Norm Grunsfeld
Marco Lei
Austin Lee
Erin Wright
Angelo Zuazo
Background
Laurent noticed:
French managers had a difficult time
contemplating alternative management styles
In particular, matrix organizational structures
directly opposed their view of single chain of
command structure
Each manager has his own management
theory that in some way guide his potential
behavior in organizations
The Study
The purpose was not to simply analyze
the structure of individual opinions, but
to compare how individuals from the
same country seem to share a similar
managerial ideology.
Method of Research
A questionnaire consisting of 56 statements to be rated on
a 5 point agree/disagreement scale.
60 upper-mid-level managers attending INSEAD
executive development program; 40 French, 20 European
Between 1977 1979: Several more studies were
conducted at various INSEAD executive development
programs
The Presentation Study:
10 Western countries; 9 European, 1 United States
817 Respondents of varied function, education, age,
industry
Common element: upper-mid-level management
The Findings
The statistics analysis found 4 Clusters
Organizations as:
Political systems
Authority systems
Role formalization systems
Hierarchical-relationship systems
Organizations as Political systems
Some managers see the organization as
a political system and this have a
profound effect in the organizational
behavior of the company
Insight into the extent to which
managers from different countries tend
to interpret their organizational
experience in power terms
Organizations as Authority
systems
Different nationalities have a different
perception concerning authority and how
this is a huge factor in their day to day
behavior
Organizations as Role
formalization systems
Focuses on the relative importance of
defining and specifying the functions
and roles of organizational members
Organizations as Hierarchicalrelationship systems
Differences in management attitudes
toward organizational relationships
How some countries believe that the
managers should have all the answers
and that bypassing is no more than
subordination.
Political Systems
France, Italy
Highly political
Low org. structure
Danish, British
Less political
More org. structure
Authority Systems
Belgium, Italy, France
Hierarchy = Authority
Authority regulates relationships
U.S., Switzerland, Germany
Organizations Authority Systems
Authority regulates tasks, functions
Role-Formalization Systems
Sweden, U.S., Netherlands
Low need for detailed job descriptions, well-defined
functions, and precisely defined roles
Hierarchical-Relationship Systems
Sweden, N. Europe, U.S.
Italy, Latin Countries
More likely to bypass authority in time of need
Recognize boss may not have all the answers
Less open to matrix structures
Contemporary Relevance of the
Study
The quotes correlate from those of the United
States in Laurents study.
Interview Questions: (US participants)
Do you think it is a good strategy to boast your
authority around employees so they know you are
the top boss?
When employees continually causes a small to
medium problem that does not affect other
employees, how is it best to address the problem?
Personal example
Dr. Dee Ellington:
Forcing your authority, making it well known
that you are the boss is a bad idea.
One on one. Discuss problems, express
opinions, no third parties.
Managers need to be more hands on, not
micromanaging, but more hands on caring
more about the employees.
Dr. Marilyn Kaplan:
Personal example: Having a strategic vision
is most important for managers to be
successful with employees.
Dr. Laurie Ziegler:
One of the most important things managers
misconceive is that all employees are the
same. America is a low content country;
other countries are the exact opposite.
Findings in the
Questionnaire
Support Laurents findings (USA)
Organizations are not authority systems
Low need for detailed job descriptions, well
defined functions, and precisely defined
roles
Most likely to bypass authority in time of
need
Contemporary Relevance of the
Study
German and US managers seem to
report a more rational and instrumental
view of authority that regulates
interaction among tasks and functions.
Leadership styles and cultural values among managers and
subordinates: a comparative study of four countries of the
former Soviet Union, Germany, and the US by Alexander
Ardichvili and K. Peter Kuchinke, 1999
Conclusion
Cultural differences in respect to
management styles and notions about
the role of managers cannot be ignored
When directing any employee at the
corporation with a different background,
it must be explained in terms of their
cultural perceptions.
Conclusion
Without connecting the firms managing
style to the cultural perceptions of
individual managers within the
organization, it will be difficult to
effectively reach the collective goals of
the organization.
Conclusion
Insight on employees and realizing that
not everyone is the same and the world
is becoming global is another aspect of
the new-faced manager
Weaknesses of the article
The composition of questions themselves
and their aims to isolate specific
information
The origin of the author as it relates to the
countries being evaluated
The number of countries evaluated by the
questionnaire and
The group size and aspect constraints
Strengths of the article
Studies such as the MNC-A study and
the MNC-B continue to show continuity
in results.
People from the same culture will act
upon similar and familiar assumptions
about situations, people, and things in
their everyday lives.
Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture:
Understanding diversity in global business. London: The
Economist Books (page 3).
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrJTf97
Ev8o
