There was once a time in business when organizations were recognized by origin of country. The list of major organizations that were distinctly American was in the hundreds, perhaps thousands. Every home had Sears appliances, RCA televisions, GE light bulbs, and clothing for the family from JC Penney. The management style was written and practiced by Americans, and proved to be very successful. Today, many writers on management believe that the American culture and values which have influenced our style in management, have caused harm in other cultures that differ from the United States. In the 1950s and 60s, the prevailing belief in Europe and the United States was that management was universal and could be easily replicated across cultures. Many of the principles of management and leadership came primarily out of the United States, where executives expected these principles to easily fit in any culture, anywhere in the world. Different cultures that exercised this universal style of management were thought to lead to societies becoming more alike. The reality that the "convergence theory" could not erase the regional and cultural differences in organizations became evident in the 1970s. Organizations like the European Common Market, which used the model of the convergence theory, recognized that national differences were unique and permanent. By this time it was obvious that national and regional cultures were a part of an individual's makeup and would present challenges for management, especially for managerial and leaders of multinational and multicultural organizations. What Hofstede calls "collective mental programming" and Brake and Walker call "thinking patterns," become ingrained and common ways of thinking. Our thinking is heavily influenced by government, education, work relations, family, religion, sports, literature, architecture, and scientific theories. These influences affect leadership strategies no less than they influence other aspects of a culture. |
