The Role of the Government on Tobacco Use Essay Example for Free

The Role of the Government on Tobacco Use Essay The article, â€Å"If It’s Good For Philip Morris, Can It Also Be Good for Public Health?,† which was written by business columnist Joe Nocera and published in the New York Times, basically explores the realities concerning the government, particularly the Food and Drug Administration, and the regulation of tobacco use. According to the article, although tobacco company executives themselves, notably Steve Parrish, senior vice-president of Philip Morris have openly supported the regulation of tobacco use, it appears that the move lacks a concerted effort from the government. Moreover, it is also apparent that tobacco executives like Parrish have their personal business agendas in advocating tobacco regulation. In general, it is safe to assume that the public is more than aware about the dangers and health risks associated with tobacco smoking such as lung cancer, emphysema, and various heart diseases, among others. However, it is interesting to note that despite the various campaigns against tobacco smoking and other educational advertisements about it, there are still millions of people around the world who smoke. In fact, based on the article, in 2005, Philip Morris USA alone hauled in $4.6 billion in profits. In this regard, it is quite obvious that the government’s main role is to somehow regulate tobacco use so that smokers will not suffer its deadly effects. However, this is easier said that done. According to the article, while there have been several initiatives to regulate tobacco use in the past, such as the ban on all cigarette advertisements, it seems to fall short when it comes to the actual implementation. The first plausible reason behind this is that the regulation would mean decrease in profits for tobacco companies, which in turn, would affect tobacco factory workers. And considering the global financial crisis, loss of jobs is not a logical option even though it’s for the benefit of the public’s health. In short, while the government’s duty in tobacco use is clear, it is virtually powerless to make any strong moves that would fulfill their role. The tobacco executives, on the other hand, may show that they support tobacco regulation, but their true motives are unclear. After all, they are still businessmen and it would not be surprising if their actions are simply meant to earn additional profits. References Nocera, J. (2006). If It’s Good For Philip Morris, Can It Also Be Good for Public Health? The New York Times. Retrieved April 17, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/magazine/18tobacco.html?pagewanted=3_r=1.

Neoclassicism and the Enlightenment Essay -- Neoclassical Movement

Neoclassicism and the Enlightenment The Enlightenment was a time of great innovation and evolution. One of the most significant movements which owes at least the majority of its beginnings to the Enlightenment is the architectural and artistic movement of Neoclassicism. This Neoclassicism of the mid eighteenth to mid nineteenth centuries is one that valued ancient Greek, Roman, and Etruscan artistic ideals. These ideals, including order, symmetry, and balance, were considered by many European generations to be the highest point of artistic excellence. Although many movements in European art were largely devoid of classical characteristics, they were always looked to as sources of inspiration and were revived as significant movements at least three times throughout European history, in the twelfth century, during the Renaissance, and during the age of the present topic, the Enlightenment, with its development of Neoclassicism. There are several events and movements within the Enlightenment that contributed to the rise of Neoclassicism. The expansion, evolution, and redefinition of the European standard classical education was one of the greatest causes, as well was the then recent archeological discoveries of Pompeii and Herculaneum. The rise in commissioned art and architecture and the refinement of art scholarship also gave rise to this movement. Finally, the general reaction to the exorbitant styles of Baroque and Rococo necessitated a return to the more orderly ideals of antiquity. The Neoclassical movement, for the purposes of this paper, can be defined as the movement that, from 1750 to 1830, looked back to the Greek and Roman artists, philosophers, and ideals as the highest point in artistic achievement and then attempted to combine antiquity's feelings of solidarity and harmony with new designs to create a vibrant and exciting, yet distinguished and restrained art form. From the "rustic hut" to Doric to Corinthian the art of the ancients was seen as a perfect blend of "order, symmetry, and simplicity of style."[1] This is what the artists and architects of France, England, and Italy sought to integrate into their art. One of the earliest causes for the rise of Neoclassicism is the reaction by many Enlightenment thinkers to Rococo and Baroque art. The Baroque was too busy and ornamental for many people and ... ...ding Baroque and Rococo forms. Neoclassicism was the dominant art form through a turbulent period in history. It influenced and weathered several national revolutions and international wars and because of its strength and balance, perhaps the era was made all the stronger because of the art and architecture that was the backdrop for the action of the age. Bibliography Irwin, David. Neoclassicism. London, Phaidon, 1997. Watkin, David. German Architecture and the Classical Ideal. Cambridge, MIT Press 1987. Rosenblum and Janson. 19th Century Art. New York, Abrams, 1984. Sculpture, 1760-1840." Eighteenth-Century Studies Vol. 34 (2000): 135 Hutton, J. "Neoclassicism." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. Vol. 35 (1998): 1843 http://virtual.park.uga.edu/~232/voc/neoclassicism.voc.html http://www.grovereference.com/TDA/Samples/Neo.htm http://mistral.culture.fr/lumiere/documents/files/imaginary_exhibition.html http://mistral.culture.fr/lumiere/documents/files/cadre_historique.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=neoclassicism [2] Irwin, 87 [3] Irwin, 98

The Cultural Anchoring Of Leadership Styles

With globalisation and related intensification of trade and commerce effective leadership has become indispensable in the business world. Where traditionally the business leader took the role of commanding â€Å"the troops† towards effectiveness and efficiency this has changed dramatically over the last decades. The service industry rise, knowledge management trends, increased workforce diversity combined with international trading and global sourcing of talent, has considerably reshaped the role of the leader in the contemporary organisation.Numerous firms are in global alliances depending upon flexibility/adaptability to local markets, requiring their managers to possess appropriate leadership styles to cope effectively with different value systems and cultures (Fahy, 2002; Coviello et al. , 1998). 2Arguably, the flattening of hierarchical structures has also contributed to this reshaping process as traditional sources of authority, upon which leaders have built on for years , have been diminished.Combined with the rise of new trading powers such as the â€Å"Asian Dragon†, business leaders, especially in international MNEs do not only face domestic multiculturalism and diversity but are also increasingly expatriated. Consequently completely new cultural pitfalls and challenges are faced requiring understanding of cultural values as well as quick cultural adaptation to transfer domestic leadership abilities into foreign markets. Combined with steadily rising competitive pressures, the contemporary business leader in a role not easily filled.Despite leadership being a universal concept (Bass, 1990), with most literature anchored in the (individualistically oriented) US, it has been questioned to what extend western leadership styles are cross-culturally transferable (Dorfman, 2003). Resultantly, debate has sparked over how far leadership is culturally contingent, if universal leadership qualities and tactics exist and what the explanatory variable s are (Scandura & Dorfman, 2004).This assignment aims at contributing towards this debate by exploring leadership disparity and possible congruence between the UK and Japan using academic measurement of national culture; Hofstede’s framework respectively. The next section will give an overview over the concept of leadership followed by an in-depth cultural comparison and concluding section. 4The term leadership incorporates some elements of controversy over its meaning and practices. Different cultural gist or terminology or in cross-cultural contexts makes a universal definition difficult (Yukl, 2002).This seems unsurprising as the understandings and expectations of authority roles differ between cultures. Nevertheless, despite cultural differences the majority of leadership definitions reflect some basic elements these manly being â€Å"group†, â€Å"influence† and â€Å"goal† (Bryman, 1992). Keeping this in mind, leadership can be seen as the â€Å"pr ocess of influencing others towards achieving some kind of desired outcome. † (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007, p. 44) or bluntly spoken â€Å"leadership is the ability to get [people] to do what they don’t like to do and like it†Whilst this is a very basic attempt of a definition it allows for easier application in a cross-cultural context and highlights an important point: In order to lead one needs followers (Drucker, 2007). It is here where the inseparable link to power emerges whereby the power of leaders is largely dependent upon the perception of others (Hollander & Julian, 1969; Maurer & Lord, 1991; Pfeffer, 1977) but nevertheless forms the basis of leadership authority.It appears that only effective use of this power, combined with â€Å"leading by example† (Pfeffer, 1981) will result in positive and proactive guidance fostering creativity, innovation, commitment and long term organisational development. 6However, this is questionable and it seems that far too often in academic literature the terms â€Å"manager† and â€Å"leader† are merged giving a blurred picture of what each role actually entails. Readers should be reminded that leaders, unlike managers, do not have to rely on forms of power to influence subordinates, often actually relinquishing formal authoritarian control.This is due to the idea that to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity. Nevertheless, it can be argued that even leaders need some foundation of authority; may it only be their charisma (Weber, 1968). This has been manifested in the participative, charismatic or transformative styles of leadership (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001) as oppose to the transactional style more related to operational, task focused managers.Especially in western economies with predominant service industries, innovation and knowledge management, the former have been the focal point in recent years as autocratic leadership styles do no lon ger seem sufficient to extract the full potential of an increasingly knowledgeable, highly skilled and demanding workforce. Such, arguably â€Å"softer† approaches fostering employee involvement and participation have nevertheless been proven to result in increased organisational performance (Bass, 1996; 1997; House & Shamir, 1993) and are arguably more â€Å"ideal† forms of organisational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1989).This might be applicable to western societies yet a cross-cultural generalisation might be prejudiced and the influence of personal values and cultural influences upon leadership styles should not be ignored (Byrne & Bradley, 2007). Rather, culture, an essential component of which is personal values (Kroeber, 1952; Kluckhohm, 1949), is to be seen at a centre stage when analysing leadership differences (George et al. , 1998; Nakata & Sivakumar, 1996; Steenkamp et al. , 1999; Cadogan et al. 2001), as t is â€Å"the collective programming of the mind wh ich distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another† (Hofstede, 1980, p.260) and shape leadership preferences.Culture hereby should not be limited to national culture but has to be extended to incorporating organisational as well as political culture (Schein, 1985), the latter two arguably being extensively shaped by the former. Democratic or authoritarian political systems, national values regarding sex differences and ethical behaviour as well as organisational attitudes towards factors such as centralisation and work attitude, undoubtedly influence leadership styles.Not only will such factors shape leadership approaches, but with regard to cultural differences these will often even stand in conflict to each other. Consequently domestically implemented leadership approaches might not be applicable in other cultural settings and render ineffective in maintaining firm sustained competitive advantage and superior international performance (Kimber, 1997 ; Jackson and Aycan, 2001; Pfeffer, 2002).The next section will investigate the effect of cultural values upon leadership styles in detail using the U and Japan as examples. 9British leadership style has often been described as more casual in nature fostering teamwork and seeking group consensus (Lewis, 2001). As such, a more participative leadership style is predominant reflecting flatter hierarchical structures in UK organisations. So, hierarchical structures not primarily seem as means to establish authority structures (Laurent, 1983) but more as core administrative frameworks.This according to Hofstede (2001), is a reflection of the UK’s low association to Power Distance. Essentially, subordinates do not attribute much to position and title and leaders must â€Å"embody a collective will and take personal responsibility for it while continuing to communicate and co-operate with the team† (Mole, 1990, p. 105). Unsurprisingly, networking capability and people managem ent skills are highly valued in the UK (Stewart et al. 1994) as leadership qualities.Nevertheless, this (collectivist) team and people orientation is mainly seem as a path towards achieving organisational targets and innovation assuring individuals in team settings aggregate knowledge that has strategic relevance to the organisation (Miller &Morris, 1999). As such transformational leadership attitudes (Burns, 1978) can be seen where leaders are to create conditions under which subordinates devotedly contribute to the organisation yet this is done primarily through a strategic lens. (McCarthy, 2005).Nevertheless, the Anglo-Saxon system of shareholder satisfaction drives leaders towards task orientation often combined with a short-term outlook. As such quick, short-term organisational (financial) success is often more valued than long-term organisational success and relationship building, reflecting according to Hofstede, a culture of highly short term orientation and low uncertainty avoidance. Essentially, risks are seen as part of daily business practice and leadership approaches reflect that subordinates are given opportunity to implement potentially rewarding, but high risk, strategies.This shows that, despite team orientation and a one might say more relaxed, friendly and diplomatic leadership style, the British cannot deny their American leadership style influence, fostering structured individualism, speed and drive (Lewis, 2001). Falsely, m any authors seem to ignore this connection, even so influences of hire and fire mentality and the creating of specialist roles underlining a core individualistic attitude are undeniable reflecting British national, and interlinked to that, legal and organisational culture.Such individualistic attitude constantly resurfaces in leadership styles often portrayed through individual target setting, remuneration practices and shorter employment contracts. Employees do not look for lifetime employment and a steady career in o ne company resultantly British leaders are more reluctant to invest heavily in the training and education of subordinates (Schneider & Littrell, 2003). This continues to the often actively sought after and purposely created assertive and competitive environment amongst colleagues or departments reflecting a relatively high masculine attitude as Hofstede’s culture scale clearly outlines.While these attributes sketch general aspects of British leadership, styles will vary between organisations, industries and individuals. Service- or R&D intensive industries for example, will follow a more Theory Y (McGregor, 1960) approach fostering employee involvement and empowerment. Leadership on traditional manufacturing industries on the other hand due to their reliance on productivity and output combined with an often repetitive working atmosphere, might take a more Theory X attitude.In contrast to the UK, Japanese leadership, like many Asian countries, is grounded in Confucian principl es (Redding, 1990; Tan, 1986) and despite rising western influences, strong Confucian traits believing in moral, interpersonal relationships/loyalties, education and hard work still lurk beneath the surface (Lewis, 2001). Especially â€Å"taking the family as a model for society at large, Confucianism is basically authoritarian and stresses hierarchical and status differences† (Selmer, 2001, p.8).As such, through its vertically orientated hierarchies and rigid organisation (Chen, 1995) one would expect Japan to score higher than the UK in Hofstede’s power distance index, and so indeed it does. This offers leaders with traditional and legitimate power bases however, surprisingly not resulting in autocratic leadership styles as one would expect, but far more the association of assertiveness-authority and reason tactics (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992).As such, Japanese leadership style rewards subordinate respect and obedience with highly paternalistic attitudes, expressed by mendo u: â€Å"I think about your, I will take care of you† (Dorfman et al. 1997). Consequently, the Japanese leadership culture, despite placing emphasising hierarchy and status differences requiring full subordinate obedience, expects helping and caring for followers and being involved in their personal lives (Whitehall & Takezawa, 1968; Bass et al.1979).As a result the most powerful force of the Japanese leader is not autocracy but charisma combined with intrinsic rather than extrinsic (materialistic) reward mechanisms often predominant in the UK: bonuses, on-target-earnings, etc. (Maslow, 1943, 1954). This seems surprising considering the high masculine score, which, from a western perspective would result in autocratic, top down, assertive, tough and focused on material success (Hofstede, 1998) leadership.It is here where Hofstede’s framework seems to only partly explain the Japanese culture and low individualism but high masculinity and power distance stand in conflict with each other. 14Additionally, in such an environment more focus towards ascription rather than achievement would be expected (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997, 2000). Nevertheless, the contrary appears in the Japanese context with leaders having to possess superior, often specific, (hard) knowledge supplemented by strong educational backgrounds (Nestler, 2008).Here another disparity to UK leadership emerges, where despite educational background being important for initial work placement, greater focus upon (soft) â€Å"people skills† and strategic directive is desired and ascription of leadership positions remains (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1994). 15The collectivist principles shape Japanese leadership style dramatically, requiring group consensus and decision-making despite extremely high masculinity and higher power distance.Essentially a â€Å"bottom-up† (ringsho) process of decision-making is chosen (Wu, 2006) with the leader granting independent decision making to the group generally letting subordinates use their own approaches to achieve overall collectivist objectives (Dorfman et al. 1997). This is surprising, as in western societies strong hierarchical structures often result in a â€Å"top-down† leadership approach but can be explained through high uncertainly avoidance collecting input and consensus from all parties involved before decisions are made.Even more so, the concepts of â€Å"wa† (maintaining social relationships) and â€Å"kao† (maintaining â€Å"face†) actually require the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process and the preservation of harmony rendering western leader contingent punishment behaviour inappropriate. It is here where Japanese leadership style diverts extensively from its UK (Anglo-Saxon) counterpart where public scrutinising is part of daily leadership practices reflecting a competitive and individualistic culture driven by short-term financial objective s with high-risk acceptance.Due to the collectivist environment and extensive future planning, Japanese managers on the other hand, do not view themselves as risk takers, despite this characteristic often being attributed to charismatic leaders (Bass, 1985). This is reflected in Japan’s extremely high uncertainty avoidance score and is further supported by strong long-term orientation valuing prevailing face and harmony. Unsurprisingly, life-long employment is desired, supplemented b continued job rotation aimed at developing employees.As a result leaders and subordinates enter into long and close relationships hardly ever interrupted contrasting the UK’s â€Å"burn out† environment fostering high staff turnover. Unlike in the UK, Japanese business leaders look for generalist employees capable of working in multiple levels of the organisation reflecting a society placing less value upon specialists than western cultures. 17Overall, Japanese leaders focus upon co llective (not individual) responsibility (Hayashi, 1988) and group harmony maintenance is usually considered more important than profitability and overall productivity (Bass, 1990).Nevertheless, also Japanese leaders have to drive performance resulting in somewhat of a trade-off situation between performance and collectivist harmony maintenance. According to the performance-maintenance theory (Misumi, 1990), Japanese leaders have to chose between goal achievement and the continuation of the group, preferably combining high levels of both (Misumi, 1995). If this is achieved, such supportive or participative leadership styles (Ouchi, 1981) are said to result in â€Å"higher levels of motivation, delegation of decision-making, commitment, and intrinsic job satisfaction† (Keys and Miller, 1982, p.6). This appears to be in line with the currently preferred leadership style in the UK.However, one should not forget that unlike the Japanese working environment, the UK has been subjec t to great inward as well as outward FDI flows resulting in a blending of many different leadership approaches. As such arguably UK leaders would find it easier to adapt to Japanese principles than Japanese leaders. This is due to the western â€Å"farce† of collectivist team working for individualistic goals and the limited respect paid to status differences.While Hofstede’s framework helps to understand the leadership differences between the two countries if fails to explain some factors. So for examples does high Japanese power distance explain hierarchical structures and respect to superiors but the theoretical assumptions of complete centralisation of power, low emphasis on developing the workforce and autocratic top-down contact initiation (Hofstede, 1991) do not fully reflect the Japanese working environment.On this note one should not forget that Hofstede’s framework is not free of criticism and arguably is outdated, limited in scope of methodology and m easurement (Dorfman and Howell, 1988; Roberts and Boyciligiller, 1984) and only reflects a blend of organisational (IBM) culture and national cultures (Hunt, 1983; Robinson, 1983). As such it is no surprise that other studies such as the GLOBE project have found differing or even contradictory results for similar cultural dimensions. The Cultural Anchoring Of Leadership Styles With globalisation and related intensification of trade and commerce effective leadership has become indispensable in the business world. Where traditionally the business leader took the role of commanding â€Å"the troops† towards effectiveness and efficiency this has changed dramatically over the last decades.The service industry rise, knowledge management trends, increased workforce diversity combined with international trading and global sourcing of talent, has considerably reshaped the role of the leader in the contemporary organisation. Numerous firms are in global alliances depending upon flexibility/adaptability to local markets, requiring their managers to possess appropriate leadership styles to cope effectively with different value systems and cultures (Fahy, 2002; Coviello et al., 1998).Arguably, the flattening of hierarchical structures has also contributed to this reshaping process as traditional sources of authority, upon which leaders have built on for years, h ave been diminished. Combined with the rise of new trading powers such as the â€Å"Asian Dragon†, business leaders, especially in international MNEs do not only face domestic multiculturalism and diversity but are also increasingly expatriated.Consequently completely new cultural pitfalls and challenges are faced requiring understanding of cultural values as well as quick cultural adaptation to transfer domestic leadership abilities into foreign markets. Combined with steadily rising competitive pressures, the contemporary business leader in a role not easily filled.Despite leadership being a universal concept (Bass, 1990), with most literature anchored in the (individualistically oriented) US, it has been questioned to what extend western leadership styles are cross-culturally transferable (Dorfman, 2003). Resultantly, debate has sparked over how far leadership is culturally contingent, if universal leadership qualities and tactics exist and what the explanatory variables a re (Scandura & Dorfman, 2004).This assignment aims at contributing towards this debate by exploring leadership disparity and possible congruence between the UK and Japan using academic measurement of national culture; Hofstede’s framework respectively. The next section will give an overview over the concept of leadership followed by an in-depth cultural comparison and concluding section.The term leadership incorporates some elements of controversy over its meaning and practices. Different cultural gist or terminology or in cross-cultural contexts makes a universal definition difficult (Yukl, 2002). This seems unsurprising as the understandings and expectations of authority roles differ between cultures. Nevertheless, despite cultural differences the majority of leadership definitions reflect some basic elements these manly being â€Å"group†, â€Å"influence† and â€Å"goal† (Bryman, 1992).Keeping this in mind, leadership can be seen as the â€Å"process of influencing others towards achieving some kind of desired outcome.† (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007, p. 44) or bluntly spoken â€Å"leadership is the ability to get [people] to do what they don’t like to do and like it† (Truman in Sadler, 2003, p. 5).Whilst this is a very basic attempt of a definition it allows for easier application in a cross-cultural context and highlights an important point: In order to lead one needs followers (Drucker, 2007). It is here where the inseparable link to power emerges whereby the power of leaders is largely dependent upon the perception of others (Hollander & Julian, 1969; Maurer & Lord, 1991; Pfeffer, 1977) but nevertheless forms the basis of leadership authority. It appears that only effective use of this power, combined with â€Å"leading by example† (Pfeffer, 1981) will result in positive and proactive guidance fostering creativity, innovation, commitment and long term organisational development.However, this is quest ionable and it seems that far too often in academic literature the terms â€Å"manager† and â€Å"leader† are merged giving a blurred picture of what each role actually entails. Readers should be reminded that leaders, unlike managers, do not have to rely on forms of power to influence subordinates, often actually relinquishing formal authoritarian control. This is due to the idea that to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity.Nevertheless, it can be argued that even leaders need some foundation of authority; may it only be their charisma (Weber, 1968). This has been manifested in the participative, charismatic or transformative styles of leadership (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001) as oppose to the transactional style more related to operational, task focused  managers. Especially in western economies with predominant service industries, innovation and knowledge management, the former have been the focal point in recent years as autocrati c leadership styles do no longer seem sufficient to extract the full potential of an increasingly knowledgeable, highly skilled and demanding workforce.Such, arguably â€Å"softer† approaches fostering employee involvement and participation have nevertheless been proven to result in increased organisational performance (Bass, 1996; 1997; House & Shamir, 1993) and are arguably more â€Å"ideal† forms of organisational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1989).This might be applicable to western societies yet a cross-cultural generalisation might be prejudiced and the influence of personal values and cultural influences upon leadership styles should not be ignored (Byrne & Bradley, 2007). Rather, culture, an essential component of which is personal values (Kroeber, 1952; Kluckhohm, 1949), is to be seen at a centre stage when analysing leadership differences (George et al., 1998; Nakata & Sivakumar, 1996; Steenkamp et al., 1999; Cadogan et al. 2001), as t is â€Å"the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another† (Hofstede, 1980, p. 260) and shape leadership preferences.Culture hereby should not be limited to national culture but has to be extended to incorporating organisational as well as political culture (Schein, 1985), the latter two arguably being extensively shaped by the former. Democratic or authoritarian political systems, national values regarding sex differences and ethical behaviour as well as organisational attitudes towards factors such as centralisation and work attitude, undoubtedly influence leadership styles.Not only will such factors shape leadership approaches, but with regard to cultural differences these will often even stand in conflict to each other. Consequently domestically implemented leadership approaches might not be applicable in other cultural settings and render ineffective in maintaining firm sustained competitive advantage and superior internationa l performance (Kimber, 1997; Jackson and Aycan, 2001; Pfeffer, 2002). The next section will investigate the effect of cultural values upon leadership styles in detail using the U and Japan as examples.British leadership style has often been described as more casual in nature fostering teamwork and seeking group consensus (Lewis, 2001). As such, a more participative leadership style is predominant reflecting flatter hierarchical structures in UK organisations. So, hierarchical structures not primarily seem as means to establish authority structures (Laurent, 1983) but more as core administrative frameworks. This according to Hofstede (2001), is a reflection of the UK’s low association to Power Distance. Essentially, subordinates do not attribute much to position and title and leaders must â€Å"embody a collective will and take personal responsibility for it while continuing to communicate and co-operate with the team† (Mole, 1990, p. 105).Unsurprisingly, networking cap ability and people management skills are highly valued in the UK (Stewart et al. 1994) as leadership qualities. Nevertheless, this (collectivist) team and people orientation is mainly seem as a path towards achieving organisational targets and innovation assuring individuals in team settings aggregate knowledge that has strategic relevance to the organisation (Miller &Morris, 1999). As such transformational leadership attitudes (Burns, 1978) can be seen where leaders are to create conditions under which subordinates devotedly contribute to the organisation yet this is done primarily through a strategic lens. (McCarthy, 2005).Nevertheless, the Anglo-Saxon system of shareholder satisfaction drives leaders towards task orientation often combined with a short-term outlook. As such quick, short-term organisational (financial) success is often more valued than long-term organisational success and relationship building, reflecting according to Hofstede, a culture of highly short term orien tation and low uncertainty avoidance. Essentially, risks are seen as part of daily business practice and leadership approaches reflect that subordinates are given opportunity to implement potentially rewarding, but high risk, strategies.This shows that, despite team orientation and a one might say more relaxed, friendly and diplomatic leadership style, the British cannot deny their American leadership style influence, fostering structured individualism, speed and drive (Lewis, 2001). Falsely, m any authors seem to  ignore this connection, even so influences of hire and fire mentality and the creating of specialist roles underlining a core individualistic attitude are undeniable reflecting British national, and interlinked to that, legal and organisational culture. Such individualistic attitude constantly resurfaces in leadership styles often portrayed through individual target setting, remuneration practices and shorter employment contracts.Employees do not look for lifetime emplo yment and a steady career in one company resultantly British leaders are more reluctant to invest heavily in the training and education of subordinates (Schneider & Littrell, 2003). This continues to the often actively sought after and purposely created assertive and competitive environment amongst colleagues or departments reflecting a relatively high masculine attitude as Hofstede’s culture scale clearly outlines.While these attributes sketch general aspects of British leadership, styles will vary between organisations, industries and individuals. Service- or R&D intensive industries for example, will follow a more Theory Y (McGregor, 1960) approach fostering employee involvement and empowerment. Leadership on traditional manufacturing industries on the other hand due to their reliance on productivity and output combined with an often repetitive working atmosphere, might take a more Theory X attitude.In contrast to the UK, Japanese leadership, like many Asian countries, is grounded in Confucian principles (Redding, 1990; Tan, 1986) and despite rising western influences, strong Confucian traits believing in moral, interpersonal relationships/loyalties, education and hard work still lurk beneath the surface (Lewis, 2001). Especially â€Å"taking the family as a model for society at large, Confucianism is basically authoritarian and stresses hierarchical and status differences† (Selmer, 2001, p. 8).As such, through its vertically orientated hierarchies and rigid organisation (Chen, 1995) one would expect Japan to score higher than the UK in Hofstede’s power distance index, and so indeed it does. This offers leaders with traditional and legitimate power bases however, surprisingly not resulting in autocratic leadership styles as one would expect, but far more the association of assertiveness-authority and reason tactics (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992).As such, Japanese leadership style rewards subordinate respect and obedience with highly paternalisti c attitudes, expressed by mendou: â€Å"I think about your, I will take care of you† (Dorfman et al. 1997). Consequently, the Japanese leadership culture, despite placing emphasising hierarchy and status differences requiring full subordinate obedience, expects helping and caring for followers and being involved in their personal lives (Whitehall & Takezawa, 1968; Bass et al. 1979).As a result the most powerful force of the Japanese leader is not autocracy but charisma combined with intrinsic rather than extrinsic (materialistic) reward mechanisms often predominant in the UK: bonuses, on-target-earnings, etc. (Maslow, 1943, 1954). This seems surprising considering the high masculine score, which, from a western perspective would result in autocratic, top down, assertive, tough and focused on material success (Hofstede, 1998) leadership. It is here where Hofstede’s framework seems to only partly explain the Japanese culture and low individualism but high masculinity and power distance stand in conflict with each other.Additionally, in such an environment more focus towards ascription rather than achievement would be expected (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997, 2000). Nevertheless, the contrary appears in the Japanese context with leaders having to possess superior, often specific, (hard) knowledge supplemented by strong educational backgrounds (Nestler, 2008). Here another disparity to UK leadership emerges, where despite educational background being important for initial work placement, greater focus upon (soft) â€Å"people skills† and strategic directive is desired and ascription of leadership positions remains (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1994).The collectivist principles shape Japanese leadership style dramatically, requiring group consensus and decision-making despite extremely high masculinity and higher power distance. Essentially a â€Å"bottom-up† (ringsho) process of decision-making is chosen (Wu, 2006) with the leader granting independent decision making to the group generally letting subordinates use their own approaches to achieve overall collectivist objectives (Dorfman et al. 1997). This is surprising, as in western societies strong hierarchical  structures often result in a â€Å"top-down† leadership approach but can be explained through high uncertainly avoidance collecting input and consensus from all parties involved before decisions are made.Even more so, the concepts of â€Å"wa† (maintaining social relationships) and â€Å"kao† (maintaining â€Å"face†) actually require the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process and the preservation of harmony rendering western leader contingent punishment behaviour inappropriate. It is here where Japanese leadership style diverts extensively from its UK (Anglo-Saxon) counterpart where public scrutinising is part of daily leadership practices reflecting a competitive and individualistic culture driven b y short-term financial objectives with high-risk acceptance.Due to the collectivist environment and extensive future planning, Japanese managers on the other hand, do not view themselves as risk takers, despite this characteristic often being attributed to charismatic leaders (Bass, 1985). This is reflected in Japan’s extremely high uncertainty avoidance score and is further supported by strong long-term orientation valuing prevailing face and harmony. Unsurprisingly, life-long employment is desired, supplemented b continued job rotation aimed at developing employees.As a result leaders and subordinates enter into long and close relationships hardly ever interrupted contrasting the UK’s â€Å"burn out† environment fostering high staff turnover. Unlike in the UK, Japanese business leaders look for generalist employees capable of working in multiple levels of the organisation reflecting a society placing less value upon specialists than western cultures.Overall, J apanese leaders focus upon collective (not individual) responsibility (Hayashi, 1988) and group harmony maintenance is usually considered more important than profitability and overall productivity (Bass, 1990). Nevertheless, also Japanese leaders have to drive performance resulting in somewhat of a trade-off situation between performance and collectivist harmony maintenance. According to the performance-maintenance theory (Misumi, 1990), Japanese leaders have to chose between goal achievement and the continuation of the group, preferably combining high levels of both (Misumi, 1995).If this is achieved, such supportive or  participative leadership styles (Ouchi, 1981) are said to result in â€Å"higher levels of motivation, delegation of decision-making, commitment, and intrinsic job satisfaction† (Keys and Miller, 1982, p. 6). This appears to be in line with the currently preferred leadership style in the UK. However, one should not forget that unlike the Japanese working e nvironment, the UK has been subject to great inward as well as outward FDI flows resulting in a blending of many different leadership approaches. As such arguably UK leaders would find it easier to adapt to Japanese principles than Japanese leaders. This is due to the western â€Å"farce† of collectivist team working for individualistic goals and the limited respect paid to status differences.While Hofstede’s framework helps to understand the leadership differences between the two countries if fails to explain some factors. So for examples does high Japanese power distance explain hierarchical structures and respect to superiors but the theoretical assumptions of complete centralisation of power, low emphasis on developing the workforce and autocratic top-down contact initiation (Hofstede, 1991) do not fully reflect the Japanese working environment.On this note one should not forget that Hofstede’s framework is not free of criticism and arguably is outdated, lim ited in scope of methodology and measurement (Dorfman and Howell, 1988; Roberts and Boyciligiller, 1984) and only reflects a blend of organisational (IBM) culture and national cultures (Hunt, 1983; Robinson, 1983). As such it is no surprise that other studies such as the GLOBE project have found differing or even contradictory results for similar cultural dimensions.

Australian Gold Brand Analysis - 1660 Words

Landscape and Brand Analysis: Australian Gold Background Australian Gold is one of the fastest-growing sun care brands in the United States.2 Owned by New Sunshine LLC it was founded in central Indiana 26 years ago.3 Australian Gold is â€Å"sold in more than 50 countries [worldwide and] is recognized by its mascot â€Å"Sydney† a koala bear riding the waves on a golden brown surfboard†.5 The company’s headquarters is located in Indiana but they also have a â€Å"research and development lab and a manufacturing facility in Tempe, Arizona† as well as a distribution center in Tampa, Florida.3 SWOT Analysis Strengths * Global brand * Sold in more than 50 countries worldwide5 * Recognizable mascot, â€Å"Sydney† the koala5 * Brand history,†¦show more content†¦This helps to promote brand loyalty and increases sales.9 Australian Gold has created value through the extensive training that they provide for tanning salon employees. By doing this employees can clearly and effectively communicate the benefits of Australian Gold’s products. This is the primary form of advertisement for the brand and helps to contribute to the brand experience. Finally, Australian Gold is focused on producing quality products for their consumers. This is another reason that they keep a close eye on product diversion. They only want authentic products on the market because they don’t want their brand to be misrepresented. Brand Equity Australian Gold was â€Å"the official sun care sponsor of the 2011 MISS UNIVERSE pageant†.2 Sponsorships like this have helped to give the brand a â€Å"certain cachet, a prestige really not found within the category†.2 This sponsorship has helped to showcase the brand. They also partnered with Donald Trump’s show Celebrity Apprentice where the celebrities were â€Å"charged with creating a marketing event for Australian Gold†.4 This sponsorship allowed the brand to connect to their audience â€Å"in an entertaining, modern and memorable way†.4 Through these two sponsorships Australian Gold has not only exposed their brand to new market segments but they have also strengthened their position as a market leader in the minds of their consumers. Brand Elements Australian Gold is well known globally, it’s sold inShow MoreRelatedFactors Affecting Hotel Hotels : A Key Reason For Economic Growth Essay1501 Words   |  7 PagesProfitability Factors: In addition to above factors in hotel industry in Gold Coastal Hotels, profitability factor also plays a vital role for Hotel Hilton. In addition there are a number of substitute products and services in the hotel industry which takes actions to make differentiation and uniqueness among competitors. Furthermore the bargaining power of the buyers is relatively higher and existence of large customer base and hotels across Gold coast helps to develop partnership business to make profits.Read MoreThe Product : Analogue Wristwatches1722 Words   |  7 PagesSITUATION ANALYSIS: Marketing Environment: Australia can boast of having one of the world’s largest economies; however, with the mining and the commodities boom at an end, the economy is slowing down. The economy grew by 0.9% in the March quarter of 2015. Job vacancy figures of the mining industry have demonstrated a decline of 10.9% in a year. As of July 2015, the unemployment rate had risen from 6.1% to 6.3%. Despite the weakening economy, low consumer confidence and sales, Australians are stillRead MoreAustralian Wine Case Study738 Words   |  3 Pagesa family owned Australian premium winery that has been the best named winery in San Francisco and in the New York international wine competitions. Since they established they have bagged many critical acclaims including many international awards with the recent 19 gold medals with the 22 wines in San Francisco and their Jaraman Shiraz which hah been named shiraz of the year recently at the New York wine competition. The total awards sum up to about 3800 medals, 47 tr ophies, 418 gold medals and 984Read MoreCase Study Guided Answers1129 Words   |  5 Pagescould you use a SWOT analysis in deciding your strategy for the chain’s future in Australia? In order to compete effectively in the Australian cafà © market, Starbucks must be alert to: changes in opportunities and threats in the external environment; be equipped to take advantage of internal strengths; and be aware and realistic about its own internal weaknesses. Conducting a SWOT analysis is a valuable tool in achieving these objectives. Examples of issues in a SWOT analysis of Starbucks Australia:Read MoreA Report On Woolworths And Woolworths1674 Words   |  7 Pagescondition of Woolworths in Australia. Analysis with Porter’s five forces This part will using Porter’s five forces to analyze Woolworths in the grocery industry. The five forces are threat of new entrants, bargaining power of suppliers, bargaining power of buyers, threat of substitutes and competitive rivalry among existing firms (Ives Learmonth 1984, p. 1194). Threat of new entrants The grocery industry in Australia is not hard to entry. Although the most of Australian grocery industry are shared byRead MoreEssay940 Words   |  4 PagesCase Analysis: GLOBAL WINE WARS Recommendations for the French Wine Industry * Issues: 1. French wine makers continue to lose global market share due to the entrance of new competitors from Australia and other â€Å"New World† wine makers. French wine makers face an existential threat should they concede the U.K export market. 2. 3. 1. The wine industry as a whole is handicapped by its own traditional production issues including high and rising input costs, long value chainRead MoreAustralian Financial Review And Australian Newspapers1046 Words   |  5 PagesCountry Analysis CMST 102 Jiasui Huang 6/9/15 Australia’s newspaper In Australia, there are two national and ten state or territory daily newspapers, 35 regional dailies and 470 other regional newspapers. Most of the newspapers are owned by News Limited, a subsidiary of News Corporation, or Fairfax Media. The two national daily newspapers are The Australian Financial Review and The Australian. Other famous newspapers are The Sydney Morning Herald, The Daily Telegraph, The Age, and etc. The firstRead MoreNescafe Group Assignment2665 Words   |  11 Pagesï » ¿ Nescafe Instant Coffee Brand Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 2 2 4P analysis 3 2.1 Product strategies 3 2.2 Place strategies 4 2.3 Pricing strategy 6 2.4 Promotion Strategy 8 2.4.1 Nescafe 8 2.4.2 Moccona vs Robert Timm 9 3 Recommendations 11 3.1 Improve Market Share Strategies 11 3.2 Competitive advantage 12 4 Conclusion 14 Reference List 15 Executive Summary This report provides the marketing techniques of Australia instant coffeeRead MoreCostco Marketing Plan2024 Words   |  9 Pages1. Internal Analysis 1.1 Business Scope 1.1.1 Mission Statement To continually provide members with quality goods and services at the lowest possible prices 1.1.2 Definition Corporate Objective Costco operates membership warehouses based on the concept which offers member low prices on a limited selection of nationally branded and selected private–label products in a large range of merchandise categories which produce high sales volumes and rapid inventory turnover. Combining theRead MoreAirlines in Australia - Strategic Analysis Essay2199 Words   |  9 PagesA STRATEGIC ANALYSIS REPORT [pic] Content 1. Executive Summary 3 2. PESTEL Analysis 4 Political 4 Economic 4 Social 4 Technology 4 Legal 4 Environmental 5 3. SWOT Analysis 6 Strengths 6 Weaknesses 6 Opportunities 6 Threats 6 4. Competitive Analysis 7 a. History and competition/joint ventures 7 b. Industry size, routes, hubs and passenger numbers 9 5. Financial data 2008 14 6. Jetstar 15 New Mission Statement 15 New Value Statement