<p>With the world becomes closer, the issue of understanding management and culturedifference is getting more and more important. The purpose of this research is to findhow culture factors impact management style in China and Sweden. The study usedHofstede’s five cultural dimensions, traditional management practice and Denison’smodel of organizational culture and effectiveness as framework to identify whatdifferent management styles exist between two countries, as well as explain why thedifference occurs in term of national culture dimensions and traditional managementpractice.The interviews were made by five Chinese employees whom have work experiencesin China and now are working in Swedish organization in Sweden. From theirperspectives, the paper found the dimension of involvement and consistency issignificant different between two countries, which reflects on the aspects of teamorientation, empowerment, capability development, agreement, coordination andintegration. Moreover, Swedish companies are easier to adopt advanced technologyand innovation than Chinese companies. In general sense, it seems to Swedishorganizations obtain higher learning capacity than Chinese organizations. Finally, thispaper pointed out that both countries have a long-term strategy, but it’s more realisticin Sweden.Subsequently, those differences were analyzed by national culture, namely, Hofstede’sfive culture dimensions, and the traditional management practices in China andSweden. After discussion and analysis, the study found: the small power distance,feminine value and lower uncertainty avoidance as well as lower hierarchy are thereasons of Swedish management style such as high level of agreement, goodcommunication, and high capability development in Sweden. Meanwhile, the largepower distance, masculine value, high uncertainty avoidance, guanxi and paternalismstyle of leadership are the mainly reasons of Chinese management style such likelower level of team orientation, ineffective and lower learning capacity in China. Inaddition, the long-term orientation cause Chinese organization like to have a longtime planning, but the paternalism style of leadership induce the strategy of companydeparts from the reality. It has to note that the limitation of this study is the smallnumber and the limited scope of interviewees. Finally, it is suggested that Chineseorganization should learn several advanced management methods from Swedishorganization.</p>

With the world becomes closer, the issue of understanding management and culturedifference is getting more and more important. The purpose of this research is to findhow culture factors impact management style in China and Sweden. The study usedHofstede’s five cultural dimensions, traditional management practice and Denison’smodel of organizational culture and effectiveness as framework to identify whatdifferent management styles exist between two countries, as well as explain why thedifference occurs in term of national culture dimensions and traditional managementpractice.The interviews were made by five Chinese employees whom have work experiencesin China and now are working in Swedish organization in Sweden. From theirperspectives, the paper found the dimension of involvement and consistency issignificant different between two countries, which reflects on the aspects of teamorientation, empowerment, capability development, agreement, coordination andintegration. Moreover, Swedish companies are easier to adopt advanced technologyand innovation than Chinese companies. In general sense, it seems to Swedishorganizations obtain higher learning capacity than Chinese organizations. Finally, thispaper pointed out that both countries have a long-term strategy, but it’s more realisticin Sweden.Subsequently, those differences were analyzed by national culture, namely, Hofstede’sfive culture dimensions, and the traditional management practices in China andSweden. After discussion and analysis, the study found: the small power distance,feminine value and lower uncertainty avoidance as well as lower hierarchy are thereasons of Swedish management style such as high level of agreement, goodcommunication, and high capability development in Sweden. Meanwhile, the largepower distance, masculine value, high uncertainty avoidance, guanxi and paternalismstyle of leadership are the mainly reasons of Chinese management style such likelower level of team orientation, ineffective and lower learning capacity in China. Inaddition, the long-term orientation cause Chinese organization like to have a longtime planning, but the paternalism style of leadership induce the strategy of companydeparts from the reality. It has to note that the limitation of this study is the smallnumber and the limited scope of interviewees. Finally, it is suggested that Chineseorganization should learn several advanced management methods from Swedishorganization.