Discussion Assignment: Reflect On Your Management Style ✓ Solved

Discussion assignment: Reflect on your management style and

Discussion assignment: Reflect on your management style and how you lead. If you are not currently in a management role, you still manage or understand your distinct approach. Use the three great videos and the short McKinsey papers as a foundation. Describe your strengths and how they help motivate cross-cultural teams, and how you would adapt your style for a chosen country or culture. This is a discussion; you can be flexible, but apply critical thinking and cite sources (CH 7).

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

Effective leadership in cross-cultural teams requires a high level of self-awareness about one’s own management style and an ability to adapt communications, decision-making, and motivational approaches to diverse cultural contexts. Foundational ideas about culture and leadership illuminate why a given style may work well in one setting but require modification in another (Hofstede, 2001; Hall, 1976). By examining personal tendencies through established lenses such as emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and cultural frameworks, a leader can articulate a coherent approach to motivating varied teams (Goleman, 1995; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Schein, 2010).

Self-reflection on personal management style

My default approach blends clarity, decisiveness, and results orientation with a growing emphasis on psychological safety and open dialogue. In many situations I rely on direct communication to set expectations and remove ambiguity, which aligns with task-focused leadership tendencies documented in classic leadership theory (Mintzberg, 1973; Northouse, 2018). Over time, I have learned to temper directness with empathy, listening, and inclusive feedback to foster trust within teams. This balance supports both task accomplishment and relationship building, a combination supported by contemporary work on emotional intelligence and leadership (Goleman, 1995; Edmondson, 2019).

Three videos and McKinsey papers as foundation

Three foundational videos and short McKinsey research papers can illuminate cross-cultural leadership dynamics, such as how cultural norms shape communication, decision making, and motivation. These sources reinforce that leadership effectiveness depends on understanding cultural values and adapting practices without sacrificing ethical standards or organizational goals (Hofstede, 2001; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998; Hall, 1976). The McKinsey briefs emphasize practical leadership behaviors that facilitate collaboration across diverse teams, including psychological safety, inclusive decision making, and aligning incentives with cultural expectations. This combination provides a practical framework for analyzing how my strengths—clarity, accountability, and adaptability—can be translated into motivating cross-cultural teams (Schein, 2010; Bass & Avolio, 1994). Throughout, I will anchor arguments in established theory while reflecting on real-world experiences and observed outcomes.

Strengths and cross-cultural motivation

Strengths worth highlighting include clear goal setting, transparency in expectations, accountability for results, and a willingness to solicit diverse perspectives. Transformational leadership theory suggests that articulating a compelling vision and modeling desired behaviors can energize teams and elevate performance (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Emotional intelligence facilitates empathy, self-regulation, and social skills that enable better coordination among culturally diverse members (Goleman, 1995). In cross-cultural contexts, these strengths help create psychological safety and inclusive participation, which are crucial for performance in teams with varied norms and communication styles (Edmondson, 2019). Cultural frameworks explain how these strengths translate into different impacts: for example, in high power distance cultures, leaders must balance directive decision-making with opportunities for input to avoid stifling initiative (Hofstede, 2001). In individualist cultures, clear articulation of personal roles and accountability resonates strongly, whereas collectivist contexts may reward shared responsibility and consensus-building (Hofstede, 2001; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998).

Adapting style for a chosen culture or country

Given the wide variation in cultural norms, I would select Japan as a case study to illustrate adaptation. Japan traditionally blends hierarchical structures with a preference for consensus and harmony, requiring leaders to balance clear direction with opportunities for group input and long deliberation (Hall, 1976; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998). To lead effectively in such a setting, I would adjust by emphasizing relationship-building, indirect communication, and time for collective decision-making while maintaining accountability and clarity about expectations. I would also align incentives with group outcomes and emphasize collective achievement over individual praise, aligning with collectivist tendencies without sacrificing performance goals (Hofstede, 2001). These adaptations reflect the need to temper directness with tact, to schedule thorough discussions, and to demonstrate commitment to team cohesion—practices supported by cross-cultural leadership literature and practical frameworks (Schein, 2010; Edmondson, 2019).

Alternately, for a different context like the United States, the focus might shift toward more explicit individual accountability, faster decision cycles, and direct feedback loops, while still preserving psychological safety. The overall approach—leveraging clear communication, high standards, and inclusive processes—remains consistent, but the articulation, pace, and emphasis would adjust to the cultural norms of the environment (Goleman, 1995; Northouse, 2018).

Plan for applying these lessons

A practical plan includes: (1) conducting a cultural assessment of the team using established dimensions (power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance) to identify potential friction points (Hofstede, 2001); (2) establishing a shared team charter that clarifies communication protocols, decision rights, and feedback mechanisms; (3) implementing psychological safety practices, such as structured "fail-fast" learning iterations and regular reflection sessions (Edmondson, 2019); (4) tailoring recognition and motivation to cultural values, ensuring incentives align with both team and organizational goals; and (5) fostering ongoing learning about cross-cultural leadership through reflective practice and ongoing education (Schein, 2010). These steps integrate the theoretical foundations with actionable performance strategies, reinforcing the alignment between personal strengths and culturally adaptive leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Mintzberg, 1973).

Conclusion

Effective cross-cultural leadership emerges from a nuanced self-understanding and a willingness to adapt while maintaining core ethical and performance standards. By combining clear expectations, emotional intelligence, and a structured, culturally informed approach to communication and decision-making, a leader can motivate diverse teams while sustaining high levels of performance. The interplay between individual strengths and cultural context is complex, but with deliberate practice guided by established theory and practical frameworks, leaders can navigate cross-cultural challenges with confidence and impact (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 2001).

References

• Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York, NY: Doubleday.
• Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. London: Nicholas Brealey.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam.
• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
• Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
• Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.