4IpaUJbnm

After performing a comparative analysis of Japan, the USA and Sweden business models were
given such results. The American business model heeds on material values and is oriented
towards short-term but effective results achieved in an individualistic society. Contrary to the
American model, the Japanese business model heeds on employees and their relationships. In
Sweden collectivism and socially oriented market are prevailing. After analysing the models by
Hofstede's criteria it became evident that Japanese are prone to extremes to the greatest
extent, since three indicators out of five are around 100, uncertainty avoidance- 92, male –
female dimension - 95 and long-term – short-term orientation - 80, while according to the data
of the USA, – individualism – collectivism dimension is 91, while in Sweden the highest indicator
is also individualism – collectivism dimension – 71, other indicators are lower than 50.
In order to improve the Lithuanian international business management model it is necessary to
seek for the socially oriented market, where the heads trust their employees and provide them
with the opportunity for self-improvement. Moreover, they should be socially responsible,
preserve the environment and avoid the selection of employees by gender or age. Educational
system should foster creativity and personal development. Lithuania should focus on the
future products, such as laser equipments, solar panels, nanotechnologies, photonics and
medical researches supported by the government and using its funds allocated for the research
performance.
References
Bernard, A.B., Jensen, J.B., Redding, S.J. and Schott, K. (2007). Firms in International Trade. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives. - 2007, 21, no. 3, 105-130. - ISSN 08953309
Cadogan, J.W., Kuivalainen, O. and Sundqvist, S. (2009). Export Market-Oriented Behavior and Export
Performance: Quadratic and Moderating Effects Under Differing Degrees of Market Dynamism and
Internationalization. Journal of International Marketing, 17(4), 71-89. - ISSN 1069031X. -DOI
10.1509/jimk.17.4.71
Carbaugh, Robert J. International economics. - Mason (Ohio): Thomson /South-Western, 2008. - 553 -
ISBN 0324363427
Cassilas, J.C., Moreno, A.M. and Acedo, F.J. Internationalization of Family Businesses: A Theoretical Model Based
on International Entrepreneurship Perspective // Global Management Journal. - 2010, 2, no. 2, 16-33. -
ISSN 20802951
Cavalcante S., at all. Business model dynamics and innovation: (re)establishing the missing linkages. Journal of
Management Decision. – 49 (8), 2011, 16. – ISSN 00251747.
Harzing A.W. Research in International and Cross-cultural Management. – URL: .
Hofstede G. (2007). History of Japan & Understanding the Communication System. Monash University, 2007. - URL:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23541900/Hofstede-Cultural-Dimension-of-Japan.
Hofstede, Geert (2001). Culture's Consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across
nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-0-8039-7323-7. OCLC 45093960.
Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. - URL: http://keithdwalker.ca/wpcontent/summaries/1-
c/Cultures%20and%20Organizations.Hofstede.EBS.pdf.
Jenny K., at. al. (2011). Examining the Use of Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance Construct in International
Research: A 25 Year review // International Business research. – 4, Nr 1, 2011, 4 – 6. – ISSN 7779-2699-1-
PB-1.
Kwintessential. Cross Cultural Solutions. - URL: .
Lazonick W. (2010). Innovative Business Models and Varieties of Capitalism: Financialization of the U.S.
Corporation. Business History Review, 84 (4), 675 – 702.
Oliver J. (2001). Business Models and the Transfer of Businesslike Central Government Agencies. An International
Journal of Policy and Administration, 14 (2), 233 – 252. – ISSN 0952-1895.
Peng, M. W. Global business. - Mason, (Ohio): South-Western: Cengage Learning, 2009. - 577 -
ISBN 9780324585940.
Richardson Global. Cultural Assesment. - URL: .
316