Contrasting Two Cultures with a Model of Culture
The model of culture to be used in this part of the paper is Professor Geert Hofstede’s Model of National Cultures. Professor Hofstede is famous for his study wherein he looked at how values in the workplace are influenced by particular cultures. He was a consultant working with IBM in the 1970s and 1980s, and thus he was able to observe various workplace cultures around the world (Geert Hofstede: National Culture). Originally, he came up with four dimensions of culture along which behaviors could be linked and thereafter analyzed. The original dimensions are Individualism-Collectivism, Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance (through a social hierarchy), and masculinity-femininity. The newer dimensions are long-term orientation and self-restraint. These two latter dimensions were added based on additional studies by Hofstede (Hofstede 37). These are the dimensions under which behaviors and values were notably different among the various cultures.
The first dimension is the Power Distance Index (PDI). It is defined as the “extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions such as the family accept and expect that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context). Inequality and power are viewed from the followers’ points of view. A higher PDI means that hierarchy has clearly been established in society and that no one questions authority. Everyone in the organization respects the chain of command, and value their superiors and treat them as their elders. On the other hand, a lower PDI means that there is a tendency to question authority and that there will always be the attempt to have power distributed within an organization. (Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context).
The second dimension is Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV). This index expresses the degree to which people work in groups. Those in individualistic countries have loose ties only up to their immediate families and friends. Those in highly collective societies, however, have relations even up to their extended families and groups. These groups are characterized by very strong ties and support for one another especially when there is conflict with another group (Hofstede: Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context).
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) is the expression of a society’s tolerance for ambiguity wherein individuals are able to readily accept an unexpected event. Societies with a high UAI usually have very stiff codes, laws, and believe in a singular truth that cannot be altered or changed. This truth is the basis of everything, and the people in society are deeply aware of it. A lower UAI means that people are more accepting of varying thoughts and ideas. Also, there is the knowledge that there is the possibility of the unexpected occurring frequently, and the unexpected is always embraced by the individuals. These are the employees who welcome change and accept that change is a normal process in any organization (Clearly Cultural: Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions).
Masculinity vs. Famininity (MAS) is the preference in society for achievement, assertiveness, heroism and the material rewards for success. On the other hand, a society leaning towards femininity means that there is a preference for quality of life, taking care of weak and infirm, modesty and cooperation. In feminine societies, women share the responsibilities of caring and of modesty with the men. In masculine societies, there is a marked difference between the values of the men and the women, and the common values seen in any organization would appear to show a preference for strength rather than finesse or femininity (Hofstede: National Culture).
Long term versus short term orientation (LTO) is the dimension that the links the past with the present and future actions and challenges. A lower LTO indicates that a society honors and maintains traditions and that the quality of steadfastness is important to them. On the other hand, a higher LTO means that adaptation and practical problem-solving are essential and needed. The organization allows its employees to make decisions within their scopes of responsibility for day-to-day matters (Hofstede: National Culture).
Finally, Indulgence vs. Restraint (IND) is a dimension that is said to be able to measure happiness. An indulgent culture is one wherein basic and natural desires of people related to having fun and enjoyment are pursued. A country with a low IND is one wherein the gratification of needs is controlled and regulated. Indulgent countries believe that one can control his own life and emotions whereas a relatively non-indulgent country is one wherein there are other factors that control one’s life and emotions (Hofstede: National Culture).
The two countries to be compared using the Hofstede Model of National Cultures are China and the United States. The following table gives a comparison of the indices for all the dimensions in the model:
(Hofstede: China/United States).
There are major differences on almost all of the dimensions between the two countries. The dimension in which both nations have almost the same index is the masculinity-femininity index. Both countries have similar beliefs with regard to society being driven by competition, achievement and success. These values are first taught in the early years in school and remain fairly the same as the individual takes on a professional life.
For Uncertainty Avoidance, there is not much difference between the two countries. However, for the Chinese, they may prefer that the probability of unexpected events be mitigated such that they do not occur in the future, or if they do occur, their impact would be lessened considerably. They will not readily accept unforeseen events. The Americans will also not be welcoming of unforeseen events, although they will not be too unwelcoming as the Chinese.
The greatest difference between the two countries can be seen in the dimension of Individualism. Chinese society is still mainly a collectivist society. The different members of society are still highly interdependent on one another. In the family unit, it is not uncommon for family decisions to be made collectively, sometimes even seeking the opinions of extended family members (The China Culture Corner: The Significance of Family in China). Also, in the workplace, the decision making is also related to hierarchy – the Chinese worker always has respect for his superiors, peers and subordinates, and thus values their inputs and opinions. This is why the decision process is more collective for the Chinese. For the Americans, however, the index is 71 points lower than that of the Chinese (Geert Hosfede: China/United States). The IDV index of the United States is truly a reflection of the American promise of “liberty and justice for all”. Information is shared commonly and frequently between worker and manager and with the other members of any team. The individual opinion of any member of the team is taken into account and is highly respected as well. There is also the belief that things can always be done in a more improved way, and suggestions to the same are always welcome.
The Americans and the Chinese likewise differ a lot on the dimension of Power Distance. In the Chinese culture, people tend to value the hierarchy, as they value having respect especially for those above them in the hierarchy who are usually older than they are. In an American setting, the managers and other superiors are not afraid of consulting their peers and subordinates, and information is always shared freely among all the members of the organization. Once can also see that the treatment for the upper managers and executives in any company by the Chinese is quite different. There is reverence involved; as if the older manager is a father or an older relative. Americans will rarely understand the reverence afforded by the younger employees to the older employees, even if they should be of the same rank or lower.
There is also a substantial difference between the LTO indices of the two counties. A high LTO means that people can easily solve problems through a practical approach, and that adaptation is a characteristic of these people as well. This is really characteristic of the Chinese, who can easily deal with problems and who are very resilient in the face of fortuitous events and disasters. The Americans are likewise known for their steadfastness as well, building up in the past decades to still be the world’s superpower.
The Americans are certainly more “indulgent” than the Chinese, in the sense that they believe that they are solely responsible for their own destiny. The Chinese are always conscious of other factors – such as the family, or even factors such as astrology, numerology and the lunar influence – that help carve one’s own destiny.
One major problem that may arise when the two cultures are found in a single workplace is that the Americans may find that the Chinese may take too long in making a decision. This is because decision making is largely collegial and collective in Chinese culture, and Americans with their high individualistic index would like to make the decisions immediately with little or no consultation from their peers and subordinates. With regard to problem solving, the Chinese may find that the Americans use a more traditional way resolving issues, whereas the Chinese would like to take a more practical approach towards the same.
Also, as the Chinese revere their elder employees as they would their older members of the family, and so it is rare for employees to question the decisions or the authority of the elders, who are treated with extreme reverence and regarded as the wiser and more experienced leaders of the organization. The Chinese family structure is very influential in the lives of the Chinese, with adherence to a rigid hierarchical structure that requires everyone to be respectful of their elders. Thus if a Westerner offers suggestions to his Chinese counterparts or display some form of initiative on his own, these may be ignored by the latter (The China Culture Corner: The Significance of Family in China).
Companies and Work-Life Balance
It is the opinion of this student that the responsibility for work-life balance must be shared by both the employer and the employee. The employer should create an atmosphere in the workplace where there are a multitude of opportunities for work-life balance, whereas the employee should have the freedom to select what options for work-life balance he or she could take (Career News: Is Work-Life Balance Your Employer’s Responsibility or Yours?).
Employers’ attention has to be called with regard to providing more work-life balance opportunities for working mothers. As of 2016, a woman who has given birth only has 12 weeks of protected maternity leave. There are some firms that have provided paid maternity leave, but some have offered this only to a select sector of its employees, and not across the board. There have been stories of those with a shorter paid maternity leave, but who already were being asked to return after only two weeks. The return to work is also not a comfortable return for many new mothers. These exhausted and emotional women return to work too early despite the fact that a lot of them wish to continue breastfeeding their young children. They hide in the restrooms of offices pumping their breastmilk. Funding for daycare is also quite a challenge for many organizations. The cost of quality childcare for is very high as well. In addition to these issues, many women face questions about their further commitment to work while attending to their families. Mothers therefore need to have more support at work. If women continue to leave the workplace, this affects the standard of living and the quality of life of their families. Working mothers help provide for this to their children. A study by the Harvard Business School revealed that children of working mothers were more likely to be employed, have higher incomes, and were more likely to enjoy higher positions than the daughters of non-working mothers. Men and women in positions of leadership in their respective organizations will have to utilize their positions to provide more work-life balance opportunities for their women employees (Federman 121).
Employers must thus take the lead in helping not only women, but also male employees in their organization achieve work-life balance. They can do this in a variety of ways:
Employers must consider setting aside some days in a week to allow the employees to work from home;
Creating a culture that does not allow work to be brought home; some companies have programmed their servers to stop sending emails after the end of working hours;
Managers must promote a culture of work-life balance so that employees will readily follow;
Conveying the message that productivity focuses on the end results and not on the number of hours worked;
Checking if the current workplace culture promotes overwork;
Allowing time off for volunteer work and charitable activities;
Expansion of paid and unpaid vacation leaves;
Making provisions for childcare;
Always surveying and discussing with employees various avenues through which they could achieve work-life balance;
Providing assistance for employees for everyday tasks such as school shuttles, laundry, spa, gym, housekeeping, free lunches, concierge services for the different employee needs;
Offering wellness plans; and
Offering flexible hours for employees (HR Daily Advisor: How to Improve Work-Life Balance for Employees).
In a Glassdoor survey of employees, many cited the work-life balance program at LinkedIn. It is an employment and business-linked social networking company operating through its own websites. Its main application is in professional social networking, with employers posting their employment requirements and job seekers posting their resumes. As of 2016, it is stated that the company has work-out sessions, provides free meals, holds fun social events for employees and their families, and has a one-day “InDay” session each month so that employees may pursue their own personal projects (Social Times: LinkedIn Makes Glassdoor’s ‘Top 25 Companies for Work-Life Balance’ List). Employees have thus ranked LinkedIn as a company that has taken charge of providing opportunities for work-life balance in the workplace.
Yelp is another company that has decided that work-life balance is indeed part of its responsibility to its employees. The company has made sure that there is a collaborative culture in the environment so that employees can work together easily on projects and share the various perspectives on work and projects, and even in their personal lives as well. Employees are provided with the very latest in software to pursue their projects, provided with endless meals and snacks, and are given discounted memberships in gyms. The company likewise provides free training for employees who find that their work is quite challenging, so that they are able to overcome such obstacles (Great Place to Work: Yelp Inc.).
Airbnb is another firm that has ensured and made as part of its policy that employees must have many opportunities for work-life balance. Its employees are given $ 2000.00 a year to practice what the company is a master at – helping others to travel. The employees can make use of this amount of money in order to travel to their favorite destinations around the world. They are, in fact, encouraged to use the money and to travel where they want to go. The company has a huge open kitchen and a chef is designated to prepare healthy meals for the employees (The Muse: 10 Companies that Seriously Believe in Work Life Balance).
In the end, companies must be responsible for promoting work-life balance and for instituting policies and strategies that will result in the same. Employees, on their part, must be responsible enough to select and participate in work-life programs that will allow them to become more efficient employees as they are happier employees. They are able to spend quality time with family and friends during the breaks and by participating in other work-life programs instituted by organizations such as those mentioned above. Thus when they return to the workplace, they are renewed, revitalized and inspired, and are able to contribute the best that they possibly can to the organization.
It must be the responsibility of an organization to provide for work-life balance opportunities therein. Employers cannot overlook the fact that employees are humans who have relations with family members and friends. These relations need to be nourished and cultivated outside of the workplace, so that employees help the organization achieve the objectives that it has to achieve. As organizations are tasked to motivate their employees, then work-life balance falls under this category. Work-life balance programs will certainly serve as motivational instrument such that employees will help the organization move forward and prosper. Each organization, no matter how big or small, must be able to implement such programs so that employees could benefit from them and give back to the organization in return.
Employers should be able to create and implement work-life balance programs regardless of their size or their number of employees. It will really be up to the leadership of any firm to implement these measures, of course with the help and suggestions of the employees as well. As in many people-based strategies, there must be a strong partnership between the leaders and the employees of any firm for any work-life balance program to become successful and for these programs to bear fruit as well.
Works Cited.
Career News. Is Work-Life Balance Your Employer’s Responsibility or Yours?.2014. Web.
Clearly Cultural. Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions. 2017. Web.
Federman, Myke. Who is Responsible for Work-Life Balance? Front Pediatrics. 2015, 3:121.
Great Place to Work. Yelp Inc. 2017. Web.
Hofstede, Geert. National Culture. 2017. Web.
Hofstede, Geert. China/United States. 2017. Web.
Hofstede, Geert. Cultures and Organizations: Software for the Mind. 2010. NY: McGraw Hill Education. Print.
Hofstede, Geert. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. 2011. Web.
Miller, Bridget. How to Improve Work-Life Balance for Employees. 2016. Web.
Social Times. LinkedIn Makes Glassdoor’s ‘Top 25 Companies for Work-Life Balance’ List. 2012. Web.
The Muse: Ten Companies that Seriously Believe in Work Life Balance. 2014. Web.
Upton-McLaughlin, Sean. The Significance of Family in China. Web. 2013.
