Are Western Management Concepts Essay Example

skills, efficiency, and satisfaction of adults within the scope of their employment. This may be for individual or communal gain, or even for the benefit of an organization, community, nation, or ultimately humanity.

The term HARD has evolved over the last few decades, starting as "training", then progressing to "training and development" (T), and finally becoming the commonly used term HARD (Hassling Abdullah 2009). Defining HARD is difficult because it encompasses stakeholder interests, future challenges, present needs, and various functions and occupations (Matthews, Mugginess, Surest 2004).

According to Hassling Abdullah (2009), the definition of HARD can be categorized at three levels: macromolecule, micro-level (national), and global. This implies that the perception of HARD varies based on the viewpoint and the country of origin.

When attempting to answer the question of the applicability of McGregor Theories in South East Asia, it is important to consider various perspectives. Hefted (1987) delves into the topic in his article and observes a discernible inclination. He puts forth the notion of four categories that exhibit prevalent value patterns among 50 countries globally. These categories are: individualism vs. collectivism, large vs. small power distance, and strong vs. weak uncertainty avoidance.

The focus of his studies is to examine how the term HARD differs based on the cultural differences between the US, the Dutch, and Southeast Asian countries, especially Indonesia. According to Hefted (1987), these countries vary greatly in the four dimensions. Southeast Asia tends to be Collectivist and has a high Power Distance, while the US and the Netherlands are more individualistic and have a low Power Distance.

According to Hefted (1987), the level of Masculinity is very high

in the United States, whereas in Indonesia, there is a good balance of Masculinity and Femininity. This reveals existing differences between these dimensions. Furthermore, it is important to note that the term 'HARD', based on US ways of thinking, may be challenging to implement with the same definition in Southeast Asia. The definition of 'HARD' hinges on a typical US theory, known as the Theory X-Y by McGregor (1960).

Hefted (1987) argues that the definition and integration of the concept of HARD in different cultures has been problematic because the ideas of HARD in the USA stem from US humanistic theories. McGregor's theory (1960) suggests that managers embrace one of two opposing theories with no possibility of a unification. However, both theories share common US assumptions that work is important and should happen because of God's will, people's potential should be maximized, and people in organizations act as unattached individuals.

Assumptions in South East Asian cultures diverge from those in American cultures as work is not the sole priority. Instead, people place greater value on discovering their position within a peaceful and harmonious society. This viewpoint is evident in Indonesian culture, which contrasts with the emphasis on theories such as McGregor's X-Y Theory (1960) prevalent in America. Consequently, it can prove difficult to implement these concepts in South East Asia (Hefted 1987). Exploring these assumptions enables us to gain better insight into addressing the question posed by the headline.

Before addressing the question, we need to clarify the meaning of "western". As stated in Hefted's (1987) article, it specifically denotes American culture.

According to McLean and McLean (2001), the interpretation of the concept

HARD varies greatly across nations due to its strong focus on humans, making it highly dependent on the context in which it is applied. Cunningham (2005) has examined factors such as an individual's upbringing, social circle, and societal norms that shape their perception of HARD.

According to the statement, there is no specific sector identified as HARD in Germany. However, managerial experts at educational institutions conduct studies on the subject.

On one hand, they must take into account that T is more significant to Germans than it is to Japan. On the other hand, if a German management concept is to be implemented in Japan, a means must be devised to integrate the two distinct approaches. To better comprehend German culture and shift the focus away from solely investing in local development forms, a more comprehensive approach must be implemented. However, saying this is straightforward does not guarantee complete adoption of the German concept.

In accordance with Hefted (1987), cultural disparities pose a challenge for HER professionals. These differences encompass custom, faith, work schedule, social activities, and empowerment of women, all domains correlating with Hefted's (1987) four dimensions. He emphasizes that if the differences are too extreme, it may be unfeasible to introduce a concept from another culture since HER specialists may not be equipped to adopt an entirely new cultural setting.

Recruiting individuals who are willing to leave behind certain parts or even their entire culture to adopt an unfamiliar one can make the hiring process challenging. Though methods such as incorporating diverse activities and viewpoints within a structure of education and understanding can aid in introducing novel ways of thinking (Kampuchea 1997), there

is a limitation to their effectiveness in fully embracing a different management concept.

HER practitioners not only have to handle the challenge of defining HARD, but also the fact that there are various definitions available. Even if they consider adopting a different concept, definitions can differ widely. When hiring on a global scale, they need to educate new personnel about their management approach. According to Lane and Handler (2001), there are doubts about whether this understanding is being put into effective HER practice.

The concept of HARD has been greatly impacted by Western thinking, particularly that of the United States. This is largely due to the prevalence of American education among international students and the global popularity of the "American Way of Life" (McLean & McLean, 2001). Additionally, many scholarly works on HARD in English are sponsored by professional organizations based in the US and UK, further solidifying their influence on this term.

Despite considering all arguments previously mentioned, the complete applicability of HARD remains uncertain. The adoption of some parts is insufficient to fully answer the headline question. Cultural differences, varying approaches, and diverse interests lead to multiple definitions of HARD, which poses a significant problem for its applicability. Additionally, adapting management concepts unfamiliar in the country creates difficulties among HER practitioners that can only be partially resolved.