In other words, this function presupposes that a manager must objectively consider knowledge and skills of his employees and offer them jobs that are most appropriate. Remarkably that some theorists of management call this function as staffing but to our mind, this notion is an element of organizing. Admittedly that given the high levels of discretion enjoyed by knowledge workers, managers decisions over work distribution, content and resources become more critical for commitment and knowledge creation (4, 2005:383-424).
To sum up, organizing function covers establishing superior/subordinate relationships, as well as determining the scope of staffs obligations and responsibilities. The controlling function means checking that work is carried out in a proper way and funds are spent with regard to their purpose. The coordinating function covers training, team building, etc. and refers mainly to work with human resources, but not the production process. It should be added that effective managers should be good communicators and analysts.
They should have guts to resist constant stress and be able to operate under unfavorable conditions. Furthermore, managers are responsible for friendly environment within a company, which engages problem-combating, settling conflicts, searching for best solutions, etc. What is more they should be assertive enough to bring forward their ideas and convince the opponents to give preference to their views. Still, that does not mean that all managers should be inborn leaders, whatever.
Even more, as J. P. Kotter wrote in his 1991 The Best of the Harvard Business Review article, What Leaders Really Do: Leadership is different from management, but not for the reason most people think. Leadership isnt mystical and mysterious. It has nothing to do with having charisma or other exotic personality traits. Its not the province of a chosen few. Nor is leadership necessarily better than management or a replacement for it. Rather, leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary activities.
Both are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and volatile business environment (5, 1991:26). However, in spite of the fact that there are some common features of manager work found in different countries and irrespective of borders, such as the key principles of management in a whole and functions of managers, it has been stated above that managers are the same people. Consequently, their cultural and personal peculiarities are reflected on their work. The former has even given rise to the completely new theory intercultural management.
The most significant factors that have enabled the emergence of this theory are the following: continuous globalization of economy and merge of businesses, establishment of joint ventures, foreign representative offices, etc. As a result, people started to pay more attention to the intercultural diversity of managing styles and traditions along with all-nation values and convictions. Should to go, when in Rome, do as the Romans do, but in order to comply with this rule one should know it.
Notably, that in her article in the Financial Times by Elisabeth Marx titled Shock of the alien can sink a merger, for example, it was mentioned that Research on cross-border acquisitions has shown that differences in management style (particularly in attitudes towards risk) have a negative effect on company performance. Sadly, very few companies consider the softer, cultural factors of mergers, which may be a significant contributor to their subsequent failures.
Far too few companies even begin to consider the effects on staff or the human implication of a merger. Furthermore, the article goes on to manifest that it is easy to end up in a situation where the whole is worth less than the sum of its two parts. Hence, the reasonable solution here may consist in following the statement and credo: Managers first task is to conduct more extensive business analysis before taking the decision to merge.
In addition to carrying out traditional financial and commercial due diligence, they should complete a thorough examination of the cultural compatibility of the parties involved (6, 2005:2). The same can be applied to all spheres where business is conducted and companies in any country. Yert, the most frequent use of intercultural management tenet is observed within such association as, for instance, international markets, by merging with foreign companies, projects involving multi-cultural teams, international negotiations and so on, and so forth.
Other supporting the intercultural management view theories are three well-known analyses of intercultural management by Edward Hall, Geert Hofstede and Philippe dIribarne that illustrate the differences between American and French management styles (7). Citing Edward T. Hall, intercultural differences in communication are based on the context, on time and on space: Understanding between people results from the combination of information and its context.
Some cultures have a rich context (close links between people, high level of the unspoken/unsaid): these cultures are highly implicit; other cultures valuing communication only when it is very clear in itself are said to be explicit (7). This can be exemplified by the French dislike of clearing procedures or by their creativity and flexibility, American productivity and utilitarianism etc (8, 2003:1333-1349). To sum up, there are common features that can be found among managers all over the world.
Managers employ experience of earlier generations as well as coin modern ones. Today, theorists of management clearly define functions and goals of managing work and scope of their responsibilities and obligations. However, on the other hand, it remains disputable wither work of a manager is the same in different countries. Quite to the contrary, the intercultural management theory declares that every nation has its own management style that should be taken into account when conducting international negotiations and making business with foreign countries.
The majority of businessmen can no longer escape the necessity to purchase, sell or communicate and work with people from different cultures and thus with different traditions and convictions. And we are strongly sure that our future is multinational one!
1. History of Management. Retrieved on December 21, 2005 from: http://ollie. dcccd. edu/mgmt1374/book_contents/1overview/management_history/mgmt_history. htm MANAGERS; PERSONALITY; ENTERPRISES |AU| Welbourne, TM. ; Cavanaugh, M. A. ; Judge, T. A. |AD| U. S. A. ; Cornell University. Centre for Advanced Human Resource Studies, IRL School. Ithaca, NY 14653-3901