Cross Cultural Communications in Business

Fomina Karina

Course Structure
Module 1 Cross Cultural Communications Module 2-Cross Cultural Negotiations

Milestones
Portfolio Tasks (2 Essays) 10% Open Book Exam-20% Group Project (Presentation and Report)-40% In Class participation-30%

Ground Rules
Attendance: minimum 80% of classes If you are sick, you have to email me or Alexander: fominakv@inbox.ru Hand in your Coursework on Time Dont plagiarise, all Essays will be checked

 ?
[Culture] is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another. (Hofstede)

What is that?
Visible, explicite Symbols

Rituals

Hidden, Implicit

Values

Cross Cultural Management

How can we measure culture?
1950s Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck

1970s Edward T. Hall

1980s Geert Hofstede 1990s Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden -Turner

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1950s)

Orientations
What is the nature of people?
What is the persons relationship to nature?

Variations
good/evil/a mixture
dominant/in harmony/ subjugation

What is the persons relationship to other people?

What is the modality of human activity? What is 5. What is the temporal focus of human activity?

hierarchical/collectivist/individualist
doing/being

future/present/past

What is the conception of space?

private/public/mixed

Decision making Process

Everybody must agree collectivism One Person is responsible hierarchy Voting System individualism

E. Hall (1960-1970s )
Context time Space

High Context/ Law Context

culture A M E S S A G E culture B

Context: assumed knowledge

"...as context is lost, information must be added if meaning is to remain constant

Low context cultures

Little shared knowledge Equal access to information Clear & direct communication Explicit meanings: no reading between the lines Specific to general Person/situation relatively less relevant

High context cultures

Shared knowledge Much is communicated in what is not said Indirect language: silence, subtlety, ambiguity and vagueness are highly valued (no confrontation, face) Implicit meanings Non-verbal communication; body language General to specific Person/situation highly relevant

Low-context

High-context

gestures

gestures Tone of voice

relationship

Words
silence dress

Words
Eye contact

context

Its cool today

Japan India Saudi Arabia Brazil Mexico Argentina Russia Hungary Spain Italy UK France USA Germany

High Context HR
Sales & Marketing Management Production R&D Technical Engineering Information Systems Legal Finance

Low context

Time
Monochronic (Single-focus) Prefer to focus on one task at a time Regard deadlines as fixed Schedule always takes precedence Polychronic (Multi-focus) Often deal with many tasks together Regard deadlines as fluid Great involvement with people

Space
Physical space: availability Personal space, management of space USA/Japan (The Hidden Dimension, 1969) Private space and public space Personal distance Social distance Public distance

Evaluation of Hall
Generalizations-dividing the Tests have confirmed his world into contact and nontheory contact people. Called attention to a previously Cultural stereotypes Arabs ignored channel of have no sense of a private zone communication outside their bodies. His ideas capture the imagination of a wide audience great impact His ideas have generated a large body of proxemic research

Attitudes to Communication
Direct (Low Context) Task and message Meanings must be stated Clear and explicit Silence to be avoided Burden is on sender to make the message clear Burden is on receiver to ask for clarifications Indirect (High Context) People and context Reading between the lines Complex and implicit Silence not seen as problematic Burden is on receiver to infer intended meaning Burden is on sender to provide sufficient context

High Context Advertisement

Low Context Advertisement

Cultural Taxonomies
Taxonomy: The arrangement or classification of objects according to certain criteria. Three key influences on management thinking Edward T. Hall Geert Hofstede Fons Trompenaars & Charles Hampden-Turner Differing methodologies, similar core hypotheses

Geert Hofstede (80s)

How to measure culture? Study conducted by questionnaire among employees of the various national branches of the multinational IBM corporation (116,000 questionnaires in 50 countries and 3 regions) Factor analysis of attitude data at the level of countries yielded four discrete factors 4 dimensions (later 5) Construction of scaled indices in each dimension enabled Hofstede to resolve different national cultures and describe them

Hofstedes Dimensions
Comparisons between the different cultures are plotted across five dimensions: Power distance Individualism vs. collectivism Uncertainty avoidance Masculine vs. feminine (also other terms) Short term orientation vs. long-term orientation

 What are your values? How might they differ from the values of others?

People need to be controlled and monitored otherwise they wont do their work The boss is the boss, and s/he should show it People are selfdirected: they need to be given autonomy and left alone to get on with their work Power and status should be downplayed

Its better to be decisive, act quickly and work out things along the way, even if this involves risk Every man for himself! Its better to think and plan thoroughly before acting, to make sure you get it right The group is more important than the individual

Power Distance
How desirable or undesirable is inequality? How does culture adapt to inequalities among its members? How important are hierarchies?

Power Distance
LOW Independence valued Hierarchies for convenience Consultation HIGH Respect for position and rank Do what the manager wants Benevolent decision makers

Power Distance
High on PD Malaysia Philippines Mexico Arab countries Indonesia India West Africa Russia

Low on PD Austria Israel Denmark New Zealand Sweden Norway UK Germany

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Stress individual achievements and rights Individual focuses on own needs Family ties tend to be relatively unimportant; casual connections to many groups Competition is expected Individual decisions are valued over group decisions Universalistic: one should be fair to all High premium placed on group loyalty Strong sense of responsibility to the group (extended) family, company, etc.) Strong connections to a few groups Group decisions Loyalty is valued above efficiency Tend to be particularistic

Individualism vs. Collectivism

High in individualism USA Australia UK Canada Netherlands Italy France Low on individualism Guatemala Colombia Indonesia Pakistan South Korea Thailand

Uncertainty Avoidance
Measures how far cultures socialise their members into accepting ambiguous situations and tolerating uncertainty about the future

Uncertainty Avoidance
High UA What is different is dangerous More efforts to beat the future Students are more comfortable with structured learning situations and want the right answer Suppression of deviant and innovative ideas More focus on career patterning and job security. Rules and regulations are welcomed Low UA What is different is curious More readiness to take risks Students comfortable with open-ended learning situations Tolerance of deviant and innovative ideas More entrepreneurial and innovative Less need for rules

Uncertainty Avoidance
High in UA in Greece Portugal Belgium Japan France Chile Spain Low in UA in Singapore Denmark Sweden UK Malaysia India USA

Masculinity vs. femininity

Masculine (achievement oriented/tough soc.) Sex roles are sharply differentiated Achievement valued Men are expected to be assertive and competitive Feminine (neutral/ maintenance oriented/ tender soc.) Sex roles are less sharply distinguished The dominant values are those identified with the feminine role Relating to others is stressed over achieving The outsider and anti-hero are regarded sympathetically

Masculinity vs. femininity

Masculine countries are: Japan Italy Switzerland Mexico Ireland Neutral countries are Sweden Norway Netherlands Yugoslavia Chile Thailand

What disadvantages does this model have?

Questions
What are the benefits of reducing culture to a set of comparative values? Are there other aspects of culture that do not fit into this approach? Do individuals always live up to national stereotypes? Why do you think the work of Hofstede and, to a lesser extent, Hall has resonated so profoundly in the business world?

Strengths of Hofstede
Comparable across countries due to similar samples (IBM) No other study compares so many national cultures in so much detail His concepts have been used as a paradigm for further research Despite the age of the data the four dimensions have been confirmed in studies replicating his methods Hofstede's ideas have been very influential on the work of many researchers

Weaknesses of his model

Assumption that national territory and culture correspond: assumes cultural homogeneity Single industry/company Data are a few decades old Problem of defining dimensions: e.g. individualism has different concepts: Anglo concept (need to achieve, competitiveness) Thai concept: individualism in terms of avoidance and distrust of authority

Chinese and German culture

Russian business culture

Russia and the CIS countries

Culture Alpha
Always try to establish good and friendly relations with partners in the future Save face is very important, will assist colleagues in the negotiations High context culture, never say directly what they think Respect the culture of others, strong leader, strong hierarchy, high power distance Decisions are made by one person

Culture Alpha
Sell very good cars and is proud of them very much Top management receives 200.000 Alfins a year The working day is not fixed, no deadlines are met Alfa Wants to enter the market of Beta, wants to merge with company B, but keep its top management (management of beta can stay as well)

Culture Beta
Always say what they think, direct communication Come always in time, value time very much, strong deadlines Are afraid of unexpected situations Want to get a result as soon as possible, result oriented It is not clear who is the decision maker, voting process, everybody is following its own interests

Culture Beta
Wants to take over company A The shares are more expensive At work, you can smoke and drink beer, but it is necessary to meet all deadlines Only their management should stay Wants to enter Market B as soon as possible Management gets 500 000 alfines a year