Relationship between culture and work

Working ties between the UK and Japan and the impact of cultural differences

Due to the fact that people are now much more connected than previously, globalization has altered how businesses work globally. People from various geographical locations, with various cultures, languages, ethnicities, faiths, and worldviews, frequently collaborate nowadays. But when people from different cultures work together in the same organization, difficulties might arise that, if not resolved, can harm the working relationships. When two cultures are radically at odds with one another, as British and Japanese, the likelihood of issues is considerable. Hofstede’s theory is utilized to comprehend the potential issues and their consequences. The theory shows how culture influences the workplace values (Dahl, S. n.d.). Therefore, people from Japan and UK working relationships are expected to be influenced by their different cultures, but should not impede people from different regions from working together.

The Hofstede’s model of cultural dimensions applies four basic factors (dimensions) that help understand the differences among cultures. Original dimensions are power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, and masculinity (Hofstede 1994). Other factors added are long-term orientation and indulgence versus restraint. The power distance is described as the level of people at the lower ranks expecting or accepting power distribution. Individualism vs. collectivism refers to the degrees of integration of people into groups. Uncertainty ~ Avoidance is the tendency to tolerate uncertainty. Masculinity shows how emotional roles are shared between genders. Long-term orientation described society’s attachment to the past and futures. Those with short-term orientation are more attached to their traditional methods view time as circular. Indulgence vs. restraint represents the ability to meet the personal needs of a cultural group. While developing the model, Hofstede defined culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the member of one group or category of people from another” (p.5). The model used data from fifty countries using IBM surveys. Using the six dimensions, countries’ cultures can be categorized as either high or low. A country scoring high in certain dimension means person coming from that country is likely to present with such characteristic.

Despite the Hofstede’s model being the best in describing cultural relationships, there are several weaknesses it presents with. One of the weaknesses is that the model generalizes cultures of countries, which means it assumes country’s culture to monogamous. Another weakness is that the theory is based on one company’s responses making the sample size small and probably biased. This questions the validity and accuracy of the research. The third weakness is the partial geographic coverage of the research. The research is based mostly on western countries and few eastern countries (Joannides, Wickramasingh, & Berland 2012) The model assumes that people’s reactions are not affected by location; this is despite the knowledge that employees tend to react differently when they find themselves in different locations. However, these weaknesses do not invalidate the use of the model in analyzing cultural relations in organizations.

Britain and Japan have contrasting cultures according to Hofstede’s model. The UK has low power distance. This means that British believe that there should be equality among people. The subordinates expect consulted rather than being directed what to do. There is interdependence the more power and less powerful people in the community. This means employees will be free with the managers as decision making is participatory where junior members expect their views to be heard and implemented. In the community or workplace, UK believes that hierarchy is only for convenience as team structures are expected to be flat.

Regarding individualism, UK scores high. This implies that UK person values personal care and that of immediate family and is not much concerned about the general society. People from the UK value privacy, focus on their achievement. Concerning masculinity, UK is fairly masculine according to Hofstede’s model. There is a tendency for the UK to put more emphasis on achievement, competition, and success and does not put more value on aspects such as modesty, quality of life and getting along with others well. More value is placed on one’s career and there a free expression of ambition. However, UK is not an extremely masculine country.

The UK has a low score in uncertainty avoidance. This is an indication that persons from the UK care less about uncertainty and can live comfortably without knowing what the future holds. The UK culture also holds that precision and punctuality should be learned as opposed to coming naturally. The long-term orientation score of the UK is neutral. This shows that people from the UK connect present situations with past. However, they do not dwell so much on the past. The UK has relatively high indulgence as they show weak control on impulse meaning that they feel free to meet their desires.

Japan, on the other hand, has fair power distance score. This indicates Japanese have a relatively high tendency to have a hierarchical societal structure, but they do not view inequalities in the society as an expected or desired situation. At the same time due to their collective culture, there is a smooth interrelation between juniors and leaders. Japan is low in individualism but high in collectivism. This indicates that Japan people refer to themselves as ”we” rather than ”I.” The Japanese are dominated by group mindset. In an organization, leaders are likely to put organization’s interest before personal interests.

Japan has strong uncertainty avoidance. It means that there are not tolerant of the unknown and therefore any uncertainty should be dealt with directly. They also value precision and punctuality as natural traits. Masculinity is highly evident in the Japanese culture. This means material success and progress are the dominant values. It is expected that leaders should be assertive and decisive. There is more emphasis on equity, competition, and performance among workmates.

Japan score high in long-term orientation. This means Japanese quickly adapt traditions to a modern context. They view life as a linear process. They take modern education as a measure of preparing for the future. In companies, they value their durability rather than mere profit making. Japan culture is more about restraint than indulgence. This means Japan do value leisure so much and can control their impulses.

There are some problems than are likely to emerge when people of these two countries work in the same organization due to their differences in culture. The first problem is the conflict between top managers and the junior employees due to power distance. In case UK person works with a Japanese company, he would be required to follow the hierarchical procedure before his issues are solved. This would make an English junior to feel oppressed, and the working relationship may worsen.

Regarding uncertainty avoidance, a person or company from the UK may feel pressurized to meet expectations when working with Japanese. This is because of the latter values precision and punctuality and therefore going contrary it will affect the working relationship. A Japanese customer would prefer products delivered in time and meeting all the expected features. Also, there would be trust issues because Japan would be reluctant to engage in business dealing with the UK where the outcome is uncertain. This can be countered by having clear objectives and expected results between the two. This should be made clear before the work begins.

\The problem concerns individualism and collectivism. In this case, the UK and Japan are directly opposite of each other. British will find it challenging to work in a Japanese company that values group performance over personal performance. The UK would feel alienated and therefore gets unmotivated when working in a Japanese company. This problem can be countered by the UK taking time to learn the Japanese culture of collectivism so that when doing business in Japan one can blend in.

When it comes to masculinity, Japan is strongly masculine while UK scores fairly. The problem that may arise from the working relationship between the two is that in case they is a conflict the Japanese would expect it to resolved immediately with whichever means available, but the UK would prefer negotiation. The two countries can, however, work together without many conflicts because both share some masculinity traits.

Regarding long-term orientation, one problem that may emerge is the conflicting interest between profit-making and durability of business. The Japan would not be much concerned about the profits margins but the long-term survival of the business while for the UK is relatively opposite. When working in Japan, a UK person would feel uncomfortable because he is restrained from the enjoyment of life through leisure. Such a person would perform badly in work since he sees no need of working and not enjoying the results of his hard work.

To sum it up, cultural differences can affect the working relationships between two countries, but this does not discourage people from different cultures from working together. Using the Hofstede’s six dimensions, the differences emerge between UK and Japan. The UK has low power distance while Japan has fairly low power distance. The UK is individualistic whilst Japan is collectivist. The UK has low uncertainty avoidance while Japan scores high in this dimension. Japan is strongly masculine whereas the UK is fairly masculine. Japan has a strong long-term orientation whilst UK is neutral. Finally, UK is indulgent whilst Japan practices restraint. Some key problems that may arise due to these differences include mistrust and conflicting interests. The general recommendation for people working across these two cultures is to learn each other’s culture and mutually agree who is going to agree who is going to adapt to the other. It is also advisable to be ready to compromise some of the cultural aspects for healthy working relationship.

References

Dahl, S. n.d. Intercultural Research: The Current State of Knowledge. Middlesex University

Business School.

Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and organizations : software of the mind : intercultural.

London, HarperCollins.

Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and organizations : software of the mind. London ; New

York, McGraw-Hill.

Joannides,V, Wickramasinghe, D, & Berland, N.2012.