Kitabı oku: «Managing Internationalisation», sayfa 3

Readers are aware of the importance of recognising and respecting cultural differences for facilitating international relations of any kind. They are able to explain and compare different frameworks for distinguishing organisational or national cultures. The awareness about their own cultural perspectives and resulting judgements is heightened and the ability to reconcile cultural dilemmas enhanced.

Knowledge about intercultural differences and their manifold effects on the building blocks of the management system is a key prerequisite for a successful internationalisation. This section explains typical pitfalls of mono-cultural thinking in a global business environment and provides different business-related frameworks for distinguishing cultures. The use of these frameworks in designing and implementing international management systems can foster an organisational climate embracing the opportunities of multicultural approaches for doing business. Figure 2-1 delivers the concept map for treatment of the key issue Cross-Cultural Competence.

Figure 2-1: Concept Map “Cross-Cultural Competence”

Culture is still one of the most iridescent concepts in science. When people first think about culture, it is usually about the obvious aspects like behaviour, traditions and customs. French people carrying baguettes, African people in colourful caftans and the formal bows in Japanese greetings – all these observations shape our perception of culture. But these observations form only the tip of the (cultural) iceberg. The famous cultural iceberg metaphor (usually attributed to Edward T. Hall from his book published 1976, although he does not use the term)¹ illustrates that the essential cultural differences lie underneath the visible spectrum, as depicted in Figure 2-2. Dissimilarities in beliefs, values and thought patterns are far more relevant for intercultural misunderstandings than different traditions that are more prominently displayed and therefore create awareness more easily.

Figure 2-2: The Cultural Iceberg

Understanding cultural-induced behaviour is a prerequisite for successful business operations in any international context. A lack of cross-cultural competence gives rise to manifold faults in information retrieval, decision making, negotiating and leading that might become disastrous for the organisation’s long-term achievements. Throughout the EFQM Excellence Model, the correct assessment of cultural beliefs and values is presumed for finding effective responses. For example, leaders can only act as role models if their ideas of how to act with integrity and how to follow high standards of ethical behaviour are in line with the respective expectations of all of their team members. As these expectations vary from culture to culture, acceptance can only be ensured by a thorough research of possible misunderstandings. In dealing with customers and stakeholders, cultural misunderstandings can be of even more dramatic consequences. A misinterpretation of customer requirements might lead to the development of non-marketable products. A violation of unspoken negotiation rules might ruin a bid for a long-term contract.

The development of intercultural sensitivity is the most effective countermeasure for this kind of intercultural conflicts. Intercultural sensitive people are able to apply skills of empathy and adaptation of behaviour to any cultural context with varying degrees of sophistication. Unfortunately, this ability does not come naturally. It is something that has to be learned and grows whenever a person is exposed to foreign cultures with an open mind. Milton Bennett describes typical stages in this very individual development process from first denial to final integration in his Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity as illustrated in Figure 2-3.² People growing up in a monocultural environment accept the culture they grew up with as the only one existing. Exposure to other cultures leads first to denial of differences. When denial is no longer possible, people start experiencing their own culture as more advanced and “better” than the other, known as the defense phase. This phase is usually accompanied by the use of stereotypes in order to confirm prejudices. Both early phases of cultural development could take exaggerated forms of aggressively eliminating foreign cultures and their representatives or – on the contrary – romanticising them. After realising existing similarities between their own and the foreign culture (usually in superficial aspects like customs or food), people tend to minimise the fundamental differences, believing that there are generally recognised patterns of human behaviour that enable effortless and successful communication. With the next step, the ethnocentric stages are overcome and people enter the ethnorelative stages of intercultural development. These start with a genuine acceptance of differences in cultures and of the right to use different solutions to typical human problems. This does not include an agreement with the solutions a certain culture exhibits, which are continually scrutinised in order to accumulate more knowledge. Expanding the view of the word leads to the ability to understand other cultures and to behave appropriately in their cultural frameworks. In this adaption phase, people are able to shift their frame of reference and use empathy for the benefit of good communication. The final stage “integration” allows a person to move in and out of different worldviews at will. For these people, a specific culture is no longer a constitutive part of their definition of self.

Figure 2-3: Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity³

Some people will never be able to overcome inner fears and will keep their prejudices, being stuck in the defense phase. However, for a prosperous career in the globalised economy it is imperative to reach at least the first ethnorelative stage of acceptance.

The best way to reach the higher ethnorelative stages in the personal development are intensive encounters with people from foreign cultures in agreeable and positive circumstances. This could be ensured by a high grade of open-mindedness as well as careful preparation. Knowledge about foreign cultures can be obtained through many sources like travel and culture guides, internet research and enquiries of people from the respective country or of travellers with experience in the region required. It is important to notice that these sources have to be used with a critical view on their cultural background and potential prejudices. Sometimes, a book written from an American about the French culture can be quite misleading. Therefore, the most important source of comparative intercultural information is provided by scientific research. In the next chapters, the main frameworks for distinguishing cultures in a business context will be introduced.

One of the pioneers in intercultural studies is Geert Hofstede. With the first issue of his original book “Culture’s Consequences” he revolutionized the way differences in cultures were assessed. His ground-breaking survey covered a significant number of countries and helped to create the area of comparative intercultural research and theory. Since its first publication Hofstede’s work is cited extensively in scientific articles worldwide. It influenced consultants and professionals in many areas all over the world focussing on human resource management, leadership training and varied business applications.⁴

Hofstede was fascinated by Human Mental Programming and strived to understand how people’s values and beliefs were formed. When dealing with humans, three unique levels of mental programming can be distinguished (Figure 2-4):

Figure 2-4: Three Levels of Uniqueness in Human Mental Programming⁵

The basic level, labelled “human nature”, steers the basic programmes of the mind every child inherits. The resulting behavioural patterns and reactions like fear, joy, love and the need to band together with others are universal for all human beings. The second level is specific for a certain group or category of human beings and is referred to as “culture”. The “dos” and “don’ts” of this level are learned from other members of the group. The third level forms the personality. The resulting behaviour is, by concept, partly inherited and partly learned.

Based on these levels of human mental programming culture is defined by Hofstede as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others”⁶.

Figure 2-5: The Hofstede Onion: Manifestations of Culture⁷

Culture manifests itself on different levels that can be depicted as an onion as introduced in Figure 2-5. The innermost level consists of values, defined as “broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others”⁸ and defines if something is deemed as for example moral or immoral, dirty or clean or else evil or good. Values are hidden deeply and cannot be perceived whereas the three following levels of culture can be observed openly, forming the cultural practices. These consist of rituals, heroes and symbols. Rituals are socially essential collective activities. They serve group matters like reinforcing group behaviour or ensuring group cohesiveness and include the way greetings are carried out or the way language is used. Rituals cover far more than only official or religious ceremonies. A typical example is the French way of kissing on the cheek when greeting friends and acquaintances. Cultural heroes serve as role models for desirable behaviour. They show characteristics that are highly respected in a particular culture. Barbie’s beauty, Asterix’s cleverness or Batman’s sense of justice are typical examples. Symbols form the surface area of culture. They include all kinds of gestures, words, objects or pictures that carry a particular meaning that is familiar only to those who are part of the same culture. Typical group symbols are special expressions (“jargon”), status symbols, dresses or hairstyles. Symbols are subject to quick changes and are easily copied by others.

VIPs

Hofstede’s research dates back to the 1960s when he worked together with IBM and created a questionnaire in order to analyse the values of similar IBM employees in different countries. The “IBM Study” revealed universal problems, but with solutions that differed from country to country. The problems could be clustered in the areas “social inequality”, including the relationship with authority; “the relationship between the individual and the group”; “concepts of masculinity and femininity”, concerning the social implications of having been born as a boy or a girl and “the ways of dealing with uncertainty”, relating to the control of aggression and the expression of emotions. These four areas of basic problems were understood to represent independent dimensions of cultures.

In 1985 Chinese researchers developed a Chinese Values Survey (CVS) that produced one dimension that was not correlated with any of the dimensions Hofstede used so far. It was based mainly on typical Confucian principles and dealt with an orientation towards the future or towards the past. This concept was added 1991 as a fifth dimension to the Hofstede model, at first using only the scores for the 23 countries included in the CVS.

A “dimension” is seen as an aspect of one culture that can be measured relative to other cultures. Consequently, the discovered basic problem areas correspond to five dimensions that form a model of differences among all kinds of cultures – for example gender cultures, professional cultures, company cultures or national cultures. An overview of the five Hofstede dimensions and their measurement scales in the shape of a control panel is provided in Figure 2-6. The dark-blue controllers denote one culture, the light blue controllers another culture. Their position on each scale represents the average value of their culture concerning the contemplated dimension.

Figure 2-6: Hofstede’s Five Dimensions as a Control Panel

Hofstede’s model gains its importance from the fact that his findings were repeatedly verified in replica studies. For example, six major replications of his IBM research were carried out by different researchers from 1990 to 2002, using people from different backgrounds (elites, employees, pilots, consumers, municipals, bank employees) and comparing between 14 and 28 countries. All studies confirmed the first four dimensions of the Hofstede research as valid. Consequently, this 5-dimensional Hofstede model is currently the most renowned cultural framework in the business environment. The basis for the cultural comparison is regularly widened and the number of countries integrated broadened. In the most recent editions of the Hofstede model, more than 90 different countries are characterized by a score on each of the five cultural dimensions.

Before continuing with the application of this framework to different countries it is important to emphasize that the scores mentioned below are mean scores of all survey participants of each culture, computed of the values given for the respective survey items in defined ways. Therefore, the scores do not at all imply that all people of one culture are equal. As Hofstede remarks concerning his Power Distance Index: the correlation on the country scores on the three underlying questions are more than 0.5, providing a coherent pattern for distinguishing one country from another. At the same time, the correlation across the individual answers to these questions is nearly zero.⁹ This emphasizes that such a concept only measures characteristics of systems, not of individuals.

In the following chapters, each of the five dimensions will be explained in detail.

The Power Distance Index (PDI) measures the degree of inequality in a group or society. This concept was derived from three items of the original survey that were answered by non-managerial employees only: their anxiety to express disagreement with their managers, the perception of their supervisor’s decision-making style and their personal preference for their supervisor’s decision-making style. The PDI provides the group-specific answers to the basic question of how to handle the fact that people are unequal. Typical characteristics of countries with large power distance in comparison to countries with small power distance are depicted in Figure 2-7. It is to be noted that not every country with a high PDI shows all typical characteristics because some of these might not fit to typical characteristics of other dimensions. This is true for all tables showing key differences in opposite culture scores. This highlights the fact that countries with comparable scores in one dimension are not similar. Although they share the same basic idea, its expression in forms of cultural artefacts (as behaviour, customs and the like) is very individual. In large PDI countries, for example, the use of status symbols is very common and expected. However, the type of status symbols relevant in a certain business environment can be very dissimilar and ranges from using office-provided smartphones to driving cars from prestigious (foreign) producers, inhabiting a huge office space with windows or employing several secretaries.

Figure 2-7: Key Differences between Cultures with Small and Large PDI¹⁰

Figure 2-8: Selected PDI Country Ratings¹¹

Typical large power distance countries are Slovakia, Russia, China and the Philippines. Countries with a small PDI include Austria, Finland, Germany, UK and Switzerland. An overview of selected country ratings is provided in Figure 2-8.

Hofstede’s PDI scores are of special practical relevance for the expected behaviour of leaders or members of teams in business situations. Imagine the culture clash that is likely to occur when an employee from a (very) low PDI country is delegated to a supervisor from a (very) high PDI country. The employee will feel offended by the strict rules he has to follow, the close control of routine tasks by his supervisor and the lack of (management) information provided. He expects to be seen as an expert in his own right and therefore is used to being asked about his opinion on business matters. On the other hand, the supervisor will not feel treated according to his rank. He will regard the questions his employee poses about the business development and new initiatives as something that does not befit an employee, understanding this information as classified. Requests of a flexible interpretation of the rules will be met with a lack of understanding as this is - in the supervisor’s point of view – a criticism of his higher judgement. He is not used to employees presenting their own ideas and will see this as an attitude lacking respect. Without knowledge and acceptance of intercultural differences this situation will cause both sides to react with mistrust and frustration. Appreciating the different views on equality in the workplace will enable leader and employee to adapt a stance of openness and composure without the emotional turmoil of feeling dishonoured and rejected.

As already mentioned above, Hofstede’s framework is meant to distinguish between cultures of all sorts, not only national cultures. The PDI scores proved to be interesting for profiling different attitudes of workers and managers based on their skill levels. Using IBM data from Great Britain, France and Germany Hofstede assigned PDI values for six different categories of occupations. The scores show (not surprisingly) that groups of people with high-skilled occupations generally demonstrate a lower PDI score in comparison to those with unskilled or semi-skilled occupations. This is also true for the management level. Details can be obtained from Figure 2-9.

Figure 2-9: PDI Values for Six Categories of Occupations¹²

Exercise: Familiarise yourself with Hofstede’s PDI (online)

The second dimension of Hofstede’s framework measures the ties between people. When connections between individuals are loose, the respective culture is called individualistic. When a country scores high on individualism (IND), everyone is expected to look after himself, including (only) his immediate family. The opposite is true for societies with low individualism, the so-called collectivistic cultures. From birth onward people are integrated into very strong and cohesive “in”-groups that will continue to protect them throughout their lifetime. In return the group expects unquestioning loyalty.

In the IBM survey, this dimension is measured by a set of 14 work goals. Participants were questioned about the importance of these goals in an ideal job (from 1 = of utmost to 5 = of no importance). Individualism is strongly associated with high importance of the following work goal items: sufficient time for personal or family life, freedom to adopt own approach to the job and challenging work that creates a personal sense of accomplishment. Collectivistic cultures with low scores on IND value especially training opportunities, good physical working conditions and the full use of skills and abilities. Typical characteristics of each extreme are presented in Figure 2-10.

Figure 2-10: Key Differences between Cultures with Small and Large IND¹³

High scoring and therefore individualistic countries include the United States, Australia, Hungary and the Netherlands. Truly collectivistic countries include Guatemala, Ecuador and Venezuela as well as Pakistan, Indonesia and Taiwan. An overview of selected countries is supplied in Figure 2-11.

Figure 2-11: Selected IND Country Ratings¹⁴

The third dimension measures how desirable assertive behaviour is in comparison to modest behaviour. This is strongly related to conventions about role-typical behaviour of men and women in a society. These conventions are not based on absolute biological differences of males and females but on expectations about acceptable – or desirable - behaviour in certain situations that lead to culturally-determined roles. Consequently, the dimension expressing this is called masculinity (MAS). Societies with high MAS scores favour assertiveness, but predominantly from men, that are supposed to be tough and focused on material success. Women, on the contrary, are supposed to be tenderer, modest and concerned with the quality of life. Masculine societies are therefore characterised by clearly distinct emotional gender roles. In countries with low MAS scores these emotional gender roles overlap. All members, men and women, are supposed to be modest, caring, and concerned with the quality of life. These societies are called “feminine”. Typical dissimilarities between both sorts of cultures are listed in Figure 2-12.

Figure 2-12: Key Differences between Feminine and Masculine Cultures¹⁵

The MAS dimension was measured in the IBM study by the importance attached to a set of 14 work goal items. Masculinity was strongly associated with special importance of high earnings, recognition for a job well done, advancement opportunities and challenging work. Femininity was strongly associated with good working relationship with the direct manager, good cooperation in the team, living in a desirable area and employment security.

Countries with extreme values in masculinity include Slovakia, Japan, Hungary and Austria. Typical feminine countries are Sweden, Norway, Latvia, the Netherlands and Denmark. Further examples of MAS scores can be obtained from Figure 2-13.

Figure 2-13: Selected Country Scores for MAS¹⁶

Exercise: Age-effects on MAS scores (online)

Another dimension of the Hofstede framework measures the intolerance of ambiguity in society, or in other words: the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by unknown or ambiguous situations. This uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) is deducted from measurements ranging from strong to weak on the following three items: job stress, agreement with “company rules should not be broken – even when the employee thinks it is in the company’s best interest” and the intent to stay with the company for a long-term career (more than five years or until retirement). Cultures with a high UAI score use all kinds of structural or organisational measures to avoid risks and vague conditions. Typical aspects of cultures with weak or strong UAI are compiled in Figure 2-14.

Figure 2-14: Key Differences between Cultures with Weak and Strong UAI¹⁷

Countries with strong UAI values comprise Greece, Portugal and Guatemala whereas countries as Singapore, Jamaica, Denmark and Sweden display only weak UAI values. An overview of selected country scores concerning UAI offers Figure 2-15.

Figure 2-15: Selected Country Scores for UAI¹⁸

The fifth dimension was originally derived from the Chinese Value Survey (CVS) carried out by Chinese researchers in 1985 by asking students from 23 countries around the world. These researchers asked questions that contrasted values without any previous equivalent in Hofstede’s IBM study. Mainly based on Confucian values, these questions were simply not asked by Westerners before. This dimension indicates a societies’ time perspective and an attitude of persevering that means, overcoming obstacles with time, if not with will and strength. A high score on this so-called long-term orientation (LTO) index combined the values persistence, thrift, ordering relationships by status and having a sense of shame. People are respected for their willingness to subordinate themselves for a purpose and to foster virtues towards future awards. Consequently, the original study found high (LTO) scores for countries of the Far East like China (118), Hong Kong (96), Taiwan (87) und Japan (80). In contrast, countries with short-term orientation were Pakistan (0), UK (25), US (29), Germany (31) and Sweden (33). Interestingly, this dimension was found to be correlated with recent economic growth and to predict future economic growth. Typical characteristics of longterm versus short-term oriented cultures are shown in Figure 2-16.

Figure 2-16: Key Differences between Cultures with high or low LTO¹⁹

The analysis of the World Values Survey (WVS) enabled the researchers to expand the database of LTO considerably. A meticulous scouring of the WVS database unearthed items that were conceptually similar and significantly correlated with the items of the LTO found in CVS: thrift as a desirable trait for children, national pride and importance of service to others. Based on these, new LTO scores for 84 (later 93) countries were calculated. A selection of these new LTO scores (based on the WVS) is presented in Figure 2-17. It is quite clear that the ideas are close but still lead to different results. This could be illustrated by looking at the scores for Germany: the LTO-CVS score for Germany was 31 which equals a short-term oriented culture. In the LTO-WVS score Germany is listed with 83 which equals a long-term oriented culture. The WVS data fits very well to the extraordinary high savings ratio in Germany and the focus on long-term business relations that can be observed. This alteration underlines that the way certain ideas are phrased has an influence on the ratings given by survey participants and that through this the culture of the survey developers and their way of expressing and understanding certain aspects has a direct impact on the findings.

Figure 2-17: Selected Country Scores for LTO (WVS)²⁰

When dealing with intercultural issues in internationalisation, the psychic distance of business partners is of high importance. According to the Uppsala Model for example, the internationalisation of enterprises follows a psychic distance chain. Generally speaking, an organisation first gains international experience on markets in foreign markets that were close to the domestic market in terms of psychic distance, meaning that on these markets exist less factors that make it difficult to understand the foreign environment. The organisations would then gradually enter others with a higher psychic distance.²¹ Some research suggests that the higher the psychic distance between business partners is, the more problems evolve in all aspects of cooperation from business setup to leadership. According to Holden and Burgess (1994)²² psychic distance is as a combination of cultural distance, mistrust und social distance. As the concept of cultural distance itself is still subject of an on-going scientific discussion it should be defined here very generally as a gap between the culture of two different groups or societies. Possible descriptions of cultural gaps are provided by Hofstede’s dimensions. Assuming that a very low cultural distance is helpful to avoid disruptive influences in management or leadership, the establishment of clusters of countries with high cultural closeness would be beneficial. In the 1991 edition of his book “Cultures and Organizations”, Hofstede included culture maps that formed cultural clusters of countries with quite similar values, each based on two dimensions of his framework. Studying these it becomes quite clear that some cultures are quite close to each other concerning two dimensions but are set widely apart in other dimensions. For example, Germany and Finland have quite similar scores on IND and PDI but differ tremendously concerning MAS – Germany being a masculine, Finland a feminine country. It is also problematic where to draw the line between clusters. A distinction of feminine cultures below a score of 50 and masculine cultures with scores above is quite academic, as this would divide countries with quite similar scores of 48 and 52. So the definition of clusters ends up to be quite subjective and should not involve the scores only but more knowledge about the expression of them in daily life in the respective countries.