Cross cultural analysis of Japan and Australia Essay Example

stone and glass. But it is not just stone and glass; it is a cathedral, and not only a cathedral, but a particular cathedral built at a particular time by certain members of a particular society. To understand what it means, to perceive it for what it is, oh need to know rather more than the generic properties of stone and glass and rather more than what is common to all cathedrals.

You need to understand also-and, in my opinion, most critically-the specific concepts of the relations among God, man, and architecture that, since they have governed its creation, it consequently embodies. It is no different with men: they, too, every last one of them, are cultural artifacts. " Theoretical Frameworks of Cultural Dimensions The demand for a greater understanding of national cultural differences grew out of the post-war development of business and economic relationships teen the United States of America and Japan (Tars et al.

, 201 1, p. 189).

Managers, finding that their styles did not necessarily translate across borders, looked to researchers to explain the differences (Hairdo, 2009, p. 4). Much of the subsequent research into Japanese culture came from a difference-perspective (Hairdo, 2009, p. 9) that has the tendency to lead to over-stereotyping of cultures, focusing on extreme differences rather than commonalities.

This highlights the need to understand the dynamic interplay of culture, and to not only show the contrasts between cultures but to reposeful compare similarities in human experience.

Two prominent contributors to the development of theoretical dimensions of culture are Egger Hefted (whose seminal work Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values was published in 1 980) and Fonts

Trampers (Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business published in 1993). Hypotheses initial findings were based on two global surveys undertaken be;en 1967 and 1 973 of IBM employees. The results led to the development of Hypotheses (Hefted, 1 984) Four Dimensions of National Culture; Power Distance (PDP), Individualism (DIVIDE), Uncertainty Avoidance (AJAX) and Masculinity (MASS).

These were later extended to include Long-term Orientation (L TO) and Indulgence v Restraint (IVR). Trampers (1993) developed his model adopting seven dimensions of culture being; universalism v particularistic, neutral v affective, specific v diffuse, achievement v ascription, individualism v communitarian's, time orientation and internal v external. While there have inevitably been criticisms of the methodologies employed and likewise criticism of the merit of the outcomes, the 'dimensions' developed by both theorist do help form a framework on which to compare sectional cultures (Tars et al. 2011 , p. 190). The following analysis adopts an amalgamation of Hefted (1984) and Trampers (1993) dimensions, focusing on those that share similarities.

The three dimensions adopted: 1) approaches to power distribution; 2) approaches to social relationships and 3) approaches to uncertainty and social control, have been referred to in Steers et al. (201 0, p. 58) as core cultural dimensions. These dimensions will be compared and contrasted in respect to the national cultures of Japan and Australia. Comparisons are made based on observed and researched behaviors.

Furthermore the discussion will focus on these dimensions with reflections on possible implications for cross-cultural organizations. Approach to Power Distribution A society approach to power distribution is a core dimension that, to a degree, shares commonality between Hypotheses (1984) power distance and Trampers'

(1993) achievement v ascription. Trampers was interested in how personal status and identity is assigned in a society, and whether it is accorded based on a person's action (achievements) or who they are (ascription).

Power distance refers to the extent to which people are willing to accept power being distributed unequally. (De Moose and Hefted, 2002, p. 63).

It could be asserted that if someone feels their status is identified based on who they are; they will be more likely to accept unequal power distribution (power distance). Conversely, someone whose status is derived from their own achievement would be less likely to accept unequal distribution of power. Hypotheses analysis indicated Australia to be a society Of low power distance while Japan's tendencies for hierarchy appear to be only marginal.

Japan is often characterized as an extremely hierarchical society (Sashimi, 1997) often attributed due to Japanese organizational structures and an adherence to 'chain of command'. Despite this, Hypotheses (2012) analysis returned a midrange value of 54 on the power distance spectrum, indicating assertions that Japan is a very hierarchical society may not be accurate.

Japanese businesses do tend to employ hierarchical organizational structures, consisting of multiple management layers, compared to a preference for much flatter management levels in Australia.

While the Japanese culture respects and expects the 'chain of command', it does not demonstrate the more ascription traits often associated with a high power distance hierarchical) culture. For example, in Japan there is a strong belief that if one works hard, does their best and follows the rules they too can succeed. Therefore, upper management is not reserved for those born into it, but is available

for any man (Hefted, 2012). The same is true in Australia where achievement is valued over ascription.

From the early pioneering settlers, Australians have adopted the belief that through hard work and personal achievement success and promotion is available to anyone.

The low power distance is evidenced in work practices, where it is common for employee's to halogen ideas and promotions be made on merit rather than relationships. Given that both national cultures recognize the merits of hard work and personal achievement, managers in a Japanese-Australian organization shouldn't expect disharmony from promoting employees based on performance as opposed to societies who would expect positions based on status, caste or family ties.

However, differences in organizational hierarchies could lead to frustration regarding decision making processes; Australian counterparts may feel frustrated with 'slow' decisions while Japanese may be uncomfortable with 'hasty decisions. Approach to Social Relationships The spectrum Hefted (1984) uses to describe a culture's approach to social relationships (individualistic v collectivist) is very similar to that adopted by Trampers (1993) (individualism v communitarian's).

This dimension looks at how members of a society self-identify; as individuals or as part of a larger group. De Moose and Hefted (2002, p. 63) described it as the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members, whereas Trampers (2010, p. 5) says this dimension "is about the conflict between an individual's desire and the interest of the group he belongs to". Some researcher hypothesis that societies are becoming increasingly individualistic and less collectivist.

This is explained through the modernization theory which holds that increases in modernization (and economic development) (Hefted, 1984) leads to increases in individualistic behavior (Hamburg, 2012, p.

5). Australian culture can be considered very individualistic, scoring 90, compared to the more moderate score of 46 for Japan (Hefted, 2012). Many researchers ascertain that Japan is therefore largely a collectivist society (Hamburg, 2012, p. 16).

The hallmark of collectivism is higher importance laced on social obligations, harmony and contribution with less importance placed on individual rights.

Despite Japan's modernization, recent research has reported that it is retaining levels of collectivist behavior and in some areas collectivism may be increasing (Hamburg, 201 2, p. 17). Hamburg (201 2, p. 16-17) explains this phenomena in Japan using the cultural heritage theory, hypothesizing that Japanese society purposefully continues to hold on to traditional values, despite modernization.

In Australia the cultural consensus is that individuals in society should look after themselves and largely this responsibility does not fall back on the family (for independents).

The welfare state is an example of different approaches to social relationships in Japan and Australia. In Australia, individuals who cannot support themselves largely rely on the government for welfare. Welfare is seen as a right of the individual. In contrast, Japanese society does not see welfare as a right on the individual, in the rare case where welfare is awarded, it is to a family unit (rather than an individual) (Kumara, 1 997, p. 181).

This example shows stark differences in Japanese and Australian identities.

In a Japanese-Australian organization, these differences in identities will impact on a workers perception of their rights and responsibilities within an organization. In Japan for example, workers may show their loyalty to an organization by working unpaid overtime. Australians on the other hand are more inclined to

seek remuneration for the inconvenience of working extra hours.

Approach to Uncertainty and Social Control How members in societies manage based on the uncertainties of the future, is referred to as uncertainty avoidance (De Moose and Hefted, 2002).

De Moose and Hefted (2002, p. 4) defined it as 'the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and try to avoid them". Extending on this theoretical framework, Trampers (2010, p. 3) asserts that societies which use rules and obligations as a moral reference are considered universalism (rules and obligations will universally apply) in contrast to particularistic societies that tend to put greater weight on circumstances.

Generally speaking countries with high uncertainty avoidance, rely on formal processes and rules (universalism) to manage the uncertainty.

On the contrary cultures which are ore accepting of uncertainty are less likely to rely on rules to structure their lives (Shah, 2012, p. 121). Interestingly these countries with less regulation are said to have higher codes of behavior (Rodriguez and Kaplan, 1998, p. 35). The rigidity of Japanese etiquette provides numerous examples of a universalistic culture that utilizes strict rules to mitigate and avoid uncertain¶y'. Parry (1997, p.

8) describes the expectation and rules placed round gift giving and the identity that comes with adhering to the norms. The much documented Memphis (business card exchange) is an example of social protocol which enables individuals to identify the professional rank of each other. As described by Sashimi (1 997, p. 1 98), one of the purposes of Memphis is to ensure each party is aware of rank, to ensure proper etiquette are followed.

In a

business environment Japan's strong uncertainty avoidance tendencies are also evident; correlating with a score of 92 (Hefted, 2012).

While it also crosses over into the realm of approach to power distribution, the measured process of checking and re-checking every detail, at every level of management, before making a business decision is an example of high uncertain¶y' avoidance (Shah, 201 2, p. 23, Hefted, 2012). The Northern Territory has recently experienced this process, with the final investment decision to invest by INEPT delayed and postponed on a number of occasions. Australians on the other hand received a substantially lower uncertainty avoidance score of 51 (Hefted, 2012).

This indicates they are somewhat high risk takers (Shah, 201 2, p. 125). These finding are supported in a study of approximately 550 white collar workers from America, Japan and Australia, Humanity (1999) found that when com pared with Japan nose workers, Australian workers Were more likely to take risks in the workplace to achieve outcomes within the organization. This low uncertainty avoidance value is illustrated by the fact that within a relatively small population, millions of Australians change jobs every year and hundreds of thousands change industries.

(Department of Education, 2012, p. 14).

Shah (2012, p. 127) recently found a correlation between low uncertainty avoidance index and a high job switch rate.

In other research, De Moose and Hefted (2002) analyses the impact of cultural values on consumer behavior and found significant correlations between cultures with high uncertainty avoidance and the percentage of institution expenditure spent on furniture and household equipment as well as on clothing and footwear. While this analysis focused primarily on European cultures, some comparisons could

be drawn with Mishmash's article on Japanese and their obsession with luxury goods. (Mannishly).

Australians on the other hand generally place less importance on the need to high-end quality products.

These cultural differences in approach to uncertainty and social control would necessitate awareness that Japanese employees and management may place a greater importance on procedures and protocol. Their Australian underpants may not place the same importance on these internal procedures. If not managed appropriately this could lead to conflict within the organization. Japanese managers may also need to be aware of different perceptions Of workplace loyalty as it could be anticipated that Australian staff turnover will be higher.

This is particularly true in the Northern Territory which has a lower than national average employee retention. Conclusion The purpose of this report was to compare and contrast three core cultural dimensions between Japanese and Australian national cultures using a theoretical lens.

Through this report the following findings were made: 1) Approaches to power distribution; both cultures showed similarities in their attitudes towards power distribution in that status is accorded based on achievement rather than ascription.

There was however differences in their views of organizational structure, although this difference could be attributed to other dimensions of national culture. 2) Approaches to social relationships; the two cultures showed profound differences to their approaches to social relationships, with Japanese culture displaying collectivist traits and Australia being strongly individualistic. ) Approaches to uncertainty and social control; Japanese culture indicates a strong preference for social protocol and rules. These rules may be designed to mitigate uncertainty.