In a Nutshell
Our cultural backgrounds
affect how we think, feel and act. In the new millennium, savvy managers
will understand and appreciate cultural diversity. The purpose of
this LeaderLetter is to review some of the frameworks for analyzing
cultural differences and their implications for managers.
In This Issue
When "OK" is not Okay
During a cross-cultural
training session, Krista Rahe demonstrates (in the photo above) a gesture
that's found offensive in many cultures. The gesture, an "OK," communicates
an affirmative in the US. The training is being provided to employees
of the Hyatt-Regency in Savannah, Georgia (USA) as part of their preparation
for hosting leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) countries and journalists
during the G8 summit June 8-10. Particularly this year, Americans
hosting international visitors need to be sensitive to how their words
and actions can be interpreted.
Interacting effectively
with people of different cultures requires careful study of differences
in behavioral expectations. Such expertise will continue to become
important for managers in the 21st century.
The Effects of National Cultures on Organizational Behavior
After waiting half an hour, the German account executive becomes very annoyed and makes a call to the office of the Mexican manager who had agreed to meet her at 12:30 for lunch.
After outlining the parameters of the project, the Canadian project leader asks the members of his Indian project team for their recommendations as to how they should proceed. The team members are bewildered.
With the increasing globalization
of business, differences among the cultures of various nations can complicate
interactions among business people from different nations. National
culture can be viewed as the norms, values and beliefs shared by individuals
from a particular nation that distinguish it from other nations.
Our cultural environment causes us to act in ways that we believe are appropriate
but that people from other cultures may not be comfortable with or may
not understand.
As the illustrations above
demonstrate, when individuals from different cultures interact, the behaviors
that are consistent with the norms of one culture may violate the norms
of another. In the first example, the Arab businessman is most comfortable
having a conversation standing very close to the other man--much closer
than the typical distance between two people conversing in the US.
In the second example, the time that the German account executive expects
the Mexican manager to arrive at their 12:30 lunch appointment is 12:30.
When the Mexican manager agreed on 12:30, he didn't know that she would
be annoyed by him not arriving or calling before 1:00. In the third
example, the Canadian project leader intends to show his respect and confidence
in his team by asking for their input. The Indian team members wonder
why he's unwilling or unable to lead the team himself.
An appreciation of cultural
diversity helps managers function in the increasingly global business environment.
Cultures affect the way people act and what they expect from others.
In the future, getting work done with and through other people will require
an understanding of differences among national cultures.
A Caveat Regarding
Stereotyping
When we talk about differences
between cultures, we are speaking in generalities, and we must remember
not to expect every individual to behave in a manner consistent with those
generalizations in every situation. Although there's value in making
predictions about human behavior based on the patterns we see in different
cultures, there's also the risk of doing great harm by stereotyping.
If we assume that all individuals in a certain group have exactly the same
characteristics, then we are stereotyping. Of course, individuals
within a country differ from each other to a certain extent, and nations
have subcultures too. In addition, people often adapt their behaviors
to suit their situations. Predicting individuals' attitudes and behaviors
based on their nationality is imprecise, and it's better to learn each
individual's beliefs and preferences when possible because they can differ
from the national norm. The information below about national cultures
are generalizations rather than hard-and-fast rules that apply to every
individual at all times. With that caveat in mind, let's look at
models of culture and their implications for organizational behavior.
Hofstede's Model
The best-known model of
national cultures as they relate to behaviors in a business context was
developed by Geert Hofstede. Hofstede found that cultures differed
on the dimensions of individualism versus collectivism, power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, and achievement versus quality of life orientations1.
Individualism
versus collectivism. In cultures that are highly individualistic,
people are expected to be self-reliant and independent, and to focus primarily
on caring for themselves and their immediate families. In cultures
that are highly collectivist, people are expected to serve the groups to
which they belong (e.g., extended families, businesses or churches).
Employees from collectivist cultures tend to have more favorable attitudes
toward teamwork, and they prefer reward systems that provide incentives
for group achievement. They prefer group recognition to personal
recognition for accomplishments, and may even see recognition that singles
them out as a disincentive for accomplishments. Employees from individualistic
cultures tend to have more trouble committing to teamwork as highly as
they commit to their personal goals. Employees from individualistic
cultures tend to prefer individual-based performance appraisals and incentive
systems.
The US, Czechoslovakia,
Australia, and countries of the former Soviet Union are examples of highly
individualist cultures. Most Asian cultures are highly collectivist.
Power
distance. Power distance is the degree to which people
accept large differences between the most and least powerful members of
society in terms of privileges, wealth and well-being. Countries
high in power distance are more accepting of disparities in wealth and
authority between high and low status members of a group or organization.
In high power distance cultures, it is expected that leaders will use the
privileges inherent in their position to give orders, and therefore the
use of a participative leadership style may be viewed as a sign of incompetence
or irresponsibility. In high power distance cultures, subordinates
would tend not to be comfortable with a management-by-objectives (MBO)
system or other forms of participative goal setting. Countries low
in power distance expect all members of society to have comparable wealth
and authority. They have more egalitarian values. Subordinates
in low power distance cultures tend to appreciate being asked for their
input in decision making, and they often expect to be consulted about decisions
that affect them.
France and India are examples
of countries that are high in power distance. The Netherlands is
an example of a country that is low in power distance. The US is
closer to the average than either extreme, but slightly lower than average.
Uncertainty
avoidance. Watch for the "double negative" on this
one. Countries that are low in uncertainty avoidance are relatively
comfortable with events and people that are unpredictable. They are
relatively comfortable with risk taking and nonconformist behavior, which
in turn help promote creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship.
Countries that are high in uncertainty avoidance are less comfortable with
events and people that are unpredictable. They are less comfortable
with risk taking and nonconformist behavior. They develop elaborate
formal and informal systems to control their environments and have strict
behavioral norms.
Japan is an example of a
country that is high in uncertainty avoidance. India and the US are
examples of countries that are low in uncertainty avoidance.
Achievement
versus quality of life. Cultures that are high on
the achievement end of this dimension value competition, assertiveness
and materialism. Whether competing as individuals or as members of
a group (i.e., individualistic versus collectivist), achievement-oriented
cultures value winning and the rewards that accompany success. Cultures
that are high on the quality of life end of this dimension value other's
well-being, positive relationships among people and the quality of their
work life more than they value achievement and wealth. Employees
from countries at opposite ends of this continuum respond differently to
various types of rewards such as bonuses, promotions, a sense of meaningfulness
in one's work and relief from stress.
Japan and the US are examples
of countries high on the achievement end of the continuum, and the Netherlands
is an example of a country high on the quality of life end.
Trompenaars's Model
While similar to Hofstede's
findings in many ways, the dimensions of culture identified by Fons Trompenaars
provide additional insights into cultural differences. Trompenaars
found that cultures also differed on universalism versus particularism,
neutral versus affective, and achievement versus ascription dimensions.
Universalism
versus particularism. Universalism is the degree to
which people believe that various ideas and practices can be effective
in all circumstances. People who are high in universalism believe
they can develop rules and standards that can be reasonably applied to
everyone in every situation. They tend to use contracts, formal systems,
and procedures to convey what they expect from others. People who
are low in universalism (i.e., high in particularism) develop their expectations
of others based on their personal relationships with them and their trust
in them rather than on rules. When negotiating deals, people from
highly particularistic cultures will want to develop a relationship with
the other party before having substantive discussions toward making an
agreement. People from highly universalistic cultures are prepared
to proceed with substantive discussions much more quickly, but then expect
to document their agreement with an enforceable contract.
The US, Australia, Germany
and Switzerland are examples of countries high in universalism. Venezuela,
the former Soviet Union's countries, Indonesia and China are examples of
nations high in particularism.
Affective
versus neutral. In highly affective cultures, people
tend to openly express their feelings. In highly neutral cultures,
emotions are not expressed as openly and naturally. People from highly
affective cultures are more likely to smile, talk loudly when excited,
and greet each other enthusiastically. People from highly neutral
cultures experience the same emotions, but are less inclined to express
them, and they express them more subtly. Implications for behavior
in the workplace include how demonstrative people are when showing appreciation
and affection for each other and when celebrating successes.
Mexico, the Netherlands,
Switzerland and China are examples of highly affective cultures.
Japan, Britain and Singapore are examples of highly neutral cultures.
(Is "highly neutral" an oxymoron?) The US is average.
Achievement
versus ascription. In highly achievement-oriented
cultures, social status is largely derived from a person's achievements.
In highly ascription-oriented cultures, social status is largely derived
from personal attributes such as age, experience, social connections, or
gender. In organizations, a person's status is reflected in his or
her privileges such as access to resources and perks, deferential treatment,
and input in decision making.
Australia, the US, Switzerland
and Britain are examples of highly achievement-oriented cultures.
Venezuela, Indonesia and China are examples of highly ascription-oriented
cultures.
Other Dimensions of Culture
Other dimensions on which
cultures differ include high and low context, interpersonal space, monochronic
versus polychronic time, and orientations toward the past, present and
future.
High
context versus low context. The high- versus low-context
dimension of culture relates to norms of communication. In low-context
countries, communication relies more heavily on the literal meaning of
the words used. Meanings of written and spoken communication are
more explicit. To people from high-context cultures, the bluntness
and directness of low-context communication styles can seem insulting or
aggressive. In high-context cultures, much more of the context surrounding
the written or spoken communication is involved in conveying the message.
Factors such as the social status of the communicators and the nature of
the relationship between them are key. The meaning of everything
said in high-context communication has to be interpreted in the context
of the social relationship between the individuals.
Interpersonal space is also
related to the high-context versus low-context dimension of national cultures.
In low-context cultures, people tend to be uncomfortable standing closer
than three feet from each other when conversing. In high-context
cultures, people tend to stand relatively close when conversing.
They perceive a distance of three feet between communicators as something
that interferes with their communication, and they will tend to step closer
in order to be more comfortable. A range of one foot is the norm
in Latin America and Asia. Arabs prefer to be even closer.
Germany, Switzerland and
the US are examples of low-context countries. China, Korea, Japan
and most Latin American countries are examples of high-context countries.
Monochronic
versus polychronic time. In cultures where a monochronic
view of time is prevalent, people tend to do only one activity at a time,
keep a strict schedule of their appointments, and show a strong resistance
to deviating from plans. In cultures where a polychronic view of
time is the norm, people tend to do more than one activity at a time, appointments
are approximate and may be changed at any time, and schedules are not as
important as relationships.
Inflexible adherence to
schedules and plans is only as beneficial as the quality of those schedules
and plans. In the turbulent environments that many managers are now
working in, such inflexibility can be a liability because unforeseeable
events often necessitate changing plans. Similarly, the habit of
working on multiple tasks at once may also help in coping with rapid change.
North Americans and Northern
Europeans tend to have a monochronic view of time. Mediterranean,
Latin American, and Arab cultures tend to have a polychronic view.
Past,
present and future orientations. Cultures differ in
the emphasis that they place on the past, present, and future. North
American countries tend to focus more on the present and the immediate
future than other countries do. Most European countries have a more
balanced focus on past, present and future. Many Asian countries
focus heavily on what North Americans would consider the distant future.
The implications of differing
emphases on past, present and future may be most apparent in planning.
North American managers primarily focus on achieving results within five
years. Their long-term plans cover 5-10 years. In addition,
employees hired in North America normally have from a few weeks to a couple
of years to prove that they'll be successful. Employees who are unsuccessful
in that time frame are normally asked to find another job or simply fired.
In contrast, Japanese firms are more likely to hire employees with the
intention of having a life-long employee.
In Summary ...
Managers must work with
and through others in order to be effective. However, the most effective
way to work with and through others really depends on the cultural norms
of the parties involved to a great extent. People from different
national cultures have different expectations for how a person should act.
Note
1 Hofstede used the terms "masculinity versus femininity"
rather than "achievement versus quality of life." However, other
authors and I believe the terms "achievement" and "quality of life" are
less confusing.
Sources
Kreitner, R. & Kinicki,
A. (2001). Organizational behavior, (5th ed.).
New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Luthans, F. (2002).
Organizational
behavior, (9th ed.). New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Putting a foreign accent
on Southern hospitality: Savannah readies itself for G8 summit. CNN.com,
posted May 17, 2004, accessed May 28, 2004. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/05/15/g8.savannah.ap/index.html
About the Newsletter
and Subscriptions
LeaderLetter is written
by Dr. Scott Williams, Department of Management, Raj
Soin College of Business, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.
It is a supplement to my MBA 751 - Managing People in Organizations class.
It is intended to reinforce the course concepts and maintain communication
among my former MBA 751 students, but anyone is welcome to subscribe.
In addition, subscribers are welcome to forward this newsletter to anyone
who they believe would have an interest in it. To subscribe,
simply send an e-mail message to me requesting subscription. Of course,
subscriptions to the newsletter are free. To unsubscribe,
e-mail a reply indicating that you would like to unsubscribe.
E-mail Your Comments
Whether you are one of my
former students or not, I invite you to share any insights or concerns
you have regarding the topic of this newsletter or any other topic relating
to management skills. Please e-mail
them to me. Our interactions have been invaluable. I
learn a lot from LeaderLetter subscribers! Let's
keep the conversation going.
US News Headlines May 28, 2035