Достижение эквивалентности при переводе текстов по менеджменту и кросскультуре

In summary, some might argue that in making comparisons between American and British firms, and, indeed, firms in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, the key issue is whether within-group variance is larger or smaller than between-group variance. That is, commonalities can be found among all of the countries that comprise the so-called “Anglo” cluster. Part of the reason for these similarities can be found in the historic British influences in all of these cultures. Even so, in recognition of the strong individualism found in this cluster, it is not surprising to find it is difficult to make generalizations about organization design and management practice. At the same time, part of the differences here can be found in the increasing cultural heterogeneity of people inhabiting all of these countries. Diversity is increasing throughout. Indeed, as these two countries, along with their Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand counterparts, become increasingly multicultural, perhaps the term “Anglo” will lose much of its meaning as a descriptor of this cluster of countries. In fact, these countries and cultures may begin evolving in very different directions in the future. For now, however, the evidence suggests that this country cluster retains much of its utility as characterizing central trends in this cluster.

Japanese kaisha and keiretsu

Japan is often the country of choice when making comparisons with American, British, and other so-called Anglo countries. There are many reasons for this. Many Westerners are somewhat familiar with Japan and its culture. Japan's economy remains strong in many business sectors and most geographical regions. Company names like Mitsubishi, Sumitomo, Mitsui, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and so forth are household brands, and countless people around the world own products manufactured by them. In view of this, we turn now to a look inside the typical Japanese organization. The first thing to be learned is that, like the situation in the US, there is probably no such thing as a typical Japanese firm, although the variance in Japanese firms is clearly somewhat smaller.

Japanese cultural patterns

Perhaps the best way to understand how Japanese firms work and do business is to begin with some observations on the local culture. As discussed in Chapter 3, an overview of Japanese culture includes a strong belief in hierarchy, strong collectivism, a strong harmony orientation, moderate monochronism, and strong particularism. Hierarchy beliefs in Japan can be seen in the deep respect shown to elders and people in positions of authority. In many circumstances, their directives are to be obeyed immediately and without question. This belief follows from early Confucian teachings (see below). Indeed, the concept of authority in Japan differs from that typically found in the West. Western views of authority see power generally flowing in one direction: down. The supervisor or manager gives directions; those below him or her follow them. Authority is a one-way concept. In Japan and many other Asian countries, by contrast, power still flows downwards but those exercising power must also look after the welfare and well-being of those they manage. In other words, a supervisor expects his or her directives to be followed without question, but will also spend considerable time guiding, coaching, and teaching subordinates so they can progress in their careers. Subordinates - and in many cases their families too - will be looked after. Thus, authority here is seen as a two-way street; both sides (superiors and subordinates) have a role to play. By deferring to those above you, you are in essence asking them to look after you.

Japan is also a highly collectivistic nation. Groups generally take precedence over individuals, and people gain their personal identity through their group membership. An old saying, “The nail that sticks out will be hammered down,” best exemplifies the importance of this belief. Contrast this to the old American and British saying, “God helps those who help themselves.” Collectivism versus individualism. As a result, employees naturally gravitate towards groups at work, and group achievement surpasses individual achievement on the job. Seniority-based (group) rewards are frequently preferred over performance-based (individual) rewards, particularly among older employees.

Harmony - both with other people and with nature - is also a strong characteristic. Japan's respect for its surrounding environment is legendary. This is not to say they refrain from changing or challenging nature; rather, they typically attempt this in ways that do as little harm as possible to the environment. Likewise, most Japanese will go to great lengths not to offend anyone or create open conflict or argumentation. As a result, communications in Japan tends to emphasize context at least as much as content. Nonverbal signs and signals are frequently used to convey thoughts in cases where words may be inappropriate.

The Japanese are frequently described as being moderately monochromic. That is, they tend to focus on one or only a few tasks at a time and clearly separate work and family issues as they relate to the workplace. And finally, many observers have noted that Japanese society tends to be highly particularistic. That is, while clear rules of law pervade society, exceptions are routinely made for friends and family or for powerful and influential people.

Organization and management trends in Japan

Japan's large vertically integrated keiretsu organizations (e.g., Sumitomo, Mitsui,

Mitsubishi, Matsushita) represent a unique approach to organization that has served their companies and their country well over the years. The design of these organizations is rooted in Japanese history and is successful largely because it is congruent with the national culture. The effects of this congruence can be seen in the unsuccessful attempts of many Western firms to imitate the basic keiretsu design. In contrast to their Anglo-American and even to some extent some European counterparts, Japanese firms tend to treat their employees as a fixed cost, not a variable cost, and relationships with suppliers tend to be closer and more stable over time. Executives have less power and decision making is distributed throughout the firm. Financing is more likely to come from inside the Japanese conglomerate's own financial institutions (e.g., company-owned banks or insurance companies), while marketing research and even legal advice is frequently done within the group. Finally, Japanese unions tend to be company unions (referred to as enterprise unions (see below)) and are more closely associated with company interests than is the case in the West.

To succeed in business, various individual Japanese companies (kaisha in Japanese) join together to form a business group, or keiretsu network. The keiretsu provides financial, organizational, legal, and logistical support for its sister companies. For example, when Mitsubishi Motors (a kaisha) needs glass, sheet metal, electrical components, or fabric for its automobile assembly line, it is likely to secure most if not all of these materials from other companies within the Mitsubishi Business Group (a keiretsu). Obviously, not being a keiretsu member can lead to isolation and missed business opportunities. It is this isolation from the market - not being allowed membership in key business relationships - that many Western companies object to in attempting to conduct business in Japan.

Japanese keiretsu can be divided into two basic types: horizontal (yoko) and vertical (tate). A horizontal keiretsu consists of a group of interlocking companies typically clustered around a main bank, a lead manufacturer, and a trading company, and overseen by a President's Council consisting of the presidents of the major group companies. Exhibit 6.4 illustrates how a horizontal keiretsu is organized. The “Big Six” horizontal keiretsu are Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Sumitomo, Fuyo, Sanwa, and Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank Group. By contrast, a vertical keiretsu consists of a large manufacturing company surrounded by numerous small and subservient suppliers and distributors that keep the operations running smoothly, typically through a just-in-time (or kanban) production system. Most Japanese automobile companies (e.g., Toyota, Nissan) are vertical keiretsu (see below).

A good example of a horizontal keiretsu can be seen in the Mitsubishi Business Group. Mitsubishi has a main bank (Mitsubishi Bank), a trading company (Mitsubishi Shoji), and a flagship manufacturer (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries). In addition, three financial firms are typically clustered around these three key companies: a life insurance company, a non-life insurance company, and a trust bank. Together, these financial firms, the trading company, and the group's key manufacturers give the keiretsu its unique identity. Beyond this are hundreds of large and small companies that are associated with the group. Senior managers from the principal companies are frequently assigned to serve in management positions in the smaller firms to assist with inter-company coordination support. Interlocking directorates are common to reinforce this family system.

Within each horizontal keiretsu, a main bank performs several functions. Its most important role is providing funds for company operations, expansion, and R&D. First, these banks provide more than two-thirds of the financial needs of keiretsu-affiliated companies. Second, member companies frequently hold stock in sister companies (known as stable cross-shareholdings). Main banks are among the nation's largest shareholders for such firms, providing considerable stability for company management interested in long-term growth strategies. Third, main banks provide an important audit function for member companies in monitoring corporate performance and evaluating risk. Fourth, main banks provide the best source of venture capital for member companies interested in launching new but risky ventures. For instance, Sumitomo Bank provided massive start-up investments in member company NEC's initiative to capture the semiconductor market. Finally, main banks serve as the “company doctor” in rescuing companies that are facing bankruptcy. Since corporate bankruptcy can threaten public confidence in Japan's economic system, not just a specific business group, main banks often quietly provide financial support to keep ailing companies going until the firm can be re-organized or the problem resolved. This financial commitment to member companies can also create trouble for the keiretsu, however, when the main bank is required to bail out a non-competitive company that should perhaps be sold off or dissolved.

The trading company, or sogo shosha, provides member companies with ready access to global markets and distribution networks. These companies (e.g., Mitsubishi Shoji, Sumitomo Busan) maintain offices throughout the world and are continually on the lookout for new or expanded markets. At the same time, their field offices collect and analyze market and economic intelligence that can be used by member companies to develop new products or otherwise get a jump on the competition. They frequently assist member companies with various marketing activities as well, and facilitate imports into Japan for their business customers. In fact, historically, Japanese trading companies have been responsible for almost half of Japan's imports and three-fifths of its exports. Finally, the sogo shosha often provide significant credit (through the group's main bank) for small and medium-sized companies involved in business activities with member companies, again getting a jump on competitors that operate further from lines of credit.

Finally, although hundreds of companies may be affiliated with one keiretsu, only the principal companies are allowed to join the Presidents' Council (shacho-kai, or kinyo-kai in the case of Mitsubishi). This council (typically consisting of the CEOs of the top twenty to thirty group companies) meets monthly to discuss principal strategies for the group, as well as issues of coordination across the various sister companies. Since council meetings are private and no records are maintained, little is understood about how such councils actually work. At the very least, however, these meetings facilitate extensive cooperation across member companies on developing group strategy and group solidarity, as well as mediating disagreements across member companies.

To many observers, the very structure of these conglomerates seems to provide an unfair advantage in global competition. To see how this might work, consider the example of Kirin Holdings Company, a member of the Mitsubishi keiretsu. While Kirin produces a wide array of consumer products, including soft drinks,

Exhibit 6.4 Design of a typical Japanese horizontal keiretsu

Note: The shaded boxes represent formal parts of the organization. The white boxes represent independent agencies, institutions, service providers, and contingent workers that are largely outside the formal organization design.

pharmaceutics, and health foods, they are perhaps best known for beer. To produce, bottle, and distribute beer, Kirin needs help from a multitude of sources. In many cases, it can get this help from other sister companies on a long-term reliable manner (see Exhibit 6.5).

When Kirin Holdings Company needs glass for its bottles, it contacts Asahi Glass, a Mitsubishi company. When Kirin needs aluminum for its cans, it contacts Mitsubishi Aluminum. When Kirin needs plastic to bottle its soft drinks, it contacts Mitsubishi Plastics. When Kirin needs paper for labels, it contacts Mitsubishi Paper. When Kirin needs financing for its operations, it contacts Mitsubishi Bank. When Kirin needs to construct new facilities, if contacts Mitsubishi Construction. When Kirin needs cars and trucks to help distribute its products, it contacts Mitsubishi Motors. And when Kirin needs global distribution of its products, it contacts Mitsubishi Shoji. Is this smart coordination and control by the keiretsu managers or restraint of trade since other (largely foreign) firms oftentimes cannot break through the barriers to seek some of the business? What might foreign firms do to get inside the keiretsu network?

This interlocking set of companies that comprise a keiretsu like Mitsubishi can create a considerable competitive advantage in the marketplace. While comparable examples of global sourcing, integrated manufacturing, and multinational marketing can be found in the West, it is questionable whether these companies approach the keiretsu model in terms of integration and cooperation. What makes the keiretsu system unique is that it represents an entire social system in which national culture, government policies, corporate strategies, and management practices are fully integrated, mutually supportive, and reinforced through incentives and rewards that make the entire enterprise run smoothly over the long run. Thus, while some similarities exist, and while Western multinationals frequently pursue vertical integration to achieve operating efficiencies, it would be misleading to claim that Western companies have adopted the Japanese business model as their own. Neither their cultures nor government regulations in many cases would allow it.

When most Westerners think of a keiretsu, they have in mind the horizontal variety discussed above. However, the vertical (or pyramid) keiretsu can be just as powerful, if less well known. Key vertical keiretsu include the major Japanese automobile firms such as Toyota, Nissan, and Honda, as well as some of the major electric giants like Sony and Panasonic (including Quasar and National brands). An illustration of the organization structure of a vertical keiretsu is shown in Exhibit 6.6. As noted above, a vertical keiretsu consists of a major company surrounded by a large number of smaller firms that either act as suppliers or distributors for the big firm.

Exhibit 6.5 Keiretsu network for Mitsubishi's Kirin Holdings Company

In point of fact, there are two kinds of vertical keiretsu: a production keiretsu, in which a myriad of parts suppliers join together to create subassemblies for a single end product manufacturer (such as Toyota), and a distribution keiretsu, in which a single large firm, usually a manufacturer, moves products to market through a network of wholesalers and retailers that depend on the parent company for goods. Since most manufacturers have both keiretsu types (production and distribution), we can envision the two like an hourglass: an upside-down (production) pyramid on top, in which individual parts suppliers provide various parts (e.g., fabric for car seats) to subcomponent assembly companies that ultimately provide subassemblies (e.g., completed seats) to the parent company in the center of the hourglass. Here, the parent company assembles the end products and prepares them for market. Next, these products are passed down into another (distribution) pyramid where they are distributed to wholesalers and ultimately to retail consumers.

In some cases, a leading company from a vertical keiretsu will form an alliance with a horizontal keiretsu to ensure solid financing and improved trading capabilities. Toyota is a member of the Mitsui Group, for example, in addition to running its own vertical keiretsu. Finally, numerous small supplier firms become quasi-members of the group and receive long-term purchasing contracts, as well as assistance with financing and sometimes R&D. These suppliers support the famous kanban (or just- in-time) inventory system that Japan is noted for and must remain loyal to one group. That is, when supplies on an assembly line get short, suppliers are automatically notified and replenish the factory in short order.

Now, let's turn to human resource management policies in Japan. Japanese kaisha tend to view all regular employees (not including continent workers or workers employed by company suppliers) as part of their permanent cost structure. As such, during difficult financial periods, most Japanese companies will go to great lengths to retain their workers. This contrasts with the situation in many Anglo-American firms, where lay-offs are frequently seen as an easy solution to financial exigency. If workers are seen as a fixed cost (instead of a variable cost), it makes sense to invest heavily in their training. Long-term employment will allow for sufficient payback of such training expenses. In this sense, Western observers

have suggested that Japanese companies treat their employees more like family members than employees.

Concern has frequently been expressed that employee commitment to their companies in Japan may be too strong. Many Japanese refuse to take all of the vacation time to which they are entitled - a practice seldom witnessed in the West. A commonly used Japanese word, ganbatte, typifies this overzealous commitment to work. Indeed, Japanese employees and even school children will often be heard to say to their friends or colleagues, “ganbatte kudasai” - “never give up, try harder, do your best.” On the positive side, ganbatte shows strong commitment to succeed on behalf of one's company or family. On the negative side, it often manifests itself in large numbers of work-related health problems. Health care professionals express concern about the large number of Japanese employees who overwork themselves to the point of becoming ill.

Finally, it is important to note that in view of Japan's long-running economic problems and increased global pressures for efficiency, several Japanese companies (e.g., Hitachi, Toshiba, NEC) have recently begun to back away from their former policies of ironclad job security and lifetime employment. Other companies are beginning to place greater emphasis on individual performance and performance appraisals, referred to as the nenpo system.

Even so, the general characteristics of Japanese human resource management systems remain relatively constant. Concern for the group, respect for age and seniority, and devotion to the company remain hallmarks of the typical Japanese firm. Indeed, Fujitsu recently decided to discontinue its much-heralded Western-style performance-based pay system because it proved to be a poor fit with Japanese culture. Fujitsu's new system will emphasize worker enthusiasm and energy in tackling a job instead of actual goal accomplishment in annual performance evaluations. Moreover, when Fujitsu announced that it was laying off 15,000 workers, or 9 percent of its workforce, it made it clear that all involuntary lay-offs would take place in operations outside of Japan. Any Japanese workforce reductions would be accomplished through retirements and normal attrition.

There are over 70,000 labor unions in Japan, most of which are company-specific. These enterprise unions tend to include both workers and lower-and middle-level managers. This differs from the situation in Canada and the US, for example, where most unions are industrial unions that cross several companies in the same industry.

Although many enterprise unions affiliate with national labor federations (which facilitate the annual spring wage negotiations, or shuntф), these organizations are more decentralized than in the US or Canada. As a result, Japanese workers in enterprise unions typically do not experience the same degree of divided loyalties (union versus company) that are often seen in America and Canada among unionized workers. In addition, it is not uncommon for union members in Japanese companies to rise through the management ranks - even to the position of company president in some cases. This seldom occurs in the US, where the managerial hierarchy is separate and distinct from the “blue collar” class and where junior managers are typically hired from among recent college graduates, not rank-and-file production workers. Even though enterprise unions are often linked to large nationwide industrial unions, industrial action (e.g., strikes) is rare, and most disputes are settled relatively amicably.

The lack of clear divisions between labor and management in Japanese firms often makes it possible to enlist workers at all levels in efforts to improve productivity and product quality. Quality and service are company-wide concerns from the top to the bottom of the organization, not just management concerns. Japan is noted for its widespread use of quality circles, small groups of workers who spend time (frequently their own) trying to improve operational procedures or product quality in their own area. These efforts help Japanese firms with their kaizen, a philosophy of continuous improvement that is also a hallmark of Japanese manufacturing firms.

In summary, the typical Japanese approach to organization and management is both different and effective, and represents a formidable threat to global competitors. Japanese firms have found a way to build their organizations in ways that draw support from the local environment and culture and mobilize their resources in ways that many Western firms have difficulty understanding, let alone responding to. It is a model that prizes cooperation and mutual support among friends and all-out competition against all others.

German konzern

Germany is a country widely known and respected for its cutting-edge technology and craftsmanship. It is also known as a high-cost producer. Combining these two attributes leads to its position in the global marketplace as a producer of innovative, high-quality, and expensive goods and services. However, as globalization pressures continue and price points becomes an increasingly important factor for global consumers, the obvious question is: How can German companies compete now and in the future? To explore this question, it is necessary to examine the unique approach to organization and management that is found in Germany and its Germanic (and to some extent Nordic) neighbors.

German cultural patterns

A number of social scientists have attempted to describe German culture in general terms. Geert Hofstede, for example, has described the typical German as relatively individualistic (although not so extreme as Americans), high on uncertainty avoidance and masculinity, and relatively low on power distance. Hall and Hall add that Germans tend to be very punctual about time, follow schedules closely, demand order, value their personal space, respect power and position, and seek detailed information prior to decision making. Indeed, Hall and Hall quote a French executive as saying that “Germans are too busy managing to think creatively.” As discussed in Chapter 3, cultural anthropologists suggest that the dominant German culture includes a mastery orientation, moderate individualism and egalitarian, a strong rule-based orientation, and a monochromic approach to time.

To foreign observers, Germans tend to be conservative, formal, and polite. Formal titles are important in conversations, and privacy and protocol are valued. In business, Germans tend to be assertive, but not aggressive. Although firms are often characterized by strict departmentalization, decisions tend to be made based on broad-based discussion and consensus building among key stakeholders. Negotiations are based on extensive assessments of data and plans and, since Germany is a low-context culture (where message clarity counts), communication is explicit and easily understood by foreigners.

Germans tend to be broadly educated, multilingual, and widely traveled. They are highly regarded for being trusted partners, as well as for their forward-looking human resource management policies. In recent years, perhaps because of this informed worldview, Germany has witnessed an increased flexibility in cultural expressions. Still, differences remain.

Organization and management trends in Germany

As with companies in any country, it is difficult to generalize about the nature or structure of the typical German firm (or Konzern in German). Like the US, German firms generally take one of two legal forms: a limited partnership designated by a GmbH (Gesellschaft mit beschraenkter Haftung) following the company name, or a public stock company designated by an AG (Aktiengesellschaft) following the name. As such, the company Volkswagen AG is a public company with publicly traded stock. In German conglomerates, the parent company is often referred to as the Muttergesellschaft (literally “mother company”).

From an organizational standpoint, German firms are typically led from the top by two boards. At the very top is the supervisory board (or Aufsichtsrat), as shown in Exhibit 6.9. This board, much like a board of directors in US firms, is responsible for ensuring that the principal corporate objectives are met over the long term. Its members are typically elected for five years and can only be changed by a vote of 75 percent of the voting shares. A key function of the supervisory board is to oversee the activities of the management board (or Vorstand), which consists of the top management team of the firm and is responsible for its actual strategic and operational management. These two boards are jointly responsible for the success or failure of German enterprise.

On a company level, a legally binding codetermination system (Mitbestimmung in German) supports worker rights. This system is based on the belief that both shareholders and employees have a right to influence company policies, and that profit maximization must be tempered with concern for social welfare. Under codetermination, workers may exercise their influence on corporate affairs through representatives on the supervisory board. Typically, one-half to one-third of the members of this board are elected by the workers - normally through their works council - while stockholders elect the remainder. As such, German workers can have a significant influence on strategic decision-making. Moreover, many serious labor problems are discussed and resolved at this executive level before they grow into major conflicts.

On a plant level, workers exercise their influence through works councils. Works councils typically have no rights in the economic management of the firm, but have considerable influence in human resource management policies and practices. Their principal task is to ensure that companies follow regulations that exist for the benefit of their employees. As such, works councils have the right to access considerable company information concerning the running of the firm, including economic performance. Rights granted to works councils are divided into codetermination rights (the right to approve or reject management decisions) and participation rights (the right to be consulted on management decisions).

The German industrial relations system is highly standardized, extensively organized through state regulation, and characterized by formal recognition of employee rights at all levels of the firm. This concept of fostering strong employee participation in corporate decision making is generally referred to (especially in Europe) as industrial democracy. Industrial democracy refers to a consensus among national leaders and citizens in a country that employees at all levels of organizations have a right to be involved in decisions affecting their long-term welfare. Nowhere is the concept of industrial democracy better illustrated than in Germany, where strong industrial unions, codetermination, and works councils characterize the workplace environment.

Note: The shaded boxes represent formal parts of the organization. The white boxes represent independent agencies, institutions, service providers, and contingent workers that are largely outside the formal organization design.

On a national level, the German constitution guarantees all citizens the right to join unions and engage in collective bargaining. It also indirectly guarantees the right of companies to join employer associations. At present, 42 percent of German industrial workers (and 30 percent of all German employees) are members of unions, compared to less than 10 percent in the US. Eighty percent of German employees are members of various branches of Germany's largest trade union, the Deutsche Gewerkschaftsbund (or DGB). Moreover, the national government plays a strong role in industrial relations. All political parties have strong factions representing workers' interests, although the Social Democratic Party has the closest links to unions. Extensive legislation covers labor standards, benefits, discrimination, plant closures, and employee rights.

Collective bargaining agreements are negotiated on an industry-wide basis, either nationally or regionally. Little direct bargaining takes place between unions and employers at the plant level. As a result, wage differentials across companies in similar industries are small. Employment disputes are usually settled through labor courts, consisting of three persons: a professional judge who is a specialist in labor law, a union representative, and a representative of the employer's association. These courts have jurisdiction over both individual employment contracts and collective contracts involving industrial disputes.

A hallmark of German firms is the technical competence they bring to the manufacture of so many diverse products. German engineering is world famous. A major reason for this lies in the training of managers and workers. Line managers in German firms are typically better trained technically than their European or American counterparts, with closer relations between them and technical experts in the firm. In contrast to American managers, most German managers are trained as engineers and have completed some form of craft apprenticeship training program. The typical German organization is distinguished by its tightly knit technical staff superstructure, closely linked to supervisory and managerial tasks that, when combined, produce high levels of performance. Compared to French or British industry, German firms have lower center of gravity; that is, they have less proliferation of administrative and support staff and more hands-on shop floor managers.

From the first-line supervisor (usually held by a Meister, or master technician) on up, managers are respected for what they know rather than who they are. They tend to be far less controlling than many of their US counterparts. Instead, it is assumed that workers and supervisors will meet deadlines, guarantee quality and service, and do not require close supervision. Independence within agreed-upon parameters characterizes the working relationship between managers and the managed.

Behind the organizational facade of German firms is a particular notion of technical competence commonly referred to as Technik. This describes the knowledge and skills required for work. It is the science and art of manufacturing high-quality and technologically advanced products. The success of Technik in German manufacturing is evidenced by the fact that over 40 percent of Germany's gross domestic product is derived from manufacturing. Indeed, Germany is responsible for over half of all EU manufactured exports. It is for this reason that knowledge of Technik represents a principal determinant in the selection of supervisors and managers.

A principal method for developing this technical competence in workers begins with widespread and intensive apprenticeship training programs. It is estimated that over 65 percent of 15- and 16-year-old Germans enter some form of vocational training program. Apprenticeship programs exist not only for manual occupations, but also for many technical, commercial, and managerial occupations. There are two principal forms of vocational training in Germany. The first consists of general and specialized training programs offered by vocational schools and technical colleges. The second, referred to as the dual system, combines in-house apprenticeship training with part-time vocational training leading to a skilled-worker certificate. There are over 400 nationally recognized vocational certificates. Qualifications for each certificate are standardized throughout the country, leading to a well-trained workforce with skills that are not company-specific. This certificated training can be followed by attendance at one of the many Fachschule, or advanced vocational colleges. Graduation from a Fachschule facilitates the achievement of a Meister (or master technician) certification (see Exhibit 6.10).

The dual system of apprenticeship training represents a partnership between employers, unions, and the government. Costs are typically shared between companies and the government on a two-thirds/one-third basis.

Exhibit 6.10 Germany's dual system of vocational training

Employers are legally required to release young workers for vocational training. German companies are also widely known for their enthusiastic support of company-sponsored training programs. Mercedes-Benz (part of Daimler), for example, regularly offers 180 vocational courses to its employees. Each year, the company has over 600 employees studying in vocational or modular management development courses, as well as over 4,000 employees who participate in some form of formal training at the company's training center.

Before leaving this topic, it should be noted that in recent years some people have criticized the complexity of German apprenticeship programs, as well as the length of time required for certification. It has been argued that this lengthy certification procedure hinders entrepreneurship and Germany's competitive position in the world by limiting access to many professions, inhibiting change in those professions, and stifling creativity and innovation. However, German unions - and many companies - have resisted change.

Приложение Б

Перевод фрагмента книги «Management across cultures. Challenges and strategies» by Richard M. Steers, Carlos J. Sanchez-Runde, Luciara Nardon, 2010г.

Региональные изменения и культурные различия

Для того чтобы проникнуть в суть проблемы культурных ареалов, о которых пойдет речь, необходимо выбрать критерии, согласно которым культуры будут классифицироваться и благодаря которым можно провести сравнение между государствами или, по крайней мере, регионами. Обращая внимание на ранее оговоренные пределы, мы решили дать оценку культурным различиям группы государств (в качестве противопоставления отдельным странам), применяя систему, изначально предложенную Симча Ронан и Одед Шенкар, и которая впоследствии использовалась другими с некоторыми поправками. Данная система фокусируется на сходстве регионов, обладающих богатым антропологическим материалом, а использование нами этой группы стран отражает несостоятельность этой системы. По этой причине некоторые регионы (например, Центральная Азия, Полинезия) не включены в данную систему, в то время как другие (например, Европа) описываются в мельчайших подробностях. Вдобавок, несколько стран, согласно нашим представлениям (например, Бразилия, Индия и Израиль) просто не вписываются в такую систему; таким образом, уместно еще раз обратить на это внимание.

Основываясь на данном исследовании, мы можем использовать эту систему для того, чтобы определить девять группы стран, которые обладают достаточным объемом данных для оценки основных направлений в характеристике их культурного уровня: английская группа (например, Австралия, Канада, Англия, США); арабская группа (например, Дубай, Египет, Саудовская Аравия); восточно-европейская группа (например, Чехия, Венгрия, Польша); восточная или юго-восточная азиатская группа (например, Китай, Япония, Корея, Сингапур, Таиланд); германская группа (например, Австрия, Германия); латиноамериканская группа (например, Аргентина, Коста Рика, Мексика); латиноевропейская группа (например, Франция, Италия, Испания); скандинавская группа (например, Дания, Норвегия, Швеция); африканская группа (например, Гана, Кения, Нигерия). В дальнейшем культурная классификация регионов подверглась переоценке.

Результаты показаны на схеме 3.6. Но эти данные - лишь примерная оценка, основанная на настоящем исследовании. Кроме того, используя представленную здесь информацию, важно отдавать себе отчет в том, что не существует какой либо предпочтительной оценочной шкалы; они просто различны, что часто приводит к межгрупповой вариативности.

В то время как, иногда необходимо сосредоточиться на основных межкультурных тенденциях в целях общего сравнения, также важно учитывать значение индивидуальных и региональных различий в определении отношения и поведения людей. В то же время, неудивительно, что оценка культуры стран, принадлежащих к одной группе (например, Дания, Норвегия и Швеция), стремится к более близкому показателю, чем

Схема 3.6 Основные региональные тенденции в главных культурных ареалах

Примечание: категории стран, использованных в данной таблице, скопированы из книги Ронан и Шенкар «Группировка культур или пространственное положение» и «Ареал» и другие, «Культура», «Лидерство», «Организации». Оценка основных культурных ареалов показывает главные направления для отобранной группы стран. Различия, иногда существенные, в основных направлениях могут быть найдены во всех группах и странах. Также стоит отметить, что некоторые районы земного шара (например, Центральная Азия) не включены в данную схему из-за отсутствия реальных данных, в то время как другие (например, Европа) представлены в подробностях, благодаря наличию достаточной информации.

оценка стран, расположенных в другой группе (например, Италия, Испания, Франция). Это естественный факт для соседних государств различных регионов земного шара, проживающих бок о бок со смежными государствами на протяжении веков, а иногда и тысячелетий. Кроме того, значительные культурные различия можно обнаружить среди народов, населяющих отдельный регион. В конечном счете, важно помнить, что, пока эти культурные ареалы могут быть полезными для получения концепций главных культурных тенденций стран и регионов, они совершенно не заменяют системного глубинного анализа, касающегося изучения культуры, работы и организаций.

Тщательное исследование культурных сложностей и противоречий

Связанные концепции о культуре и культурных различиях были представлены выше для того, чтобы увидеть другую сторону очевидных поступков, и для лучшего понимания, как и почему некоторые люди ведут себя иначе, чем другие. Однако в этих обобщениях часто упускается, что индивиды внутри одного общества могут использовать разные линии поведения для решения одинаковых проблем. В результате, зачастую приходят к далеко не мудрому решению создания стереотипного представления о целой культуре. Вместо этого, мы ищем нюансы и отклонения, а не только главные различия. Неспособность осознать это часто приводит к неудачам в личных и деловых начинаниях.

Рассмотрим концепцию о равных условиях на рабочем месте. Борьба за равные условия - долгий и сложный спор, продолжающийся во многих государствах в мире: на севере, юге, востоке и западе. Для большинства этот спор не утихает, потому что в его основе лежат очень сильные предубеждения. Однако люди часто не хотят признавать то, что, во многом, общественные и корпоративные традиции, касающиеся равных прав, закреплены в наших убеждениях и ценностях. Поэтому важно уметь сопоставить такие убеждения и традиции на межкультурном и внутрикультурном уровнях. Например, в некоторых культурах подчеркивается дифференциация полов, т. е. предполагается, что мужчины и женщины занимают различное положение в обществе и поэтому к ним должны относиться по-разному. В других культурах все больше и больше говорится о сведении к минимуму половых различий, полагая, что мужчины и женщины должны разделять домашние и должностные обязанности. Тем не менее, в некоторых культурах стремятся к гибкости и толерантности. В результате этих культурных различий многие люди торопятся осудить убеждения других, будучи либо излишне патерналистскими, либо снисходительными. Однако для опытного наблюдателя не составляет труда определить эти различия.

Чтобы понять, как это происходит, мы еще раз нанесем визит Анне Хаканссон, когда она прибудет на переговоры в Бахрейн. Первый сюрприз, который ее ожидает, это встреча с коллегой в Инвестиционном банке «Галф Уан» в Бахрейне - Нахед Таэр, первой женщиной, которая стала исполнительным директором банка. В прошлом главный экономист Национального Коммерческого Банка, Таэр с головой погрузилась в планы финансирования проектов государственного сектора, включая развитие транспортного терминала, который занимается делами паломников из Мекки в Международном аэропорту «Король Абдулазиз» в городе Джедда. К тому же, она контролирует финансирование завода по опреснению воды для аравийских авиакомпаний, а также саудовские шахты по добыче меди, цинка и золота. Таэр можно считать редким примером руководителя в арабском мире, но ее пример все больше и больше становится типичным случаем. В действительности, влиятельные бизнесмены, такие как Нахед Таэр, зарабатывают влияние, несмотря на какие-либо сложности. Об этом свидетельствует список « 100 самых влиятельных женщин в мире» по версии журнала «Форбс», в который вошли 10 женщин-руководителей со Среднего Востока.

Как же этим женщинам удается пробиться через всемирный стеклянный потолок? В большинстве случаев главную роль играет возрастающая глобализация мировой экономики. Ослабление экономики нескольких мусульманских стран за последние годы, наряду с приватизацией большой доли государственных компаний, способствовало укреплению положения мусульманских бизнес леди. «Сейчас у каждого есть возможность», - заявляет Лора Осман, первая женщина-президент Ассоциации Арабских Банкиров Северной Америки. «Частный сектор переходит к меритократии». В действительности, в мусульманском мире растет количество женщин в банковской сфере, с учетом того, что с исторической точки зрения все руководящие посты всегда занимали только мужчины. Сахар Эль-Саллаб является второй женщиной-руководителем в Международном Коммерческом Банке, одном из крупнейших банков Египта. Даже более того, 4 из 10 работников Международного Коммерческого Банка и 70% управляющего персонала - женщины. Аналогично, Маха Эль-Гунаим, председатель Всемирного Инвестиционного Дома в Кувейте, постепенно превратившегося в инвестиционный банк, который она основала с активами более чем $7 млрд. Недавно ее банк получил разрешение на осуществление банковской деятельности на территории Катара и следующей целью является упрочить свое положение в Саудовской Аравии.

Мусульманские бизнес-леди также присутствуют в числе высокопоставленных руководителей мега-конгломератов. Имре Барманбек управляет одной из крупнейших турецких мультинациональных компаний «Доган Холдинг», которая недавно претерпела смену направления деятельности - из финансовой сферы в область медиа и энергетики. Лубна Олаян помогает в управлении компанией «Олаян Групп» в Саудовской Аравии, одной из самых крупных мультинациональных компаний на Среднем Востоке с инвестициями в более чем 40 различных фирм. А также семья Хамис из Египта, включающую в себя несколько представительниц прекрасного пола, управляет крупной промышленной корпорацией. Видия Чхабрия, индианка по происхождению, является руководителем компании «Джамбо Групп» в Объединенных Арабских Эмиратах, одной из крупных мультинациональных компаний с активом в $2 млрд., которая осуществляет свою деятельности в 50 странах и занимается производством товаров длительного пользования, химикатов, автомобильного оборудования. Кроме того в эту компанию входит фирма «Джамбо Электроникс», одна из крупнейших фирм на Среднем Востоке, которая занимается распространением электронной техники компании «Sony», а также является известной во всем мире торговой маркой в сфере информационных технологий и телекоммуникации. Таким образом, мусульманским женщинам предстоит пройти еще долгий путь для достижения «равенства» в деловом мире, но прогресс, все же, налицо. Возможности существуют только для удачливых и решительных людей. «Быть женщиной в нашем мире - сложно», - заявляет Эль-Саллаб, директор Международного Коммерческого Банка в Египте. «Но если вы получили хорошее образование, вам доверяют, и вы добросовестно выполняете свою работу, смышленые мужчины всегда будут относиться к вам с должным вниманием».

Пример Нахед Таэр и других женщин-менеджеров порождает старую дилемму. Хотя культурные различия веками признавались в национальных государствах и регионах, все же не существует единого мнения относительно роли этих различий в деловом мире. Действительно ли имеют значение культурные притеснения, если люди, которые работают на международной арене, способны их преодолеть? Столкнувшись с этим вопросом, люди делятся на две группы: сторонники и скептики. Сторонники утверждают, что на основе доступных исследовательских данных и практическом опыте, культура имеет огромное значение, т. к. если что-то работает в Лондоне, то вероятнее всего это не сработает в Гуанчжоу, Бангалоре или Москве. Они указывают, что людям, которые работали заграницей, хорошо известно как различные вещи приживаются во всем мире, и то, что значительную часть этих различий можно объяснить только благодаря характерным чертам, присущим той или иной культуре. В свою очередь скептики заявляют, что каждый человек уникален, т. к. нет двух Индийцев (Китайцев, Русских или Аравийцев), которые вели бы себя одинаково. Далее они утверждают, что компании в одной стране могут - и зачастую должны - работать совершенно по-разному, чем в других странах. В конце концов, они отмечают, что с точки зрения научных исследований, вариативность, которая объясняется культурными различиями, часто ничтожно мала, а другие многочисленные факторы могут быть равным образом (либо, возможно, более) важными для объяснения причины различий в поведении людей заграницей, включая правовые, политические, экономические отличия, а также уровень технологического оснащения.

Какая из этих точек зрения точнее отражает реальность, и какова во всем этом роль менеджеров? В то время как научные исследования и практический опыт говорят о важности культуры, в то же время они указывают, что одной культуры не достаточно, чтобы объяснить поведение наших иностранных коллег. Иначе, как объяснить успех Нахед Таэр в обществе, где руководящие посты занимают только мужчины?

По этой причине мы должны быть осторожными в интерпретации культурных явлений. Твердое предубеждение о роли (или нехватки роли) культуры может сбить нас толку тогда, когда культура действительно имеет значение. Понимание роли культуры в менеджменте требует такого склад ума, который поможет определить влияния культуры и найти лучший способ для решения этой проблемы. Другими словами мы должны понять, что такое культура и как она работает, как наша культура повлияла на наш склад ума с точки зрения рабочей гипотезы, личного и коллективного влияния и как достичь полного понимания того, каким образом культура способна ослабить свое влияние в различных ситуациях, в которые мы попадаем. Безусловно, это не простая задача, однако ее решение может быть важным для менеджеров во всем мире.

Наши два примера - Анна Хаканссон из Швеции и Нахед Таэр из Бахрейна

- указывают на некоторую ограниченность использования упрощенных моделей при анализе сложных явлений. С одной стороны, такие модели представляют собой хорошую отправную точку для понимания влияния культуры и проблем, которые порождают культурные различия. С другой стороны, они обращают наше внимание на ограниченный ряд факторов и могут привести к неправильному толкованию реальности.