Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Charismatic Management
Situational Management
Transformational Management
Bureaucratic Management
Task-oriented Management
Transactional Management
Relation-oriented Management
In the article Are We Entering an Era of European Management Leadership? by James
Heskett, Baker Foundation Professor, Emeritus, at Harvard Business School, he writes there
are marked differences in the social environment for management in Europe and the United
States. In some parts of Europe, they foster management policies that may encourage more
balance in a managers life, between work & private activities and risk & stability. Whether
this will produce sustained economic superiority or a model to be emulated in the U.S. is
debatable.
Antonio De Luca, Warner International NV, describes important differences this way: If one
has to generalize, it is fair to say that Americans pursue risk and Europeans seek stability
(leading) to fewer opportunities with more limited financial rewards, but possibly more
balance for Europeans. The solution, as usual, is a sensible convergence of these two
nuanced cultural approaches.
Roy Bingham, Managing Director/Partner, Health Business Partners, LLC, points out that
American management seems to work best when the key needs are speed, aggression,
last-minute genius, and take-chance, inspiring leadership. In boom times when its expand at
all costspick the American style. At other times the more deliberate, consultative European
approach is your ally. Maybe this is why we are hearing more from the Europeans these
days.
Jose Pedro Goncalves, Managing Partner DecisionMaster, Lda, takes issue with the idea of
a European style of management, pointing out that there is no one style. In some parts of
Europe (as a manager) Im a human being. In other parts, Im just a number. In general
we (Europeans) are more human, but less flexible
Dr. B. V. Krishnamurthy, Professor M. P. Birla Institute of Management, India, picks up this
theme by commenting to argue that Europe might be snatching the lead in management is
a little far-fetched. When one looks at the very successful organizations anywhere in the
world, one discerns striking similaritiesemphasis on efficiency, innovation, quality, and
responsiveness to customerseven as one also finds adaptations to cultural differences.
These comments tend to question whether management leadership has a geographic
home as opposed to a winning set of behaviors in part fostered by the competitive, social,
cultural, and legal environment. Given the prospect for continued movement toward
competition and the propagation of best practice management ideas on a global scale; is
the question largely academic?
Dr. B. V. Krishnamurthy writes: The Triad countries have dominated international business
to such an extent that after Japans amazing success story, followed by the resurgence of
American companies, it is perhaps natural that the focus should now shift to Europe. The
catalyst for this might have been the economic union that Western Europe has
achieved. The search for that elusive concept of the best style of management continues,
although one could argue on the basis of lessons learned that there may not be a best style.
Centralization and decentralization can go together, flex-time and tele-working are meant to
improve productivity, and many of the either/or concepts can be treated as complementary,
to be used with discretion
Subordinates do not question the decisions of superiors that would be to show disrespect
and be the direct cause of loss of face (mianzi) for all concerned.
Japan management style emphasis the need for information flow from the bottom of the
company to the top: Senior management is largely a supervisory rather than hands-on
approach. Policy is often originated at the middle-levels of a company before being passed
upwards for ratification. The strength of this approach is obviously that those tasked with the
implementation of decisions have been actively involved in the shaping of policy.
The higher a Japanese manager rises within an organization, the more important it is that he
appears unassuming and not ambitious. Individual personality and forcefulness are not seen
as the prerequisites for effective leadership. The key task for a Japanese manager is to
provide the environment in which the group can flourish. In order to achieve this he must be
accessible at all times and willing to share knowledge within the group. Manager is seen as
a type of father figure who expects and receives loyalty and obedience from colleagues. In
return, the manager is expected to take a holistic interest in the well-being of those
colleagues. It is a mutually beneficial two-way relationship.
Russian management style tends to be centralized and directive. The boss, especially the
big boss, is expected to issue direct instructions for subordinates to follow. Little
consultation will be expected from people lower down the company hierarchy. Indeed too
much consultation from a senior manager could be seen as a sign of weakness and lack of
decisiveness. Middle managers have little power over strategy or input in significant strategic
decisions. The most powerful middle managers are the ones who have the most immediate
entree to the decision-maker at the top of the organization. There is little point in wasting
time debating with middle managers who do not have an easy access to the top. The most
significant reason for delay in reaching a decision in Russia is that the decision has not been
put in front of the real decision-maker
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~