the best management style

The thesis is an argumentative study that dissects the best management styles, with a special emphasis on approaches used in American and Japanese organizations in a variety of management facets. Supervisory types, central leadership, control components, interdepartmental relations, and social principles are only a few of the management topics mentioned in the report. To obtain a simple and accurate image of the subject matter, the thesis conducts an in-depth study of management approaches by exploring academic and peer-reviewed publications on management types. Study findings attempt to depict the critical contrast between the two management approaches, particularly on administration styles as well as the cultural factors that inform individual management decisions. While the management styles adopted by American and Japanese companies may differ sharply and present different benefits, it is notable that no single management style can be used to achieve success in all organizations globally. These management techniques have weaknesses and shortcomings, and therefore often implement practices from other approaches. The purpose of the work is to provide a comprehensive argument on the best management styles, by focusing on the two methods above.

Keywords: central leadership, management, social values, interdepartmental connections.



Best Management Style

Introduction

There is no doubt that the success of any company in the highly competitive and volatile contemporary global market hinges to a large extent on the management style adopted by the firm. A suitable choice of management style is likely to help a company in realizing its goals and objectives and vice versa. It is notable that there is no universally acceptable management style, and that every type of management can only be successful when applied to the specific and suitable situation. While several sources of literature attempt to explain these techniques and weigh the better option, study findings observe that none of the two management styles is better than the other given the fact that they often borrow certain practices from each other to achieve success. Previous researches have thrown their weight behind Japanese management style for a variety of reasons, particularly the success of its companies compared to counterparts from the United States. For instance, the Japanese economy demonstrated success in the 1970s when the US experienced enormous challenges (Uddin, 2011). The differences in the performance of the two giant economies highlighted above may be attributable to the fact that Japanese companies were better managed compared to the US enterprises. Furthermore, Zaman and Unsal (2000) argue that there has been a widespread belief that Japanese factories employ better management approaches and quality standards coupled with most advanced technologies. The above notion is a subject to criticism as other studies also portray American corporations as better managed ones. For instance, Bloom, Homkes, Sadun, and Reenen (2011) explain that American firms have shown resilience in the highly competitive global market because they not only survive for a longer duration but also make more profits and grow faster internationally.

Thesis: While certain management styles have reported their commendable success in the global business arena, no single approach fits globally. The success of any management approach depends on a variety of factors, particularly the prevailing local business environment and culture.

Management Styles

Definition

Companies often choose the best management style that is likely to achieve success in a given environment and situation. According to Bititci et al. (2004), management entails the aspect of leadership often employed by the administrator while operating a business. Although companies may prefer certain management styles, they can, under some circumstances, utilize more than one approach to achieve the desired outcome. There are several management styles adopted by different companies globally, including supervisory, paternalistic, autocratic, laissez-faire, participatory, democratic, and informal among others. However, a particular management style is suitable for a given type of business or group of employees compared to others (Bititci et al., 2004). Therefore, it is in the best interest of every company to adopt the most-suited management approach relevant in steering it to success in a given business situation.

On the other hand, Watson (2003) explains that management techniques are the diverse methods utilized by the managers to impact the workers towards achieving the company goals and objectives. The idea can also imply the ability to work with enthusiasm as well as working avidly with energy and confidence. Power signifies sincerity and authority in working while conviction reflects understanding and functional capacity (Watson, 2003).

A good management style permits the manager to train his juniors to achieve the goals set by the company. It’s an avenue for leaders to handle issues in accomplishing organizational objectives by using institutional resources to achieve results through managerial elements. Management style is an avenue for the organization to settle on choices, design strategies, corporate branding, stakeholders’ management, and other necessary management activities. A few managers are undertaking focused, and they necessarily need to complete things. Others are principally individuals arranged, and they need people to be upbeat and fulfilled. Others can consolidate these introductions, the two persons, and undertakings. A few administration styles have advanced as unmistakable directors use contrasting methodologies in performing duties throughout their official work. Since the 1950s researchers have developed different management styles that fit various situations and organizations.

Administration Style

Administration style of management is a fundamental approach in the accomplishment of goals and objectives in any company. It is essential for the top management of a company to put much emphasis on the prevailing culture while adopting a specific technique. According to Prasetya and Kato (2011), the style puts much emphasis on improving the management systems aimed at achieving high levels of administration efficacy. It involves the creation of organizational structures and subsequent functions of various administrators in an organization. The style emphasizes providing clear structures, division, and delegation of labor among the leaders to ensure proper and efficient workflow. Kanyabi and Devi (2011) highlight the multidimensional aspect of management and its instrumentality in achieving organizational goals and objectives. Pattanayak (2005) characterized workers 'performance as the commitment made by an individual in the achievement of the authoritative objective. Similarly, Prasetya and Kato (2011) described execution as fulfilling a goal as per some standard.

According to Robbin (2003), administration style can be a strategy a supervisor utilizes to manage an association. It encompasses the act and in fact all techniques employed by the director to spur subordinates to take after their guidelines. It can also portray a particular practice utilized by the administrator to coordinate the issues of an association (Robbin, 2003). Management style permits the manager to exercise his authority in keeping control of his department. For little scale organizations to develop, the administrators must embrace a viable technique. The style connects various operations and skills. It is not concerned with the best way to perform rather management system for performance. Managers learn their juniors’ capacities and strength.

The essential target of small-scale undertakings in any business is to create benefits and accomplish liquidity status. According to Uhl-Bien and Maslyn (2005), the adequacy of these factors is incredibly controlled by the accessibility and openness to the workforce, fund, hardware, crude materials and above all the operational administration style. The administrator is entitled to facilitate the accomplishment of organizational goals and objectives.

Despotic Administration Style: The type paves the way for the manager to make decisions individually without the input of employees. Choices mirror the feelings and identity of the director alone without taking into consideration the contribution of other stakeholders in the company, particularly the subordinate staff. Participatory administration style, on the other hand, is a kind of management style in which workers at all levels participate in the day-to-day running of the firm. They not only present their views and opinions but also influence the operations of their company through facilitating change and making vital decisions, especially those that affect them directly. Under such kind of administration style, the necessary leadership is brisk, correspondence is immediate, and the input of the employees is not only factored in but also respected. Basil (2005) noted that such sort of administration style does not to take into account extensive correspondence and thoughts. Basil (2005) included that dictatorial management style can result in dejected inspiration and low occupation fulfillment and low workers execution.

Paternalistic Administration Style. The type is a technique of administration in which the administrator not only considers the best enthusiasm of the representatives but also that of the business. In paternalistic management style, correspondence is descending, input and addressing expert are absent. As depicted in its name, paternalistic administration involves a management approach where the director assumes the “father-like” role in an organization. He or she deals with both the occupation-related challenges and personal problems of the workers. The connection between the administrator and the workers is much the same as that of the father-youngster sort of relationship. The director keeps control over the employees and in the meantime, enables them to be imaginative in the way they carry out their daily chores.

Persuasive Administration Style. The one is a kind of management in which the director exhibits a few attributes to that of a dictatorial administrator. In such an approach, the manager often spends much time with the other workers in the attempt to try to convince them over an issue concerning the operations of the organization. Although there is widespread notion that such kind of management approach is inclusive of employees, studies show otherwise but affirm that the manager is often aware of the workers in an organization. As noted earlier in the article, the particular situation calls for the adoption of specific management approaches. Respectively, there are certain situations where persuasive management style may be preferable. For instance, a company may seek the help of an expert to sit down with employees for a considerable duration of time and explain into details on the functionality and operations of a task.

It is unlikely for the management to delegate such complicated tasks to individuals in the lower management chain as is the case of participatory management style. However, it is notable that just like other management styles; persuasive management approach has a fair share of its challenges. First, the fact that the decision-making process does not necessarily require the input of the employees may result in their forfeit of their company’s management process. Of more concern is their likely distrust with the decisions made by the management as they are not part of the process. Besides, the company is likely to be deprived of the valuable input and contribution of the employees as the latter do not take part in the decision-making process. Lastly, the approach may jeopardize the one-way communication model compared to the two-way communication initiative.

On the other hand, authoritarian administration style involves the dictatorial approach of managing an organization. The above approach is detested by many scholars and researchers across the globe as it imposes decisions upon the employees (Miah & Bird, 2007). A variety of leaders come to mind when such kind of management style is mentioned in the global literatures. A notable example is the management and leadership approach adopted by the Standard Oil founder and American philanthropist John D. Rockefeller while leading the organization in the late 1800s (Yergin, 2011). Under authoritarian management approach, employees do not take part in the day-to-day management of their firm, and instead, receive directives from the top management on their tasks and responsibilities (Miah & Bird, 2007). Under autocratic management approach, the employees often feel neglected and not motivated an issue that prevents them from committing themselves towards the success of the firm, an issue that is likely to have adverse effects on the company.

While the autocratic form of management is ineffective in the contemporary global market, there are instances and situations where its application is critical. For example, the managers often get things done in the shortest time possible as they do not require the input of the employees to make vital decisions. The above phenomenon marks the disadvantage of participatory and democratic management approaches since these approaches require meeting and negotiations with all the stakeholders before making management decisions.

Free Enterprise Administration Style: The one is a kind of management through which the top leadership allows the subordinates to make certain individual decisions and provide solutions to their challenges at the workplace without any hindrances. Its progress depends on the path adopted by the director. While some directors may opt to guide the employees in making certain decisions, others tend to stay off and leave the decision-making process and responsibilities to the hands of the employees. It is also notable that some directors may help employees in making certain decisions (Ostrom, 2008). While free enterprise administration approach exhibits certain shortcomings, including its inability to be applied in complex and high-skilled management decisions, it is a sure way of motivating employees and addressing their challenges and problems in an organization.

Participatory Style of Management

Participatory management style allows employees to take part in the day-to-day administration of the company through various ways. Notably, the management involves employees and other stakeholders in such fundamental processes like decision making among other issues in the enterprise. Studies show that participatory approach of business management is critical in achieving the organizational goals and objectives as employees contribute positively towards its success. Google Company is one such organization that has mastered the art of participatory management by involving its employees in decision making and other management processes (Tonnessen, 2005). The employees feel part and parcel of the company management and therefore dedicate their effort and time towards making it a success. Besides, the approach mentioned above enhances cooperation and relations between the top management and other employees in an organization. For instance, the top management often engages other stakeholders, including employees in the decision-making processes, an issue that fosters effective communication between managers and subordinates.

While the top management reserve the ultimate role of making the final decision, other workers’ input is critical in addressing the needs of both the clients and employees (Basil, 2005). Participative management style has proven to be essential in achieving a firm’s objectives and goals when utilized properly and efficiently. It instills a sense of ownership, pride, and motivation among employees, thereby increasing productivity. Participatory style of management also helps the management in effecting change in an organization as employees are often receptive to such changes under such management approaches. The fact that employees have a voice in managing their company facilitates the efficient and swift implementation of change, an issue that is hugely beneficial to any firm in the long-run.

Other than the benefits presented by the participatory form of management in organizations, it also enables the employees to acquire the conceptual skills relevant in pursuing management jobs in the future through training, information sharing, and development opportunities. Lastly, participatory form of the directorate provides the synergy from a broad range of options, thereby creating an avenue for innovation and creativity (Bititci et al., 2004).

While the participatory approach of management presents substantial benefits to companies in the contemporary market, they are not devoid of challenges and weaknesses. It requires competent managers and strong leaders to maintain control and positivity, as well as enhance performance.

Historical Background of Japan/US

The cultural differences between countries play a critical role in determining the success or failure of a management style. For instance, the sharp differences between the US and Japanese cultures as depicted by Hofstede calls for the adoption of a suitable management approach to achieve the required success (1990). It is notable that almost all management styles are effective if applied to the right situation and vice versa. The American people, particular employees, may not be accustomed to a Japanese management approach and vice versa, hence the need to make wise decision and choice of a management style. For instance, Japanese prioritize teamwork and recognize the efforts made based on collaboration compared to the American culture where organizations recognize and reward individual efforts.

According to Hofstede (1990), “civilization recreates itself, and it’s rooted in the society, morals, and foundation, propensities. It has an abnormal state of information in social varieties is essential in administration style that can make universal business people more successful when managing subordinates, schools and arrangement accomplices in foreign nations" (Hofstede, 1990).

Chinese culture, for instance, presents an intriguing phenomenon in the management of organizations. The “iron rice bowl” is a mentality where employees enjoy not only job security but also commendable remunerations and steady compensation. The Chinese utterance can diverge from the practically identical English thought of "work until the end of time." For the most part, the aspect of management above naturally demonstrates the reliable connection and commitment employees have with their organizations. Just like the Chinese culture, other cultures have distinctive attributes that are likely to affect the management approaches adopted by the leadership of companies. Respectively, there is no single perfect management approach is applicable in all cultures and environments. The success of any management style depends on the prevailing culture and situation. The cultural differences and variances in preferences by the global citizens, there is no best management style.

Japanese and American Management Styles Differences

Numerous perceptions demonstrate that Japan prioritizes "paternalism" while America puts much emphasis on "independence" often referred to as personalism. There’s a difference in their career bonding. For instance, Americans are not strongly attached to their careers as they seek to pursue better jobs with excellent compensation. On the other hand, Japanese have a healthy career relationship and never leave their occupations unless it’s an emergency. They often tend to stick to their jobs unless it reaches a crisis level and they have to leave. Japanese directors have a substantial association with their organization, and once in a while, they call it "home" while Americans have put individual relationships ahead of that of their institution.

American organizations often find it easy to release their employees, especially when the firm is experiencing financial challenges, an issue that is not practical in Japan. The above difference implies that the management style adopted in Japan is not likely to succeed when applied in the American context and vice versa.

Management Perspectives in Japan and America

Japanese culture puts more emphasis on the administration of people rather than money. Japanese pioneers believe in excellent management and subsequent achievements. Studies show that the Japanese managers often prioritize the fate of their employees at the expense of monetary acquisition. They bolster representation until the age of sixty and workers gain satisfaction with their duties with amazing inspiration and achievement.

On the contrary, Americans often pursue better work opportunities and remuneration and are unlikely to stay with one company until retirement. From the findings above, it is wise to acknowledge the fact that managing people from these two divergent cultures requires an understanding of their cultures before adopting a suitable management approach. Japanese basic leadership programs have all the earmarks of being a better subject to the organizational elements. According to Bernhauerova (2013), the “Ringi” and “Nemawashi” doctrines enable the Japanese corporations to make precise management decisions to include more perspectives, thereby reporting commendable and fruitful organizational outcomes (Anderson, 2009).

The above discussion attempts to allay widespread notion that some management styles are better than others, and that there is the best approach in managing organizations globally. It provides a detailed and in-depth explanation of various management strategies, their benefits as well as shortcomings. The paper is the belief that the administrative styles not only present beneficial aspects to the institutions but also have shortcomings. It is, therefore, worth to mention that no single management approach is suitable in all situations. The choice of Japan and America provides an opportunity for the article to elaborate on the fact that different management approaches either can succeed in one culture and fail in the other or fail in all cultures, depending on the prevailing situation.

Studies also demonstrate that time is a critical management element and cultural aspect that matters a great deal in the operations and planning of an organization’s activities such as advertising among others. The trust and commitment of the Japanese managers and employees towards their institutions catapult their companies to success. According to (Sadun, 2011), the Japanese tie the management of an organization to their religious beliefs, social correspondence, and duty, as well as social mindfulness for compassion. These factors are essential in enhancing cooperation and relationship between the management and subordinate staff, thereby steering the firm towards success. The management ensures that it tables the choice proposition through "Ringi" and "Nemawashi" frameworks and discusses such undertaking with all workers and in the minor level of administration.

On the other hand, American companies have displayed unmatched performances in the global arena, an issue that is attributable to efficient and sound management. The term “America administers the World” might be a product of their prowess in managing global firms. Their companies have not only performed but also shown high resilience and outstanding profitability as they conquer the global business market. The fact that Japan has useful and solid administration styles does not imply that it has the best management techniques. The US, on the other hand, has demonstrated success in its economy as well as its companies operating around the world.

It is worth noting that each of these management approaches may not be effective in achieving an organizational goal or objectives and therefore the need to implement two or more management strategies. "An instrument to quantify administration rehearses crosswise over the operational management, checking, targets, and individual administration. We scored each measurement on a scope of practices to produce a general management score, reviewing more than 10,000 firms in twenty nations" (Sadun, 2011, p.16). The study opted to rank companies based on their performance, an issue that is attributable to the effectiveness of their management approaches.

Moreover, it is significantly critical that businesses make all-inclusive decisions by corporate managers rather than do so daily. Working as an individual reduces productivity unlike working in a team. In their findings, Culpan et al. (1993) clarify the contrasts between the management styles often adopted by the Japanese and American companies. “Nath (1988) refers to five persuading explanations behind concentrated near administration: living in a reliant world, its general nature, honing our comprehension, extending the information base, and valuing our own particular culture and condition" (Culpan & Kucukemiroglu, 1993, p.27).

It is essential to know how to regard and signify your way of life as the aspect is critical in figuring out how to work together and consider diverse societies. On the off chance that someone accomplishes such aim, at that point in global partnerships will show up a fruitful line of the capacity of various social gatherings.

Arguments regarding Japanese Management Approaches

The management approaches adopted by Japan, and American companies often differ sharply given the differences in the prevailing cultures among other situations in these two countries. Businesses in japan tackle the healthcare challenges and problems of their employees as an aspect of restoring social responsibility. For Japanese individuals, the fulfillment encompasses the general public and not exclusively to a person. People work to achieve societal satisfaction and make an adaptable situation for everybody. Additionally, Japanese associations practice better strategies towards their laborers. The amicability between the social measurements and gatherings is critical in achieving organizational success. Japanese are loyal to their companies and employment deserves recognition in one’s lifetime. Getting fired or quitting is hard, and Japanese workers are loyal to their employers and ambitious to drive the company to success (Wolf, 2013). Other than valuing face to face communication while engaging in business discussions, the Japanese often appear to feel at home inside an organization, and they attempt to lead their teams to improve.

Contentions towards American Administration

American employees often do not tire in pursuing new and better job opportunities, an exhibition of a certain degree of job dissatisfaction in some of their employments. They have reliable connections to their societies, which do not indicate viability as it doesn't enable them to advance and create outside their regular box. America is not notable for their understanding. Therefore, they don't keep away from clashes or conflicts. There have dependably been indications of a practical multiculturalism which could be a decent onset for the acknowledgement of Japanese administration style by the American business society. Multiculturalism is a guarantee to America as a win contrasting with Europe, though with regards to the point of being appropriate for instance to various organizations it appears that it falls flat. It is trust that societies that associate with each other will accomplish and begin receiving or compare effectively. In any case, however a pattern of joining was seen, it was significantly more outrageous than anticipated.



Cases Studies

Toyota & GM Case Study

These cases have signified the disappointments and triumphs of the two societies endeavoring to embrace the diverse administration styles. These two case studies depict different attitudes, social conflicts, and conceivable opportunities. They exhibit each cultural ideals and stereotypes explaining reasons for future achievement and failures. Both sides intent was positive in managing the crisis, but cultural differences proved otherwise. In spite of the fact that duties regarding secrecy by both parties require a somewhat theoretical treatment of the innovation exchange systems and effects, the advancement of the relationship to date shows that it has worked for the two organizations. The vital introduction of the teams seems to hold out the guarantee of further commonly valuable connection in semiconductors and different territories.

GM history recounts path dependence and how it locked the firm into gradual decline and failure in business. As styles, culture, and technology evolve, management methods should also change, including taking risks. GM’s policy of picking CEO’s from within the company encouraged inbreeding and social influence, which made these CEO’s repeat past techniques, convention, and rituals. GM wasn’t capable of providing fuel-efficient autos when American customers switched their consumption preferences (Chowdhury, 2014).

Before 2009 Toyota’s crisis in which the US recalled nine million cars, Toyota was unrivaled for its quality in the American market. Toyota’s repute was synonymous with its quality production and administration system known for lean production (Camuffo & Wilhelm, 2016). The crisis occurred due to their deviation from their standard management styles to adopt a different style whose outcome was unsuccessful. Considering the exploration, the situation has for quite some time been bantered about; some scholars have argued that the achievement of managerial success depends on the approach adopted by a company. Although either Japanese or American administration approaches may be successful, they are not immune to shortcomings and challenges. It is often advisable to implement them together in certain situations to achieve the desired success. The fact of the matter is that a partnership usually works in several environments. Besides, it is outstanding that Toyota from the earliest starting point was working to the "Jojo" Japanese framework which denotes ''gradually, step by step, and relentlessly'' (Stewart & Raman, 2007). Toyota is renowned for its traditional path with employee, engineers, and designers attached to their positions and they followed the same old traditions. Toyota was a market leader who made them ignore many situations they took for granted (Saporito, 2010).

Conclusion & Recommendations for GM & Toyota

GM and Toyota were rivals in the market for a long time. Their problems connected to traditional paths, differing values, and problematic cultural variations. It was difficult for Toyota to overtake GM which took them seventy-one years. GM in 2001 became the number one quality producer. Both companies’ failures were tied to their conventional sound bonds which still make it incomprehensible for Japanese and American to share some administration styles. The paper outlines how the prevailing local culture is instrumental in the choice of an effective management style. America-Japanese administration techniques as presented in case studies highlight the necessity to implement more than one management style in achieving success in any organization.

Conclusion

Although certain management approaches have demonstrated success in the global business market, no single approach fits every business situation globally. Several factors determine the success of any management style such as the local culture within which an organization operates. Any business entity that seeks to succeed in the highly competitive contemporary global market must adopt a suitable management style. Several management styles have proven effective in the global business arena, including democratic, autocratic, and participatory one. However, the success of these approaches depends on the prevailing business environment and the situation. From the discussion above, it is notable that no single management style fits all situations of activity. The Japanese and American management approaches and culture present a viable example of how culture and situation affect the effectiveness and success of any technique. No single management approach is considered to be the best due to the variances in business environments and situations. It is notable that some companies may opt to impleme