Intercultural management
Webreview
présenté par Romain GONZALEZ, Master 2ème année Management interculturel et
médiation religieuse.
A-Connecting Intercultural Communication and
Management
By Gary R. Weaver
Dr. Gary R. Weaver is a Professor of International Communication in the School
of International Service at American University, and a senior trainer with the
Intercultural Management Institute.
http://www.imi.american.edu/articles.html
Most management principles are based upon American case studies, quantitative
research at universities, and even laboratory experiments with animals. Many
are built upon American psychological and pseudo-psychological research. While
these principles are useful, they must be carefully and critically examined and
questioned in the context of the multicultural or international workplace. Most
are not validated across cultures and thus can only be applied to a fairly
homogeneous, mainstream American workplace.
It may be true that the average American is primarily motivated to be
productive and remain with an organization because his or her need for
individual achievement is met in the workplace. The employee is rewarded for
hard work with a higher salary. However, a joint venture may involve employees
from traditional non-European cultures or a company in Detroit may find an
increasing number of employees who are female, from Latin American backgrounds.
These employees may be more concerned with long-term security or being valued
as part of a group.
Intercultural management takes cultural context into consideration. The stick
and carrot that works best depends on the background of the employee. Most
importantly, an effective manager is able to communicate with people from
various backgrounds, not simply co-workers from his hometown or home state.
It is tempting to take the position that those who are different ought to fit
into the organizational culture. That is, the organizational culture trumps all
other cultures. Somehow people leave their ethnic or national cultural
identities on the sidewalk before they walk into the building each morning.
When they behave like everyone else in the organization and share the dominant
values, they will be fine.
Those who hold this position support training programs to help those who are
different fit into the dominant organizational culture. For example, a few
decades ago when large numbers of women entered the workplace, “assertiveness
training” programs were available. Most of these programs were designed to help
women to learn to be as aggressive and assertive as their male counterparts.
Under this model, the only thing really wrong with women is that they act like
women. If they acted like men, they would be perfectly competent human beings.
This is not intercultural management. This is cloning.
The goal of intercultural management is not to eliminate differences but rather
to use those differences to enhance creativity within the organization. If we
were trying to come up with innovative ways of solving problems, why would we
want women who think like men sitting around the conference table? Don't we
want the feminine, the Chicano, the African American, and the white American
viewpoint?
Surely if we believe that we carry our cultures into the workplace and those
cultures are valued by the organization, then we look forward to coming to work
everyday. This, in turn, increases retention and productivity.
Of course, everyone ought to be aware of the organizational culture's
fundamental values and behaviors. Orientation to the organizational culture is
vital for all newcomers. And, managers need to understand the dynamics of
cross-cultural adaptation. A person who is culturally different may go through
some form of 'culture shock' and managers who know little of the phenomenon are
not only unhelpful to this employee, they can react improperly to the
employee's behavior and make the situation worse.
An easy solution is to bring in experts on particular cultures who can run
culture-specific training seminars. However, many of these so-called experts
only perpetuate stereotypes, generalizations about cultures that are
inflexible, inaccurate and leave no room for exceptions. They may provide
information, but no real understanding. Information is knowing what people do;
understanding is knowing why they do it. Intercultural management requires the
ability to get inside the heads of people from other cultures and know how they
view the world, their basic values and beliefs, and how they reason and solve problems.
Everyone is individually and culturally unique. That is, we all have our
idiosyncratic beliefs, viewpoints and behaviors. And, we all belong to numerous
secondary cultures beyond the primary culture we were born into. We may be
African American and also female, Catholics and New Yorkers. No two individuals
belong to exactly the same cultures at the same time. Every tree in the forest
is different, but we can still talk about categories of trees - pine trees, oak
trees, maple trees - and still acknowledge the individuality of each tree.
We cannot be experts on every culture. However, we can develop the flexibility
to put ourselves in the psychological and cultural shoes of those who are
different. We can begin to appreciate the reality that there are numerous ways
of solving a problem and that our way is in large part a result of growing up
in our own culture. Intercultural awareness and understanding begin with
knowing our own culture first. Often this can only come through interaction
with those who are different. This interaction should take place in
intercultural management training.
Intercultural communication and management skills cannot be learned by simply
gathering information about other cultures. This may reduce some uncertainty
and decrease prejudice, but it does not give authentic cross-cultural
knowledge. The only way we can learn intercultural communication and management
skills is through some sort of experience, coupled with cross-culturally
validated management principles. While books, lectures, videos, CD-ROMs and the
Internet can give useful information, they cannot train people to communicate
and manage effectively across cultures.
The workplace of the new millennium will be multicultural and global. With
greater intercultural interaction, the differences are not simple going to
disappear. We will not link arms in the office, sing 'We Are the World,' and
find that we can easily overcome the communication breakdowns or conflicts. As
long as we remain within our own culture, we take it for granted. However, when
we leave it and interact with people from other backgrounds, we become more
consciously aware of our own culture, and it becomes more important to us.
Résumé :
Le management interculturel est nécessaire pour le bon fonctionnement d’une
entreprise car des principes de management trop simples ne permettent pas de
comprendre la diversité des attentes des employés. Le management interculturel
est différent d’un management qui cherche à imposer la culture dominante de
l’entreprise à tous ses salariés, car ce type de management cherche en fait à
uniformiser et il ne prend pas en compte la diversité positive des employés.
Cependant, si le management interculturel s’impose de plus en plus dans le
contexte de la mondialisation, sa pratique soulève encore de nombreuses
difficultés.
Premièrement, si le management interculturel cherche à comprendre et à profiter
des différences qui composent l’entreprise, les employés doivent aussi être
capables de prendre en compte l’orientation de leurs entreprises.
Deuxièmement, on peut noter l’existence d’un problème concernant de prétendus
experts qui ne véhiculent que des stéréotypes ou des généralités.
Troisièmement, avant tout pratique de management interculturel il est
nécessaire d’appréhender la diversité de notre propre culture individuelle et
ainsi de comprendre que chaque individu est unique et structuré par plusieurs
cultures.
Quatrièmement, des informations sur les cultures sont insuffisantes pour les
comprendre, c’est pourquoi l’habitude d’être en situation où plusieurs cultures
se croisent est le meilleur moyen pour apprendre à faire du management
interculturel.
Summary :
Intercultural management is necessary for the correct operation of a company
because too simple principles of management do not make it possible to
understand the diversity of the employees. Intercultural management is
different from a management which seeks to impose the dominant culture of the
company on all its employees, because this type of management seeks in fact to
standardize the personnel and it does not take into account the positive
diversity of its employees.
However, if intercultural management is now necessary, there are still many
difficulties to practice it.
Firstly, if intercultural management seeks to understand and benefit from the
differences which make the company, the employees must also be able to take
into account the general orientation of the company.
Secondly, there is also a problem because of people who claim themself to be
experts and who give anyway only stereotypes or generalization in connection
with the various cultures.
Thistly, a good manager must consider that each employee of the company is
single and made up of several cultures, and thus he also must know his own
culture as a whole of various cultures.
Fourthly, general information about cultures are not sufficient to understand
them, the practice to be in cross-cultural situation is the best way to learn
intercultural management.
Lexicon :
Average : moyenne
Achievement : accomplissement
Background : milieu
Assertiveness training : formation à l’autoritarisme
Inaccurate : imprécis
Awareness : conscience
To reward : récompenser
B-Negotiating Across Cultures: Communication Obstacles
in International Diplomacy
By Raymond Cohen, Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press,
1991
Summary by Tanya Glaser
University of Colorado Conflict Research Consortium
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/cohe7517.htm
Cohen argues that cross-cultural differences have significant effects on
diplomatic negotiations. Failure to understand and appreciate theses
differences can have serious consequences for negotiations. In this text Cohen
explores the role cultural differences play in shaping the content, process,
and style of negotiations.
Cultural Differences
"Diplomatic negotiation consists of a process of communication between
states seeking to arrive at a mutually acceptable outcome on some issue of
shared concern."[p. 7] This process of communication can be profoundly affected
by differing cultural conventions, norms, meanings, assumptions, ideals and
perceptions. The problems of inter-cultural communication have received
increased attention in recent years, and Cohen reviews briefly some of the main
theorists working in this field. Cohen's own approach is to combine these
theoretical frameworks with analyses of case studies, focusing particularly on
cases of negotiation between Western and non-Western states.
Cohen rejects the notion that a single international diplomatic culture has
developed, which makes diplomats' native cultures largely irrelevant. He finds
that seasoned diplomats reports that cultural differences have a significant
impact. Theoretic studies show that culture plays a large role in shaping the
individuals' character. This constitutive impact of culture cannot be erased by
mere exposure to other cultures.
Cohen draws primarily on Lorand Szalay's theory of inter-cultural
communication. Szalay begins by distinguishing between the form and content of
a message. The form of the message serves to encode its meaning. Understanding
a message is a matter of the receiver correctly decoding it, so that the
receiver's intention matches the sender's meaning. Szalay says, "Since the
encoder and the decoder are two separate individuals their reactions are likely
to be similar only to the extent that they share experiences, that they have
similar frames of reference. The more different they are, the less isomorphism
there will be between encoded and decoded content."[p. 20] Cultural
similarity provides a shared frame of reference, while individuals from
divergent cultures are more likely to have different experiences and frames of
reference. Cohen draws on this model to identify several very basic, very
general differences between cultures. First is the contrast between cultures
with an individualistic ethos and cultures which emphasize interdependence and
collective identity. In collectivist cultures, communication tends to be very
context-sensitive. Communication forms emphasize politeness,
relationship-building, tact, and even indirectness. Individualistic cultures
de-emphasize the communication context and personal relationships.
Communication is direct and explicit, with little patience for rhetoric,
allusion, or complex etiquette.
Another important contrast is between cultures with polychronic and monochronic
concepts of time. Monochronic cultures tend to regiment time. Schedules and
timetables are given great weight. Haste is a virtue. Such cultures are
future-oriented; the past is important only insofar as it affects present and
future plans. Polychronic culture take a more leisurely view of time. Time
moves in greater and lesser cycles, independent of human wants. Patience and
steadiness are virtues. Polychronic cultures tend to have a richer sense of the
past; past events live on in the present. Cohen calls collectivist, polychronic
cultures high-context cultures. Individualistic, monochronic cultures are then
low-context.
Cohen suggests that supposedly universal models of negotiation may instead
reflect an individualistic, monochronic culture. Models which take an
instrumental approach to negotiation, which emphasize separating people from
issues, and which prioritize creating efficient, maximally beneficial outcomes,
may seem foreign to cultures that place primary value in human relationships
and have a less urgent sense of time. Not every issue is negotiable. Which
issues are considered to be open to negotiation and which are not often depends
upon cultural factors. National pride and the necessity of equal treatment are
non-negotiable issues for most countries. Often a reaffirmation of national
pride or status is required in order to bring a nation into negotiations.
Collectivist cultures may be especially sensitive to perceived slights or
insults.
Most cultures will be extremely reluctant to negotiate sovereignty issues.
However different cultures focus their need for sovereignty in different areas.
Often past events come to symbolize wounded national pride. Being associated
with such events can provoke stiff resistance. Many nations' senses of
sovereignty rest in maintaining their cultural traditions. States which were
once under colonial rule are often sensitive to anything reminiscent of
colonialism. The presence of foreign military, for example, may be a
non-negotiable issue to such states. North American and Northern European
nations tend to treat matters of human rights as non-negotiable issues. Many of
the other nations do not attach such basic importance to human rights. The list
of human rights set forth in the UN Declaration of Human Rights has been
criticized as reflecting the individualistic cultural bias of the West. Some
people have argued that these individualistic rights are less applicable or
appropriate to collectivist cultures.
Stages of Negotiation
Cohen explores the effects of cultural differences in the four different phases
of the negotiation process. The phases Cohen identifies are the preparation
phase, and the beginning, middle and end phases of negotiations. Cohen notes
that the various ways in which the negotiation process is described and divided
are themselves culturally loaded. Cohen's divisions are made simply for the
sake of convenience, and are not meant to refer to necessarily distinct stages.
For high-contrast negotiators, the preparatory stage focuses on building
personal relationships with the other side. Accustomed to acting within a rich
network of interdependent relations, high-context negotiators start by
attempting to build such a network with the opponent. Low-context cultures see
issues as separable from personal relations, and prefer to act in relatively
anonymous ways. High-context cultures also tend to take a long term view,
focusing on cultivating and improving the parties' relationship. Low-context
cultures tend to have a more short term focus on the issue at hand.
Maintaining face (reputation or honor) is generally more important in
high-context cultures than in low-context. Because of the importance of
maintaining face, high-context negotiators generally try to minimize
uncertainty and to prevent crises, confrontations, and surprises. Being caught
by surprise is likely to result in a loss of face for someone. Similarly
someone is likely to lose in a confrontation, with the attending loss of face.
Low-context cultures are less concerned with issues of face, and so are more
open to uncertainty, competition and confrontation. The beginning phase of
negotiations can be complicated by differences between hierarchical and egalitarian
cultures. Egalitarian cultures assume negotiations will proceed by the parties
taking turns presenting their concerns, and reciprocating initiatives in kind.
Low- context negotiators tend to open negotiations by first setting forth their
position, assuming that the other side will respond by stating their opposing
position. Low-context cultures view declaring a opening position to be risky
and confrontational. The opening positions reveal the party's interests. When
this statement of positions is not reciprocated it gives the reticent party an
advantage. Hierarchical cultures may view the parties' relationship as that of
supplicant to superior, and so be "quite happy to demand one-sided
concessions in payment of a supposed moral debt or as the duty of the stronger
party."[p. 84]. Cultures also differ in their preference for agreement on
specifics or on general principles. Low-context negotiators are likely to rely
on the factual-inductive mode of persuasion, which focuses on examining the
facts at hand and crafting a conclusion to fit those facts. High context
negotiators may prefer the axiomatic-deductive mode of persuasion, which seeks
agreement on general principles and then applies those principles to the case
at hand.
Different cultures may have different expectations as to what should occur
during the middle phase of negotiations, and how much time this phase should
take. Low context cultures such as the U.S. expect that the middle phase will
be a period of bargaining, a process of trade-offs and concessions in which the
parties gradually converge on a shared position. Many high context cultures see
such a process of "haggling" as appropriate to price negotiations,
but inappropriate to matters of principle. High status individuals do not lower
themselves to haggle over small points. Polychronic cultures are usually
willing to draw out the middle phase. Monochronic cultures are usually in more
of a hurry to reach an agreement. Monochronic cultures are often at some
disadvantage when negotiating with polychronic cultures, since their greater
sense of urgency will prompt them to make greater concessions in order to close
the deal quickly.
Different cultural approaches to authority can also complicate the middle
phase. Collectivist cultures tend to base authority relations on the
father-child model. Authority is centralized, hierarchical, and tends to be
absolute. Individualist cultures tend to disperse power and authority, and to
encourage questions and even challenges to authority. The American system of
governmental checks and balances is typical of a individualist culture.
Difficulties have often arisen as negotiators from collectivist cultures
over-estimate the power and domestic authority of the U.S. President. Japan is
an anomaly among collectivist cultures, in that political decision-making
relies on consensus.
Different cultures favor different means of negotiation and persuasion. The
emphasis on personal relationships and group harmony in high context cultures
means that persuasion focuses on cultivating a close, trusting relationship
with the other side. High context cultures are generally uncomfortable with
overt aggression, confrontation, and adversarial styles of interaction. Low
context cultures find facts and reasoned arguments to be more persuasive, and
tend to favor a more direct, explicit and even aggressive style of
communication.
Low context cultures prefer direct communication, while high context cultures
are generally more indirect, relying on strong personal relationships to
support mutual understandings. Cohen notes that "a striking feature of
collectivistic, high context speakers...is their dislike of the negative; a
direct contradiction is invariably avoided."[p. 113] When pressed for a
direct answer, high context negotiators may resort to expressions of polite
agreement which are without substance. Or they may offer ambiguous answers.
Misunderstandings often result from such politeness being mistaken for
substantive agreement. Nonverbal communication also varies widely from culture to
culture, as does the acceptability of displays of emotion. High context
cultures employ, and may be particularly moved by, symbolic gestures.
As noted above, monochronic cultures, with their perpetual sense of urgency,
tend to rush the end phase of negotiations. In particular, low context
negotiators tend to overlook the importance of presenting face-saving
alternatives when high context parties are involved. For a proposal to be
acceptable in a high context culture, it must not only meet the parties material
interests, it must also be presented in such a way as to preserve the prestige
and status of each party. High context negotiators may reject even materially
favorable proposals if agreeing would involve a significant loss of face.
Conversely, symbolic gains may make a materially unfavorable proposal
acceptable. One way to save face is to rely on informal, unwritten agreements,
since these can be repudiated should they become too embarrassing. This however
runs counter to the low context preference for specific, explicit, written
agreements.
Conclusions
Cohen concludes his study with the following general suggestions for low
context negotiators when facing high context cultures. Study the history and
language of the other culture. Begin to cultivate a warm personal relationship
with the other side's negotiators even before negotiations start. Do not assume
the other side interprets things in the same way that you do. Be alert and
sensitive to nonverbal or indirect communication, and be aware of your own
nonverbal cues. Be aware of and respect the importance of maintaining face. Fit
your negotiating strategy to the opponent's cultural needs, haggling when
appropriate or starting from general principles. Compromising in the face of an
opponent's intransigence may simply confuse the situation, since their
stubbornness is often calculated to make you reveal your bottom line. Low
context negotiators must cultivate patience. Finally, agreements must be
presented in a form which preserves face all around.
Résumé :
Cohen est un spécialiste en diplomatie internationale, ses études l’ont amené à
constater que le manque de compréhension des différences interculturelles peut
avoir des conséquences graves pour les négociations. L’approche de Cohen
combine plusieurs cadres théoriques avec des analyses d’études de cas. La
théorie est essentielle pour Cohen car il ne pense pas que l’impact constitutif
des cultures puisse être effacé par la seule exposition à d’autres cultures.
Premièrement, il est donc nécessaire de prendre en compte le contraste entre
les cultures avec un ethos individualiste et les cultures qui soulignent
l’interdépendance et l’identité collective.
Deuxièmement, un autre contraste important est celui entre les cultures avec
des concepts polychronique et monochronique de temps. Les cultures
monochroniques tendent à diviser le temps, tandis que les cultures
polychroniques tendent à avoir un sens plus riche du passé. Cohen considère que
les cultures collectivistes et polychroniques sont de haut contexte et que les
cultures individualistes et monochroniques sont alors de bas contexte.
Troisièmement, les processus de négociation ne se divisent pas de la même façon
selon les cultures ; en général les négociateurs de haut contexte commencent
par essayer d’établir un réseau d’interdépendance avec l’adversaire, tandis que
dans les cultures de bas contexte les individus préfèrent agir de manière
relativement anonyme.
Quatrièmement, il est essentiel de considérer que les modes de communication
sont différents entre les cultures de haut et de bas contexte et entre les
cultures monochroniques et polychroniques. Les cultures monochroniques
rencontrent souvent des difficultés lors de négociations avec les cultures
polychroniques car leur volonté d’agir rapidement les incitera à faire de
grandes concessions, ceci afin de clôturer l’affaire rapidement.
Par ailleurs, les cultures de bas contexte préfèrent la communication directe
alors que les cultures de haut contexte sont généralement moins directes.
Summary :
Cohen is a specialist in international diplomacy; its studies led him to note
that the lack of comprehension of the intercultural differences can have
serious consequences for the negotiations. Cohen's own approach is to combine
these theoretical frameworks with analyses of case studies. The theory is
essential for Cohen because he does think that the constitutive impact of
culture cannot be erased by more exposure to other cultures.
Firstly, it is necessary to take into account the contrast between cultures
with an individualistic ethos and cultures which emphasize interdependence and
collective identity.
Secondly, another important contrast is between cultures with polychronic and
monochronic concepts of time
The cultures of monochronic tend to regiment time, while polychronic cultures
tend to have a richer sense of the past. Cohen suggests that supposedly
universal models of negotiation may instead reflect an individualistic,
monochronic culture.
Thirdly, Cohen notes that the various ways in which the negotiation process is
described and divided are themselves culturally loaded. Accustomed to acting
within a rich network of interdependent relations, high-context negotiators
start by attempting to build such a network with the opponent while low-context
cultures see issues as separable from personal relations, and prefer to act in
relatively anonymous ways.
Fourthly, it is essential to consider that the modes of communication are
different between monochronic and polychronic cultures. Monochronic cultures
are often at some disadvantage when negotiating with polychronic cultures,
since their greater sense of urgency will prompt them to make greater
concessions in order to close the deal quickly.
Moreover, low context cultures prefer direct communication, while high context
cultures are generally more indirect.
Lexicon :
Cross-cultural : transculturel
Framework : cadre
Stubbornness : obstination
To attempt : essayer
To haggle : marchander
To emphasize : souligner
C-What is Intercultural Management?
By
Transcultural Synergy
Transcultural Synergy is a network of intercultural management consultants and
trainers working in various parts of the world, including Japan, Korea,
Singapore, U.S.A., Canada, England, Germany, France and Switzerland. Associates
are professionals in intercultural communications, training and consulting,
involved as management consultants, negotiators, human resource professionals,
trainers, curriculum designers, researchers and business communication
consultants. These multicultural and multilingual professionals are committed
to delivering the highest level of intercultural expertise to clients’
projects.
http://www.synergy-associates.com/cultural/i_mgmt.htm
The globalisation of the economy, with increased
cross-border alliances, ventures and global relocations, as well as the advent
of e-commerce, has brought about major changes in the field of international
customer relations and intercultural diversity management. This has led to an
increased appreciation by companies that managing cultural differences properly
can be a key factor in getting things done effectively across borders. With
increased contact of personnel and customers from diverse cultural backgrounds,
there is a growing demand for businesses to understand and manage the diverse
values, perceptions, business worldviews and behaviour of corporations, staff,
and its customers. Intercultural communication and management is an
interdisciplinary human resources field concerned with facilitating
communication, management and effective interaction of personnel and customers
across borders.
It is well documented (e.g. Economist) that many companies have made massive
losses through the mismanagement of international projects. Such losses are
even clearer when one considers that statistically over three quarters of
international acquisitions and alliances fail due to cultural differences.
While intercultural management is a "soft" issue difficult to
quantify financially, given the potential losses that have been made in the
past, it is immensely important for companies to consider cultural issues
properly when dealing in any major international venture, alliance or other
cross-border project.
In an article (5 April 2001) in the Financial Times by Elisabeth Marx titled
'Shock of the alien can sink a merger', for instance, it was said that
"Research on cross-border acquisitions has shown that differences in
management style (particularly in attitudes towards risk) have a negative
effect on company performance. Sadly, very few companies consider the softer,
cultural factors of mergers, which may be a significant contributor to their
subsequent failures. Far too few companies even begin to consider the effects
on staff or the human implication of a merger." The article carries on to
say that "it is easy to end up in a situation where the whole is worth
less than the sum of its two parts", the very opposite of the intention
behind the merger, and quotes the Daimler Chrysler merger as a case in point.
The article advises: "Managers' first task is to conduct more extensive
business analysis before taking the decision to merge. In addition to carrying
out traditional financial and commercial due diligence, they should complete a
thorough examination of the cultural compatibility of the parties involved."
Résumé :
Synergie est un cabinet de conseil en entreprise qui, face à la mondialisation,
cherche à développer la pratique du management interculturel, ceci de façon à
faciliter la communication, la gestion et l’interaction efficace du personnel
et des clients à travers les frontières.
Trois quarts des projets internationaux échouent en raison des différences
culturelles, c’est pourquoi le développement du management interculturel est
primordial au sein des entreprises bien qu’il soit encore difficile d’en
estimer le coût.
Summary
:
Synergy is a company council cabinet which, vis-a-vis universalization, seeks
to develop the practice of intercultural management, this in order to
facilitate the communication, the management and the effective interaction
of personnel and customers through the
borders. Three quarters of international projects fail because of cultural
differences, this is why the development of intercultural management is
important within the companies although it is still difficult to estimate the
cost of it.
Lexicon :
Venture : entreprise
The sum : la somme
The merger : la fusion