Company with 2 Approaches to Leadership

      The organization that I work for is a U.S. based subsidiary of a medical equipment manufacturer headquartered in Seoul, Korea. Because of significant and inherent approaches to corporate management, the U.S. office is managed quite differently than the headquarters office in Korea. Perhaps one stark difference that I’ve noticed is that the management structure in the U.S. is far less rigid as a hierarchy. Northouse (2019) describes leadership that is primarily based on role and position to be that of assigned leadership. While the U.S. office does have a structured management hierarchy, there is more acceptance of emergent leadership as a positive trait of employees and team members. Both the company headquarters and the U.S. office have similar pyramid organizational structures, with 4 levels including executives, directors, managers, and representatives. However while the structures of the U.S office and our headquarters look similar, they function differently and depending upon the culture, employees have a different relationship with hierarchy and will behave differently. An example of this is the extent of if and how much a subordinate might contradict or question a strategy or approach of a manager or director. This is an example of legitimate power(Northouse, 2019). In our company corporate headquarters in Seoul, it would be considered disrespectful to question a manager or director’s approach to a particular situation, however this might actually be encouraged in the U.S. division of the company. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches to management and leadership. Kellerman (2012) claims that while hierarchies do hold some influence in and of themselves, power is no longer required for leadership. On the other hand, a degree of structure is important for team members to understand the expectations of their role.