136 Part 2 The Cultural Environment of Global Markets • Never-ending quest for improvement. • Competition produces efficiency. The “master of destiny” philosophy is fundamental to U.S. management thought. Sim-ply stated, people can substantially influence the future; they are in control of their own destinies. This viewpoint also reflects the attitude that though luck may influence an indi-vidual’s future, on balance, persistence, hard work, a commitment to fulfill expectations, and effective use of time give people control of their destinies. In contrast, many cultures have a more fatalistic approach to life. They believe individual destiny is determined by a higher order and that what happens cannot be controlled. In the United States, approaches to planning, control, supervision, commitment, motiva-tion, scheduling, and deadlines are all influenced by the concept that individuals can con-trol their futures. Recall from Chapter 4 that the United States scored highest on Hofstede’s individualism scale.9 In cultures with more collectivistic and fatalistic beliefs, these good business practices may be followed, but concern for the final outcome is different. After all, if one believes the future is determined by an uncontrollable higher order, then what difference does individual effort really make? In individualistic cultures, where one’s effort determines more of one’s destiny, issues of fairness in opportunity loom large. For exam-ple, heavy workloads distributed unequally between employees in collectivist countries are seen less onerous and unfair than similar workloads in individualist cultures, where such conditions lead to lower morale and higher turnover.10 The acceptance of the idea that independent enterprise is an instrument for social action is the fundamental concept of U.S. corporations. A corporation is recognized as an entity that has rules and continuity of existence and is a separate and vital social institution. This recognition can result in strong feelings of obligation to serve the company. Indeed, the company may take precedence over family, friends, or activities that might detract from what is best for the company. This idea is in sharp contrast to the attitudes held by Mexicans, who feel strongly that personal relationships are more important in daily life than work and the company, and Chinese, who consider a broader set of stakeholders as crucial. Consistent with the view that individuals control their own destinies is the belief that personnel selection and reward must be made on merit. The selection, promotion, motiva-tion, or dismissal of personnel by U.S. managers emphasizes the need to select the best-qualified persons for jobs, retaining them as long as their performance meets standards of expectations and continuing the opportunity for upward mobility as long as those standards are met. In other cultures where friendship or family ties may be more important than the vitality of the organization, the criteria for selection, organization, and motivation are sub-stantially different from those in U.S. companies. In some cultures, organizations expand to accommodate the maximum number of friends and relatives. If one knows that promotions are made on the basis of personal ties and friendships rather than on merit, a fundamental motivating lever is lost. However, in many other cultures, social pressure from one’s group often motivates strongly. Superstitions can even come into play in personnel selection; in Japan, a person’s blood type can influence hiring decisions!11 The very strong belief in the United States that business decisions are based on objective analysis and that managers strive to be scientific has a profound effect on the U.S. manager’s attitudes toward objectivity in decision making and accuracy of data. Although judgment and intuition are important tools for making decisions, most U.S. managers believe decisions must be supported and based on accurate and relevant information. Thus, in U.S. business, great emphasis is placed on the collection and free flow of information to all levels within the orga-nization and on frankness of expression in the evaluation of business opinions or decisions. In other cultures, such factual and rational support for decisions is not as important; the accuracy 9Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences. 10Liu-Qin Yang and 28 others, “Individualism-Collectivism as a Moderator of the Work Demands-Strains Relationship: A Cross-Level and Cross-National Examination,” Journal of International Business Studies 43 (2012), pp. 424 – 43. 11“The Importance of Blood Type in Japanese Culture,” Japan Today, January 20, 2012.
Cateora_InternationalMarketing_17e
To see the actual publication please follow the link above