First of all, it is necessary to have a clear and simple definition of culture. So, "culture can be defined as all the behaviors, arts, beliefs and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation. Culture has been called "the way of life" for an entire society. As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief as well as the arts and gastronomy" . Some other definitions talk about politics and science too.
Since the quickening of the Industrial Revolution in United Kingdom in 1850 there is no doubt that Europe sustained important cultural changes. The aura of this revolution crossed the Channel and pervaded in Europe but only went in western countries ready to change, France the first, then Germany, Italy, Spain, northern countries and until Austria. In addition, the impact of this industrial revolution was more limited beyond these countries, Poland, Russia and other countries of Eastern Europe were tardier in the evolution of their industry despite some exceptions. There is no denying that this revolution thus permitted a boom of new systems of management, Taylorism and Fordism for example and many others.
Moreover, the culture of each country of Europe has changed during the first quarter of the 20th Century according to the evolution of mentalities and parameters linked to the impact of the revolution. New totally different thoughts and personalities brought out and mainly in Western Europe but until Western Europe too (delimited from Hungary to the present Russia). Religion, Art, Politics, Industry, Science were involved.
[...] He acted as a commandant and used an exploitative leadership with many threats, a high control of population which led to a fear atmosphere. Ceausescu developed a cult of his personality and people liked him because he succeeded to have a relative independent policy regardless the soviet rules. He was very popular because he did many good things for Romania but as a dictator leader, he collapsed because of his wish to reimburse the national debt. This led to a deprivation of foods for example and thus many strikes appeared and led to the Romanian Revolution in 1989. [...]
[...] The Hungarian culture is well-known for its classical music composers and its famous mathematicians. After the fall of Nazis, Soviet troops occupied all of the country and through their pressure Hungary progressively became a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. After 1948, Communist leader Mátyás Rákosi set up Stalinist rules. This measure led to the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 with Imre Nagy, the leader of Hungarian people. From the 1960's to the late 1980's János Kádár, the communist leader, “reigned” on the country and was criticized by Imre Nagy, the anti-Soviet revolution leader. [...]
[...] from this period some fundamental differences in terms of culture, on one hand a more liberal culture and on the other hand a more sovietized culture, due to the hegemony of Russia on its satellite states. The second time, the first and second world wars spawned eastern and western military blocks which deg gaps between cultures, mind and management systems because of the influence of different political systems, leaders, ideologies. In 1961, a wall was built in Berlin and separated Europe in two parts; this phenomenon thus reinforced the economical, political and cultural disparities and led to management and leadership divergences. [...]
[...] Indeed, though characteristics of our leaders are similar in a same area of activity, culture differences between countries generate various management and leadership systems. First of all, because of the subservience of communism on Eastern Europe, we can see that this specific political system brought differences in terms of management techniques. Indeed, we saw that Western European managers consider that communication skills are more important contrary to Eastern European managers. Although there are great differences of culture, managers and leaders have usually a multicultural education background. [...]
[...] He retired from office in 1929. Concerning Lenin's and Poincaré's Management, there are some similarities and differences. First of all, concerning similarities, they were both visionary leaders. They both quickly entered the political arena, despite some reservations. The context of that time was not conducive to their entry, but they have been able to put forward their ideas. They both had a good sense of communication. About differences, they did not have the same education. The culture of their respective countries was very different. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee