Site Loader

Executive Summary
Shin Kong Mitsukoshi is the section shop that is traveling to ramify out either Brazil or Russia. The aim of this research is to find which state is the best 1 to subdivision. The research was collected from the cyberspace. The five dimensions of national civilization and leading manners are the tools that have been used to assist to find. As the fact that Taiwan and Brazil have shared the most similarities. Brazil is the 1 that has been chosen to be branch out. On history of the five dimensions of national civilization and leading manners are similar to Taiwan than Russia. It is besides the first South American subsidiary company for Shin Kong Mitsukoshi. Besides. during the treatment portion the advantages and disadvantages of ramifying out Brazil and Russia has been compared.

Introduction
The aim of the research is to find where is the best topographic point between Brazil and Russia to ramify out for the section shop. The company of Shin Kong Mitsukoshi was selected. This is a celebrated section shop in Taiwan. It has 13 subdivisions and 19 shops in Taiwan. The Shin Kong Mitsukoshi even has branched out to China. In this instance. Shin Kong Mitsukoshi was see well-prepared to ramify oversea. Owing to the developing countries’ economic is raising up. the section shop in Brazil or Russia could be a success. The company was chose on history of that Brazil or Russia. there might non hold a luxury. insouciant section shop.

There were two tools that have been used which were the five dimensions of national civilization and the leading manners. The five dimensions of national civilization can interrupt into five different pieces into: power distance ( PDI ) . uncertainness turning away ( UAI ) . individuality ( IDV ) . maleness ( MAS ) and long-run orientation ( LTO ) . The higher mark for PDI means that the foreman has more powers and makes determinations than their employees. In the same manner. the higher UAI means that the company doesn’t like to take the hazards. Besides. for the lower IDV means people normally tend to more together like a group. If the state has higher mark for MAS that means people tends to work hard. being strong and competitory. The last but non the least. the lower mark for LTO means people would believe that clip is money.

There is another tool that has been used. which is the leading manner. There are three different types of leading manners. First. autocratic leading is that the leader cares more about guaranting undertakings are accomplished as a precedence and the leaders tends non like to hold treatment with their employees. Second. paternalistic leading is that leaders believe that one time the employees worked hard. the company will pay them every bit. Finally. participative leading is that leaders encourage their employees to make their work and control of their ain work tonss.

I think my leading manner would be paternalistic and a small spot of autocratic. I am a leader that sometimes can be autocratic. nevertheless. can besides accept the options if there’s a better manner. I am a leader who tends to hear more sentiments but when it comes to doing determination I do non waver.

To find the best state to spread out to several factors will be considered. The state which has the most similarities with Taiwan and less civilization difference is one factor. Besides. the leading manner should be similar to Taiwan every bit good. The other factor is that the citizen in the state should be able to buy the merchandises of Shin Kong Mitsukoshi. Besides. the Unilever will be one of the fact that help the company to make up one’s mind.

Methods
The information was collected on Internet. The five dimensions of national civilization were cod from geert-hofstede. com It was a valid web site which contained tonss of information about Greet Hofstede’s thought. The leading styles information about Russia and Brazil was clearly found in Google. Therefore. the direction manner was typed as the cardinal word. The information about the direction manners in Russia. Brazil and Taiwan was found in this web site. kwintessential. co. United Kingdom. What’s more. the information of this company Unilever was collected due to the success of its merchandises. In add-on. there were some concern web logs that were found in Google.

However. there is ever holding pros and cons in the research. For illustration. some web sites are the sentiment of the people non the fact. Besides. there are some informations that was collect from the web log. the concern web log. It is difficult to cognize that if the information is right or incorrect. yet. it could supply some personal thought about ramifying company overseas. Besides that. some information was collected from the diaries online. The diaries are more trusting owing to it was written by the experts.

Findingss
The mark in five dimensions of national civilization in Brazil is 69 for PDI which is the 2nd highest among the five facets. It has 38 for the individuality. 49 for MAS. 65 for LTO. and the highest UAI which is 76. In contrary. the mark in Russia is that it got 93 for PDI which is besides the 2nd highest among all. 39 for IDV. 36 for MAS. and the highest 1 is uncertainness turning away which is 95. Furthermore. there are no informations available for the long-run orientation in Russia. Furthermore. the mark of five dimensions of national civilization in Taiwan is that 58 for PDI. 45 for MAS and 69 in UAI. Besides. the highest is 87 for the LTO and the lowest 17 for the IDV. [ pic ] [ movie ]

Above are the images of five dimensions of national civilization.

The leading manner in Brazil is that people considered to be great significance. the employee should listen to the directors or the foremans. Relationship in Brazil is of import due to the trust between the employees and the foreman. The directors were expected to pull off. and the foreman was expected to give way besides doing the determinations. The leading manner in Brazil would be considered as the autocratic leading manner. Yet. in some smaller companies. the leading manner would be considered as paternalistic due to less people work in the company so that the foreman can steer each employee to assist them accomplish their ends.

“The Russian direction manner tends to be centralized and directing. ” ( Management Manners: U. S. . Europe. Japan. China. India. Brazil. Russia. 2011 ) In general speech production. the higher place people get. the more powerful people will be. Besides. working with Russian has to understand the importance of honest and unfastened attack. Russians tend to hold low tolerance for alteration and hazard ; it can clearly indicate on the above graph of Russia. The leading manner in Russia is considered be autocratic than Brazil.

On the other manus. the Chinese leading manner tends to be obscure. Peoples tend to show or understand without word. yet. this could do misconstruing with others. In Taiwan the rank and the position in the company is highly of import. for illustration. people have to speak really regard to the foreman or the directors. otherwise. it would be see as impolite and rude. In this instance. the leading manner in Taiwan is considered to be someway paternalistic.

The company Unilever used different scheme in Brazil and Russia. Unilever used three different sorts of scheme in Russia. Before using their scheme to the market. they did the research about what their consumer demands. where their consumer would be. how many consumers they will hold. where to sell their merchandises with different trade names. “These three schemes are constructing leading in big classs. trading markets up. work on the consumer pyramid and edifice capablenesss as a competitory advantage. ” ( Unilever in Russia. 2008 ) As for the Brazil. Unilever seems to hold some issues with the local consumers while there is grounds show that Unilever is the company that Brazilians wants to work in. The Unilever Company besides did the research about its merchandises. for illustration. which one is the most popular. which trade name it more well-known. They besides did the research about why consumers were kicking. why their sale has been decrease since 2007. etc. ( some of this information to

Discussion
To compare these three states with the five dimensions of national civilization and leading manners. The leading manner of Brazil and Russia are someway similar to Taiwan. However. Russian is more autocratic which is non suited for Taiwanese. yet. the ranking and the position is similar with Taiwan. As some manner. Brazil is resembled to Taiwan. Both of their leading manners are paternalistic. and they both care about the employees.

In the five dimensions of national civilization. there are 93 for the Russia in PDI which means Russian attentions more about the place and the statue. while Brazil and Taiwan has the closer mark for PDI. On the other manus. in the IDV. the Russia got the closer mark to Taiwan. Taiwanese are tends to work by themselves with the specific deadline. When it comes to MAS. three of them got the really close tonss. which is good on history of that people can work together besides they could hold the same spirit. As for the UAI. the Russia got the really high mark ; it shows that Russian can non truly accept the alterations or hazards. However. Brazilian and Chinese have a better attitude towards to the UAI ; they are more able to accept the alterations and the hazards. Last but non least. on the geert-hofstede. com it showed that Russia doesn’t have mark for the LTO. However. when the research was delving in. it was surprise to establish out that Russians tends to care about present alternatively of future. On the reverse. both of Brazil and Taiwan got a really high mark on LTO.

Harmonizing to the Unilever history and what they did in Brazil and Russia. It seems that Brazilian attention about the quality of services ; they want their purchase to be good. However. in Russia. it seems all right making the concern at that place. Peoples are supported. willing to seek new staffs. On the other manus. unite all factors together. The advantage of traveling Brazil is that there are more similarities with Taiwan. either the five dimensions of national civilization or the leading manner. However. the paternalistic leading manner works in the smaller company. there is no warrant that the bigger company would be paternalistic. As some manner for Russia. the advantage of traveling to Russia is that Russian could buy more merchandises harmonizing to the informations from Unilever. for illustration there are “total ˆ 5 billion market ( all classs ) . turning at 8 % in 2007. strong potency for grasp. chance for consolidation” ( Unilever in Russia. 2008 ) . besides both Russian and Taiwanese concern attentions about the rank and the statues in the concern. Yet. the leading manner of Russian is autocratic. which is bad for Chinese. The Chinese director may non used to be autocratic once the Shin Kong Mitsukoshi decided to ramify at that place.

Decision and Recommendations
After all the comparison of the Brazil and Russia. the Shin Kong Mitsukoshi decided to ramify out in Brazil owing to the similarities of the civilization and the leading manners. In the hereafter. the Shin Kong Mitsukoshi will hold an action program to ramify out in Brazil. and first the subsidiary company would probably to put in the capital to see how much gross revenues it has. After detecting few old ages. the company will make up one’s mind to open other subdivisions and so on. It is the first clip of ramifying section shop to South America.

Reference List

Lee. Y. D. . Lin. K. T. ( 1999 ) . A Research on the Relationships among Superior’s Leadership Style. Employees’ Communication Satisfaction and Leadership Effectiveness-A Case Study of the Taiwan Sugar Corporation. Web Journal of Chinese Management Review. Nov. 2. No. 3. pp. 1~19 [ online ] . Available at:
hypertext transfer protocol: //cmr. Ba. ouhk. edu. hk/cmr/oldweb/n5/981032. hypertext markup language [ Accessed 14 March 2012 ] Bergstrom. A. ( 2005 ) . An Interview with Odir Pereira: Leadership from a Brazilian Perspective. Leadership Review [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. leadershipreview. org/2005winter/article2_winter_2005. asp [ Accessed 07 March 2012 ] Brazilian Leadership Style ( 2012 ) . World Business Culture [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. worldbusinessculture. com/Brazilian-Management-Style. hypertext markup language [ Accessed 22 March 2012 ] Intercultural Management – Brazil ( 2012 ) . Kwintessential [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. kwintessential. co. uk/intercultural/management/brazil. hypertext markup language [ Accessed 22 March 2012 ] Intercultural Management – Russia ( 2012 ) . Kwintessential [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. kwintessential. co. uk/intercultural/management/russia. hypertext markup language [ Accessed 22 March 2012 ] Intercultural Management – Taiwan ( 2012 ) . Kwintessential [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. kwintessential. co. uk/intercultural/management/taiwan. hypertext markup language [ Accessed 22 March 2012 ] Introduction to Unilever ( 2012 ) . Unilever [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unilever. com/aboutus/introductiontounilever/ [ Accessed 22 March 2012 ] Our History ( 2012 ) . Unilever [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unilever. com/aboutus/ourhistory/ [ Accessed 22 March 2012 ] Unilever archives ( 2012 ) . Unilever [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unilever. com/aboutus/ourhistory/unilever_archives/ [ Accessed 22 March 2012 ] Unilever in Russia ( 2008 ) . Unilever [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unilever. com/images/ir_Unilever-in-Russia-Field-Trip-Presentation_tcm13-125538. pdf [ Accessed 1 June 2012 ] Unilever in Brazil ( 2009 ) . Unilever [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. unilever. com/images/ir_Unilever_in_Brazil_tcm13-163694. pdf [ Accessed 1 June 2012 ] Leadership manner and civilization ( 2010 ) . cronkitehhh. personal. asu. edu [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //cronkitehhh. personal. asu. edu/2010/08/leadership-style-and-culture/ [ Accessed 14 March 2012 ]

Ardichvili. A. ( 2001 ) . Leadership manners of Russian enterprisers and directors. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. highbeam. com/doc/1P3-78862794. hypertext markup language [ Accessed 14 March 2012 ]

Burges. S. W. ( 2006 ) . Without Sticks or Carrots: Brazilian Leadership in South America During the Cardoso Era. 1992–2003* . Bulletin of Latin American Research. Volume 25. Issue 1. page 23-42. January 2006 [ on-line ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //onlinelibrary. wiley. com/doi/10. 1111/j. 0261-3050. 2006. 00151. x/abstract [ Accessed 07 March 2012 ]

Taiwan ( 2012 ) . geert-hofstede. com [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //geert-hofstede. com/taiwan. hypertext markup language [ Accessed 07 March 2012 ]

Brazil ( 2012 ) . geert-hofstede. com [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //geert-hofstede. com/brazil. hypertext markup language [ Accessed 07 March 2012 ]

Russia ( 2012 ) . geert-hofstede. com [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //geert-hofstede. com/russia. hypertext markup language [ Accessed 07 March 2012 ]

Russian Management Style ( 2012 ) . National Business Strategy Group [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. nbstrategy. com/russianmanagementstyle [ Accessed 22 March 2012 ]

Grachev. M. V. . Bobina. M. A. ( 2006 ) . Russian Organizational Leadership: Lessons from the Globe Study. International Journal of Leadership Studies [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. trustee. edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol1iss2/grachev_bobina. doc/grachev_bobina. htm [ Accessed 07 March 2012 ] Goldfarb. M. ( 2012 ) . Putin and Abramovich: Russian leading manner gets different consequences. Global Post [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //www. globalpost. com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/europe/putin-and-abramovich-russian-leadership-style-gets-different-resu [ Accessed 14 March 2012 ] Management Styles: U. S. . Europe. Japan. China. India. Brazil. Russia ( 2011 ) . Bizshifts-Trends [ online ] . Available at: hypertext transfer protocol: //bizshifts-trends. com/2011/01/10/management-styles-u-s-europe-japan-china-india-brazil-russia/ [ Accessed 22 March 2012 ]

Post Author: admin