Cross-Cultural Organizational Conflict: The Sick Leave Case

Introduction: Globalization and Cross-Cultural Conflict

The improvement of communication technologies, the proliferation of high-speed internet transactions, and the incorporation of free trade priorities into the economic orientation of all industrialized nations has created a condition within which cultures and nations intermingle freely. As this is a relatively new condition, however, many generational and ethnic realities are coming up against the cultural aspects of this shrinking global village as a significant challenge. The result is that, in an increasingly globalizing economy, we are left with little choice but to embrace a global plurality of cultures and societies. In the commonality of economic interests represented by the integration of cultures, there must also be found a shared ground for cultural exchange.

The case study examined here, entitled "Sick Leave," concerns the organizational conflict between Canadian exchange worker Kelly and her Japanese senior, Mr. Higashi. In a larger regard that will be explored here, however, we can see that their conflict is grounded in the more problematic and revealing issue of cross-cultural organizational interchange. A lack of preparedness for acculturation on the part of both parties will emerge as a central seedling of this broader conflict.

At issue is Kelly's contract, which denotes her entitlement both to sick days and to paid vacation days. Due to the perception on the part of Mr. Higashi that a dedicated employee will first sacrifice paid vacation days rather than use sick days, he has elected to penalize Kelly and her fellow employees Mark and Suzanne by docking their vacation days. The classification of these missed workdays is therefore the primary bargaining chip Kelly seeks to recover.

The Bargaining Mix and Main Issues

For Mr. Higashi, an assertion of authority, a distinct style of management, and the interest of "saving face" all impact his approach to bargaining. A loss in any of these regards constitutes what is at stake for him as administrator.

The main issue in this negotiation is what is most immediately at stake: Mr. Higashi's decision to bypass the terms of the contracts signed by his foreign employees. A second issue is that of cultural sensitivity, which travels both ways. First, Mr. Higashi is not adequately trained or prepared for the demands of his foreign employees. Second, the domestic employees at the Soto facility are not adequately trained or prepared for the cultural implications of hosting foreign employees. Third, there is a degree of unwillingness on the part of the foreign employees themselves to adapt to or respect the cultural conditions of their host country and its people.

These issues are ranked in the above sequence according to their primacy in effecting the desired outcome. The issue of Kelly's contract is first and foremost, primarily because it is her key bargaining chip. This is not to suggest that issues of cultural preoccupation are in any way secondary; rather, it is to argue that the demand to rectify her immediate situation will center on justifying her position and the actions which eventually accompany it. She possesses the clearest evidence of her own entitlement by way of the contract itself.

Justification and Theoretical Interests

The cultural concerns are of equal importance if we are to address at the root the conditions that have stimulated the current conflict. They are ranked next, but with a specifically denoted sequence of responsibilities. Mr. Higashi tops this list for his role as leader of the host organization. It is incumbent upon the host organization to recognize that exchange employees are in an unfamiliar context and are attempting to function far from their familiar comforts and experiences. Where cultural differences are apparent, effective leadership will neither isolate the foreign employee nor alienate them by imposing a disbandment of cultural preferences. That Mr. Higashi generally fails to properly accommodate the cultural needs of his foreign employees is primary among the listed issues.

Naturally, it is also his responsibility to prepare the rest of the organization for these realities. The resentment and judgment directed at foreign employees by the domestic staff is indicative of a failure in this area and points to another core issue at hand.

Finally, we can also see in some of the decisions made by Kelly, and in the disposition of her fellow foreign employees Mark and Suzanne, that the group as a whole failed to prepare for immersion in an enveloping culture. This failure prevented them from properly accounting for such characteristics as the paternalism and patriarchy displayed by Mr. Higashi — behaviors that would certainly be viewed as unwelcome and inappropriate in most Western organizational contexts.

There is a clear connection among all of the cited issues. With respect to the different levels at which a failure of cultural sensitivity can be observed, the conflict has clearly been shaped by an organizational failure that it would not be entirely fair to place solely upon Mr. Higashi. In all respects, though some animus has developed between him and his foreign employees, his intentions are never malicious or morally objectionable. In Japanese business culture — where his training derives and within which he hopes to advance — his methods and style may be seen as wholly appropriate. There is thus a clear connection between the various cultural responses exhibited by the respective players and the program's overall failure to put in place the training and preparation that might have prevented the inconsistency between managerial policy and contractual obligation.

There is a theoretical core interest that is not being realized by the management style displayed by Mr. Higashi. The program itself has been based on a certain understanding that Japan must take rapid steps to more intimately involve itself in global exchanges. Indeed, the speed with which the program was executed may help explain the relative failure to prepare its participants adequately for the impending cultural interchange. But in consideration of the underlying theoretical interests impacting Mr. Higashi, we determine that these should be concordant with the interests of the organization as a whole. The case study notes that "the realization that Japan must open itself more fully to contact with international society began to foster an awareness of the importance of promoting internationalization and international exchange at a local level" (Turek, 682). For Higashi, a management failure arising from cultural obstacles will be indicative of a failure to meet this chief organizational ambition.

There is sufficient theoretical grounding for the claim that it is not simply enough to expect foreign employees to comfortably adopt the culture into which they are immersed. This expectation represents one of Higashi's key failures. Employing a foreign exchange employee within an otherwise nationally homogenous organization will tend to require a conscientious acknowledgement of cultural differences likely to enter into workplace engagements — both in terms of the awareness of existing personnel and of the individual in question. This acknowledgement is intended to invoke dual sensitivities to inherent differences that might impact interpersonal relations, communication, and managerial philosophy. Leadership must therefore be prepared to bridge any gaps that might occur by choosing the appropriate managerial candidate, devising goals that assume close parallels between differing national faces of the operation, and ensuring proper cultural training is in place within the existing organization.