The impact of obesity on gym market

University of Portsmouth Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences BA (Hons) Communication and English Studies PROJECT IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A NEW CULTURE , OR WITH THE CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES OR OF JAPAN? Student Number: Supervisor: William Forsyth 24 April, 2015 IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A NEW Contents ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCT ION ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 CHAPTER 2. LITERATUR E REVIEW ................................ ................................ ...................... 3 2.1 DEFINITION OF CULTURE ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 3 2.2 CATEGORIES OF CULTURE S: NATIONAL CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTUR E ..... 4 2.3 GLOBALIZATION AND CUL TURAL GLOBALIZATIONS ................................ ................................ .. 4 2.3.1 Cultural homogenization, heterogenization, and hybridization ................................ ....... 5 2.4 APPROACH FOR MANUFACT URERS ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5 2.5 THE CULTURAL DIFFEREN CES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN ......................... 6 2.5.1 High -/ Low -context culture ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 6 2.5.2 Time perceptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 7 2.5.3 Hofstede dimensions of culture ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLO GY AND LIMITATION ................................ ......................... 12 3.1 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 12 3.2 LIMITATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 12 CHAPTER 4. FIN DINGS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ........ 14 4.1 THE STRATEGY AND THE STRUCTURE OF TOYOTA ................................ ................................ ... 15 4.2 THE CULTURAL CHARACTE RISTICS OF TOYOTA , AND COMPARE AND CONT RAST WITH THE CULTURAL CHARACT ERISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN ................................ . 16 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIO N ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 19 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 20 APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... I APPENDIX I. THE FULL TABLE OF THE BASE CULTURE DATA FO R SIX DIMENSIONS OF CULTURE AS PRESENTED IN CULTURES AND ORGANIZATIONS 3RD EDITION 2010 ................................ ...................... I DECLARATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . III List of Table Table 1. Summary of the compare and contrast of Hofstede cultural dime nsions of the United States and Japan…………………………………………………… 10 Table 2. Compare the culture of Toyota with the cultural characteristics of the United States and Japan………………………………………………………….. 17 Graph 1. The six Hofstede dimensions of the United States and Japan .....……. 8 Figure 1. Relationships between strategy, struc ture, control and culture……. .14 IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 1 Abstract This project focused on one research question – Is the culture of Toyota Motor Corporation (Toyota) a new culture, or with the cultural characteri stics of the United States orof Japan? The literature review provided thorough perspectives on culture and the cultural characteristics of the two countries. The research was done by taking Toyota’s culture as an example to compare and contrast with the cultural characteristics of the two countries to investigate whether it is a new culture . The results show ed that Toyota’s cultures contains the cultural characteristics of the two national cultures , which tends to the American cultural characteristics . IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 2 Chapter 1. Introduction The relation between culture and communication has been a topical scholarly st udy for years. Research have suggested that creating a new culture, namely organizational culture, could be more efficient and effective to cope with another existing culture than by fitting into it. However, there is not much research on comparing new cultures with the long existing cultures, for example, national cultures. By reading relevant books and journa ls about culture and communication, I found that the Toyota Motor Corporation ( Toyota in short) has been mentioned for its success ful approach of production system. Besides, Toyota , as a Japanese -based corporation, proved its approach i s capable to be used worldwide , including the United States . As some studies suggested that the cultures of the States and Japan differs greatly, I would investigate whether Toyota’s culture is a new culture, a blend of the two national cultures, or either one of the national cultures, and therefore led to its success. There are five chapters in the project, which are the introduction, literature review, methodology and limitation, findings and discussion, and conclusion. In the following chapter, a thorough research was done about culture and communication as the literature review. IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 3 Chapter 2. Literature Review People communicate in every bit of life, and communication is indivisible from culture, according to Smith (1966; 1). In other words, generally speaking, every language has a deep bond with its related culture (Dirven & Pütz, 1992) . Communication, including not only language but also non -verbal communication, is the basic medium for human to maintain relationships (Wood, 2011, pp. 7 -8; Smith , 1966, p.3 ). It may also be true in terms of business. Communication is inseparable tothe success of an organization (American Psychological Association, 2014) , and it is in regards to the whole process of how people affect the minds of each other (Smith, 1966, p.15) .However, within an international organization, misunderstanding may commonly occur because people are most likely to ignore the cultural differences between groups of employees, or branches from different geographic alareas (Ting - Toomey, 2012, p.204) .Thus, being aware of the existance of cultural differences is crucial to achieving effectiveand efficien t communication , which is an important role within organization s(Wood, 2011, p.9) . 2.1 Definition of culture Some people might have an idea of the existence of cultural differences between individuals (Janney & Arndt, 1992) . However, ‘people ’ is only a part of the whole culture (Janney & Arndt, 1992) , as Hofstede (2004) has emphasized that culture is a system of a specific society/ community , and human is only a part of the system . The meaning of culture , according to etymology, is about "collective customs and achievements of a people" since the year of 1867 (Harper, 2014) . Also, according to Hofstede (1980), a culture is “a collective programming of the mind which distinguishes one group from another” (Jones, 2007) . Therefore, culture could be created , or “programmed” , for instance the culture within an organization. Culture, in other words, is a combination of every single element people learnt since their born , which allows culture s to be differentiated (Jones, 2007; Heatwole, n.d.) .Furthermore, Binsbergen (2003) suggested that one’s personality is a result of the effects of his/ her cultural background. Attention needed to be paid that one’s personality is also only a reflection of his/ her cultural background, instead of the represe ntation of the whole of that corresponding culture. IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 4 2.2 C ategories of cultures : National culture and Organizational culture Culture although is a combination of almost every daily elements, it could be mainly divided into two categories: National cultures, and Organizational cultures (Hofstede & Fink, 2007, p.15) . National culture, according to the interview of Hof stede by Fink (2007; 15), it is in regards to the basic values of people that they have learnt since childhood, and those values are too natural to be conscious of (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, p.384) . Therefore, it might also be called as the “rooted values” (Hofstede & Fink, 2007, p.15) . On the other hand, organizational culture is about the means of working acquired during adulthood (Hofstede & Fink, 2007, p.15) . When people changed to a new working place, they could learn about the organizational culture of t he department/ company. No matter it is either national or organizational culture, when people have the first few contacts with the new culture, they would probably experience communication problems, for instance cultural conflicts or culture shock, or bot h, in personal experience. These kinds of problems are possibly because of the ignorance of the existance of cultural differences between groups of people (Ting -Toomey, 2012, p.204) . 2.3 Globalization and cultural globalization s From the previous paragraphs, people would probably face different types of communicative problems due to the lack of understanding when having contacts with unfamiliar cultures. Some people may question that how could people from different parts of the world cooperate with each other, and work for large -scale organizations. With reference to Buchan et al. (2009; 4138), globalization might be a crucial element in constructing nowadays large -scale cooperation. It is because globalization might lessen ones’ social distance wi th others who are physically and geographically distant in their own perception (Buchan et al., 2009, p.4141). Globaliz ation can mean a process of exchanging information, business and cultural ideas around the world in a remarkably fast pace; the connection s of each part of the world therefore increased (British Boardcasting Corporation, 2014) . On the cultural side, t here are three types of cultural globalization suggested, which are cultural homogenization (Buchen et al., 2009, p.4138; Jones, 2007; Bird & Fang, 2009), cultural heterogenization (Buchen et al., 2009, p.4138; Embong, 2011, p.18), and cultural hybridization (Embong, 2011, p.18). IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 5 2.3 .1 Cultural homogenization, heterogenization, and hybridization First of all , for cultural homogenization , as suggested by Jones (2007), and Bird and Fang (2009), globalization and technology have now changed our way of thinking and therefore start to merge cultures into one single world culture. National cultures may also diminish as a result of rapid information exchange (Bird & Fang, 2009) . This is one part of cultural globalization (Embong, 2011, p.17) . Secondly, the other part of cultural globalizatio n, according to Embong (2011; 18 ), is cultural heterogenization , which is the opposite of homogenization; or some may call it as polarization (Holton, 2000, p.140) .In other words, there would be more and more diverse cultures in the world, and also reinforce the unity of a nation. For ex ample, it is happening in Scotland and Quebec (Buchan et al., 2009, p.4138). From the two paragraphs above, we can observe that t here has been a debate over whether globalization would promote the de velopment of cultures . Some people provided a new stand point about the effects of globalization on cultures: Hybridization (Embong, 2011, p.18) . It means that cultural fusions occur because of the introduction of between cultures (Embong, 2011, p.18; Holton, 2000, p.140) . However, we have to pay attention to a fact that neither cultural homogenization, cultural heterogenization, nor cultural hybridization is the sole cultural globalizing phenomenon that is now happening in the world . According to Buchan et al. (2009; 4138), both cu ltural homogenization and cultural heterogenization are under process. They mentioned that , on the one hand, for the Basque, Scots, and Quebecois, cultural heterogenization is m ore likely to be the mainstream idea among the society. On the other hand, for the American from the United States, for example, are more in favour of cultural homogenization thandistinguishing one and another (Buchen et al., 2009, p. 4138). 2.4 Approach for manufacturers Some people may wonder that if it is hard to judge whethe r to be globalized, what approaches cooperation should take in order to expand the business worldwide . Organization culture, especially to manufacturers, seems to be more productive and powerful than the national culture s that they belong to (Naor, Linderm an, IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 6 &Schroeder, 2009, p.194) . In other words, manufacturers should create their own organizational cultures for effective and efficient production. According to Evans and Lindsay (2005), “Toyota proved that its approaches can work everywhere and became a global manufacturer” (Naor, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2009, p.202) .With reference to the OICA survey (2012), Toyota Motor Corporation ( Toyota in short ) was listed as the first manufacturer in the world .As of March 2014, Toyota has had close to 340,000 employees around the world (Toyota, 2015 b). As a Japanese -based company, it is able to expand the business worldwide, including the North America and Euro pe (Toyota, 2015 a).T his motivated me to have a further study about its global approaches . I would like to investigate that how did the corporation managed to do so since there have been a number of sayings about the enormous differences between the culture of the United States and of Japan (Ting -Toomey, 2012). 2.5 The cultural differences between the United States and Japan 2.5 .1 High -/ Low -context culture In the book Communicating Across Culture (Ting -Toomey, 2012, p.101), Japan is classified as a relatively high -context culture, and the United States as a relatively low -context culture. For the definition of high -/ low -context culture, according to the book Beyond Culture (19 89), Hall divided culture into two main categories – High -context culture and Low - context culture (pp.85 -116). Hall (19 89) described the high - and low -context culture s as a continuum because of the differences between their communication styles (p.91). The high ones are placed at the one end of the continuum , and the low ones are placed at the other end (Hall , 1989 , p.91). On the one hand, people from the high ones , in mos t of the cases, communicating with other s mainly through the information in the physical context, or the information that are internalized (Hall , 1989 , p.91) . In another words, only a small amount of messages are expressed in any explicit , direct ways (Hal l, 1989, p.91 ; Ting -Toomey, 2012, p.101 ). On the other hand, people from low -context culture s would prefer an opposite communication style (Hall , 1989 , p.91) , which is to communicate to IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 7 other sthrough explicit , direct messages, rather than implicitly (Hall , 1989, p.91 ; Ting - Toomey, 2012, p.101 ). 2.5 .2 Time perceptions The cultural differences between countries also concern the differences of time perceptions. According to Trompenaars and Hampden -Turner (2013 ; 111), American and Japanese are the examples of monochron ic people and polychron ic people respectively. Hall (1983) said that there are two extreme types of task scheduling behavior, which are the M-time (monochronism) , and the P-time (polychronism) (Usunier, 2005, p.178). For monochronic people, they usually do one thin g at a time, and would tend to work according to planned schedules (Usunier, 2005, p.178). On the other hand, for polychronic people , they would prefer to do several tasks at the same time, and tend to accept changes to planned schedules (Usunier, 2005, p.178). Generally speaking, Americans are the typical M -time people while the Japanese, for example, are the typical P -time people (Usunier, 2005). For the American, “time is money” while the Japanese would like to spend their time to buil d relationships with others (Usunier, 2005). IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 8 2.5 .3Hofstede dimensions of culture Graph 1. The six Hofstede dimensions of the United States and Japan (Hofstede, 2014) (see Appendix I) According to Hofstede (2010), there are six cultural dimensions listed as follow: a) Power distance (PDI) (from small to large) (p.31) b) Collectivism versus individualism (IDV) (or individualism) (p.31) c) Femininity versus masculinity (MAS) (or masculinity) (p.31) d) Uncertainty avoidance (UAI) (from weak to strong) (p.31) e) Long term or ientation (LTO) (from short to long) f) Indulgence (IND) (from strict to loose) For the first dimensions power d istance , it is about the degree of acceptance and expectation towards power inequality of the people having less power in the society (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp.60 -62) . With a higher mark means a higher acceptance, and vice versa. From the above graph, we were able to observe that the acceptance of power inequality in Japan is higher than that in the United States. In other words, the American from the United States would be more likely to reject a hierarchic al system, and to strive for equality instead. 54 46 95 92 88 42 40 91 62 46 26 68 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Hofstede Cultural diemensions Japan U.S.A. PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO IND IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 9 Secondly, for the dimension Collectivism versus individualism , it concerns the preference of people to be responsible for the others or extended family without questions , or to beresponsible only for themselves or immediate family respectively (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp.90 -92) . From the previous graph, there was a remarkably noticeable difference between the two countries: the United States tends to be an individualistic country while Japan tends to be a collectivistic one. For the third dimension, femininity versus masculinity , it concerns the genders ’ images . For a masculine country , they would tend to emphasize menon bein g strong, successful, or authoritative, and to have competition with each other , and female figures represents weak and modest ; while people from a feminine country would tend to emphasize the importance of both men and women being considerate, cooperative , or modest, and to work on achieving consensus (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010 , pp.139 -140 ). From the graph, it is shown that there was an enormous difference between the level of masculinity in Japan and the United States, in which Japan scored 95 while the States scored 62. In other words, Japan tends to emphasize competitions and achievement of powerfulness, whereas the United States is more likely to emphasize cooperation with people and consensus. For the fourth dimension, uncertainty avoidance , it concerns the extent that the people of the country would have a strong fee ling of being uncomforted when facing ambiguity and uncertainty (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp.188 -189) . From the graph, Japan scored 92 in this dimension while the United States scored almost 50 lower than it. It means that Japanese would most likely to be feeling uncomfortable when having unpredictable future, whereas the American from the United States would be much confident in handling rapid changes. For the fifth dimension, long term orientation , it concerns “the fostering of virtues related to the past and present” while short term orientation , the opposite of long term orientation, is related to the future achievements (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp.239 -240) . From the above graph, it is shown that Japan scored nearly 60 marks more than that of the United States. It means that Japan is a country IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 10 that would have its focus on the effects of the past on the present and future while the States wou ld focus on the future planning. The sixth dimension, indulgence , concerns the natural desires of human to have fun and enjoy life (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, pp.280 -281). The opposite of indulgence is restraint , which means that people would self -regulate their desires and hope of enjoying life because of strict social norms (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010, p.281). From the graph, it is shown that there is an noticeable difference between the preference of indulgence: Japan ese would prefer to restrict themselves to enjoy life than the American from the United States do. The following is a summary of the cultural differences between the States and Japan. To conclude, it is likely to say that Japan is a collectivistic country with its people who would probably prefer to compete with one and another, to avoid uncertainty, to link history to the present and future, and to restrict themselves from indulgence of IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 11 desires. In contrast, the United States is most likely anindividualistic country with its people who would possibly emphasize the cooperation with others, to handle uncertainty with confidence, to have their future well planned, and to enjoy their lives as a human natural desire. From all the above, I therefore took the global approaches of Toyota on its manufacturing aspect as a case study to compare its cultural characteristics and the cultural characteristics of the United States and Japan to investigate that whether the cultur e of Toyota is a new culture, a blend of the two national cultures, or belongs either one national culture . IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 12 Chapter 3. Methodology and Limitation The purpose of this chapter is to illustrate the method used in the project, and evaluate it as the discussion of the limitations of the project. 3.1 Methodology In this project, I would investigate that whether Toyota as an international business is rejecti ng national culture and creating a new cu lture of effective organization. The culture is not determined by geographical or national factors , but solely by efficiency or effectiveness factors . The research is mainly done from the information by books, which are related to the generalizations about the differences between the two national cultures (the culture of the United States and of Japan). For the m ethod , I would look at one example – Toyota Production System , and would beidentifying its cultural chara cteristics . T hen, I would compare those characteristics with the cultural characteristics of the two nationalities involved: US and Japanto see if Toyota’s culture is a) a blend , b) one or the other ; c) something new . 3.2 Limitation In this project, as mentioned in the section of methodology, the cultural characteristics of the United States and Japan were used in the project to compare and contrast with the organizational culture of Toyota. There are three limitation s may need to put into consideratio n, which are the overgeneralization of national cultures, the way of presenting the cultural characteristics of the two countries ,and the misconception of defining one culture . Firstly, for the cultural characteristics of both countries, the United States and Japan, might be generalized and unified respectively as a whole in the references for effectiveness in understanding a country through reading (Naor, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2009, p.202 ). When people need to put theory into practice, they have to beware that there is in fact the presence of sub -cultures within each national IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 13 culture (Naor, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2009, p.202) . Generalizing a culture is only for the first step to understand . Secondly, the information about the cultural characteristics of both the United State s and Japan are presented in term of numbers and graphs . The data were from the Hofstede Web Site . I used the graph of the six Hofstede dimensions to compare and contra st the two national cultures of United States and Japan, in which the differences were presented in numbers. Some people argued that culture itself should not be presented in a quantitative approach ; it is instead immeasurable (Jones, 2007, pp.5 -6; McSweeney, 2002) . We should thus be more careful of interpreting the information given. Thirdly , culture is not absolutely separable from one and another . The culture of Toyota could be a mixture of any cultures beside the two countries. It is difficult t o determine that the culture is solely from one culture or another under the influence of globalization as mentioned in Literature Review (see p.4) . As a result, the culture could only be determine as a culture tends to be the culture of the United States or Japan since there might be other possible answers . IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 14 Chapter 4. Findings and Discussion As Hofstede (2010; 371 - 372) stated that “strategies are carried out via the existing structure and control system, and their outcome is modified by the organization’s culture – and all four of these elements influence each other.” Therefore, by examining and studying the structure and the strategies of the organization, we are likely able to understand its organizational culture behind the operation. As a result, in the following section, I would first examine the strategy and the structure of the production system of Toyota, then have a further investigation into its behind cultural concepts. IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 15 4.1 The strategy and the structure of Toyota According to Monden’s book Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to Just -In-Time (20 12), there we re four key conceptual strategies of the success of the Toyota manufacturing management. Those are listed as the following (pp. 7 -8): a) Just -in-time s ystem (JIT) (p.7) b) Autonomation (p.7) c) Flexible workforce ( Shoj inka in Japanese) (p.8) d) Creative thinking or inventive ideas ( Seiko in Japanese) (p.8) For Just -in-time (JIT) system , it wa s originally introduced by Japan in the 1980s (Naor, Linderman, & Schro eder, 2009, p.202) . The JIT system is s about the synchronization of diverse operations for relative small -scale production, which is a set of production management techniques (Wasa & Shiba, 2004, p.323) . It requires a Kan -ban system, in which Kan -ban means tag -like cards in Japanese, to maintain the accuracy of the JIT system (Monden, 2012, p.9) , and as a method to have all the process linked up ( Monden, 2012 , p.47 ; Wasa&Shiba, 2004, p.323 ). People would have to provide the information about their work on the Kan -ban, and pass it to the person that is responsible for the next process after finishing one’s own duties (Monden, 2012 ). This strategy is used to reinforce the accuracy of the production line (Wasa&Shiba, 2004, p.323) . Secondly, for the autonomation , it is another fundamental elements for maintaining the production of the corporation (Monden, 2012, pp.6 -7). This is a Japanese -English word, which is Ji-do-ka in Japanese, means an “autonomous defects control” in English in a vague sense (Monden, 2012, p.7) . To other companies, this word only means that it is an “intelligent automation” ; In Toyota, it means that the system involves skilled workers to enhance the system (Monden, 2012 , p.165) .Most of the Japanes e companies implement this str ategy with machines; however, Toyota rejected it by emphasizing the “ humanized automation ” (Wasa&Shiba, 2004, pp.335 -336). Thirdly, about the flexible workforce (shojinka in Japanese ), it mean s that the number of workers might vary according to the demands (Monden, 2012, p.8). On top of this, I found that there was an “improvement activities by small groups and suggestion system” worth being mentioned ( Monden, 2012, p.8). It is used to diminish IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 16 workforce, and thus enhance the work morale ( Monden, 2012, p.8) , which is close to the purpose of the implementation of flexible workforce . Moreover, for the concept of creative thinking or inventive ideas (seiko in Japanese ), Toyota took the opinions of their staffs in a serious manner ( Monden, 2012 , p.8). The corporation would accept and consider their ideas, and adapt those into practice if possible ( Monden, 2012 , p.8). Toyota (2015) also added that they would like to provide a “fairly flat organizational culture ” by putting people into small groups and teams as mentioned before so as to provide “greater flexibility and effective communication”. These strategies we re said to be an important role in continuous improvement of the company. 4.2 The cultural characteristics of Toyota , and compare and contrast with the cultural characteristics of the United States and Japan From the previous section, there are mainly four types of strategies used in the production system, which are Just -in-time system (JIT), autonomation, flexible workforce, and creative thinking or inventive ideas. There would be Japanese cultural characteristics in these strategies and concepts in some extent as they were mainly originated in Japan. First of all, I woulduse the concepts of high -context culture and low -context cultureby Hall ( 1990) to examine the cultural characteristics of Toyota . After that , I would compare and contrast its characteristics to those of the United States and of Japan by Hofstede cultural dimensions to determine whether it is a new culture, a blend of the two national c ultures or either one of it. First of all, as mentioned in the Literature Review 2.6.1 (see p.6 ), people from high - and low -context cultures would tend to use implicit, indirect, and explicit, direct communication style respectively. Generally, Japanese would prefer implici t communication; however, this wa s not effective and efficient enough when comparing to that of the American way. For the communication style of Toyota, they encourage dstaff to express their opinions and ideas in small group s. This styl e, in my opinion, could be an improved version of Japanese way . Since for people from high - context culture, it is difficult to suddenly expres s opinions in a lecture hall . Due to the close environment, discussing in small groups would not embarrass anyone, and could also encourage the interaction of both people from high - and low -context cultures by IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 17 building relationship s. To the culture of Toyota, it was still not as direct as the American way, yet not as implicit as that of Japan. Secondly, according to the concepts of monochronism and polychronism ( refer to Literature Review 2.6.2 in p.7 ), the United States and Japan are the typical examples of the two concepts respective ly. In the previous section, JIT system and the Kan -ban used in Toyota we re to ensure that the flow of the production line is on the right track. The JIT system required a high accuracy of time, which is a presentation of monochronism that tends to work ac cording to planned schedules. This was greatly differed from the general Japanese culture that time is flexible and changes to planned schedules are acceptable. It is more likely close d to the American “time= money” concept. In the following parts, I woul d like to use th ree of the six Hofstede cultural dimensions, namely power distance, collectivism, masculinity , to have a further compare and contrast with the cultural characteristics of the United States and that of Japan. A table wa s used to illustrate the result. Firstly, for the power distance dimension, the culture of Toyota tend s to have the characteristic of the United States. Toyota promote d a “fairly flat organizational culture” as mentioned. In other words, staff of Toyota would expect a relati vely equal environment instead of a hierarchical culture, which implied a lower power distance within the culture. Secondly, for the collectivism dimension, the culture of Toyota tends to have the characteristic of Japan. Toyota promoted th e Kan -ban syste m to support the JIT system. By that s taff are all responsible for the continuity of the production system IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 18 and for the company’s sales. This is close to the Japanese cultural characteristics that Japanese people would be responsible for a group rather than one’s own. Thirdly, for the masculinity dimension, the Toyota’s culture tends to have the American cultural characteristics. As menti oned, Toyota promoted a flat organization structure , and staff would be invited to express ideas and opinions for continuous improvement of the company. This emphasized the cooperation between people, and to work on achieving consensus for the benefits of the company. As a result , the Toyota’s culture on this aspect is close r to the cultural characteristics of the Sta tes than that of Japan. To conclude, the Toyota’s culture contains the cultural characteristics of both the United States and Japan, which however tends to the culture of the States. IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 19 Chapter 5. Conclusion From the previous chapter, it is shown that the culture of Toyota contains the cultural characteristics of both the United States and Japan. In some sense, this is a new culture since the differences of the cultures of the States and Japan have been mentioned as a great contrast. Toyota successfully create d a culture which is able to adapt the excellence of the two cultures, and therefore succeed in the globalizing world. (4,387 words) IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 20 Bibliography American Psychological Association. (2014). The Role of Communication . Retrieved December 4, 2014, from American Psychological Association: Center for Organizational Excellence:

http://www.apaexcellence.org/resources/creatingahealthyworkplace/theroleofc ommunication/ Binsbegen, W. (2003). 'Cultures do not exist': Exploding self -evidences in the investigation of interculturality. Münster: LIT. Bird, A., & Fang, T. (2009, July 30). E ditorial: Cross Cultural Management in the Age of Globalization. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9(2), 139 -143. British Boardcasting Corporation. (2014). Geography: Globalization . Retrieved December 4, 2014, from BBC School:

http://www. bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/globalisation/globalisati on_rev1.shtml Buchan, N. R., Grimalda, G., Wilson, R., Brewer, M., Fatas, E., & Foddy, M. (2009, March 17). Globalization and human cooperation. Proceeding of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America , 4138 -4142. Dirven, R., & Pütz, M. (1992). Intecultural Communication. In H. Pürschel, Intercultural communication : proceedings of the 17th International L.A.U.D.

Symposium (pp. 1 -32). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Embong , A. R. (2011). The Question Of Culture, Identity And Globalisation: An Unending Debate. Kajian Malaysia , 11 -22. Ghauri, P. N., & Usunier, J. -C. (2005). International Business Negotiations (2nd Edition ed.). United Kingdom: Elsevier. Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond Culture. United States of America: Anchor Books. Harper, D. (2014). Culture. Retrieved December 3, 2014, from Online Etymology Dictionary: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=culture Hofstede, G. (2004, February). An interview with Geert Hofstede . (M. H. Hoppe, Interviewer) Hofstede, G. (2014). Dimension Data Matrix. Retrieved April 23, 2015, from Geert Hofstede: http://www.geerthofstede.eu/dimension -data -matrix IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 21 Hofstede, G., & Fink, G. (2007). Culture: organisations, peronsalities and nations. Ge rhard Fink interviews Geert Hofstede. European J. International Management, 1 , 14 -22. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. United St ates of America: McGraw -Hill. Holton, R. (2000, July 1). Globalization's Cultural Consequences. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 570 (1), 140 -152. Janney, R. W., & Arndt, H. (1992). Interpersonal Dimension of Intercultural Communication. In H. Pürschel, Intercultural communication : proceedings of the 17th International L.A.U.D. Symposium. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Jones, M. (2007). Hofstede - Culturally questionable? Oxford Business & Economics Conference. Oxford: Oxf ord University. McSweeney, B. (2002, January 1). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith - a failure of analysis. Human Relaions , 89 -118. Monden, Y. (2012). Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to Just -In- Time. United States of America: CRC Press. Naor, M., Linderman, K., & Schroeder, R. (2009). The globalization of operations in Eastern and Western countires: Unpacking the relationship between national and organizational culture and its impact on manufaturing performance. Journal of Operations Management , 194 -205. Pürschel, H. (1994). Intercultural communication : proceedings of the 17th International L.A.U.D. Symposium. (E. Bartsch, P. Franklin, U. Schmitz, & S. Vandermeeren, Eds.) Fran kfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Smith, A. G. (1966). Communication and Culture. Oregon: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Ting -Toomey, S. (2012). Communicating across cultures . Guilford Press. Toyota. (2015a). Company Profile . Retrieved April 22, 2015, from Toyota Gl obal Web Site: http://www.toyota -global.com/company/profile/o verview/pdf/ companyprofile.pdf Toyota. (2015b). Overview . Retrieved April 22, 2015, from Toyota Global Web Site: http://www.toyota -globa l.com/company/profile/overview/ IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A 22 Toyota Motor Corporation. (n.d.). About Us - Our Culture . Retrieved April 23, 2015, from Toyota UK: http://recruitment.toyotauk.com/about -us/our - culture.jsp#.VTk0OEJxSF5 Trompenaars, F., & Hampden -Turner, C. (2013). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global bus iness. United Kingdom: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Wasa, K., & Shiba, T. (2004). The Evolution of the 'Japanese Production System': Indigenous Influences and American Impact. In J. Zeitlin, & G. Herrigel, Americanization and its limits (pp. 316 -339). New York: Oxford University Press. Wood, J. T. (2011). Communication Mosaics: An Introduction to the Field of Communication, Sixth Edition. Boston, USA: Wadsworth. IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A i Appendice s Appendix I . The full table of the base culture data for six dimensions of culture as presented in Cultures and Organizations 3rd edition 2010 (Hofstede, Dimension Data Matrix, 2014) . IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A ii IS THE CULTURE OF TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION A iii Declaration I hereby declare that that this Independent Project is substantially my own work and that all relevant attributions have been made. Sign:____________________________________ Student No.:______________________________ Date:____________________________________ LITERATURE REVIEW (DECEMBER) Project Draft Literature Review Feedback Form Student Number: Mark: 69 This is extremely good. You should be aiming at a first. You need to be more careful over your definitions. Some concepts need closer definition. Some paragraphs need organising better. Criterion Y/N Comments Provisional title –=is this clear and suitable? = v= = Project topic = J=Is it relevant to your course of study? = J=Is it focussed on one or more countries other than your own? = J=Is it feasible in practice? = = v= ?= v= = Are ideas organised logically? = v= = Are all in Jtext citations included? = v= = Is the bibliography complete? = Is it in= APA S th ed. format? Y Y Sources: - Are they sufficiently varied? - Are they relevant to the topic area? - Are they sufficiently up to date? - Do they collectively give a balanced view? Y Y Y Y Literature review - Is there evidence of background reading on related theories and current/past research/studies? - Is there good relevance to the topic? - Does the review logically lead -in to specified research question(s)/Project aims? - Are all statements fully supported? Y Y Y/N Y The general enquiry is clear but not what material you want to study or what the research questions are. Is there a copy of the poster materials? Does it correspond with the draft? Y Y Has an electronic copy been submitted both to Moodle and Turnitin? Y/N First Marker: Will Forsyth Date : 09/01/2015 Second Marker: Felicity Hughes LITERATURE REVIEW (DECEMBER) THE EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGY AND GLOBALIZATION ON COMMUNICATION WITHIN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION (Literature Review – 5 December, 14) University of Portsmouth BA (Hons) Communication and English Studies William Forsyth 5 December, 14 LITERATURE REVIEW (DECEMBER) Literature Review People communicate in every bit of life, and communication is indivisible from culture, according to Smith (1966; 1). In other words, generally speaking, every language has a deep bond with its related culture (Dirven & Pütz, 1992) . Communication, including not only language but also verbal and non -verbal communication, is the basic medium for human to maintain relationships (Wood, 2011, pp. 7 -8; Smith, 1966, p.3) . It may also be true in terms of business. Communication is inseparable to the success of an organization (American Psychological Association, 2014) . And it is about the whole process of how people affect the minds of one and another (Smith, 1966, p.15) . However, within an international organization, misunderstanding may commonly occur because of the cultu ral differences between groups of employees, or branches from different geographic areas. Thus, the effectiveness and efficiency of communication are playing important roles within organizations (Wood, 2011 , p.9 ). Some may mistakenly have an idea of the existence of cultural differences between individuals (Janney & Arndt, 1992) . However, ‘people’ is only a part of the whole culture (Janney & Arndt, 1992) , as Hofstede (2004) has empha sized that culture is a system of a specific society/ community, and human is only a part of the system. The meaning of culture, according to etymology, is about "collective customs and achievements of a people" since the year of 1867 (Harper, 2014) . Also, according to Hofstede (1980), a culture is “a collective programming of the mind which distinguishes one group from another” (Jones, 2007) . Therefore, culture could be created, or “programmed”, for instance the culture within an organization. Culture, in other words, is a combination of every single element people learnt from since their born , which allows cultures to be differentiated from one and another (Jones, 2007; Heatwole, n.d.) . Furthermore, Binsbergen (2003) pointed out that one’s personality is a result of the effects of his/ her cultural background. Attention needed to be paid that one’s personality is also only a reflection of his/ her cultural background, instead of the representation of the whole of that corresponding culture. However, people usually perceive the world in the ways they learnt from their cultures , and deem that human are supposed to behave universally ; this is the reason of the occurrence of “cultural conflicts” (Hofstede & Fink, 2007; Steers, Sanchez -Runde, & Nardon, 2010, pp. 51 - 52 & 367 -369) . The “cultural conflicts” mentioned above is in fact the misunderstandings of behaviour of individuals because o f assumptions or prejudices, instead of cultural differences (Steers, Sanchez -Runde, & Nardon, 2010, pp. 46 & 237 -238) . What is more, since one language is strongly bonded to a one specific culture , when people express themselves in the second langua ge, they might have a chance to give a wrong perception as a result of unintentional mistakes made during conversation (Dirven & Pütz, 1992 , p.16 -17; Janney & Arndt, 1992, p.34 -35). Culture although is a combination of almost every daily elements, it could be mainly divided into two categories: National cultures, and organizational cultures (Hofstede & Fink, 2007, p.15) . National culture, according to the interview of Hofstede by Fink (2007; 15), it is about the values of people learnt during childhood, and organizational culture is about the means of working learnt during adulthood. Therefore, when people changed to a new working place, they could learn the organizational culture of t he department/ company. But when it comes to moving to a new environment, or immigration, it would be much difficult, and would take much more time for people to adapt because of the cultural differences between the “rooted values” (Hofstede & Fink, 2007, p.15) and the first -exposed new values (Wood, 2011, p.172). It is also called as the “ cultural shock” (Steers, Sanchez -Runde, & Nardon, 2010, Commented [WF1]: this is language Commented [WF2]: ?? Commented [WF3]: meaning? Commented [WF4]: not clear Commented [WF5]: I do not think you have explained the ‘cultural conflicts’ in enough detail to be able to make this claim. Commented [WF6]: it depends: Indian English & US English? Commented [WF7]: Have you changed topic? What is the relationship between national/organizational cultures and rooted/new values? What is the difference between culture and values? Commented [WF8]: culture? LITERATURE REVIEW (DECEMBER) p.16). In this research project, I would like to put my focus on the aspects of national cultures, as this h as a higher relativity with languages and communication, and, which is hard to be re -generated, or be created within a short period of time . Globalization means a process of exchanging information, business and cultural ideas around the world in a remarkably fast pace; the connections of each part of the world therefore increased (British Boardcasting Corporation, 2014) . In this project, when it is about “technology”, I would mainly focus on the use of and the development of Internet and mobile technology due to the broadness of the term “technology”. As suggested by Jones (2007), and Bird and Fang (2009), globalization and technology have now changed our way of thinking, or even started to merge cultures into one single world culture. This also means that national cultures may diminish as a result of rapid information exchange (Bird & Fang, 2009) . In other words, it may th erefore cause cultural homogenization, which is one part of cultural globalization (Embong, 2011, p.17) . And the other part of cultural globalizatio n, according to Embong (2011; 18 ), is cultural heterogenization, which is the opposite of homogenization; or some may call it as polarization (Holton, 2000, p.140) . There has been a debate over whether globalization would promote the development of cultures around the world or not , and some provided a new standpoint about the effec ts of globalization on cultures: Hybridization (Embong, 2011, p.18) . It means cultural fusions occur because of the introduction of between cultures (Embong, 2011, p.18 ; Holton, 2000, p.140) . To conclude, I would like to do a research on whether the me ans of communication would be homogenized at the same time with cultural homogenization or not, under the effects of technology and globalization. And, therefore, investigate the result of globalization would benefit, or bring drawbacks to the communicatio n within an international organization. Commented [WF9]: ? Commented [WF10]: ? Commented [WF11]: We really need a new section here, possibly with a section heading, and a senten ce explaining the topic change and your aims. Commented [WF12]: can mean Commented [WF13]: The ideas, sequencing & organization needs work. LITERATURE REVIEW (DECEMBER) Bibliography American Psychological Association. (2014). The Role of Communication . Retrieved December 4, 2014, from American Psychological Association: Center for Organizational Excellence:

http://www.apaexcellence.org/resources/creatingahealthyworkplace/theroleof communication/ Binsbegen, W. (2003). 'Cultures do not exist': Exploding self -evidences in the investigation of interculturality. Münster: LIT. Bird, A., & Fang, T. (2009). Editorial: Cross Cultural Management in the Age of Globalization. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9 (2), 139 -143. British Boardcasting Corporation. (2014). Geography: Globalization . Retrieved December 4, 2014, from BBC School:

http://www.bbc.co.u k/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/globalisation/globalisat ion_rev1.shtml Dirven, R., & Pütz, M. (1992). Intecultural Communication. In H. Pürschel, Intercultural communication : proceedings of the 17th International L.A.U.D. Symposium (pp. 1 - 32). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Embong, A. R. (2011). The Question Of Culture, Identity And Globalisation: An Unending Debate. Kajian Malaysia , 11 -22. Harper, D. (2014). Culture. Retrieved December 3, 2014, from Online Etymology Dictionary: http://www.etymonline.com /index.php?term=culture Heatwole, C.A. (n.d.). Culture: A Geographical Perspective, World Communities: What Is a Culture?. University of the State of New York & New York State Education Department. Retrieved on 17 November 2014, from http://www.p12.nysed.g ov/ciai/socst/grade3/geograph.html. Hofstede, G. (2004, February). An inter view with Geert Hofstede. (M. H. Hoppe, Interviewer) Hofstede, G., & Fink, G. (2007). Culture: organisations, peronsalities and nations. Gerhard Fink interviews Geert Hofstede. Eur opean J. International Management, 1, 14 -22. Holton, R. (2000). Globalization's Cultural Consequences. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 570 (1), 140 -152. Janney, R. W., & Arndt, H. (1992). Interpersonal Dimension of Intercultural Communication. In H. Pürschel, Intercultural communication : proceedings of the 17th International L.A.U.D. Symposium. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Jones, M. (2007). Hofstede - Culturally questi onable? Oxford Business & Economics Conference. Oxford: Oxford University. Oliveira, M. d. (2013). Multicultural Environments and Their Challenges to Crisis Communication. Journal of Business Communcation . Pürschel, H. (1994). Intercultural communication : proceedings of the 17th International L.A.U.D. Symposium. (E. Bartsch, P. Franklin, U. Schmitz, & S. Vandermeeren, Eds.) Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Smith, A. G. (1966). Communication and Culture. Oregon: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Steers, R. M., San chez -Runde, C. J., & Nardon, L. (2010). Management Across Cultures: Challenges and Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wood, J. T. (2011). Communication Mosaics: An Introduction to the Field of Communication, Sixth Edition. Boston, USA: Wads worth.