Buying A Computer essays

Buying A Computer essays Buying a Computer today is much more complicated then it was ten years ago. The choices we have are abundant, and the information we must gather to make those choices is much greater. The average consumer is a more educated buyer; they at least have some ideas of what they want in a computer. Yet, we must still ask ourselves these significant questions; such as: What will the primary function of my computer be? What computer components should I consider at the time of purchase? How much money do I have to spend? Where should I go to purchase my computer? For this report, I will consider the requirements of a typical family: using a mini-tower PC with the Windows 95 operating system, word processing, and entry-level publishing programs; as well as, an anti-virus package, games with high-level graphics and sound, and the internet. I will also consider the following components; those essential for the computer to work faster, and more efficient. They are as follows: Central Processing Unit (CPU) System Memory (RAM) Storage Device(s). The following is a detailed look at the CPU, RAM, and Storage devices; the important components that you should consider when purchasing a PC. Computer systems, particularly the higher-end models, come in several Configurations: desktop, mini tower, or tower. The configuration you chose should depend - to some extent - on the amount of expansion, (if any) you may want to plan for in the future. Most tower configurations have a greater amount of expandability than mini tower and desktop models. Also, the amount of space that you have in your home for the system should be taken into consideration. Tower configurations are usually placed on the floor; (however, not the mini tower models) whereas, desktop models are made to sit on the surface where the keyboard and monitor are located. The first consideration is the CPU. Today, the Intel Corporation is still the leading manufa...

Cost Concepts Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Cost Concepts - Essay Example That is why HMO plans are cheaper than other plans. However, it is noteworthy that the added control over cost is achieved on the cost of quality of the health care. In this type of managed care organization, physicians offer their services at a cheaper rate. This is a mutually beneficial practice in which physicians earn more because of increased business while the patients get the services at a significantly lower cost. The FFS plans provide patients with maximum freedom in terms of choice of physician. Patients can use these plans to select a health care professional of their own choice whom they feel satisfied served by. However, the freedom amplify the cost of service they are given. In many ways, POS resembles HMO. Health care providers have the capitation arrangement for the people enrolled. However, in this type of managed care organization, there are no specific hospitals for doctors to work in. They are compensated annually for every patient they check. â€Å"Increasing the percentage of the patient population in lower-reimbursed, managed segments†¦ [and] †¦changing practice patterns across all patient populations, including higher-utilization unmanaged segments† (Majkowski, 1997). Ways in which physicians may be reimbursed in managed care organizations are numerous and vary from type to type. For example, in HMOs, physicians receive fixed salaries while in POS, the â€Å"network providers are compensated on capitation basis, however the enrollees can choose a provider outside the network, who is reimbursed on fee-for-service basis† (Virk,

Design a Pay for Performance Incentive Awards Program Assignment

Design a Pay for Performance Incentive Awards Program - Assignment Example program that will run for five years within the organization seeks to maximize productivity besides developing an appropriate mindset among the employees. This way, the program is not only a short-term project but also a long-term motivational project. As discussed, the program will incorporate all the employees within the company including the top-level managers to the junior employees. In order to implement the program appropriately, the implementation will therefore vary depending on the employees. Just as the title suggests, the program seeks to reward productivity. Each level of employee has specific goals that the program will strive to achieve. In the top-level management for example, the program seeks to enhance creativity, intuition and management prowess. In middle level management, the program seeks to enhance both obedience and problem solving skills while in the junior employees of the organization the program seeks to enhance both competition and hard work. This way, the program enhances the overall productivity of the entire organization. Preliminarily, the program will ensure that all the employees within the organization are capable of undertaking their different roles. This complements the objective of the program since it seeks to reward productivity. The employees must therefore meet the qualifications set for their different roles a feature that ensures that they are capable of undertaking their roles within the organization. Furthermore, qualifications ensure that the employees are capable of meeting the obligations of their respective positions besides enhancing the ease of management. Top-level management must have appropriate qualifications. Managers make decisions daily operations within the organization through the formulation and implementation of policies. As such, they must have both the appropriate education and professional training to enable them make such appropriate decisions. The performance reward program will acknowledge the

English class Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

English class - Essay Example It should be noted that Bush won that election only because of some of the loopholes in the American presidential election system. Even though Al Gore won majority of the popular vote, Congress and Supreme Court decided that Bush should be the winner since he had more Electoral College votes than Gore. The essence of democracy is a government elected by the majority of the people. In other words, those who were able to capture majority of the public votes should be declared as the winner; then only we can say that the election was fair under the norms of democratic principles. If I had power, I would have definitely changed the constitution to cancel the presidential election of Bush. In my opinion, the cancellation of Bush’s presidential election and the declaration of Al Gore as the winner would have changed American history in many ways. Bush is actually responsible for some of the most unfavorable incidents happening at present. It was because of Bush’s decision to attack Iraq in order to take revenge upon Saddam for humiliating his father Bush Sr, majority of the recent terrorist incidents occurred in this world. Bush’s decision to attack Iraq forced Arab world and the Muslim world to think that America is against Islam. This belief actually forced them justify terrorist attack as a mean of self-defense. In fact 9/11 was the outcome of Iraq war.

Computer Simulations to test Projects

Computer Simulations to test Projects The idea of describing a physical phenomenon using mathematical models/computational tools is not a new one. About 430 years ago, Galileo Galilei exhorted that it is imperative to describe the results mathematically once a certain number of experiments sensate esperienze have been performed. If one succeeds in illustrating the physical phenomenon using the mathematical equations, then the response of the system of interest can be predicted for a broad range of conditions, including the ones for which conducting the experiments are very difficult, too costly, or not possible at all. In the recent years, the use of computational studies in materials research has been fueled by the drastic increase in the available computational power, resulting from the development of advanced computers with parallel architecture tuned for computationally intensive tasks. Nowadays, the leading engineering companies, such as GM, Ford, GE, Airbus and Boeing use computer simulations to model and test mechanical and aerodynamic characteristics of their products such as automobiles, jet engines and aircrafts before manufacturing the final product or even before testing a prototype in a wind tunnel or crashing them into a wall e.g. Figure 1. shows the deformed shape of the body of a truck body after it is crashed into a rigid wall simulated using a software. Among the numerous benefits of the simulation/computational tools in materials research, one is that if any problems are found in the design during modeling, it can be fixed before sending the technical drawings to the manufacturing unit of the company. Figure 1. 3D simulation of a truck crashing into a rigid virtual wall[1] Now, if we are going to predict the material behavior using the software/computational tools, then the accuracy of the software comes into limelight. The accuracy of these predictions depends on: 1. The accuracy of the adopted numerical solvers (e.g. a very popular scheme known as FEM), 2. The accuracy of the mathematical models that describe the materials behavior (i.e. constitutive laws). In addition to above, different mechanisms occur at different length scales that govern the macro behavior of the material. Therefore, in order to improve the accuracy of predictions of the software, information of these mechanisms happening at different length scales is also required, which lays down the need for a multi-scale model. In science and engineering, nearly all problems are multi-scale in nature. For example, multi-scale modeling of cancer cells is now being considered as an indispensable tool to enable more accurate predictions of growth of cancer cells (reference). Now, in context of modeling behavior of metals, different mathematical models that describe the physics of deformation at different length scales are used and are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. Overview of length scales involved in metals[2] At atomic scale, the interaction forces between neighboring atoms are calculated using the First-Principles Density Functional Theory (DFT) but the computations are limited to a few hundred atoms, which is too small to study the macro behavior of a material. To model the mechanical behavior of a material using molecular statics / dynamics several million atoms must be considered that involves days / weeks of computations. (Reference)Moreover, characteristic length that is accessible using molecular statics / dynamics modeling is very small than the mean free path of the motion of dislocations (defects in regular atomic lattice). Dislocations are the critical elements in a microstructure of a polycrystalline solid to accommodate the plastic deformation and to analyze the behavior of a material at a length scale, where the material hardening is controlled by the interactions of dislocation, discrete dislocation framework is used. However, due to the large amount of degree of freedoms r equired to analyze interactions of dislocations, the discrete dislocation framework is limited to model a material with volume up to 10 microns. Continuum mechanics / Peridynamics employ the phenomenological laws of motion and of deformation energy to describe the mechanical behavior of a material at macroscopic length scale neglecting any phenomena that occur at smaller length scales which leads to a deficiency in the accuracy of the predictions. Nevertheless, there exists a framework at an intermediate scale (meso-scale) that models dislocations behavior in terms of slip and considers some vital microstructural features providing a very close estimate of real-word phenomena within reasonable computational time, known as crystal plasticity. Crystal plasticity-based models work at a length scale where the groups of crystals i.e. grain in a material becomes evident. In crystal plasticity models, usually a representative volume element (RVE) of the actual component is analyzed that yields a value which represents the behavior of the whole material. Hence, using crystal plasticity alone, one cannot simulate the actual lab scale (at macro-scale) component. Therefore, in order to accurately describe, to fundamentally understand, to reliably predict, and to eventually control the behavior of a material under different conditions, it is of tremendous importance to develop novel approaches that investigate the multiscale nature of met als. In this research work, a new multi-scale framework is proposed that incorporates physics of fine scale phenomena using crystal plasticity-based modeling approach with a Peridynamics-based coarse scale modeling approach. In addition, an attempt is made to enhance their existing modeling capabilities both in term of accuracy as well as computational speed with an interest to study effects of microstructure on: instability, localization and formability in aluminum sheets at meso-scale, crack initiation and crack propagation in a lab scale component made of aluminum. [1] http://www.mscsoftware.com/product/dytran [2] http://www.kochmann.caltech.edu/pics/scales0.gif      

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck Essay -- John Steinbeck Mice Men Ess

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck John Steinbeck was born on 27 Feb 1902 in Salinas, California, not far from the area where Of Mice and Men is set. He attended Stanford University, but never settled to one area of study and left without obtaining a degree. In his twenties, he pursued a varied working life, including that of an itinerant ranch worker, similar to the characters portrayed in the novel. His early writings had some success, and established him as an author interested in social problems. 'Of Mice and Men' was first published in 1937, and was immediately successful, earning Steinbeck a wide reputation. Steinbeck enjoyed even greater success with the full-length novel The Grapes of Wrath (1939), which won him the Pulitzer Prize in 1940. He wrote a number of other novels such as Cannery Row and In Dubious Battle, as well as Short Stories such as The Red Pony and The Pearl. The latter two stories are frequently studied as school texts. However, most critics agree that Steinbeck's later works don't quite match up to his earlier efforts. Nevertheless, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1962 "...for his realistic as well as imaginative writings, distinguished by a sympathetic humour and a keen social perception.". Steinbeck died 20 Dec 1968. Overall Plot. George and Lennie are two migrant American labourers, who share a dream; that one day they may buy a farm, and Lennie will be able to take care of the rabbits. Although Lennie is physically very strong and has the body of a man, he has the mind of a child. The two men arrive on a ranch near the town of Soledad, where they are about to start work as barley buckers. On arriving there, they meet Candy, an old o... ...il the 'sof' things' that Lennie pets in the novel, showing that the petting grows more serious as the novel goes on. Describe in some detail the incident where Lennie crushes Curley's hand. What does this incident reveal about each of these two characters? While Curley is physically aggressive towards Lennie, his wife is sexually provocative. Show how these two characters create trouble for Lennie, and combine to cause his death. Many people in the novel suffer from disappointment. Choose any three of the following characters and discuss what reasons they have to be disappointed about their life: Crooks - Curley - George - Candy Which character do you feel most sorry for in this story? Explain your choice by referring closely to the events of the novel. Slim is the only character in the novel who is not handicapped in some way. Do you agree?

The Cultural Anchoring Of Leadership Styles

With globalisation and related intensification of trade and commerce effective leadership has become indispensable in the business world. Where traditionally the business leader took the role of commanding â€Å"the troops† towards effectiveness and efficiency this has changed dramatically over the last decades. The service industry rise, knowledge management trends, increased workforce diversity combined with international trading and global sourcing of talent, has considerably reshaped the role of the leader in the contemporary organisation.Numerous firms are in global alliances depending upon flexibility/adaptability to local markets, requiring their managers to possess appropriate leadership styles to cope effectively with different value systems and cultures (Fahy, 2002; Coviello et al. , 1998). 2Arguably, the flattening of hierarchical structures has also contributed to this reshaping process as traditional sources of authority, upon which leaders have built on for years , have been diminished.Combined with the rise of new trading powers such as the â€Å"Asian Dragon†, business leaders, especially in international MNEs do not only face domestic multiculturalism and diversity but are also increasingly expatriated. Consequently completely new cultural pitfalls and challenges are faced requiring understanding of cultural values as well as quick cultural adaptation to transfer domestic leadership abilities into foreign markets. Combined with steadily rising competitive pressures, the contemporary business leader in a role not easily filled.Despite leadership being a universal concept (Bass, 1990), with most literature anchored in the (individualistically oriented) US, it has been questioned to what extend western leadership styles are cross-culturally transferable (Dorfman, 2003). Resultantly, debate has sparked over how far leadership is culturally contingent, if universal leadership qualities and tactics exist and what the explanatory variable s are (Scandura & Dorfman, 2004).This assignment aims at contributing towards this debate by exploring leadership disparity and possible congruence between the UK and Japan using academic measurement of national culture; Hofstede’s framework respectively. The next section will give an overview over the concept of leadership followed by an in-depth cultural comparison and concluding section. 4The term leadership incorporates some elements of controversy over its meaning and practices. Different cultural gist or terminology or in cross-cultural contexts makes a universal definition difficult (Yukl, 2002).This seems unsurprising as the understandings and expectations of authority roles differ between cultures. Nevertheless, despite cultural differences the majority of leadership definitions reflect some basic elements these manly being â€Å"group†, â€Å"influence† and â€Å"goal† (Bryman, 1992). Keeping this in mind, leadership can be seen as the â€Å"pr ocess of influencing others towards achieving some kind of desired outcome. † (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007, p. 44) or bluntly spoken â€Å"leadership is the ability to get [people] to do what they don’t like to do and like it†Whilst this is a very basic attempt of a definition it allows for easier application in a cross-cultural context and highlights an important point: In order to lead one needs followers (Drucker, 2007). It is here where the inseparable link to power emerges whereby the power of leaders is largely dependent upon the perception of others (Hollander & Julian, 1969; Maurer & Lord, 1991; Pfeffer, 1977) but nevertheless forms the basis of leadership authority.It appears that only effective use of this power, combined with â€Å"leading by example† (Pfeffer, 1981) will result in positive and proactive guidance fostering creativity, innovation, commitment and long term organisational development. 6However, this is questionable and it seems that far too often in academic literature the terms â€Å"manager† and â€Å"leader† are merged giving a blurred picture of what each role actually entails. Readers should be reminded that leaders, unlike managers, do not have to rely on forms of power to influence subordinates, often actually relinquishing formal authoritarian control.This is due to the idea that to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity. Nevertheless, it can be argued that even leaders need some foundation of authority; may it only be their charisma (Weber, 1968). This has been manifested in the participative, charismatic or transformative styles of leadership (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001) as oppose to the transactional style more related to operational, task focused managers.Especially in western economies with predominant service industries, innovation and knowledge management, the former have been the focal point in recent years as autocratic leadership styles do no lon ger seem sufficient to extract the full potential of an increasingly knowledgeable, highly skilled and demanding workforce. Such, arguably â€Å"softer† approaches fostering employee involvement and participation have nevertheless been proven to result in increased organisational performance (Bass, 1996; 1997; House & Shamir, 1993) and are arguably more â€Å"ideal† forms of organisational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1989).This might be applicable to western societies yet a cross-cultural generalisation might be prejudiced and the influence of personal values and cultural influences upon leadership styles should not be ignored (Byrne & Bradley, 2007). Rather, culture, an essential component of which is personal values (Kroeber, 1952; Kluckhohm, 1949), is to be seen at a centre stage when analysing leadership differences (George et al. , 1998; Nakata & Sivakumar, 1996; Steenkamp et al. , 1999; Cadogan et al. 2001), as t is â€Å"the collective programming of the mind wh ich distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another† (Hofstede, 1980, p.260) and shape leadership preferences.Culture hereby should not be limited to national culture but has to be extended to incorporating organisational as well as political culture (Schein, 1985), the latter two arguably being extensively shaped by the former. Democratic or authoritarian political systems, national values regarding sex differences and ethical behaviour as well as organisational attitudes towards factors such as centralisation and work attitude, undoubtedly influence leadership styles.Not only will such factors shape leadership approaches, but with regard to cultural differences these will often even stand in conflict to each other. Consequently domestically implemented leadership approaches might not be applicable in other cultural settings and render ineffective in maintaining firm sustained competitive advantage and superior international performance (Kimber, 1997 ; Jackson and Aycan, 2001; Pfeffer, 2002).The next section will investigate the effect of cultural values upon leadership styles in detail using the U and Japan as examples. 9British leadership style has often been described as more casual in nature fostering teamwork and seeking group consensus (Lewis, 2001). As such, a more participative leadership style is predominant reflecting flatter hierarchical structures in UK organisations. So, hierarchical structures not primarily seem as means to establish authority structures (Laurent, 1983) but more as core administrative frameworks.This according to Hofstede (2001), is a reflection of the UK’s low association to Power Distance. Essentially, subordinates do not attribute much to position and title and leaders must â€Å"embody a collective will and take personal responsibility for it while continuing to communicate and co-operate with the team† (Mole, 1990, p. 105). Unsurprisingly, networking capability and people managem ent skills are highly valued in the UK (Stewart et al. 1994) as leadership qualities.Nevertheless, this (collectivist) team and people orientation is mainly seem as a path towards achieving organisational targets and innovation assuring individuals in team settings aggregate knowledge that has strategic relevance to the organisation (Miller &Morris, 1999). As such transformational leadership attitudes (Burns, 1978) can be seen where leaders are to create conditions under which subordinates devotedly contribute to the organisation yet this is done primarily through a strategic lens. (McCarthy, 2005).Nevertheless, the Anglo-Saxon system of shareholder satisfaction drives leaders towards task orientation often combined with a short-term outlook. As such quick, short-term organisational (financial) success is often more valued than long-term organisational success and relationship building, reflecting according to Hofstede, a culture of highly short term orientation and low uncertainty avoidance. Essentially, risks are seen as part of daily business practice and leadership approaches reflect that subordinates are given opportunity to implement potentially rewarding, but high risk, strategies.This shows that, despite team orientation and a one might say more relaxed, friendly and diplomatic leadership style, the British cannot deny their American leadership style influence, fostering structured individualism, speed and drive (Lewis, 2001). Falsely, m any authors seem to ignore this connection, even so influences of hire and fire mentality and the creating of specialist roles underlining a core individualistic attitude are undeniable reflecting British national, and interlinked to that, legal and organisational culture.Such individualistic attitude constantly resurfaces in leadership styles often portrayed through individual target setting, remuneration practices and shorter employment contracts. Employees do not look for lifetime employment and a steady career in o ne company resultantly British leaders are more reluctant to invest heavily in the training and education of subordinates (Schneider & Littrell, 2003). This continues to the often actively sought after and purposely created assertive and competitive environment amongst colleagues or departments reflecting a relatively high masculine attitude as Hofstede’s culture scale clearly outlines.While these attributes sketch general aspects of British leadership, styles will vary between organisations, industries and individuals. Service- or R&D intensive industries for example, will follow a more Theory Y (McGregor, 1960) approach fostering employee involvement and empowerment. Leadership on traditional manufacturing industries on the other hand due to their reliance on productivity and output combined with an often repetitive working atmosphere, might take a more Theory X attitude.In contrast to the UK, Japanese leadership, like many Asian countries, is grounded in Confucian principl es (Redding, 1990; Tan, 1986) and despite rising western influences, strong Confucian traits believing in moral, interpersonal relationships/loyalties, education and hard work still lurk beneath the surface (Lewis, 2001). Especially â€Å"taking the family as a model for society at large, Confucianism is basically authoritarian and stresses hierarchical and status differences† (Selmer, 2001, p.8).As such, through its vertically orientated hierarchies and rigid organisation (Chen, 1995) one would expect Japan to score higher than the UK in Hofstede’s power distance index, and so indeed it does. This offers leaders with traditional and legitimate power bases however, surprisingly not resulting in autocratic leadership styles as one would expect, but far more the association of assertiveness-authority and reason tactics (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992).As such, Japanese leadership style rewards subordinate respect and obedience with highly paternalistic attitudes, expressed by mendo u: â€Å"I think about your, I will take care of you† (Dorfman et al. 1997). Consequently, the Japanese leadership culture, despite placing emphasising hierarchy and status differences requiring full subordinate obedience, expects helping and caring for followers and being involved in their personal lives (Whitehall & Takezawa, 1968; Bass et al.1979).As a result the most powerful force of the Japanese leader is not autocracy but charisma combined with intrinsic rather than extrinsic (materialistic) reward mechanisms often predominant in the UK: bonuses, on-target-earnings, etc. (Maslow, 1943, 1954). This seems surprising considering the high masculine score, which, from a western perspective would result in autocratic, top down, assertive, tough and focused on material success (Hofstede, 1998) leadership.It is here where Hofstede’s framework seems to only partly explain the Japanese culture and low individualism but high masculinity and power distance stand in conflict with each other. 14Additionally, in such an environment more focus towards ascription rather than achievement would be expected (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997, 2000). Nevertheless, the contrary appears in the Japanese context with leaders having to possess superior, often specific, (hard) knowledge supplemented by strong educational backgrounds (Nestler, 2008).Here another disparity to UK leadership emerges, where despite educational background being important for initial work placement, greater focus upon (soft) â€Å"people skills† and strategic directive is desired and ascription of leadership positions remains (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1994). 15The collectivist principles shape Japanese leadership style dramatically, requiring group consensus and decision-making despite extremely high masculinity and higher power distance.Essentially a â€Å"bottom-up† (ringsho) process of decision-making is chosen (Wu, 2006) with the leader granting independent decision making to the group generally letting subordinates use their own approaches to achieve overall collectivist objectives (Dorfman et al. 1997). This is surprising, as in western societies strong hierarchical structures often result in a â€Å"top-down† leadership approach but can be explained through high uncertainly avoidance collecting input and consensus from all parties involved before decisions are made.Even more so, the concepts of â€Å"wa† (maintaining social relationships) and â€Å"kao† (maintaining â€Å"face†) actually require the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process and the preservation of harmony rendering western leader contingent punishment behaviour inappropriate. It is here where Japanese leadership style diverts extensively from its UK (Anglo-Saxon) counterpart where public scrutinising is part of daily leadership practices reflecting a competitive and individualistic culture driven by short-term financial objective s with high-risk acceptance.Due to the collectivist environment and extensive future planning, Japanese managers on the other hand, do not view themselves as risk takers, despite this characteristic often being attributed to charismatic leaders (Bass, 1985). This is reflected in Japan’s extremely high uncertainty avoidance score and is further supported by strong long-term orientation valuing prevailing face and harmony. Unsurprisingly, life-long employment is desired, supplemented b continued job rotation aimed at developing employees.As a result leaders and subordinates enter into long and close relationships hardly ever interrupted contrasting the UK’s â€Å"burn out† environment fostering high staff turnover. Unlike in the UK, Japanese business leaders look for generalist employees capable of working in multiple levels of the organisation reflecting a society placing less value upon specialists than western cultures. 17Overall, Japanese leaders focus upon co llective (not individual) responsibility (Hayashi, 1988) and group harmony maintenance is usually considered more important than profitability and overall productivity (Bass, 1990).Nevertheless, also Japanese leaders have to drive performance resulting in somewhat of a trade-off situation between performance and collectivist harmony maintenance. According to the performance-maintenance theory (Misumi, 1990), Japanese leaders have to chose between goal achievement and the continuation of the group, preferably combining high levels of both (Misumi, 1995). If this is achieved, such supportive or participative leadership styles (Ouchi, 1981) are said to result in â€Å"higher levels of motivation, delegation of decision-making, commitment, and intrinsic job satisfaction† (Keys and Miller, 1982, p.6). This appears to be in line with the currently preferred leadership style in the UK.However, one should not forget that unlike the Japanese working environment, the UK has been subjec t to great inward as well as outward FDI flows resulting in a blending of many different leadership approaches. As such arguably UK leaders would find it easier to adapt to Japanese principles than Japanese leaders. This is due to the western â€Å"farce† of collectivist team working for individualistic goals and the limited respect paid to status differences.While Hofstede’s framework helps to understand the leadership differences between the two countries if fails to explain some factors. So for examples does high Japanese power distance explain hierarchical structures and respect to superiors but the theoretical assumptions of complete centralisation of power, low emphasis on developing the workforce and autocratic top-down contact initiation (Hofstede, 1991) do not fully reflect the Japanese working environment.On this note one should not forget that Hofstede’s framework is not free of criticism and arguably is outdated, limited in scope of methodology and m easurement (Dorfman and Howell, 1988; Roberts and Boyciligiller, 1984) and only reflects a blend of organisational (IBM) culture and national cultures (Hunt, 1983; Robinson, 1983). As such it is no surprise that other studies such as the GLOBE project have found differing or even contradictory results for similar cultural dimensions. The Cultural Anchoring Of Leadership Styles With globalisation and related intensification of trade and commerce effective leadership has become indispensable in the business world. Where traditionally the business leader took the role of commanding â€Å"the troops† towards effectiveness and efficiency this has changed dramatically over the last decades.The service industry rise, knowledge management trends, increased workforce diversity combined with international trading and global sourcing of talent, has considerably reshaped the role of the leader in the contemporary organisation. Numerous firms are in global alliances depending upon flexibility/adaptability to local markets, requiring their managers to possess appropriate leadership styles to cope effectively with different value systems and cultures (Fahy, 2002; Coviello et al., 1998).Arguably, the flattening of hierarchical structures has also contributed to this reshaping process as traditional sources of authority, upon which leaders have built on for years, h ave been diminished. Combined with the rise of new trading powers such as the â€Å"Asian Dragon†, business leaders, especially in international MNEs do not only face domestic multiculturalism and diversity but are also increasingly expatriated.Consequently completely new cultural pitfalls and challenges are faced requiring understanding of cultural values as well as quick cultural adaptation to transfer domestic leadership abilities into foreign markets. Combined with steadily rising competitive pressures, the contemporary business leader in a role not easily filled.Despite leadership being a universal concept (Bass, 1990), with most literature anchored in the (individualistically oriented) US, it has been questioned to what extend western leadership styles are cross-culturally transferable (Dorfman, 2003). Resultantly, debate has sparked over how far leadership is culturally contingent, if universal leadership qualities and tactics exist and what the explanatory variables a re (Scandura & Dorfman, 2004).This assignment aims at contributing towards this debate by exploring leadership disparity and possible congruence between the UK and Japan using academic measurement of national culture; Hofstede’s framework respectively. The next section will give an overview over the concept of leadership followed by an in-depth cultural comparison and concluding section.The term leadership incorporates some elements of controversy over its meaning and practices. Different cultural gist or terminology or in cross-cultural contexts makes a universal definition difficult (Yukl, 2002). This seems unsurprising as the understandings and expectations of authority roles differ between cultures. Nevertheless, despite cultural differences the majority of leadership definitions reflect some basic elements these manly being â€Å"group†, â€Å"influence† and â€Å"goal† (Bryman, 1992).Keeping this in mind, leadership can be seen as the â€Å"process of influencing others towards achieving some kind of desired outcome.† (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007, p. 44) or bluntly spoken â€Å"leadership is the ability to get [people] to do what they don’t like to do and like it† (Truman in Sadler, 2003, p. 5).Whilst this is a very basic attempt of a definition it allows for easier application in a cross-cultural context and highlights an important point: In order to lead one needs followers (Drucker, 2007). It is here where the inseparable link to power emerges whereby the power of leaders is largely dependent upon the perception of others (Hollander & Julian, 1969; Maurer & Lord, 1991; Pfeffer, 1977) but nevertheless forms the basis of leadership authority. It appears that only effective use of this power, combined with â€Å"leading by example† (Pfeffer, 1981) will result in positive and proactive guidance fostering creativity, innovation, commitment and long term organisational development.However, this is quest ionable and it seems that far too often in academic literature the terms â€Å"manager† and â€Å"leader† are merged giving a blurred picture of what each role actually entails. Readers should be reminded that leaders, unlike managers, do not have to rely on forms of power to influence subordinates, often actually relinquishing formal authoritarian control. This is due to the idea that to lead is to have followers, and following is always a voluntary activity.Nevertheless, it can be argued that even leaders need some foundation of authority; may it only be their charisma (Weber, 1968). This has been manifested in the participative, charismatic or transformative styles of leadership (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001) as oppose to the transactional style more related to operational, task focused  managers. Especially in western economies with predominant service industries, innovation and knowledge management, the former have been the focal point in recent years as autocrati c leadership styles do no longer seem sufficient to extract the full potential of an increasingly knowledgeable, highly skilled and demanding workforce.Such, arguably â€Å"softer† approaches fostering employee involvement and participation have nevertheless been proven to result in increased organisational performance (Bass, 1996; 1997; House & Shamir, 1993) and are arguably more â€Å"ideal† forms of organisational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1989).This might be applicable to western societies yet a cross-cultural generalisation might be prejudiced and the influence of personal values and cultural influences upon leadership styles should not be ignored (Byrne & Bradley, 2007). Rather, culture, an essential component of which is personal values (Kroeber, 1952; Kluckhohm, 1949), is to be seen at a centre stage when analysing leadership differences (George et al., 1998; Nakata & Sivakumar, 1996; Steenkamp et al., 1999; Cadogan et al. 2001), as t is â€Å"the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another† (Hofstede, 1980, p. 260) and shape leadership preferences.Culture hereby should not be limited to national culture but has to be extended to incorporating organisational as well as political culture (Schein, 1985), the latter two arguably being extensively shaped by the former. Democratic or authoritarian political systems, national values regarding sex differences and ethical behaviour as well as organisational attitudes towards factors such as centralisation and work attitude, undoubtedly influence leadership styles.Not only will such factors shape leadership approaches, but with regard to cultural differences these will often even stand in conflict to each other. Consequently domestically implemented leadership approaches might not be applicable in other cultural settings and render ineffective in maintaining firm sustained competitive advantage and superior internationa l performance (Kimber, 1997; Jackson and Aycan, 2001; Pfeffer, 2002). The next section will investigate the effect of cultural values upon leadership styles in detail using the U and Japan as examples.British leadership style has often been described as more casual in nature fostering teamwork and seeking group consensus (Lewis, 2001). As such, a more participative leadership style is predominant reflecting flatter hierarchical structures in UK organisations. So, hierarchical structures not primarily seem as means to establish authority structures (Laurent, 1983) but more as core administrative frameworks. This according to Hofstede (2001), is a reflection of the UK’s low association to Power Distance. Essentially, subordinates do not attribute much to position and title and leaders must â€Å"embody a collective will and take personal responsibility for it while continuing to communicate and co-operate with the team† (Mole, 1990, p. 105).Unsurprisingly, networking cap ability and people management skills are highly valued in the UK (Stewart et al. 1994) as leadership qualities. Nevertheless, this (collectivist) team and people orientation is mainly seem as a path towards achieving organisational targets and innovation assuring individuals in team settings aggregate knowledge that has strategic relevance to the organisation (Miller &Morris, 1999). As such transformational leadership attitudes (Burns, 1978) can be seen where leaders are to create conditions under which subordinates devotedly contribute to the organisation yet this is done primarily through a strategic lens. (McCarthy, 2005).Nevertheless, the Anglo-Saxon system of shareholder satisfaction drives leaders towards task orientation often combined with a short-term outlook. As such quick, short-term organisational (financial) success is often more valued than long-term organisational success and relationship building, reflecting according to Hofstede, a culture of highly short term orien tation and low uncertainty avoidance. Essentially, risks are seen as part of daily business practice and leadership approaches reflect that subordinates are given opportunity to implement potentially rewarding, but high risk, strategies.This shows that, despite team orientation and a one might say more relaxed, friendly and diplomatic leadership style, the British cannot deny their American leadership style influence, fostering structured individualism, speed and drive (Lewis, 2001). Falsely, m any authors seem to  ignore this connection, even so influences of hire and fire mentality and the creating of specialist roles underlining a core individualistic attitude are undeniable reflecting British national, and interlinked to that, legal and organisational culture. Such individualistic attitude constantly resurfaces in leadership styles often portrayed through individual target setting, remuneration practices and shorter employment contracts.Employees do not look for lifetime emplo yment and a steady career in one company resultantly British leaders are more reluctant to invest heavily in the training and education of subordinates (Schneider & Littrell, 2003). This continues to the often actively sought after and purposely created assertive and competitive environment amongst colleagues or departments reflecting a relatively high masculine attitude as Hofstede’s culture scale clearly outlines.While these attributes sketch general aspects of British leadership, styles will vary between organisations, industries and individuals. Service- or R&D intensive industries for example, will follow a more Theory Y (McGregor, 1960) approach fostering employee involvement and empowerment. Leadership on traditional manufacturing industries on the other hand due to their reliance on productivity and output combined with an often repetitive working atmosphere, might take a more Theory X attitude.In contrast to the UK, Japanese leadership, like many Asian countries, is grounded in Confucian principles (Redding, 1990; Tan, 1986) and despite rising western influences, strong Confucian traits believing in moral, interpersonal relationships/loyalties, education and hard work still lurk beneath the surface (Lewis, 2001). Especially â€Å"taking the family as a model for society at large, Confucianism is basically authoritarian and stresses hierarchical and status differences† (Selmer, 2001, p. 8).As such, through its vertically orientated hierarchies and rigid organisation (Chen, 1995) one would expect Japan to score higher than the UK in Hofstede’s power distance index, and so indeed it does. This offers leaders with traditional and legitimate power bases however, surprisingly not resulting in autocratic leadership styles as one would expect, but far more the association of assertiveness-authority and reason tactics (Schmidt & Yeh, 1992).As such, Japanese leadership style rewards subordinate respect and obedience with highly paternalisti c attitudes, expressed by mendou: â€Å"I think about your, I will take care of you† (Dorfman et al. 1997). Consequently, the Japanese leadership culture, despite placing emphasising hierarchy and status differences requiring full subordinate obedience, expects helping and caring for followers and being involved in their personal lives (Whitehall & Takezawa, 1968; Bass et al. 1979).As a result the most powerful force of the Japanese leader is not autocracy but charisma combined with intrinsic rather than extrinsic (materialistic) reward mechanisms often predominant in the UK: bonuses, on-target-earnings, etc. (Maslow, 1943, 1954). This seems surprising considering the high masculine score, which, from a western perspective would result in autocratic, top down, assertive, tough and focused on material success (Hofstede, 1998) leadership. It is here where Hofstede’s framework seems to only partly explain the Japanese culture and low individualism but high masculinity and power distance stand in conflict with each other.Additionally, in such an environment more focus towards ascription rather than achievement would be expected (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997, 2000). Nevertheless, the contrary appears in the Japanese context with leaders having to possess superior, often specific, (hard) knowledge supplemented by strong educational backgrounds (Nestler, 2008). Here another disparity to UK leadership emerges, where despite educational background being important for initial work placement, greater focus upon (soft) â€Å"people skills† and strategic directive is desired and ascription of leadership positions remains (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1994).The collectivist principles shape Japanese leadership style dramatically, requiring group consensus and decision-making despite extremely high masculinity and higher power distance. Essentially a â€Å"bottom-up† (ringsho) process of decision-making is chosen (Wu, 2006) with the leader granting independent decision making to the group generally letting subordinates use their own approaches to achieve overall collectivist objectives (Dorfman et al. 1997). This is surprising, as in western societies strong hierarchical  structures often result in a â€Å"top-down† leadership approach but can be explained through high uncertainly avoidance collecting input and consensus from all parties involved before decisions are made.Even more so, the concepts of â€Å"wa† (maintaining social relationships) and â€Å"kao† (maintaining â€Å"face†) actually require the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process and the preservation of harmony rendering western leader contingent punishment behaviour inappropriate. It is here where Japanese leadership style diverts extensively from its UK (Anglo-Saxon) counterpart where public scrutinising is part of daily leadership practices reflecting a competitive and individualistic culture driven b y short-term financial objectives with high-risk acceptance.Due to the collectivist environment and extensive future planning, Japanese managers on the other hand, do not view themselves as risk takers, despite this characteristic often being attributed to charismatic leaders (Bass, 1985). This is reflected in Japan’s extremely high uncertainty avoidance score and is further supported by strong long-term orientation valuing prevailing face and harmony. Unsurprisingly, life-long employment is desired, supplemented b continued job rotation aimed at developing employees.As a result leaders and subordinates enter into long and close relationships hardly ever interrupted contrasting the UK’s â€Å"burn out† environment fostering high staff turnover. Unlike in the UK, Japanese business leaders look for generalist employees capable of working in multiple levels of the organisation reflecting a society placing less value upon specialists than western cultures.Overall, J apanese leaders focus upon collective (not individual) responsibility (Hayashi, 1988) and group harmony maintenance is usually considered more important than profitability and overall productivity (Bass, 1990). Nevertheless, also Japanese leaders have to drive performance resulting in somewhat of a trade-off situation between performance and collectivist harmony maintenance. According to the performance-maintenance theory (Misumi, 1990), Japanese leaders have to chose between goal achievement and the continuation of the group, preferably combining high levels of both (Misumi, 1995).If this is achieved, such supportive or  participative leadership styles (Ouchi, 1981) are said to result in â€Å"higher levels of motivation, delegation of decision-making, commitment, and intrinsic job satisfaction† (Keys and Miller, 1982, p. 6). This appears to be in line with the currently preferred leadership style in the UK. However, one should not forget that unlike the Japanese working e nvironment, the UK has been subject to great inward as well as outward FDI flows resulting in a blending of many different leadership approaches. As such arguably UK leaders would find it easier to adapt to Japanese principles than Japanese leaders. This is due to the western â€Å"farce† of collectivist team working for individualistic goals and the limited respect paid to status differences.While Hofstede’s framework helps to understand the leadership differences between the two countries if fails to explain some factors. So for examples does high Japanese power distance explain hierarchical structures and respect to superiors but the theoretical assumptions of complete centralisation of power, low emphasis on developing the workforce and autocratic top-down contact initiation (Hofstede, 1991) do not fully reflect the Japanese working environment.On this note one should not forget that Hofstede’s framework is not free of criticism and arguably is outdated, lim ited in scope of methodology and measurement (Dorfman and Howell, 1988; Roberts and Boyciligiller, 1984) and only reflects a blend of organisational (IBM) culture and national cultures (Hunt, 1983; Robinson, 1983). As such it is no surprise that other studies such as the GLOBE project have found differing or even contradictory results for similar cultural dimensions.