Tag: cross cultural

How Can a Cross-Cultural Newcomer Leverage Power Distance to Build Social Capital?

Posted on by 2 Comments

Have you ever started a new job and felt overwhelmed by the social dynamics of the cross-cultural workplace?

Perhaps the structural hierarchy is more rigid than you’re used to?

Or maybe the norm for power dynamics is flat, leaving you confused about who’s in charge and how to gain social capital?

Last week, we talked about how fitting into a new cross-cultural company environment can be difficult, particularly in cases of transitioning from an individualist to a collectivist country – and vice versa.

But on top of that, power distance comes into play when making that transition.

Power distance refers to the degree of inequality among people that a culture considers normal.

Recalling this research from last week, we’ll cover some findings to keep in mind about power distance and social capital.

Person-Organization Fit

Person-organization (PO) fit refers to the extent to which an individual’s values, skills, and goals match those of the organization they work for.

The impact of PO fit on social capital varies depending on the cultural context. 

Not only will collectivism-individualism moderate this relationship but so will power distance.

High Power Distance versus Low Power Distance

Research shows that in cultures where power and influence are highly valued, building social capital is especially important for success.

But, here’s the catch: in high power-distance cultures, the distance between newcomers and their supervisors may be greater, making it harder to build close relationships with those in higher positions.

To combat this, supervisors may need a strong motivation to invest in mentoring and supporting newcomers.

One such motivation could be the similarity between the supervisor and the new hire (PS fit).

In high power-distance cultures, this PS fit may be a crucial factor in building social ties and prompting supervisors to engage in active mentoring.

In contrast, in low power-distance cultures with fewer status differentials, PS fit may not be as crucial for building social capital. 

Supervisors may not need the motivation of PS fit to invest in their subordinates’ social capital building because the absence of status differentials means that everyone has equal access to social networks.

For example, in a start-up company where everyone is on the same level and working towards the same goal, PS fit may not be as important as in a traditional corporate setting where there are hierarchical structures in place.

So, next time you’re hiring or starting a new job in a different cultural context, remember that cultural differences can have a big impact on social dynamics and the importance of PO fit. 

By understanding these differences, you can build stronger relationships and succeed in your new workplace.

How Can a Newbie Leverage Social Capital to Fit into Their Company’s Cross-Cultural Environment?

Posted on by Leave a comment

So, you’ve nailed that job interview and earned your ideal job in a foreign country…

But now you’re worried about whether or not you’ll fit in.

Fitting into a new company environment can be difficult in your own culture, let alone in a foreign one with its cross-cultural complexities.

But don’t fret – while you will certainly have to work at it, this research gives us some ideas about how to build social capital and leverage it to achieve person-job and person-organization fit.

Person-Job/Person-Organization

The study published in the International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management discusses the importance of identifying and recruiting employees who not only possess the necessary knowledge and skills, but also have values that align with those of the organization. 

This is known as person-environment (PE) fit theory, with person-job (PJ) and person-organization (PO) fit being particularly relevant. 

Existing research has largely focused on the outcomes of fit, but the dynamics and interrelationships among different types of fit are not well understood. 

The social dynamics of building and exercising social capital are critical for newcomers to achieve higher levels of fit with their job and organization. 

Two specific dynamics are identified: leveraging person-group and person-supervisor fit to build social capital and using social capital to achieve person-job and person-organization fit.

Person-Group/Person-Supervisor

Without a doubt, developing a good fit with one’s direct supervisor and work group helps new employees to develop structural and relational social capital in the organization, which ultimately leads to greater person-job and person-organization fit.

These social processes, however, are culture-bound. 

For example, a study by Monge and Eisenberg (1987) found that Japanese employees form stronger connections with colleagues than French employees. 

In general, an individual’s cultural background can impact the development and dynamics of their social relationships. 

One aspect of this lies in the two cultural dimensions – individualism-collectivism and power distance – and how they influence social capital building and utilization. 

While these dimensions are not necessarily independent (collectivist societies tend to have higher power distances), they should be treated as distinct concepts.

Let’s take a look at individualism-collectivism first.

Individualism-Collectivism

Collectivism and individualism refer to the extent to which people in a culture prioritize group or individual goals. 

The study found that those in individualist cultures are more selective about forming connections with people who share similar values and personalities, while in collectivist cultures, a broader range of commonalities may be relevant. 

This means that in collectivist cultures, surface-level similarities between individuals may be more important for social capital building, while in individualist cultures, deep-level similarities may be more critical.

The authors argue that in collectivist societies, where members of the in-group are expected to contribute to the benefit of the group rather than engaging in behaviors that reach beyond the group boundary, newcomers with a high level of person-group fit (PG fit) will be less likely to develop social relationships beyond their group in order not to jeopardize their social ties in their immediate work group. 

This means that PG fit will have a weaker effect on building social capital in collectivist societies than in individualist societies. 

In contrast, in individualist societies, competences and social ties are more important in determining the behavior of information exchange, which consequently enhances person-job fit (PJ fit). 

As a result, structural social capital may be more applicable in individualist cultures because it represents an exchangeable resource (in terms of the quantity/quality of ties one possesses). 

In contrast, in collectivist societies, people rely more on affective criteria in framing their exchange behavior, and thus relational social capital matters more in predicting PJ fit through knowledge and information sharing.

Next week, we’ll examine this fit further, in relation to power distance.

Are Facial Expressions Perceived Differently Across Cultures? Find Out Here.

Posted on by Leave a comment

Languages have shaped our genetics in terms of physiological differences in speech.

The roof of the mouth, for instance, differs across cultures.

But language isn’t the only part of communication.

Facial expressions and mannerisms are a big part of communication, and the interpretation of these types of expression differs across cultures.

The facial musculature of humans is highly developed, far more so than in any other primate species.

As such, the lips and eyes reveal a lot about human emotion.

According to Herbert Gintis’ “Gene-culture coevolution and the nature of human sociality”:

“Humans have evolved a highly specialized and very costly complex of physiological characteristics that both presuppose and facilitate sophisticated aural and visual communication, whereas communication in other primates, lacking as they are in cumulative culture, goes little beyond simple calling and gesturing capacities.”

While other primate species’ may go “little beyond,” how far does ours go?

Emotional Expression

Prior studies have suggested that the evolutionary nature of facial expressions does not differ across cultures, but at least one study has found that expressions of happiness, anger, and sadness are perceived differently between the East and the West.

According to the study’s abstract:

“Briefly stated, the universality hypothesis claims that all humans communicate six basic internal emotional states (happy, surprise, fear, disgust, anger, and sad) using the same facial movements by virtue of their biological and evolutionary origins [Susskind JM, et al. (2008) Nat Neurosci 11:843–850].”

Published by the American Psychological Association in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, the research, led by Rachael E. Jack, PhD, of the University of Glasgow, opposes this theory.

The Study

Looking at the way in which Western Caucasians and East Asians view various expressions according to their facial features, two groups – one of Caucasians and one of Chinese participants – were selected.

The study’s participants viewed emotion-neutral faces that were altered at random using technology. They were asked to classify the faces as happy, sad, angry, disgusted, fearful, or surprised.

Researchers were then able to identify the facial features that the groups of participants associated with the emotions.

From the responses, researchers deduced that Western Caucasians focused more on the mouth and eyebrows when identifying facial expressions, while Chinese participants focused primarily on the eyes.

These differences can lead to complexities in communication across cultures, resulting in misinterpretation or missed signals of emotional expression. 

The findings support the concept of gene-culture coevolution and how culture is increasingly driving human behavior more than genetics.

We’ll talk more about cultural mannerisms and body language next week.

When East Meets West: Understanding the Rationale Behind Indian Norms in the Workplace

Posted on by Leave a comment

You’re a Westerner working in a cross-cultural environment in India.

As a Westerner, you prefer communication that’s direct and clear.

You see ambiguity as a stumbling block in business, so you ask direct questions and expect direct answers in return.

Your Indian colleagues, on the other hand, demonstrate some indirect behaviors that you don’t understand.

The rationale behind this style of communication is a mystery to you, and the need for managerial approval in many cases rubs you the wrong way. You see it as unnecessary micromanagement.

This is a situation in which understanding the rationale behind your colleagues’ culture will forge a better business relationship.

Harmony & Many Truths

Mr. Waseem Hussain cleared up this mysterious rationale for me.

As a bicultural professional who has grown up in Switzerland with Indian parents, he knew both sides of the coin and could bridge that cross-cultural barrier between Indian and European mentalities.

In other words, he was the best zookeeper to explain the behavior of other animals in the zoo to me, the monkey.

When I posed a question about why I couldn’t receive a clear answer to a clear issue from Indian colleagues, he replied that, in some ways, it has to do with Hinduism.

As the majority of Indians believe in many gods, the cultural rationale would be that there are many truths.

Another explanation for the rationale has to do with the cultural concept of harmony.

Say, you ask an Indian colleague to meet a 5 o’clock deadline.

Whether or not it’s possible to complete the work by that point, the colleague will tell you, “Yes, no problem.”

In reality, he may have no intention of completing the work by this deadline, but by offering the positive “yes,” he is in harmony with his Western counterpart.

A “no” means disharmony and discomfort on his part.

Universal Truth & Accountability

From the Westerner’s point of view, this behavior appears as blatant dishonesty.

You expect your colleague to abide by his word, as accountability and time sensitivity are important to your culture.

Most Western cultures are largely shaped by Christianity – that is, the belief in one god. As such, the culture’s norms and values revolve around a single universal truth.

This is one obstacle for Westerners in cross-cultural business environments: universal truths do not exist there.

You must have a higher ambiguity tolerance and be willing to accept and even adapt to foreign norms and beliefs.

Your cultural rationale is not everyone’s rationale.

Reasoning and logic are shaped by culture and evolve accordingly with the history and tradition of the people.

Unless a person is counter-culture, he will likely follow the values, norms, and beliefs of his culture’s rationale.

No assumptions should be made about a culture’s behavior being silly or illogical. Refrain from judging something you don’t understand.

As an effective manager, it is your job to find the rationale behind the behavior and accept and adapt accordingly.

In this case, adopting, for a moment, the Indian culture’s worldview – its belief in many truths and emphasis on harmony – will enable you to see the reasoning behind your colleagues’ behaviors. 

Active Tolerance: How to Be Tolerant Without Abandoning Your Values

Posted on by Leave a comment

“Business owners with a high tolerance for ambiguity can normally handle new and uncertain situations with relative ease, while business owners with a low tolerance for ambiguity would handle the same situations with more angst and unease.”

– Bruce Barringer

In a nutshell, this is the reason to develop your ambiguity tolerance.

As we discussed in last week’s blog post, ambiguity tolerance will save you lots of headaches when navigating the differences and uncertainties of other cultures and events – in business and in personal relationships.

Being able to approach ambiguity in a calm and thoughtful manner prevents unnecessary angst, misunderstandings, and emotional conflict.

However, as with most things in life, tolerance is often easier said than done and when it conflicts with fundamental human values, in some cases tolerating such behaviors can make you complicit in them.

Which leads us to the question…

Is Cultural Tolerance Dangerous?

Objective tolerance of certain aspects of another culture can sometimes walk a thin line between morality and injustice.

There are two dangers:

  1. Accepting values/norms that are inhumane or immoral means accepting injustice.
  2. You may lose your own values and cultural identity when becoming too tolerant.

It may seem impossible then to be both simultaneously too tolerant and immoveable in your own beliefs.

But there’s a middle ground: you might avoid both by promoting active tolerance.

As part of the first strategy for cultural integration – acceptance – active tolerance allows you to preserve your own values/identity, refusing to accept said injustices, while also learning about attitudes and behaviors and seeking to understand why they historically exist instead of dismissing them outright.

Active Tolerance = Respect

Some might consider tolerance as a weakness, a failure to stand up for one’s own convictions.

However, active tolerance is a strength.

It doesn’t mean you must accept things that are fundamentally and morally at odds with your own foundational beliefs.

Active tolerance enables a person to demonstrate all possible respect and understanding for conflicting opinions/beliefs, while also defending one’s own.

Respect and restraint are the essence of active tolerance.

What ignites a wildfire of unconstructive conflict when two people of differing values meet?

It’s not the differences, themselves, but the disrespect and refusal to acknowledge other perspectives and life experiences as valid.

When you “accept” something or someone, their experience or culture, that doesn’t mean you share their experience or agree with their point of view necessarily; it means you are actively making an effort to understand their perspective and not to invalidate their own values, beliefs, and experiences.

You accept that they have theirs, and you respect that they don’t share yours.

When performed correctly, active tolerance doesn’t equate to agreement, but rather to digging to the roots of the many cultural baobabs in this world and attempting to understand them, as well as the personal experiences of the individual.

It’s a willingness to see the world from the branches of another’s tree, even for a moment. Climbing there might not change your own perspective or your baobab’s roots, but it certainly will produce more understanding and growth in your own.

Next week, we’ll lay out an anecdotal example of active tolerance in action.

How Business Communications & Negotiations Differ Across Cultures: Rule- Vs. Relationship-Based

Posted on by Leave a comment

When you walk into a Western office, any Western office, you know that there are rules.

They are hardline rules, and they apply to everyone, across the board.

Western cultures (“Western” meaning the US and Europe) are rule-based cultures.

In countries where equality and justice for all are building blocks upon which society is built, this rigidity in rule-following makes perfect sense. Rules provide objective guidelines for companies, for government, for society as a whole.

Relationship-based cultures, on the other hand…

Relationship-Based Cultural Communication

Negotiation is the basis of relationship-based cultures. Even when it comes to “the rules.”

Managers in relationship-based cultures dictate these rules, and so the better the relationship you have with said managers, the better stacked you are at the negotiation table.

Anything and everything can be negotiated in such cultures.

This leaves a lot of room for ambiguity, something Westerners aren’t very comfortable with when it comes to the workplace.

Being as such, communicating within relationship-based cultures requires one to keep in mind a complex network of human relationships.

Rule-Based Cultural Communication

The company rules in a rule-based culture (like those in the West) are spelled out; they’re explicit. Unless a worker hopes to be fired, he follows the rules.

In fact, the rules laid out by Western managers are communicated directly, and they are often compiled in various written resources.

Most American companies have thousands of pages of rules, included in such documents as the company’s mission statement and vision, their HR handbooks, compliance handbooks, job descriptions and responsibilities, expense regulations, strategies, etc.

Written regulations, above all else, are spelled out for you. Personal preferences and favored relationships don’t apply (at least, they shouldn’t in theory).

This allows managers to communicate within a set of rules. They, therefore, often communicate directly, unambiguously, and concisely.

Negotiation

Considering each culture’s values and the way these values impact communication, negotiating tactics are extremely different across these two cultural types.

When negotiating in rule-based cultures, one often uses a direct approach, as the rules are objective, and disputes can subsequently be resolved using said rules.

In relationship-based cultures, where rules are not black and white, courtesy and saving face is the most important part of a negotiation.

A Western manager must go into a negotiation with the business partner of a relationship-based culture focused on building and maintaining a relationship, rather than with a strategic focus on “the rules.”

Americans and other Western cultures see business as business and not personal. There are rules, so negotiations can get tough, without partners walking away from the table with a broken personal relationship.

But with a relationship-based business partner, you can’t negotiate tough and then expect your partner to amiably join you in a round of golf.

This may be the norm in America, but not in China nor in Japan.

Instead, business and personal are intertwined, so the relationship must be cared for above all else.

Next week, we’ll talk about bridging this understanding.

“Fair and Generous” Missteps in Cross-Cultural Business: A Case Study

Posted on by Leave a comment

An American company was looking to build an assembly plant in Eastern Europe.

In an attempt to be “fair and generous,” the company decided not to pay the average living wage of the area, which was much lower than the average living wage in America; rather, they offered to pay new laborers four times that average.

Sounds pretty generous, right?

Well, what they didn’t consider is the disharmony this would sow in the community.

The new lucrative jobs tore the town’s social fabric apart. Folks were anxious about which families would benefit. Things got cutthroat.

The company was now in a precarious position. What should they do in this situation?

Identify the Culture’s Values

With relationship-based cultures, the family unit is often the most important unit in society. Unlike in rule-based cultures, which are often individualist, the family is more important than the individual. In fact, the two are one.

Many in relationship-based cultures support the family financially. Not just parents taking care of their children, but sons taking care of their parents, older brothers and sisters financially responsible for their younger siblings.

In hearing of such a lucrative wage for labor, who wouldn’t jump at the opportunity? Especially when it meant you could better support your in-group financially.

Moreover, the families of potential workers were also invested in these top-paying jobs. Securing the work would mean more money to go around.

Considering this society’s cultural values, what did the company do?

Did they close up shop in Eastern Europe for fear of the consequences of their offer?

Did they take the initial offer off the table and put forth a more comparable living wage?

Nope, they found a cross-cultural solution.

Work within the Culture’s Values

Rather than cut their losses or go back on their word, the company identified the culture’s values and incorporated them into their own.

In order to preserve social harmony in the town, they hired one person from every family unit. The anxiety of potentially being refused this opportunity was spared, and each family was better supported.

This is just one example of a cross-cultural solution that works.

Identify the culture’s values and work within those values the best you can. If you know what your workers care about, what matters most to them, then you know how best to support them, which is mutually beneficial to you.

“Employee of the Month”: Self-Realization & Individualist Cultures

Posted on by Leave a comment

What is the “American Dream”?

The Commission on National Goals had the answer for President Eisenhower.

They reported that the primary motivator of American citizens was the possibility of individual self-realization.

What does this mean?

Pull Yourself Up By Your Own Bootstraps

The American Dream doesn’t often include the economic success and overall wellness of one’s neighbor or third cousin.

It’s a dream of one’s own economic success.

In individualist societies – like that of the United States, western Europe, and other Western countries – a person often identifies with themselves above all others and looks to satisfy his own needs before those of the group.

He also sees his path as one of self-determination. “Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps,” so to speak.

Self-reliance, personal freedom, and independence are the values glorified by individualist societies.

The individual is the smallest unit of survival.

Employee of the Month

This is why, at an American company, “employee of the month” is a successful incentive for productivity and improved performance in work culture.

The strong individualist culture means that employees will seek any way in which they can stand out from the pack in a positive light.

When your name and photo are posted on a bulletin board of achievement in the company lobby, recognition is your reward, and it fuels individualist motivation.

As a Swiss manager in the US, I appreciated the effectiveness of this reward system. So, I attempted to bring it back to Switzerland with me.

When I implemented “employee of the month” at the Swiss company I was managing, it fell flat. In fact, not only was it not a motivator, the reward system was met with immediate and breathtaking negativity on the staff’s part.

“This is ‘typical American,’” they said, adding that Swiss workplaces traditionally don’t single out individual successes, as they see success as a result of teamwork.

Although “employee of the month” type of recognition is frowned upon by Swiss companies, they are not so collectivist as to dissuade pay-for-performance or achievement-based promotion, also distinctions. The difference is, these are in-group and colleague-approved.

Collectivist Thought

On the other hand, a collectivist culture, which centers around group betterment, rather than individual development and freedom, would not even humor the idea of “employee of the month.”

An international survey asked managers from Egypt, China, Japan, and the US whether they agreed with the following statement:

“When individuals are continuously taking care of their fellow human beings, the quality of life will improve for everyone, even if it obstructs individual freedom and individual development.”

Who agreed?

  • 70% of Egyptian managers
  • 59% of Chinese managers
  • 61% of Japanese managers
  • 31% of US managers

We’ll talk more about that difference in mentality next week.

The Six Styles of Leadership Across Cultures, PART I

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you prefer an authoritative leader or a supportive one?

Do you like a manager that allows you some autonomy or would you rather be micromanaged?

Last week, we talked about how research shows Maslow’s hierarchy of needs doesn’t stand up across cultures.

This week, we’ll discuss research that has found how management styles differ, according to a society’s values and norms.

Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic leadership was once considered the most effective.

By the ‘90s, what makes a charismatic leader and the behaviors such leaders demonstrate had undergone thorough research.

In 1991, Professor Robert J. House at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania examined studies from the Netherlands, India, Singapore, and the United States. He found that charisma was popular in a leader but certain cultures preferred other leadership styles.

His research led to GLOBE.

GLOBE

Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness is a top cross-cultural research program.

In its formative years, interviews and focus groups of 17,300 managers from 951 organizations in 59 countries by 170 investigators were conducted and gathered for this project.

What did they find?

They found that societal cultures directly influence organizational cultures.

The Six Styles of Leadership

Leadership was defined as the capacity to influence, motivate, and enable employees to contribute toward company objectives.

Six distinct leadership styles were identified by GLOBE:

  • Charismatic/Value-based – a motivational and inspirational leadership style defined by charismatic, value-based leaders expecting high-performance outcomes from employees and colleagues, based on the company/organization’s core values.
  • Participative – a participatory leadership style in which managers often ask the involvement of others in making decisions and implementing them.
  • Team-oriented – a team-building leadership style, in which the implementation of a common goal is sought and work toward it is divided amongst team members.
  • Human-oriented – an empathetic and supportive leadership style, in which modesty, generosity, compassion, and sensitivity to others are promoted.
  • Autonomous – an individualistic and independent leadership style, never before appearing in business literature.
  • Self-protective – a face-saving leadership style, in which the security and safety of each employee or colleague is most important, with a focus on status consciousness. Also, a new dimensional term to business literature.

This outline of distinct leadership personalities allowed GLOBE to identify what type of leadership style was preferred by different cultures. We’ll talk more about that next week.

Family, Sex & Love: A Look at Humankind’s Social Fabric

Posted on by 1 Comment

From linguistics to archaeology, anthropology is the study of humankind, past and present, and the origin of all cross cultural studies.

Family, sexuality, and love are topics of much interest to anthropologists.

Each of these themes is at the core of humanity.

We’ll cover them in detail over the upcoming weeks.

Why These Topics Matter to Cross-Cultural Management

If you’re coming to this blog for corporate success across cultures, you might think that family and sexual mores don’t apply here.

However, I’d argue that they do for two reasons:

  1. A culture’s social fabric is woven by family structures. By better understanding family-related values and norms, you’ll integrate much more smoothly into a society than if you have no clue about the important roles that family members play.
  2. Sexual mores often evoke the strongest emotional reactions, as these norms are amongst the earliest socialized norms in a culture and are often enforced by religious and social taboos. Awareness of unfamiliar social mores will help you avoid crossing boundaries and keep you clear and well away from those dratted taboos.

In effect, any information about a culture’s values and norms will fortify understanding and help you view a culture through their own lens. Only when you can see from the culture’s perspective can you truly identify with their mentality and integrate cross-culturally.

Family, Sex & Love in Culture

Of these three topics, family structures is one of the more thoroughly researched of all anthropological studies.

The study, Family: Variations and Changes Across Cultures, explains why:

“In order to study psychological phenomena cross-culturally, it is necessary to understand the different types of family in cultures throughout the world and also how family types are related to cultural features of societies.”

Family structures are the blueprint for societal structures. This is why some knowledge of family values and norms will gain you significant headway when managing across cultures.

Sex is also on the mind of many an anthropologist. Although, according to The Cross-Cultural Study of Human Sexuality, “Anthropology has long had a love-hate relationship [with it].”

This is largely due to the own sexual mores of those anthropologists in question. Across many cultures, the topic is seen as taboo or controversial, so sexuality remains a “rarely studied” topic of human experience.

Moreover, love and romance is mixed in with family and sexuality and has been since the dawn of time.

According to Love Across Cultures:

“Although love needs to be framed within a cultural context, many scholars believe that romantic love is transcultural. Elaine Hatfield and Richard L. Rapson (1996) viewed passionate love as common to virtually all cultures, and indeed, romantic love has been found in most countries of the world.”

Over the next few weeks, we’ll dissect research on all three topics in more detail, taking a look at remote and predominant cultures, alike, to discover both shared and divergent values and norms in these themes.