The Developmental Process of Clinical Supervisors Essay

The Developmental Process of Clinical Supervisors - Essay Example Newly qualified dentists, also known as foundation dentists, are supervised for a period of one year.     Ã‚  Supervision is an extensive practice that applies and fits various contexts differently. In the clinical setting, the ultimate objective of supervision is to enhance the knowledge and skill base of the supervisee. In so doing, the practitioner realizes all-around competitiveness in his/her line of professionalism. In order to achieve the desired results, the adopted supervisory practices should fit the relationship between the supervisor and the supervisee. Over and above this, the supervision process has to be effective, an aspect that is greatly influenced by the supervisor.   Regardless of the context within which the supervisor and the supervisee interact, the supervisor should discharge his/her role effectively. In order to ensure that the supervisory process runs smoothly, a functional relationship has to be established between the parties involved. Failure to do this could often result in complexities that are likely to derail the entire process. In the clinical context, the situation is even more critical due to the factoring in of the patients or clients. Clinical practitioners do not only have to worry about the supervisor and the supervisee, but also the patient or client who is essentially the central concern in the whole process.   Supervision in the clinical setting develops the supervisee and consequently, impacts on other parties, say the patients or clients. Healthcare provision is driven by health care practitioners for the benefit of patients and clients.

Business and Ethics. Which global dimensions of collective existence Essay

Business and Ethics. Which global dimensions of collective existence are more often cited in moral considerations of global busi - Essay Example All moral ethics should be considered while developing the structure of an organization. This is the key to success for firms and it will make them flourish in the international market. â€Å"Indeed there are several factors triggering international convergence of ethical standards and ethical perceptions. A variety of initiatives by MNC’s, non governmental organizations, governments and international organizations have promoted this tendency. These efforts, along with the critical role of information technology in disseminating news and practices around the world, have elevated the forces working towards universal forms† (Yadong Luo, 2007, P. 207). Although due to globalization world now faces many challenges including the migration and condition children. The current process of globalization has impacted on patterns ad processes of transnational labour migration and has more recently led to increase in labour migration. Migration has bought about many opportunities fo r different family members. it is common that older family members finds it difficult to adjust t a new culture living style but children finds experience such a situation differently. Some of them easily cope up with the situation easily but others may find it difficult to adapt to such a situation. The migration can have mixed experiences. A recent survey points out that children of the same area have different experience on migration. But a common fact is that when migration is occurred from normally under developed section to developed area with aim a livelihood, the experience is rough for most of the families especially for children. Such situation ca mainly leads to child labour, rough, long working conditions and under payment. â€Å"The brief survey of the current wave of globalization on children shows just how large are the transformational in so many critical parts of the ordinary life† (Kaufman & Rizzini, 2002, P.16). Line of Argumentation: With the present situa tion of labour and the condition of the migrant labour it is necessary to consider the life of the people who suffers from the worst side of all these. With globalization the purpose of migration is mainly employment and the migrant labour especially children are suffering from the change situation. So it is important consider the moral values behind these process in order to protect the people from all these. â€Å"Under contemporary globalization, international labour mobility has increased, while levels of exploitation and deregulation have accelerated. Lack of legal protection for migrant workers heightens their attractiveness as instruments of 'maintaining competitiveness' because they are obliged to work in situations where decent work conditions are not enforced. Irregular migrants are especially vulnerable because the threat of apprehension and deportation thwarts unionizing and exposure of dangerous working conditions† (Taran & Geronimi, 2003). For an organization to be successful in the global market, internal and external issues regarding the organization as well the migrant labour and their families is to be considered. â€Å"From the perspective of social responsibility, business ethics embodies standards, norms and expectations that reflect a concern of major stake holders including consumers, employees, share holders, suppliers, competitors and the community†

Compare and Contrast of Agriculture Technology Between hang Dynasty and Han Dynasty Essay Example for Free

Compare and Contrast of Agriculture Technology Between hang Dynasty and Han Dynasty Essay For the past five thousand years, human civilizations have existed on the earth and constantly reforming and contributing to our society. The excellences human made are unprecedented, and the experience theses civilizations cumulated can also be continuously studied by the people nowadays. This year, we learnt many great civilizations, among the civilizations in ancient China, the Shang dynasty and the Han dynasty are the most outstanding civilizations. Their cultures are distinct and their contributions are tremendous. Although now we can find their stories, cultures and inventions only on history books, their contributions and achievements are still having deep affection to us. Agriculture is a very significant part of a civilization. Without agriculture, making progress is impossible. Agriculture is the foundation of everything. Agriculture is a good reflection of science and technology in a civilization. During the comparing and contrasting of the agriculture of Shang dynasty and Han dynasty, we can get a deeper understanding of the great knowledge and intelligent of the people of the two dynasties. We can also discover the development and progress they have made. The Shang dynasty is the second dynasty in Chinese history. The Shang Dynasty last from 1600 B. C. to 1046 B. C. and experienced three big stages. The Han dynasty can be divided into two historical period which are western Han dynasty (202 B. C. to 9 A. D. ) and eastern Han dynasty (25A. D. to 220 A. D. ) Both Shang dynasty and Han dynasty are important civilization in Chinese history. Also, both dynasties made big breakthrough in agriculture. From the research of a large number of archaeological material and oracle records, archaeologists concluded that the Shang dynasty is operating mostly on agriculture. Although at that time, the handicraft industry has been developed, agriculture is still the ifeline of the economy during Shang dynasty. Basically, the main type of agriculture during Shang dynasty was glebe farming, and in the southward of Shang dynasty, which is the Yangtze River area, the popular agriculture type was paddy fields farming. A very important reason that stimulates the development of agricultural technology during the Shang dynasty is the development of bronze industry. During Shang dynasty, the bronze industry developed very quickly. Especially in the late Shang dynasty, the development of bronze industry came into its own stage. The appearance of bronze tools made the agricultural technology developed quickly. The question that most people will concern is that how did people in Shang dynasty make bronze tools? It is true that it was a very hard process for people in the Shang dynasty to make bronze tools. So, at the beginning, the amounts of bronze tools are very limited. People in the Shang dynasty usually use carpentry tools including knife, adz, and axes to make bronze tools. In the middle Shang period, craftsmen can already made variety kinds of bronze tools like shovels, Jues, adz. However, at that time, there were no enough sources of cooper metal compared with sources of stone tools; also, the process of making bronze tools is complicated. As the result, in the middle period of Shang dynasty, bronze tools were not widely used. Also, most of the bronze tools were under the control of agricultural officers. Civilians and slaves cannot have these bronze tools. They can only use the heavy farm tools like stone spade, axes. Then, at the late period of the Shang dynasty, this problem got solved because of the expansion of the production scale. At the same time, the appearance of irrigation technology and the strict management also helped to make the development of the agriculture in the Shang dynasty. As the main production department during the Shang dynasty, the developed agricultural technology provided the society with lots of food, in this way, a large number of people leave the career of agricultural production and began to work in other aspects for example business people, officers, soldiers, professional producers and so on. The government of Han dynasty put lots of effort on the restore and development of agricultural. Han dynasty began after the perish of Qin dynasty. At the beginning of the Han dynasty, because of the long period of wars occur during the late period of the Qin dynasty, the agricultural and economy paralyzed. The people died in the wars are mostly farmers, as a result, the labor decrease and there‘s not enough people to take care of the cropland. At that time, the total population went straight down from 20 million to 8 million. Emperor Gaozu of Han solved these problems and agriculture of Han dynasty restored and developed very quickly. There were lots of innovations and invention of agriculture during the Han dynasty. These achievements can be divided into three aspects. Firstly, there are huge developments towards the irrigation. Secondly, there are improvements of agricultural tools and technology. The third one is the cultivation of crops and vegetables. At the beginning of the Han dynasty, there are flood from upstream the Yellow River every year. It is a big hazard to the residents who lived in the downstream of the Yellow River. Their croplands got destroyed and some of them lost their houses. Emperor Wudi of Han lead his people solved this problem. Thirty thousand people work together to remove the siltation of the river and planted trees on the upstream of the river. After this recuperation, there was no big flood occurred in the Yellow River. There are lots of interesting and useful inventions during the Han dynasty. Above is agriculture equipment called Libi. Libi is a plow equipped with a double moldboard. People put Libi on a plough can turns up the soil on each side of the furrow. With the Libi, the efficiency of cultivation increase. The application of Libi is a big improvement in agriculture. Also, it is nearly 1000 years earlier than Europe of using the similar thing. Above is another invention which is called Lou. It is an animal- drawn seed plough. It has three feed. With Lou, people can do cultivation job three rows at a time. Lou can do three tasks: opening ditches, sowing, covering with soil at one time. Lou made farmers during the Han dynasty save much times and did more works. Lou increased the efficiency of the busy working farmers. The popularization of cultivation works with cattle would be another development on agriculture during the Han Dynasty. At that time, the most popular ways of cultivation are two people with three cattle and one people with two cattle. The ways that cultivation using cattle made people worked easily. The third achievement that we mentioned above is the cultivation crops and vegetables. Firstly, people made the cultivation of crops regionalized. In the northern area, people grew wheat, and In the Yangtze River area and Southern area, people grew rice. Also then the scales of the cultivation get larger. Another impressive improvement on agriculture is the cultivation of vegetables. During the Han dynasty, people already has variety chooses of vegetables including the vegetables we usually eat now like celeries, carrot, taro, green onion, garlic and so on. The most amazing thing is that during Han dynasty, people already learnt to grow vegetables in the greenhouse. During the eastern Han period, there were over 20 kinds of vegetables grew in the greenhouse. The use of greenhouse is one thousand years earlier than Europe. The biggest difference of agriculture between Shang Dynasty and Han Dynasty is the mode of production. Shang dynasty is a slavery society, slaves worked collectively. Also, During Shang dynasty, the croplands were all belonged to the emperor of Shang, and he put the land law of serf society into practice. As the image show above, at that time, the roads and channel crisscross and partitioned the cropland into squares. The emperor of Shang forced people work on the cropland. The outside parts are private fields and the inside part is public field. On the opposite, during the Han dynasty, people live and cultivation in the unit of a family. People have their own croplands. This kind of mode of production was usually described as small-scale farming by individual owners. Nowadays, in the remote mountain area or countryside, people are still using this kind of mode of production. A question may come out, why the first kind of production mode didn’t last long and in the contrary the second kind of production mode last till today. In my opinion, in the Shang dynasty’s example, people don’t have their own croplands. They work hard but the wheat and rice that come out of the croplands did not belongs to them, so they are not satisfy with the works they are doing. In contrast, with the second kind of mode of production, people are glad because if they put more effort, they will get more payback, so they are satisfy with their works and willing to do better. From the analyzing of the agriculture technology and development of Shang dynasty and Han dynasty, we can certainly conclude that the development in agriculture of both dynasties are significant and they both show their incredible intelligence to us. Their inventions and new ideas gave us inspirations. We can also see the huge improvement from Shang dynasty to Han dynasty in the 800 years. Their progresses are starling.

Information Technology and the Other Degree Programs :: essays research papers

Information Technology and the Other Degree Programs Introduction This paper is primarily about the Information Technology Department and how the Information Systems, the Computer Science Departments, and Computer Engineering courses relate to Information Technology. Each of these specialties has their similarities and differences to the Information Technology department. Georgia Southern University has a strong College of Information Technology, which offers three disciplines, which are the Computer Science Department, the Information Systems Department, and the Information Technology Department. Information Technology, according to the Information Technology handout in class, can best be defined by â€Å"The typically electronic tools and techniques for gathering, storing, manipulating, and analyzing, and communicating information† (â€Å"Information Technology† handout from Web CT pg 2). Information Technology technicians sometimes overlap with Computer Engineering, Information Systems, and Computer Science departments. Students wishing to major in Information Technology must take a second discipline. This builds knowledge in other areas as they pertain to Information Technology. There is an internship that students must take, but receive no credit. There are fewer maths, and less programming, and there are no business classes in this area of specialization unless the second discipline is a business course. The Information Technology curriculum overlaps Computer Science, and Information Systems curriculum. Information Technology majors graduate with a Bachelor s of Science degree. Computer Engineering is the designing and building of the hardware for the actual computer. Georgia Southern University has no specific degree for a Computer Engineer. They have several engineering programs in the School of Technology that students can get an engineering degree and go on to become a Computer Engineer. Computer Engineers take more math than Information Technology majors. The Information Technology majors must take a second discipline, while Computer Engineers majors do not have to take a second discipline. Computer Engineering majors graduate with a Bachelor of Arts degree. Information Systems primarily deals with business, and uses technology to enhance business and creates solutions for business. Increasingly there is a stronger bond between technology and business. The Information Systems technician understands that bond, and is able to translate for technology and business. Information Systems majors do not take any Information Technology classes. Information Systems has many more business classes than the Information Technology curriculum, which basically has no business classes. Information Systems graduate with a Bachelors of Business Administration, instead of a Bachelors of Science degree. Computer Science is primarily about programming. The Computer Science department takes many more programming classes, and puts strong emphasis on Java, which is a high level machine language.

Global Workforce Integration Essay -- Labor Outsourcing Integrating Es

Global Workforce Integration Outsourcing, offshoring, and workforce globalization. Those words were voiced late 1999 in Seattle inside and outside the World Trade Organization meeting. Damages in Seattle amounted to $2.5 million, and 500 plus protesters were arrested. 3 In those days, outsourcing was about moving manufacturing jobs to developing countries to take advantage of the lower salary there. The affected blue-collar US workers were acting violently out of anger and frustration since their jobs were taken away. White collar population didn ¡Ã‚ ¯t voice any opinions about the issue back then, since US had the largest demand for white collar workers. Today, white collar workers are feeling the pressure of outsourcing in America and starting to discuss the matter seriously. According to researchers at UC Berkeley, 1 in 10 current job positions in the US can be outsourced, while 1 in 6 Silicon Valley jobs are vulnerable to outsourcing. 4 Since software facilitates the white collar job outsourcing and software development is one field most prone to outsourcing, I will focus on the outsourcing issues related to software. I have chosen three specific computer companies  ¨C Peoplesoft, Oracle, HP  ¨C to discuss their outsourcing trends and make inferences about the global effects. In the end, I hope to arrive at a decision about outsourcing from the ethical analysis of the outsourcing issue. But first, let ¡Ã‚ ¯s have a look at why outsourcing is being applied to white collar job positions today. Why Outsource? A major reason for outsourcing is pay difference. Even though we have currency exchange rates between different countries ¡Ã‚ ¯ currencies, the exchange rates are only for monetary values and don ¡Ã‚ ¯t sh... ... d=20040221 3. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The WTO Legacy, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/wto/ 4. San Francisco Chronicle, Looking Offshore, Feb 7th, 2004, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/07/BUGMJ5FA9G1.DTL 5. Yahoo Currency, http://finance.yahoo.com/m5?a=1&s=USD&t=CNY 6. SFC 7. SFC 8. A. Aneesh, Programming Globalization: Technological Modes of Labor Integration, forthcoming 9. WebEx, http://www.webex.com 10. SFC 11. SFC 12. SFC 13. SFC 14. SFC 15. NEELESH MISRA, Associated Press Writer, Yahoo News, March 12th, 2004, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news? tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040312/ap_on_bi_ge/india_outsourcing_1 16. SFC 17. SFC 18. SCU, Engineering Handbook - Ethics, http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/NQuinn/COEN288/EngrHandbook_Ethics.pdf 19. SCU 20. SCU

‘Of Mice and Men’: the relationship between Curley and Curley’s wife Essay

In the novel ‘Of Mice and Men’, the relationship between Curley and Curley’s wife is very unstable lacking communication, love and respect. Additionally neither one showed attention for one enough, Curley liked to believe his wife was a possession this is shown by the quote ‘’you seen a girl around here? He demanded angrily’’ also ‘’ Go back home’’. These quotes implies that Curley is an extremely restless and always looking for her, furthermore he is an aggressive man, ordering people and getting away with it being the Boss’s son. In the relationship neither one is happy, Curley’s wife is flirtatious by ‘putting her self-out there’ and ‘kicking her legs about’ which shows that she is lonely and lacking the attention needed. But, this must have been expected being the only women on the ranch. She also likes to manipulate and intimidate Curley which drives him crazy, but s he enjoyed it, because it provided her power. Even though Curley’s wife despised Curley she could never leave him. In the 1930’s, the year this novel was set, once married the women became the man’s belonging, and the women’s belongings also became his such as; money, clothes etc. Curley does care about his wife but is shown in an unexpected way, for example when Curley is trying to find her and being restless till he succeeds to do so. Even Whit tells him this by saying ‘’yella-jackets in his drawers’’ this means that Whit’s implying that Curley has ants in his pants. Curley could be seen in either of two perspectives, either him being protective to her and being paranoid and not wanting to lose her to ‘lower’ class with-in the ranch. Alternatively people can see this as being controlling her, wanting to know where she is every second of the day. Curley’s wife married Curley the day they meet, which can be seen as love at first sight or on the other hand a way to escape from her mum. Which was shown for by his wife; she had only married him because she didn’t get a letter from a guy to get her into Hollywood to gain her a step closer to becoming an actress there. She believed her ‘’o’l’lady stole it’’ which made Curley’s wife resentful. Moreover a lot of people from the 1930’s would have gone to see movies in Hollywood as w way to escape the reality of the depression if it could be afforded. And mass entertainment also a multi-million dollar industry additionally huge cinemas were built which could seat more people. Hollywood became a major film-making centre.

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.