In the distributed decision-making process, evidently, cultural values play a crucial role in varied forms and manners for global virtual team (GVT) participants. For example, two extremes exist in how different cultures make decisions: (1) a belief that people can make decisions based on one best way or (2) a belief that the best way varies and is based on situation. In the latter case, the best way depends on the “values, beliefs, and behavioral patterns of the people involved” (Adler 1997, p. 168). Hall (1976) supports this perspective in his argument concerning context and content. People who place greater emphasis on context make decisions based on affective goals and situation (e.g., where, when, why, and with whom they are dealing) called relationship orientation, whereas people who place priority on content depend on instrumental purposes or pragmatic goals called task orientation (Zakaria et al. 2003). For this second type of people, decisions are less dependent on situation; rather, they rely more on facts and figures. Therefore, this chapter discusses two aspects of cultural values that are inherent in explaining the decision-making behaviors of GVTs given their cultures: (1) individualistic versus collectivistic and (2) task oriented versus relationship oriented.
Individualism versus Collectivism
In terms of cultural values, the individualism of low-context participants favors accountability, self-opinion, and self-interest. These qualities were given a priority over group-based interests, in contrast with high-context participants. For example, Wutz took the initiative to ensure that Civil Society participants perfectly understood his position:
Hi Marion,
I (wutz) am the main responsible person for the final language of the governance paragraph. I tried to bring all discussed positions on extreme complex issue into some simple key points. This simplification opens unfortunately the door for misinterpretation. The points you have raised are not in contradiction with the proposed language and I see no basic problem, to harmonize the two approaches.
(see my comments below)….
Individualism was also evident when people agreed to take up a task with statements like the following: “I would like to volunteer to assume this role. Please put me down. I would be happy to work on it with someone else” or “I would like to invite you to…,” or “I had sent a program and registration form to the plenary. It sits there for approval.” All these statements highlight the act of self and are not in reference to other people or other parties, nor do they allude to collective initiatives or projects; rather, they focus on a single person.
Aside from the tone of the message being individualistic, the messages exhibit a high usage of singular pronouns such as I, my, and your, as illustrated in this example (emphasis added):
I like what you have outlined in this email below. I think these are three concrete steps that will help to bring Civil Society together for probably the most important Prepcom of the WSIS process.
I particular like point No. 01 below. I think that CS needs to be more active and engaging substantively on the two main documents of the Summit (Declaration and Plan of Action), especially due to the fact that the purpose of Prepcom 3 is to complete these documents for the Summit in December.
My comment is that perhaps we can have a onetwo page document ready before Prepcom 3 for all of civil society and especially the newcomers (possibly could be distributed at the orientation session sponsored by CONGO). It would include a list of “past caucuses”, possible “new caucuses”, how to schedule meeting space, etc.
For cultural values such as collectivism, results showed that high-context participants emphasized the collective voice rather than the individual voice. This was demonstrated by the substantial use of plural pronouns such as we, our, and us. For example, in the following message, the writer used the collective voice throughout.
Thanks to everyone who has sent in comments on the document. We will do our best to incorporate the suggested modifications. except, perhaps, any are likely to be particularly polemical or that would considerably lengthen the document. We will consider what to do with the proposal on work/employment (sent in Spanish). In effect this is an important issue and maybe we should give it the space even if it means lengthening the document.
With respect to any other issues that are missing and would require more lengthy development, we should remember that there will also be space to address more specific issues in greater detail in specific documents.
We would have liked to get the document out earlier for comment but as much of the caucus input only came in this week it was not possible. So those who have made suggestions for modifications, it would help us if you could send us specific and concise language today. We want to finalize the document by tomorrow to give time to those who prefer to see the final version before endorsing it.
We cannot, of course, expect a consensus document to be perfect for everyone; that is part of the compromise that consensus implies.
Collectivism was also demonstrated by the fact that the interest of the group was much more dominant than self-interest. Many of the messages focused on collective opinions or efforts. For example, this message projects a strongly unified voice from the Civil Society organization as they contest the suggestions that were made by others:
We find the suggestions for regimentation in civil society input to plenary, through the CSB, quite disturbing, especially given the attention that went in to organizing the time slots during the recent Paris meeting. Also disturbing is the undertone of the suggestions by the CSB co-chair, which we interpret as an intent to restrict freedom of expression and an introduction of censorship that is at odds with core CS values. We strongly oppose the attempt to use disagreements in a few caucuses as a pretext for questioning the legitimacy of the CS plenary as a whole, and attempting to usurp the responsibility for content-related issues and concentrating this within the CSB.
Similarly, this excerpt demonstrates the collective efforts that were made by the World Forum on Community Networking:
For our first issue, we have selected about ten civil society lists, followed their discussions and prepared summaries that have been translated in order to post them on our site. This way, we hope to facilitate exchanges between lists working in French, English and Spanish and to allow a greater number of people and organizations to be part of the discussions.
Collectivistic participants would often weave together serious matters and peripheral issues in their messages. Sometimes, the message digressed into anecdotal stories, for example, “We were saddened to hear about the disastrous earthquake in Iran and the many people who have died. If there is any way that I can help with regard to mental health information and services in the wake of disaster, please let me know.” Collectivistic messages were sometimes related to the main point, other times totally unrelated. Some high-context participants sent messages asking after the well-being of specific participants or sent helpful messages to provide people with extra information without even being asked. This behavior suggests that collectivistic participants adopted affective or expressive goals, whereas individualistic participants favored instrumental or pragmatic goals.
The findings of our Civil Society study support those of Mills and Clark (1982) who made the distinction between communal and exchange relationships. They contend that individualistic participants often try to maintain a balance between profit and loss in a relationship. Conversely, collectivistic individuals look for the loyalty that is associated with established relationships and put the needs of others first. Their distinctive characteristics are well defined in Hofstede’s (1980) work in which collectivism signifies a focus on tight or strong ties, a close-knit bond not only between participants of nuclear families but also among extended families. The environment in which collectivist people live is most often group or community based. As a result, according to Hofstede (1997), collectivistic people “grow up and learn to think of themselves as part of the ‘we’ group, a relationship which is not voluntary but given by nature” (p. 50). For such people, the notion of group is the accepted and unquestioned way of life.
It is useful to note that collectivistic people make a clear distinction between in-group and out-group (Tayeb 2003; Triandis 2002). This distinction is referred to as we (in-group) versus they (out-group) and becomes a primary source of identity and basis for loyalty. This distinction also serves as a boundary that regulates behavior; it acts as a control mechanism by which individuals determine what, how, why, and to whom information should or will be disclosed (Petronio 2000). This boundary effect was evident in our study when collectivistic participants expressed concerns and issues, offered proposals, or presented their ideas. They seemed to disclose a great deal of information (i.e., sent lengthy messages) to the list members because they were considered the in-group, a cohesive unit formed as they collaborated and worked together toward common goals. Although we were unable to compare this behavior with their behavior outside the list environment, the long messages demonstrated that high-context participants were willing to disclose their ideas in a generously detailed manner.
The findings also showed that individuals often addressed other participants explicitly, by name, at the beginning of their message—very few of them did not mention a name. Messages sometimes included a formal and polite salutation, but it was personalized by the use of the recipient’s name. This behavior is another sign of relationship orientation. The sending of ambiguous messages with restricted codes also suggests that they viewed other listserv participants as we, since their vagueness indicates that they assumed that the recipient would know exactly what the message was based on or what context was being referred to.
This assumption of common knowledge is typical of high-context communication. As Hall (1976) demonstrated, when high-context people communicate, they often economize on their words because they share the same context, and thus few words are needed. In face-to-face communication, body language, facial expressions, and gestures serve as signals or cues to what the message means. When high-context people communicate in the absence of nonverbal cues, some of the information necessary for interpretation is stripped out, making it difficult to decode the message. In these situations, high-context participants often develop compensatory behaviors (Walther and Parks 2002); this study uncovered several examples such as the use of emoticons to stand in for the tone of voice or expression. Some examples are “sounds pretty good to me! ” or “For more efficient use of capacities and ‘diversity in real space’, may I suggest that …”
Task Oriented versus Relationship Oriented
With the task-oriented Civil Society decision-making behaviors, low-context participants demonstrated high levels of concern for task orientation; they focused on pragmatic goals, resulting in decisions that were factually based most of the time. According to Triandis (2002), people who are individualistic place more emphasis on rationality and thus make decisions based on linear thinking or logic, whereas people who are collectivistic place more emphasis on relatedness, making decisions more on emotional or expressive grounds. As he explains it, “rationality refers to the careful computation of costs and benefits of relationship” while “relatedness refers to giving priority to relationships and taking into account the need of others, even when such relationships are not advantageous to the individual” (2002, p. 24).
The findings in our Civil Society study clearly reflect the above arguments that were made by Triandis, Zakaria, Stanton, and Sarkar-Barney. For example, Civil Society participants who are individualistic usually sent emails with firm deadlines and clear instructions, such as when and how to send documents in order to meet a deadline. These people were more concerned with the outcome: meeting a deadline. The tone of the message was highly task oriented, as shown by the fact that no other subjects were mentioned. For example, messages like “please send the document by [date]…” were quite common among individualistic participants in the plenary listserv. The obvious goal of such messages is instrumental, and relationship is a secondary objective (if present at all).
Based on the above findings, those GVT members who held individualistic goals clearly reflected their behaviors through their task-oriented messages, which emphasize what to do and who will do it—the structures, procedures, and guidelines. Task-oriented messages are often straightforward and short, although they can sometimes be lengthy if they contain instructions and procedures. The following short message sent by Kathryn highlights the things that needed to be accomplished:
Hi Jimmy Punnel,
We are working on a French translation—this is all voluntary work so if you have any contacts, much appreciated…
Kathryn
Or this similar brief message from Renee:
Dear Adrian,
Sorry and thanks for reminding. Program and registration form can be downloaded from www.ngocongo.org. Click at WSIS.
Renee
On the other hand, a task-oriented message may contain an agenda or the context for a meeting. For example, Edul sent this invitation out:
I’d like to invite you to the first meeting of the Multistakeholders Partnerships Familly of the CSB.
The agenda of the meeting will include the family organization, the definition of the mission and programming of activities. Room A, ITU, September 16, from 2 PM to 4 PM.
Please, send me an email to register (only to know the number of interested people) and help me to invite more organizations by announcing this invitation around you.
Edul Zaki
Another example of a task-oriented message is one that provides clear instructions about a deadline to be met. This straightforward message from Kathryn provides relevant information so the recipients would know exactly what to do.
Dear all
If you would like to comment on the Civil Society Draft Response to the 19th September Declaration, please send comments to: [email protected] (not plenary @wsis-cs.org) by 12 pm today.
Please send **exact text** not general comments as we won’t have time to edit/process lengthy comments. thanks
Kathryn
Many of the messages also illustrated the relationship-oriented construct. It was evident from the messages that this construct was an accurate description of the socialization of the participants. The behaviors reflected in the messages showed that the participants attempted to establish some kind of rapport or build networks and associations among and within the Civil Society participants. In the messages, participants refer explicitly to other participants when responding to a message, for example, “Thank you and Timothy Rhodes for all of your hard work at completing the reports and placing them on the Internet.” The tone was definitely formal and yet personal. Another example of relationship-oriented behavior was when participants wrote courteous and warm phrases in the very first paragraph. For example, Sandra dedicated one of her messages simply to express gratitude:
I just want to thank everyone for the comments, expressions of appreciation and constructive criticism that has come in on the priorities document. With more time we could no doubt have polished the text further, but I think we have made important progress in including more concrete proposals in relation to previous documents.
I also want to thank everyone who has worked hard on getting the document out. This was a truly collective effort and the writing was shared among a large group of people.
Sandra
Relationship-oriented people do not plunge into the subject matter right away, nor do they state their opinions explicitly in the opening paragraph. They first give a salutation or a greeting, followed by a courtesy statement. Their opinion or purpose only comes in the second paragraph or late in the first paragraph, as exemplified in the following illustration (emphasis added in bold and characteristic features identified in square brackets):
Dear Mr. Kiefer, [formal salutation]
Thank you for your comments [statement of courtesy] on the document presented on behalf of the Civil Society, endorsed, amongst others, by the organization I represent. As you suggest, there is a lot to discuss. That’s exactly the idea of the World Summit.
As for your last observation, concerning “something called community media”, I would like to mention [statement of opinion] that we are talking about a huge and massive global phenomenon, that prioritizes the use of communication for social objectives. Your insinuations in the direction of state intervention communication (“mouthpieces for central or local authorities”) are absolutely incorrect. Community media seek to fortify the democratization of communication by active participation of all actors in society, privileging the normally absent ones (indigenous, women, youth, poor etc.).
Comments were made by our representatives in the Intersessional Meeting in Paris that “the media family” made observations about the document presented by Civil Society. As you are acting as coordinator of this family, and being myself a member of this ‘family’, representing the Latin American Association of Educational Radio (ALER, with 107 members in Latin America), I would like to remember [statement of tactfulness or diplomacy] you that, as far as I am informed, there wasn’t any kind of consultation organized amongst the members of the media family. I duely respect your opinion [statement of tactfulness/diplomacy] as a member of Civil Society, but would ask you to respect the diversity of opinions within the media family whenever you speak publicly on behalf of it.
Kind Regards,
Verner Vinson
P.D. Could you please be so kind [pleasant closure] to inform us, the members of the Media Family, who else are being part of this important organizational body of the WSIS process?
In the preceding case, Verner clearly expresses his disagreement and disappointment with the lack of respect that was shown to him and his group, but he presents it in a subtle, polite, and indirect manner. The tone of the message is delicate and diplomatic, but one can clearly understand the underlying message. Obviously, the writer is attempting to maintain a harmonious atmosphere for relationship’s sake, instead of creating conflict. He also sends the message with a gracious tone by saying “please be so kind…” In short, high-context individuals have more procedures or stages of communicating disagreement or discussing contentious issues.
Another insight from messages such as the following is that people not only care about the tasks to be accomplished or deadline to be met but also the well-being of the other participants. Fostering good relationships was one of their main concerns before discussing other issues. Renee’s message is a good example of this; it is affectionate and warm, and this tone obviously indicates the importance that she places on relationships.
Dear all,
I hope you made it all safely home or are otherwise relaxing.
A quick response to questions which came up in the last CT-Group regarding side events during PrepCom-3: The Secretariat told us that no official side events/roundtables are planned, because all time and energy will be fixed on the negotiations. However, NGOs/CSOs who want to organize a lunch time presentation/panel event can do so, but are responsible for the organization.
CONGO will keep you up date via www.prepcom.net/wsis where you will find also complete coverage of the Intersessional meeting.
I would like to thank CS Bureau, CS-CT, caucuses and all who worked hard to move CS presence forward. Although CS participation is still an uphill struggle, many governments have recognized the value of our contributions.
A big thanks also to the Secretariat, to Louise and her team, for all her support.
Have a nice summer!
Best
Renee
In a similar vein, some participants made many references to others by name, which showed that there were relational bonds among these people. Because many of the messages did not use specific names or refer to any person explicitly, mentioning names suggest that the writer knows and likes/respects that person, either from personal contact (face-to-face meetings) or through their correspondences via the email listserv. For example, Isuzuki explicitly thanks specific individuals in the very first line of his message: “Akihari and all, I appreciate your hard work and good result”, or Marta’s note to Kathryn: “Hi Kathryn! I was reading your paper…It’s very interesting” or Rince’s positive response: “MS, Indeed, this is a very good proposal.”
As a summary, it is crucial to take into account how people communicate their goals in the decision-making process. The communicative behaviors are dependent on whether they are high- or low-context members. In specific, low-context members who subscribed to individualistic cultural values displayed task-oriented email messages for achieving the planned outcomes and goals. Hence, the messages are straightforward and concise. High-context members who are from collectivistic cultures prefer to share messages that are highly warm in their tone. However, the messages could also be as objective in their plans and implementation as people from an individualistic culture. In essence, the distinctive approaches and styles of communication lie in the manner that the messages are communicated in different cultures.
Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/Doubleday.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
Hofstede, G. 1997. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mills, J. and Clark, M.S. 1982. Exchange and communal relationships. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 121–144). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Petronio, S. (Ed.). 2000. Balancing the Secrets of Private Disclosures. Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publishers.
Tayeb, M. 2003. International Management: Theories and Practices. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Triandis, H.C. 2002. Generic individualism and collectivism. In M.J. Gannon & K.L. Newman (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management (pp. 16–46). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publisher.
Walther, J.B. & Parks, M.R. 2002. Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In M.L. Knapp & J.A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 3rd ed. (pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Zakaria, N., Stanton, J.M. & Sarkar-Barney, S.T.M. 2003. Designing and implementing culturally-sensitive IT applications: The interaction of culture values and privacy issues in the Middle East. Information Technology & People, 16, 49–75.