Korean Organizations and Their Implications

¶ … Korean organizations and their implications in a cross-cultural setting" (lecture 2) as your point of departure, please contrast the cultural explanations offered in the article with those that could be offered using the theorists of Hofstede and Trompenaars. and.Give a brief summary of the main theme, main conclusions and limitations/shortcomings of the individually chosen article you selected for lecture 8, "HRM classics: Reward" (April 7, 2010). Discuss thereafter in what way the article contributes to the understanding of the themes of this particular lecture by relating the article to the assigned readings (textbook chapters + lecturers' choice of research based article, Fischer & Schmidt: Reward Allocation and Culture: A Meta-Analysis) of this lecture

The article proposes, in fact, two different notions that may seem to be opposite, but which in fact complement each other, in order to explain the particularities of Korean management and, through the perspective of cultural differences, the problem that such particular style of management poses when it is exported abroad. On one hand, the article mentions the strict hierarchical style imposed by a Korean company and correlated with a structure based on Confucianism and on its notions. On the other hand, the article also addresses a certain informal approach, with a strong emphasis on interpersonal relations in the workplace and the informal social ties that result on that basis.

Most likely, the fact that the organizational structure is based on the notions of Confucianism is defining for the Korean model, as described in the article. Confucian management means both the adoption and promotion of the Confucian values encouraging the respect for authority and seniority and a strictly hierarchical system, with a paternalistic leadership and a renunciation of the individual in favor of the organization and the collective spirit.

The second important element of the Korean model as reflected in the article is the informal interaction between the members of the organization. The interaction between the members of the organization is based on the underlying sentiment of belonging to the same collective structure, to a larger organization that proposes a collective rather than individual approach.

The structure that the article proposes dwells well on the framework proposed by Hofstede, who discusses the five cultural dimensions and identifies these as power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance index and long-term orientation. Out of these five different dimensions, the most important one that is reflected in the article being referred here is the individualism. Korean management and, in fact, the Korean corporate structure proposes a low individuality and high collectivism. This means that the ties between the employees are very strong, one of the pillars on which the article relies.

Given Trompenaars four cultural dimensions and his model relying on two main variables (the attitude towards the person in the organization and the level of centralization), the Korean model belongs to the family category. This proposes a highly centralized organization, with a strict hierarchical structure and one where the individual becomes diffused in favor of a more general and collective framework. All of these elements are emphasized in the mentioned article as the main characteristics of the Korean model of management.

Trompenaars's extended model proposes seven dimensions, which includes the level of individualism (also previously discussed in the Hofstede model) the level of specificity, as the degree to which private and working lives confound each other (Trompenaars, Fons; Hampden-Turner, Charles. Riding The Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. 1997). The level of individualism has previously been discussed. As to the level of specificity, the article mentions three different notions that help define the level of interconnection between the individual and company life. These are the interdependent self, the high work ethic and the affect-based relations. One can safely state that, in the Korean model, the interconnection between the individual and the company is very high, to the degree that these three elements will also tend to define his existence outside the organization.

Also related to the Confucian values is the ascribed status, according to Trompenaars's set of cultural factors, that tends to be predominant in a Korean company, as opposed to achieved status, where the respective position in the hierarchy is in fact a result of the performances and achievements of the individual. This means that the Korean model is difficult to implement in countries where performance and advancement are so interconnected.

2. The main theme of the analyzed article is the difference between an individualistic approach towards reward allocation and a team-based one.

The theme of the article relates to the article on "Reward Allocation and Culture: A Meta-Analysis," whose theme is reward allocation, in particular the way the reward allocation behavior varies across different cultures. Based on an ample theoretical research, the article initially presents the way that theory on this subject has developed during the last decade and moves. As such, the premise of reward allocation has gradually shifted from reward allocated based on equity and equality to reward being allocated in a framework that factors in more and more additional issues such as social skills or tenure. The degree to which some of these factors are considered varies from culture to culture and will influence the way reward is allocated within the corporate group.

In particular, as the analyzed article has shown, reward allocation varies within the same organization as well, depending on the management's approach. The analyzed article looks into a particular cultural factor, namely the degree of individualism and all related realities deriving from that, including in terms of reward allocation.

The article on "Reward Allocation and Culture: A Meta-Analysis" is keen to connect the notion of reward allocation to cultural differences notions in management, including the theories that Hofstede or Schwartz have proposed. According to these, each culture has a particular power distance, showing the way the distribution of power is accepted within a society, and also promotes a different hierarchical structure (either more formalized or, on the contrary, more informal). All of these are considered when analyzing the reward allocation structure.

The analyzed article concludes that the choice of motivational systems and, as a direct consequence, of reward allocation frameworks, are strictly interrelated to the systems that have been traditionally used in the organization, because the costs of switching to a new system is often too costly to be adopted and promoted within the organization. One of the main conclusions of the article also refers to the way reward allocation, as a motivational component, can, at the same time, encourage individualism and individual decision making and promote a collective approach and support team spirit in the company. Theory has proposed a combined individual and collective reward allocation system, but this was denied by the evidence provided in the analyzed article. This was identified as one of the limitations of the study and further research needs to be done in order to identify the effects that a team-based approach implies.