1. In these team environments, it takes longer to get tasks done. Is this an important consideration in determining whether or not a team approach is effective? Why or why not? 2. Besides time, what are some other important dynamics? Give two specific strengths and two weaknesses of teams in the workplace. 3. Does the type of organization and its work/projects make a difference on how and when to use teams? Use IBM vs. the others you found as examples in your answer. Real Case: There Are Teams, and There Are Teams One of the most difficult challenges for multinational managers is that of understanding how to manage groups and teams across cultures. What works in the home country often has no value in other cultures. For example, in the late 1990s, while the Japanese economy continued to stagger, a number of U.S.-based multinational firms entered the Japanese market to take advantage of the weak competition. Large U.S. retailers set up super stores in Japan with a wide variety of offerings and low prices. However, Japanese customers found these stores to be too big and impersonal for many types of goods and preferred to shop at smaller, locally owned stores. As a professor of marketing at a Japanese business school put it, “Retailing is such a local business, it’s not that easy to succeed.” The same challenges of appealing to Japanese customers also hold true for managing Japanese employees. What works in the United States often has little value in Japan. For example, in the United States it is common for firms to have work groups compete against each other and to reward the winning teams. In Japan’s collectivist cultural values, openly competing with others is frowned on. Those who win feel embarrassed and those who lose feel a sense of shame and loss of face. A good example is provided by an American manager who was in charge of a major department in a Japan-based, multinational bank. The manager, in an effort to increase the profits of his department, came up with a fairly simple idea. It involved combining two different futures contracts to create an arbitrage position (i.e., the simultaneous purchase and sale of the same securities and foreign exchange in different markets to then profit from unequal prices). A number of the bank’s non-Japanese competitors were making money with this type of strategy, and the manager felt that his bank could do the same. Unfortunately, this is not what happened. When he presented this idea to the senior-level management group, the Japanese managers convinced the rest of their colleagues to veto it. Their reasoning was grounded in an understanding of Japanese culture. Because two different futures would have to be traded by two different departments, one group would make money on the trade and the other would lose. So even though the overall bank would profit from the two transactions, the Japanese managers realized that the group that lost money would be embarrassed in front of its peers and lose face. This same situation applies when Japanese firms compete against each other for a local market. There is great social pressure for each of the competing firms to retain their relative position. Thus Sony would not attempt to dislodge Mitsubishi and become the largest competitor in a particular industry. Only when Japanese firms go international do they compete strongly for market share—and this is against local competitors in the foreign market and not each other. Performance appraisal is another good example. If an American employee does not do a good job, the person may be replaced. However, this seldom happens in Japan. So when American and Japanese firms create a joint venture and assign teams to the undertaking, the Japanese do not use the same type of individual performance requirements. The Americans want results, but the Japanese are often more interested in everyone in the team being cooperative and helpful. Harmony is more important than productivity, and seldom is any direct action taken against poorly performing individual employees. However, the peers/teammates may subtly get the low performer straigtened out in an informal setting such as over drinks or on a fishing trip. Another difference between American and Japanese teams is that U.S. managers try very hard to let their people know what is to be done, when it is to be completed, and how progress or performance will be determined. For example, the boss might say, “I want your team to take a look at our major competitors and tell me three products that they are likely to bring to market over the next six months.” The Japanese manager will be much more indirect and vague. The Japanese exec might say something like, “What product changes do you think we can expect from the competition in the future?” As a result of these directives, the American team will generate a fairly short, well-focused report that contains a great deal of specific information. The Japanese team will submit a very long, detailed report that covers all aspects of the competition and provides a wealth of information on a host of products that may be introduced into the marketplace over the next year.
1. In these team environments, it takes longer to get tasks done. Is this an important consideration in determining whether or not a team approach is effective? Why or why not?
2. Besides time, what are some other important dynamics? Give two specific strengths and two weaknesses of teams in the workplace.
3. Does the type of organization and its work/projects make a difference on how and when to use teams? Use IBM vs. the others you found as examples in your answer.
Real Case: There Are Teams, and There Are Teams
One of the most difficult challenges for multinational managers is that of understanding how to manage groups and teams across cultures. What works in the home country often has no value in other cultures. For example, in the late 1990s, while the Japanese economy continued to stagger, a number of U.S.-based multinational firms entered the Japanese market to take advantage of the weak competition. Large U.S. retailers set up super stores in Japan with a wide variety of offerings and low prices. However, Japanese customers found these stores to be too big and impersonal for many types of goods and preferred to shop at smaller, locally owned stores. As a professor of marketing at a Japanese business school put it, “Retailing is such a local business, it’s not that easy to succeed.”
The same challenges of appealing to Japanese customers also hold true for managing Japanese employees. What works in the United States often has little value in Japan. For example, in the United States it is common for firms to have work groups compete against each other and to reward the winning teams. In Japan’s collectivist cultural values, openly competing with others is frowned on. Those who win feel embarrassed and those who lose feel a sense of shame and loss of face. A good example is provided by an American manager who was in charge of a major department in a Japan-based, multinational bank. The manager, in an effort to increase the profits of his department, came up with a fairly simple idea. It involved combining two different futures contracts to create an arbitrage position (i.e., the simultaneous purchase and sale of the same securities and foreign exchange in different markets to then profit from unequal prices). A number of the bank’s non-Japanese competitors were making money with this type of strategy, and the manager felt that his bank could do the same. Unfortunately, this is not what happened. When he presented this idea to the senior-level management group, the Japanese managers convinced the rest of their colleagues to veto it. Their reasoning was grounded in an understanding of Japanese culture. Because two different futures would have to be traded by two different departments, one group would make money on the trade and the other would lose. So even though the overall bank would profit from the two transactions, the Japanese managers realized that the group that lost money would be embarrassed in front of its peers and lose face.
This same situation applies when Japanese firms compete against each other for a local market. There is great social pressure for each of the competing firms to retain their relative position. Thus Sony would not attempt to dislodge Mitsubishi and become the largest competitor in a particular industry. Only when Japanese firms go international do they compete strongly for market share—and this is against local competitors in the foreign market and not each other.
Performance appraisal is another good example. If an American employee does not do a good job, the person may be replaced. However, this seldom happens in Japan. So when American and Japanese firms create a joint venture and assign teams to the undertaking, the Japanese do not use the same type of individual performance requirements. The Americans want results, but the Japanese are often more interested in everyone in the team being cooperative and helpful. Harmony is more important than productivity, and seldom is any direct action taken against poorly performing individual employees. However, the peers/teammates may subtly get the low performer straigtened out in an informal setting such as over drinks or on a fishing trip.
Another difference between American and Japanese teams is that U.S. managers try very hard to let their people know what is to be done, when it is to be completed, and how progress or performance will be determined. For example, the boss might say, “I want your team to take a look at our major competitors and tell me three products that they are likely to bring to market over the next six months.” The Japanese manager will be much more indirect and vague. The Japanese exec might say something like, “What product changes do you think we can expect from the competition in the future?” As a result of these directives, the American team will generate a fairly short, well-focused report that contains a great deal of specific information. The Japanese team will submit a very long, detailed report that covers all aspects of the competition and provides a wealth of information on a host of products that may be introduced into the marketplace over the next year.
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
