505 M3D GOALS AND OBJECTIVES & PROCESS OF OUTSOURCING
INTRODUCTION
Explicit management models gained emphasis after the industrial revolution. The onset of globalization posed a need to diversify the management approaches in order for business to be operational in the present business environment. In fact, globalization can be argued to be one of the most important aspects of business in the late 20th and 21st century business context (Addicott et al 2006). Strategic Corporation between various organizations and companies operating in different countries is largely a product of globalization. The effectiveness of management models posed the need to conduct comparative studies in order to evaluate the unit effectiveness of the various management models (Alkhafaji 2003). This has resulted to comparative management taking center stage with the increase in business operations at the global level. Critics have asserted that the various management models usually play an integral role in determining the competitiveness of business enterprises. Owing to the fact that Japanese industries have been successful in the global markets, research studies have paid special attention towards the evaluation of the Japanese management model (Arredondo 1996). As a result, there have been numerous comparative studies aimed at evaluating the Japanese management styles with the American management model and the European management approaches (Atkinson 2008).
BACKGROUND
Review of Literature
Alkhafaji (2003) outlines the differences between the main characteristics of the American and Japanese styles of management. He outlines seven core attributes associated with Japanese organizations, they include lifetime employment, control system that is implict, decision making that uses a collective framework, career paths that lack specialisation, cooperative responsibility, the evaluation and promotion of the workforce is slow and a wholistic concern. Alkhafaji concludes that this attributes of Japanese organizations exhibits significant differences with the american organizations (Banerjee 2002). In addition, the existence of harmonous relationships existing between financial institutions and business enterprises plays an integral role in the development of effective business strategy. The basic argument is that Japanese success can be greatly attributed to the aspect of integrated planning at the societal level. Similar sentiments were echoed by Ouchi (1981) in his book called Theory Z; however, the research methodology deployed by Ouchi has been subjected to immense criticisms because of the small size of the sample and inadequate data collected through the limited number of observations and interviews. On the contrary, a research conducted by Pascale and Athos (1981) made use of the “Seven S” model that was designed by the McKinsey Inc. the Seven S model comprised of subordinate goals, strategu, structure, systems deployed at administrative level, staff, skills and style. Staff mainy entailed the need to have the right kind of individuals for the job, skills entailed the training and development of individuals and the styles entailed the way in which the management team handles various issues involving the subordinates and superious (Baum 1996). Pascale and Athos (1981) assert that that the success of the Japanese companies can be significantly attributed to the integration of the seven elements of the Seven S model with a special consideration of the staff, skills and style. This factors are considered as “Soft S” because they lay more emphasis on the human element. As a result, Pascale and Athos (1981) lay more emphais on the importance of people management as core organizational resources, corporate philosophy, superordinate objectives and goals and sense of spirit as being important in steering organizational success. The conclusions from this research face significant constraits associated with a small number of case studies. In addition, this approach can be argued to be more deductic and embodies less theorritical perspectives (Bolman & Deal 2008).
From the viewpoint of human resources, Hatvany and Pucik (1981) provides a Japanese management style that is based on the the following strategies that are interconnected: (a) developing internal labor market that is aimed ensuring that there is laborforce security that fosters quality and employee retention; (b) the articulatio of the organization’s corporate pholosophy that is influenced by the requirements and concern of the employees and ensuring organizational teamwork and employee cooperation and collaboration; and (b) engagement in incrersed socialization. Hatvany and Pucik (1981) assert that these interconnected strategies are transformed into tailored management approaches that include job rotation and promotion that is slow; assessment of the behavior and attitudes; focus on workgroups; decision making that is embraces consultancy; open communication and an increase in the concerns of the employees. This approach does not offer a comperehensive comparison and contrast of the Japanese and Americam management models. However, the authors argue that the Japanese model of management can be incorprated in any global market. Critics argue that this research is merely based on inference and not based on a concrete evaluation of emprical evidence (Brian 2000).
With respect to an organizational learning perspective, which primarily entails handling information, Arredondo (1996) attempts to compare Japanese and American managers. The author claims that Japanese management proffessionals deal with more organizational information and learn more concerning the business enterprise. The significant differences regarding the aspect of organizational learning offers a notable difference between the strategy formulation approaches between Japanese and American management styles (Bryman & Bell 2000). The limitation with this approach is that it does not take into consideration the full spectrum of the management system.
The comparative management studies that have been discusses reveals a significant disagreement concerning the nature of the research methodology deployed (Chartered Institute of Personal Development 2006). This has resulted to concerns regarding the unit effectiveness of the Japanese management model compared to the American management model in the context of their universal applicability at the global level. An analysis of the comparative studies reveal that it is important to take into account the management patterns and nature of organizations in different countries in order to evaluate the unit effectiveness of management models within the various dimesions of management (Caroll 1990). This implies that a conceptual framework is needed prior to evaluating the effectiveness of the management models in various countries. This forms the principal focus of this research study, which is to determine level of efficiency of Japanese and American model of management in the conditions of the Russian market on an example of the Russian enterprises (Ellen & Dana 2009).
Is this the question you were looking for? If so, place your order here to get started!
