- Email: [email protected]
Austria
Austria RudolfA Managementinstitut
ttems, der Industrie
The Managementinstitut der Industrie surveyed Austrian managers on six topics, and received 49 usable responses from all parts of Austria covering every major sector. The topics were as follows: 1 Do you see any strengths or weakof Austrian management nesses compared to other countries? 2 How would you see the Austrian entrepreneur and manager in comparison to his colleagues in other leading industrial nations? entre3 Do you think, that Austrian preneurs and managers should learn more from the past for managing the future than they do now? 4 What can Austrian managers learn from colleagues from other countries? causes hinder the 5 Which underlying of better management transfer and behaviour from techniques other countries, if any? 6 Which mistakes or negative developments of other countries could Austrian managers avoid? The respondents
are classified
as follows:
Company sire Up to 99 employees, 3 100 to 499 employees, 6 500 to 999 employees, 5 1000 and more employees, 25 Function Top management, 19 Marketing and sales,1 1 Account managers, 9 Production, 6 Administration and personnel, 12 Age Under 29, 2 30-39,4 40-49,15 50-59, 26 Over 59, 1 Thirty-seven respondents felt that Austrian management possessed distinctive
strengths and weaknesses. The strengths, which were of a personal rather than a functional nature, were openness to compromise, adaptability, diplomacy, ability to improvise, and a high level of education, while the weaknesses related to political rather than economically orientated influence, weakness in planning and goal-setting, narrow horizons and lack of application of new technnologies. Compared with other countries, 23 respondents felt that Austrian managers had a lower level of training and development with another 23 recording the same. Only two felt it was better. On decision-making, 30 could find no difference, but 12 felt it was worse and only 7 better. Leadership styles had 27 the same with 16 worse and 6 better, motivational abilities showed 19 better (the highest rating of these factors) with 21 the same and only 8 wqrse. On teamwork, the results were widely spread with 13 better, 21 the same and 14 worse. New idea development and realization produced the comment that Austrian managers are better at developing ideas than realizing them. The worst score of all was awarded for ability to orientate activities towards future trends and developments with 25 respondents indicating that they thought Austrian managers were worse in this regard than those elsewhere, 22 the same and only two better. No fewer than 42 of the 49 respondents felt that they should learn more from the past as a guide to managing the future, and sought in particular more ‘intelligent’ products, market intelligence and increases in exports, more adaptable economic structures, more political involvement, better management education, and more active strategies and activities. The managers also felt that they could learn from colleagues in other countries. From Northern Europe they especially felt that they could learn consistency and purposefulness, as well as wider thinking, more strategic action, better planning, more purposeful leadership style, and mastery of other languages.
a3
From North America they felt they could learn flexibility, decision-making, planning, marketing, budgeting, controlling, risk-taking and profit thinking. The lessons from Japan would include personnel policy, motivation of subordinates, teamwork, quality thinking, corporate identity and a critical approach to oneself. When asked what causes hindered transfer of better management techniques and behaviour from other countries, 16 respondents said there were none, while 30 identified the ‘Austrian mentality’ (self-deception, resistance to change, tradition, conservatism and lack of consistency), public intervention and lack of self-assertiveness. Despite the preoccupation with selfmotivation and self-assertiveness which characterized many responses, these did
84
not have high priority when it came to stating the consequences for Austrian management development. What the respondents wanted was greater practice orientation, more in-house consultation rather than seminars and expecially leadership training. The managers also sought greater exporting expertise, development of ability for self-criticism, less political influence and a reduction in the variety of institutions offering management development. The lessons for Austrian management institutes would seem to be that they should seek concrete ways to increase consulting and establish themselves as trusted partners of top management. This will mean that new ways will have to be developed for dealing with relationships between the institutes and managers.
ttems, der Industrie
The Managementinstitut der Industrie surveyed Austrian managers on six topics, and received 49 usable responses from all parts of Austria covering every major sector. The topics were as follows: 1 Do you see any strengths or weakof Austrian management nesses compared to other countries? 2 How would you see the Austrian entrepreneur and manager in comparison to his colleagues in other leading industrial nations? entre3 Do you think, that Austrian preneurs and managers should learn more from the past for managing the future than they do now? 4 What can Austrian managers learn from colleagues from other countries? causes hinder the 5 Which underlying of better management transfer and behaviour from techniques other countries, if any? 6 Which mistakes or negative developments of other countries could Austrian managers avoid? The respondents
are classified
as follows:
Company sire Up to 99 employees, 3 100 to 499 employees, 6 500 to 999 employees, 5 1000 and more employees, 25 Function Top management, 19 Marketing and sales,1 1 Account managers, 9 Production, 6 Administration and personnel, 12 Age Under 29, 2 30-39,4 40-49,15 50-59, 26 Over 59, 1 Thirty-seven respondents felt that Austrian management possessed distinctive
strengths and weaknesses. The strengths, which were of a personal rather than a functional nature, were openness to compromise, adaptability, diplomacy, ability to improvise, and a high level of education, while the weaknesses related to political rather than economically orientated influence, weakness in planning and goal-setting, narrow horizons and lack of application of new technnologies. Compared with other countries, 23 respondents felt that Austrian managers had a lower level of training and development with another 23 recording the same. Only two felt it was better. On decision-making, 30 could find no difference, but 12 felt it was worse and only 7 better. Leadership styles had 27 the same with 16 worse and 6 better, motivational abilities showed 19 better (the highest rating of these factors) with 21 the same and only 8 wqrse. On teamwork, the results were widely spread with 13 better, 21 the same and 14 worse. New idea development and realization produced the comment that Austrian managers are better at developing ideas than realizing them. The worst score of all was awarded for ability to orientate activities towards future trends and developments with 25 respondents indicating that they thought Austrian managers were worse in this regard than those elsewhere, 22 the same and only two better. No fewer than 42 of the 49 respondents felt that they should learn more from the past as a guide to managing the future, and sought in particular more ‘intelligent’ products, market intelligence and increases in exports, more adaptable economic structures, more political involvement, better management education, and more active strategies and activities. The managers also felt that they could learn from colleagues in other countries. From Northern Europe they especially felt that they could learn consistency and purposefulness, as well as wider thinking, more strategic action, better planning, more purposeful leadership style, and mastery of other languages.
a3
From North America they felt they could learn flexibility, decision-making, planning, marketing, budgeting, controlling, risk-taking and profit thinking. The lessons from Japan would include personnel policy, motivation of subordinates, teamwork, quality thinking, corporate identity and a critical approach to oneself. When asked what causes hindered transfer of better management techniques and behaviour from other countries, 16 respondents said there were none, while 30 identified the ‘Austrian mentality’ (self-deception, resistance to change, tradition, conservatism and lack of consistency), public intervention and lack of self-assertiveness. Despite the preoccupation with selfmotivation and self-assertiveness which characterized many responses, these did
84
not have high priority when it came to stating the consequences for Austrian management development. What the respondents wanted was greater practice orientation, more in-house consultation rather than seminars and expecially leadership training. The managers also sought greater exporting expertise, development of ability for self-criticism, less political influence and a reduction in the variety of institutions offering management development. The lessons for Austrian management institutes would seem to be that they should seek concrete ways to increase consulting and establish themselves as trusted partners of top management. This will mean that new ways will have to be developed for dealing with relationships between the institutes and managers.