Intellectual capital and firm performance - MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Intellectual capital and firm performance. Answer: Introduction It is certain that people in a global workplace come in different shapes and sizes, skills and abilities, education and level of income. They could be colleagues, subordinate, general employees, managers, clients and they may speak different language. They probably use different ways of taking or implementing decisions and use different approaches for using resolving issues in the workplace. Therefore, when the manager comes from a different region or nation, dealing with such techniques, approaches and culture could be challenging for him or her. In a global workplace, people have different opinions or issues (Schuler, Jackson and Tarique 2011). The major challenge for a manager is that they typically deal with multiple types of situations whenever they visit a new workplace. Thereby, these differences could be as easy as working with the people having different personalities or it could be as completed as seeking to meet their responsibilities in a highly competitive environment. W hatever the contexts may be, the challenge is to understand that situation in which is working or supposed to work. When the situation is understood, the coming challenge that manager has to develop a model that amalgamates these factors, such as culture, organization and situations, which would help the managers to figure out or derive the possible options and opportunities to manage the situation. The present report helps to understand the possible challenges in terms of culture, techniques, approaches that a new manager could expect to observe while the dealing with the operation in Japan and Australia. The major purpose of the report is to develop an evaluation of the similarities as well as differences in managerial processes and organizational culture, which an international manager could face while dealing with the operation in Australia and Japan. In order to conduct the analysis and develop the assessment, each small aspect of culture and managerial processes has been discussed in the report. To show the differences in culture and managerial processes, the discussion has been supported with suitable theories and models such as Hofstede Cross culture management. Managerial process and organizational culture of Japan and Australia It has been identified that global travelers on a frequent basis point to general differences such as the trends. Managerial processes are called systematic series or ranges of actions operated by the managers to fulfill the organizational goals. As put forward by Prajogo and McDermott (2011), sensing, seizing and reconfiguration are the ways that lead to managerial processes or combine the managerial processes. Managing a global workforce is about working with as well as through people; thereby, when dealing with the management of a particular organization in a global environment, the first thing that manager needs to do, is to understand the culture and trends of that particular region (Wiewiora et al. 2013). Irrespective of the fact that who constitutes the global workforce, understanding people at work remains as a big challenge. However, it would be a bit easier to deal with, if the process is broken down into some sub-sections such as work value and goals. As put forward by Nam Nguyen and Mohamed (2011), the work value reflects individual beliefs regarding desirable states or different modes of conduct for pursuing desirable end states. There are, for example, some aspects to the Japanese workers and the most well-known is lifetime employment (Ben-Ari 2013). This means Japanese workers in a large number are selected for the prominent positions in some large and major sector firms and they consider it as lifetime employment. Nonetheless, such kind of benefit can be applied to permanent workers regarding one-third of the Japanese workforce (Lpez?Duarte, Vidal?Surez and Gonzlez?Daz 2016). It is identified that if the workers could stay with one firm for life, they can easily identify with organizational goals and objectives. Unlike the case for Australian labor unions, the employees who are the members of Japanese labor unions identify more with the organization compared to the type of work they are doing (Prajogo and McDermott 2011). In addition, Japanese unions often share the managements view. This indicates that better the firm performs, the more workers benefit. Consequently, Japanese management believes in providing the worker with more opportunities to increase their job opportunities instead of waiting unless or until the workers prove himself/herself. As put forward by Minkov, Blagoev and Hofstede (2013), a significant area in which management has effectively tapped into worker potential is in the utilization of small group improvement activities (SGIA). One significant example is that small groups of volunteers workers who meet on a weekly basis, to discuss their functions and the issues they are observing (Mora 2013). Likewise, the employees develop the solutions as well as make a genuine attempt to carry out a challenge. Organizational culture of the small and large firms in Japan It has been observed that Japanese firms remain insular. The senior managers or the executives tend to stick with one organization for life and they are promoted from within the organization. However, the growth in such intact culture may not always be effective. Therefore, the small size firm like U-Shine, a mid-sized maker of car parts, started looking outside for a new president (Ushine.org 2018). Now the organization observed the requirement for a young, English-speaking boss to replace its current president (Yamaguchi 2013). Moreover, in the recent time, some large firms like Nissan and Sony have named the seniors not only from outside the organization but event outside the nation to push though stiff reforms as well as globalize their operation (Gill 2012). It has become a symbolic of a significant shift in the corporate sector Japan. This incident indicates that Japanese organizations have started incorporating the global organizational culture. The organizations like Toyota a nd Uniqlo- clothing brand are promoting more foreign managers and the firms like Numura and Rakutan, an e-commerce site, are also holding meeting in English (Heller and Darling 2012). Furthermore, it has also been identified that Co-worker as well as managers are often so close in the typical Japanese organizations. Another crucial fact is that it remains unusual to exist between the organizations as well as their suppliers, as the workers doing the buying and selling probably have occupied the same jobs within their respective organizations for 10 years, even longer than this span (Wiewiora et al. 2013). When several foreign organization executives often observe as impassable challenges to Japanese businesses, are the strong ties of personal trust developed over several years. Nonetheless, Bortolotti, Boscari and Danese (2015) commented that Japanese culture remains different to that of US and Europe but the dissimilarities do not make it risky to operate the business in Japan, if the company maintains a strong quality products and services. In this context, Prajogo and McDermott (2011) mentioned that the issue is Japanese corporate culture, which centers on a st rong personal relationship making it challenging for the newcomers to the organization to get the require things done. Furthermore, it has also been observed that Japanese tend to be men who certainly studied at the elite universities as well as joined their organizations after graduation. Therefore, it could be very difficult for the outside elements to acquire the full membership of that enclosed community. Organizational culture and managerial process of Australia Australian organizations tend to face some considerable competitive stress. An existing protectionism characteristic of Australian industry policy provided the ways to more free-market driven approach in tune with the facts of new global economy. In this context, Parker and Aitken (2011) commented that Australian organizations as well as workers have been forced to change their existing approaches to productivity. With the flow of businesses, when the Australian firms go on expanding into these nations through FDI, exporting. The development of branches or the foreign subsidiaries and strategic alliance, the managers should not fulfill the standards barriers of managing, but also contend with the additional barriers of implementing so in blends of political, legal as well as cultural environments (Clarke, Seng and Whiting 2011). Nonetheless, in this sector, Chatman et al. (2014) mentioned that Australia culture is more similar to the European Corporate culture but when it comes to hi ring global talents, the large Australian firms remain stiff. This means the large firms like Coles and Woolworths have developed a relationship with the foreign suppliers but in the internal environment firms regional employees are mostly employed (Arli et al. 2013). Moreover, when it comes to culture, the Australians are often proud of their melting pot culture (Wiewiora et al. 2013). In addition, the hierarchies in offices do not really exist in most of the Australians firms. Several organizations often encourage the same range of respect as well as engagement with all workers. Nonetheless, the Australians are strict about the dealing work, which means if someone respond truthfully that he/she is finding it difficult to deal with the workload, it is considered that individual is incapable of doing the things. In addition to all these, due to the several governments in Australia, some national safety laws are there that are called Occupational Health and Safety leading to important reporting rules on spills or the most minors injuries sustained at work (Zanko and Dawson 2012). Thus, it could be very difficult for the leaders or the firms to dismiss employees or sacking them on the spot. Positively, on the other side, there are some particular rules developed by the organizations to make sure every individual gets along or gets on their jobs. Similarities and differences of managerial process and organizational culture Similarities In general, Japan and Australia have very close similarities when it comes to buying a car and both the nations have a low birth rate and aging population. In this context, Rupprecht and Byrne (2014) commented that Australia are a multi-cultural society where as Japan tend to maintain a monoculture society. However, when it comes to culture both nations do not usually prefer to hire managers from the foreign nations; instead, the employees are promoted from within the organizations. Nonetheless, the large firms like Atlassian in Australia and Nissan in Japan implemented the global approaches of hiring skilled managers from the foreign nations (Ahn et al. 2012). Furthermore, it is also identified that the foreign managers are supposed to play unique roles and responsibilities when joining the corporate firms of these two nations. In Japanese organizations, the position of employees in the organizational hierarchies could also be a significant determinant of the situation context, whic h the managers find themselves and this can be a significant element in their attention, interpretation as well as subsequent behavior (Wiewiora et al. 2013). Dissimilarities Formal job responsibilities- A Japanese firm- in Nissans organizational structure, the managers are assigned with particulars roles and positions in specific social group that hold certain normative expectation. For example, the production manager of Nissan has been assigned with the role of supervising the production and increasing the sales target. Hence, the general employees of the firm could be supportive towards the goals and objective (Gill 2012). On the contrary, the organizations in Australia do not usually make hierarchies in the organizational structure. Each position in the firm is equally valued. Employees tend to work in a team with shared goals and objectives. Figure 1: Individual roles and responsibilities (Source: Gill 2012) Rank and seniority- Rank and seniority is often compared with the hierarchical structure of the firm but hierarchies do not really exist in several Australian offices. Several organizations in Australian corporate sector tend to promote the equal level of respect and involvement with all the employees. On the contrary, the organizations in Japan strictly follow the hierarchy and rank of seniority through respect and culture. A graduate student, for example, joined the firm and promoted stage-by-stage with time; thereby, an old employee receives respect and sees polite gesture from the people belonging to lower stages. Current Assignment When the Japanese organizations like Sony and Nissan hires foreign managers, the company assign them with the top roles like developing the strategy of expanding the operation in a global environment. On the other side, the large firms like Coles and Woolworths in Australia hires general skilled employees from the foreign environment but they are not supposed to take the decision of expanding operation in a new environment. Cross cultural differences Managers in todays multi-cultural global business environment frequently observe cultural differences, which could interfere with the effective completion of the projects (Samaha, Beck and Palmatier 2014). Hence, the organizational cultural differences of Japanese organizations with Australian organizations have been discussed with Hofstedes cultural theory, which was discussed in the assignment one. Here some of the dimensions are provided with the findings. Small vs. large power distance (PD)- Such dimension is often referred to a particular society that deals with unfairness or inequalities as well as the degree to which the less powerful individual of the firm expect that power is shared unequally (Prajogo and McDermott 2011). However, in Japanese organizational culture, the people at the lower level do not dwell in the belief that power is shared unequally, as they know that they are going to hold the same high position in the firm by few years. The result of Hofstedes researches demonstrate that corporate culture of Japan includes the practice of exercising that a business holds high value on fixed genders roles along with the significance on structure and emphasis on long-term goals. It has also been identified that power distance (PD) and individualism (IDV) remains low, because equality is known as the way of increasing cohesion and productivity. In addition, Schuler, Jackson and Tarique (2011) also mentioned that corporate organizations in Japan make large investment on the training and development of employees. The new employees receive the training of six to twelve months in firms major dimension; thereby, within a span of a year, they know each aspect of the organizations operation. Thereby, the new employees train for six to twelve months in each of the organizations major divisions so that within a few years they know every facet of the organizations operation. The new or the foreign managers when joining a Japanese organization may observe the supervisors as well as employees have an intensive democratic relationship. In such practice, the agreement on both parties is required for implementation of the decisions. Instead of being a source of authority, high management is observed as the consensus builder as well as they take the responsibility of developing harmony; thereby, the workers could work together. Nam Nguyen and Mohamed (2011) also mentioned that top management could take cues from the management in the middle level who form the policies on the basis of the information provided by the sub-ordinates. For example, Hourensu and genchi genbutsu are the fundamental of Japanese management and the term is used in Jeffrey K.Likers book The Toyota Way, which includes 14 major principles that talk about organizations managerial approaches as well as production system. As mentioned by Shim and Steers (2012), Toyota Production System (TPS) probably remains as famous and successful example of a Continuous Improvement (CI) culture. The founder of the Toyota has mentioned each individual meeting his/her duties completely could guarantee significant power when collected together and the series of s uch power leads to a ring of power. Power Distance Australians score low on this dimension (36) (Hofstede 2011). In Australian organization, the structure or hierarchy developed for convenience but the seniors are always accessible as well as managers depend on the individual employees and team for their expertise. In such organizational culture, managers and the general workers desired to be consulted and the goals and information are shared on a frequent basis. The communication remains informal; as the language is English, the foreign managers do not have to face the language barriers. Individualism In this dimension, Australia cultural people scored 90, due to the highly individualistic culture. In such culture, the people look after themselves. The employees are observed to be shelf-reliant as well as display initiative. Masculinity- Australians are proud of their success as well as achievement in life and it provides a basis for hiring as well as promotion decisions in the workplace. Moreover, the workplace conflicts are solved at the individual level. However, Japanese do not flaunt their success; and when it comes to resolving a workplace issue, the unanimous decision from by team is taken to resolve the issues. Impact of culture on communication, decision-making, leadership Impact of culture on communication Culture has a wide and direct impact on communication. Especially those who are sent on business trips to Japanese organizations are usually selected for the leadership tasks. Such group remains at the top of companys hierarchy; thus, they tend to spend a larger portion of the workday with communication compared to the managers on the middle level of the organizational hierarchical structure. Consequently, the managers working in a foreign nations deal with cross-culture communication to a larger extent. Particularly, communication difficulties in a foreign culture play a great role. In this context, Chatman et al. (2014) commented that as the base for cross culture communication and the need of acquiring other culture, a manager must have to consider the language. Japanese organizations do not promote English language, they run all organizational operation with their regional language, which is difficult a new foreign manager. Here, Shim, and Steers (2012) also mentioned that Japanese organizations could make an effective use of the foreign employees. Presently, global Japanese firms use an ethnocentric approach with the foreign employees. Japanese organizations could put Japanese expatriates in foreign operation but they usually do not empower foreign manager to make decisions (Bortolotti, Boscari and Danese 2015). Moreover, foreign employees are mostly unable to make rapport with the employees of Japanese organizations because of the language barriers. Foreign managers speak English but the Japanese mostly do not. However, foreign managers who go on a global assignment in Australia do not have to face difficulties as international language- English is Australias corporate language. Impact of culture on leadership The organizations in Japan are renowned to build an effective culture with Japanese management style. As put forward by Samaha, Beck and Palmatier (2014), organizational culture combines the shared values and the language that generate a common identity as well as the sense of community. It is observed that as Japanese maintains the hierarchy in the organizational structure along with their culture, they are more biased towards autocratic-leadership style. For example, the large firm Toyota, which globally operates but they are desirably depended on the Autocratic leadership style (Shim and Steers 2012). Moreover, as discussed above Japanese organizations have the culture of promoting the internal employees from within the organizations. This means the employee who works in the first level of the hierarchy would hold the top position with experience of serving the firm. In addition, the leaders have the tendency to follow consensus decision-making process. Therefore, the employees ex pect and accept the autocratic organizational leadership style. On the other side, the organizations in Australia tend to believe in promoting individual skills and competencies. Australian organizational culture often promotes delegating leadership style, as they do not follow the structural hierarchy. The leaders put great responsibilities on their sub-ordinates including the lower level of management as well as the employees. The leaders believe that employees have the skills and decision-making abilities to analyze the situations. Impact of culture on decision-making As put forward by Dimitratos et al. (2011), the decision-making process of Japanese organizations lies on its roots in Japan feudal period. It is also observed that in Australian culture of power of an employee is usually shown by making decisions individually, where the leaders believes in employees skills and abilities. On the other side, in Japanese culture, the decision making process is observed by those holding the positions of authority are expected to delegate decision-making to a defined group, which is supposed to address a consensus (Nielsen and Nielsen 2011). These facts indicate that due to the cultural differences in two nations, the practice or process of decision-making differ from one another. Nonetheless, Nam Nguyen and Mohamed (2011) commented that the organizations in Japan have the mixed feeling regarding their decision-making processes. Due to the hierarchical structure each level of management is involved in the process; consequently, the process takes a lot of time. It is also identified that such process is implemented properly it could provide certain advantages, as all parts of the organizations are on board with decision and ready to execute it. it could vet the ideas of large varieties of perspectives. Conclusion The above-mentioned discussion helps to conclude that each nation is equipped with its own culture when it comes to running a business. Organizations in both the nations tend to modify their organizational strategies considering the elements of culture. However, due to the pace of globalization, the organizations are in the rush of developing new strategies. Therefore, few Japanese organizations have started hiring the managers from the foreign nation or the global environment. References Ahn, M.H., Park, S., Ha, K., Choi, S.H. and Hong, J.P., 2012. Gender ratio comparisons of the suicide rates and methods in Korea, Japan, Australia, and the United States.Journal of affective disorders,142(1), pp.161-165. Arli, V., Dylke, S., Burgess, R., Campus, R. and Soldo, E., 2013. Woolworths Australia and Walmart US: Best practices in supply chain collaboration.Journal of Economics, Business Accountancy Ventura,16(1). Ben-Ari, E., 2013.Body projects in Japanese childcare: Culture, organization and emotions in a preschool. Routledge. Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S. and Danese, P., 2015. Successful lean implementation: Organizational culture and soft lean practices.International Journal of Production Economics,160, pp.182-201. Chatman, J.A., Caldwell, D.F., O'Reilly, C.A. and Doerr, B., 2014. Parsing organizational culture: How the norm for adaptability influences the relationship between culture consensus and financial performance in high?technology firms.Journal of Organizational Behavior,35(6), pp.785-808. Clarke, M., Seng, D. and Whiting, R.H., 2011. Intellectual capital and firm performance in Australia.Journal of Intellectual Capital,12(4), pp.505-530. Dimitratos, P., Petrou, A., Plakoyiannaki, E. and Johnson, J.E., 2011. Strategic decision-making processes in internationalization: Does national culture of the focal firm matter?.Journal of World Business,46(2), pp.194-204. Gill, C., 2012. The role of leadership in successful international mergers and acquisitions: Why Renault?Nissan succeeded and DaimlerChrysler?Mitsubishi failed.Human Resource Management,51(3), pp.433-456. Gill, C., 2012. The role of leadership in successful international mergers and acquisitions: Why Renault?Nissan succeeded and DaimlerChrysler?Mitsubishi failed.Human Resource Management,51(3), pp.433-456. Heller, V.L. and Darling, J.R., 2012. Anatomy of crisis management: lessons from the infamous Toyota Case.European Business Review,24(2), pp.151-168. Hofstede, G., 2011. Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context.Online readings in psychology and culture,2(1), p.8. Lpez?Duarte, C., Vidal?Surez, M. M., and Gonzlez?Daz, B. 2016, International business and national culture: a literature review and research agenda,International Journal of Management Reviews,vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 397-416. Minkov, M., Blagoev, V. and Hofstede, G., 2013, The boundaries of culture: do questions about societal norms reveal cultural differences?,Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,vol. 44, no. 7, pp.1094-1106. Mora, C. 2013. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival,Journal of Media Research,vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 65. Nam Nguyen, H. and Mohamed, S., 2011. Leadership behaviors, organizational culture and knowledge management practices: An empirical investigation.Journal of Management Development,30(2), pp.206-221. Nielsen, B.B. and Nielsen, S., 2011. The role of top management team international orientation in international strategic decision-making: The choice of foreign entry mode.Journal of World Business,46(2), pp.185-193. Parker, C. and Aitken, L., 2011. The Queensland Workplace Culture Check: Learning from Reflection on Ethics inside Law Firms.Geo. J. Legal Ethics,24, p.399. Prajogo, D.I. and McDermott, C.M., 2011. The relationship between multidimensional organizational culture and performance.International Journal of Operations Production Management,31(7), pp.712-735. Rupprecht, C.D. and Byrne, J.A., 2014. Informal urban green-space: comparison of quantity and characteristics in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan.PloS one,9(6), p.e99784. Samaha, S.A., Beck, J.T. Palmatier, R.W., 2014, The role of culture in international relationship marketing,Journal of Marketing,vol. 78, no. 5, pp.78-98. Schuler, R.S., Jackson, S.E. and Tarique, I., 2011. Global talent management and global talent challenges: Strategic opportunities for IHRM.Journal of World Business,46(4), pp.506-516. Shim, W.S. and Steers, R.M., 2012. Symmetric and asymmetric leadership cultures: A comparative study of leadership and organizational culture at Hyundai and Toyota.Journal of World Business,47(4), pp.581-591. Shim, W.S. and Steers, R.M., 2012. Symmetric and asymmetric leadership cultures: A comparative study of leadership and organizational culture at Hyundai and Toyota.Journal of World Business,47(4), pp.581-591. Terpstra, V., Foley, J. and Sarathy, R., 2012.International marketing. Naper Press. Ushine.org. (2018).U!Shine. [online] Available at: https://www.ushine.org/ [Accessed 24 Jan. 2018]. Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G. and Coffey, V., 2013. Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context.International Journal of Project Management,31(8), pp.1163-1174. Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G. and Coffey, V., 2013. Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context.International Journal of Project Management,31(8), pp.1163-1174. Yamaguchi, I., 2013. A JapanUS cross-cultural study of relationships among team autonomy, organizational social capital, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.International Journal of Intercultural Relations,37(1), pp.58-71. Zanko, M. and Dawson, P., 2012. Occupational health and safety management in organizations: A review.International Journal of Management Reviews,14(3), pp.328-344.