Research On Cultural Dimensions of Asian Leadership — focus on China and Japan
The purpose of this research is to identify between the two shortlisted countries, China and Japan, which of the two markets would better serve the expansion strategy of our fashion brand. I utilized for this research the parameters of the Hofstede framework (here, accessible through the Hofstede Insights Comparison tool) to draw similarities, isolate differences and thus provide comparative information for an informed evaluation.
Next, using the GLOBE study, I imagined what kind of leader we would be inclined to select in both markets and what analysis contributed to my choices.
China and Japan Through the Hofstede Framework
The Hofstede framework model (through its six parameters) is about the best-known tool for evaluating the Cultural Dimensions of different people and understanding their viewpoints.
There’s a broad awareness that China has made the most remarkable progress economically and culturally in the last 20 years, possibly more than any other nation in the world. By this, China has pushed itself into a new bracket of economic ranking, right there among the very best in the world where Japan has always been a key player.
The evaluation below uses the Hofstede model to explore this new China against the older Japan based on the six parameters below:
· Power Distance: Since this parameter highlights the awareness that all people will not expect power to be distributed equally, China at a ranking of 80 places itself in the very high margins. This may predominantly be because culturally China has for the most part of its existence held high ideals of a superior-subordinate society and the reality of a higher power; from the ancient dynasty reigns up until the current one-party Communist political system practiced in the country, the patterns are clear. Japan, on the other hand, scoring an intermediary 54 is not without the superior-subordinate culture found in China; this still exists. But the Japanese culture is somewhat also receptive to the notion that everybody is capable of making it and charting their own success stories. Equality in that sense is apparent in their society.
· Individualism: Chinese culture values collectivism over individualism. This means that there is a high degree of interdependence among the members of a group. Chinese citizens and potential employees will uphold personal relationships over the interest of the organization or job task should they be required to choose. Conversely, here again, Japan scores in the medium range (46), meaning that Japanese are right in the mid-zone where family ties may not be very extended and thus not a barrier to self-actualization and individualism, yet they are present and respected. Japan has had the benefit of long exposure to Western culture and so the traces of this influence show.
· Masculinity: The opposite of this is termed femininity. China scores big on the masculine parameter. This score implies that the Chinese society is success-oriented and inarguably driven by competition, achievement and ultimate success. True enough, China’s meteoric economic rise is a reflection of the competitiveness of the society, and the need to succeed and make gains. This is a common trait of Confucian Asian nations, including Japan, due primarily because of the manner of education injected into the schooling system that prioritizes team victory, product excellence, and perfection, among others. Patrons are expected to be motivated to win and succeed -and although this is true for both Japan and China, the Japanese are more likely to value team/corporate success over the Chinese.
· Uncertainty Avoidance: Ambiguity carries on its shoulder anxiety and fear of the unknown. These are things the Chinese are extremely comfortable with. They understand that life will have a certain degree of the unknown, yet that does not hold them back. The Chinese appear driven, adaptable and quite entrepreneurial. But here’s where the stark difference between the two cultures emerges: Japan scores 92 compared to China’s 30. This infers that the Japanese avoid uncertainty at all costs. As an island state, the Japanese have had to put up with many natural uncertainties that land-locked nations have not had to deal with, and this has lent to their almost ritualistic approach to life -everything must be spelled out and communicated plainly and into details. Painstakingly slow decision making must be backed by solid information before major changes can be effected.
· Long Term Orientation: This parameter sets forth what societies prioritize: high scores mean that the people are pro-future, while a low score means that that society maintains that the past is somewhat linked to the present and may influence now-decisions. Interestingly, Japan is one of the most pro-future oriented societies. Their appreciation of life is guided by the now and the future, and what you can do now. This is similar to China. Both societies though they both have rich, age-long traditions, are very pragmatic cultures that adapt easily to present trends and influences. Also, this means that the widespread savings and investment culture of the people is very high and admirable.
· Indulgence: A nation is either indulgent or restrained. China is restrained. The people have great control over their impulses and desires due to the style of upbringing and the value systems communicated to the young -over-indulgence and excessive extravagance are frowned upon. This is again noticeable among Japan and most of the Confucian Asian world, where delayed gratification is championed over excessive leisure. This value system has cultured both Japanese and Chinese to be hardworking and diligent.
From the analysis above, we can readily tell that Japanese and Chinese have more in common than what differentiates them, due largely to shared customs and values in their world region. The biggest reveal is in connection to Uncertainty Avoidance where a steep difference exists between the two cultures and how they process ambiguity and uncertainties.
The Ideal Chinese Leader using the GLOBE study
The GLOBE study is framed on the earlier work and findings of other cultural and leadership studies, including Hofstede’s. It is then to use the GLOBE study Cultural Dimensions to evaluate and select what kind of leader we could hire in China, and also in Japan.
There will always exist certain traits that are naturally acceptable and universally desired as ideal for any leader anywhere to possess. These positive traits as identified by the GLOBE study are unquestionably necessary for outstanding leadership. A few will include qualities such as a leader must be trustworthy, intelligent, motivational, honest, a team builder, visionary, etc. The study goes even further to list a few negative attributes that may also be universally undesired in a leader who is noncooperative, ruthless or plain egocentric.
However, the GLOBE Study also accounts for Country Clusters and their corresponding Leadership Styles that are culturally contingent. China (and Japan) belongs to the Confucian cluster and scored highly for Team Oriented, Humane, Autonomous, and Self or Group Protective Leadership styles; intermediary for Performance-Oriented leadership style and very low for Participative Leadership style.
With this knowledge, I can say that my preferred leader for China should be someone who:
· stresses high standards; can think on his feet, can motivate his team to meet any task
· but can equally be independent and individualistic
· will focus on the employees’ safety and security; is supportive and patient.
These extra traits along with the already highlighted universally desired qualities will make for a suitable China head for our fashion brand.
The Ideal Japanese Leader using the GLOBE study
As depicted above, Japan and China bear a lot of similarities in leadership styles based on the GLOBE study Cultural Clusters. Japan just like China, scores high on the Societal Clusters tables for Team Oriented, Humane, Autonomous, and Self or Group Protective Leader Styles, thereby giving further credence to the effectiveness of the GLOBE classification for establishing that leader effectiveness is engraved in the prevalent values and beliefs of a common people. Here that would be Confucian Asia.
Again, we notice a similar trend at the end of the table for Japan, where Participative Leader Style scores the lowest. This implies that for our selection of a leader for Japan we would be careful to avoid someone who overly emphasizes delegation and equality, as well as someone who was outright charismatic since these were not the generally receptive qualities Japanese people expected to see in a leader.
Finally, worth infusing here is that based on our earlier analysis under the Hofstede model we noticed a sharp deviation from the usual similarities between the two nations China and Japan where it was concerned with Uncertainty Avoidance. Applying this knowledge then, it would be pragmatic to select a leader who also exhibited a lot of Self-Protective leadership style, because such a person was more inclined to be very procedural and regimented in their approach to leadership, and less of a risk-taker -something that the Japanese are more familiar with.
In conclusion, there will not be a singular list of attributes that will describe the perfect leader for an organization but based on this analysis we can get pretty close to the homing in on the next best thing.
References
Hofstede Insights (n.d.). Country Comparison: What About China? [Online Tool]. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/china/
Hofstede Insights (n.d.). Country Comparison: What About Japan? [Online Tool]. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/japan/
Hoppe, M. (2007, September 18). Culture and Leader Effectiveness: The Globe Study [Article]. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.edu20.org/files/6052523/GLOBE_Study_by_Michael_Hoppe.pdf
Thurwanger, M. (2010 November). Leadership in a Global Environment Enhancing Effectiveness in Multicultural Organizations [Article]. Retrieved from https://www.peoriamagazines.com/ibi/2010/nov/leadership-global-environment
Virkus, S. (2009) Leadership Dimensions: Culture and Leadership [Article]. Retrieved from https://www.tlu.ee/~sirvir/IKM/Leadership%20Dimensions/universally_desirable_and_undesirable_l
