The Concept of Work Centrality in Japan and Australia - Literature review Example

The Concept of Work Centrality in Japan and Australia Name Institution The Concept of Work Centrality in Japan and Australia Introduction The concept of work centrality can be termed as the level of value and importance of work in a person’s life. Work takes an important role in the life of people (Arvey, Harpaz and Liao, 2004). For some, work is considered fundamental and significant compared to other facets of life such as leisure, community and religion. People with high work centrality often continue to work even after retirement or if their financial situation is able to sustain them without working. The concept of work centrality is positively linked to work satisfaction and organisational commitment. It is reported that people spend almost a quarter of their lives working (Arvey, Harpaz and Liao, 2004). Work values have changed over the year. In the past, work was portrayed as a means of preventing poverty and destitution. Nevertheless, today, people work because it is virtuous and contributes to common good. It allows people to accumulate wealth. The importance of work in many cultures makes it a core value that is expected to be adhered to (Bal and Kooij, 2011). Some countries have high work centrality than others. This paper will explain how the concept of work centrality differs between organisations in Japan and those in Australia. It will validate whether the degree of work centrality differ between industries. In addition, the paper will explain the impacts of work centrality on the motivation strategies used in Japanese and Australian organisations. How the Concept of Work Centrality Differ between Organisations in Japan and Organisations in Australia According to Carr, Boyar and Gregory (2008), cultural norms and work goals have an impact on work centrality. Employees in Japanese organisations are habituated to work towards building strong market. In Japan, work is the most important aspect of life while in Australia work comes second after family and leisure. Work centrality differs between Australia and Japan (Alston and Takei, 2005). In Japan, work is more important than in Australia. Work centrality in the two countries can be differentiated using the following elements: The Meaning of Work The shared interpretation of the work differs between countries. People from some countries define work as a burden while others define as responsibility and exchange (Carr, Boyar and Gregory, 2008). People from Japan tend to have a negative perspective of work. Work is seen as an obligation that one has to do since someone else has told them to. On the other hand, employees from Australian organisations are centred on the notion that people work in order to contribute to the society. According to Diefendor et al. (2002), societal norms and work goals impact the meaning of work. Societal wok norms can be termed as the expectations and obligations from work. There is a variation from one country to another with regard to the notion of obligation to work. Work obligation tends to influence work centrality (Arvey, Harpaz and Liao, 2004). Work Goals Work goals are divided into extrinsic and intrinsic work goals. Extrinsic goals include payment and benefit status while intrinsic goals include meaningful occupation, work-life balance and influence, etc. (Hattrup, Muellar and Joens, 2007). Work goals differ in importance from one country to another. Data from Japan indicates that “good pay” has higher priority among employees. Japanese employees value aspects such as income and job security. In Australia, the highest priority is “realizing one’s full potential”. Employees prefer extrinsic values such as pursuit for autonomy, growth and openness to change (Pockck, 2003). Hours worked People who considered leisure to be the most important often work fewer hours that those who hold less importance to leisure. Although the number of working hours has reduced in Japan, Japanese employees are considered to work for longer hours regardless of a strict labour law (Alston and Takei, 2005). Long working hours in the country has led to the concept of Karo-shi which means death from overwork. Employees in the country have been known to die of exhaustion due to overwork. One important reason for long working hours is the culture developed on the basis of the seniority system (Smola and Sutton, 2002). The opportunity for career advancement depends on the total among of hours employees worked. On the other hand, in Australia, employees have a normal work pattern. Although part-time employment is normal in the country, employees generally work less than 30 hours a week. There is flexibility in the working time in Australia (Pocock, 2003). This leads to the assumption that work centrality is higher in Japan than in Australia. According to self-perception theory, an individual behaviour often influences his or her attitude. Individuals who work for longer hours than average often refer work to be very important to them (Hattrup, Muellar and Joens, 2007). The dominant work pattern is able to influence self-perception of working more and therefore affect the idea of work as the most important aspect of life. Cultural Values Societal work norms are influenced by cultural values. Values are situational goals that act as a guiding principle in the society. Cultural values distinguish one group from another or one country for the other (Hofstede, 2005). A culture rooted in a country reinforces a value system through passing laws that encourages or discourages certain behaviours. Hofstede organised cultural values into cultural dimensions. The first one individualism versus collectivism explains the degree of loyalty to self, versus loyalty to community and family (Hofstede, 2005). Power distance highlights the extent to which cultures and societies accept that power is unevenly distributed in the community and masculinity-femininity explains the degree to which sex is used to define the role of men and women. The last one, uncertainty avoidance, highlights the extent to which a given culture feels vulnerable to uncertain and unfamiliar situations and tries to avoid these situations by enforcing formal rules and beliefs (Hofstede, 2005). A study conducted by Harpaz, Honig and Coetsier (2002) highlights the connection between cultural values and work centrality. According to the study, countries with high uncertainty avoidance often have higher work centrality compared to countries with high uncertainty avoidance. In addition, in collectivist countries, managers and employees alike tend to have higher levels of work obligations and entitlement which translate into higher work centrality (Harpaz, Honig and Coetsier, 2002). Japan is a high uncertainty avoidant and collectivist country which means that it has higher work centrality compared to Australia in relation to its cultural dimensions. Comparison of work with other aspects of life The most important aspects in a person’s life include family, leisure, work, community, and religion (Hirschfeld and Feild, 2000). Japanese companies do a great job at displaying the importance of work to employees during the first years of employment through socialization and career training. The importance of work among employees in Japan is aided by its collective nature while individualistic nature of Australia discourages socialization which affects the importance of work (Pocock, 2003). In addition, as a result of the poor economic well-being of Japan with regard to natural resources, employees in the country often work hard and smarter to create a favourable economy in the future. However, employees working in Australian organisations do not see the necessity to work harder due to the abundance of natural resources and favourable economic position. Due to this, work is the most important aspect of life for Japanese employees followed by family then leisure time (Alston and Takei, 2005). In Australia, leisure and family take the first position followed by work. Does the Concept of Centrality Vary by Industry? Differences in the importance of work in people’s lives is more a national phenomenon that an industry one (Spector et al., 2004). Work is significantly important in every industry in Japan than in Australia. However, there is a small difference when it comes to industry. In Japan, employees from service industry and production industry are considered to have a lower work centrality compared to employees in sales and marketing industry. In Australia, employees from sales industry and production industry are considered to have lower work centrality compared to other industries (Witt, Patti and Farmer, 2002). The difference comes due to differences in task autonomy and organisation condition. Nevertheless, the importance of work in Japan and Australia is less an industry phenomenon due to the small difference in the importance of working in different industries. How Work Centrality Affects Motivation Strategies in Japanese and Australian Organisations One theory that explains motivation of employees is the Maslow Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory argue that people have a hierarchy of needs that should be satisfied from bottom to top including physiological, security, affiliation, esteem and self-actualization (Ramlall, 2004). From the bottom are the psychological needs that are satisfied first and at the top are the self-actualization needs that are satisfied after other needs. According to the theory, the lowest level of unsatisfied needs is the key motivator of behaviour (Ramlall, 2004). These are needs which humans require in order to survive such as shelter and clothing. It is possible for the basic human needs to be satisfied in the work setting. They come in terms of adequate wages as well as a stable income. The needs to be satisfied differ from one person to another. Generally, the theory argues that knowing the needs of the employees can assist managers satisfy them in order for them to be motivated to work better (Ramlall, 2004). Every individual expect to receive certain benefits in order to be motivated to perform well in an organisation (Diefendorff et al. 2002). The key to developing successful motivational strategies is to understand how different people view work among countries. People working in different organisations located in different countries do not give the same priority to the same needs that they want to be satisfied in order to be more motivated. Work centrality affects the motivational strategies adapted in Japanese and Australian organisations (Hattrup, Mueller and Joens, 2007). Not all motivational strategies that work in Australia can work in Japan. For instance, in an individualistic culture with lower work centrality such as Australia, praise and recognition through employee of the month schemes work well as a motivation strategy. Nevertheless, this strategy may not increase motivation in Japan since employees prefer to be praised and recognised as a team. Being singled out may be embarrassing and can affect the team dynamic (Hattrup, Mueller and Joens, 2007). In addition, in Japan, a manager can be motivated with group rewards, job security, after-work socializing, and increase in salary and compensation. However, a manager in Australia can be motivated by personal career growth, pursuit of autonomy and life-work balance (Hattrup, Mueller and Joens, 2007). Employees in Japanese organisation have extrinsic work values while Australian employees have intrinsic work vales. This means that in order to motivate Japanese employees, there is need to satisfy the extrinsic need before intrinsic ones. On the other hand, there is need to satisfy the intrinsic needs of Australian employees before satisfying the extrinsic needs. It is therefore correct to conclude that Japanese employees would appreciate extrinsic motivation strategy compared to Australian employees (Hattrup, Mueller and Joens, 2007). They would be motivated by extrinsic factors. Conclusion In conclusion, the concept of centrality highlights the degree of importance of work in a person’s life. Work may be more important to one person as compared to another. Employees working in different countries differ in the level of work centrality. In Japan, work is the most important aspect of life while in Australia work comes second after family and leisure. This may be due to meaningful of work, hours worked and cultural values among others. Japanese tend to work for long hours than Australians which can raise the level of importance of work. In addition, work obligation tends to influence work centrality. Employees in Japan are obligated to work in order to raise the economic position of their country. This tends to increase their work centrality. Every individual expect to receive certain benefits in order to be motivated and the key to developing successful motivational strategies is to understand how different people view work among countries. Employees in Japan are more motivated by extrinsic factors while those in Australia are motivated more by intrinsic factors. References Alston, J. & Takei, I. (2005). Japanese business culture and practices : a guide to twenty-first century Japanese business. New York: iUniverse. Arvey, R.D., Harpaz, I, Liao, H. (2004). Work centrality and post-award work behavior of lottery winners. The Journal of Psychology, 138(5): 404-420. Bal, P. M. & Kooij, D. (2011). The relations between work centrality, psychological contracts, and job attitudes: The influence of age. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 20(4): 497-523. Carr, J. C., Boyar, S. L., & Gregory, B. T. (2008). The moderating effect of Work—Family centrality on Work—Family conflict, organizational attitudes, and turnover behavior. Journal of Management, 34(2): 244-262. Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G. (2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviours and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23(1): 93-108. Harpaz, I., Honig, B., & Coetsier, P. (2002). A cross-cultural longitudinal analysis of the meaning of work and the socialization process of career starters. Journal of World Business, 37(4): 230-244. Hattrup, K., Mueller, K., & Joens, I. (2007). The Effects of Nations and Organisations on Work Value Importance: A Cross-Cultural Investigation. Applied Psychology, 56(3): 479–499. Hirschfeld, R. R., & Feild, H. S. (2000). Work Centrality and Work Alienation: Distinct Aspects of a General Commitment to Work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7): 789–800. Hofstede, G (2005). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Relate Values. New York: Sage. Pocock, B. (2003). The work/life collision : what work is doing to Australians and what to do about it. Sydney. NSW: Federation Press. Ramlall, S. (2004). A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organizations. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 52-63. Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational Differences: Revisiting Generational Work Values for the New Millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4): 363-382. Spector, P. E., Sanchez, J. I., Siu, J. I., Salgado, J., & Ma, J. (2004). Eastern versus western control beliefs at work: An investigation of secondary control, socio-instrumental control, and work locus of control in China and the U.S. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(1): 38-60. Witt, L. A., Patti, A. L., & Farmer, W. L. (2002). Organizational politics and work identity as predictors of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 32(3): 486-499. Read More