'This paper will explore how the national cultures of both China and the united states of America influence their level of creativity and innovation. It will compare how these diverse cultures, one representing the western ideology and the other far-eastern philosophy influence or affect their innovation and creativity.'
Comparison of China and USA's Viewpoints of Creativity and Innovation
In the world today, there is a consensus that national culture plays a fundamental role in determining the level of innovation and creativity of a society. Since the start of human civilizations, different societies have been in a constant race to be more innovative and creative than the other, resulting in interdependence, conflicts, international trades and socio-cultural exchange. The 21st century came with immense globalization which saw an upsurge in the interactions between different countries where cross-cultural borrowing has become rife and efficient (Strychalska-Rudzewicz, 2016). However, this has upset several aspects of status quo which had been in place over the decades, and new players have become integral in innovation and creativity. This paper will explore how the national cultures of both China and the united states of America influence their level of creativity and innovation. It will compare how these diverse cultures, one representing the western ideology and the other far-eastern philosophy influence or affect their innovation and creativity.
National culture can be understood as the set of values, norms, behaviors, customs, and beliefs which are in existence and upheld by the people of sovereign nations. There are differences in the way some societies can express in national cultures such as masculinity and feminity, power- distance, uncertainty-avoidance, and collectivism- individualism (Khan and Cox, 2017). When these aspects are quantified, they can be used to create profiles which are country specific and offer an understanding of the different reasoning and behavioral variations across nations. Therefore, it is fundamental to understand that national culture is the shared assumptions and beliefs which are held by populations within a nation. Each nation has its own national cultures, despite their racial and ethnic compositions. They have those values, norms, and beliefs which separate them from the other nations and use them as means to define who they are, how they interact with other people, reason out aspects and more so, how innovative, and creative they are (Khan and Khan, 2014).
Innovation and creativity are the cornerstones of development and sustenance of nations and economies around the world. Innovation,in this case, is the creation of new products or the improvement of existing ones to have entirely new products, services, organizational or business models. Creativity is the use of imaginations or inventiveness to create something new, solve problems and use original ideas to develop new ones (Çokpekin and Knudsen, 2012). This is an aspect which drives a long-term economic improvement and growth raising the quality of life and the living standards of the nation. According to the united states Department of Commerce, three-quarter of the united states economic growth can be linked to innovation and creativity over the last century (Sawyer, 2013).
Creativity and innovation which is culture based are fundamental to the post-industrial economy. In this case, there are significant contribution of culture in stimulation of research, technological advancement and innovation, developing advanced services and products, using human resources optimally and inspirations to build working communities (Caniëls and Rietzschel, 2015). Culture-based creativity and innovation have been critical to the ability of people, to think metaphorically or imaginatively in challenging the conventional. Innovation and creativity which is culture based is known to break and go beyond conventional standards and pushes for better, advanced and more efficient ways of production and delivery of services (Strychalska-Rudzewicz, 2016). In this case, it disrupts the conventional ways of thinking and leads to the development of new products, ideas, and visions.
The common feature of the way culture has impacted innovation and creativity in both united states and China is the use of digital technologies in their countries. China has been dubbed as the next hub of innovation based on its current output of technological products and services being embraced internationally (Rein, 2015). The united states in the 20th century enjoyed the monopoly of being the largest economy which relies on digital technological efficiency. However, China spurred by the competitive but collective culture has had tremendous milestones in digital technology use in their daily lives. A survey by the KPMG denoted that in the next decade, China will be producing 3.5 patents in the next decade for every 10,000 people. However, this is less on the way in which China is breaking from its tag as the world’s most notorious copycat (Rein, 2015).
On the Chinese versus the united states patent trends, China on the current decade has pulled ahead than the united states regarding applications to be used in households. This is even though China has the highest population in the world, but when compared to GDP, the united states has 17 trillion dollars and China coming second with 10 trillion as of 2014(Rein, 2015). Figure 1. Shows the difference between the buying culture of the populations of the United States, where non-residents have surpassed the patent application of products and services than those of the residents.
Figure 2. shows the increased and outburst in the patent application residents due to the collective and national interest of China. Notable is the is that the united states have their mark at 300,000 while the Chinese have their mark at 800, 000 which is a triple effect.
One of the notable areas where culture has played a critical role in innovation is the collectivism of the Chinese nation. The American counterpart is largely known as an individualistic state and has put precedence on personal growth rather than communal one. The bike-sharing model in China is trailblazing high, where the Chinese people have embraced the sharing method which is more advantageous than the cyclists in New York (Anheier, Isar, and Waterman, 2010). Mobile phone apps can be used to unlock bikes, and they can be picked and dumped in any region of destination or start of the journey. The bikes are GPS tracked and therefore offer a wider range services to commuters who are in need in China. This is an example where the culture of collectivism in China has surpassed the culture of individualism in the united states. The Chinese culture of preferring online buying in marketplaces rather that stand-alone e-commerce websites. In the united states, the bulk of online commerce is done through websites which have been established by retailers, but in China, they prefer online marketplaces (Mullen, 2017). With this kind of idea, an online shopper can access a wide array of goods and services once logged in one online market such as Taobao or Tmall.com. This has then led to increased buying in China than in the United States.
The other area of deviation where culture in the united states and China has impacted on technological innovation and creativity is on the use of GR codes. The code, which is another type of bar code has the use swipe at the matrix with a mobile phone and lets the user get the details of the contract, pay for goods or get the bike for transport(Rein, 2015). In 2013, the United States companies dismissed the QR codes because they limited the interaction and gentleman approach in the transaction of businesses. Power brokers and the wall street culture where business is done formally limits the use of QR codes because it would upset the status quo and limit red tape approach in transacting business. The Chinese culture in business is efficiency and desire to cut the bureaucratic tendencies of the operations (Rein, 2015). Therefore, the use of QR codes in China has surpassed the efficiency of doing business in the united states by swapping cards and shaking hands.
The society and leadership play an essential role in fostering creativity and innovative in the world today. One of the most fundamental external factors which influence creativity is education and the government. In the united states, the dreams of a child are more paramount than the interests of the state, and therefore the child is nurtured to excel in his or her area of expertise and interest (Lau, Hui and Ng, 2004). This grants the child a leeway to become creative and innovative, creating new services and products simply by having a creative environment. However, in China, the education is controlled by the government and much of the education is tailored to suit national rather than individual growth (Mullen, 2017). Where else China has made tremendous strides in manufacturing and service delivery, it is far from becoming the leading innovation and creativity. This is because innovation requires individuals to challenge the status quo, but unlike Americans, the Chinese educational system has not taught them how to do it.
Innovation and creativity have been the cornerstone of American society for a long period and has been its strength for years. A free market system binds the United States culture, and a “can do attitude” which lacks in the Chinese national culture previously accused of having authoritarian tendencies (Wang and Casimir, 2007). The American society rewards those who take risks and had an educational set up which embraces personal growth and questioning rather than rote learning. The united states First Amendment protects individuals from censorship of diverse opinions and does not give a badge of dishonor to failure, but encourages it (Lau, Hui and Ng, 2004).
Figure 3, shows the culture in the united states Silicon Valley and China.
By contrast, the Chinese culture has had a long tradition of being copycats in the aspect of being afraid of upsetting the status quo. They do not have a culture which recognizes intellectual property and does not recognize individual opinions or views. The country has a huge bias against conformity and has a government which uses force and other means to quell dissent (Rein, 2015). Having this huge cultural difference, the Chinese society has a long way of shifting from manufacturers to innovative and creative centers.
To conclude, given the lack of diversity, censorship and the Chinese conformist culture, the country has an uphill task in becoming a creativity and innovation hub. However, the united states are in the comfort zone because it discourages skillful and innovating immigrants and has not put measures to recognize innovation and creativity as a national priority. Unless the united states take measures to utilize their innovative advantage, the country risks being eclipsed by other emerging economies such as China, Japan or Brazil.
References
Anheier, H., Isar, Y. and Waterman, C. (2010). Cultural expression, creativity and innovation. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE.
Caniëls, M. and Rietzschel, E. (2015). Organizing Creativity: Creativity and Innovation under Constraints. Creativity and Innovation Management, 24(2), pp.184-196.
Çokpekin, Ö. and Knudsen, M. (2012). Does Organizing for Creativity Really Lead to Innovation?. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(3), pp.304-314.
Khan, R. and Cox, P. (2017). Country Culture and National Innovation. Archives of Business Research, 5(2).
Khan, S. and Khan, I. (2014). Understanding Ethnicity and National Culture: A Theoretical Perspective on Knowledge Management in the Organization. Knowledge and Process Management, 22(1), pp.51-61.
Lau, S., Hui, A. and Ng, G. (2004). Creativity: When East Meets West. Singapore: World Scientific.
Mullen, C. (2017). Creativity and education in China. New York: Routledge.
Rein, S. (2015). The end of copycat China. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Sawyer, R. (2013). Explaining creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Smil, V. (2010). Why America is not a new Rome. Mit Publisher, p.240.
Strychalska-Rudzewicz, A. (2016). The Impact of National Culture on the Level of Innovation. Journal of Intercultural Management, 8(1).
Wang, K. and Casimir, G. (2007). How Attitudes of Leaders May Enhance Organizational Creativity: Evidence from a Chinese Study. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(3), pp.229-238.
Comments