Motivation Across Cultures - Essay Example

Achievement Motive 1 Introduction If Madruga is to succeed in Singapore, or in any other country for that matter, it cannot approach employee-employer relations, or the entire paradigm of HRM from an American perspective. Instead, and even though the aforementioned will ultimately be informed by the home country’s culture and the organisational culture which it gave rise to, it needs to be tempered with the host country’s culture and the worldviews which colour and determine the local workforce/domestic employees’ attitudes towards work. This extends to the management of employee behaviour and the strategies deployed for the maximisation of employee motivation levels. With specific focus on whether or not knowledge of achievement motive would be of any value to expatriate managers in Madruga’s Singapore subsidiary, the report will argue that even though it is of value, the said value can only be realised if pre-existing achievement motive knowledge is adjust to correspond with the culture in question. 2 Managers and Motivation Worker motivation can be either internal, brought about by the person's interactions with his own set of beliefs about what will satisfy his needs, or external, brought about by interactions with one's environment. Motivation can result from something as complex and volatile as how a person's attitudes were formed in the womb and in the crib, to how a supervisor uses language and the meanings of words in describing tasks and providing feedback (Sullivan, 1988). In reality, it appears that the dynamics that move a worker toward particular activities come form a constant interaction between both internal stimuli and external stimuli. Concurring, Vroom (1964) indicates that managers must understand the principles of motivation, and, in fact, must create the right kind of motivational environment, in order to ensure that employee activities result in preferred organizational outcomes. This fits very well with Maslow's suggestion (1954) that in order to determine human needs and identity, it is necessary to set up special conditions that foster expression of these needs and capacities. Issac, Zerbe and Pitt (2001) agree, suggesting that organizational leaders must determine their followers' interests, aspirations, and goals of both a short and long term nature and creativity frame the organizational vision in such a way that the follower perceives congruency between personal and organizational ends. Gellerman (1963) goes so far as to describe management's "great task" as shaping the environment into a stimulus instead of a suppressor. These assertions appear to support the theory that a 'motivational environment" exists in the workplace that works to either support or contradict the worker's interaction between internal stimuli and external stimuli. Daschler (1972) asserts that employee performance will likely be optimized when the organization's goals and the employee's goals coincide, forming goal congruence. He cautions, however that employee motivation can be either positive, that which produces congruent behaviour, or negative, that which produces incongruent or unplanned behaviour, such that there is never a time that an employee is "not motivated, as so many erroneously suppose. The real question is does the existing motivation lead to goals congruent or incongruent with organizational goals? 3 Culture and Motivation In Work Motivation and Culture, Kao and Sek-Hong (1997, p.119) argue that “in this postmodern era of trade globalisation and internationalisation of capital and human resources, the multinational corporation has become a strategic agency of transnational interface, exchange, and diffusion of cultural practices and philosophies.” Given this dynamic, that managers merely understand their own role as motivators, and as architects of a motivating environment, may not be enough. According to Gelleman (1963) they must also negotiate the fact that the most important thing to be said about motives is that everybody has a lot of them and that nobody has quite the same mixture as anyone else. Gellerman further asserts that these motivational differences are due in part to the many different kinds of environments in which people grow up, and that their attitudes and reactions toward life and themselves are shaped to a considerable degree by both the conspicuous and subtle elements of those environments. Hofstede (1993) has observed that that one of the fundamental features of any one individual’s environment is the culture in which he or she has been raised or in which he or she has operated for any formative amount of time. As Strauss (1992, p. 2) has stated: “to understand why people do what they do (motivation), we have to understand the cultural constructs by which they interpret the world.” Hernandez and Iyengar (2001) have asserted that culture invariably constructs and determines human thinking about motivation. Culture, then, seems to play a significant role in the way people's needs such as security, love, and esteem are formed and how important those needs are (their hierarchy) , and how they are satisfied (process) (Fatehi, 1996). So then, in addition to their role as architects of a motivating environment, managers in a cross-cultural setting must further understand that different people are motivated by different sets of motivators, and those motivators are, to at least some degree, formed by the culture in which the worker was raised (Naslerowski & Mikula, 1998). In addition, the manager must understand that not only are the motivators different across culture, but they are ranked differently by cultures and the process of motivation is different, as well (Negandhi, 1983). 3.1 Singapore vs. US Existent evidence indicates a strong correlation between the Singaporean and the American cultures, such as which relate to employee behaviour and workplace attitudes. As indicated in the case study material, both exhibit low uncertainty avoidance and are intrinsically masculine in nature, with the outcome being an emphasis on employee proactive behaviour and assertiveness. Nevertheless, and despite the fact that there are correlations between the two, this does not mean that expatriate managers can simply enforce their understandings of worker motivation upon their Singaporean employees. Instead, and even though achievement motive is important, it needs to be tempered with an understanding of the differences between Singaporean and Western culture. 3.2 Achievement Motive Articulated by McClelland (1988), achievement motive theory refers to individuals who are, by nature, attuned towards achievement and are, accordingly, goal oriented. Achievement-oriented individuals set realistic, albeit challenging goals for themselves and work towards their attainment. This group of people are characterized by a strong need for positive feedback pertaining to their achievement and are motivated by the sense of accomplishment associated with the successful realization of goals. In essence, the achievement motivation theory is rooted in Achievement Motivation Theory is rooted in Maslow’s Theory of Motivation and Needs and, most specifically, in his fourth and fifth needs, as which emphasize esteem and self actualization. As regards the former, it refers to a desire for the achievement and mastery of some quality or skill, or a desire to develop competence in some area of performance. Its objective is both self-esteem, as which enables an individual to develop a sense of self-worth, adequacy, and usefulness that permits him or her to face the world confidently, ad the esteem of others, defined as the desire for the incitement of the esteem of others in acknowledgement of one’s accomplishments. As pertains to the latter, it refers to the phenomenon by which an individual is motivated to become what he feels he must be. He wants to become what he believes he is best suited to be and all that he is capable of becoming. He pursues his ultimate goal, self-fulfilment. Once in the self-actualized state, an employee’s motivation derives from the desire to continue doing what he knows he does best (Maslow, 1954). As may be deduced from both the above overview of the meaning an roots of the achievement motive, this particular motivator emanates from within and centres upon the individual’s capacities, potentials and abilities, to achieve, assert himself/herself and establish his/her value and worth to the organisation. It is, accordingly, a very powerful motivator and one which positively impacts employee productivity and, hence, organisational performance. As valuable as the referenced motivator is, however, this does not mean that it withstands transference to any culture. Instead, and as may be deduced from Hofstede’s (1983) research, this particular motivator can only be effectively utilised within the context of masculine cultures and, ideally, individualistic ones. In immediate reference to Singaporean culture, one notes that it embraces a collectivist, as opposed to an individualistic construct but, as the case wit American culture, is masculine. Added to that, Singaporean workers are motivated by achievement, consequent to the fact that the culture celebrates success and emphasizes achievement and individual (employee) contribution to the collectivity (organization). The implication here is, therefore, that the achievement motivator should be utilized by expatriate managers but reworked to reflect the collectivist vs. individualistic differential between the two. 4 Conclusion On the basis of the information reviewed in the preceding, two facts are evident. The first is that Madruga Corporation’s intent on adopting aspects of the local culture as opposed to entering the Singaporean sociocultural environment as an American company is, possibly, the only valid entry approach. The second is that knowledge of achievement motivation is undeniably important but the motivator(s) in question must correlate to the culture in question. The implication of both of the aforementioned is clear: American expatriate managers cannot assume that their culture is universal in the sense that what constitutes a motivator from their cultural perceptions may not be a motivator from within the framework of the Singaporean culture. As noted, American culture tends towards the individualistic while the Singaporean one leans towards collectivism. Added to that, both have low uncertainty avoidance and workers/employees within the framework of either, are motivated by the potential for job growth, achievement and expanded work responsibilities (Case Study). The implication here is that both cultures are somewhat similar but, importantly, they are also different. In practice, and as confirmed by the information in the Case Study, this means that motivation schemes, especially those which embrace recognition and esteem, are as important for Singaporean workers as they are for American ones. Indeed, they are more important than are bonus/financial reward schemes. The information presented in the above leads to the affirmation of the importance of the achievement motive for Singaporean workers. This, however, does not mean that American expatriate managers and Madruga’s leadership can simply undertake the transposition of schemes and strategies which proved successful in the United States to Singapore. They probably can do so in relation to Australian employees, given that Australian and American culture emanate from the same set of cultures, worldviews and religious tradition/heritage. The Singaporean culture, however, emanates from an alternate, Asian tradition. This tradition does not negate the importance of the achievement motive, as defined by Maslow (self-esteem and self-actualisation) but it does call upon HRM to rework the manner in which the motivator in question is integrated into the organisation’s motivation scheme for more precise reflection of the Singaporean cultural worldview (with its focus on collectivism as opposed to individualism). In the final analysis, therefore, and based upon both the theory and the facts of the case study as presented, the achievement motive does figure strongly into the Singaporean employee’s needs and, as such, should be embraced and utilised by expatriate managers. Nevertheless, it should not be applied as it is in the United States or as it probably can be in Australia but, as it is interpreted within the context of Singaporean culture. 5 References Barry, H., et al. (1957). A cross cultural survey of some sex differences in socialisation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 327-332. Daschler, P.E. (1972) Motivation, behaviour, and the reward system. Journal of Economics and Business, 24. Fatehi, K. (19 9 6 ) . International Management and the cultural context. In Kamal Fatehi's (Ed.) International Management : A Cross Culture and Functional Perspective, (pp.151-184). NJ: Prentice Hall. Gellerman, S. (1963). Motivation and Productivity. American Management Association. Gelger, M. et al. (19981. Cross-cultural comparisons: using expectancy theory to assess student motivation: an international replication. Issues in Accounting Education, 13, 139-156. Gray, K. R., and Marshall, K. P. (1998) Kenyan and Korean management orientations on Hofstede's cultural values. Multinational Business Review, 5, 79-88. Guzley, R.M. et al. (1998) Cross cultural perspectives of commitment: individualism and collectivism as a framework for conceptualisation. The Southern Communication Journal, 44, 1-19. Hernandz, M. and Iyengar, S. (2001) What drives whom? A cultural perspective on human agency. Social Cognition, 19, 269-294. Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (1981) Culture and organisations. International Studies of Man and Organisations., 10(4), 15-41. Hofstede, G. (1983a) The cultural relativity of organisational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89. Hofstede, G. (1983b) National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management and Organisations, 13, 46-74. Hofstede, G. (1993) Cultural restraints in management theory. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 81-94. Hofstede, G. (1995) Multilevel research of human systems: Flowers, bouquets and gardens. Human Systems Management, 14(3), 207-217. Isaac, R.G., Zerbe, W.J., and Pitt, D. (2001) Leadership and Motivation: The Effective Application of Expectancy Theory, Journal of Managerial Issues, 12, 212-231. Kao, H.S.R. and Sek-Hong, N. (1997) Work motivation and culture. In Munro, D., Shumaker, J.F. and Carr, S. (eds) Motivation and Culture (119-132). New York: Routledge. Kleiner, B.H. (1983) Integrating major motivational theories. Journal of Systems Management, 34, 26-29. Kluckhohn, C. (1951) Values and value orientations in theory or action: An exploration in definition and classification. In Parson, T. and Shils, E.A. (eds) Towards a general theory of action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Maeir, N.R.F. (1965) Psychology in Industry. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Maslow, A.H. (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. Naslerowski, W. and Mikula, B. (1998). Culture dimensions of Polish managers: Hofstede’s indices. Organisational Studies, 19, 459-509. Negandhi, A.R. (1983) Cross-cultural management: Trend and future directions. Journal of International Business Studies, 14, 17-28. Robertson, C.J. (2000) The global dispersion of Chinese values: A three country study of Confucian dynamism. Management International Review, 40, 253-268. Sondergaard, M. (1994) Research note: Hofstede’s consequences: A study of reviews citations and replications. Organisational Studies, 15(3), 447-456. Steers, R.M. (1976) Factors affecting job attitudes in a goal-setting environment. Academy of Management Journal, 19(1), 6-16. Strauss, C. (1992) Models and motives. In D’Andrade, R. and Strauus, C. (eds) Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sullivan, J. (1988) Three roles of language in motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 13, 104-115. Vroom, V.H. (1964) Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Yukl, G. and Van Fleet D.D. (1982) Cross situational multi-method research on military leader effectiveness. Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 30, 87-108. Read More