Chinese Vs. Swedish Management Style

CHINESE VERSUS SWEDISH MANAGEMENT STYLE

There are only a few countries in East Asia whose history and culture has been significantly touched by colonial powers and Vietnam remains as one of those. Its history with China though, one of its closest neighbors, has led to Vietnam’s social systems being formed similarly under Confucian contexts. Dosch and Vuving (2008) explain that “Vietnam was already a clearly defined nation-state before the arrival of the European colonial powers due to the existence of an established pre-colonial tradition”. This was different in comparison with other countries in the region such as the Philippines which, due to a weak pre-colonial identity, allowed for colonial influence to change major aspects of their social and legal structures. This allowed for Vietnam’s well-formed culture and language, which was closely linked with China given the state’s tributary nature, to quickly absorb and retain Chinese cultural influence, after which “Vietnamese family, bureaucratic, social structures and the form of government were patterned” (Dosch and Vuving, 2008). Warner (2013) explains how Hofstede lists scores for China and Vietnam which are similar in multiple culture-based aspects. “Vietnam also inherited a paternalistic management from its past and as one source put it: - ‘many Vietnamese managers still display the authoritarian and familial styles of management” (Warner, 2013).

With regard to culture, it would be difficult for Swedish companies to enter into the local Vietnamese market given the distinct differences in work culture. Zabihi (2013) lists four major aspects, namely Involvement, Consistency, Adaptability, and Mission, on which he compares Swedish and Chinese work culture, the latter of which is highly similar to Vietnamese work culture, and presents a similar conclusion. In terms of Involvement, Zabihi (2013) explains how the traditional hierarchical system of management pushes management to make decisions for subordinates at most of the levels of the organization effectively allowing the latter to simply perform whatever orders are provided to them. This stems from the paternalistic style of Vietnamese management which is rooted in high power distance and is similar to the masculine Chinese society. This is unlike that of Swedish organizations which is considered more feminine and wherein employees are encouraged to participate and base decisions on teamwork and proper group dynamics through lower power distance and a more democratized system of communication. Swedish companies are considered more pragmatic as well with regard to their training on involvement and aim to increase personal commitment of their employees by exposing them to developmental opportunities and new responsibilities.

Zabihi (2013) presents Consistency as well as another major cultural difference that would make it unwise to establish an organization in locations with strong Chinese influence. He claims that as Swedes are more consensus-driven they openly share information with others whereas the Chinese usually share the knowledge with others based on their level of guanxi, or position in the organization. This perspective on sharing information spills over to the way conflict resolution is handled as well. Swedish managers and employees attempt to solve the conflict through open communication and actively seek to avoid hurting others’ feelings, without significantly affecting organizational productivity. He further claims that through the work of Hofstede (1980) it is possible to understand that those in Swedish organizations work in order to live; while, on the contrary, those in Chinese organizations, as a high collectivist and high power distance society, focus more on competition and less on benevolence. Incidentally, this is linked to the countries’ cultural differences on the aspect of Mission, whereas Swedish and Chinese organizations are both known to have longer horizons for planning; however, Swedish strategies are more widely understood by the rest of their organization as compared to their Chinese/Vietnamese counterparts. This is partly due to the high masculinity and power in Vietnamese culture which does not provide employees with enough opportunities to share their ideas and cooperate in the planning process.