty to both company and profession
• Infrequent performance review (usually once a year)
• 5-year plan, otherwise short-term targets
• Promotions are supposed to be based on performance, potential ability, and education.
• Leader as the head of the group (committees)
• Directive. Parent-child relations (in TA terms)
• Common values. Emphasis on harmony
• Avoidance of confrontation
• Communication top-down
• Control by group leader (superior)
• Primary control by groups-but also by individuals
• Try to save face
• Limited use of quality control