'Tom from Canada vs Hoshi from Japan\r'

'Culture affects every aspect of a forgiving life. It is alike very serious while make a managerial decision. The case presented in chapter 5 proves that be born in the Western or Japanese culture determines a mint our attitude to decision-making with all its consequences. According to the study included in the case, Tom is a Canadian manager, who makes decision on his own, without consulting in with his team. He presents very individualistic attitude. It is exclusively different as far as we consider Hoshi’s way of making decisions.He, on the other hand, spent a lot of time convincing wad workings with him to agree to the new inventory-control dodge. Hoshi is a collectivist-manager. A nonher significant difference between the two managers is that Tom was line-oriented and counted for a supple and positive result of his decision, for an achievement and maybe a promotion, without taking into consideration implications that it big businessman pay back on his empl oyees. Unlike the Canadian manager, Hoshi paid more heed to the event how his co-workers will seduce used to working with the new system.Joint decision making in the Japanese subsidiary had a monstrous implications for the performance. Unfortunately, it also turned out that bonny informing subordinates is not effective either. to each one of the managers driven by attitudes characteristic of their pagan scripts and they did what they thought was the shell for their subsidiaries. However, what would work best is a mixed bag of these two. Tom and Hoshi would get better results if their had found a core solution before making the last(a) decision and introducing the new system.Tom should not have done the task rush. After be informed, employees were surprised and not really convinced(p) about the idea. This fact should have already attract the manager’s attention so that he hires a go-cart just in the beginning. If the Tom’s behaviour was any more collectiv ist, perhaps he would not trust exclusively his own knowledge but would also ask other competent tidy sum of his subsidiary on their opinion. Furthermore, Tom did not care enough about his team, he did not really notice the trice just before key employees reach in their resignations.As a result, as being too sure of the fact that what he does is right, he could not react by rights while it was essential. Rational decision-making cannot be happy as long as we do not include the indispensable human factor. In my opinion, Hoshi’s biggest mistake was delay for the consensus. It is obvious that the Japanese culture is some(prenominal) more collectivist that the Western one, just the role of the manager should always be the same †taking care of his/her subordinates on one hand and making net decisions in the right time on the other.Having consensus as a priority, Hoshi forgot about the task to do and he did not clear up when the change was really important for the nurture operating of the subsidiary. He should have been the person, who patronage discussion and egalitarism, regarding people’s and high society’s needs do his job. Moreover, he should have also met Mr. Bortolo expectations, it means introducing the system in the reasonable time. The CEO of the connection understood characteristics and culture differences and gave the managers choice.But it seems to me that Hoshi overstrained the possibility presumption and it led him to a failure. To sum up, some(prenominal) managers made some mistakes caused by their heathen scripts. Rush decision making as well as really easily decision making resulted in coarse losses for the subsidiaries and for the company as a whole. If Tom and Hoshi exchanged their views, attitudes before and mix them, learnt something from each other, they could be both made and satisfied with the results they could present.\r\n'