The Maletzky readings highlighted the difficulties of expats
working within a different culture, explaining that “many
of these assignments are unsuccessful in that either the business expatriates return earlier as planned
or they do not perform as well as expected” (Maletzky 1). The main reason for
these failures cited in the article was the inability for “an individual to adapt
to the host culture and culture learning” (1) which often was
due to communication challenges, different social norms that hindered the
ability for the expats to work efficiently, or challenging power dynamics. The article made me think a lot
about how work culture can make or break a working environment, even if it isn’t
due to an international work placement, but simply the office environment or culture in the workplace here in America.
A
friend recently posted this article about office culture in Silicon Valley, and I think it's an interesting anecdote about a specific work culture subset. I have a
number of friends who live in San Francisco and work for the tech-savvy start
ups described in this article, and I myself interviewed at a number of similar
office environments when I was looking for jobs in Boston. Here’s an exerpt that describes the lifestyle
of some stereotypical start-up “work culture”:
Culture
is not about the furniture in your office. It is not about how much time you
have to spend on feel-good projects. It is not about catered food, expensive
social outings, internal chat tools, your ability to travel all over the world,
or your never-ending self-congratulation. Culture
is about power dynamics, unspoken priorities and beliefs, mythologies,
conflicts, enforcement of social norms, creation of in/out groups and
distribution of wealth and control inside companies. Culture is usually ugly.
It is as much about the inevitable brokenness and dysfunction of teams as it is
about their accomplishments. Culture is exceedingly difficult to talk about
honestly. The critique of startup culture that came in large part from the
agile movement has been replaced by sanitized, pompous, dishonest slogans. Let’s examine
popular startup trends that are being called “culture” and look beneath the
surface to find the real culture that may be playing out beneath it. This is
not a critique of the practices themselves, which often contribute value to an
organization. This is to show a contrast between the much deeper, systemic
cultural problems that are rampant in our startups and the materialistic
trappings that can disguise them.
In American
culture, I think that many of us are overworked. Indeed we
receive much less vacation than our European counterparts. In an attempt to
make the work environment “fun” this subset of work culture has emerged that
tries to address some of these problems. However, I know my friends who work for
this type of company have beers at the office after work instead of going to
happy hour nearby, and don’t even take vacation because although their company
has an “unlimited vacation day policy” the social pressures from coworkers to
overwork means that they don’t ever take vacation days at all. What does this
subset of work culture say about American power dynamics in the workplace? What does it mean to be
a “cultural fit” in the office environment? Should companies be able to “reject qualified, diverse candidates on
the grounds that they ‘aren’t a culture fit’ while not having to examine what
that means - and it might mean that we’re all white, mostly male, mostly
college-educated, mostly young/unmarried, mostly binge drinkers, mostly from a
similar work background” as the article says?
Finally an
example from Japan of someone who died of "karoshi” which is officially a “death from overworking”. What does
this have to say about global competition in the workplace and the effects that
this has on work/life balance?
No comments:
Post a Comment