Objectives
1. To be able to understand the traits and characteristics of a successful manager in today’s modern, multicultural work environment.
2. To differentiate how different cultures approach the leadership aspect of a modern work environment.
3. To explain the major problems that may arise when multiple cultures work together as leaders/ employees or as teams of leaders.
4. To be able to define terms such as culture, value, and value dimensions.
5. To understand the pros and cons of each of the two types of work culture.
Culture has always played an important role in the workplace. In modern workforces, culture has become a great impetus in ways of thinking more creatively and in understanding one another more deeply. In no role is this more critical than in that of a manager. As companies strive to be global in their reach, managers must understand how valuable cultural understanding is, let cultural differences among employees thrive, and learn to work amongst its potential conflict as well. Many studies involving culture indicate there are common traits that will help the manager succeed in an intercultural setting. However, regardless of the environment, the manager himself as well as his employees will be subject to outside influences that will shape the cultural context of the company. This chapter is divided into three easy to understand sections: 1) global management teams, 2) traits of a successful manager, and 3) cultural influences and leadership.
Global Management Teams
A manager faces many challenges in their day to day work. No aspect of management is as challenging as the intercultural aspect that comes with a global management team. Both managers who serve on it and employees who report to this team will face critical cultural barriers. Many times, cultural differences will force communication barriers on managers despite their best efforts. Both Eastern and Western cultures, including both dependent and independent management, believe that management involves decision making and the formation of teams within to become successful.
Working with Multiple Managers
It is rare in many cultures for employees to report to only one boss. In many companies, managers overlap each other in both their duties and their subordinate staff. This complicates the way cultural differences will be faced. Global managers by nature supervise staff that is not always in their own country, so the employees may identify much more with their own country’s supervisors than with their global managers. Managers in this situation can try a few methods to make the process work more smoothly.
Meeting with the individual employees they have reporting to them is not always feasible, but it is desired in order to maintain the authority and integrity of global management. Face-to-face meetings, of course, may be out of the question. The goal can be accomplished by using teleconferencing or even email. Global managers must also meet together, by various means, to discuss employee performance, company goals, and management projects. They may have more leverage in traveling to meet one another, and this would prove more successful in bridging cultural gaps than electronic meetings would. It takes a special team of employees to achieve success when reporting to multiple and multi-national managers. Employees who require little or no supervision in their jobs will do best, as they will have to make quick decisions with no guidance simply because their manager is not always available. Managers need to coordinate projects first before delegating them; otherwise, confusion over whose project is more important will result. This means the managers will all have to share a common work philosophy and common value orientations, and they cannot be competitive over the employees who report to them. Employees who report to multiple managers are expected to think on their feet and work creatively to complete projects. Reporting back and forth to more than one boss all the time is not feasible, so they have to be able to be more self-reliant than other employees with one direct manager.
Value Dimensions and Their Importance
Geert Hofstede invented five dimensions of culture that are very relevant to the study of global management. Power distance refers to the degree to which the less powerful members of society expect there to be differences in the levels of power. Authority in the cultures which value a high power distance is seen as being much more powerful, and much more distant, to the subordinates. Individualism vs. collectivism is evident in cultures where the “team” dynamic contrasts with the “individual”. In collectivist or dependent cultures, the team or group makes decisions and carries more authority than the individual. Masculinity vs. femininity refers to the value placed on traditionally male or female values. Masculine cultures often value competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and material wealth, whereas feminine cultures place more value on relationships and quality of life. Uncertainty avoidance – reflects the extent to which a society attempts to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. Long vs. short term orientation describes the cultures importance on the passage of time with regard to an issue, vs. its importance in the past or the future. Short term oriented cultures, for example, place less importance on preserving their culture and on materials they might need in the future, because they are focused on more short-term projects.
Managers who travel to meet their counterparts overseas often find that decisions in many cultures are made outside of the office. The Japanese, for example, prefer informal decisions that are made in such places as restaurants and bars, whereas American managers prefer meetings to make these decisions. In any case, managers on both sides of the globe must possess social savvy with regard to their global counterparts, as well as intuition and “keen observation skills” (Hoffman, 2006). Hoffman describes an experience between Japanese and American managers on a conference call where the Americans thought their counterparts had lost the phone connection- every time they spoke, there was silence. In reality, the Japanese managers were “tending their roots”- taking due time to think before responding- an alien idea to the American managers. The value orientation of individual vs. collectivist was at work- showing that the Japanese teams needed time together to think, while the Americans spoke individually and quickly without regard to their teams. A previous understanding of the value dimensions might have made the situation seem less daunting.
Global teams of management, in addition to their internal issues, also need to focus on their intercultural employees. Many companies have managers in one country and the supervisors who report to them in another. Hofstede’s value dimensions have proven useful in these situations, but the element of cultural understanding is the most important tool. Any manager that ties a certain dimension to an employee is at risk for unfair treatment of that employee. There are many women, for example, that are successful managers in Mexico, despite Mexico normally placing high in the context of masculinity. Management needs to understand the environment their employees work in, as well as the cultural background that fosters their beliefs. The study highlighted in the Chen et al (2005) article shows how the two groups can focus on the rewards of a cross cultural relationship in business to better visualize the end result and achieve communication success.
The Importance of Cultural Conflict
Global managers must realize that conflict, although it is a disruption to their processes, is also effective in confronting issues and therefore resulting in a conclusion, whereas cultural avoidance does not accomplish anything. Conflict and conflict avoidance are extremely important to understand in a global management team. Both can be valid responses, however, if managed properly and if handled sensitively amongst the two involved cultures.
Cultural conflict often stems from the beliefs that say it is “Us” vs. “Them”. Each identity is held fast to and the other culture is always inferior. Culture itself gives employees common rights, but globalization (although a positive change) can erode many of those rights. “Globalization is both a threat and an opportunity.” (Davies, 2006). To avoid conflict in cultural learning and among employees and management, the company must be rich in employees who share open-minded traits. They must be interested in other cultures and willing to learn as much as possible about one another. Having a respect for other cultures is also important; despite differences, a showing of respect gives both parties space and time to confront larger issues. Companies should facilitate the removal of beliefs that lead to stereotypes. For example, a global manager would never speak of their Mexican branches as though they were infringing on the US branches. This would create confusion and anger among his or her employees. Instead, they should be a model to their employees for intercultural thinking and be conscious that they are building a new kind of citizenship- on that relies on company pride and not just country pride.
The Successful Manager
There is no one quality that can define a “good manager.” After all, management is judged by its employees, for the most part, who are the people they take the least amount of guidance from. But they are also judged by their character, their cultural understanding, and their business know-how—all qualities which cannot be forced or fabricated. Managers in today’s corporate environment should be able to work cross-culturally without issue, and to be models to their employees of respectful and successful intercultural business ethic.
The Employees’ View Many cultures operate under a hierarchical work structure which involves employees, some supervisory staff and managers who oversee both. The employees are rewarded based on their performance within the company. It is interesting to note that in this paper, management and leadership are terms that are used interchangeably, but they are not always the same. In fact, employees can show traits of leadership without being managers. Often, this is how management gets their start- by proving they can lead a team, or by showing they have capabilities of handling leadership responsibilities.
In order to complete on a global level, corporate culture must reward employees so that they can work toward a goal of advancement within their company and for their own professional lives. Many managers have to change the way they manage in order to adapt to their employees’ way of thinking. Today’s work culture is moving away from the traditional hierarchies of employees to managers, and working instead toward “self managed teams, defining competence and working practices such as multi-skilling and project working” (Coomer, 2007). Although difficult to standardize based on so many cultural differences, GLOBE Scholars have attempted to define organizational leadership as “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members” (Aditya et al, 1996).
Managers should consider culture in their workplace when creating programs that involve reward, promotions, project management, and recognition. Considering the ethnic culture of their workplace(s), as well as the business culture, is the key to success in adopting new programs and introducing change. For example, a company who assigns teams of managers to assemble new initiatives within their company for the safety of their employees needs to know whether the employees value quantity over quality, work over safety, etc. Trying to view changes from the employees’ point of view gives the management leverage in implementing their changes, and creates a feeling of understanding among the employees. Changes that do not take into account the culture of the organization may result in the “perception of [management] being inflexible and bureaucratic” (Coomer, 2007.) Delegation, Goals & Setting Guidelines Managers need to know how to maximize team productivity, based on how the team works best. They may need to use different methods for different members of the team to get the job done in the most effective way. Managers who are most effective usually know what is important to each member of the team, and can define goals for them based on that information. Many managers use the SMART system to help them remember how to set objectives for their employees. First, the objective must be Specific- each employee should be aware of exactly what is expected when the manager delegates a task. If the command is at all unclear, the task might not be done the way the manager expected, and communication is strained.
Secondly, the objective should be Measurable- it should be able to be measured, recorded or monitored to assure success. Next, the objective must be Attainable. Managers should not be unrealistic in their expectations of employees. Goals should have a fair chance of being met with the tools the employees are given, without being so easy that there is no sense of accomplishment after the task is met. Next, the objective needs to be Relevant to the job the employees actually perform. Asking them to increase sales if they work in customer service is not directly relevant to their job, and they might fail at such a task. Again, the importance of corporate culture here is important. Lastly, the objective should be Timely- that is, it should have a clear timeframe of when it should start and when it should end. Without a specific timeframe, neither employees nor managers will be able to tell for sure if the objectives have been met.
Why Management Fails to Flourish In many cultures, management is promoted from within the company. Managers are often employees who started on the lower end of the company spectrum and worked their way into the management role, having proved themselves through hard work and respect from their peers. They have also shown themselves to be professional, loyal to their companies, and confident in their abilities.However, once the manager is in place, they have many obstacles ahead of them. In today’s work environment, there are many reasons why a manager received his or her promotion- and not all of them are related to whether or not they can handle the stress and added responsibilities in their new role. These concerns only surface after the manager is in their new role several weeks or more. Many times, an employee is promoted to management partly because they can get along with people from many different departments, and they are friendly with their staff. Unfortunately, these managers often fail because they cannot separate their managerial status from the easy communication with their old coworkers. Some managers are promoted because they perform well in their current job duties, but in their new management roles they cannot handle the additional responsibilities. The very title of “manager” gives people the feeling of power and respect, which can lead them to become one-minded in their quest to attain company power at the expense of their work ethic.
Of course, management can be very successful and avoid all these pitfalls, and somehow still fail. This may be explained because managers undergo added scrutiny from those around them, magnifying their faults, and making employees less willing to forgive them. In Paul Glen’s article, he asks the question: is it managers who actually fail, or is it the employees’ perception of them as a manager which fails them?
Cultural Influences and Leadership
The expectations of someone in a leadership or management position, as well as the influence they may have in their organization, will vary widely depending on the “cultural forces” in the surrounding culture. (Aditya et al, 1996).Leadership will also assume a different role based on the emphasis given to the role in its culture, as well as the importance the culture places on leadership skills such as personality, communication skills, group vs. individual orientation, and the various value dimensions’ weight in the culture. To understand this section better, one must know the definition of culture: the accumulation of values, behavior rules, forms of expression, norms, religious beliefs and occupational choices for a group of people who usually share a common language and environment (Penner, 2000). To further define, values are “conceptions of the desirable that guide the way social actors select actions, evaluate people and events, and explain their actions and evaluations” (Penner, 2000). Values, in other words, often work with one another to influence the culture of a group of people.
Internal Cultural Influences There are many internal or dependent variables which may influence management directly. Some examples of this are the company or culture’s socioeconomic status, the cultural emphasis on achievement, the work dynamic favored by the company, the dominant religious beliefs of the culture, historical experience with certain leader types, employee satisfaction, and the employees’ identification with the cultural society’s value for leadership. Internal influences only include those that originate from the company itself, outward toward the culture. There are several types of organizational cultures into which a company may be categorized (Croomer, 2007). First, there is the “clan culture”- a friendly, informal place to work in which the members act more as family or friends than coworkers. The company culture places high values on tradition and loyalty. This type of company will place less value on the authority of management and more on the ability of managers to interact as a team with their employees. The authority and power of management is minimized in favor of the cozy atmosphere of the work environment. Next there is the “market culture”. This type of organizational culture is primarily results-oriented and focused on the task at hand. Managers must have specific goals in mind to achieve success at this type of company. They must be more demanding of their employees, since the end result is more valuable than the process itself. The entire organization shares a cultural attitude that winning is best and losing is worst. This type of work culture has long-term aspirations of success, but it can be dominated by competitive employees looking to get ahead.
Third, there is the “hierarchy culture. This type of work culture is formal and structured. Employees and managers are both ruled by procedure and its importance. Managers in these environments must be effective and efficient, while achieving their goal. If an employee strays from the policies, it detracts from the efficiency of the organization as a whole. These companies have long term goals also, but they are defined by smooth operations, low costs and dependability on business practices. Lastly, there are “adhocracy culures”- those work cultures which are dynamic and creative places to work. Employees are more encouraged here to take risks and not worry about looking bad. Management promotes “experimentation and innovation” (Croomer, 2007). This is the most employee friendly type of environment, where individuality reigns supreme and management values employees’ visions.External Cultural Influences External cultural influences are those that are given to a work culture by its own ethnic and regional cultural norms. A company will function best adapting to the culture around it. This is why a country may not be accepting of a company branch whose headquarters is in another country. Standardization to one type of email, one type of phone system, one type of departmental structure- all of these basic problems are magnified when they cross cultural boundaries. Some cultures are much more specialized than others. They believe that training employees on one or few skills enables the company to capitalize on the strengths of those employees. However, this view does not take into consideration the future of the company or the employees. This is a good example of a culture which is based on a short term time orientation. It would be more difficult for the employee to advance in a company if they only ever held one expertise. Other work cultures believe more in the value of a team working together to achieve unity, even if it means all members of a team share duties and responsibilities.
Across countries and cultures, many characteristics of leadership do emerge. Most cultures prefer a democratic style of leadership where the manager leads the team with their knowledge and ability, and is less directly influenced by external cultural factors. For example, a manager in America who pushes his employees to succeed because he believes in them will be more favorably tolerated than a manager who pushes his employees because the culture says management should be authoritative. Employees of any company who follow a leader (manager) may influence their leader based on their own response styles and acceptance for leadership.
Dependent Vs. Independent Culture in Leadership Management styles differ greatly regardless of the person’s culture. However, their culture has the most influence on the way they manage, over any other influence. We know that there are two types of cultures, collectivist and individual. Many researchers also refer to collectivist cultures as “dependent”, because they work dependent on the team dynamic, and individual cultures as “independent” as they work separately from the team dynamic. The independent culture manager is concerned mostly with the needs of him or herself over their team of employees. This is not to suggest they are selfish, only that they view their own growth in the company as the foremost goal. In fact, being self-sufficient is considered a healthy trait for many U.S. managers. Because of this importance placed on self-sufficiency, though, the group dynamic is not valued as highly and the manager distances themselves from the group he or she manages. The group of employees who report to them, in turn, feel slighted. After all, if the goal is to better oneself within the company, they must present well to their managers. With a physically and emotionally distant manager, this becomes frustrating for the employees and harder to accomplish.
The dependent culture manager is concerned with his or her identity as part of a group (i.e., the work team). The team might be the manager and his or her employees, a project management team, or a team of managers. The success of the group ensures the well-being of the individual in this case. By considering the needs and feelings of people in the group, the individual manager’s confidence is strengthened and their role is protected. Since harmony of the group is of utmost importance, a manager must make a good addition to the team, and be willing to commit oneself to the team for their greater good instead of their own. It should also be noted that members of the team are usually very close in this type of culture, but that they do not view non-members as closely. Therefore, being part of a team- any team- is importance to the survival of the manager in this type of culture.
Summary
ReferencesAditya, R.; House, R.; & Wright, N. (1996). Cross Cultural Research on Organizational Leadership: A Critical Analysis and a Proposed Theory. Wharton College Center for Leadership and Change Management, 5, 1, 49-66.
Chen, D.; Fang, S.S.; Tjosvold, Y. (2005). Working with Foreign Managers: Conflict Management for Effective Leader Relationships in China. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16,3, n.p.
Croomer, K.(2007). Corporate Cultures. Occupational Health, 59,4, n.p.
Dahlgaard, J.J. & Dahlgaard, S.P. (1999). Integrating Business Excellence and Innovation Management: Developing a Culture for Innovation, Creativity, and Learning. Total Quality Management, 10, 4/5, n.p.
Davies, L. (2006). Global Citizenship: Abstraction or Framework for Action? Educational Review, 58, 1, 5-25.
Gates, B. (1997). What Makes a Good Manager? New York Times Special Feature on June 30.
Glen, P. (2007).Why Managers Fail. Computerworld. Retrieved February 19, 2007 from http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=279478
Gould, K.L. (2000). Multiple Personalities: How Firms with Multiple Offices Handle Identity, Culture and Ownership. Architectural Record: Practice Matters, 188, 6, 63.
Handlos, D. (2002). Surviving Multiple Managers. Tech Republic. Retrieved April 12, 2007 from http://builder.com.com/5100-6375_14-1045709.html.
Hildebrandt, H. (1987). International/ Intercultural Business Communications: A Comparative Study of Asian and U.S. Managers. University of Michigan School of Business Administration, Ann Arbor.
Hoffman, T. (2006). When HQ is Over There. Computerworld. Retrieved April 12, 2007 from http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=10&articleId=112310.
Penner, L.A. (2000). Promoting Prosocial Actions: The Importance of Culture and Values. Journal of Social Philosophy, 31, 4 , 477-487.
Slater, C.L; Boone, M.; Price, L.; Martinez, D.; Alvarez, I.; Topete, C.; & Olea, E. (2002). A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Leadership in the United States and Mexico. School Leadership and Management, 22, 2, 197-199.
Wood, J.W. (2006). Transforming Good Managers into Outstanding Leaders. Corrections Today, 68, 1, 53.
