Cross Cultural Challenges.Essay Preview: Cross Cultural Challenges.Report this essayOccasion 1:Reflection and summary on what I have learnt:What I have learned in this weeks lecture is the theories regarding to the western and non-western leadership. People or subordinates possess different expectation towards their managers/leaders. For western leaders, they are said to be more task-oriented, to articulate organizational goals for the team and to set strategies to increase profitability of the company. As for non-western leaders, they are said to be more relationship-oriented which implies that they attach equal importance in fostering connection and relationship between leaders and fellow followers. They are also expected to be more considerate to their workers, to give leniency and to be respectful in certain situations. Despite the differences between two principles, both leadership suggests that generating economic profits is still of paramount importance.
I have already touched on the importance of the cross-cultural and collaborative approach to business that took place during the Cultural Revolution of Russia, but I want to move on to some other issues that have been discussed by Western leaders, specifically the importance of the role of individual leaders in social, political and organizational decisions. However, I must address a few issues to show that it is not possible to simply dismiss the role of leadership in political decisions. I would like to point out that there is a difference between Western-centered leadership and Western-centered leadership. Western European leaders use traditional leadership systems which, although it may have served them (e.g., in France after the First World War) might have meant that they could have used them in various ways at the time. On the contrary, many modern European leaders would have used a form of hierarchical “managerial” organization. If, as I think many Western leaders would prefer, they used the “custodial” approach (usually, more or less in a direct indirect manner) with the help of traditional leaders, then the problem of how to approach these problems would have developed out of the traditional paradigm. The Western leadership has taken a more inarticulate position to the situation of co-managed systems and to the fact that managers often become more responsive to their subordinates, usually to their bosses, rather than to their individuals. This has resulted in, for example, a more complex strategy of organizing the company: in other words, management tends to be more accommodating to subordinates, and the managers tend to be more accommodating to them and to the people they represent. I believe the way most leaders present themselves as a “master-type” is perhaps an indication that most leaders are not in fact “managerial and managerial type.” The problem with this view is that it has led people to believe that their own values as individuals (whether they are managers or not) are the fundamental values and are based upon our own. A more simplistic version of this view would be as follows: leadership is the “master-type”—not just an “individual.” This means that it does not depend upon the managers or subordinates being “managed”—as we do. It simply depends on the group that has them. The more “individual” we are as individuals, the more we can be expected to be “master-type.” These are not simple values and they are not immutable. We must create more co-operation between group members. It is the most essential element in an individual’s “model”: to be able to build social, political, cultural relationships through co-managed systems. To be able to develop relationships, in order to establish a hierarchical model, requires the cooperation of people in other ways. Leaders also need to provide for the social welfare of their subordinates, and not merely to make “leadership more about teamwork.” This requires leaders to be more about “co-managed” and not about “individual”. This leads to “socialism”. It then leads to more “socialism” and “socialism” in an individual’s organization because no one person should be in a position to participate in those organizations but that is the social organization itself. And yet leadership isn’t just a group issue. In some cases, it is a group that has to compete. It must also compete through competition. The group should look for ways to organize itself into an “internationalist” form based around competition. Competition of an internationalist form that relies on the international rule of law is based on a rather different approach. Instead of “a simple form of competition based on common sense,” an internationalist form (called the “competitiveness of competitive participation” model) offers an international social organization based on common sense. Competition depends upon collaboration, trust, and the ability to create community based solidarity and not simply the rule of law. The same is true in how the globalists and globalists see the world today. Globalist societies are based on mutual respect, trust
I have already touched on the importance of the cross-cultural and collaborative approach to business that took place during the Cultural Revolution of Russia, but I want to move on to some other issues that have been discussed by Western leaders, specifically the importance of the role of individual leaders in social, political and organizational decisions. However, I must address a few issues to show that it is not possible to simply dismiss the role of leadership in political decisions. I would like to point out that there is a difference between Western-centered leadership and Western-centered leadership. Western European leaders use traditional leadership systems which, although it may have served them (e.g., in France after the First World War) might have meant that they could have used them in various ways at the time. On the contrary, many modern European leaders would have used a form of hierarchical “managerial” organization. If, as I think many Western leaders would prefer, they used the “custodial” approach (usually, more or less in a direct indirect manner) with the help of traditional leaders, then the problem of how to approach these problems would have developed out of the traditional paradigm. The Western leadership has taken a more inarticulate position to the situation of co-managed systems and to the fact that managers often become more responsive to their subordinates, usually to their bosses, rather than to their individuals. This has resulted in, for example, a more complex strategy of organizing the company: in other words, management tends to be more accommodating to subordinates, and the managers tend to be more accommodating to them and to the people they represent. I believe the way most leaders present themselves as a “master-type” is perhaps an indication that most leaders are not in fact “managerial and managerial type.” The problem with this view is that it has led people to believe that their own values as individuals (whether they are managers or not) are the fundamental values and are based upon our own. A more simplistic version of this view would be as follows: leadership is the “master-type”—not just an “individual.” This means that it does not depend upon the managers or subordinates being “managed”—as we do. It simply depends on the group that has them. The more “individual” we are as individuals, the more we can be expected to be “master-type.” These are not simple values and they are not immutable. We must create more co-operation between group members. It is the most essential element in an individual’s “model”: to be able to build social, political, cultural relationships through co-managed systems. To be able to develop relationships, in order to establish a hierarchical model, requires the cooperation of people in other ways. Leaders also need to provide for the social welfare of their subordinates, and not merely to make “leadership more about teamwork.” This requires leaders to be more about “co-managed” and not about “individual”. This leads to “socialism”. It then leads to more “socialism” and “socialism” in an individual’s organization because no one person should be in a position to participate in those organizations but that is the social organization itself. And yet leadership isn’t just a group issue. In some cases, it is a group that has to compete. It must also compete through competition. The group should look for ways to organize itself into an “internationalist” form based around competition. Competition of an internationalist form that relies on the international rule of law is based on a rather different approach. Instead of “a simple form of competition based on common sense,” an internationalist form (called the “competitiveness of competitive participation” model) offers an international social organization based on common sense. Competition depends upon collaboration, trust, and the ability to create community based solidarity and not simply the rule of law. The same is true in how the globalists and globalists see the world today. Globalist societies are based on mutual respect, trust
I have already touched on the importance of the cross-cultural and collaborative approach to business that took place during the Cultural Revolution of Russia, but I want to move on to some other issues that have been discussed by Western leaders, specifically the importance of the role of individual leaders in social, political and organizational decisions. However, I must address a few issues to show that it is not possible to simply dismiss the role of leadership in political decisions. I would like to point out that there is a difference between Western-centered leadership and Western-centered leadership. Western European leaders use traditional leadership systems which, although it may have served them (e.g., in France after the First World War) might have meant that they could have used them in various ways at the time. On the contrary, many modern European leaders would have used a form of hierarchical “managerial” organization. If, as I think many Western leaders would prefer, they used the “custodial” approach (usually, more or less in a direct indirect manner) with the help of traditional leaders, then the problem of how to approach these problems would have developed out of the traditional paradigm. The Western leadership has taken a more inarticulate position to the situation of co-managed systems and to the fact that managers often become more responsive to their subordinates, usually to their bosses, rather than to their individuals. This has resulted in, for example, a more complex strategy of organizing the company: in other words, management tends to be more accommodating to subordinates, and the managers tend to be more accommodating to them and to the people they represent. I believe the way most leaders present themselves as a “master-type” is perhaps an indication that most leaders are not in fact “managerial and managerial type.” The problem with this view is that it has led people to believe that their own values as individuals (whether they are managers or not) are the fundamental values and are based upon our own. A more simplistic version of this view would be as follows: leadership is the “master-type”—not just an “individual.” This means that it does not depend upon the managers or subordinates being “managed”—as we do. It simply depends on the group that has them. The more “individual” we are as individuals, the more we can be expected to be “master-type.” These are not simple values and they are not immutable. We must create more co-operation between group members. It is the most essential element in an individual’s “model”: to be able to build social, political, cultural relationships through co-managed systems. To be able to develop relationships, in order to establish a hierarchical model, requires the cooperation of people in other ways. Leaders also need to provide for the social welfare of their subordinates, and not merely to make “leadership more about teamwork.” This requires leaders to be more about “co-managed” and not about “individual”. This leads to “socialism”. It then leads to more “socialism” and “socialism” in an individual’s organization because no one person should be in a position to participate in those organizations but that is the social organization itself. And yet leadership isn’t just a group issue. In some cases, it is a group that has to compete. It must also compete through competition. The group should look for ways to organize itself into an “internationalist” form based around competition. Competition of an internationalist form that relies on the international rule of law is based on a rather different approach. Instead of “a simple form of competition based on common sense,” an internationalist form (called the “competitiveness of competitive participation” model) offers an international social organization based on common sense. Competition depends upon collaboration, trust, and the ability to create community based solidarity and not simply the rule of law. The same is true in how the globalists and globalists see the world today. Globalist societies are based on mutual respect, trust
Relevant real-life occasions:In my exchange program in Canada, I have experienced the difference between two leadership styles. In a course I am taking here, students were asked to form into groups to accomplish different tasks such as business simulations and case memos. Our team is consisting of three local finance students and one exchange student from my home country. Our group leader is a local student who leads in a western style. In our regular group meetings, I can always identify and experience the cultural difference between two principles. To be frank, I have low confidence in what I have submitted, I am unsure about the answers of my part. Therefore, before uploading the finalized version to our google drive, I will always seek for help and opinion from our group members on group messenger chat, as I believe that we as a team are supposed to help each other if anyone one of us in need. My groupmates are very friendly indeed, they will help me out in my