3.1. UNDERSTANDING THE CULTURAL UNDERPINNINGS OF GLOBAL COMMUNICATION

A critical beginning point for global organizations and staff who work in them is to understand the powerful role culture plays in communication. From how close we stand and how loudly we speak to our orientations to time and relationships, we are influenced by the cultures that have shaped us and given us what Hofstede refers to as "software of the mind." Just as computers would be useless without their operating systems and other software, all humans are dependent on cultural programming to give us the rules for interacting with others. How long to pause, when to interrupt, how to disagree, what topics are appropriate, and how to address others are parts of our "automatic pilot" system, yet we are probably unaware of that knowledge. Our software is largely invisible to us until we meet up with someone who has different programming. When we engage in intercultural contact, we see our software in contrast to that of others and we begin to be aware of the differences in the rules, norms, and orientations. Generally this first realization brings with it frustration, judgments, and exasperated comments about how difficult and frustrating it is to do business with "them."

A proactive step in dealing with these kinds of issues is to learn about cross-cultural communication. This learning needs to focus on three steps: (1) increasing awareness about the differences to be encountered and one's reaction to them, (2) gaining knowledge about the wide variations in cultural norms and practices, and (3) acquiring skills in dealing with these differences in business interactions.

Once we become aware of the potential obstacles presented by cultural differences, the instinctive response is to ask for a list of rules for each culture, a compendium of dos and don'ts, or what one executive referred to as a "playbook." The danger of this approach is that generalizations about cultural norms, while helpful in giving us clues about the meanings of behaviors, are not accurate about each individual's behavior. You may learn, for example, that smiling and laughter are signs of embarrassment and confusion for many Asians. That knowledge can prevent you from jumping to the conclusion that the Taiwanese engineers on your global team are snickering at you, as one manager thought. However, you cannot be sure until you check out your assumption by investigating further. Perhaps these engineers have spent many years in other countries, are acculturated to different norms, and are laughing at something you said or did. On the other hand, they may in fact be confused and embarrassed and do not want to cause loss of face by telling you they do not understand.

Angelika Plett, an organization development consultant in Germany, advises us to remember that "the map is not the landscape" when using culture-specific information. There are no shortcuts. It is only by spending time getting to know individuals in all their complexity that we really succeed in communicating with them. In addition, it would be humanly impossible to memorize lists of norms for all the cultures we come across, and even if we could, the generalization would not be accurate for every individual in a particular culture. A more effective approach is to give employees a framework for understanding cultural differences and methods for dealing with the specifics in each relationship or situation. One helpful way to do this is to focus on the major aspects of cultural difference that influence communication around the world.

3.1.1. High and Low Context

One of the most significant cultural differences is that between high and low context, as described by Edward Hall. In low-context cultures, such as Switzerland and the United States, people find the meaning in words, hence communication is specific and explicit. "Tell it like it is," "Put your cards on the table," and "Get to the point" express this direct, explicit form of communicating where little is left to interpretation by the receiver. In high-context cultures such as Japan and China, on the other hand, communication is general, indirect, and implicit, and meaning is found less in the words than in the context surrounding the communication. The relative positions and relationship of communicators, such as boss/subordinate, newcomer/oldtimer, host/guest, as well as nonverbal cues such as gestures and facial expressions, are also important in a system that relies on the listener to infer meaning from an array of contextual clues. The effective manager in such cultures would need to attend to subtle clues and infer the meaning of his or her subordinates' messages.

This difference can be the source of misunderstanding and frustration if communicators do not understand each other's orientation on this dimension. Take the case of the Japanese manager who returns his U.S.-American staff member's report with the vague direction, "I've had a chance to read your report. Perhaps you'd like to take another look at it." His staff member is perplexed. "Why do I have to look at it again? It's finished," she thinks. "How am I supposed to know what's wrong if he doesn't give me feedback?" Yet if she understood the subtle contextual clues, that her Japanese co-workers undoubtedly do, she would know that there were some problems with her report and that it was her job to figure out what they were and remedy them.

3.1.2. Hierarchical–Egalitarian

Another cultural difference with a powerful impact on communication is the degree of hierarchy, or as Hofstede would put it, "power distance." Differences in treatment based on one's level are expected in more hierarchical systems. Knowing one's place gives order and stability in life and predictability in relationships. Whether shown in the dropped eyes of many Asians, the use of the formal "you" by the Spanish, German, and French, or how one is standing when speaking to the senior manager in a Korean company, the respect for positional authority is a fundamental rule in such cultures. In hierarchical cultures, to disregard this rule is to give offense, show poor breeding, or to be insolent. Because those in positions of authority are expected to know more, disagreeing or questioning a boss would be unthinkable in this orientation. On the other hand, in a more egalitarian framework, such as that in the United States, there is an attempt to disregard levels and treat everyone the same, from most senior to junior, from CEO to hourly employee. In such an environment, being on a first-name basis with the boss would be expected and to give special treatment to those in power is seen as toadying, while to demand it is perceived as arrogant and condescending.

One tax department middle manager, frustrated at a division director who would not return his calls because of their differences in level, explained the consequence of a clash of cultures regarding this dimension. Irritated at the director's habit of only returning calls to those at his level or above, he exploded, "I know I could have my director call him, but right now I'm so angry I won't and he won't be able to take advantage of the million-dollar tax savings he could have through a new tax law I've just discovered."

How one communicates with others of different levels will depend in great part on one's orientation on this continuum. Do you give orders or ask, give feedback or acquiesce, ask questions or remain silent, use first names or titles? Answers will vary based on your cultural software and that of others in the interaction.

3.1.3. Collective–Individual

How different are the messages between the Japanese aphorism that "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down," the Australian, "Tall poppies get cut down," the Chinese, "The first bird is the one that is shot," and the U.S.-American one that "The squeaky wheel gets the grease"? These differences can be heard in the responses of bilingual Japanese women who, when asked to respond in both English and Japanese to this open-ended statement, "When my wishes conflict with my family's. . . ." When one woman responded in Japanese she said, "It is a time of great unhappiness." In English she responded, "I do what I want."^[]

Whether we see ourselves as individual players or an integral part of societal groups is a powerful influencer of our communication. Speaking out, stating an opinion, voicing disagreement, and taking credit, blame, or responsibility are all connected to this dimension. Critical communication behaviors such as giving and receiving feedback, solving problems, resolving conflicts, and giving rewards are impacted by this dimension.

3.1.4. Relationship–Task

While most people would agree that both focusing on the task and attending to relationships are key to getting the job done, it is in the time, emphasis, and priority placed on one or the other end of this continuum that we differ. For those on the task side, such as the Swiss and Germans, the numerous meetings, small talk, and after-work socializing are an irritating burden that hinders productivity. For those on the relationship end, such as Mexicans and Arabs, these same behaviors build trust and grease the wheels of task accomplishment. Jumping into task-related matters before spending time developing comfort and familiarity would create unnecessary barriers with them.

In more task-oriented cultures such as the United States, spending time on relationship building is often disparaged as a waste of precious time and as a less than honorable way to get ahead, as in the frequently heard, "It's not what you know but who you know" complaint. However, building connections is a respected, legitimate way to do business in parts of the world where relationships take precedence. Professionals in China rely on guanxi or connections, interpersonal networks that involve reciprocal obligations. Establishing and maintaining these relationships with classmates, relatives, colleagues, and friends is essential for success in business.

This difference can be seen in the disparity between the behavior of Western and Chinese employees. According to Maura Fallon, a human resources professional working in China, Western employees see themselves as responsible for the task, getting things done, while Chinese see themselves as accountable to someone, a boss or authority figure to whom they are loyal. They also view effective managers as those who maintain harmony and cooperation between employees. Without attention to relationships, a manager would not be able to be successful in accomplishing the task in such an environment.

Relationships matter in all cultures. However, it is especially important in non-Western cultures. Fallon advises the following specific ways to attend to relationships, show respect, and build trust in order to get the best from employees in China:^[]

While these guidelines are suggested specifically for doing business in China, they would also be effective in other high-context cultures of Asia such as Thailand, India, and Vietnam. Time spent finding out about the national cultures in which you are working as well as the individual cultures of your employees or co-workers is an investment critical to success.

3.1.5. Polychronic Time–Monochronic Time

How one views and deals with time is still another culturally influenced factor with significant consequences in work groups. Those with a more monochronic view see time as a commodity to be saved, spent, and divided into segments, all for the accomplishment of goals and tasks. On the other end of the spectrum are those with a polychronic view, seeing time as a circle within which many things can happen at once and with other priorities such as relationships and enjoyment having as much importance as task accomplishment. While the industrialized world functions with a more monochronic orientation, when organizational schedules, deadlines, and project timelines meet up with polychronic cultural norms, frustration, misunderstanding, and conflict often result.

The situation of a manager in a U.S.-headquartered manufacturing organization transferred to Puerto Rico is a case in point. As the new plant manager, he soon recognized the value of socializing with his managers in this highly relationship-oriented culture which, although a U.S. territory, had much more cultural affinity with its Caribbean and Latin American neighbors. He found his staff competent and productive, but he was perplexed by the lack of energy and productivity at his weekly staff meetings. He scheduled these meetings on Friday afternoons, a habit he'd brought from his former plant, because it seemed the most logical time to review the past week and get ready for the next. After a number of low-energy, ineffective sessions, he went out with some of his direct reports for a few beers. When he casually brought up the subject of the meetings, they explained that, in Puerto Rico, the weekend began at noon on Fridays and employees considered the rest of the day their time. Suddenly the reason for their lack of participation at the meetings became clear. He could have taken a hardnosed stance based on his own monochronic sense of time and insisted that Friday afternoons were part of the work week for which people were being paid. Instead, he recognized that he would undoubtedly get better performance and higher productivity if he adapted to their more polychronic time sense. When he changed the meetings to Thursdays, he saw an immediate upswing in energy and results.

In dealing with this difference, the manager took two important steps. First, he resisted the common response of making judgments about his staff. Because he'd seen their competence and performance, he didn't assume they were lazy or unmotivated. Second, he investigated, asking questions to understand the reasons behind their behavior. Once he understood it from their cultural perspective, he found a solution that was the most effective for meeting his goals.

3.1.6. Maintaining Harmony–Surfacing Differences

How we deal with conflict is yet another culturally influenced aspect of behavior. Voicing concerns, criticizing, challenging, and disagreeing are seen as productive steps toward creativity and problem solving in the United States and Western Europe. In Japan, China, and much of Asia, the disharmony, tension, and loss of face these behaviors cause creates a strong social prohibition against them. Sparring and playing devil's advocate are energizing and may be a way to refine ideas for employees from the Netherlands. On the other hand, those from cultures, such as the Philippines, that prize harmony and smooth interpersonal relationships would find this behavior offensive, off-putting, and a reason to withdraw from the discussion, negotiation, or the group.

Tact in giving criticism and handling conflict is important most everywhere; however, in cultures that place a priority on harmony, it is even more critical. Not only does criticism or anger disrupt harmony, but it brings with it loss of face for both parties and the ensuing loss of trust. Each side suffers when this happens because both lose face and are hindered in their ability to be effective. In addition, political and legal systems, aspects in the National Identification sphere of the SSI Model explained in Chapter 2, may also influence this dimension of communication. For example, in China's state enterprises, employees' political files follow them from secondary schooling throughout their careers, anything included in this dossier may have far-reaching consequences, so employees may be particularly nervous about any written feedback.

When these kinds of differences are experienced without conscious understanding of the cultural factors influencing them, results for the team or organization can be damaging. On the other hand, when understood, they can be dealt with effectively. Helping employees understand their own and others' conflict styles, then taking time for one-on-one negotiations between staff members with different conflict styles, setting group norms about dealing with differences, finding compatible ways to critique projects, or using a third-party mediator, as many Asians and Arabs do, are a few ways groups can deal with differences in this dimension.