Management Styles + leadership styles

During time the interactions between cultures around the world seem to be doing in organizations management styles to converge. This means the continuously emphasis made on similarities around the world to create like general standards to do management. In that way the theory of convergence on management styles makes references as if countries develop, management systems will converge in models that can be found in developed countries (Lee, Roehl, & Choe, 2000).

There are some cases as Japanese and Korean management which is a good example of what can be considered as convergence. But if we compared this type of management style with Middle East management style, as the Saudi Arabia, it is possible to identify few similarities and a lot of differences, caused principally for cultural factors.

Source: http://bintercultural.wordpress.com/ (September, 2010)

As globalization and other variables force organizations to adapt to international environment there are cases where the cultural issues came as crucial variable to define how organizations should operate. Here is where divergence appears as other type of cultural assumption, where a wider set of cultural norms could be a powerful force for differentiation. This implies for companies do different management styles accordingly to each culture and its environment. Can be understood as “… Just as norms and routines limit the organizational and strategic alternatives firms can use, in this approach, culture limits the alternative strategies for firms of a given country” (Lee, Roehl, & Choe, 2000, p. 632).

In some cases seems that management styles are converging. In others there are no similarities to share and evidently they are not working together to have them. The first issue in international business studies is if the management styles are converging, where they are converging, or which is the converging model. The second issue is that not only domestic environment molds the management style. International standards and other international requirements in one way or another would mold management style (Lee, Roehl, & Choe, 2000).

In the study of international management style, there have been different studies conducted to prove if there is evident convergence or divergence on management styles. That is why the Japanese and Korean management has been an excellent case of study. The main results proved that there are many similarities, but however there are differences in details. The convergence could be related more to regions than in a worldwide prospect. However, the isomorphism affects all management styles to have some degree of adaptation to the environment, having a little degree of convergence.

Main similarities and differences of Japanese and Korean Management styles

Talking about management styles is possible to find some similarities and differences in Japanese management and Korean management style. Even for Japan and South Korea, which share the East Asia and have cultural and history commons issues, in the international business environment they are distinguish by their own management style.

Japanese Management Style	Korean Management Style
SIMILARITIES
Both have a cultural past to share. From 1910 to 1945 Japan invaded Korea, which left language and cultural values within the Korean culture
Zaitbatsu and Chaebol as a model of economic groups. Created by family groups.
Both, Japanese and Korean firms tend to emphasize in market share and profit maximization as corporate goals
Are active in monitoring their rivals in their environmental analysis
Firms can grow in size and become internationalized, long-term technology development and economies of scale in manufacturing (SEC)
Long-term cooperative supplier relationships. Large and internationalized firms tend to cooperate with their suppliers in new product development.
DIFFERENCES
Layoffs are more common. Japanese like stable jobs and continuity in a firm.	Employment practice is flexible. Koreans tend to change jobs more freely
Participation of workers and middle management is important. Employees as assets. Consensus building and group loyalty are emphasized as principles.	Top management tends to be authoritarian. Important decisions are made on the top
Zaitbatsu could be manage by the family or by externals	Chaebol are managed by the family members of the founders
Zaitbatsu could own banks	Chaebol would not allow to have banks
The scale-based cost reduction is no longer attractive for Japanese firms	Koreans firms are basing their strategies on scale-based cost reduction
Japanese firms are active monitoring rivals and suppliers of substitute of goods	Korean firms are active in monitoring their rivals, but insensitive to the potential threats from the suppliers of substitute goods
More emphasis on flexible manufacturing	Less emphasis on flexible manufacturing
Customer information exchange as one of the most important variables	Less customer information exchange in no internationalized companies

Adaptation from (Lee, Roehl, & Choe, 2000)

Some factor pushing to convergence can be the isomorphism, globalization, influence of other cultures and international pressure. On the case of Japanese Management and Korean management style is evident that there are cultural backgrounds that are similar, so in the end there would be convergence. Korean firms have tried to learn from successful Japanese experiences.

Source: http://blogs.oracle.com/fusionecm/2009/03/idea_convergence.html (September, 2010)

The process of convergence could be generated on part for the constant awareness necessarily for today businesses. When you know about the others management style, in one way or other you are going to make emphasis on similarities to take advantage of them, the knowledge about how to deal with buyers, suppliers, networking and supply chain member can be a competitive advantage, especially for international competition (Mikhailitchenko & Lundstrom, 2006). New international competition is leading everyday to companies to create strategic alliances and other forms of international integration. In that way there are forces guiding to managers to have related characteristics.

Bibliography

Lee, J., Roehl, T. W., & Choe, S. (2000). What Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct Across Borders? Growth, Experience and Cutlur in Korean and Japanese Firms. Journal of International Business Studies , 31 (4), 631-652.

Mikhailitchenko, A., & Lundstrom, W. J. (2006). Inter-organizational relationship strategies and management styles in SMEs. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 27 (7), 428-448.