We accept

Human Nature Ideas And Control Styles Management Essay

When a manager is directed from his/her home country to control either a culturally different or a highly diverse labor force, such a supervisor will most likely face some problems. A number of the problems are culturally contingent. This work looks at problems encountered by an American administrator when he relocates to Japan as a result of difference in their management styles.

America professionals relocating to Japan are being considered in this piece of work therefore of different reasons.

Japan is regarded as one of the leading economies in the industrialized world. It is the second largest current economic climate. Japan is undoubtedly America's fourth largest export market and is the second greatest foreign investor in the us (U. S. Team of Commerce).

Trade between America and Japan has had its ups and downs due to conflicts and tighter trade limitations by Japan. However therefore of research done, THE BRAND NEW York Times (1991) proposed that American companies functioning in Japan now face fewer trade constraints. Also, many companies were thought to enjoy lucrative earnings. American companies such as IBM, Loan company of America and others were thought to be successful in Japan. Japanese companies such as Toyota working in America also send American managers that are their employees to the top office in Japan to obtain additional understanding of the organization culture, procedures, e. t. c.

All these and much more have necessitated the need to look at management styles of both countries and try to find a model that could benefit the American manager and Japanese employees he'd be leading to avoid conflicts, lack of cooperation, tension, insufficient productivity that could derive from incompatibility of the administrator and the employees.

The topic will As earlier stated, the problems encountered by an American director who has to relocate to a branch of the company in Japan will be examined and analyzed by looking at the various leadership styles, theories on leadership and role of culture in identifying leadership styles. Leadership varieties of America and Japan will be revealed, analysis of the link between theories with repetition will be done, the possible similarities/variations he will face, problems encountered and possible answers to those problems will be determined before coming to a bottom line.


Different definitions of command have been proposed overtime. Relating to Hogetts and Luthans (2003), management is the procedure of influencing people to direct their efforts towards achievement of some particular goals or goals. House et al (2004) defined leadership as the power of your person to impact, motivate and allow others to add toward the efficiency and success of the organizations of which they are associates.

Leadership style Overview

The design of the leader is known as to be very important in reaching organizational goals as it can induce performance among subordinates (Barling; Berson and Zacharatos).

Different leadership styles have been suggested by various scholars. Two models will be looked at in this work: Transformational and Transactional authority styles proposed by James Macgregor Burns (1978) and, Directive, Supportive, Participative and Achievement-Oriented leadership styles produced by House (1971, 1974) but with give attention to House's model as this makes evaluation between American and Japanese management styles easier.


This authority style has overtime demonstrated benefits on the transactional style in attaining organizational goals. (McColl-Kennedy and Andreson, 2002). Transformational market leaders are the ones that business lead by stimulating and motivating their followers to achieve extraordinary benefits and in the process, develop their own control capacity. (Bass and Riggio 2006). Transformational leaders inspire their enthusiasts to do more than they formerly supposed or thought possible. This transformation occurs through specific interactions between leaders and subordinates, especially through the manner where transformational leaders talk to subordinates.


Transactional market leaders, on the other palm, lead through interpersonal exchange. Transactional market leaders offer or deny rewards for production or insufficient it (Burns, 1978). They take part in a process of negotiation, offering subordinates rewards in trade for the attainment of specific goals and conclusion of agreed-upon responsibilities (Bass, 1985).

As earlier explained, emphasis will be on the several leadership styles developed by House (1971, 1974) in his path-goal theory. This is developed to clarify how the behaviour of a innovator impacts the performance and satisfaction of subordinates. The following authority behaviours/styles were discovered:

Directive Authority: showing subordinates what to do, giving specific information along the way, scheduling and coordinating what to be achieved and, asking them to check out rules and steps. (Yukl, 2002). This should be applied in environments where there is strong acceptance of hierarchies. (Mohr, 2010). This style increases the follower's sense of security.

Supportive Leadership: this involves giving account to the needs of subordinates, having to worry for their welfare and creating an agreeable work environment (Yukl, 2002). Should be applied in conditions with strong group orientation (Mohr, 2010).

Participative: involves consulting with subordinates and taking their views and suggestions into mind when coming up with decisions (Yukl, 2002, Kreitner et al, 2002). Should be applied in environments with strong equality and individualism (Mohr, 2010). This process works best when subordinates are experts in their areas and can give advice when needed.

Achievement Oriented: includes setting challenging goals in work and self-improvement, seeking high standards and performance improvement. Also demonstrating confidence in skills of subordinates (Yukl, 2002). Should be used in environments with strong individualism and pragmatism where result-orientation and achievement are the main motivational factors (Mohr, 2010).


Theories on command are philosophical assumptions that help market leaders learn how to direct their subordinates most effectively. There are many theories supporting the concept of management style. They help justification and proper understanding of leadership styles. Ideas to be considered in this assignment are:

McGregor's Human dynamics theory ( Theory X and Y)

Ouchi's theory (Theory Z)

Douglas McGregor's Man Dynamics Theory (Theory X and Y):

According to Hodgetts and Luthans (2003), Theory X and Y are two philosophical assumptions which Douglas McGregor labelled to understand the human nature.

Theory X assumes that individuals are essentially lazy and, coercion and hazards of punishment tend to be necessary to get them to work. In this case, leadership style has to be managing and monitoring. Specifically, the theory assumes that:

By dynamics, people do nothing like to work therefore avoid it whenever possible.

The specific is evil and will always want to cheat.

Workers have little ambition, stay away from responsibility and desire to be directed.

The main need of employees is job security.

To get people to attain organizational goals, it is vital to use coercion, control and dangers of punishment.

The Theory Y is dependant on the assumption that under the right conditions, people will continue to work hard and also seek increased responsibility and problem. Specifically, the theory assumes that,

Individuals want to well known, allowed to show effort, and given autonomy and responsibility.

Using physical and mental effort at work is as natural to the people as resting or participating in.

External control and risks of punishment are not the only means of getting people to work towards reaching organizational targets: if people are committed to a goal, they will exercise self-direction and personal control.

Commitment to aims depends upon rewards associated using their achievement.

Under proper conditions, the common individual learns not only to accept but also to seek responsibility.

The ability to employ a moderately high degree of creativity, ingenuity and imagination in the perfect solution is of organizational problem is extensively distributed throughout the population.

Under condition of modern industry life, the intellectual potential of the average human begin is only partially tapped.

Ouchi's Theory Z:

The Theory Z approach to management simply suggests that involved workers will be the key to increased output (Workman, 2008). Ouchi's Theory Z recommends how employees should be determined for increased output. (Woodman/Workman, 2008). This process promotes contribution in command.

Involvement leads to the development of trust relationships and highly cohesive work groups (this will compel even greater engagement).

Employees will be satisfied in the healthy social environment thus created.

Detailed plans and guidelines to govern and decrease employees' behaviour at the job will never be needed.

Employees will be trusted to do the right thing and managers, to consider employees' welfare.

The result is a level of efficiency more advanced than that achieved at similar non-Theory Z companies.


In taking a look at leadership styles, it is important to note that culture plays an important role in building and understanding command styles/structure. Therefore, a deeper knowledge of American and Japanese culture is vital in the context of this work.

There are social differences in America and Japan and, Hofstede's measurements; Power Distance, Doubt Avoidance, Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Feminism (England, 1983) will be considered in understanding these distinctions and similarities.

From his dimensions, the next index was developed:




Long term orientation

Power distance

Uncertainty avoidance














Table 1: Displaying the index of America and Japan using the Hofstede's sizing.

Source: Designed from Mohr, 2010.

Comparator (sizing)



Power distance









Uncertainty avoidance



Long term orientation



Table 2: Displaying the deviation between America and Japan using Hofstede's sizing.

After considering Hofstede's dimensions, main points of North american and Japanese work culture will be outlined.

The desk below highlights the highlights of American organizational/work culture.

American Work/Organizational Culture


Individualistic, self-reliant and permitted to take decisions on the own

Materialistic goals take concern over religious values

Fast work tempo/tempo

Opportunistic, take risks and want immediate profit

Start ending up in humour, chatting and use first names

Blunt, like to make a deal and get dental contract at the first meeting

Quick to employ and fire

Status accorded on basis of merit/accomplishment and wealth. Age group, seniority and gender is largely unimportant

Ethnocentric and presume they are the best

Specialists in their fields

Japanese Work/Organizational Culture


Culturally different from everyone else

Have great ability in conformity with Confucian hierarchy but little engagement in daily affairs of the organization

On appropriate occasions, plans/ideas are initiated from the stock floor and exceeded up the business hierarchy for acceptance and ratification in what's known as ringi-sho consensus

Collectivist and can't take decisions on their own. They have to refer back to their HQ. As a result, don't make decisions in the first meeting

Vague; not direct/blunt. Don't want to lose face or have their thoughts hurt

Life-long career with organization

Generalists, not specialists

Life-long job rotation

Table 3: Lewis (2006)

After the review of leadership styles and ideas, and culture of America and Japan (both generally and within the business), command styles in America and Japan will now be analyzed:


American market leaders have a unique leadership desire style that integrates the features which most strongly fit with their social characteristics. Their management style is participative (Bass, 1990. Mohr, 2010). This authority style matches/is in line with the high individuality and low electricity distance found in Hofstede's sizes.

Also, components of Theory Y (paternalistic) and theory Z (participative) are available in their management style.


The management style in Japan is a mix of participative and directive way as was found in the research completed by Spicer and Fukushige (2007). This authority style complements/is in line with the low personality, high power distance, and high doubt avoidance within Hofstede's dimensions. Components of theory Z (participative) are available in their authority style. Japanese leaders use a blend of both task-centred and people-centred approaches to lead subordinates (Workman, 2008).

However, in the study done by Fukushige and Spicer (2007), it was found that Japanese employees choose the following management styles:

Network leadership style


Gender Equality




Theory X



Theory Y

Since People in america are committed to goals, they exercise high self-control.

No dangers of punishment must ensure activity completion

Paternalistic Theory Y where there's a mutual, two-way flow of information and effect between supervisor and subordinates.

Seek and allow responsibilities.


Theory Z

Americans are motivated by a robust commitment to participate a greater whole in general, and even more specifically with their organization

Though individualistic, Us citizens derive satisfaction while contributing to their company's success.

Employees look for responsibility and strive for opportunities to progress in an corporation.

Both market leaders and subordinates are motivated by a strong sense of commitment to participate a greater whole entire (the Japanese organization where they work).

People are -satisfied when they contribute to organizational success through teamwork.

In go back for the organization's long-term dedication to providing job security (often for life), employees develop strong bonds of commitment towards their employer.

Communication flows between leaders and subordinates

Because Theory Z is participative, Japanese organizations show constant interaction and exchange of information and impact between leader and subordinates, as well as among subordinates.

The multidirectional circulation of communication n the greater project-oriented Japanese organizational culture is different from head and subordinate behaviour

Table 2: Displaying factors that make up ideas Y and Z in America and Japan.


The issues that an American manager will face in Japan will essentially be on the problems raised based on the idea Y which can be absent in Japan. The stand above gives a general analysis on some conditions that could be conflicting between the two cultures. Some other problems likely to be faced include:

Culture Shock

Conflicts in interest of the manager and the subordinate (Us citizens seek job satisfaction and personality while Japan seek personal goals achievement and collectivism).

Frustration on incapability to make decisions and having less autonomy.

Adaptation to Japanese work/organizational culture.

Inability to hire efficient personnel and open fire non-performing ones.


The major cause of such problem however is social differences among this two country as the nationwide cultural has immediate impact on citizens and affects their command style and every part with their lives. Because of this, difference in leadership style will also cause problems. Most important effect would be the impact on performance/productivity. Results will lead to increased performance/efficiency and negative effects, vice versa. (McColl-Kennedy and Anderson, 2002).


To solve problems associated with difference in management style, the American administrator has to be trained to comprehend the Japanese culture, work culture and be aware of differences that exist between the two civilizations before being deployed. The following should also be achieved:

The director should check out researches (especially current ones) done about command/leading in Japan

Learn command styles Japanese employees are being used to; their preferred leadership

style and incorporate both to his/her control style as House and Dessler (1974)

found that only command behaviour seen to bring satisfaction or with future

potential will be seen as acceptable to employees

Ask for opinions on his performance/style from employees to where so when to

make changes

Incorporate Ouchi's theory Z (Integration) designed to make doing business in

Japan easier for Us citizens (England, 1983).

Type Z (integration)

Long-run employment

Job rotation specifically areas

Majority decisions

Responsibility for group members

Develop specialists and generalists

Source: Designed from Mohr, 2010


In conclusion, management styles and ideas have been considered both generally and specifically as it pertains to this piece of work, the role of culture in determining management style has been considered, problems experienced have been noted and possible solutions have been outlined.

In order to handle the conflicts/problems, solutions highlighted above is highly recommended. The manager also needs to develop trust with his subordinates as he/she might be ineffective if the subordinates do not agree to him/her.

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
Check the price
for your assignment