How Asian Cultures Impact on Management Practices in Asia - Case Study Example

How Asian Cultures Impact on Management Practises in Asia Writer’s Name: Title of Course: September 12, 2013 Introduction Managing human resources in any organisation requires a proper understanding of the influence that both the internal and external environments of the business may have on its management practises. The internal environment refers to the internal work culture of the organisation while the external environment refers to the culture of the institution, enterprise, or the market or community within which the business is found. Such internal and external factors may include the market characteristics of the business, ownership status of the organisation, nature of the industry in question, paternalism, resource availability and power distance, amongst others. Both of these forces in the environment, are similarly, influenced by the physical and socio-political environments, including ecological, historical, legal, political and social forces. Both the socio-cultural environment and the business environment affect the internal work culture and Human Resource Management (HRM) practices. As Hofestede states, ‘values in the workplace are affected by culture’, and as such, this essay seeks to make use of Hofestede’s five dimensions of culture to illustrate how culture affects the management practises in Asia. Definition of Terms Of important note is that, the phrase ‘ Asian culture’ as used in this context refers to the common pattern of norms, belief, values and assumptions of behaviour of human groups in Asia, which are represented by the societies around the businesses in Asia, the institutions in Asia, and organisations in Asia1. In other words, the cultural variables that may influence managerial practises in Asia can manifest at three basic levels. At the most fundamental level, organisational culture, is interpreted as a prototype of shared managerial values and assumptions that unswervingly affect managerial (HRM) practises. These administrative beliefs and hypotheses relate to two basic organisational essentials that include: the undertakings or tasks in the organisation and the employees2. The managerial beliefs that are linked with the tasks or undertakings within an organisation are deal with how these tasks can be best accomplished and the nature of these tasks. Contrarily, assumptions that pertain to the organisational employees are linked with the nature and behaviour of these employees3. In this essay, Asian cultures are represented by Japanese and China’s cultures respectively. Geert Hofstede’s model of five dimensions of natural culture that help to explain fundamental value, belief, or assumption differences in culture and distinguish cultures with respect to five different dimensions that include The model distinguishes cultures with respect to five different dimensions that include Power Distance (PD), Individualism (IDV), Masculinity (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI), and Long Term Orientation (LTO) are used as defined and represented in the model below4. Power Distance (PD) refers to the degree or extent of inequality that exists within a culture, and is accepted in the midst of individuals with and without power5. It is used to illustrate the extent to which the less powerful members of organisations within Asia, or any other country, expect and accept that power is distributed in an equal manner. A high PD score within a society indicates that the community as a whole accepts an unequal power distribution in its management system, and that individuals understand their place within the organisational structure or system. On the other hand, a low PD score illustrates that within that society, power is shared and well distributed, and as a result individuals view themselves as equals. The Five Dimensions of Culture6 Hofestede’sFindings about China’s Culture7 Hofestede’s Findings about Japan’s Culture8 According to Hofstede’s model and findings illustrated in the graph above, China has a PD index of 80 while Japan has 549.This means that China is positioned in the higher rankings of PDI, which means that the Chinese society believes that inequalities between individuals working in the same organisation are tolerable. In China therefore, the relationship between managers and their subordinate employees in the organisation tends to be polarised and there seem to be no defence against abuse of power by managers. The operations of employees are influenced by recognized authorities and approvals or sanctions and are in a general sense hopeful about the capacity of individuals for leadership and inventiveness10. The main effect therefore is that Chinese organisations have strong hierarchies, while Japan has a mildly hierarchical form of their managerial structure. Both have more centralised companies and similarly display large gaps or variations in terms of respect, payments, compensations or salaries, and authority11. IDV or Individualism makes reference to the strength of the ties that employees in an organisation have to others within the same organisation or community12.In countries that display high scores of IDV, there are no interpersonal connections, and sharing or roles beyond the confines of family and perchance hardly any close friends. Contrarily, a culture with low scores of IDV has strong group cohesions, high degrees of loyalty, and respect amongst employees in an organisation. With a score of 20, China has a highly collectivist culture where individuals in organisations work in the interest of teams and not essentially for their own gains13. Management practises in China therefore encourage team working relationships, harmonious working environment, working for fundamental rewards, and emphasise more on building skills among employees and masters of tasks14. Japan has a score of 46 meaning that it certainly shows the characteristics of a collectivist society, similar to China15. Masculinity (MAS) makes reference to how much a society upholds and values the traditional roles that are associated with male and female genders16. Societies that have high MAS scores, men are considered as tough, assertive and providers. If women have to work outside their domestic chores, then a clear difference is drawn between their roles or professions and those of men. In a contrary perception, low MAS cultures do not portray reversed gender roles17.Nevertheless, low score masculine countries or feminine societies portray caring for others and life quality as their dominant values18.With a score of 6619, China is a masculine society and therefore has management practises that are directed towards and driven by success. Managers work long hours, care less about leisure and work to attain better pays. The same applies to Japan that has a masculine score of 9520. UAI (Uncertainty Avoidance Index) dimensions describe the way a society handles the idea that the future is unpredictable or can never be known21.Japan has a high score of UAI while China has a low score of UAI at 92 and 30 respectively22. Chinese organisations are flexible to suit the situation, display traits of pragmatism and flexibility in their managerial practises due to uncertainty23. Japan on the other hand is one of the most uncertainty avoiding countries worldwide mainly because they learnt to deal with uncertainties after natural disasters such as typhoons (an internationally used Japanese word) and tsunamisstroke the country24. Managers therefore work with a lot of precaution, emergency plans, and avoid trying strategies before they are proven to be viable25. LTO means dealing with a particular society’s search for desirable quality, virtue, or good quality. Both Japan and China have high scores of LTO, at 80 and 118 respectively therefore, highly long term oriented societies26.Managers of organisations in such countries have and believe in strong work ethics, use resources sparingly, and invest more in future projects such as real estate27. They even show priority to steady growth of market share to a certain extent than a quarterly profit, thus serving the durability of their organisations28. Conclusion Drawing from the above analysis, it is evident that China and Japan only have a slight difference in the dimension of Power Difference. Of important note however, is that they both have hierarchical kind of management systems, with Japan being mild.Since they represent Asia, it can be assumed that such managerial practises dominate business markets, employ behaviours and decision making mechanisms in most Asian countries. As such, Human Resource Management in Asia illustrate qualities of respect to hierarchy, slow decision making processes, close relations to their communist parties, and directive management systems, amongst others as a result of their belief in collectivist, future oriented, power difference, and uncertainty avoidance cultures. Bibliography Chen, Min. Asian management systems: Chinese, Japanese and Korean styles of business. Connecticut:Cengage Learning, 2004. Warner, Malcolm, ed. Culture and management in Asia.London: Routledge, 2003. Taras, Vas, Bradley L. Kirkman, and Piers Steel. "Examining the impact of Culture's consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions." Journal of Applied Psychology 95.3 (2010): 405. Hofstede, G. "Scores of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (2010)." (2010). Schein, Edgar H. "What is culture." Sociology of organizations: Structures and relationships (2011): 311. Read More