Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Japanese culture
Understanding the importance of cultural differences in business
Japanese culture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Japanese culture
Gung Ho Commentary
1) Based on this movie, how would you describe the culture—values and beliefs about what is “right” and “wrong”—in Japanese companies?
Based on the movie, Japanese society has a high degree of Power Distance Index (PDI). Therefore, they take a hierarchical order as right in their companies. In Japanese companies, every employee has a particular position which is unquestionable and unjustifiable. The Japanese culture finds it right to adopt collectivism and work as a tightly-connected community where people are loyal and accountable to their families or some group to watch over them. As shown in the movie, Japanese is a masculine society, but finds it right to approach work as a team plus consensus-inclined instead of demonstrating
Alternatively, what would be an effective leadership style in American organizations?
An autocratic leadership style would fit in Japanese companies because they value processes. Through an autocratic leadership approach, they will value accord decision-making because they are a collectivistic culture. A professional management style would be ideal for the American organization. The professional style is good for management participation as well as employee involvement, featured by the expressive involvement of the two parties with a mutual responsibility in attaining employee goals by achieving organizational goals. Through this style, the leaders depict an extensive and possibility approach to leadership where the leaders focus on two-way communication, honesty, trust and individual development.
4) Gung Ho means working together in Chinese. What tactics did the leaders of this factory use to get workers from different cultures to work
The Japanese and American culture and values crushed at some point in the workplace. The executive had a long-term orientation of establishing a firm that would last for many generations. For instance, from the movie he told Keaton that the company would never open although it was already opened. The executive also liked collectivism for instance when the wife of a manager of the factory was in labor, Kazihiro wanted to be with his wife but decided to stay for he considered the company to be
When the American worker’s hand got hurt at the factory many of the other workers went with him to the hospital instead of staying to work, which shows individualism by putting their friend over the factory. The team exercises that the Japanese did to start the day before going into the factory is a collectivistic idea that the American workers are not used to and do not want to do. High and low context cultures are also seen throughout the movie. The Japanese men have a lot of high context expectations, like when Hunt and several higher up Japanese workers are having dinner at Takahara’s house. An low context situation is when Hunt and Takahara go to get drinks, what matters is what they are talking about and not what is going on around them, even if a lot of people are looking at
The salaryman was a product’ of modern Japanese capitalist system, where power, authority and possession were the signify of a ‘real man’, a sort of corporate soldier who had a primary influence in Japanese society. The salaryman came to substitute the soldier’s hegemonic influence, in fact he exhibits militaristic connotations, mainly because the salaryman has an essential role in the state’s objective of economic growth. Hence the salaryman is overloaded with work, he almost put corporate interests before family, as he barely engages with his family, in fact the salaryman is reluctant to go home as he feels a bit estranged at home. As Dasgupta continues to explain, the salaryman was not only the ideal man but the ‘ideal citizen’, he has to deal with every-day problems such as jam-packed transports, work-related illness, competition, frequent job transfers and long hours shifts, on the other hand there are benefits such as long weekends (spent playing golf), business trips and economic stability (Dasgupta, 2013). The sarariiman is a heterosexual male, monotonous, office worker and family provider, with one or two children (Roberson & Suzuki, 2003) . Commonly the salaryman possesses these characteristics: middle class graduate, loyal, diligent, fully dedicated to the paternalist corporation (referring to the permanent relation between the corporate and the worker), well-groomed
Chung has been operating under what he feels are the established norms for his culture. Ted's relationship with the Taiwanese client exhibits the Chinese management principles of paternalism, particularism, and insecurity. The patron-client relationship is based in a sense of mutual obligation, where the client is expected to defer to Ted's expertise and Ted is expected to trade the account responsibly. (Moorhouse, 2005) Ted also used social networking to establish himself in the community which is expected in the Chinese culture. By attending events Ted increases his “visibility and prestige” which contributes to the face that is needed to be considered a trustworthy business partner in the Chinese community. (Moorhouse, 2005) Karen had trouble understanding these differences in culture which is the root of the problem in this case. As stated in the case study Ted was in his early forties were stable and responsible. Karen admitted that she didn’t really know the whole person (referring to Ted) but wrote it off to the fact that he was Asian and she was not. Karen would not be described as someone with much “Cultural Intelligence” defined by the text as “the ability to accurately interpret ambiguous cross-cultural situations” (Robert Kreitner, 2008) Figure 4-2 in the text defines the differences between Low and High-Context cultures with China being a very High-Context culture and North American countries being Low-Context. Below list the traits of each type culture:
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
STYLES OF LEADERSHIP An autocratic leadership style is one where the manager sets objectives, allocates tasks, and insists on obedience. Therefore the group becomes dependent on him or her. The result of this style is the members of the group are often dissatisfied with the leader. This results in little cohesion, the need for high levels of supervision, and poor levels of motivation amongst employees. A democratic leadership style encourages participation in decision making.
The leadership model that is being chosen in this paper is the Theory X and Theory Y Leadership model and how to compare the two management style of each employee described in this paper. According to the Business Balls (n.d.), the Theory X manager is a person who is authoritarian and maintains a repressive style while showing characteristics of tight control and no development. They explain a Theory Y manager as a person who wants to have a high achievement, empower their employees, and giving their employees great responsibilities that they known that the person can handle.
Autocratic leadership theory is a part of the behavioural approach. In this leadership theory, leader makes all decisions and uses power to command and control the followers to achieve goal. According to Lewin(1939), “autocratic leaders are associated with high-performing groups, but that close supervision is necessary and feeling of hostility are often present” (p.173). It is incredibly efficient and tasks are completed quickly. Autocratic leadership can be beneficial when decisions need to be making quickly. For example, in emergency situation surgeon uses this theory because the patient’s situation is between life and death and there is no time to discuss with other members. Bass (2008) mentioned in the Leadership styles and theories article, “Autocratic leaders can be effective because they create good structure, and determine what needs to be done. They provide rewards for compliance, but punish disobedience” (Giltinane, 2013, p. 35-37).
The Japanese mind is very pragmatic. They emphasize on immediate experience as opposed to the westernized analytical thinking. We see this through the character of Ryuji when he proposed to Fusako as he told her very bluntly without giving extra thought. We also see this through Noboru as he reacts to the actions of Ryuji very impulsively through his charges. We also establish that the Japanese are very introverted which is depicted through the characters of Ryuji, Noboru and Fusako as they keep very isolated and to themselves.
Presently, most organizations emphasize extremely about leadership in organizations. Leadership means that ability, capability, and skills of leader to guide members of organizations to success or achieve objectives and destination. Leadership studies are interesting in several organizations. According to Walters (2009), “Leadership has been an intriguing and important part of human interactions for as long as people have lived and worked together in groups” (P.1). Some organizations have studied about leadership for long times to know what elements and significant factors of leadership is. Those elements will help leaders to have ability, capability, and skills to suggest members of organizations or being leaders efficiently.
Many leadership researchers and scholars have stated that leaders do not exist without followers. Leadership has been described as the process of influencing, in which a person can enlist the support of others to accomplish a task or goal (Nye, 2010 and Oc & Bashshur, 2013). A leader is one whom others agree to follow, but a follower must be willing to be led. In developing leaderships styles and theories, the traits and behavior of the leaders were considered by Bass (2008). Bass described these styles as transactional and transformational leadership (2008). For the purposes of this short essay, I will discuss two leadership styles, the types of followers, and the autocratic style being used by this organization’s new VP.
In an attempt to understand the dissimilarities of employees from a cross-cultural perspective, Geert Hofstede (1980) conducted a pioneering survey that measured the work-related values of employees who worked for IBM subsidiaries located in 53 different countries (Hofstede & Bond, 1984). When analyzing the results, Hofstede discovered that cultures were divisible into four distinct categories, masculinity/femininity, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and individualism/collectivism (Bochner 1994). Hofstede stated that the four categories relate to the core cultural values of
Culture of an organization is a crucial factor in that organizations achieved success. A strong culture that everyone can fit into and feel welcomed enough to believe in the organization’s mission should be upper management’s primary goal. After all, it is essentially the bottom of the barrel employees who help hold together the glue that holds a company together. Without these employees, there would be no one there to keep the basics in order and of course, without someone above them, leading them along, these employees would not know the fundamentals of the organization. Two author’s Pascale and Athose proposed an idea that America had focused on the hierarchical approach of organizational structure, while Japan (America’s leading competitor) had focused more on the “shared values” approach of its structure. This paper will talk about the benefits of “shared values” within an organization and its effect on the employees and how a great culture can help enhance these
Prior to the mid 1960’s: Although many philosophers and business leaders emphasized the importance of implementing business ethics in companies, but it had not been taken seriously by the Japanese business community. Japan’s attention after WW2 was its economic development, and this explains why its companies never seemed to address any social or environmental
The Hofstede model of national culture differences, based on research carried out in the early seventies, is the first major study to receive worldwide attention. This influential model of cultural traits identifies five dimensions of culture that help to explain how and why people from various cultures behave as they do. According to Hofstede (1997) culture is Ù[ collective programming of the mind? This referring to a set of assumptions, beliefs, values and practices that a group of people has condoned as a result of the history of their engagements with one another and their environment over time. In this study, culture refers to a set of core values and behavioural patterns people have due to socialisation to a certain culture. The author̼ theoretical framework will be applied to compare differing management practices in China and the West. The five measurements of culture identified by the author are:
An examination of Japanese culture, and where it stands on Kluckholn and Strodbeck’s Value Orientation, Hall’s cultural dimensions, and what America needs to know in order to communicate properly with Japan.