Cultural Conflicts in American Factory: A Hofstede Analysis

Cultural Conflicts in American Factory
The documentary American Factory (2019) follows Fuyao, a Chinese company that opens a factory in
a former General Motors plant in Ohio. At first, the factory brings hope because it creates jobs for
American workers. However, problems arise because Chinese managers and American employees do
not always have the same expectations about work. The main cultural differences shown in the
documentary concern attitudes towards hierarchy and relationships between managers and employees.
Chinese managers seem to expect more discipline and obedience, while American workers want to be
able to express their opinions and question certain decisions. Differences also concern the balance
between professional and personal life. Chinese managers expect workers to maintain an intense pace
of work and work long hours, whereas American employees place greater importance on working hours,
time spent with their families and leisure activities. The documentary also shows disagreements about
workplace safety, as some American workers believe that working conditions and safety equipment are
inadequate. In addition, there is dissatisfaction with lower wages and the loss of some benefits that
General Motors employees previously enjoyed, as well as the difficulties faced by Chinese expatriates
in adapting to an environment where they do not always understand the local habits and ways of
working.
In my opinion, the most important and visible conflict is that American workers believe they have the
right to express their opinions and question certain decisions, whereas Chinese managers seem to expect
them to follow instructions more directly. This situation shows how cultural differences can influence
the way people interpret the same behaviour: what an American employee considers a natural right and
a constructive form of participation may be perceived by their manager as a challenge to their authority.
American workers express also concerns about safety equipment and working conditions. Some want
to establish a union to represent them and help them defend their interests. Fuyao’s management is
concerned that a union could make the company more difficult to manage or reduce its efficiency. This
conflict shows that the two sides do not always agree on how employees should express their needs or
participate in decision-making.
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions help to better understand this conflict. The first dimension is power
distance, which describes how people accept differences in power between managers and employees.
In an environment characterised by high power distance, employees may be more accustomed to
accepting decisions made by people in positions of authority. In an environment with lower power
distance, they may expect to be able to ask questions and participate more in decision-making. In this
case, American workers are more accustomed to a flatter organisational structure and are therefore more
comfortable challenging certain decisions, while Chinese managers are more accustomed to hierarchical
organisations and expect employees to follow instructions more directly.

The problem is that each side may interpret the other’s behaviour negatively. According to Hofstede’s
model, China has a higher level of power distance than the United States, which helps explain this
phenomenon.
The second dimension that can be observed in this conflict is individualism versus collectivism. In the
film, Chinese managers often present the company as a team in which everyone should work together
to ensure Fuyao’s success. This can be linked to a more collectivist approach to work, in which the
company’s objectives are presented as shared goals. American workers, on the other hand, often
emphasise their rights, safety, opinions and working conditions. Their desire to establish a union can be
seen as a way to protect their rights and make their voices heard within the company.
From my point of view, this difference helps explain why managers and workers do not always agree
on what it means to be a good employee. However, culture is not the only explanation, as the company’s
economic objectives, job security and working conditions also play an important role.
I believe the solution is not to ask either group to completely change its culture. Instead, both sides
should make an effort to understand each other’s expectations.
First, the company could provide intercultural training for its managers and employees. This would help
them understand why some workers want to discuss decisions, while others may consider following
instructions an important part of teamwork.
Second, regular meetings could give employees the opportunity to express their disagreements and raise
concerns without fear of negative consequences. Managers would continue to organise the work, but
they could also take employees’ experience into account. These meetings could focus on practical issues
such as safety, working hours and production targets. It is also important for the company to take
employees’ concerns seriously and explain the reasons behind its decisions.
Finally, the company should recognise the role of employee representatives and respect workers’ right
to unionise in accordance with American law. I believe it is important not to assume that a way of
working that is effective in one country, in this case China, will necessarily work everywhere.
Companies should adapt their management approach to the country in which they operate in order to
work more effectively and respect everyone’s rights.
Ultimately, the documentary shows that successful intercultural management depends not only on
understanding cultural differences, but also on the ability to adapt management practices, encourage
dialogue between the different parties and find a balance between the company’s objectives and
employees’ needs.