Cross-Cultural Management Difference Between France and China - Essay Example

Cross-Cultural Management Difference Between France and China Cultural difference greatly impacts the working and management styles of individuals and thus has major implications for cross cultural communication by companies working outside the parent country. People from same cultural backgrounds “share methods of coding, storing and retrieving information,” besides sharing information. (Hall and Hall 1997). These methods vary from culture to culture. Culture is an evolving thing for every country. Cultural elements like music, dress that are visible today will be a thing of the past tomorrow. However, there are some elements of culture like God, religions, etc that will continue to have its presence infinitely. From these two contrasting views, one can judge that culture’s longevity will depend on how strong and meaningful it will be to human life. The longevity or permanency will be guaranteed when the culture gets evolved with the country’s history. It is important to understand these methods for effective international communication. The “nonverbal” messages in a culture are mostly used for communicating messages by humans (Hall and Hall 1997). Each culture assigns a unique meaning to these messages and ignorance of these meanings can be a major hurdle in establishing business and economic ties with the people of a different culture. We will look at the cross cultural communication between France and China keeping in minds the differences and similarities between the two cultures. We will discuss the various aspects of the communication styles of the two cultures with the aim of reaching an effective communication style for enable smooth negotiations between the two. French cultural elements Communication can be low context or high context. A high context communication would require minimum use of words as the communicators already have most of the information while a low context communication requires more explicit explanations as the communicators do not have the background information. Usually, people coming from cultures that have close family bonding and huge network of friends, resort to high context communication with members of their culture. French are relatively high context individuals when compared to the Americans and other North European nationals. Thus, the communication is faster and uses fewer words. However, the flip side of this is that French do not trust other people’s analyses. They want to analyze everything on their own and will keep doing the analysis till they get all the information (to the lowest level of detail) they want (Hall and Hall 1997). Territory The physical position an individual occupies in office determines his perception of power. French prefer to occupy central position in office and like to be surrounded by subordinates to keep themselves at the locus of information network (Hall and Hall 1997). Monochronic and Polychronic culture Monochronic culture is one in which one activity is done at a time. Time is considered as a valuable asset and one that should not be wasted. Here, time is divided into schedules and only one activity is concentrated during a particular schedule. People from Polychronic cultures do not give too much emphasis to time schedules and indulge in many activities at a time. They give more importance to completing human transactions than adhering to time schedules. French are polychronic people. As a result they are committed to human relations, are easily interrupted and usually have flexile plans (Hall and Hall 1997). Thus, French meetings are characterized by high information flow, not too tight on agenda and participants already aware of what will be discussed in the meeting. The end result of the meeting is thought to bring about a consensus rather than stick to deadlines (Hall and Hall 1997). In short, as French are high context individuals they do not like to be told what to do. They take it as an offence. They also give a lot of importance to style and form. As they are polychronic individuals, they would not mind a person coming late in a meeting, but would be offended by his appearance and style if he comes in an informal dress code. Chinese cultural elements Chinese culture is marked with collectivism. Chinese have a historical background of living in groups as farmers. Hence, they have developed a culture where they try to adjust to the people around them to live harmoniously. Hence, they give more importance to group achievement rather than individual achievement. “The success for Chinese is group enterprise rather than an individual achievement” (Weinshall 1993). This has important implication for businesses. Because of the collectivism approach, business is considered as family tie rather than an agreement to work in a particular way. This leads to favoring the people or institutes that are considered to be insiders against those considered to be outsiders. Chinese find it difficult to trust outsiders for doing business with them. They need to first build up a relationship and develop enough trust to start business partnership with outsiders (via-web). Collectivism also has implications for Chinese people in being indirect in communication. As collectivism promotes harmony, Chinese consider giving a blank refusal as offensive. Hence, many of their communications are indirect and not clear denials which create confusion in the minds of the westerners who are more individualistic and direct in communication (Tang and Ward 2003). Chinese society is a high power distance society where children are taught to respect elders who are bestowed with more power on account of their experience and status in the house. Hence, the organization culture also shows bureaucratic setup where high power is conferred to people at the top level. The subordinates are not expected to contradict and discuss much with them as it is considered as disrespectful. This also results in Chinese not being very vocal and direct about their thoughts and ideas (Tang and Ward 2003). Due to their high reliance on superiors for guidance, decision making in the organizational context is very slow. This is because all decisions come from top down. Chinese are also not very comfortable with written communication because giving commitment on paper is considered as a risky proposition. They prefer to communicate verbally and hence abstain from replying to mails very easily (Tang and Ward 2003). This insecurity dwells from their military political background. Understanding cross cultural differences Hofstede created a model to understand cross cultural mapping. The dimensions he used to differentiate cultures are – individualism vs collectivism, masculinity vs femininity, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and term orientation (Johann 2008). The first dimension measures how much importance is given to self as compared to a group in the society. The second dimension measures whether material acquisition through aggression (masculinity) is given more importance by the society or relationships (femininity). Higher the power distance, higher the level of inequality in the culture. Uncertainty avoidance measures the extent of risk taking ability of the society. Finally, term orientation measures the amount of forward looking perspective of the society. Measuring the two countries on this model shows that France is high on uncertainty avoidance, power distance and individualism and low on masculinity (Hofstede 1994). This shows that the French people like to establish rules and avoid taking risks. They like to create hierarchies but are more people oriented than material oriented. Chinese on the other hand are more prone to avoiding rules are higher risk takers and have a long term orientation as compared to French people (Hofstede 1994). We can also measure the two cultures on five dimensions as described by Fons Trompenaar’s research (Hoecklin 1995). The first dimension we will look at is Universalism versus Particularism. Societies believing in universalism focus on rules rather than relationships. They have highly defined and detailed legal contracts and they go by the book. Particularists are exactly the opposite giving more value to words than written documents. The following figure shows the position of France and China on this aspect. Chinese (Chi) are more tilted towards particularism while French (Fra) stand somewhere in the middle. Thus, we can see that Chinese would give more importance to relationships than the words written in a contract while French would prefer to legalize most of the contracts (Hoecklin 1995). Individualism verses collectivism is another dimension which differentiates the communication styles of two cultures. This dimension shows how people identify themselves with respect to the society. People from individualistic cultures tend to consider themselves personally responsible for tasks at hand. They focus more on “I” or “me” in contrast to the collectivistic cultures which focus on “we”. Negotiations are highly impacted by collectivism as it becomes very difficult to address individual needs and achievements. The figure below shows that both French and Chinese have similar standing on this aspect (Hoecklin 1995). They are both inclined to work better in groups and tend to take group decisions rather than individual ones. Within organizational setup, they both tend be associated with one group or the other. Neutral verses affective cultures form a key to how individuals behave in an organizational environment. Individuals from neutral cultures like France (see figure below) consider the expression of emotions in the work place as unprofessional. They are very subtle in expressing themselves through verbal and non-verbal gestures. From the scale below we can see that though France lies more towards the affective side in comparison to countries like UK and Australia, it is more neutral in comparison to China. This means Chinese do not try to hide their emotions at work place and show immediate reaction. They have far more expressive face and body signals (Hoecklin 1995). The next dimension is that of the amount of public and private space of individuals. This is described as either specific or diffuse relationship in cultures. The figure below shows that French have specific relationships while Chinese have diffuse relations. This means that French demonstrate a more open public space and a closed private space, i.e. they appear to be more extrovert and direct in their dealings as compared to the Chinese. Chinese on the other hand are more introvert, do not target issues directly but try to beat around the bush and have a closely linked private and work life (Hoecklin 1995). Working with Chinese is hence more difficult for French as they find it difficult to link the private and official lives. Being from a diffuse culture, Chinese appear to be encroaching upon the private lives of an individual. The French find it as an invasion on their private lives when they see Chinese officials visiting their superiors after office hours to give them gifts in return for official favors. Chinese also tend to mix official work with leisure trips to entertain officials which might be helpful in enhancing their business opportunities. Thus working in one team with the Chinese is more difficult for French as they tend not to mix business with personal life. And finally, the last dimension is described by the religious affinities of the various cultures. Chinese are mostly communists or Buddhists. They either do not believe in god or follow a path where material achievement is not given much importance. French on the other hand are either Catholic or Protestant. Both these religions give importance to achievement of results. As shown in the figure below, French are more achievement oriented than Chinese. They would award or reward a person based on his performance rather than his status. However, Chinese are more ascription-oriented and hence have a very hierarchical structure. They tend to create hierarchies to create power nodes that are supposed to increase the effectiveness of an organization. Hence, they have very bureaucratic structure and power not goal achievement drives an organization. Framework that can be applied to Chinese and French negotiators Let us look at how the negotiators of both cultural backgrounds tend to behave. Moran, Harris and Moran (2007) in their study brought about a framework that can be applied to the negotiators of the two cultural backgrounds to understand their way of working. The following discussion is based on their work. Basic concept of the negotiation process The Chinese believe in a friendly approach being from a culture of universalism. However, they bargain hard. They also gather enough information regarding the background of the market or product/service they are negotiating for. They tend not to get into discussion which might result in straining of relationship. French perform well structured research before going for negotiations. They are not much concerned about friendliness during negotiations but are looking for healthy discussions leading to fruitful partnership. In fact, French consider disagreements to be stimulating and enjoy indulging in such healthy arguments. Negotiator selection Chinese mostly prefer negotiators who are technical experts. They have a tendency to select people with political backing. French, like Chinese, also prefer technical experts as negotiators. Hierarchies are important in the selection process. Thus, French tend to send only people of a particular level for negotiations and expect the same from the other party. Issue type They focus is on relationship based issues. As China has a collectivistic culture, they tend to link the issues to connections called “gauxi”. French on the other hand do not work much on relationships but focus on technical and theoretical aspects of the issues as they come from a “specifics” culture. Protocol Negotiators from both the cultures expect proper etiquettes and good manners. They expect a formal protocol to be followed. This comes from the fact that both the cultures have high context individuals and give importance to relationships. Because of this characteristic, both place great importance on ambience, relative status of the participant, decorum and the manner of delivery of a message (via-web). Language complexity Chinese are very high context individuals and have a number of implicit messages. Thus, it is difficult to understand the unstated meanings of the messages they use. Though French are also high context individuals, they are more specifics oriented. Hence, they believe in open communication and are very direct about their expectations. They are open to discussions and expect direct communication rather than beating around the bush. French also do not mind interrupting the speaker during a conversation. This is contrast is considered quite offensive by the Chinese (essay-tips 2011). Decision making The decision making process is slow for both the cultures. French follow a top down approach and the chief executive is generally the final authority (Lewis 2005). Chinese usually follow group decision making and hence wait for decisions to come from the top leadership though it looks like all people are involved in the decision. Similarly, French leaders do consult with managers and workers but the final decision lies with the top most officials (Lewis 2005) Risk taking Chinese are more willing to take risks as compared to the French. They are also more willing to accepting change and are not very strong followers of rules as French are. This has implications for negotiations in the fact that they are ready to bend rules for gains. Their business meetings also usually move away from the target (essay-tips 2011). Form of agreement French like to have carefully worded contracts and everything written in black and white. Chinese, though sign contracts, rely more on verbal commitments rather than written documents that are not easily challengeable in the not too well developed legal framework of China. Implications for luxury industry Luxury industry is highly dependent on the perception created around a product. The people who buy these products are considered to be of higher status than others. Both French and Chinese believe in status, though Chinese are more status conscious. Chinese like to give gifts as means of enhancing business relations. Luxury products presented as gifts show how valuable is an official for the client. It has been observed that “28% of the luxury products are consumed for special gifts for commercial relations in China” (Kei and Man). Luxury products are better understood by people from high context cultures as these products have unspoken messages. Hence, both the cultures place high value on these products. Fashion and art are appreciated by both the cultures as both are very old societies (planetema.net 2007). The French luxury industry is far well developed than the Chinese. Chinese are quite conservative about using luxury products because of their cultural background. The products need to be presented in a way which does not sound offensive but arouse the class consciousness. Hence, the French luxury producers need to understand the cultural nuances of the Chinese to deliver products that satisfy their cultural values. Similarly, Chinese goods need to satisfy the French cultural characteristics to be acceptable by them. References Essay-tips.com, Cross-cultural differences between doing business in France and China, viewed on May 10, 2011 http://essay-tips.com/business/cross-cultural-differences-between-doing-business-in-france-and-china/ Hall, ET and Hall, MR 1997, Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French and Americans, Intercultural Press Hoecklin, LA 1995, Manging Cultural Differences For Competitive Advantage, Universities Press Hofstede, G 1994, Management scientists are human, Management Science, vol. 40, no.1, pp. 4-13. Johann, R 2008,a Cross-Cultural Management: The Case of the DaimlerChrysler Merger, GRIN Verlag Kei, CK and Man, WK, French luxury products in China, viewed on May 10, 2011 http://www.slideshare.net/wkm921/pols-3620-french-luxury-products-in-china-chan-ka-kei-wong-ka-man Lewis, RD 2005, Finland, cultural lone wolf, Intercultural Press Planetema.net 2007, Cultural difference between China and France, viewed on May 10, 2011 http://www.planetema.net/~MASCHI/UIBE/cultural_differences_between_china_and_france.pdf Moran, RT, Harris, PR and Moran, SV 2007, Managing cultural differences: global leadership strategies for the 21st century, Butterworth-Heinemann Tang, J and Ward, A 2003, The changing face of Chinese management, Routledge Via-web.de, International business cultures, viewed on May 10, 2011 http://www.via-web.de/high-context-vs-low-context/ Weinshall, TD 1993, Societal culture and management, Walter de Gruyter Read More