Management and Eastern Hemisphere

1. Since arriving in Singapore, Lancaster has formulated several opinions about the health of the Eastern Hemisphere organization. What are the concerns both now and for the future? ? Lancaster’s concerns now are as below: He found that there was a major disparity in the management style of people here. Some had styles that emphasized employee empowerment. Others were of the old authoritarian school. ; the managers here didn’t seem to be growing or developing; there were some problems with the existing management assessment and development system and it needed to be changed.
Managers still were using a MBO-type system that had been replaced in the U. S. some time ago. Lancaster believed strongly in ADP and had seen it change the management and culture of Black & Decker in the U. S. He also knew that 360? Feedback might not be universally embraced because of cultural differences. Now, Lancaster has been faced a difficult decision as to whether he should accept a new performance appraisal and management development system presented to him by Anita Lim, manager of Human Resources, or introduce a U.
S. -designed Appraisal Development Plan (ADP) throughout the Eastern Hemisphere. For the future, Lancaster wanted to change culture and more effectively develop the people, while he thought building managers here had been difficult, for there was a limited supply of truly talented managers available, Lancaster worried about the lack of management strength in his organization. The brutal competition the company was facing throughout the region made him particular sensitive to the need for more and better managers.

With Lim’s new hybrid plan, Lancaster began to have concerns about moving forward. On the one hand, he was convinced that ADP could provide significant benefits in terms of management training and development. On the other hand, he knew he would need the human resource staff’s full support if ADP were ever to be successfully implemented. 2. What problems does Lancaster want ADP to address? ? ADP was first introduced in the U. S. in 1992 as a replacement for the company’s Management by Objective (MBO) plan.
Under the previous MBO program, superiors would meet individually with each subordinate to discuss the subordinate’s performance and jointly establish clear and comprehensive objectives for the subordinate for the coming year. MBO systems were widely used by Western business during the 1980s, yet, despite their widespread use, not everyone was happy with the results. It didn’t seek input from others in the organization; the boss had to give performance reviews with MBO systems, but in many cases, they wouldn’t have a lot to say.
Under the MBO systems, it can be difficult to make the system objective. Lancaster wants ADP to address TWO major problems: One problem is the disparity in the management style of people in the Eastern hemisphere organization, as some had styles that emphasized employee empowerment, others were of the old authoritarian school; the other problem is the lack of growth and development in the organization. 3. What concerns do Asian managers have about ADP?
How substantive are these concerns? ? The Asian managers have the concerns about ADP as below: Firstly, Asian people might not willing to open up the way Americans do, for they are likely to say something polite but won’t be critical if they are asked to provide with candid feedback on their boss; Secondly, Asians might not believe in the confidentiality of the ADP system. “ No matter what a boss says about feedback being anonymous, Asians won’t believe him/her.
Somehow he or she will find out who said what about whom and there will be negative consequences for that person; Thirdly, a change from MBO to ADP might be too radical. “ Asians will not support radical change of this nature. ” Fourthly, the staff. The staff is not going to change because of ADP if their boss has been afraid to tell them something negative for five years; besides, the staff cannot understand English, while the ADP is written in English, so the language will become a problem. The substantive concerns come from the culture differences.
As in Asian culture, people don’t tend to open up. Growing people and building people are essential, but the Asians will never say that their career’s ambition is to have their boss’s job. As a result, while ADP is designed to build commitment and develop managers, it may backfire; what’s more, people may quite if they are pressed to open up in ways that make them uncomfortable. 4. What action should Lancaster take: wait; go ahead with hybrid or full speed ahead with the US version of ADP? ? Considering the culture differences, in my opinion, Lancaster should go ahead with hybrid. First of ll, the existing MBO-type system has its problems indeed in management and development in Eastern Hemisphere organization, which need to be changed for a high performance, while the Asians might not be adapt to the ADP version because they don’t tend to open up. By moving forward more slowly, ADP could evolve over time. The reasons about that from two sides, one side is that ADP could provide significant benefits in terms of management training and development. On the other hand, it would need the human resource staff’s full support if ADP were ever to be successfully implemented.
Interactive change was always less threatening, particularly when the perceived change agent was viewed by so many as an outsider. As he reflected on the input he had received, he had a growing realization that the Eastern Hemisphere was not one culture but many cultures. With the hybrid, a 180? plan, they could do the management training and develop the company without radical change as well, along with the new management assessment and development system, the staff might accept the change as well as a new culture gradually, and finally they could make the ADP applied to the Eastern Hemisphere.