What makes you commit? ‘Believer, calculator or supporter?’

After two months on our volunteer job, we’re already calling it a day. It’s not because we don’t like the job or they want us out a.s.a.p. In all fairness we can say it’s because we’re moving on. Nevertheless it does feel a bit like quitting. Not like it did when we left our jobs last summer, but still. We try to make the best of it before we leave and then we say our goodbyes. Off we go, stuffed with memories and afterthoughts. As a coach, I often meet people contemplating on their job and career choices. I find it interesting always, to see how strongly committed people actually are to their jobs. If only their organizations could see half of it. Today - quitting jobs for the second time in a year and juggling (and struggling) with commitment myself - I wonder how people get so committed? And what about commitment across cultures?

Just imagine your company spirals downward. Or continuously having fights with your manager? What if ethics changed? What if your stress-level keeps getting tested? What if you’re salary lags your responsibility and efforts? Or what if you’re developing a serious dislike for your job? Across cultures, people tend to respond differently. Yes, there are strong economical and personal influences, but research filtered out some interesting cultural aspects. We all know the world famous example of Japanese workers. Their loyalty and obedience by far exceeds what we’re used to in Western societies. As well as thoughts about quitting an organization based on costs and benefits are rare in Japan. Such decisions were often made a long time ago; sometimes even based on family heritage.

But what is commitment? The best description I found is ‘persistence with a purpose’. An inner force or action, that feels like attachment, identification or loyalty. If it comes to being committed to our jobs, we can distinct three types:

• Affective commitment is ‘a strong belief in and acceptance of the goals and values of an organization’ (Porter). I’d like to talk about believers. 
• Continuance commitment is a more calculative for of commitment; the result of ‘side-bets’ or investments that increase the costs you would accrue if you leave the organization (Meyer). Let’s call these calculators. 
• Normative commitment is a sense of obligation, feeling you ought to remain with the organization (Meyer & Allen). I’ll call these supporters.
  

I’m guessing you might already feel a certain response - familiarity, allergy, itch - when going over one or two of these different types of commitment. Am I right? Why do we respond like that? What makes you commit? Culturally, this is mainly related to dimensions such as individualism versus collectivism and power distance. Individualism feeds both believing and calculating. When you identify less with groups, you’re more likely to stay committed because of inner values or individual benefits. Collectivism on the other hand, is positively associated with supporting. If you identify with groups, you’re more likely to feel obliged to stick with those. Power distance - the extent to which people accept differences in power - is higher in places like Japan, South-East Asia, Argentina or Spain in comparison to Northern Europe and the US. Power distance feeds supporting. The greater the power distance the greater the emphasis on obedience and loyalty. If power distance is low, it’s a lot easier to evaluate authority and assess personal benefits. Not to mention it’ll be a lot easier to confront your boss.

There are interesting paradoxes though. Research proved that turnover - and turnover intentions - were a lot lower in Japan compared to the US. Nevertheless, self-reported levels of commitment in the US are generally higher than in any other culture. Wouldn’t you expect a lower turnover then? It turned out that in the US, a sense of obligation to the organization - supporting - hardly influences the intention of staying; unlike any other country. In the US, I’m sure, this is related to job security; the level of commitment of organizations and governments towards individuals.

Yet how strong are these cultural influences? Not particularly strong. We universally recognize each of these commitment types. Our tendency to be committed - either as a believer, a calculator or a supporter - varies within cultures, from person to person and time to time. For just as much reason, someone could blog about commitment and gender. Nevertheless I’ve learned there are a few universal reasons for sticking to our jobs. In random order this is because (1) we feel we are fairly compensated, (2) we feel we want to make a contribution (to either the organization or its goals), (3) we feel we are still able to learn something, and (4) we feel we can fit the job on a daily life that meets with our other needs.

Leaving We women foundation I’m genuinely happy to have felt strongly committed to an organization, without any interference of calculative commitment. I find believing and supporting are the more likable forces within. My own heroes are not as such because of their skills, talents or intelligence. What I admire is their ability to be human: not knowing, making mistakes, going different ways, losing temper or patience and then - because of commitment to a cause, a person or a group - reflect, learn and get back on track. If that happens to you: stay! That’s when you know for sure how much you really care.

Commitment to a cause - www.coachcultures.org

For some reflection on our volunteering at We women, see our We women blog: “Looking back over a tealeaf salad”.
For more background on commitment across cultures, see: “Commitment across cultures: A meta-analytical approach”, Fischer and Mansell (2008).

We all want the same, don’t we?

This week I had the opportunity to facilitate a Youth Exchange workshop at Beam Education Foundation in Chiang Mai. Every three months a group of Burmese refugees - in their early twenties, working at different Community Based Organizations in Chiang Mai - gather to discuss topics of their interest. This time round about thirty students targeted the topic of education in Burma. We discussed all levels from primary school to university, collecting dreams and ideas on how to improve Burmese education. Two NGO-workers, Leena from Finland and Meaghan from the US, added an international perspective by doing presentations and Q&A on school systems in Finland, US and UK. The outcome of the day was very clear. And it surprised me, although I know It shouldn’t.

Ever since the current military regime in Burma staged a coup in 1988, education deteriorated to a point where post-secondary education was almost non-existent. Nearly all of Burma's universities and colleges have been mostly closed since the student-led protests in 1988, in which thousands of non-violent demonstrators were gunned down. Universities in Burma have been open sporadically over the last decade and most academic materials are even more decades out of date. But the greatest barrier to attend primary and secondary school for sure is poverty. Cuts in government spending on education meant an increase in costs to families in the form of a series of taxes and donations, to be paid to the education department, the school, and the teachers. Every little ‘extra’ has to be paid for. Over fifty percent of the children drop out of school before fifth grade. Children in ethnic minority conflict areas are even less likely to have access to school, as struggle for food security takes priority.

So maybe I was expecting the students to be political about their education system. Or maybe I thought they would avoid the personal, focusing on conditions and curricula. And maybe I was also guessing culture would somehow influence the outcome. But the fact of the matter was that most students expressed basic needs. As they got more personal they talked about copy-paste education, lack of room for discussion, power-distant teachers that don’t listen to students, non-existing equality and no personal approach whatsoever. The students long for critical capacity and ways for them to express opinions. They want dedicated and involved teachers, who are consistent and open-minded. Not to mention they’d like some time to daydream, relax and have fun. And that’s when it hit me; these of course are fundamental human needs. It’s all about participation, about understanding, about identity and about freedom. And it doesn’t matter the least bit whether you’re from the Netherlands, Finland, US or Burma. We all want the same, don’t we?

Fundamental human needs are constant through all human cultures and across all time periods (Manfred Max-Neef). What does change over time - and across cultures - is the strategies by which we satisfy these needs. That is a part of what Coach Cultures is about; being able to help people with different backgrounds, without force-feeding different cultural ideas. But when it comes to fundamental needs we are all very similar, so we can forget about our differences. Max-Neef distincts nine fundamental human needs: subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity and freedom. Each one breaks down into ‘who do you want to be?’, ‘what do you want to have?’, ‘what do you want to do?’ and ‘how do you want to interact?’.

Sometimes we need a lively experience to remember the basics. To me, listening to the students at Youth Exchange made me realize we are similar in so many ways. All too valuable, especially since I have been focusing a lot on differences lately. Yes, sometimes focus dazzles us. Re-realizing we are all very much the same - I am you and you are me - I immediately felt even more involved. So even though the outcome shouldn’t surprise me, I’m only happy it did.

For the times they are-a-changing

Missing out on the sixties, I think I have never really been exposed to intense, political generation conflicts. Sure, back home we discuss X and Y versus Babyboom, which is fun but always somewhat academic. Walking the streets of Cambodia however, differences between generations are suddenly very obvious and very visible, if only because the overwhelming majority - over 70 percent - of the people is under the age of 30. Cambodia is home to ‘The Killing Fields’. Under a terrible regime by the Khmer Rouge and their leader Pol Pot, more than 2 million people were murdered or (intentionally) died from starvation. All these atrocities happened not so long ago - between 1975 and 1979 - during the cold war. But even now - 30 years later - the people responsible for this genocide have not been brought to justice. And although crime tribunals are now established and television and papers report about it as part of a national healing process, many people aren’t even aware of it. What remains for people who lived through the genocide, is trauma, suspicion and distrust. But as some say, youth already forgets.

Cambodia shows a painful generation gap between those who survived, and their children and grandchildren. Many young people actually know very little about the Khmer Rouge days. It makes sense though. The people traumatized by the regime are in many cases still unable or unwilling to talk or even emotionally detached. And, maybe even more so, they really don’t want to burden their children and grandchildren with so much brutality. And for the younger generation? They just can’t cope with this huge amount of painful history. They want to look ahead, see a brighter future. It is said that even teachers - who are willing and able to tell the stories of Khmer Rouge - feel left out by their students. I guess the horror is just too big. So there you have it: a scared and traumatized generation and a - working hard to be - happy-go-lucky generation.

From this blogs’ perspective, I see at least three interesting cultural differences between these generations. To begin with, the younger generation shows a lower context level. They are not afraid to make a statement and are more likely to tell you what they really think. The older generation for sure is much, much harder to reach. Secondly - with less of the weight and the scars of the past - Cambodian youth is much more future-oriented. Although still not very optimistic due to the system they live in, they sure look ahead. And third and last, I feel young Cambodians - through their will to be different - are seriously trying to take down power distance (not very common in Asia). The younger generation happily picks up different worldviews, if only because a larger portion of them got access to pretty good education. All together I wouldn’t be surprised if young Cambodians carry personal leadership to a whole new and - certainly for Cambodian standards - different level.

As I talked to Meang, some pieces fell together. Meang is not in his thirties yet and runs two guesthouses. He was able to go to University, studied to be a teacher, and worked for an American NGO for two years. But soon he decided to start his own business. Meang explains: ‘young Cambodians are very aggressive in starting their own business. People don’t trust the government, so everyone wants to be independent.’ At least younger people can. According to Meang, many older people not only lack education, but also willpower and self-trust to make the same effort. Sadly, this is because educated professionals were the primary target in the Khmer Rouge years. So more than anywhere else in the world, it is up young people to change and reshape Cambodia. In time this will hopefully help to create a safer and more stable environment for the post-traumatic generation. Without stability and new trust in good - different - leadership, the traumatized generation will remain suspicious, and keeps on passing on their distrust and self-distrust to their children.

So - as a post-sixties-kid - being in Cambodia educated me on the impact of generation gaps. Talking about generations X and Einstein suddenly feels somewhat shallow, right?! But think of what third generation Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands experience today. They have to work out a painful generation gap as well, as they face the difficulty of both not really fitting in with their parents and their Dutch work-life environment. Their success is vital for upcoming generations. Cambodia to me is a reminder to always take more than one generation into account, when working with cultural differences. I'd say there’s no better way to understand the drive and frustrations of today!

Starbucks, BurgerKing and MacDonalds

Travelling in Latin America we don’t see as much of them as expected. Not a problem in our book, but still somewhat surprising, as in some other countries there seems to be one of them just around every corner. Which left us with the question ‘why not in Latin America?’ For various reasons I suppose. To begin with, a lot of Latin American countries are still seriously anti-US. As a lady in La Rioja (Argentina) explained, this has for years been the single most important reason not to teach English at schools. These sentiments must have kept the American food-giants out for a while. But secondly, much more practicable, the local burgers and lomo-steaks are almost impossible to beat. They are huge, tasty and everywhere, plus they are way cheaper than MacDonalds or BurgerKings. The same goes for coffee, as most Latin American countries have their own strong coffee culture. (Which doesn’t mean the coffee is actually good ;-)

But, in the end, I guess it’s a cultural clash. I read an interesting article by Thomas Friedman on ‘the Lexus and the Olive tree’. He describes the conflict between Lexus, dedicated to modernizing, privatizing and globalization, and the olive tree, dedicated to unique traditions, stories, places and families. As globalization pushes further, the question of business and culture (Lexus versus Olive tree) is more and more out there. For if Western companies want to operate in culturally different countries, how do they maintain their management practice and still achieve success far from home? Friedman’s answer is integration, worked out in examples of Starbucks in Korea and IKEA in the US.

Starbucks’ core values include teamwork, equal participation and diversity. When looking to expand in South Korea, Starbucks realized that the Koreans value power distance (see cultural differences). They had to decide if they were willing to be more hierarchical. They decided not to go all black-and-white, and tried to integrate differences. At Starbucks everyone refers to each other as partners, calling each other by first name. This proved to be very discomforting for South Korean employees. As a solution, managers gave every employee an English name, so that they could call each other by their English names. As the English name was used as a substitute for a title plus last name, this did feel comfortable. This way Starbucks’ value of equality was retained. Another point of cultural conflict was Starbucks’ value of teamwork. Every employee does whatever needs to be done. As Korean men traditionally do not do housework-type tasks, such as cleaning toilets and washing dishes, this was a problem. To overcome this (and to get the dishes and the restrooms done) Starbucks adopted a role-modeling approach. This is often very effective in high power distance cultures. Starbucks had the international director do all this. They even hung a picture of him cleaning the toilet!

Only briefly the example of IKEA, who says they value equality even more than your average US company. As they don’t use job titles or clear job descriptions, a cultural conflict raised. The best qualified people in the US simply wanted more status and clearer career perspectives. IKEA changed their recruitment strategy, by emphasizing their values and by providing realistic job previews. Those who did not identify quickly selected themselves out of the company. What IKEA actually did, was to benefit from the large variability in individual values within the US. They were able to select their own suitable employee-subgroup.

The bottom line to me seems the necessity to be culturally aware if you want to be successful. Back to Latin America. Anti-American sentiments seem to soften. English is now taught at schools and internet and MTV have reached the younger generations. But some cultural conflicts remain. In terms of power distance and roles of male employees, it compares somewhat to Korea. Another cultural conflict that arises is the past/present orientation in Latin American countries. As a consequence, the mean management style is quite conservative. Western companies are generally future oriented, which means management includes planning, doing and controlling. And then of course Latin America embraces mañana mañana and value time way different than we do. If Western companies want to be successful over here, they have to deal with punctuality issues. You’d at least have to invest in job interviews and work out different palets of fringe benefits.

Yes, we spent hours and hours in Latin American restaurants. Not to mention how courses sometimes miraculously changed order, or all got served at once. But in the end, competing with local lomo-steaks may well be too much for the Western Burgergiants. We’ll (eat &) drink to that!