Understanding Japanese Business Etiquette And Leadership Styles Is Essential For Writing An Essay.

Difference between Australian leadership and Japanese leadership

Non-Japanese organizations has continued to increase in Japan which got reflected after National Tax Agency JAPAN detached their annual report in the year 2015 which highlighted that since 2011 the business of foreign companies has expanded by around 16% in just two years. To start a business in Japan one must consider many things among which the first thing to know is the laws and regulations of their country for establishing a business followed by visa, residence and taxation when a foreign company is getting started in Japan (Ferraro and Briody 2017). Thus, the first job is to select a place, decide the primary elements and then arrange the necessary documents. Followed by this, the articles of incorporation must be prepared then it must be notarized. Then capital must be deposited and preparations must be started for the business’s registration. In this assignment, the Japanese business etiquette will be studied along recommendation on how Emily can make a favorable first expression when she visits Japan.

Australian leaders are believed to be impartially democratic; with Mr. Richard D Lewis who is, a British linguist pointed towards Swedish egalitarianism models as a very close resemblance. Moreover, Australian organizations are also commanded by the more aggressive American means of doing business that favors rapid thinking and quick decision-making. Australian executives are considered as ‘one of the mates’, but at as attain this status they frequently exert dominant influence. However, as found from the researches done by Australian Institute of Management that Australian leaders are supportive, prefers coaching as well as mentoring rather than fixing on individual mistakes (Vincent, Ward and Denson 2013). On the other hand, Japanese businesses are more probable to have a bottom-up approach towards innovation and change. As far as Japanese leadership is concerned, the top most executives may control substantial power although fresh ideas come from the employees on the ground. The ideas are then strained up through the middle management to the senior most executives and are then executed after they obtain enough support. Therefore, to follow this process Japanese mainly includes the flow of a document known as ‘ringi-sho’ that is annotated as well as revised by different departments as it makes its way upwards in the leadership chain (Mujtaba and Isomura 2012).  

The Japanese pays a great importance on belonging, working together as well as being a good member. Thus, the best type of leadership style that Japanese find affective and so they apply it in their business is participative leadership approach. Participative leadership style is the one in which employees are included in the process of decision-making along with they are also encouraged to think strategically as well as to enhance operation of the organization (Chuang 2013). However, unlike the managers in other countries, in Japan the mangers there have a powerful belief in the capability of their subordinates for leadership and initiative. Moreover, Japanese leaders are found to place strong importance on ambiguous goals. The Japanese people strongly identify with their work groups and prefer to avoid any kind of confrontation or conflicts. Japanese leaders cooperate with their teammates in every way possible to complete their tasks. Therefore, members of their teams are accountable for lending a hand in attaining the objectives of the group. Whenever the group achieves their targeted goals, Japanese leaders’ rewards back the whole group for their contributions. Japanese has a collectivist society for which they have strong belief towards group decisions as well as is emotionally dependent on belonging to an organization (Al-Asfour and Lettau 2014).

Japanese leadership styles

Therefore, from the above leadership of both Australia and Japan it can be said that in Japan the top executives have greater power in conservatism with Confucian hierarchy, but in real have minor participation in the regular affairs of the organizations. However, it has been found that in appropriate occasions they initiate their policies that are communicated to the middle managers. Under Japanese leadership, it has been seen that the leaders mainly encourage their staffs to come up with ideas and thus, ideas originate within the employees or the lower level sources. On the other hand, in Australia the leaders are found to focus more on the team participation than over leadership authority. In Australian workplaces an ideal leadership style is the one where the leader encourages team participation, thus, they prefer democratic leadership style. Australian employees are found to work in association with their managers or superiors to accomplish their daily tasks independently without any assistance from their management. Therefore, it can be said that whether in Japan or in Australia mainly the common factor is that in both leadership styles they are found to encourage their employees to participate in decision-making process and everyone is given equal opportunity to share their ideas freely (Dorfman et al. 2012).

Cross-cultural communication, which has become very much important in present organizational surroundings due to globalization, technology and internet, is the understanding of the various business customs, communication strategies as well as beliefs. However, psychologist Dr Geert Hofstede produced his cultural dimension model around 1970s and came up with four dimensions, which differentiate one culture from the other (Venaik and Brewer 2013). With association with Drs Michael H. Bond and Michael Minkov, he further added two more dimensions:

1. Power Distance Index
2. Individualism Versus Collectivism
3. Masculinity versus Femininity
4. Uncertainty Avoidance Index
5. Pragmatic versus Normative
6. Indulgence Versus Restraint

The potential area where miscommunication occurs in cross-cultural communication is mainly language barriers that is communicating with people who speaks different language is complex. Another barrier can be imperfect and hostile stereotypes of the peoples from other countries can be another area of cross-cultural miscommunication. Behavioral differences among the employees of other cultures can also be another potential area of miscommunication because every culture has their own set of guidelines, which they consider appropriate behavior. Lastly, another area of miscommunication can be appropriate display of emotions, which greatly varies from culture to culture. In some culture, showing aggressive behavior in workplace is inappropriate whereas, in some the employees are expected to reveal their real emotions in the workplace in team discussions.

Comparison among Australian and Japanese leadership styles

Uncertainty avoidance dimension, which came from Hofstede’s Dimensions, defines how the society deals with the reality that the future is never known. Australia scores 51 on the uncertainty avoidance index that is transitional. This demonstrates that business culture in Australia is liberal towards uncertainty. Employees in Australian workplaces do not usually display aggressive and emotional behavior in situations, which are ambiguous. However, the laws are not that accurate and there are little rules, religious as well as legal, to keep away the uncertainties. However, on the other hand, Japan’s score is 92, which make this country one of the most uncertainty avoiding countries worldwide. Japan is found to have repeatedly endangered by natural disasters therefore under the situations they have learned to develop themselves for any uncertain circumstance. Thus, they not only keep themselves ready for natural disasters but also for other uncertainty provoking aspects of the society. Therefore, in Japan anything they do authorized for maximum predictability. Thus, Japan has high need for uncertainty avoidance, which is one of the main reasons why modifications are so strenuous to realize in their country (Keneley 2015).

Therefore, to make a favorable first impression in Japanese work place Emily must know the basic business etiquettes, which will help her meeting Mr. Hamasaki. Firstly, Emily should be herself and be attentive. This means that she should not be too loud. Emily should measure the level of English Mr. Hamasaki is speaking and accordingly if she feels that he is low then she should speak as slowly as he needs and then she must halve that speed. If Emily is invited or taken out to dinner for the meeting, she must only eat what she can. Most importantly, Emily should learn how to use chopsticks before going for dinners. Then, if Mr. Hamasaki gives his business card to Emily then she should not immediately put it in her wallet rather she must take few seconds and look at it and then put it in a proper holder. Emily can also get a small present for Mr. Hamasaki when meeting him for the first time, the gift does not have to be expensive but must have a connection with the country where her business is located. Emily must also honor the Japanese cultural traditions by bowing before shaking hands and as their sitting positions are an indicator of status but Emily should wait to be seated than being the first one to sit down.  

Conclusion

Therefore, to conclude this report it can be said that there has been an increase of the foreign countries to develop their business in Japan in the last few years. Thus, to start a business in Japan it is very much necessary to know the country’s laws and regulations. However, Japanese are found to follow participative leadership styles because they highly encourage their employees for team participation. On the other hand, the Australians are found to follow democratic leadership style where they give their employees full chance to share their ideas and contribute in the decision-making procedure in the organization.

References

Al-Asfour, A. and Lettau, L., 2014. Strategies for leadership styles for multi-generational workforce. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 11(2), p.58.

Chuang, S.F., 2013. Essential skills for leadership effectiveness in diverse workplace development.

Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A. and House, R., 2012. GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business, 47(4), pp.504-518.

Ferraro, G.P. and Briody, E.K., 2017. The cultural dimension of global business. Taylor & Francis.

Keneley, M., 2015. Business Strategies under Conditions of Uncertainty. Corporate Forms and Organisational Choice in International Insurance, p.169.

Mujtaba, B.G. and Isomura, K., 2012. Examining the Japanese leadership orientations and their changes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(4), pp.401-420.

Venaik, S. and Brewer, P., 2013. Critical issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE national culture models. International Marketing Review, 30(5), pp.469-482.

Vincent, N., Ward, L. and Denson, L., 2013. Personality preferences and their relationship to ego development in Australian leadership program participants. Journal of Adult Development, 20(4), pp.197-211.