Recently the U.S. manager of a water resources project in Indonesia ran into trouble when he made what he thought was a routine administrative move to restrict access to the office copy machine. The memo communicating the decision to deny other offices in the vicinity use of the machine was declared “insensitive to Indonesian ways” (Scott-Stevens, 1991) and was widely regarded as unfriendly, unilateral, and even unethical. Eventually, after a series of similar incidents, the manager was dismissed.
As the above incident highlights, managing in a multicultural setting can be very challenging. Culture strongly influences how one behaves and how one understands the behavior of others, and cultures vary in the behaviors they find proper and acceptable.
But it is not only the expatriate manager who faces this kind of challenge. If you are a member of a multinational project team, if you have a domestic assignment that involves people who have emigrated from other countries or colleagues from a minority culture in the U.S., or if you must communicate with business associates who live in other parts of the world, you must deal with similar cultural issues.
How can such challenges be met? Cultural synopses of individual countries, with their lists of dos and don’ts, provide some insight, but their usefulness is limited by the complexity of culture, as well as by current managerial conditions: You often have to deal with people from several different cultures at once, and, because opportunities develop quickly and must be pursued without delay, you may have to go into a meeting, either face-to-face or at a distance, with little or no time to prepare for a particular culture.
Also, such synopses cannot help you with the part that your own culture plays in any interaction. This important element is easily overlooked because your own culture is so much a part of you that you are unaware of its influence. You are, as social scientists say, embedded in it.
In this paper we present a framework that will help you learn from your cross-cultural experiences: by making you aware of the beliefs and values that underlie the workplace preferences of managers in the U.S. and, concomitantly, by providing you with a way to understand the value preferences of people from other cultures. Thus, you will be able to learn as you go, whatever managerial conditions you encounter.†
This framework was developed by integrating previous research in the fields of anthropology, cross-cultural psychology, and international business management (Hall, 1981; Hoppe, 1990; Laurent, 1983; Ronen, 1986; Sayles, 1995; Schwartz, 1993; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990; see also the Appendix). We are particularly indebted to Geert Hofstede (1980) and to Charles Hampden-Turner and Fons Trompenaars (1993) for their research and insights.
Before presenting the framework, however, we should define some basic terms and processes, beginning with culture.
Culture can be broadly defined as a people’s way of life. It develops over time and is shaped by the geography and history of a region. It is often narrowly associated with an individual’s knowledge of formal social etiquette and of artistic, musical, and literary traditions, but culture encompasses all the institutions of a society—political, legal, economic, religious, educational, and so on.
Culture is both tangible and intangible, explicit and implicit (Hofstede, 1980; Schein, 1985; Trompenaars, 1993). At the tangible level, cultures are expressed by language, dress, food, social rituals, customs, holiday traditions, folk heroes, symbols, and artifacts. At the intangible level, cultures are built on beliefs and values. Usually, those who have been reared and remain in one culture are unconscious of their cultural beliefs and values.
Culture is clearly a complex phenomenon. One way of understanding it is through the following analogy: Culture is to a group what personality is to an individual. Just as an individual acquires a workable personality over his or her life, a human group develops a complex system of values and behaviors that aids the group’s survival in an ever-evolving environment. Such a system of thinking, feeling, and acting has been described as a “collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another” (Hofstede, 1991, p. 5).
The idea central to this and over 150 other definitions of culture (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952) is that there is a unifying pattern of beliefs and values that creates an identity for a group and for the individuals who are members of that group. These “unifying patterns” are akin to a “software of the mind” (Hofstede, 1991) with respect to beliefs about human nature; the relationship of humans to each other; the relationship of humans to the natural world; and concepts of activity, space, and time (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961).
Beliefs and values are closely linked. Values are central beliefs about how one ought or ought not to behave, as well as about some end-state of existence that is worth or not worth attaining (Rokeach, 1973). Values, in this sense, come from a shared agreement among a majority of people within a culture that a general set of principles, standards, and qualities are important or desirable. Values are founded on ideals and create preferences for certain states of affairs over others.
Given these meanings of culture and value, for this report we propose the following definition:
Culture is a pattern of shared values reflected in the preferences of groups of people for certain behaviors, attitudes, and systemic practices in their ideal work situation.
Underlying the pattern of shared values held by any single group of people are a number of fundamental dilemmas faced by everyone, regardless of culture (Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars, 1993). For example, there is the dilemma of authority: How should people with different levels of power and status behave toward each other—as equals or unequals?
Each culture can be understood as having a value that favors particular behaviors in situations that involve this dilemma.
Let’s consider, for instance, a situation where the boss and a subordinate are working together and the boss wants a cup of coffee (or tea). Even an upper-echelon manager in certain Latin American cultures will attend to the personal needs of a superior by getting that person a cup of coffee when necessary. Only in the U.S. and some northern European countries is it likely that the boss who wants coffee will have to get it for him- or herself.
In our view, these behaviors are influenced by the dilemma of authority: Either humans are unequal, and those with higher status expect those with lower status to perform various tasks as needed, or humans are equal, and those with higher status do not expect those with lower status to perform tasks that are not directly work-related.
In this situation, as in most that people encounter, there is, of course, a choice—the subordinate can either bring or not bring the cup of coffee. Each culture has a value favoring a certain behavior in an authority situation, and it is very likely that people will select the course of action preferred by their culture.
It is important to note that the culture-behavior link is by no means simple. For instance, membership in a subculture on the basis of regionality, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, level of education, or socioeconomic class can significantly influence values and behavior; organizational culture, as determined by factors such as industry size, history, location, and integration of technology, can shape how country culture values are acted out; and individual personality can influence thoughts, feelings, and actions to a greater extent than cultural values.
It is also important to note that cultural values, which essentially comprise a hierarchy of ideals to which people refer in public settings, may not always translate into actual behavior. Individuals and groups do not invariably follow the guidelines of their culture. Values are expressions of preference and not absolute predictors of behavior.
Our understanding of the specific ways that culture influences behavior in business situations is reflected in the learning framework presented below. Each of its dimensions represents one of what we consider seven fundamental dilemmas that people of all cultures face at work (see Table 1).
Table 1
Learning Framework for Managers Working Across Cultures
1. Source of Identity: Individual-Collective
To what degree should people pursue their own individual activities, achievements, and educational and business successes rather than contribute to the activities, achievements, and successes of their extended family, clan or ethnic group, or even company or division?
2. Goals and Means of Achievement: Tough-Tender
How is success defined? Do the people in the culture strive for the tangible rewards of a high income and material satisfactions or the intangible rewards of good working relationships, time with family and friends, and satisfaction from spiritual development and volunteer work?
3. Orientation to Authority: Equal-Unequal
How should people with different levels of authority, status, and power behave toward each other—as equals or unequals?
4. Response to Ambiguity: Dynamic-Stable
How acceptable is uncertainty? Is loose or tight structure preferred for running the business organization?
5. Means of Knowledge Acquisition: Active-Reflective
Which is valued more as a means of acquiring information and knowledge—action or reflection?
6. Perspective on Time: Scarce-Plentiful
Is the orientation to the use of time urgent or relaxed?
7. Outlook on Life: Doing-Being
Is mastery over nature or harmony with nature preferred? Is life experienced as an outcome of human effort or the workings of destiny or divine will?
We begin each section with a set of questions that describe the dilemma.
We believe that the possible responses to each dilemma can be understood as a continuum of choices, with clearly contrasted options at the two poles of the continuum. For any culture, it is possible to envision a process in which behaviors favoring one pole are reinforced to a greater degree than behaviors favoring the opposite pole. So each culture can be seen as exhibiting a pattern of preferences about the most desirable ways of thinking and acting. Thus, we next discuss each pole of the continuum, pointing out the preferences of U.S. managers.
Finally, we will discuss how the values tend to play out in the workplace.
Throughout, examples will be used to illustrate how values can affect workplace practices and behaviors. The following points should be kept in mind when reading these examples.
First, they are not meant to stereotype cultures or people—to say that this is the way that a person from a particular culture will invariably act. Rather they are meant to highlight the opposing orientations that people may have. They should be used as a means of understanding the values that underlie behavior. (We will say more about stereotyping in the section titled “Using the Framework.”)
Second, because the motivations that drive a particular behavior may be complex, the examples we use to illustrate a particular value may actually demonstrate a combination of values. If a manager refuses a promotion, this could be understood as being influenced by a value relating to the dimension “Source of Identity” (oriented toward the Collective pole), the dimension “Goals and Means of Achievement” (oriented toward the Tender pole), or the dimension “Outlook on Life” (oriented toward the Being pole). A simple behavior may be influenced by any one or by a number of different values. In the continuing research related to our framework, we will investigate how combinations of values may affect attitudes (toward co-workers, bosses, the organization, work itself, and so on) and practices (in areas such as decision making, planning, work execution, and so on).
Finally, the examples presented here may seem to favor one value orientation over another. For instance, to some readers it may appear as if we consider the U.S. approach to be the best; others may think we see the U.S. way of doing things as causing problems. We are not making such judgments here. But the cultures in which we are embedded may affect how we have made our presentation, just as the cultures in which you are embedded will affect your understanding of this presentation.
† This paper focuses on managerial thinking. In an upcoming paper we will explore the behaviors that managers need to adopt to gather information about cultural norms different from their own.