Management and Eastern Hemisphere

967 Words4 Pages
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…show more content…
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 all, 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
Get Access