World economy and international economic relations

Asian leadership model: a case of Mongolia

Economic Annals-XXI

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 165, Issue 5-6, Pages: 19-22

Citation information:
Lepeyko, T., & Batkhuu, G. (2017). Asian leadership model: a case of Mongolia. Economic Annals-XXI, 165(5-6), 19-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V165-04

View Full-TextDownload PDF

Tetyana Lepeyko
D.Sc. (Economics),
Professor,
Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics
9-A Nauky Ave., Kharkiv, 61100, Ukraine
lepeyko.tetyana@gmail.com
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8667-509X

Gavaa Batkhuu
Vice-Chairman, the Mongolian Great Khural, Mongolia
PhD Student (Economics),
Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics,
9-a Nauky Ave., Kharkiv, 61100, Ukraine
batkhuu.gv@gmail.com
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2539-597X

Asian leadership model: a case of Mongolia

Abstract. Over the past decade, foreign investors have become more interested in Mongolia because it was recognised to be one of the Global Growth Generators or «3G» countries. One of the issues of doing business internationally is the effect of the characteristics of national management models in the context of cross-cultural management. Every country’s culture has its key values which predetermine the behaviour of its bearers. This is the reason why leadership in every country has its own cultural ground and different ideas related to the authority and management hierarchy. Numerous research works on cross-cultural management identify national models of management and leadership which are inherent to certain countries. Yet, not all of the characteristics of the Mongolian management model in the context of cross-cultural management have been researched as Mongolian culture differs significantly from national cultures of other Asian countries such as Japan and China. This research emphasises the significance of national culture which makes management style unique in every country. The authors of the article analyse characteristics of the Mongolian management model in cross-cultural context, as well as common features typical of Mongolian and other Asian management models in the context of national culture. The results of the research show the main characteristics of the Mongolian leadership model and its most significant differences from the Japanese and Chinese models of the Asian Group, which are the aim to live in harmony with the environment (nature), preservation of traditional and agrarian lifestyle, dominance of a democratic management style with the huge authority of the chief over subordinates. The results of the research will be the basis for the development of practical recommendations to maximise the synthesis of the Mongolian leadership model with other models in case of their interaction.

Keywords: Leadership; National Leadership Models; Asian Leadership Model; Mongolian Leadership Model; Mongolia

JEL Classification: M12; Z10

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V165-04

References

  1. Al-Gattan, A. R. A. (1985). Test of the path-goal theory of leadership in the multi-national domain. Group and Organization Studies, 10(4), 429-445.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/105960118501000405
  2. Bennett, M. (1977). Testing management theories cross-culturally. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 578-581.
  3. Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, Sh., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233-274.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90003-5
  4. Lewis, R. D. (2006). When cultures collide: leading across cultures. Boston, London: Nicholas Brealey International.
  5. Trompennars, F., & Hampden-Ternet, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture: understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Nicholas Brealey International.
  6. Adler, N. (1991). International Dimensions of Organisational Behaviour (2nd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.
  7. Bjerke, B. (1999). Business leadership and culture: national management styles in the global economy. Cheltenham: Elgar Publishing, Incorporated.
  8. Geert Hofstede (2017). National cultural dimensions.
    Retrieved from https://geert-hofstede.com/cultural-dimensions.html
  9. Richard Lewis Communications (n.d.). Cross culture: know culture for better business. The Lewis Model.
    Retrieved from https://www.crossculture.com
  10. Alves, J. C., Butterfield, D. A., & Manz, Ch. C. (2005). Framing leadership in Asia and China.
    Retrieved from http://www.bschool.cuhk.edu.hk/asia-aom/05_paper/11_alves.pdf
  11. Leung, K., & White, S. (2004). Handbook of Asian Management. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  12. Warner, M. (2000). The future of China’s human resource management in its Asia pacific context: a critical perspective. Research Papers in Management Studies. The Judge Institute of Management, University of Cambridge.
    Retrieved from https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/workingpapers/wp0029.pdf
  13. Chen, M. (1995). Asian management systems: Chinese, Japanese and Korean styles of business. London: Routledge.
  14. Rajah, T., How, A., & Choo, S. (2009). East meets West: the New Face of Capitalism. Hay Group.
    Retrieved from http://www.haygroup.com/downloads/uk/East_meets_west_viewpoint.pdf
  15. Ratanjee,V. (2013, October 13). Making Leadership More Effective in Asia. Business Journal.
    Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/165224/making-leadership-effective-asia.aspx
  16. Global Leadership & Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (2012). Globe Study CCL 2012.
    Retrieved from http://globeproject.com/books
  17. Bor, A. (2012). On the national features of management culture in Mongolia. Vestnik NGUJeU (Herald of Novosibirsk State University of Economics and Management), 3, 270-275 (in Russ.).
  18. Batzhargal, Z. (2013). Some features of Mongolia’s national cultural identity. Studia Culturae, 18, 178-184 (in Russ.).
  19. Zheleznyakov, A. (2012). Mongolia on interaction with neighbors: the problem of preserving identity. Russia – Mongolia: cultural identity and intercultural interaction. St. Petersburg: Publishing house BBM (in Russ.).
  20. Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures consequences: international differences in work-related values. Los Angeles: Beverly Hills.
  21. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. 2(1). 1-26.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
  22. Rarick, C., Winter, G., Barczyk, C., Pruett, M., Nickerson, I., & Angriawan, A. (2014). Mongolia: A Cultural Portrait using the Hofstede 5-D Model. Global Journal of Management and Business Research: A Administration and Management, 14(9) 1-9.
    Retrieved from https://globaljournals.org/GJMBR_Volume14/1-Mongolia-A-Cultural-Portrait-using.pdf
  23. Yurkovski, A. V. (2001). General characteristics of some features of the Constitution of Mongolia. Sibirskiy juridicheskiy vestnik (Siberian Legal Bulletin), 4.
    Retrieved from http://www.law.edu.ru/doc/document.asp?docID=1115418 (in Russ.)
  24. Berezhnykh, A. (2012). Mongolian culture. Open world Asia.
    Retrieved from http://owasia.ru/207.html (in Russ.)
  25. Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG) (2016). Investment Mongolia. Ulaanbaatar.
    Retrieved from https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/mn/pdf/mn-investment-in-mongolia-2016-new.pdf
  26. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (2008). The transition process and indicators of the CIS and Mongolia 2008 (report). London.
    Retrieved from https://www.google.com.ua/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=30&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=
    0ahUKEwjNmbq3oOjUAhUIbxQKHQU3Bvs4FBAWCEUwCQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebrd.com%2
    Fpublications%2Ftransition-report-2008-russian.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHvpdCwJAZibZzsairb6IGHm-OEfA
  27. The World Bank (2016). Doing Business 2016: Measuring Regulatory Quality and Efficiency.
    Retrieved from http://www.doingbusiness.org/reports/global-reports/doing-business-2016
  28. World Economic Forum (2016). The Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017. Geneva.
    Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2016-2017-1
  29. Hall, E. Т. (1963). A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 65(5), 1003-1026.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1963.65.5.02a00020

Received 11.06.2017

View Full-TextDownload PDF
In, , , , ,

More Papers