what is learning from other management cultures?

Answer 1

Businesses form cultures. There are micro cultures, such as that of various kinds of salespeople which independently arrive at certain common behaviors and values while working independently or with a variety of companies. Then there are company-specific cultures that are greatly different from others of their industry--Apple and IBM are perfect examples of that.

A recent fad was the Six Sigma program of quality improvement. Motorola developed a plan based on scrutinizing various key and fundamental aspects of production. Essentially, the idea is that if you keep building a better, more reliable product, the customer and prospect base will keep buying it. This was adapted and adopted in various ways. Some corporate cultures needed a "just the facts" mechanical implementation because they already were of that mindset. Others needed it to be carefully explained and strategically implemented because they were not used to such comparatively sterile production and process scrutiny. Still others, blundered in from Dilbert-style incompetent managers with all the deft and personality of a butcher or bulldozer.

Learning from other management cultures can include looking at the mistakes and avoiding them. To see a difference in corporate culture consider the conglomeration of Time to Warner to AOL. They did it very poorly. Then watch how Federated Department Stores acquired and assimilated companies. Big banks, practiced in mergers, can give good examples of assimilation with advancement.

Answer 2

maybe you mean managment styles?
if you mean culture like japan and America management culture are totally different. Japan
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4869&t=leadership
Political connections and family control are more common in Asian businesses than in the United States



Management styles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Various management styles can be employed dependant on the culture of the business, the nature of the task, the nature of the workforce and the personality and skills of the leaders.

This idea was further developed by Tannebaum and Schmidt who argued that the style of leadership is dependant upon the prevailing circumstance; therefore leaders should exercise a range of leadership styles and should deploy them as appropriate.

An Autocratic or authoritarian manager makes all the decisions, keeping the information and decision making among the senior management. Objectives and tasks are set and the workforce is expected to do exactly as required. The communication involved with this method is mainly downward, from the leader to the subordinate, critics such as Elton Mayo have argued that this method can lead to a decrease in motivation from the employee's point of view. The main advantage of this style is that the direction of the business will remain constant, and the decisions will all be similar, this in turn can project an image of a confident, well managed business. On the other hand, subordinates may become highly dependent upon the leaders and supervision may be needed.

A more Paternalistic form is also essentially dictatorial, however the decisions tend to be in the best interests of the employees rather than the business. A good example of this would be David Brent running the business in the fictional television show The Office. The leader explains most decisions to the employees and ensures that their social and leisure needs are always met. This can help balance out the lack of worker motivation caused by a autocratic management style. Feedback is again generally downward, however feedback to the management will occur in order for the employees to be kept happy. This style can be highly advantageous, and can engender loyalty from the employees, leading to a lower labour turnover, thanks to the emphasis on social needs. It shares similar disadvantages to an authoritarian style; employees becoming highly dependent on the leader, and if the wrong decisions are made, then employees may become dissatisfied with the leader.

In a Democratic style, the manager allows the employees to take part in decision-making: therefore everything is agreed by the majority. The communication is extensive in both directions (from subordinates to leaders and vice-versa). This style can be particularly useful when complex decisions need to be made that require a range of specialist skills: for example, when a new ICT system needs to be put in place, and the upper management of the business is computer-illiterate. From the overall business's point of view, job satisfaction and quality of work will improve. However, the decision-making process is severely slowed down, and the need of a consensus may avoid taking the 'best' decision for the business.

In a Laissez-faire leadership style, the leader's role is peripheral and staff manage their own areas of the business; the leader therefore evades the duties of management and uncoordinated delegation occurs. The communication in this style is horizontal, meaning that it is equal in both directions, however very little communication occurs in comparison with other styles. The style brings out the best in highly professional and creative groups of employees, however in many cases it is not deliberate and is simply a result of poor management. This leads to a lack of staff focus and sense of direction, which in turn leads to much dissatisfaction, and a poor company image.
[edit]