Do All Carrots Look The Same?

Examining the Impact of Culture on Employee Motivation

by Justine Di Cesare and Golnaz Sadri Introduction Motivation is fundamental to human behaviour. Bartol and Martin (1998) define motivation as the force that energises behaviour, gives direction to behaviour, and underlies the tendency to persist. Similarly, Greenberg and Baron (1997) define motivation as the set of processes that arouse, direct, and maintain human behaviour toward attaining some goal. There are three key parts to this definition: arousal, drive, and mobilisation of effort. Arousal is the initial feeling of interest that a person has toward attaining a particular goal. The second aspect of the definition, direction, is what people will do and actions they will take to get closer to attaining the end result. For instance, in the American culture, if an individual is trying to get the next promotion, he will probably stay at work late to do additional work and develop excellent relationships with the key decision-makers. The third element of this definition of motivation, mobilisation of effort, refers to the persistence or maintenance of the behaviour until the goal is attained. This means that the candidate desiring a promotion will continue the aforementioned behaviour until promotion is reached. There are a number of popular motivational theories that are commonly studied and often used by companies in the United States. Among these are Abraham Maslows Need Hierarchy (Maslow, 1954), Herzbergs Two Factor Theory and Vrooms Expectancy Theory. The purpose of the present article is to examine the relevance of each of these theories to two important yet different global business cultures: the United States and Japan. Abraham Maslows Need Hierarchy, Herzbergs Two Factor Theory and Vrooms Expectancy Theory represent three different approaches to the topic of motivation. Maslows theory focuses on individual needs. Herzberg examined worker job satisfaction and developed a work-focused theory while Vroom examined motivation from the perspective of the interaction between the individual and his/her work. As such, this article aims to provide multiple perspectives on the topic of motivation. Hofstedes Dimensions of Culture Although many similarities can be seen in human motivation, more recently, researchers have turned their attention to the differences that might exist in human behaviour. Hofstedes study of 160,000 employees working in 40 different countries represents one of the most comprehensive pieces of research in the field of cross-cultural dimensions of behaviour. Hofstede

*E CH=FDE?=

=@ ?= > JD >A ? J=?JA@ =J JDA ,A F=HJ A J B = =CA A J + ACA B *KI E AII  -? E?I += EB H E= 5J=JA 7 ELAH IEJO .K AHJ .K AH J +) ' &!" 75)
KIJE A ,E +AI=HA = 5=@HE /

JAI

Volume 26 Number 1 2003

29

Do All Carrots Look The Same?

identified four different dimensions of culture that he suggested explained differences in work-related values and behaviours: 1) individualism/collectivism, 2) power distance, 3) uncertainty avoidance, 4) and masculinity/ femininity. These dimensions are of particular relevance to the study of employee motivation because while the principle of leadership, motivation, and decision making may be applicable almost everywhere, their success or failure depends heavily on ways in which managers adapt to the local culture and work situation (Chen, 1995, p.17). The following discussion further explains and details the differences of the Japanese and United States motivations described through Hofstedes theory. 1. Individualism versus Collectivism The primary difference between individualism and collectivism is the way that members of different cultures identify themselves as an individual or a member of a group. Individualism is a term that is described by a persons drive to serve himself and his immediate family. It can also be described as the ideal that men and women are most naturally themselves when they speak their minds freely, form independent judgEments, and pursue truth bravely, free of social pressure (March, 1996, p.9). An individualistic person believes that he/she is responsible for his/her own future and must make sure that he/she watches out for him/herself. Individualists are also concerned with material possessions and social status. Collectivism on the other hand, is a term that describes a member of a culture identifying more with the group than on an individual and self-serving basis. People who are in this category are more concerned with the good of the group as a whole. These people are driven by consensus and group concurrence. Americans fall into the individualism category and are motivated to do well on the job by individual desires. The U.S.A. obtained the highest score on the dimension of individualism (91) compared to a mean for the 40 countries of 51. Americans work hard to get themselves a promotion, a raise, and individual recognition. Typically, Americans do not have a strong sense of loyalty to the organisation that they work for but are more concerned with serving themselves and their family. A commonly used clich by American workers is I need to look out for number one. In contrast, Japanese employees are extremely loyal to their organisation. Japan is a collective nation and obtained a score of 46 in Hofstedes study. Members of an organisation are most concerned with the company and the betterment of the organisation as a whole. In this culture, the company is looked at like a family member. This mentality is best described by Hall in his statement that the Japanese man is married first to his job, and then to his family (Hall & Hall, 1987, p.69). Employees do well so that the company will succeed and they are not concerned with individual promotions, pay increases and recognition. Japanese are also driven by group decisionmaking. Consensus by all the members is therefore necessary, to make an

30

Management Research News

extreme statement, for every activity in an organisation (Sasaki, 1990, p.7). To further describe the situation , In Japan, a relatively collectivist nation, there is an old saying that translates as the nail that sticks out will be pounded down. Once group agreement is reached, the employees are filled with ease and comfort. 2. Power Distance Power distance refers to the degree of comfort in organisations with power and status differences. Countries are labelled by Hofstede as being either high power or low on the dimension of power distance. People who work in high power distance countries have high levels of respect for their superiors in the company. For example, title and rank are looked very highly upon. Employees would not consider going over the heads of their managers in order to get a job done. Japan is a high power distance country (it scored 54 in Hofstedes study compared to a mean of 51 and a U.S. score of 40). Managers of organisations are highly regarded in the eyes of employees. This may have to do with two distinct philosophies that Japanese companies practice. First, most of the internal managers in Japanese companies have been internally promoted. This creates a strong bond between employees and managers primarily due to the fact that managers have worked themselves up the corporate ladder. They have experienced similar, if not the same, experiences as employees currently working those positions. They seem to be more cohesive as a group due to the fact that over 90 per cent of Japanese executives are internally promoted (Chen, 1995, p.228). The second reason employees respect and hold management in such high regard is because Japanese companies include the employees. Management listens to opinions and ideas that employees have. Vigorous implementation of smallgroup activities and suggestion systems may be cited (Takeshi, 1988, p.32). This practice of listening to employees has earned Japanese management much respect and honour. Members of a low power distance country do not hold title and status of managers within the company with high respect. Managers still have authority in these countries but for the most part, the employees do not treat managers with the utmost amount of respect. The United States is considered a low power distance country. American employees, according to the researchers respective cultural dimension scales, typically value job independence (Kelly, 1996) and prefer job autonomy as opposed to direct supervisory control. Management is also less feared and less respected in the United States. This lower level of respect towards management is partially caused by the practice of hiring external candidates for management positions instead of promoting employees from within the organisation. It is common for American employees to develop resentment toward managers that are hired from outside the organisation because they feel that an internal employee should have had the opportunity to be promoted.

Do All Carrots Look The Same?

Volume 26 Number 1 2003

31

3. Uncertainty Avoidance Do All Carrots Look The Same? Uncertainty avoidance is the degree to which people feel threatened by unstructured outcomes and the tolerance a culture has toward ambiguous situations. A country that is high on uncertainty avoidance does not like change or risk taking. There is a high need for security and less risk taking in this type of society. Organisations are very structured and live by a set of many rules. Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance try to minimise the anxiety with a thorough set of strict laws and behaviour norms (Herbig & Genestre, 1997, p.1). On the other hand, countries that are low on uncertainty avoidance take more risks, have less rules and regulations and are more loosely run. The need for stability and security are not as important and employee empowerment is encouraged. Japan is very high on the uncertainty avoidance scale. Japan scored 92 on this dimension compared to a mean of 64 across the 40 countries and was fourth after Greece, Portugal and Belgium on this dimension. Japanese people will seek to reduce uncertainty and limit risk by imposing rules and systems to bring about order and coherence (Herbig & Genestre, 1997, p.1). In the Japanese culture, an important characteristic of the Japanese company is the belief in lifetime employment. People in Japan take one job for their entire life and they remain loyal to that organisation. Japanese workers are more motivated by job stability and security rather than job promotions or pay incentives. Japanese know that promotions and pay increases will come with time and loyalty to the organisation. Closely related to the system of lifetime employment is the importance of length of service in the Japanese company in determining promotion. The seniority promotion was another major motivation for employees to stay long in one company (1995, Chen, p.190). The United States is a country that ranks well below the average on the uncertainty avoidance scale. The U.S. score on uncertainty avoidance was 46. From an employee standpoint, Americans are known for job-hopping many times during the course of a lifetime. There is no such thing as a lifetime career in the United States. Whereas Japanese employees are guaranteed a promotion and pay increases that are based on the number of years of service, Americans are not commonly offered this same type of guarantee and therefore are known for taking jobs with other companies in hopes of immediate pay increases and future growth. These employees see the instant pay off to themselves and at the same time they compromise the integrity of the term loyalty that the Japanese take very seriously. 4. Masculinity vs. Femininity The last of Hofstedes cultural dimensions is the masculine-feminine dimension. Masculinity is a term that refers to a countrys aggressiveness, competitiveness, and materialism. Japan obtained the highest score (95) on this dimension. The mean score across the 40 countries was 51 and the U.S.

32

Management Research News

score 62 (also above average). People in these countries, such as Japan, are extremely materialistic and place high value on assertiveness and the acquisition of money. In masculine cultures people tend to define sex roles rigidly and avoid the practice of performing jobs outside of ones gender-based stereotype. As an example, one would expect to find few female executives in masculine cultures such as Japan. In Japan, men typically take on the role of provider for the household and take on most of the corporate executive roles while women tend to take care of the household and child-rearing duties. When they do work, female Japanese workers are likely to be found working behind sewing machines or assembling goods in a manufacturing facility. Women are typically non-confrontational and do as they are told in these societies. In countries with high masculinity scores, the successful manager is seen as more male - aggressive, competitive, tough - not as feminine - soft, yielding, intuitive and emotional (Ferbig & Genestre, 1997, p.1). By contrast, feminine oriented societies are less aggressive and follow the belief that men and women share a set of social values - relationshiporientation, concern for quality of life, modesty and caring (Ferbig & Genestre, 1997, p.1). The predominant idea behind this type of society is concern for others and relationships among people (Greenberg & Baron, 1997, p.44). Members of the feminine belief prefer shorter working hours and success is based on the quality of human relationships. The United States and Japan are similar in this area of Hofstedes Theory. Both countries are considered to be masculine societies however, Japan is on the extreme end of the scale. In both countries, men commonly hold leadership roles within companies although in the US, women management is on the rise. Both cultures are also driven by achievement and success. In Japan, for example, employees work 12 to 14 hour days on average. Commonly when the workday is over, many employees gather together in their groups and go have dinner and drinks together at the local restaurant or bar. According to a survey by the Japanese Ministry of Labor in 1983, 30 per cent of Japanese salaried workers spend less than three waking hours per day with their families on weekdays; only 41 per cent have dinner with their families every day (Hall & Hall, 1987, p.69). Japanese companies are also known for their extremely high attendance rates. Japanese workers have a strong will to work as well as a high level of loyalty to the organisation which in turn keeps absenteeism in Japanese companies to a minimum. Japanese employees do not commonly take sick leave or vacation leave. Even counting absences due to annual paid leaves and special paid leaves for births, marriages, and deaths in the family, the average attendance rate was 92.8 per cent (Takeshi, 1988, p.32). This intense will to work is responsible for the Japanese accumulation of larger savings accounts, which in turn has given many Japanese people the ability to afford and enjoy other expensive luxuries in life like a round of eighteen holes at the golf course.

Do All Carrots Look The Same?

Volume 26 Number 1 2003

33

Do All Carrots Look The Same?

The United States is also considered a masculine society in the sense American companies, and their employees are highly competitive against other companies, in similar markets. Because domestic and foreign competition has grown so much over the years, employees of American companies have to work even harder to avoid potential downturn. American companies are extremely aggressive in gaining market share and employees of these companies are known to stay late hours in order to get the job done. Greenberg and Baron illustrate this point in their statement that Americans may work all night on an important project (Greenberg & Baron, p.44). The United States is extremely masculine when described in terms of the desire to accumulate material possessions. American employees are most driven by and will work harder to earn more money so that they have the ability to purchase nicer clothes, more expensive cars, bigger houses and nicer vacations. This is why Americans are referred to as consumers and not considered extraordinary savers. Both countries fall into the masculine side of this dimension and it can be seen that members of both groups are known to work hard and have a strong desire to succeed. Maslows Need Heirarchy Maslow suggests that there are five levels of human needs that must be met in order to become a healthy and well-adjusted individual. These needs must be met in order from the lowest need, which are physiological needs or basic needs like air, water, food, and shelter, to the highest need which is self actualisation or the need of the individual to reach his/her fullest potential. The three other need categories that must be met in order to reach selfactualisation are safety needs, social needs, and self-esteem needs. According to Maslow, workers are motivated by a whole hierarchy of human needs. Starting from the bottom of the scale, when each need is reasonably satisfied, the worker is motivated to behave in order to attain his/her next highest need (Oh, 1972, p.48). It has also been said that unless people get their needs met on the job, they will not function as effectively as possible (Greenberg & Baron, 1997, p.144). Unlike other motivational methods that are used by companies in the different cultures, Maslows Need Hierarchy shows similarities in Japan and America. It seems that Japanese workforces, like American employees, are motivated to reach each of the five levels of Maslows model. An example of this can be illustrated by looking at the need of Japanese people to fulfil the second level, safety needs, in order to progress to the third level of the model. In Japan, the need for security, which is part of Maslows safety needs category, is a major concern of the Japanese people. The Japanese are motivated by lifetime employment and a stable work environment. This need must be fulfilled before they can climb to the third level of the hierarchy, which is the social needs level. To further explain the need to reach each of the five levels, it has been seen that Japanese people are highly motivated by achieving social relationships. Okimoto and Rohlen (1988) explain the

34

Management Research News

four factors they see as being the most important in explaining the Japanese intense will to work and human relationships, also known as social needs, are listed as the number two factor. They say, The human relations formed within the occupational and corporate framework extend to the realm of private life, outside of the company. The company role in human relationships remains deep-rooted and strong, especially in comparison to workers in other countries (p.33). Members of Japanese companies work all day together and then most evenings, employees gather in small social groups and go to restaurants to eat and drink together. Some employees spend more time with others from work than they do with their own families. The statement that Japanese workers live for their work clearly describes the Japanese commitment to their work (Okimoto & Rohlen, 1988, p.33). The Japanese are also a highly collective and group centered society. They are motivated to perform for the group as a whole rather than themselves individually. Basically, it is necessary for the social needs level of the hierarchy to be met before Japanese employees can climb to the next level. Akira Kato, sums these points up perfectly when he says, permanent employment and the tendency to resort to collectivism in a Japanese company usually bring about a special breed of security-oriented people (Kato, 1983, p.44). In the United States it is also very important for employees to accomplish each level of the hierarchy before they reach self-actualisation. Although there are similarities in this model, the actual physical motivators that the Japanese use are slightly different than those used by companies in the U.S. Following along with the previous example of security-based motivation, many U.S. companies motivate their workforce with higher salaries and promotion opportunities. Employees feel a sense of security by knowing that they are able to grow with the company. Another form of secure employment in the U.S. can be seen in the tenure programme, which is available to many teachers in the state and local school systems. On the other hand, Japan takes the term security to another level. Lifetime employment is a pure indicator of job security. Companies in Japan do not lay employees off even when times are tough. In Japan, regular workers can not, be fired, however, they may be shuffled around to accommodate managements need for flexibility due to factors such as changes in technology or market cycles in certain product lines. During times of recession, labour leaders would allow for a decline in jobs available in exchange for an increase in the remaining workers standards of living (http://www.geocities.com/tokyo/towers/9151/business.html). Another alternative to laying employees off that is utilised by Japanese companies is allowing and promoting early retirement. However, in Japan, the company still tends to the former employee financially. An example of this is when IBMs Tokio Mizukami took early retirement. Tokio was Japans head of developmental production for IBM . The typical retirement age is 65, but the IBM plant allows people to retire at 50 with a full pension

Do All Carrots Look The Same?

Volume 26 Number 1 2003

35

Do All Carrots Look The Same?

(http://www.managementfirst.com/career management/art japanese.htm). Needless to say, Japanese employees never have to worry about losing their jobs or not being taken care of financially. They do not know discouragement since status and compensation are advanced automatically year by year, and they are sufficiently motivated to develop themselves (Kato, 1983, p.45). Herzbergs Two Factory Theory Herzberg (1959) was interested in critical incidents when workers felt either very good or very bad about their jobs. An analysis of such incidents led to the development of two sets of factors, extrinsic and intrinsic. Herzberg found that these two sets of factors were directly linked to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Extrinsic factors relate to the job environment and job context such as quality of supervision, work conditions, company policies, relations with co-workers, and level of pay. If extrinsic factors are absent, job dissatisfaction is likely to occur. Herzberg called these extrinsic factors Hygiene or Maintenance Factors. On the other hand, intrinsic factors relate to the job itself, for example its complexity, level of importance within the organisation as well as recognition and advancement opportunities. This second set of factors, if present, lead to feelings of satisfaction. Herzberg named these intrinsic factors Motivators or Growth Factors because they were associated with high levels of job satisfaction. Herzberg says that both of these factors are of equal importance in explaining employee motivation. According to Herzberg, a workers satisfaction with hygiene factors will result in average performance and serve to prevent dissatisfaction but this will not by itself create a positive attitude or motivation to work. In order to motivate employees, the company must enrich the content of the work that it asks employees to do. To explain, job enrichment is when management places greater levels of responsibility on the employees and when the opportunity to develop new skills is present. U.S. employees are more motivated by intrinsic factors such as growth and achievement while Japanese employees place more emphasis on extrinsic factors such as job security, work conditions, and wages. The Japanese are also very responsive to non-monetary rewards, which often help consolidate and promote their overall position within the group (Chen, 1995, p.230). To further explain, Japanese companies inspire a sense of obligation by providing basic services for their employees such as company dorms for the unmarried, company athletic teams to foster a sense of team spirit, organised outings and retreats, etc. It remains true that most Japanese workers consider themselves less members of a certain profession (lawyer, engineer, programmer) than they do members of a certain company (http://www.geocities.com/tokyo/towers/9151/business.html).

36

Management Research News

Vrooms Expectancy Theory Vroom developed a theory in which the motivation of employees to perform at work was shown to be the result of three specific categories of beliefs that they held about their work. He labelled these three beliefs 1) expectancy, 2) instrumentality, and 3) valence. Expectancy is the belief that if one puts forth effort, it will result in performance. Instrumentality is the belief that if one performs, there will be a reward. Valence is the perceived value of the reward to the recipient (Greenberg & Baron, 1997, p.159). Vrooms theory can be best illustrated in U.S. companies by looking at how monetary rewards and pay levels motivate American employees. Typically, pay has been one of the largest motivators in American culture; employees want to reach the highest level of pay possible. Employees will work hard and perform at high levels with the expectation of being monetarily compensated. If the pay rewards are not at the same level as was expected, employees will tend to stop performing at such high levels and motivation will decline. On the other hand, in Japanese companies, employees are not as motivated by pay as Americans are. In Japan, employees know that the way to increase salary is by longevity with the company. And since lifetime employment is expected, Japanese employees are not worried about losing their jobs if they do not perform exceptionally. However, the Expectancy Theory is still very viable and alive in the Japanese workforce. The reward for hard work in Japanese culture is avoidance of letting the collective group, or company, down. Japanese are motivated by the success of the company as a whole so they perform at high levels for the company and not for themselves individually. Above all else, they do not want to let their group down (Hall & Hall, 1987, p.68). Conclusion This article aimed to examine the relevance of three theories of motivation Maslows Need Hierarchy, Herzbergs Two Factor Theory and Vrooms Expectancy Theory - to employees in the United States and in Japan. This article tried to show that different cultural backgrounds have an impact on the relative importance of different motivational drivers. For example, American employees are driven by improving themselves and their own positions in life, an individualistic approach, whereas Japanese employees are motivated by the success of the group as a whole, which is a collectivistic approach. Theorists and practitioners continue to look for universal laws or motivational techniques that can be applied among the different cultural groups. Tests on Maslows Hierarchy of Needs have shown that individuals across the world are motivated by essentially the same fundamental human needs. The main difference between Japanese and American employees lies in their definitions of need satisfaction. For example, self-actualisation is likely to mean different things to employees from individualistic cultures than it does to employees from collectivistic cultures. Do All Carrots Look The Same?

Volume 26 Number 1 2003

37

Do All Carrots Look The Same?

As the world becomes increasingly a global economy, further research is needed to show managers how they can best manage individuals from different cultural backgrounds.

38

Management Research News

References Bartol, Katheryn M. & Martin, David C., Management, McGraw Hill, 1998. Chen, Min, Asian Management Systems. New York, Routledge, 1995. De Mente, Boye, Japanese Etiquette & Ethics in Business . Chicago, Boye De Mente, 1987. DAndrade and Strauss, Human Motives and Cultural Models. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992. Dore, Ronald P. & Sako, Mari, How the Japanese Learn to Work. New York, Routledge, 1989. Evans, James R. & Lindsay, William M., The Management and Control of Quality. Ohio, South-Western College Publishing, 1999. Greenberg, Jerry & Baron, Robert A., Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work. New Jersey, PrenticeHall, Inc., 1997. Hall, Edward T. and Hall, Mildred R., Hidden Differences. Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1987. Herbig, Paul and Genestre, Alain, International Motivational Differences. MCB University Press, 1997. Hofstede, Geert, Cultures Consequences: International differences in work-related values, Sage, 1980, up-dated 1991 CULTURES AND ORGANIZATIONS: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill http://www2.soc.hawaii.edu:80/css/dept/com/resources/Intercultural/Hofstede.html http://www.businessteacher.co.uk/bttour/indexsamplesite.htm http://www.geocities.com/tokyo/towers/9151/business.html http://www.managementfirst.com/career management/art japanese.htm Imai, Masaaki, Kaizen: The Key to Japans Competitive Success.The Kaizen Institute, Ltd, 1986. Kato, Akira, Shogun Management: Physio-Dynamics of Strategic Management. International Investment Enterprises, 1983. Kelly, Stephen, Rethinking American Management Strategies http://www. relojournal.com/may96/manage.htm Klubnik, Joan P., Rewarding and Recognizing Employees: Ideas for Individuals, Teams, and Managers. Irwin Publishing, 1995. Do All Carrots Look The Same?

Volume 26 Number 1 2003

39

March, Robert, Reading the Japanese Mind. Kodansha International, 1996. Do All Carrots Look The Same? Maslow, Abraham, Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1954. Munro, Donald, Schumaker, John F., Carr, Stuart C., Motivation and Culture. New York, Routledge, 1997. Nakane, Chie, Japanese Society. University of California Press, 1972. Oh Tai, Human Motivation in Management Theory. Industrial Management Oh, Tai K. & Kim, E., The Applicability of American Motivation Theories Abroad: A Test of the Cross-cultural Transferability of American Management. Journal of International Business & Entrepreneurship. V.5, no.1, 1997. Okimoto, Daniel I. & Rohlen, Thomas P., Inside the Japanese System: Readings on Contemporary Society and Political Economy. Stanford University Press, 1988. Romero, Joni & Kleiner, Brian Global Trends in Motivating Employees, Management Research News, 2000. Sasaki, Naoto, Management and Industrial Structure in Japan. Pergamon Press, 1990. Takagi, Haruo, The Flaw in Japanese Management, Michigan. Umi Research Press, 1985. Takeshi, Inagami, The Japanese Will to Work. An essay in the book Culture and Society by Daniel I. Okimoto & Thomas P. Rohlen, Inside the Japanese System: Readings on Contemporary Society and Political Economy. Stanford University Press, 1988. Wiley, Carolyn, What Motivates Employees According to Over 40 Years of Motivation Surveys. MCB University Press, 1997.

40

Management Research News