CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN THE WORK PLACE: A STUDY OF THE WORK ETHICS OF CHINESE AND AMERICANS

While much has been written regarding the culture of China in a sociological context, only recently has this emphasis expanded to include the exploration of culture in a managerial and business context. This additional emphasis is extremely welcomed as organizations move from a narrow national focus to the Global environment. As more and more organizations move into other countries to conduct business and make products, we need to understand the work ethics of other nationals in order to reduce conflicts and remain competitive. This research studied the work values of Chinese and American workers. After a discussion of various approaches to study the cultural/work values of employees around the world, this paper details the methodology used and the findings. It found that there are significant differences in the orientation of these workers and significant differences in their motivations. Background There has been a great deal of research concerning the cultural/work values of nationals around the world, the majority of which has been extremely helpful. The developed frameworks for understanding cultures are averages or norms of the value systems that compose a culture rather than exact descriptions. They represent approximate expected behavior in a culture and the values one takes to the work place. Obviously, not everyone in a particular culture behaves in the same way. In fact, in some cultures, there is often greater variation within single cultures than across cultures. However, the following represent the various frameworks that help us to understand cultural differences. Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck Dimensions First of all, American anthropologists Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck [6] developed a framework of six dimensions to describe the values orientation of a culture. The values orientation represent how different societies cope with various issues or problems. In the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck framework, a culture may favor one or more of the variations or approaches associated with a particular values orientation. Hofstedes Dimensions of Cultural Values A major study of culture focuses specifically on work-related values. In a large-scale research program of 40 countries, Geert Hofstede [5], a Dutch researcher, collected data from IBM employees on work-related values and attitudes. In analyzing the data from more than 116,000 employees, Hofstede extracted four dimensions of values to explain the differences among cultures: individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity/femininity. Using the average scores for each country, Hofstede developed national profiles that explain differences in work behaviors. The Chinese Value Survey Because Hofstede's study presents a Western view of values some researchers thought that his European values influenced his findings and theory. To prevent Western values from influencing another study, Chinese social scientists developed the Chinese Value Survey (CVS) in Chinese, then translated it into other languages and administered it to students in 23 different countries on five continents. Twenty of the countries were also in Hofstede's study. Four dimensions of culture emerged from the study, three similar to Hofstede's dimensions of power distance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinity/femininity. The fourth dimension, however, represents Chinese values related to Confucianism. Originally called Confucian work dynamism, it was eventually labeled long-term/short-term orientation by Hofstede. Trompenaars Seven dimensions of Culture Fons Trompenaars [8], a Dutch economist and consultant, also developed a framework to examine cultural differences. Using Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's theory described previously, Hampton-Turner's dilemma theory, and Parsons' pattern variables, Trompenaars describes national cultural differences using seven dimensions. Five dimensions are about how people relate to others. The sixth dimension is time orientation: past, present, or future and sequential or synchronous. The final dimension is relationship to nature: internalor external-oriented. Just as with the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck work, Trompenaars' dimensions represent how societies develop approaches to handling problems and difficult situations. High and Low Context Societies Edward T. Hall [3], an American anthropologist, uses the concept of context to explain differences in communication styles among cultures. Context is the information that surrounds an event; it is inextricably bound up with the meaning of that event [3 , p. 64]. Cultures can be categorized on a scale from high-to low-context. A high-context (HC) communication or message is one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. A low-context (LC) communication is just the opposite; i.e., the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code [3, p. 79]. Cultural Metaphors A different approach to understanding culture is the use of metaphors. Martin Gannon and his associates [2] identify an important phenomenon or activity of a culture as a metaphor to describe it. Gannon discusses the history and culture of 17 countries and how the metaphor leads to greater understanding of cultures. In explaining each metaphor, typical behaviors in the culture are related to the metaphor. Each of the preceding cultural frameworks attempt to explain cultural differences. Some are built on and elaborate the work of others, resulting in some overlap. None of the frameworks in its totality is more correct ,or better, than the others, yet each contributes to our understanding of why people from different cultures behave differently. Current Research For the purpose of this paper, we relied upon a conceptual framework outlined by Harrison [4]to discuss organizational culture. Harrison offered four organizational ideologies: (1) Power Orientation, (2) Role Orientation, (3) Task Orientation, and (4) Self, or Person, Orientation. The Power-Oriented organization wants to dominate its industry, is extremely competitive and desires to have employees loyal and supportive, while it will be the benevolent authority for all. In this type organization, the employees does what he/she is told what to do and the employees feels comfortable in an environment such as that. The Role-Oriented organization aspires to be rational and orderly in all of its dealings. There is a preoccupation with legality, legitimacy, and responsibility. Employees are expected to follow the detailed policies and procedures of the organization, and in most cases, employees with this orientation prefer to work in that type of environment. The Task-Oriented organization strives to achieve its goals. The important and determining factor is that the organizations structure, functions, and activities are all evaluated in terms of their contribution to achieving the desired goal. Nothing is permitted to get in the way of accomplishing the task. The employee oriented in this manner basically wants to be left alone to do his/her job. Finally, the Person-Oriented organization exists primarily to serve the needs of its members. The organization attempts to provide growth to its members by recognizing that a more experienced, trained individual will contribute more to the organization. The employee with this orientation looks to the organization to provide personal growth opportunity and the practice of considering the feelings of the individual. The strength of Harrisons framework is twofold. One, he has developed a valid and reliable instrument that can be used to classify the four cultures, and has been used to predict success in joint venture organizations in information technology [1], and compare different cultures from a strategic standpoint [7]. Two, he has provided the basis for the potential benefits for both the organization and the individual operating under the four cultures. Methodology and Data Survey variables as developed by Harrison were administered to employees in American and Chinese corporations. Demographic data included martial status, gender, length of employment, public or private sector, educational level, organizational position, etc. A total of 183 American and 440 Chinese responses were collected, representing Chinese workers from the PRC, Hong Kong (prior to its unification with the PRC), and the Republic of China. The questions measured fifteen cultural/work orientations. These included items that asked such questions as: 1. The type of boss they preferred; 2. What is a good subordinate; 3. Where priorities lie in the job; 4. Which people do well in an organization; 5. How the organization should treat individuals; 6. How people are controlled and influenced in an organization; 7. When it is legitimate to control others' activities; 8. What is the basis of job assignments; 9. Why work is performed in an organization; 10. The reason for people work together; 11. What the purpose of competition is; 12. How a conflict in an organization is handled; 13. Who should make decisions; 14. How appropriate are control and communication flow in an organization; and 15. How the external environment is perceived. In addition, the following seventeen motivation variables were solicited from the respondents as to their indications on what would make for an ideal job: 1. Time for personal and family life; 2. Challenging tasks to do; 3. Lack of stress on the job; 4. Good physical working conditions; 5. Good working relationship with direct supervisor; 6. Security of employment; 7. Freedom to adopt one's own approach to the job; 8. Working with people who are cooperative; 9. Being consulted by a superior; 10. Making a contribution to the company; 11. Having the opportunity for higher earnings; 12. Serving one's country; 13. Working in a well defined job situation where requirements are clear; 14. Having the op