In the late 1980s, Fons Trompenaars emerged as a respected theorist who contributed complementary cultural dimensions to the field of cross-cultural management. Together with Charles Hampden-Turner, he established a consultation firm called the Centre for International Business Studies, and, since then, they have worked with numerous leading multinational corporations (MNCs) including British Petroleum, Philips, IBM, Heineken, AMD, Mars, Motorola, General Motors, Merrill Lynch, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, ABN AMRO, ING, PepsiCo, and Honeywell. They have also conducted more than a thousand cross-cultural training programs in 20 countries. In late 1990s, due to his wide-ranging consultation work, Trompenaars was ranked as one of the top management consultants, among other gurus like Tom Peters, Edward de Bono, Michael Porter, and Peter Drucker. He developed his understanding of cultural influences on organizations based on his years of consultation and practice rather than on scholarly work, contrary to other cross-cultural theorists like Hofstede, Hall, Kluckhorn, and Strodtbeck. Between 2011 and 2013, he became one of the top 20 most influential thinkers in human resources management and enlightened scholars on many aspects of culture and its influence in the workplace. His inquisitive mind explored how people’s approaches to solving problems at work are shaped and influenced by their own cultural values and why people from different cultures see the world differently, rooted in a dynamic cultural values orientation.
Trompenaars (1994) recognized that people act in response to the way that they naturally see and perceive the world. How one sees the world defines how one’s problem-solving mind develops. Our perceptions can sometimes result in a dilemma when we are confronted with choices or a range of paths to take when solving a problem. Oftentimes, managers faced with this dilemma are challenged to function at a higher level of cognitive and emotional competency. Trompenaars poses thought-provoking questions and seeks answers in different ways, supporting his work with wide-ranging justifications. He found many of the answers through the MNCs that he had worked with over the years. Some of his explanations are built upon the work of previous cross-cultural theorists, but his approach to and views about culture differ slightly from those of other theorists because the organizations he had worked with are highly diverse, both in the field of business and in size. Whereas Hofstede’s research was based on a survey sent to only one organization (IBM employees), and Hall interviewed people during his involvement with a single organization (the Foreign Service Institute), Trompenaars’ research was based on his consultation work with many different organizations.
What concerns Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner is that it takes time for people from different cultures to uncover the similarities and dissimilarities in values, practices, and attitudes. People may also find it difficult to tolerate and accept these dissimilarities because cultural values operate at the group/societal level rather than at the individual level—i.e., the level of a single person’s personality (refer to the triangle cultural model in Chapter 4). On the one hand, such groupbased values may change over time as they are fluid, not rigid. On the other hand, culture is sustainable in a society over a prolonged period of time due to the inherited values and customary practices and therefore may take time to change. In organizations, people who work together may, over time, develop common routines, procedures, and practices for carrying out a task, which are influenced by the cultural values belonging to the society. For example, in the early 1980s, a manager at the headquarters of an MNC might send a fax to a subordinate in another department. Fax was an accepted communication mode. Although this was a common practice, in certain cultures, including many Asian ones, faxes are not well accepted (Chen 2006). In a collectivistic society, people still prefer to pick up the phone to communicate because the nonverbal cues present in one’s voice are more meaningful than purely textual communication, which strips out these nonverbal cues.
When information technology was introduced into the workplace, the fax machine was replaced by email for urgent exchanges or for messages to be delivered to a branch across the country. Again, some cultures resisted email as a communication mode due to the absence of nonverbal cues (Sproull & Kiesler 1996). Nowadays, more and more organizations and people are shifting to different communication platforms. People are more comfortable with social network sites such as Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and other newly emergent communication and collaboration tools and platforms, which make sending emails seem antiquated. As time goes by, technology becomes more and more sophisticated, making cross-cultural communication around the globe faster and cheaper. People respond to these new tools with innovation, developing more efficient ways of doing things. Past practices become obsolete resulting in changes to a society’s culture, and thus new cultures evolve in organizations. However, there are certain aspects of the workplace that are difficult to change—for example, shifting the organizational structure from a tall and hierarchical system to a flatter, more empowerment-based system. In certain cultures, it can take much longer to shift from a bureaucratic system to an empowered system, depending on how swiftly those involved in decision making are willing to accept and adapt.
In essence, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner see workplace dilemmas and problems as a mirror image of individual behaviors. Why so? Their views were based on one clear idea, “Culture is the way in which a group of people solves problems and reconciles dilemmas” (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998, p. 6). The symbol of a mirror refers to the idea that every single problem that is rooted at the cultural level is actually a reflection of oneself against others. Each society has its own world view, its own ideas about how things are to be done, while others may have a completely opposite outlook. Thus, a society needs to explore and be aware of other world views so that it can evaluate culture-related circumstances and situations realistically.
Human behaviors in the workplace can be analyzed based on three orientations, abbreviated as PET: (1) people—the relationship of people to people, (2) environment—the relationship of people to the control of the internal and external environment, and (3) time—the relationship of people to time. These three orientations are derived from two things: first, how human beings deal with each other and why they behave in a certain way, and, second, how such behaviors are linked to people’s cultural values. Using this cultural framework, there are two ways to understand the influence of culture on decision making in global virtual teams (GVTs): first, how an individual can get to know himself or herself at a deeper level and find ways to relate to others, and, second, how managers can better understand others when managing a multicultural team. Within the PET cultural framework, Trompenaars identified seven dimensions, each of which represents a two-sided problem-solving characteristic: (1) universalism versus particularism, (2) individualism versus communitarianism, (3) neutral versus emotional, (4) specific versus diffuse, (5) achievement versus ascription, (6) internal versus external control, and (7) sequential versus synchronic. The following paragraphs describe these seven dimensions and demonstrates how the three orientations can be applied as a theoretical lens, specifically in the context of GVTs and how culture affects the decision-making process.
People find it challenging to understand and fully accept cultural differences unless they are sufficiently culturally aware and educated to be able to celebrate the similarities that they share as human beings. Trompenaars identified five work orientations, defined as how people deal with others in a work environment, which any manager should clearly understand.
First, the manager must balance abiding by rules with maintaining relationships. Universalism holds that rules and procedures are there to be followed and that things are to be done accordingly to policy—this is associated with task orientation. Particularism emphasizes the need for building rapport and close connections with others and a sensitivity to how and why individuals can be affected differently by the same rules—this is associated with relationship orientation. This balancing act is complex because it creates a dilemma regarding whether a workplace issue can be solved through policies and guidelines or whether it requires strong bonding and relationships that are established over time.
Second, the manager must be aware of individualistic versus collectivistic values as practiced in the workplace, whether his or her people are doing things based on a self-driven goal, in which I and myself are the drivers, or a group-driven goal, which prioritizes we and ourselves and promotes collective efforts. In some cultures, the word we illustrates the importance of working together and cherishes and inculcates team spirit. However, an individualistic culture prioritizes I and selfrewarding accomplishments; to meet this need for self-control and independence requires managers to foster an environment of empowerment. Individualistic versus collectivistic values may also affect how people view the decision-making process. In a team context, team members from individualistic cultures may use a self-opinionated voice when engaging in discussions, thereby promoting a healthy exchange of ideas and creating synergy; they do not see this as threatening in a team brainstorming session. By contrast, individuals from a collectivistic culture may be hesitant to voice their feelings for fear that it will create animosity in others. They may prefer to keep their feelings to themselves until they are required to voice an opinion—which they then do in a safe and nonconfrontational manner, since what matters most to this culture is the display of a collective mind within the team, without bold displays of contradictory opinions.
Third, managers need to understand how people display their emotions, whether they favor a nondisclosing, nonconfrontational manner—a neutral way of expressing feelings—or whether they tend to be expressive and emotional, openly speaking of their anger, excitement, or joy. This dimension is an important aspect of culture because people communicate their feelings in two ways: (1) verbal and (2) nonverbal. In a culture that is neutral in nature, people are more comfortable displaying their emotions through nonverbal means, such as facial expressions, hand gestures, body movements, the use of silence, and so on. However, in cultures that are expressive, people will normally employ clear and explicit verbal and written methods to communicate their opinions, though they may use nonverbal cues to support their arguments. They will state their emotions without reservation.
Fourth, managers need to understand how people define the boundary between their personal and working lives. The specific versus diffuse dimension addresses this question. On the specific end of the spectrum, people make a clear division between work and play; in such a culture, people maintain a logical separation between work inside the office and fun outside the office. In other words, the work boundary is not blurred by their private lives. For a culture that is diffuse, on the other hand, work and play can overlap. This overlap occurs due to the strong relationships that people in such cultures strive to develop, protect, and maintain over time.
The fifth and last dimension is achievement versus ascription, the question of who did what versus who knows whom. We often think that status in the workplace should be based purely on individual accomplishments, i.e., what one can offer and what one can contribute. At the end of the day, what counts most are objective outcomes and deliverables that are shown in the form of productivity. Cultures with this mind-set are known as achievement cultures. By contrast, in an ascription culture, people are evaluated based on who they are and whom they are affiliated with. Status is based on unwritten rules, and the real goal may not be measurable achievements but rather how one can influence others. Managers need to learn how their people perceive and award status.
PET’s environment orientation refers to the locus of control, either internal or external. The key questions are how people control their environment and whether people believe that a problem originates from an external versus an internal source. Do we control our environment, or are we controlled by it? Do we control nature or let it take its course? In an organizational context, the answers to these questions are crucial when people need to make decisions, whether major or minor.
Managers may face a situation in which decisions are outside their control due to a bureaucratic system in which power is concentrated at the top management level, moves down to the middle level, and then finally to lower management. Such multilayered formality is often found in Asian countries. These cultures have an external locus of control in that team members are not empowered to make individual decisions. Instead, decisions are made either by a collective voice based on consensus or, if a single voice, that of the person with the highest authority in the company. In a culture based on an internal locus of control, by contrast, each person can act individually; he or she is given responsibility and empowered to make decisions. For managers, the environment orientation is significant in understanding the degree of power that people feel that they have in the decision-making process, as well as what drives or motivates them.
For example, consider the internal control dimension. Trompenaars explains that people with an internal locus are naturally self-driven and believe that they own all their decisions—that is, that they will be held accountable for their actions and outcomes. On the other hand, those with an external locus of control feel that things ought to remain in compliance with the current environment and that they have no real power to change how things are done; they rely on their superiors to make the best decisions or depend on a group of people coming to an agreement together. External-locus people feel that decisions do not rest in their own hands but in those of others—either in a collective effort by the team or in a superior power, i.e., their boss—whereas internal-locus people believe that achievement is obtained through self-effort and that one can freely plan, organize, and execute different outcomes with little or no reference to others.
What is the nature of time, and how do people perceive and manage time in the workplace? According to Ferraro (2010), “in some respects, time speaks more plainly than words, for time conveys powerful messages about how people relate to the world and each other” (p. 125). Trompenaars draws a clear distinction between cultures with a sequential time dimension versus those with a synchronic time dimension, by asking the question, “Do people do things one at a time (sequentially) or several things at once (synchronically)?” Applied to the work context, this dichotomy describes whether team members stick to the agenda during meetings and carry out tasks in a sequential and systematic manner, or juggle many things at one time, wherein all tasks are woven into subtasks. In the former case, team members may be inflexible and unwilling to adjust schedules; in the latter case, they may lose track of time, wander off topic, be less punctual when attending meetings, or miss assigned due dates.
Managers need a good understanding of their team members’ time orientation because different people have different senses of time and different approaches to time management. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) looked at time management as a set of activities that are planned, organized, and implemented based on either sequentially or synchronically oriented decisions. They asserted that “time can be legitimately conceived of as a line of sequential events passing us at regular intervals. It can also be conceived of as cyclical and repetitive, compressing past, present and future by what these have in common: seasons and rhythms” (p. 126). Time is not only defined physically, according to the numbers on a clock, but also has a deeper level. Time can refer to the physical aspect of how a person values the ticking of a clock, and, of course, when people talk about deadlines, the only kind of time that matters is clock time, first in the form of minutes and hours and then extended to days, weeks, months, and even years. Yet time can also be interpreted from a psychological standpoint in terms of the sense of urgency that a person feels regarding tasks to be completed—either a precise and punctual time or a loose reckoning, as suggested by Ferraro and Brody (2012). Several other theorists have explored timedistinctive values, including Edward Hall’s (1976) monochronic (M-time) versus polychronic (P-time), and Walker and Walker’s (1995) concept of single focus versus multifocus.
All these theorists share the same underlying goal, which is to understand how people perceive time and how they manage time at work. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) took their work a step further, exploring how managers can better understand the relationship between time orientation and human relations. People with a synchronic time orientation appreciate relationships with other people, and such ties are considered valuable; past, present, and future are interrelated to the extent that a historical relationship is seen as important for both current conditions and future projects since it creates strong bonds of warmth. In synchronic time orientation, a relationship takes precedence over a task, even though relationships need to be developed, and that process is time consuming. Since they feel that time can wait, they value taking things slowly and see no need to rush in delivering a task; as a result, tasks may be put off. For example,
[Imagine that] A person is attending to his new customer at a counter. Then, a phone rings, he picks up the phone, and, with pleasure, he welcomes the customer on the other line because she is his favorite and regular customer. Due to his long-established relationship with the old customer, he needs to spend time to entertain her. Thus, the new customer needs to wait. Then, his clerk comes to his desk to ask him to sign a document, and, again, he has to stop talking to his old customer while signing the document, and the new customer has to wait further.
On the other end of the spectrum, sequential time orientation views relationships as instrumental and maintains a clear boundary between ties and tasks; this separation between time intervals underlines the separation between means and ends. Interpersonal relationships are formed with a clear objective in mind to achieve a desired outcome. Yet relationships cannot be sacrificed to accomplish a goal. Normally, task completion for a team is not dependent on the degree or strength of the relationships among its members. Each task has its own process, and the process follows a systematic path from point A to point B. Each task has a timeline and specific objectives. Task takes priority over relationships. Time is money, and, therefore, time is a tangible commodity that needs to be used to the optimum and maximum. Tasks are assigned, and people are expected to meet deadlines, establish milestones, and organize schedules in line with the project objectives.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) successfully applied their theoretical lens to offer enlightening and insightful suggestions as to how managers at MNCs can prepare themselves to deal with problems in the workplace arising from cultural differences. What is important to recognize is that work-related problems are rooted in our cultural values, and our ways of thinking and feeling, which are manifested in our behaviors.
Chen, G.M. 2006. Asian communication studies: What and where to now. The Review of Communication, 6(4), 295–311.
Ferraro, G. & Brody, E.K. 2012. Cultural Dimension of Global Business. New York: Routledge.
Ferraro, G.P. 2010. The Cultural Dimension of International Business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/Doubleday.
Sproull, L.S. & Kiesler, S. 1986. Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication, management. Science, 32, 1492–1512.
Trompenaars, F. 1994. Riding the Waves of Culture—Understanding Diversity in Global Business. Chicago: McGraw-Hill.
Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. 1998. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Walker, B.T.D. & Walker, T. 1995. Doing Business Internationally: The Guide to Cross-Cultural Success. New York: Irwin.