British Management Styles

British c ar Styles1. IntroductionSome would argue that since industrialization is a rational, orderly process, strain for universal efficiency with standardizing effect, managers would clearly be the same sort of mint doing the same kind of things in the same slip bureau. This assumption could be all-encompassing to the companies themselves. Manu detailuring companies, these generic units of industrialization, would be much the same with realize to their structure and usual features wherever they argon located. At any appreciate, this would be true for countries at the same stage of industrial increment having the same sort of governmental brass. For example, organisations throughout Western atomic heel 63 operate in similar contexts and first the same pressures which would place towards uniformity. The accelerated playscript of trade within Europe and increasing collaboration and overlapping ownership between EU organisations would, naturally, lead to the establishm ent of a common Western European precaution style.Of course, much(prenominal) a case assuming or alleging that industry, instruction and companies are over and always the same is non accepted. On the contrary, the assumption that societal cordialisation causes the handicraft climate and approach to counseling is the prevalent one (Tayeb, 1993). purge the creation of the single common grocery store of EU, requiring common technologies and similar groundbreaking distri yetion and market placeing methods from each organisation, does non illustrate any conspicuous cultural assimilation, exactly quite a a cultural synergy1. European managers in general flummox been reared in societies with abundant and deep traditions and are in like manner conscious of their past to put aside their diversities for the sake of Europeanisation2. There skunk be a similar managerialism, which could be called a European managerial gardening, but how far this ex disposes how far manager s in Europe do whatever things the same way is an issue of analytical inventions only.Managing and organizing are non activities separate from society, carried out by automatons in exe get downive suits according to the universal management principles, in some glassed-in managerial sphere (Hickson, 1993, p.252). Each manager is a person formed by a society, and so the processes of managing and organizing are non separable from societies and their cultures. Hence, the last few years exigency seen a re-create interest in national differences and a series of proportional studies of the goal of partnership structure and education systems, as salutary as the socio-cultural factors which run afoul on management style. Nowadays, it is accepted that one can generalize crossways individual differences in various countries and generate characterizations, either normative or empirical or some(prenominal), of management styles which particular countries exhibit (Barsoux and Lawr ence, 1990).This paper aims to creationualize the classifiableness of the British management style on a number of dimensions. The examination of managerial practices in the UK and the relevant issues addressed are found on the interpretation with the case of management application in The dead body obtain. The experience of The consistency storage as an international retailer provides us with a fine illustration of both the metiers and weaknesses of the typical British management style. In order to familiarize himself with The general anatomy Shop case, the reader is sizeablely advised to look over the companys case study written by Gibson-Sweet (1994, in Harris and McDonald), before continuing with the fol unkepting surgical incisions of this paper.2. UK managementBecause of the fact that the joined Kingdom is a multi-cultural society, identifying the typical characteristics of English managers was never an easy task3. Neverthe slight, some(prenominal) studies perk up be en conducted towards that purpose. Hofstede (1984) and Tayeb (1988) for example return attributed to the English a list of typical cultural features with enjoin effect on the way they conduct business. This section discusses some of the intimately significant features attributed to the English management with references to the case of The trunk Shop.IndividualismThe origins of individualism, independent thinking and self-confidence in England should be traced long back into history. The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism were, in fact, the study driving issues behind the Industrial Revolution. Britons have a high regard for closeness and independence. Hence, they have cultivated a impregnable entrepreneurial brainiac and flair. This is illustrated in the laissez faire economic context which they established for more than than 2 cardinal years, and which opposed government interference and back up unrestricted economic liberty and free competition4. Conseque ntly, the English had traditionally developed considerable competences in traffic with export markets and responding to foreign competitors and to a flood of imports without going bust or requiring immediate trade protection. The surprising successful development and expansion of franchising in England is a clear reflection of this distinctive capacity of the British entrepreneurs. The dust Shop success owes much to this business formula.Managerial consciousness, anti-technical orientationBritish managers are proud of being good all-rounders (Barsoux and Lawrence, 1990). They have a generalist outlook which is akin to the belief that management is something separable from the technical aspects of a job. Related to this idea of generalism is the nonion of managerial consciousness, as against technical-orientation which is very indistinct in Ger numerous. No wonder, in that locationfore, why British managers do not tend to be particularly technically minded, since such(prenomi nal)(prenominal) expertise is not deemed to parent their managerial reputation or surgical process. Whereas German bakshis executives would describe themselves number one and foremost as specialists, British ones see themselves as managers in more generalist terms, and somewhat detached from business. Naturally, German managers are expected to be too narrow, slice Britons have a much broader vision. Both Anita and Gordon Roddick had not any particular technical background but proved to be very successful all-round managers.In baronialityIn terms of ain ex neuters, British managers are informal, specially by the standard of France or Germany. This is because British managers are in a certain way humanitarians. The Body Shop exemplifies this as it segments its market by factors such as the customers ideals and values, rather than by using technical standards. British reduce people as the speckle of reference, rather than systems objectives. In Britain, there is a conviction that management is base on individuals, not committees, systems or rule books. People are the frame of reference (Barsoux and Lawrence, 1990, p. 119). This in turn has meant that mush is achieved by means of social acceptance. Hence, influencing and conjoining is essentially persuasive5. That is why British managers take pride in present off their readiness to shape, influence and decide in informal ways and are marked by a emplacementfast grasp of governmental manoeuvring and manipulative skills. This attitude partly beg offs why British managers tend to have a negative view of conflict. Open conflict between managers is very rare as it is seen ungentlemanly rather than a means of correcting deviations, examination ideas and exerting creative thinking the way it is viewed in say Germany or America.Coping well with dubiousness and setbacksAmericans and Japanese are famous for the systematic way into which they gain data and carry out market look into in an travail to enha nce strategic finality-making. This is not the British style at all. environmental scanning, SWOT analysis and the like are not typical for Britain. This does not imply that strategy or forward planning is rejected, but rather that it is intuitive. Britons would argue that the full range of wefts, rationally conceived in an definite and formal corporate planning, are un plausibly to be realised in practice. Anita Roddicks decision to not enter Eastern Europe, for example, was mostly based on lightheaded personal judgements and experience, rather than market explore evidences of the regions un returnsable potentials (in fact there are indications for the opposite Alexander, 1996). In alignment to the above argument, British managers have a high tolerance for ambiguity and cope well with skepticism and unexpected setbacks. Of course, this brand of intuitive planning be add ups a powerful private-enterprise(a) advantage in todays turbulent, fast moving business environment wher e flexibility, initiative-taking and adaptability to transform is paramount. But, barely because the British feel comfortable in situations where not everything is explicit and space is provided for manoeuvring and exercising personal judgement, they tend to undervalue educational credentials. British companies put a stronger emphasis on pragmatism rather than professionalism, while personal qualities and background (a vague leadership type and motivating ability as opposed to strict functional attributes), appear to receive the most frequent mention, both in relation to top and middle management. decentralisationBigness provides vital economies of scale, financial resources and muscle in the market. However, today it is more flexibility and responsiveness that press for success. The argument of size is no thirster all-pervasive6. Moreover, recession in the early 1980s made corporate structure necessary for survival. British companies responded with leaner and fitter structur es as well as a move towards decentralization7. SBUs were the most obvious manifestation of this transition. The application of decentralize management, in contrast to functional management, encourages autonomy and entrepreneurship and helps to motivate people by making them better informed, more responsible and giving them more control. Thus, UK companies witnessed their managers kind in initiatives and nurtured the managerial talent they needed. Decentralization has been proved especially charm in orbits which are subject to rapid technical or market mixtures, notably armed services. In retailing, initiative first appearance adaptation are by far more significant factors of success than control and economies of scale, providing, thus, a strong argument in favour of decentralised structures and approaches to management which UK enterprises have master exceptionally well over the past two decades. The Body Shop case is a clear reflection of this its success was built on cre ative initiatives and innovation, not on its size and say effective financial control.Democratic management styleThere is a wide obligation that control in British business organisations is comparatively dispersed. In former(a) words, the democratic style, also referred to as participative or semi-constitutional is the prevalent one in British firms. It can be reflected on the fact that subordinates are consulted in decision-making and are given wide opportunities to exercise discretion in their work. setback to the autocratic, paternalistic approach that German firms share, top management in UK intros a willingness to delegate to lower management and counts on the subordinates strong sense of responsibility. yet in the case of UKs downhearted, family-run firms (where a paternalistic configuration is supposed to emerge), British managers (and owners in most cases) do not portray a perfect(a) autocratic style, but rather a mixture of democratism autocratism, which is referred to as civilize paternalism. Thus, UKs family businesses manage to retain a decentralised decision-making approach while upholding their distinctive social ethos and religious dissent. This is very evident in many UK firms (e.g. Cadbury, Clarks), but most of all in The Body Shop. However, there are many who suggest that Anita and Gordon Roddick should give up insisting on operating the company along what are essentially family-run lines as this seems to be inappropriate and potentially damaging for the companys future prosperity.ConservatismThe English are widely seen to be a nation with a love for the past, traditionalism, conservatism, and a reluctance to change. Anita Roddick refused to change the business practices applied to The Body Shop no matter how the city or the economic recession forced her to do so. Moreover, she seems not to take advantage of the possibilities offered to franchising from the Internet (Wymbs, 2000), mostly because of conservatism than of any opposite particular reason. The British conservatism partly explains their reluctance on applying modern applied science in their businesses. However, due to this stubbornness on using outdated machinery, British firms missed the opportunity to become first movers in many industries and, subsequently, go closely formidable catch-up problems.Lack of ambitionDespite the resurgence in their entrust to do business during the 1980s, mostly as a result of the Thatcherism (The Economist, 1989), Britons display scant(p) love for business. Involvement in entrepreneurial activity for the purpose of making money has never been respectable. This should be traced to the English educational system and its dominant values. Traditionally, arts and classics were given high priority relatively to engineering science and technology. In business conditions, the goal has been traditionally satisfactory rather than keen performance. Domestic rivalry is viewed as distasteful, vulgar and certainly ungentlem anly. Therefore, UK firms lack the strong profit orientation of the Americans or the market expansionism of the Japanese. Merging rather than competing is a common choice or perceived necessity. In this respect, the franchising system, on which The Body Shop relied much, fits very well the typical anti-rivalry notion found in Britain.Low value placed on educationCompared with their counterparts in other advanced nations, British managers are s trough under-educated and poorly trained, notwithstanding the youthful growth in university and college provision8. In Britain there has been an anti-intellectual tradition which devalues training, oddly of a vocational kind (Barsoux and Lawrence, 1990 alley, 1989 Keeble, 1992 Gospel, 1992). Porter (1990) comments on the British educational system as lagging behind virtually all the nations he studied The country traditionally relied on practicing at doing the job to give rise its managerial stock. Naturally, business owners provide very limited support to vocational training as they see it as a cost, a thriftlessness of their precious capital, rather than an investment with long-term benefits9. Industrial management in Britain did not attract the intellectual elite and had a relatively small intake of university graduates (Fitzgerald, 1993). The relative value placed on finance (a phase in accounting is held to be an ideal qualification for a top management post) suggests an emphasis on the short at the expense of the long-term, with research being the prime victim. The process of education is of central importance and necessitate some further elaboration. The continued under-investment in human capital provided little opportunities for the British miserliness to exploit its pool of gifted labour force and elevate it from the mere status of gifted amateurs (Jones 1997). One reason that explains the under-developed bod of vocational education in UK lies at the, until very recently, asseverates deliberate low involvement, even denial of responsibility to the issue. Consequently it was left as a matter for employers and unions. But, as explained above, line management was never persuaded of the direct association between profitability and free-enterprise(a)ness through training and regarded training schemes as an overhead to be cut when profits were threatened. The deepening recession in the 1980s made employers even les willing to invest on training. Moreover, denunciation has been levelled at the wide variety of inappropriate training schemes existing in Britain (Lane, 1989). For example, the apprenticeship system was highly inefficient in terms of responsiveness to ever-changing production conditions and contributed even further to the generation of low-skilled labour. Several quotations (Bierhoff and Prais, 1993 Roffe, 1999 Matlay, 1999) for improving both the quantity and quality of vocational education in UK, arguing for the need of a more systematic and homogenous system have be en now and thusly proposed but not headed.Short-termismEnglish managers have a very short-term perspective in business planning relative to their major competitors, especially the Japanese and German. In middle management this can be seen in the flair for improvisation. Higher up in the company it manifests itself in the willingness to cut or defer such thing as advertising or RD expenditure in order to meet year-end budgets without worrying about the long-term repercussions of such a course of action10 (Gordon, 1990 Handy, 1988). In this respect, emphasis on growth (as this is seen in France), market share (as in Japan) and continuous quality improvement (like Germany) is not evident in British enterprises.Anti-industrial orientationBritish culture has a large alleged impact on the development of anti-industrial orientation, evident on the low esteem that traditionally a biography in British industry carried. Hofstede (1984) provides an element of explanation on the al-Qaida th at British rank very high in the individualistic and uncertainty avoidance cultural dimension. Therefore, Britons have an inherent inclination on uncollectible and entrepreneurial, rather than manufacturing, capital-based activities. British managers continued to prefer old machinery and production processes exactly because of this personal value system which favoured trading, rather than manufacturing. However, this attitude meant the downfall of the British manufacturing industry and a relative decline in the indigenous economy in a sequential manner (Van Ark, 1990 Dintenfass, 1992) as this can be portrayed by stats such as GDP growth, national income, volume of trade exports and so on (Davis et al, 1992, Dicken, 1999). The Body Shop, on the other hand, illustrates a very good example of how British firms establish free-enterprise(a) advantages not by using modern, hi-tech machinery, but rather through intuition and originality. The Body Shop managed to promote the green issue i n a genuine and passionate way, promoting wider societal issues through sponsorship and captured the imagination of consumers world-wide. The companys advertising expenses were grounded to nil still its marketing approach was highly successful. The Body Shop case, then, moves us to a consideration that will be further elaborated in the following chapter that British firms have lost their edge on manufacturing but, in the mean sequence, enhanced their worldwide competitive gear up in the service sector and in industries like retailing. In this respect, the British economy has get the hang a transition from an industry-oriented one to a services-oriented one.3. UK management and retailing an integrate approachIn decent investments in modern technology, industrial relations problems and low level of skill and motivation in the labour force stirred productivity and condemned Britains manufacturing industry. However, when it comes to the service sector, the whole picture is very d ifferent. For example, while in heavy manufacturing the German labour productivity is found to be 22% higher than that of British as a result of differences in sensual capital and engineer-related human capital (OMahony, 1992), such a difference has not been experienced in less capital-intensive and less engineer-related industries (food, drink tobacco, textiles, chemicals).Britain experienced a rapid growth of the service sector as early as in the 19th century, but was exceptional in the 1980s and mid-nineties (Godley and Fletcher, 2000). Today British firms outperform most of their counterparts in the service sector. In regards of specific industries, such as retailing and financial services, this is very big(a) (Millward, 1990). The typical British personal capitalism (Chandler, 1990) concept suits the purposes of such industries where the production process is relatively straightforward, offers few opportunities for economies of scale but many opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurial initiatives (Jones, 1997). Take as example the creative ideas of Anita Roddick and the originality of her business practices. Without having sufficient funds, she built the companys success only by relying on her wits. More importantly, since The Body Shops competences are not based on technology and machinery utilization but on its founders creativity, intuition and entrepreneurial capacities, the companys business model is very unattackable to be imitated and the competitive advantages deriving from it are highly sustainable.British firms, especially in 1970s and 1980s pursued successful strategies of product differentiation and product diversification and beared capabilities in brand management and distribution, which they employ both in across-the-board exporting activity and through extensive multinational investments (Alexander, 1997). The British competitive performance in the service sector contradicts the image of British enterprise lacking organisatio nal capability in manufacturing industry. Indeed, research by Balasubramanyam (1992) shows that British corporations in retailing appeared to possess competitive distinctivenesss in highly developed management skills, in effect, financial management and marketing management, rather than in production management. Jones (1993) adds to the list of Britains core competences the following incumbency, experience, and powerful intangible assets, most notably reputation for honesty and stability. Jones and Morgan (1994) suggest that such entrepreneurial and trading skills may have been inherited from the family-firm tradition. The culturist hypothesis suggested in previous sections of this paper capability explain the outstanding British performance in such kinds of managerial skills.The above clearly suggest that a distinction moldiness be made between the competitiveness of the British firms in manufacturing and in services (Jones, 1994). Throughout the postwar period and into the nine ties the British retailers were the largest sectorial direct investors in the United States, a position maintained by extensive acquisition activity (Lipsey, 1993). This must have involved considerable organisational and management skills, or else it could not have been sustained. Britons possess skills that evolve into strong core competences when it comes to the service sector and particularly the retailing. Hence, generalizations such as those of Porters slide of Britain (1990) and the Chandlerian critiques should consider more thoroughly the British strength in the less capital intensive and technology oriented industries such as consumer branded goods (including beverages, confectionary products, cosmetics, perfumes, household products and so on), retailing, financial related services, auctioneering, entertainment, publishing, void products, consultancy, advertising.Britains broad strength in services partly reflects demand conditions. In business services, a combination of sk illed human resources and early industrial strength has given British firms a solid position. In retailing, strength in high-end consumer goods (luxury and wealth-related products) was further supported by a sophisticated national demand retained, especially around capital of the United Kingdom. Many of the industries in which Britain still has competitive advantage, proficient change has not been significant enough to provide worldwide competitors with a lever to supplant British firms on the basis of their technological superiority, especially in the high-end segments that are not price-sensitive and where buyers value traditional methods.Finally, those areas where UK firms have sustained competitive advantage partly owe it to related and supported industries. In consumer goods and services, a vibrant retail sector has created pressures to innovate. This environment has been a fertile one for British firms to develop skills in consumer marketing. The City of London illustrates a classical example of a sector built upon the concept of loting11. The dynamism of the cluster has attracted firms from all over the world, solidifying Londons position as Europes financial centre.4. ConclusionsOverall, in response to historic, ecologic and evolutionary processes, UK has created a culture and social climate which stand English managers and their companies in good stead in many respects, but handicap them in some others (Schneider and Barsoux, 1997). Their honesty, trust, self-control, and creativity are their major cultural assets, while their individualism, professionalism and reserve give an inert and formal air to business dealings. However, in their effort to deal with competitive markets, they are hampered by unhelpful aspects of their culture and their society. These include capital market short-termism, less-than-favourable attitudes to business, traditionalism, reluctance to embrace new technology wholeheartedly, and ill-prepared school leavers and univers ity graduates. Of course, in retailing, as the case of The Body Shop clearly illustrates, UK management style is highly successful, as most of the negative cultural influences do not simulate their performance in the industry, while the positive ones are those that really matter and provide them with a competitive edge.We have looked at the British management style as at a national level, but this is not the only option. Style may also be construed diachronically, as an facet of a society -and a world- in transition. With this in mind, one might ask what the future will bring in British management. The chances must favour a gradual convergence with Western Europe in ways of managing and organizing, if only because so many influences lead that way. But it is likely to be drawing together that will never completely come together. In other words there are likely to be more similarities, but differences will persist.5. NotesIn fact, Hofstede (1993) explicitly argues that culturally, E urope does not exist. In his studies (1984), the EU countries seem to broaden diachronically their already well-established heterogeneity in terms of cultural values. He also comments on a enigma despite the fact that Europeans are genetically more homogenous relatively to North Americans, culturally they are significantly more heterogeneous.The notion that Europeans are culturally alike, even if they look more or less alike, goes against the sign optimism of the founders of the EU, who believed in cultural convergence through economic activity. It is still in conflict with the assumptions of many national politicians, journalists, members of the public, and particularly, many non-Europeans.Moreover, the traditional conflicting reputation of the relationship between the working and the middle class puts in doubtfulness even the existence of a homogenous English culture. However, similarities between the two classes are far greater than their differences. Also, their exposition t o common social institutions and a constant fusion of values and attitudes among them is such that, in the end, their only elementary difference lies to their family upbringing (Tayeb, 1993). It would be, therefore, safe to assume that the two classes are sufficiently alike to talk about an English culture. Besides, there is possibly no nation in which total class homogeneity exists, but historically, this fact did not pose serious threats to the emergence of distinctive national cultures.Of course, the modern economy can hardly be called a pure stochastic variable of capitalism since it is characterized by a mixture of freedom and control, and of private and state enterprise. The emphasis on freedom or control shifted from time to time depending on the policies pursued by the government of the day (conservative governments applied no control beyond fiscal policies, while labour governments tended to use direct control mechanisms).The strongest weapon the British employ for their persuasion to be as gentle as possible is, of course, their humor. Their readiness to joke about business matters is very distinctive. Efficiency, productivity and profit are constant targets for wisecracks. Humor is seen as a device for distancing the unpleasant parts of business life and a safety valve for preserving managerial sanity, perhaps a means of coping with defeat. However, as Barsoux and Lawrence (1990) argue, exactly because jokes suspend reality momentarily, British managers are left with the option not to react. The subversive impact of jokes prevents them of being effective as change agents.The theme of Big Business which was dominant in Europe till the early 1980s failed to respond to the changing European environment since then (low labour productivity growth, high unemployment, slow innovation and low profit margins). The relations cost theory (Hennart, 2000) or internalisation theory (Buckley and Casson, 1978) provides us with a consistent explanation based on t he premise that variations in transaction costs alter the optimal size of firms. Hence, falling transaction costs since 1980s forced a fall in the optimum size of firms making the National Champions highly uncompetitive and SMEs (mostly family-businesses) the emerging pattern. check to others (e.g. Lane, 1989 Jones, 1994), the decentralised nature of UK management is mostly a result of the way British firms actually grew, in effect, through mergers and acquisitions rather than organic growth. This pattern created large firms consisted of a number of small firms, which did not undertake a thorough rationalization of production activity. Such a structure necessitated a decentralised mode of decision-making, regardless of what sentiments top management had on this matter.Lane (1989) provides data from the IMS which illustrate that in contrast to Germany and other advanced European economies, British young people have until very recently gone straight into employment after finishing t heir compulsory secondary learning without receiving any vocational education at all.Investment in training by industry has been estimated by Porter (1990) at far less than 1% of revenues in Britain, compared to 2% in Germany and 3% in Japan.For comparative purposes, Germany is found to be far more ahead than UK in the rate of enterprises using the technically most advanced processes and machinery, such as CAD, CNC tools and negotiable manufacturing systems. The faster adoption of sophisticated technological devices and processes by Germans can explain their superiority over British firms in high-technology products (Lane, 1989).Porter (1998) uses the term cluster to refer to the geographical concentrations of interconnected companies in a particular location. separate terms used in bibliography for the same purpose, more or less, are agglomeration and industrial districts.