The following is my final paper in Research Writing class. I almost finished my paper. If there are grammatical mistakes or unsure points, please let me know. I only applied All Quadrants but if I use All Levels, States, Lines, and Types, how many pages did I have to write??
“What are the cross cultural differences in a global company?” How many business people can clearly answer this question? The modern business world is becoming more and more international. Also, the modern business companies tend to accelerate overseas operations in order to expand profits and reduce labor costs. In such a global business environment, business people are faced with new hurdles about corporate diversities, for example, how to enhance various types of employees’ motivation, how to manage foreign employees, how to get along with foreign managers, and how to build a good relationship with other countries’ companies. Although globalization of business is an inevitable trend, most business people are not well-prepared to understand and improve intercultural interactions (Brislin, 2008).This research focuses on the work style similarities and differences between America and Japan, because both countries have been economic superpowers in the world for a long time. In addition, though Wilber (2007) emphasizes all quadrants, levels, lines, states, and types as a true integral approach, this research applies the All Quadrant (Wilber, 2000, p. 49) approach in order to clarify the similarities and differences and to simplify the analysis. As Wilber (2006) insists, All Quadrants approach gives multiple perspectives to the real world. It demonstrates (a) the Upper Left quadrant (the inside of the individual: employees’ motivation, corporate loyalty, and work values), (b) the Upper Right quadrant (the outside of the individuals: employees’ working hours, labor costs, and communication styles), (c) the Lower Left quadrant (the inside of the collective: corporate culture and gender consideration), and (d) the Lower Right quadrant (the outside of the collective: corporate structure and corporate environment). Wilber (2006) mentions that we can see everything from four quadrants perspectives not just a single perspective. Thus, this research will apply the four quadrants to the similarities and differences between America and Japan in order to see this research topic from multiple perspectives.Whereas a lot of business people know the importance of understanding the similarities and differences in work styles among other countries, they tend not to clearly grasp what are similarities and differences in work styles. As a result, they sometimes behave inappropriately towards other countries people and they often face with the difficulty of communication. This research will indicate the similarities and differences in work style between America and Japan from All Quadrants perspectives in order to educate and encourage cultural understanding for a more effective work environment.
Upper Left quadrant (Interior-Individual)
This section illustrates the Upper Left quadrant (Interior-Individual) about the similarities and differences between America and Japan. This section reveals mainly the similarities and differences of employees’ mind, value, belief toward their jobs.
As Illich (1973) points out, the first similarity between American and Japanese business people is to identify issues with people (as cited in Paulson, 2002). This means that business people often don’t regard the issues as matter of their own tasks but they attribute the issues to other people. This is often seen in a business meeting or a negotiation. Obviously, this is a bottleneck for success in a business meeting and negotiation. That is because if some issues are identified with people in a business meeting or a negation, the issues will be ambiguoAmericand then the meeting will not work well and the negotiation will break down (Paulson, 2002). There are many other hurdles in a global business meeting or negotiation to consider, e.g., time management, language, business culture. To put it plainly, for business people, there are many other things to tackle with except identifying issues with people. Thus, paying attention to the above similarity is so important that business people can facilitate a meeting or negotiation more smoothly, can avoid the failing of a meeting or negotiation, and can pinpoint on the issues themselves, then they may succeed in business.
The second similarity between American and Japanese business people is time sensitivity. Although any business people in the world recognize the importance of time in business, each culture has a big impact on business people’s mind about time sensitivity. For instance, business people in some countries think of time as really precious resource then they may act quickly and effectively. On the other hand, business people in other countries don’t care about time so much then they may not act quickly and effectively. Ferraro (2006) insists that there is a similarity between American and Japanese business people. Regarding this similarity, Ferraro explains about “Precise-Reckoning-of-Time Societies” versus “Loose-Reckoning-of-Time Societies.” The former societies place importance on punctuality, rigid schedules, time is scare/limited, and “time is money.” On the other hand, the latter societies tend to emphasize on little punctuality, loose schedules, time is plentiful, and social relationship. Both America and Japan are categorized into the former societies. Therefore, both countries regard time as a precious thing like an intangible property (Ferraro, 2006).
Next, in regard to the differences between American and Japanese business people, this part demonstrates the hurdle of doing business and negotiating in America and Japan. In order to succeed in doing business and negotiating in each country, it is significant to understand the differences of American and Japanese business people’s value, mentality, and belief. Especially, the most characteristic difference about the mentality between American and Japanese business people is the clarity of word expressions. In a word, this means the degree of clearness in a verbal communication. American business people are categorized in low-context communicators and they prefer clear spoken language rather than ambiguous nonverbal communications (Harris, Moran, R., and Moran, S., 2004). On the other hand, Japanese business people are classified with high-context communicators and they like to avoid the direct expressions by speaking, and they prefer indirect and vague communications. For this reason, when American business people do business or negotiate with Japanese business people, American business people need to patiently fill in the gaps of Japanese ambiguity by questioning or using active listening. Also, when Japanese business people work with American business people, Japanese business people need to clarify their opinion by using direct verbal communications. Otherwise, miscommunication may happen between American and Japanese then miscommunication may lead to a failure of business.
Upper Right quadrant (Exterior-Individual)
This section indicates the Upper Right quadrant (Exterior-Individual) about the following the similarities and differences between America and Japan. This section illustrates mainly the differences of nonverbal communications between America and Japan. As Ferraro (2006) points out, nonverbal communications are the effective ways of “(1) sending messages about our feelings and emotional states, (2) elaborating on our verbal messages, and (3) governing the timing and turn taking between communicators” (p.76). Although nonverbal communications are important to interact with each other effectively, sometimes similar gestures have different or opposite meanings. Therefore, business people from these two countries need to understand the meaning of nonverbal expressions in each country in order to communicate with each other smoothly and reduce the misunderstanding of communications.
First, in regard to body postures, business people express various body postures unconsciously in their work place. For instance, in AMERICA, standing up sometimes means a respect for others and leaning back in their chair deeply sometimes expresses relaxation or informality. On the other hand, in Japan, when people express a respect for others, they bow deeply. Although American people may feel uncomfortable about bowing, bowing plays an important role in Japanese society in order to express respect for others. In addition to that, in Japan, leaning back in a chair deeply expresses a very rude attitude not the meaning of relaxation like in AMERICA. These are just a few examples about body expressions and in fact, there are many other characteristic body postures. Regarding body postures, Ferraro (2006) comments that body postures include very important implications of our inner states such as feelings, emotions, and thoughts (Ferraro, 2006). When business people can understand the meaning of various body postures, they can grasp the other’s subtle feelings, emotions, and thoughts included in the postures. That may lead to enhance the quality of communication with each other.
Second, as for hand gestures, Ferraro (2006) states that sometimes cross-cultural misunderstandings are caused by a single hand gestures, because they have various different meanings in each country. For example, when American people want to express OK or good, they raise their one hand and make a circle with the thumb and forefinger. If Japanese manager asks an American subordinate to work something and the American subordinate understands and agrees with the manger’s instruction, the American will express that gesture to demonstrate OK. However, in Japan, this gesture sometimes means “money.” For instance, this gesture is used in the following situation in Japan. When one Japanese business person forges a backroom deal and the other business person asks the person “What do you want?”, the person will reply silently expressing that gesture “I want money.” Therefore, as the above examples indicate, business people are need to understand the meaning of each country’s single hand gestures and are careful to use them in order not to miscommunicate each other.
Third, regarding eye contact, J. Heron (1970) remarks that gaze is “the most fundamental primary mode of interpersonal encounter” (as cited in Ferraro, 2006, p.87). Eye contact prompts our interpersonal interaction and is one of the essential communication tools. In AMERICA, the direct eye contact represents attention and respect for others and not gazing straight can be regarded as impolite, inattentive, insincere, and aloof (Ferraro, 2006). On the other hand, in Japan, the direct eye contact can give the image of hostility and Japanese people often prefer a lesser degree of eye contact than a straight gaze. Hence, American business people are careful to gaze at directly Japanese business people’s eyes too much in business scenes. Otherwise, Japanese business people may receive a threatening or haughty image toward American business people. In contrast, Japanese business people need not to turn their eyes away from American’s eyes in work places. Otherwise, American business people may suppose that Japanese business people are not confident about themselves or are hollow.
Lower Left quadrant (Interior-Collective)
Table.1
| | Power Distance | Individualism | Masculinity | Uncertainty Avoidance | Long-Term Orientation |
| America | 40 | 91 | 62 | 46 | 29 |
| Japan | 54 | 46 | 95 | 92 | 80 |
First, Power Distance means the degree of concentration of power in a company (Hofstede, 2001). In case the score is high, it means that power is concentrated with a few people in a company. Ferraro (2006) insists that hierarchical societies tend to mark a high score such as Japan. Comparing AMERICA, Japan has a relatively higher score than America in the Table.1. That is because Japanese society remains hierarchical habits such as the imperial system and Keiretsu corporate systems (see in the Lower Right quadrant). In Japan, social rank is showed in various implicit ways, for example, the depth of the bow and the positions of the seats at meetings, although the similar business custom is seen in America. Moreover, Japanese business people highly take care of the other’s position in a company. Therefore, in the Japanese business culture, business cards play in a significant role in order to understand the other’s status in a company. It is so important to understand the hierarchical aspect in Japanese business culture that American companies can do business together with Japanese companies well. On the other hand, in case the score is low, it means that power is diffused to a lot of people. Ferraro (2006) asserts that America is categorized into an egalitarian society where power is not concentrated on a few people in a company, and informality is a key concept for sincerity in America. That is why Americans tend to feel uncomfortable when they are bound by formalized rules. Moreover, although authority figures and senior people in Japan are always called by their title and last name, those people in America are often called by their first name (Ferraro, 2006). As a result, when Japanese business people communicate with American business people, Japanese need not to behave too much formally because American people are likely to feel comfortable at informality rather than too much formality.
Second, Individualism is defined as the degree to which individuals are emphasized rather than groups (Hofstede, 2001). American children learn the importance of individualism and the necessity of becoming independent. Therefore, they tend not to have strong loyalty to groups, and they try to stand on their own feet early. On the other hand, Japanese children learn the significance of groups, so they respect the groups to which they belong and they are likely to have strong loyalty to groups (Hofstede, 2001). These characteristics in America and Japan are also seen in the business world. For instance, when American business people are asked “Who are you?”, they answer their name first and then answer their company’s name. However, Japanese business people reply their company’s name first and then reply their name (Ferraro, 2006). Whereas Japan is categorized into a same economical ideology of capitalism same as America (Ralston, Holt, Terpstra, and Kai-Cheng, 2008), there is the above important cultural difference between America and Japan. In conclusion, when American business people work together with Japanese business people, Americans need to pay attention to the Japanese loyalty to a group. Otherwise, Americans in Japanese companies may be regarded as arrogant or egoistic workers. On the other hand, when Japanese business people work in American companies, Japanese are careful to express the degree of corporate loyalty. It is true that corporate loyalty is important to work in the American business world, but those who show too much loyalty to groups may be regarded as dependent people who can’t do anything by themselves.
Third, the word of Masculinity means the degree to which men have a power in a company, for example, role, promotion, and position (Hofstede, 2001). As shown in Table.1, the score of masculinity in Japan is much higher than America. This illustrates that gender inequality strongly remains in Japan. Moreover, as Ferraro (2006) points out, most Japanese workers have a biased idea that careers for males are mandatory and few women hold a prominent position. In fact, in the modern Japanese society, there is still a strong belief that if a woman gets married before she is thirty and has children, her life is happy. Therefore, this cultural aspect is a barrier for women workers in Japan. On the other hand, it is true that gender issues in companies remain in also America, but attitudes toward women in workplaces in America have been improved these days. Nowadays, more American women tend to hold board seats in companies than Japanese women. Regarding to the number of women’s board seats, Soares, Combopiano, Regis, Shur, and Wong (2011) reported the number of women of all board seats of Fortune 500 in 2009 was 15.2%. In contrast, in Japan, the statistics of Toyo Keizai (2010) indicated that the number of women of all board seats of listed companies in 2009 was 1.23%. As Harris, T. Moran, and V. Moran (2004) point out, a number of barriers still exist for women workers all over the world, but the essential strategy in the modern competitive business world is to enhance the women’s position and to promote the effective use of female workforce. Otherwise, a company will not survive in the future business world.
Fourth, the definition of Uncertainty Avoidance is the degree to which companies avoid unpredictable situations (Hofstede 2001). The idea of uncertainty avoidance is a key concept about risk management and risk management is an important factor for business success. However, risk approaches between American and Japan are different. As Ferraro (2006) points out, Japan is a typical high-uncertainty avoidance society and Japan tries to minimize unpredictable situations as much as possible by establishing and conserving strict laws and regulations, and hanging on an old way of thinking. Also, Japanese people tend to develop a lot of social norms so that they reduce the stress about unpredictability (Brislin, 2008) and Japanese companies tend to concentrate on the short-term risks in order to achieve the long-term goals (Ellingson, 2009). On the other hand, America is categorized into a low-uncertainty avoidance society, and America tends to take more risks in order to create innovative ideas and services (Ferraro, 2006) and tends to avoid setting strict rules and regulations. In addition to that, American companies are likely to assess the long-term risks. Therefore, when American business people work with Japanese business people, Americans need to put a concrete and predictable idea or plan in order not to make Japanese anxious, and may avoid launching too much innovative business in the Japanese market.
Last, Long-Term Orientation means the degree to which companies build a long-term relationship and have a long-term perspective about business (Hofstede, 2001). Japanese companies tend to build a long-term relationship because they would like to share profits and responsibilities rather than to get all profits to themselves and to assume various responsibilities individually. On the other hand, as the result of Hofstede’s research demonstrates in Table.1, American companies get a much lower score about Long-Term Orientation than Japanese companies. Therefore, American companies need to nurture patience in order to build a long-term relationship with Japanese companies. Furthermore, although the previous section in Upper Left quadrant points out that there is a similarity of American and Japanese business people’s mind about time sensitivities, American companies and Japanese companies have a different idea about time. Regarding to this point, Ferraro (2006) categorizes both American and Japanese companies into future-oriented organizations which focus on long term goals rather than short term goals. However, American companies have a shorter term view of the future than Japanese companies. This means that American companies tend to gain a profit in the near future, not distant future. On the other hand, Japanese companies tend to attain a success in the distant future, not near future. For example, Japanese companies are likely to draw a long term business strategy and to invest much money in long term assets such as buildings, lands, equipment. Consequently, when American companies launch a new business in Japan or invest in Japanese companies, American companies may need to have a long-term perspective about business strategy or business plan and need to focus on long-term profits even though some short-term benefits are sacrificed.
Lower Right quadrant (Exterior-Collective)
This section expresses the Lower Right quadrant (Exterior-Collective) about the following similarities and differences between America and Japan. This quadrant represents the outside of the collective, in a word, the objective aspects of corporations: corporate structure, promotion system and so on.
First, regarding the promotion system in Japan, as Harris, R. Moran, and S. Moran (2004) point out, Japanese employees tend to work in one company forever and the senior employees are highly respected. Thus, a lot of large Japanese companies adopt a seniority ranking system. This system is literally means that salary and job position rise in accordance with age and length of service. This system has both positive and negative effects on Japanese business companies. About positive effects of this system, this system enhances a stability of the workforce. Once employees gain a job in a company, they continue to work for a long time, because “permanent employees who leave an employer will have a very difficult time being permanent again for another employer” (Harris, R. Moran, and S. Moran, 2004, p.389). As the result of the long term work in a company, employees become close to each other like family and they cultivate their corporate culture altogether. Then, as for negative effects of this system, some able employees may think of the system as unfairness and their motivation to work in the company may decrease if the reward is fixed in accordance with age or length of services no matter how they accomplish successful outcomes. It is true that some Japanese companies such as venture companies come to adopt a promotion system based on ability, nevertheless, a lot of large Japanese companies resort to the seniority ranking system still now. On the other hand, comparing with Japanese promotion system, American promotion system is based on ability rather than age or length of service. As the section of the Lower Left quadrant in this paper demonstrated, America is an egalitarian society, almost every American company adopt a merit system. As Harris, R. Moran, and S. Moran (2004) state “American personal identity and, to a certain extent, one’s self-worth are measured by what the individuals achieves” (p.303), so American business people take for granted that the merit salary system based on individual’s ability is fair and appropriate. However, this system also has both positive and negative aspects. Regarding to the positive aspects, this system is useful to motivate employees. American business people understand that their salary is paid by their accomplishments not by age or length of service, so if they want to earn more money, they will concentrate on producing outcomes. As a result, employees’ motivation and productivity will be improved and their company may realize a more profit due to employees’ outcomes. As for negative aspects, if American business people are offered a job opportunity to earn more salary, they may change their job quickly. As a consequence, turnover rate may increase and then American companies may not have enough time to train younger employees so that they can take over managers’ position. In addition to that, it may be difficult for American companies to accumulate employees’ knowledge or experiences in companies because of high turnover rate.
Last, as Doutheit, Jung, and Kwak (2004) illustrate, Japanese ownership structure is very unique and much different from that in America. Japanese most characteristic corporation structure is called keiretsu. In a word, keiretsu is a group “composed of firms from different industries with cross-shareholdings in each other” (p. 81). Described in more detail, keiretsu has two different types of its structure. The first is “a vertical grouping of suppliers and buyers” (p. 81). This type of keiretsu is seen in the heavy manufacturing industry such as automobile and electronic industries. In a vertical keiretsu group, the buyers have a strong bargaining power to the suppliers, for instance, the buyers can purchase materials from the suppliers at a very low price. Then, the second type is “a diversified grouping, which is horizontal in nature (i.e., also called financial keiretsu) and consists of a commercial bank or core trading company at the center and includes a larger range of manufacturing firms” (p. 81). This type of keiretsu has two different characteristics: (a) some large main banks, which provide financing a keiretsu group, own a significant percentage of shares in the keiretsu company and also often participate in the management, (b) each company in a keiretsu group holds mutual shareholdings and sometimes share human resources each other. As a result, keiretsu groups build a strong capital ties between the companies in the groups. As Doutheit, Jung, and Kwak (2004) point out that “the keiretsu relationship, through cross-shareholding, financial and personnel ties, could improve monitoring, and therefore, improve the characteristic of analysts’ forecasts”, the keiretsu structure is one of the key factors of the strong global competitiveness in Japanese companies.
Whereas Japanese corporation structure is very unique and different from that in America, if American business people fully understand the characteristic of Japanese corporation structure before negotiating and doing a business with Japanese keiretsu companies, they may be able to complete the negotiation and business more smoothly without confronting confusion of the different corporate structure.
Conclusion
This research provides a number of the similarities and differences in work environment between America and Japan. In addition, by using the All Quadrants approach, it helps to make clear what similarities and differences exist between America and Japan. To comprehend the similarities and differences in four quadrants is essential so that American and Japanese business people can work together smoothly or cope well with the mental, behavioral, cultural, and corporate structural differences in various business scenes.
However, this research has the following three limitations. Firstly, this research pinpoints on the business world about the similarities and differences in work environment. Regarding this limitation, it is also important to consider not only the business world but also other fields such as politics, education, and medicine. Secondly, this research covers only America and Japan. As for further research, it is recommended to compare America with other countries such as Europe countries or China which has made remarkable economic growth recently. Lastly, this research applies just the All Quadrants approach. Thus, this research is not a completely integral research. About realizing a true integral research, Wilber (2006) remarks All Quadrants, All Levels, All Lines, All States, and All Types “are simply 5 of the most basic elements that need to be included in any truly integral or comprehensive approach” (p. 31). Therefore, not only the All Quadrants approach but also the All Levels, All Lines, All States, and All Types approaches are needed for further research.
Whereas this research reveals more differences than similarities, “difference” should be a welcome phenomenon not an abomination. If all people’s idea (Upper Left quadrant) or behaviors (Upper Right quadrant) in the world are similar and at the same time all cultures (Lower Left quadrant) and all systems (Lower Right quadrant) are similar, our world may be unimaginative, uneventful, and lifeless. Differences lead to innovative things in our world and then improve and enrich our lives.
References
Brislin, R. (2008). Working with cultural differences: Dealing effectively with diversity in the workpace. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers
Brislin, R. W., MacNab, B., Worthley, R., Kabigting Jr, F., & Zukis, B. (2005). Evolving perceptions of Japanese workplace motivation: An employee-manager comparison. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 5(1), 87-104. Retrieved from ProQuest database.
Caligiuri, P., Lepak, D., & Bonache J. (2010). Managing the global workforce. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Ellingson, J. (2009). Managing risk with a cultural perspective. Risk Management, 56(10), 50-54. Retrieved from ProQuest database.
Douthett, B. E., Jung, K., & Kwak, W. (2004). Japanese Corporate Groupings (Keiretsu) and the Characteristics of Analysts' Forecasts. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 23(2), 79-98. Retrieved from ProQuest database.
Ferraro, P. G. (2006). The cultural dimension of international business (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Harris, R. P., Moran, T. R., & Moran, V. S. (2004). Managing cultural differences: Global leadership strategies for the 21st century (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultural constraints in management theories. In Osland, S. J., Kolb, A. J., & Rubin, M. I.Editor (Ed.), The organizational behavior reader (7th ed.) (pp. 345-356). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Paulson, S. D. (2002). Competitive business, caring business: An integral business perspective for the 21st century. New York, NY: Paraview Press.
Ragins, R. B., Townsend, B., Mattis, M. (2001). Gender gap in the executive suite: CEO’s and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling. In Osland, S. J., Kolb, A. J., & Rubin, M. I.Editor (Ed.), The organizational behavior reader (7th ed.) (pp. 327-344). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Ralston, A. D., Holt, H. D., Terpstra, H. R., & Kai-cheng, Y. (2008). The impact of national culture and economic ideology on managerial work values: A study of the United States, Russia, Japan, and China. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, 8-26. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400330
Snir, R., & Harpaz, I. (2006). The workaholism phenomenon: A cross-national perspective. Career Development International 11(5), 374-393. doi: 10.1108/13620430610683034
Soares, R., Combopiano, J., Regis, A., Shur, Y., and Wong, R. (2011). Fortune 500 Board Seats Held by Women. Women in U.S. Management. 1-4. Retrieved from http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/04/07/women-in-the-fortune-500/
Wilber, K. (2000). A theory of everything: An integral vision for business, politics, science and spirituality. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications, Inc.
Wilber, K. (2006). Integral spirituality: A starting new role for religion in the modern and postmodern world. Boston, MA: Integral Books.
Wilber, K. (2007). The integral vision: A very short introduction to the revolutionary integral approach to life, god, the universe, and everything. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications, Inc.
Toyo Keizai, Inc., (2010, January 7). The number of women’s board members. Retrieved from http://www.toyokeizai.net/business/management_business/detail/ AC/ 6195087bfe3122b89d6b88a60b02c040/
Appendix
