Converge, Diverge, and the Japanese and Korean Management Style
To understand the theory of convergence and divergence is useful to resort to the case of Korea and Japan as a culture.
The management style in Japan should not be generalized, but for educational purposes, we tend to think in this culture as a culture focused on strengthening its market share, looking to grow as a company, using economies of scale and be aggressive on price.
Suppliers in Japan are seen as a business partner, these partners will give the company good information. The active participation of employees is a feature in this culture that helps to increase loyalty to the organization. But perhaps one of the most important characteristics of management style in Japan is the importance they place on corporate values, as they help the organization to deal with change.
In Japanese culture, the "Zaibatsu" are groups of companies with family origins that accumulated power through the years. These groups are close to the government therefore receives special treatment, such as favorable tax policies. Another trait of the "Zaibatsu" is that banks may own, which can be a double-edged sword.
The management style of Korea is closely related to Japan, because Korea was occupied by Japan from 1910-1945. In order to face new market entry Korea adopted the Japanese model, using government intervention in credit, exports and foreign relations. As a result, they grew quickly and were able to diversify.
Like Japan, Korea also has a conglomerate of companies with family origins, which include a great power in the industries in which they participate. These business groups are called "Chaebol", but "Chaebol" has some differences with the Japanese model.
The "Chaebol" are not authorized to have banks, they use the government financing. This practice hurt Korea in the financial crisis in 1999, because companies could not pay their loans on time.
The Case of Japanese and Korean culture allow us to explain the convergence and divergence terms. Some cultures converge to meet the demands of international market and so to adapt, but at the same time preserve the main characteristics that make them special.
In the text what Makes Management Style Similar and Distinct Across Borders? Growth, Experience and Culture in Korean and Japanese Firms by Lee, Thomas & Choe, convergence is defined as: “theory that states that as countries develop management styles will tend to become more similar to those found in developed nations”.
1. List the main similarities and differences of Japanese and Korean management styles.
Answer: The similarity in Korea and Japan in their management style begins with recognizing the growth and internationalization as one of the major purposes of the organizations. Another of the similarities is related to the organization's relationship with suppliers. Both cultures see providers as a trading partner. Both the Koreans and the Japanese value the suggestions of their employees, employee participation is an important tool that both cultures recognize.
Convergence of cultures is explained by the closeness they had in the Japanese occupation and the similar position that both countries have against the market.
According to Lee et al, the difference between these two cultures can be explained by the divergence in the hierarchy orientation and in the economic environment. Other difference is in the Technology development and manufacturing area. Korea recognizes the technology as an important tool to develop economies of scale, while Japan emphasized more on flexible manufacturing, cause they prefer to be able to adapt fast to market changes.
2 . What is isomorphism? Do you think organizations change management styles to adapt to the environment? Which environment is stronger: national environment or international environment?
Answer: In the document: Do organizational cultures replicate national cultures? Isomorphism, rejection and reciprocal opposition in the corporate values of three countries, written by Nelson, Reed E (2003) , Isomorphism is explained as the phenomenon of change in which “organization structures and practices must 'fit' the environment in which they are embedded”. The same text also said that “organizations must be isomorphic with their environments if they are to survive and prosper.”
As a personal opinion I think that organizations change their culture to adapt to the market, Carrefour, for example, change the way they sell to customers when they entered the Chinese market.
Define which dominated environment within an organization is almost impossible, because depending on the situation, an organization will have to change a few times its internal environment.
References:
• Do organizational cultures replicate national cultures? Isomorphism, rejection and reciprocal opposition in the corporate values of three countries. Nelson, Reed E.; Gopalan, Suresh (2003)
• World culture and Transnational Corporations. John Boli & Donjah Hartsuijker. Emory University
