代写 会员中心 TAG标签
网站地图 RSS
澳洲代写assignment代写英国assignment 新西兰代写assignment Assignment格式 如何写assignment
返回首页

leadership留学生assignment代写

时间:2014-11-15 09:53来源:www.szdhsjt.com 作者:pesix3 点击:
美国和日本是在太平洋地区的两大经济强国,这两个国家都是资本主义意识形态。领导是其中一个日本仍然不同于美国的方面。

封神旧事txt下载,武昌到宜昌动车,清远seo

引言
 
美国和日本是在太平洋地区的两大经济强国。每个国家都开发了适合他们的文化的管理和领导实践。Gupta, Hanges & Dorfman发现美国和澳大利亚聚集在同一组,新西兰和有着盎格鲁文化的英国在同一组,而日本是和韩国在同一组,中国大陆和台湾在亚洲儒家文化方面也在同一组。也就是说,在同一集群的国家会比其他集群的国家有着更多密切相关的文化。
 
尽管文化差异是一个重要方面,但美国和日本是相似的;这两个国家都是资本主义意识形态。然而Ralson, Holt,Terpstra & Cheng (2008)表明,日本对资本主义的解释和美国总统的想法是不同的。这也是为什么日本仍然可以保留他们的文化而不被全球化同化的原因之一。
 
领导是其中一个日本仍然不同于美国的方面。由于日本和美国之间的长期的经济和政治的关系,它可以被认为是进行了一些有价值观和信念的交流。这就出现了一个问题,在不同的文化中的领导是完全不同的呢还是有相似的地方的呢?
 
Introduction
 
United States and Japan are two giant economic powers in the pacific region. Each country has developed their own management and leadership practice that is suitable for their culture. Gupta, Hanges & Dorfman (2002) found that United States is clustered in the same group as Australia, New Zealand and England in the Anglo Culture while Japan is in the same group as Korea, China and Taiwan in the Confucian Asia. The argument is that the nations in the same cluster have more closely related culture than the other cluster.
 
Despite the cultural differences there is one significant aspect where United States and Japan are similar; both countries embrace the capitalism ideology. However Ralson, Holt, Terpstra & Cheng (2008) suggest that the Japanese interpretation of capitalist idea is not identical to their US counterpart. That is one reason why Japan can still preserve their culture regardless the westernization enforced by globalization.
 
Leadership is one of the areas where the Japanese is still different compared to United States. Due to long economic and political relation between Japan and United States, it can be argued that there are some exchanges of values and belief. Which raise the question whether the leadership across the different culture is different in its entirety or have similarities? 
 
This essay is aimed to compare and contrast the western approach to leadership represented by United States and the eastern approach to leadership represented by Japan by using Hofstede's five dimension of culture as the factor of comparison. The essay will first explain the culture and its dimensions and then followed by the detailed description of each dimension by comparing both United States and Japan in each section. After that the suggested leadership style based on path-goal theory and rewarding system will be provided for each country on the framework of five culture dimension. Also the issue where leadership transcends the cultural boundaries which is possessed by transformational leaders will be discussed and to be concluded in the end. However it is important to note that the culture dimension of Hofstede is only a general perspective of a country's culture.
 
Cultural dimension
 
Luthans and Doh (2009) define culture as a system that is integrated into the society where the accumulated experience of behavior and characteristics of the members is the foundation. Therefore the culture affects legal system, education, economic system, management practice and leadership style and perception. Some culture requires a leader to be democratic, where in other culture an autocratic leadership style is more appropriate (Hartog, House, Hanges & Ruiz-Quintanilla, 1999). That is why it is important to understand the similarities and differences across culture, especially the Japanese and United States to compare and contrast both nation approaches to leadership. 
 
To compare the leadership of United States and Japanese culture the model that will be used is Hofstede's (1980, 2001) cultural dimension which consist of power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism - collectivism, masculinity - femininity, and future orientation. Even though there has been much criticism for the generalization of a nation's culture and its inability to represent the cultural differences within each country (Siyakumar & Nakata, 2001), this model still can be used to compare the differences of leadership in United States and Japanese culture because the behavior and characteristics of leaders in one country is relatively the same compared to the other regardless.
 
Power distance
 
The concept of leadership is closely related to the power distance between the leaders and their followers. This is because the role of a leader is related to power, influence and status in the society or in organization (Lord & Maher, 1991 as cited in Hartog et al., 1999). Power distance itself is the degree of acceptance from the society of the power and authority distribution in organizations and institutions, defined by Hofstede (1980, 2001). 
 
Power distance and decision making process and authority are related together in inversely manner (Schuler & Rogoysky, 1998). United States is regarded as a country with low power distance in the culture dimension. Therefore the decision making and responsibility is more likely to be more directed from the leaders. On the counterpart the Japanese decision making process is unique where the process has to go through peer consultation before it is approved. This is also related to the responsibility of leaders in each country. Glinow, Huo and Lowe (1999) assert that pursuing goals and degree of responsibility varies depends on the degree of leaders authoritarianism.
 
Individualist - Collectivist
 
This dimension is defined as a degree of framework where society is closely related to their group or not (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). In individualist countries where people are more concerned about their own interest and needs, leaders tend to take credit of their success. Compared to the countries where collectivism is more valued the credit of success goes to the group. This is similar to the argument of Yan and Hunt's (2005) argument where:
 
“Individualistic cultures, such as the U.S., where leaders often take credit for their organization's success, inference-based perceptions dominate. However, in collective cultures, such as Japan, where self-effacement is valued, leaders often keep a low profile when their organizations succeed, and recognition-based perceptions dominate”.
 
Lack of insensitivity towards the culture which ignores the expected behavior, value and assumptions can put leaders at stake, especially leaders that expatriate to another country where the cultural dimension is different. This dimension is well affected by the socioeconomic development of a country and also its democratization which increase the independent thought and action, concern of others, acceptance to change, self indulgence and pleasure and decrease the conformity, tradition and security (Schwarz & Sagie, 2000).
 
Masculinity - Femininity
 
The values that is dominant in masculine societies are the materialistic objectives, not caring for others and assertiveness while feminine society have different values such as quality of life, social relationship and caring for others (Hofstede, 2001). Again the U.S and Japan is in the opposite side of this dimension. Leadership in U.S does not tolerate poor performance in the organization while its counterpart the Japanese allow poor performance if the subordinate is to learn from the mistakes. 
 
This dimension is also linked explicitly with the gender differences. In the research conducted by Wu & Minor (1997) comparing female managers in United States Japan and Taiwan they found out those female managers in United States tend to be more practical and aggressive compared to their counterpart in Japan and Taiwan. Even though there are significant differences in leadership of female managers in United States and Japan, it seems that in both countries leadership role is dominated by male compared to female, despite both nation acceptance of equality in gender.
 
Uncertainty avoidance
 
Uncertainty avoidance is defined as the degree to which certain culture willing to take or reject the risk associated with the decision (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). In relation to leadership this dimension does not explain directly how a leader in certain culture, rather it explain on one of the aspect of leaders criteria based on their loyalty to the organization. Glinow et al. (1999) suggest that in a country where the uncertainty avoidance is high loyalty is significant factor and leaders is perceived as giving a behavioral model for their subordinate, however in the countries where uncertainty avoidance is low this is not a factor. 
 
For instance Japanese workers which is categorized in culture with high uncertainty avoidance values their job highly and most likely to be the important part of their personal life, especially if they work in large corporation (Ouchi & Jaeger, 1978). This phenomenon will not be found in United States where the uncertainty avoidance is low. The system in most western countries is based on a person achievement. One can be a leader as long as they have sufficient ability and capability to regardless the period of working in the company.


推荐内容
  • 英国作业
  • 新西兰作业
  • 爱尔兰作业
  • 美国作业
  • 加拿大作业
  • 英国essay
  • 澳洲essay
  • 美国essay
  • 加拿大essay
  • MBA Essay
  • Essay格式范文
  • 澳洲代写assignment
  • 代写英国assignment
  • 新西兰代写assignment
  • Assignment格式
  • 如何写assignment
  • 英国termpaper
  • 澳洲termpaper
  • 英国coursework代写
  • PEST分析法
  • literature review
  • Research Proposal
  • Reference格式
  • case study
  • presentation
  • report格式
  • Summary范文
  • common application
  • Personal Statement
  • Motivation Letter
  • Application Letter
  • recommendation letter