Intercultural Communication in International Business - Coursework Example

Table of Contents ­­­­­­­Table of Contents Introduction 2 The Dimensions of Culture 6 Conclusion 8 References 11 Introduction The merger of the Auto giants Daimler and Chrysler in 2001 was fraught with issues of Intercultural Business communication, with both groups finding the attitude and work ethic of the other frustrating (Ostle, 22 Nov 1999). This was despite the fact that both the companies are internationally reputed and have excellent corporate communication departments within them. The problems related to international mergers are nothing new; in fact, it is paramount in international Businesses, as any Japanese would testify. The current decade has been one of rapid globalization with businesses no longer contained within national boundaries and the economic trajectories of all nations intertwined. Managers of multinational corporations admit that the success of their organization depends on how well their employees are able to deal with cultural complexities and to understand, accept and respond to the cultural differences of their team members (Matveev & Milter, 2004). There are a number of idiosyncrasies associated with American management theories. The very concept of ‘management’ in itself incarnates in various forms in various cultures. Business schools are almost non existent in Germany and the highly skilled German workers do not require a manager of the American prototype. In most western countries, a clear demarcation is made between professional and personal life. The synthetic world view of eastern societies particularly of Japan, insist that everything is personal and not surprisingly, the Japanese Koreans and Chinese have strong corporate loyalties with most employees aspiring to work for a life time. In these cultures, non verbal communication gains higher priority over grandiose oratory making communication economical and fast (Hal & Hall, 1990). It need not be explicitly stated that any business activity that involves parties from divergent cultures have to take special care of their intercultural communication. The dimensions of local culture, the language, symbolic artifacts, codes of social conduct, dining etiquettes etc have to be studied with care before the actual interactions began. [A General Motors auto ad with the caption “Body by Fisher” became “Corpse by Fisher” in Flemish.] High performance multicultural teams are the core of the success of any international business organization. Such high performance teams do exist but (curiously) less often in business than in Science. The Manhattan project as well as most of NASA’s space missions have had a disproportionate number of non Americans; yet they were remarkable successes. The reason might be that they spoke the common language of Science - but demonstrating nevertheless the viability of intercultural teams. The understanding of this problem demands a concise definition for the word ‘culture’ which shall serve as the operational basis of all our future discussions. Unsurprisingly, literature abounds with a plethora of such definitions each shadowing the other yet differing subtly. All the definitions agree that culture is a product of social interaction and comes under the purview of sociology and not individual psychology. Culture is the product of history in some definitions while it is the model for future interactions in yet another class. No two definitions are mutually exclusive, and a definition is yet to be found which specific addresses culture from the point of view of group dynamics. The definitions of Culture Numerous definitions of culture exist in literature. All of them agree that culture is a primarily a product of social interaction (as they should). “Culture is simply the learned and shared behavior of a community of interacting human beings” (Useem & Useem, 1963). This definition gives us a thumb rule to identify cultural traits in groups. As long as the group can shown to be sufficiently interacting, any common behavior among them is part of their culture. Associated with each culture are a set of tangible elements that constitute the symbolic exterior of their cultural spheres. The essence of a culture is however, not in its artifacts and tools but in how the members of the group interpret, use and perceive them. “People within a culture usually interpret the meaning of symbols, artifacts and behaviors in the same or in similar ways.” (Banks & McGee, 1989) Culture as a pattern of behavior is recognized by all authors. “Culture consists of those patterns relative to the behavior and the products of human action which may be inherited from generation to generation independently of the biological genes” (Parson, 1949). Thus a set of shared patterns of behaviors and interactions, cognitive constructs, and others that are learned through a process of socialization all constitute culture. Hofstede and others have described culture as consisting of four layers – the outer one consisting of Symbols, the next layer of heroes, then rituals and finally values at the core (Hofstede, 2005). Symbols are words, gestures, pictures or objects that carry a meaning recognized as such by only those who share the culture. New symbols are easily developed and old ones disappear. Moreover, symbols from one culture are easily copied by other cultures. This shows that the interpretation of culture as a pattern of behavior is limited and questionable. The definition - “Culture is a model for day to day living patterns which pervade all aspects of social interaction. Culture is mankind’s primary adaptive mechanism” (Damen, 1987) introduces culture as a model which a given group of people can follow to obtain social satisfaction. This definition is more relevant to our current discussion as this ‘model’ can easily be extended to the economic sphere which can be used to predict how people behave in business environments. This idea deserves meritorious consideration. If we follow a set of rules such as “smile – smile”, “yes - nod”, “leave – bow” etc can we hope to impress upon a foreign business delegation? In this respect, the existence of cultural models is beneficial but we have to be clear that it creates only a ‘culture robot’ that does no other purpose than to imitate a particular culture. The final category of the definitions label culture as a conditioning of the masses. The most prominent of these definitions is that of Hofstede himself: “Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one category of people from another” (Hofstede, National Cultures and Corporate cultures, 1984). Others authors have expressed similar opinions – “Cultural Systems may be considered as products of action and on the other hand as conditioning elements of further action” (Krober & Kluckohn, 1952) and “A culture is a configuration of learned behaviors and results of behavior whose component elements are shared and transmitted by the members of a particular society” (Linton, 1945). The fact that culture is ultimately a conditioning of the masses cannot be denied but this definition is dangerous in the sense that it implies that people can be ‘reconditioned’ to adhere to another set of customs. Though this does happen (as with immigrant populations), it cannot be accepted for cooperative business environments. The Dimensions of Culture The various dimensions of national cultures were first identified by Geert Hofstede and his team. These dimensions provide excellent tools for the analysis of national cultures. The first of these dimensions relate to Power Distance. This is the extent to which inequality is accepted by a culture. Countries that have small power distances such as Austria, New Zealand and Denmark accept power relations that are more consultative or democratic. At the other end of the line are nations such as Malaysia and Slovakia that are willing to accept dictatorial powers based on formal hierarchical positions. The power distance dimension is an important factor in business relations as it determines the nature of the interaction between juniors and seniors and the format of managerial meetings. Individualism is the second dimension and this is best contrasted with its opposite, collectivism. This is the degree to which people in a country prefer to act as individuals rather than as members of groups. In collective societies, children grow up learning how to identify themselves as members of groups first and when they grow up, they expect support and nurturing from the group. The members unsurprisingly remain loyal to the group all their lives. An individual on the other hand is conditioned from his childhood to be able to be responsible for himself one day. Such an individual does not expect protection from the society and understandably does not feel any sense of loyalty towards it (Hofstede, Cultural Constraints in Management Theories, 1993). Australia and the United States are highly individualistic countries and therefore it is not surprising that companies do not expect their employees to be unduly loyal to them. The workers periodically switch jobs and the company can remove any number of workers whenever it requires. The third Dimension is Masculinity. This refers to the value placed on traditionally male or female values – male values being competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, etc and female values being commitment to relationships, environmental concerns and so on. Masculine virtues are based on “Quantity of Life” while Feminine Virtues are related to “Quality of Life”. Uncertainty Avoidance, the fourth dimension is the degree to which the people of a country prefer structured over unstructured situations. A society with strong uncertainty avoidance can be called rigid, while ones with weak uncertainty avoidance are flexible. Belgium and Japan have very high Uncertainty Avoidance Indexes while both the UK and the US have higher risk taking mentality. The fifth Dimension is Long Term Orientation which includes values such as thrift or saving mentality, persistence etc. Long term orientation is a demonstrably oriental characteristic which is in general lacking in western societies. These dimensions as has been mentioned are excellent analytical tools which deal specifically with the business related aspects of global culture. However, they should be used with care as the data are representative of a whole national culture while in ordinary business environment, we might have to deal more with subcultures that might not fit into the general national description. None of the usual categorizations of the US society as risk taking, individualistic etc apply to the Amish people who lead more collective lives centered on simple living and thinking. Conclusion From the above discussions it is apparent that none of the definitions of culture apply specifically to business environments. Culture is a very generalized term and all the definitions of culture aspire to grasp the full complexity and range of the concept. However, the way a person responds to a work based stimulus is different from the way he reacts in a home environment. That is, the customs and the behavior of a person in his house and friend circle is different from the way he behaves in his work place. Thus, a single definition of culture cannot capture the entire range of his possible responses. Also, there is no “one national culture”. Each culture has its own subcultures and they have their own subcultures. India, for example, has over 28 states each speaking a different language and within each state, there are at least ten recognizable subcultures. If a person decided to familiarize himself with the culture of India, then which culture should he start with? Some definitions of culture such as Hofstede’s “Mass conditioning theory” have the risk of being wrongly interpreted. Even if culture is the “programming of minds” it does not mean that a person (a manager, for e.g.) can ‘reprogram’ his employees to conform to his work culture. This will only result in work place friction and frustration. E Schein’s definition that “Culture is the way in which a group of people solves problems and reconcile dilemmas” (Schein, 1985) is more suitable for our analysis as businesses ultimately aim to provide solutions to real world problems. The concept that each culture is a particular problem solving methodology of an interacting population has significant theoretical connotations. But unfortunately, even this definition cannot be complete as every business relation extends beyond professional niceties especially when they are prolonged. Thus, the definitions of culture are helpful only to the extent that it makes us aware of the fact that cultural differences play a significant role in influencing the outcome of international business endeavors. They cannot provide further information as to the exact nature of the divergence nor can they provide a suitable model that can be applicable in all situations. However, this is not due to any defect in the framing of the definitions nor is a suitable definition going to appear. The world is so culturally diverse that even opposites can be incorporated into a single culture stream. Can a word be found in the English language that describes both light and Darkness? Given this diversity, it is unlikely that a definition that culture will be found that can absorb and provide a model for all the cultures. Trompenaars himself has lamented that “In 20 years, we are yet to find two or more groups with identical suggestions regarding the concept of culture”. The situation however is not bleak and this does not by any means suggest that it is impossible to understand or surmount cultural issues in international business contexts. But this will require the dedicated participation, cooperation and understanding of both the parties involved. References Banks, J. A., & McGee, C. A. (1989). Multicultural Education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Damen, L. (1987). Culture Learning: The fifth Dimension on the Language Classroom. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French and Americans. Intercultural Press. Hofstede, G. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill Professional. Hofstede, G. (1984). National Cultures and Corporate cultures. In L. A. Samovar, & R. E. Porter, Communication between cultures (p. 51). Belmont: Wadsworth. Krober, A. L., & Kluckohn, C. (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitons. Harvard University Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology Papers 47 . Linton, R. (1945). The Cultural Background of Personality. New York. Parson, T. (1949). Essays in Sociological Theory. Glencoe, IL. Schein, E. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey - Bass. Spinks, N., & Wells, B. (1997). Intercultural Communication: A Key Element in Global Stratergies. Career Development International , 287 - 292. Trompenaars, A., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Global Business. McGraw-Hill Professional. Useem, J., & Useem, R. (1963). Human Organizations, 22(3) , 169. Read More