Motivating The Global Workforce

Abstract

The focal point of this research is motivation of the global workforce. The research will focus on cultural differences that influence the motivation across the global workforce. The study will be based on the Hofstede Cultural Dimension Theory. The Study examines six countries that represent different cultural values: India, Australia, China, United States, Japan, and Mexico. It also analyses practices of motivation and the problem of bridging cultures in a global workplace. The reason for this study is to review available data that could be used by managers working with a diverse workforce and for the further studies of motivation of the global workforce.

OUTLINE

I. Introduction

Motivation of Cross-cultural Workforce Ð'- What Ð'- Why Ð'- How

II. The Hofstede Cultural Dimension Theory

III. Motivation of Workforce in:

A. India

B. Australia

C. China

D. USA

E. Japan

F. Mexico

IV. Conclusion

Introduction

Motivation in a workplace plays a significant role across the cultures. Looking into different cultures, one may say that one culture works harder than the other. Because productivity can not be measured only by individual abilities to perform the task, but also will to act, motivation has been in the center of the discussion for promoting the effectiveness of an organization.

In a cross-cultural perspective, motivation is defined under a set of vectors that sums up a behavior. These vectors are initiation, direction, persistence, intensity, or termination of a particular action This definition shows us a multi-dimensional part of cross-cultural motivation. This is also a prove that cross-cultural motivation can not be assessed based on a singular perspective. Variables that form multi-dimension meaning depend on environment, political system, social pattern, culture, and approach towards work (Cross-cultural Management Network, 2006).

From the organization's standpoint, work motivation is defined as the result of interaction between individual traits and organizational characteristics. This definition teaches us that motivation is addressed as the will to act and produce results despite the different processes that influence action. In this definition, a person's individuality and the organizational environment play a great role in defining motivation (Cross-cultural Management Network, 2006).

The Hofstede Cultural Dimensional Theory

This study will focus on the Hofstede Cultural Dimensional Theory to answer the question; what motivates employees of a global workforce?

The framework that Hofstede proposed consists of five factors that show the difference across cultures. The factors that drive motivation are based on the values accepted by a specific culture. Values, though, express motivational goals. First factor is: power distance, which is the degree of inequality between people, hierarchy or a source of power within organization. Second factor compares individualism, where human being think and judge independently versus collectivism in which fundamental unit of an entire system is group. Third factor compares masculinity versus femininity. It signifies the behavior according to gender. Uncertainty avoidance factor indicates what level of structure people expect in each country. The fifth factor is long term versus short term orientation, which determines how one looks at the future, how much value does one give to quick and risky action or long but predicted action.

India

In the last decade, India is one of the leaders of the flat-earth, a term from Friedman's book the The World is Flat (Friedman, 2005). India is the leading outsourced service provider, especially in the software industry and business process outsourcing with one million jobs expected to move to the Indian rim (Moskalyuk, 2005). Cross-cultural communication between the Indian workforce and American managers is a prime example of cross-cultural motivation and leadership. Karina Schomer (2001) stated that the difference in motivational "wiring" between Indians and Americans can either be successful or risky, depending on the level of adaptation between managers and employees.

The Hofstede analysis in Indian culture shows a high power distance, which points to a high acceptance of inequality of power and wealth distribution. This condition is not necessarily imposed but rather accepted as a cultural and religious norm as expressed by the Hindu caste system. Indian time perspective shows that they value long-term security over short-term gains. This is reflected in their need for job security over high monetary compensation. However, the same Hofstede scale suggests that Indians are in the middle of the individualistic-collectivistic scale. This separates them from a highly collectivistic East Asian culture, which suggests distinct differences in the motivation of individuals across Asia. India is known as an Asian outlier in the whole individualistic-collectivistic construct. (Gupta-Biener, 2007).

The cultural distinction of the Indian workforce is also guided by its demographic variation. The bulk of Indian employees in entry positions are younger compared to their Western counterparts. At the same time, the highly hierarchical structure of the Indian population lies in elite networking rather than equal opportunity. Job security is not only a cultural leaning but also an economic need in India. The division of the Indian workforce and diversity lies along religious lines, gender, and the caste system (Schomer, 2007).

Motivation and leadership in India, as compared to individualistic America, creates a big divide rooted in highly variable cultural beliefs. Indian and Hindu philosophy centers on the dharma, which promotes order in life and nature. Indians regard the accomplishment of one's duty as a spiritual act. Indians find intrinsic benefits in work motivation. Therefore, the emphasis on intrinsic rewards to continually motivate employees is essential in Indian culture. In striving for a positive working relationship and work environment, communicating to Indian employees should be done politely and should not be done in a frank fashion. Indians regard the word "no" as a direct and harsh refusal to a proposition.