Cultural constraints in management theories - Essay Example

? CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT by Cross-Cultural Management Introduction That culture profoundly affects management practices and outcomes has been abundantly established. The current state of research treats culture as one of the crucial dimensions of management. Numerous cross-cultural models shed light on the cultural variations and their implications for the organization-employee relationship. Despite their popularity, the validity and reliability of many of these models is easily questioned. Hosftede’s and Trompenaars’ dimensions of culture have far-reaching implications for organizations. In China, which has been heavily influenced by a unique combination of collectivism, communism, and Confucianism, these dimensions and their effects on management are extremely pronounced. Motivation exemplifies one of the most challenging aspects of organizational functioning in China. Yet, despite a wealth of literature on the topic, many of these dimensions and established beliefs require future consideration. The goal of this essay is to review the current state of knowledge about culture and motivation in China. The first half of this essay is devoted to the evaluation and criticism of cultural convictions about China through the prism of Hofstede’s and Trompenaars’ models. The second part of the essay talks about motivation within Chinese cultural contexts and the applicability of motivation theories in the Chinese culture. The main finding of this essay is that there is no one universal approach to the study of culture and motivation in cross-cultural contexts: cultures are never static, and it is never possible to predict how future cultural changes will affect organizations and employees in long-term periods. Hofstede, Trompenaars, and China: the culture-management relationship revisited China is rightly considered as one of the most popular objects of contemporary organization research. Much has been written and said about Chinese culture and its implications for business. Nonetheless, numerous aspects of cultural functioning in Chinese organizations remain poorly understood. Therefore, there is a need for reconsidering the role and implications of Chinese national culture for management. It goes without saying that Hofstede’s model has long been the main instrument of management cultural research. This paper is no exception. “Hofstede’s dimensions of culture will create a foundation for understanding the effects of national culture on Chinese enterprises” (Geert Hofstede 2009). Geert Hofstede explored China along several important dimensions: long-term orientation, individualism and collectivism, power distance and, which was unique for China, Confucianism. China is believed to be a highly long-term oriented culture: the country is ranked the highest among other Asian countries on the long-term orientation dimension. Simply stated, the Chinese are prepared to work hard to achieve their long-term goals (Geert Hofstede 2009). Furthermore, Chinese national culture is characterized by high commitment to collectivist values: on the individualism dimension China is ranked the lowest of all Asian cultures (Geert Hofstede 2009). Low individualism in China is usually attributed to the long-standing legacy of communism and the historical values of family and relationships. Not only do the Chinese rely on the collectivist networks, but they tend to assume responsibility for members of their group (Geert Hofstede 2009). Given the role of communism in the Chinese history and culture, it comes as no surprise that the country ranks high on the Power Distance dimension. In other words, China demonstrates a serious gap between those in power and their subordinates (Geert Hofstede 2009). In no way is power distance imposed on the Chinese people; rather, organizations and individuals in China accept this dimension for granted and as part of their culture (Geert Hofstede 2009). Whether or not China is a feminine society Hofstede does not tell. Moreover, there is no universal agreement on this cultural dimension. Shanks et al (2004) suggest that China is more feminine than masculine, since Chinese managers tend to rely on their intuition in solving organizational problems. By contrast, Fernandez et al (1997) found that China scored the highest on the masculine dimension, indicating the presence of a serious separation in male and female social roles. Despite these controversies, it is also clear that China has high uncertainty avoidance, which is rooted in the communist heritage: like Russia, China has long avoided risky enterprises and now, in conditions of globalization and fierce competition, must learn the principles of risk taking and its benefits for the future of business (Fernandez et al 1997). Certainly, the picture of Chinese culture would have been incomplete, if not for the use of Trompenaars’ model of culture. Despite its criticism, Trompenaars’ dimensions of culture are among the most popular instruments of cross-cultural analysis. In many instances, Trompenaars’ model of cross-cultural differences parallels Hofstede’s dimensions of culture, including collectivism and ascription (power distance). To be more specific, Trompenaars would describe China as a culture high in particularism and collectivism. The former means that Chinese managers place special emphasis on friendships and relationships, use relationships to make deals and take organizational decisions, and acknowledge the diversity of views and attitudes (Smith & Dugan 1996). This reliance on principles is actually what managers use to call “Guanxi” – a distinctive feature of Chinese culture which profoundly affects management in Chinese firms and their relations with foreign firms. “The Chinese word Guanxi refers to the concept of drawing on connections in order to secure favors in personal relations” (Luo 1997, p.44). Despite its complexity, Guanxi is not emotional but utilitarian concept, since it has little to do with sentiments but emphases the role of favors (Luo & Chen 1996; Luo 1997). Individuals using Guanxi to develop mutual relationships do not have to be friends; Guanxi is just an established system of mutual exchange, which can be easily broken (Luo 1997). Apart from particularism and collectivism, China is affective and extremely diffuse (Smith & Dugan 1996). Affective relationships are entirely about nonverbal and verbal transparency in communications and easy flow of emotions between people; however, it should also be remembered that Chinese culture inherently relies on high-context communication. That is, most information transmitted during a conversation cannot be interpreted separately from the physical/ emotional context, in which it occurs (Koszegi, Vetschera & Kersten 2001). Apparently, there is a serious gap between Western and Eastern (Asian) cultures, but is the information provided by Hofstede and Trompenaars valid and relevant? Both models of cross-cultural analysis are not without complexity. Created to meet the purpose of effective cross-cultural management, Trompenaars’ and Hofstede’s models are heavily criticized for being static. This is particularly the case of Geert Hofstede – what was believed to be the main features of Chinese culture 20 years ago has already given place to new, unique cultural features. For example, Ralston et al (1999) found that Chinese managers were much more individualistic than previously acknowledged. Intergenerational changes affect how Chinese firms are managed and led. Young Chinese managers are more inclined to act independently from seniors and, simultaneously, take and accept risks to pursue profitability (Ralston et al 1999). Contrary to Hofstede’s expectations, culture is never stable, and factors like globalization, technologies, and the World Wide Web are likely to change the cultural picture of the business landscape in China (Stroehle 2008). Trompenaars’ model, too, is not without controversy: Hofstede (1996) criticized Trompenaars’ bank of country data for the lack of content validity. Trompenaars’ model is sometimes considered to be ethnocentric, since the researcher did not try to assess the universe of cultural diversity but took his dimensions from the American vision of cross-cultural differences dates back into the middle of the 20th century (Hofstede 1996). Whether or not such criticism is justified is difficult to define, but it is clear that neither of the two models can clearly explain what it takes to be a Chinese manager and what it means to run business in China. Globalization and integration of markets cause multiple changes, leading to the creation of new cultures. China’s striving to become a full player of the international business arena will most likely change in the coming decade. Consequentially, new cross-cultural models will have to be developed, to capture the diversity of cultural beliefs and their implications for management. Motivation in China Motivation is probably one of the central objects of today’s business concern. What motivates employees will also predetermine what factors and incentive managers use to boost productivity in the workplace. That employee motivation varies depending on culture is a well-known fact. As a result, culture is an essential variable of employee motivation. In individualistic cultures, including the U.S. motivation is essentially about asserting the self (Markus & Kitoyama 1991). By contrast, collectivistic cultures rely on rewards and incentives that foster the development of collaboration and group thinking: employees in the collectivistic cultures like China display little individualism and work collectively toward a common goal (Mok & Yeung 2005). It should be noted, that despite the growing importance of cultural variables, most motivation theories neglect or omit them. Herzberg’s theory of hygiene factors can help to determine the best incentives for American employees, but whether or not the model can be successfully applied abroad is an open question. Herzberg analyzed fourteen different factors and their effects on job satisfaction. The duration and frequency of each factor was also taken into consideration (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd 2005). Herzberg’s work was published in 1959 and has been one of the main instruments of motivation analysis since then (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd 2005). Herzberg’s model challenged a conventional belief that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction exemplified two ends of one and the same continuum and suggested that satisfaction with some of the variables did not necessarily result in increased job satisfaction (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd 2005). Based on Herzberg’s model, the main sources of satisfaction include recognition, achievement, empowerment, the work itself, responsibility, and advancement prospects (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd 2005). The main sources of dissatisfaction among employees include but are not limited to company policies, quality of supervision, working conditions, and financial rewards (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd 2005). Surprisingly or not, any reduction in dissatisfaction factors (for example, increased financial rewards) does not lead to better satisfaction in the workplace (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd 2005). Based on Herzberg’s theory, managers must focus on the analysis and use of job satisfaction factors, like recognition and empowerment, to achieve the desired productivity result. Herzberg’s theory of motivation suggests that financial rewards are not everything. Simply stated, financial rewards alone cannot support companies in their striving to hire and retain the best employees. Financial rewards do matter, but they are more negative rather than positive for the future of employee motivation. However, countries that have just shifted to new, westernized models of management, display unprecedented commitment to material compensation and cash mentality. It appears that salaries, merit pay, and year-end bonuses are the most crucial factors of retaining employees in China (Chiu et al 2002). Individual workers value individual bonuses and housing provision, whereas supervisors are more inclined to accept cash allowance (Chiu et al 2002). Moreover, overtime allowance increases employee motivation, which denies the relevance of Herzberg’s de-motivating factors (Chiu et al 2002). All these results are easy to explain. It appears that Chinese workers treat material rewards as the most relevant driver of workplace productivity and improvements. More specifically, in the minds of Chinese people, money is considered as extremely important (Chiu et al 2002). Chinese employees do not perceive “annual pay increases across the board” as motivational forces (Chiu et al 2002). These results challenge established, egalitarian principles of pay distribution and suggest that local Chinese employees want their supervisors to take payment decisions, based on equity and not seniority (Chiu et al 2002). In light of these research outcomes, it is clear that China is gradually shifting towards a pro-American motivation mentality, where egalitarian principles give place to performance-based motivational factors. Whether this is the result of globalization or greater acceptance of American-based models of motivation is not clear. However, it is clear that heavy reliance on performance-based pay mechanisms also reflects the main principles of cultural functioning in China, where financial independence is a determining feature of individual success in life (Chiu et al 2002). Given high levels of uncertainty avoidance in Chinese culture, Chinese employees display little trust for government, business partners, and everyone outside of their immediate environments; this is also why they show little interest in indirect benefits, be they education scholarships, life insurance, or vacation leaves (Song, Wang & Wei 2007). Yet, it is at least wrong to believe that financial incentives alone can keep Chinese workers motivated over a long time. Financial rewards aside, there is an emerging consensus that Chinese managers must encourage the development of positive psychological capital in their employees (Luthans et al 2005). The latter can be defined as the fundamental ingredient of positive organizational behaviors, which transcend the boundaries of human and social capital and requires investment (both in terms of financial rewards and psychological encouragement) to yield positive performance outcomes (Luthans et al 2005). What is means is that managers must pay particular attention to fostering and strengthening the feelings of hope, optimism, and resiliency in Chinese workers (Luthans et al 2005). Authentic leadership does have a potential to enhance the quality of positive behaviors in Chinese firms (Luthans et al 2005). Chinese managers should encourage continuous learning and help workers to adjust to change (Luthans et al 2005). All these actions lead to the development of positive psychological capital which, coupled with financial incentives and rewards, leads to enhanced performances and improved competitive position. To be motivated, Chinese workers need to have their workplace functions structured tightly around clearly defined parameters, with a special emphasis on task performance (Jackson & Bak 1998). They need to have a clear picture of the career advancement path (Jackson & Bak 1998; Wright, Berrell & Gloet 2008). Despite relative improvements in motivation, it remains one of the greatest challenges in China: the lack of intrinsic motivation leads to high turnover and absenteeism, as many workers become disillusioned and bored (Jackson & Bak 1998). It seems that the western vision of motivation does not work in the East. Part of the reason is in a profound cultural gap between East and West. Most theories of motivation reflect long-standing western assumptions about employees and factors pushing them to work. Like his colleagues and predecessors, including Abraham Maslow, Herzberg failed to escape the spirit of individualism, bordered on egoism and self-fulfillment. Unlike the United States, China has long existed in the atmosphere of collectivism and collaboration. Herzberg’s theory implies that everything done or undone by employees is essentially for the sake of achieving some particular individual goal, with no regard for co-workers and colleagues. In reality, Chinese workers may well be motivated by the sense of community, belonging, and self-actualization through collective achievement (Jackson & Bak 1998). Certainly, the global movement toward humanization in workplace environments cannot be neglected. Most, if not all theories of motivation, reflect this tendency. Herzberg’s hygiene factors suggest that making work more interesting to workers is at the core of successful motivation and performance improvements in the workplace (Hofstede 1980; Hofstede 1993). Yet, again, different countries will hold different opinions of what it takes to be “humane” in the workplace. With this in mind, managers working in cross-cultural environments must treat theoretical models of motivation with caution. No one model of motivation can be universally applied in different cultural environments. The situation is becoming particularly problematic, as organizations are growing more diverse. As a result, organizations are getting cross-cultural at all levels of their performance, from individual to organizational. Obviously, there is a need for developing new models of motivation, which will apply to multiple cultural settings. Simultaneously, in light of the growing workplace diversity, such task may become unachievable. Conclusion The growing diversity of workforce warrants the need for developing new cross-cultural models of management. Previous beliefs about cultural differences and their implications for motivation are becoming obsolete. Cultures are never static. Globalization and market integration alter the cultural balance in the international business arena. Previous models of cultural differences no longer meet the needs of business. Only new models of cross-cultural differences can add value to business endeavors in the global environment. However, given the overall changeability of markets and cultures, even this task may become unachievable. References Bassett-Jones, N & Lloyd, GC 2005, ‘Does Herzberg’s motivation theory have staying power?’, Journal of Management Development, vol.24, no.10, pp.929-943. Chiu, RK, Luk, VW & Tang, TL 2002, ‘Retaining and motivating employees: Compensation preferences in Hong Kong and China’, Personnel Review, vol.31, no.4, pp.402-412. Fernandez, DR, Carlson, DS, Lee, PS & Nicholson, JD 1997, ‘Hofstede’s country classification 25 years later’, The Journal of Social Psychology, vol.137, no.1, pp.43-54. Geert Hofstede 2009, ‘Geert Hofstede – Cultural dimensions: China’, Geert Hofstede, [online], accessed from http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_china.shtml Hofstede, G 1980, ‘Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?’, Organizational Dynamics, Summer, pp.42-63. Hofstede, G 1993, ‘Cultural constraints in management theories’, The Academy of Management Executive, vol.7, no.1, pp.81-94. Hofstede, G 1996, ‘Riding the waves of commerce: A test of Trompenaars’ ‘model’ of national culture differences’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, vol.20, no.2, pp.189-198. Jackson, T & Bak, M 1998, ‘Chinese workers: Employee motivation in the People’s Republic of China’, Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol.11, no.4, pp.282-300. Koszegi, S, Vetschera, R & Kersten, GE 2001, ‘National cultural differences in the use and perception of Internet-based NSS- Does high or low context matter?’, International Negotiations Research Papers, INR09/03. Luo, Y & Chen, M 1996, ‘Managerial implications of Guanxi-based business strategies’, Journal of International Management, vol.2, no.4, pp.293-316. Luo, Y 1997, ‘Guanxi: Principles, philosophies, and implications’, Human Systems Management, vol.16, no.1, pp.43-51. Luthans, F, Avolio, BJ, Walumbwa, FO & Li, W 2005, ‘The psychological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performance’, Management and Organization Review, vol.1, no.2, pp.249-271. Markus, HR & Kitayama, S 1991, ‘Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation’, Psychological Review, vol. 98, no.2, 224-253. Mok, V & Yeung, G 2005, ‘Employee motivation, external orientation and the technical efficiency of foreign-financed firms in China: A stochastic frontier analysis’, Managerial and Decision Economics, vol.26, no.3, pp.175-190. Ralston, DA, Egri, CP, Stewart, S, Tepstra, RH & Keicheng, Y 1999, ‘Doing business in the 21st century with the new generation of Chinese managers: A study of generational shifts in work values in China’, Journal of International Business Studies, vol.30, no.2, pp.415-427. Shanks, G, Parr, A, Hu, B, Corbitt, B, Thanasankit, T & Seddon, P 2004, ‘Differences in critical success factors in ERP systems implementation in Australia and China: A cultural analysis’, Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems, July 3-5. Smith, PB & Dugan, S 1996, ‘National culture and the values of organizational employees’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol.27, no.2, pp.231-259. Song, L, Wang, Y & Wei, J 2007, ‘Revisiting motivation preference within the Chinese context: An empirical study’, Chinese Management Studies, vol.1, no.1, pp.25-41. Stroehle, F 2008, ‘Effective e-commerce in China lessons from cross-cultural research’, Otago Management Graduate Review, vol.6, pp.65-79. Wright, PC, Berrell, M & Gloet, M 2008, ‘Cultural values, workplace behavior, and productivity in China’, Management Decision, vol.46, no.5, pp.797-812. Read More