Primary and Secondary Control: How Cultures Control Their Fate

We’ve been talking about the locus of control over the past few weeks.

Specifically, we’ve discussed the external locus – believing outcomes are determined by environmental factors – and the internal locus – believing fate is in our hands.

Regardless of whether someone has an external or internal locus, each tries to control their fate but in different ways and to varying degrees.

They do so by primary or secondary control efforts, the first of which is active, and the second of which is passive.

Let’s take a look at how these active/passive traits unfold in the workplace.

Primary Control

Those from individualist cultures often demonstrate an internal locus of control.

Individualists believe they control their own fate.

Being as such, they demonstrate active primary control.

Primary control is a trait found in those who directly intervene in affairs, in order to command control over his/her environment or standing

For instance, Sally wants a promotion, so Sally does whatever she can to get what she wants. She works late hours, beats deadlines, invests time into learning new skills, meets and exceeds expectations. She may even try to grease the wheels with superiors and use her networking skills to expand her reach.

Sally doesn’t just wait for the job to fall into her lap. She believes success comes with work, and that if she demonstrates primary control over her environment, she will achieve her end goal.

Sally uses primary control to command her fate.

Secondary Control

Being that those with an external locus – most often from collectivist cultures – do not believe they control their fate, you might think they don’t try to at all.

But they do. Passively.

Secondary control is a trait found in those who align themselves with individuals or groups with established power.

Collectivists prefer secondary control, as their cultural values lean hard on avoiding conflict and the submission of personal control.

For instance, Dan wants to be well-regarded within the company. His colleague, Steve, is already well-regarded. Steve is also part of The Elite, an exceptional group within the company.

So, what does Dan do to get a leg-up? Dan befriends Steve. He works on becoming a member of The Elite. In doing so, he is molding relationships and changing the way higher-ups and colleagues regard him within the company.

Although the individual isn’t as active as Sally in controlling his fate, he is still trying to command passive control by building his image and the right relationships that might aid or change his environment.

Whether someone demonstrates primary or secondary control is largely based on the culture within which they live. But both types of control are seen in all cultures.

How Time Orientation & Chronemics Impact Queuing & Workplace Culture

Chronemics, which we described in a past post as the study of time’s role in communication, directly correlates with time orientation, discussed last week.

Knowing that some polychronic cultures view time as cyclical and sometimes don’t even have future tenses in their language, you may have guessed that polychronic cultures are often past-oriented.

Monochronic cultures, on the other hand, are largely future-oriented.

Here are a few ways in which chronemics direct cultural behaviors.

Queuing Culture

queue

Have you ever queued up in a foreign country and been cut in front of?

If you have and immediately thought to yourself, “how rude!” then you’re probably from a monochronic culture. Monochronic cultures are often cultures of law and order.

As this article by Leon Mann, “Queue Culture: The Waiting Line as a Social System,” published in American Journal of Sociology writes:

“Cultural values of egalitarianism and orderliness are related to respect for the principle of service according to order of arrival which is embodied in the idea of a queue. The importance of time in Western culture is reflected in rules relating to ‘serving time’ to earn one’s position in line, and to the regulation of ‘time-outs.’”

Remember, monochronic cultures – like the U.S. – are also cultures where “time is money.” So, essentially, if someone cuts the line, individuals in such cultures might consider this behavior as theft of time and/or money. The offender is essentially saying their time is more valuable than that of those they’ve cut.

Polychronic cultures do not queue orderly, if at all. They crowd and scrap their way to the front of the line. In fact, cutting in line is almost a sport in such cultures.

Although even some of those who are of polychronic cultures might get upset when cut, the queueing culture (or lack thereof) is, more or less, accepted.

Actions & Their Consequences

Another way in which chronemics and time orientation impact cultural behavior is the consequences of certain actions at work.

The chart below highlights some examples:

workplace.jpg

Monochronic cultures are deadline-driven and task-oriented regarding both negotiations or projects. And, more often than not, the hierarchy within the organization is enforced.

For polychronic cultures, a deadline is just a suggestion, and negotiations don’t end until an agreement is made. Even then, the contract is amendable.

Moreover, organizations are interaction-oriented, rather than task-oriented, and the hierarchy within the organization is not as rigidly enforced if one even exists.

We’ll look at these ideas in action next week.

The Difference Between Polychronic & Monochronic Time Systems

Sara starts dinner at 6, finishes at 6:30, and washes the dishes at 8. She walks the dog at 8:30 and arranges to run some errands the next morning at 9, while organizing her schedule that evening. She answers emails immediately in the morning and responds to phone calls at a set point in the day, when each of her pre-scheduled tasks has been completed in an orderly fashion.

Sara runs on a monochronic time system.

Shannon washes the dishes while cooking, walks the dog while running errands, loosely arranges her schedule while answering emails, takes phone calls while finishing up her daily tasks. She doesn’t have a set schedule defined by time. She simply has a to-do list, and things will get done as they do.

Shannon runs on a polychronic time system.

Polychronicity

The multi-task culture of a polychromic time system involves undertaking multiple tasks or activities simultaneously.

Instead of working on one individual task at a time, those who prefer a polychronic time system often have several things going at once, and they work towards accomplishing each task fluidly and in their own time.

Polychronicity is preferred in cultures that are not overly concerned about deadlines and precision. Latin American, Arab, African, and South Asian cultures tend toward polychronicity. These cultures also tend to value relationships, traditions, seasonal cycles, and community over the completion of tasks in an orderly fashion.

Monochronicity

As you may have guessed, monochronic cultures are quite the opposite of polychronic cultures.

In monochronic cultures – like those of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Canada, Taiwan, South Korea, and Turkey, to name a few – time is divided strictly into specific tasks.

Business schedules are essential, as “time is money.” A manager’s agenda is pre-arranged and precise.

Many other idioms involving time have been coined in such cultures, such as the phrase “killing time,” which means you have time to waste. Or “take your time,” which means there is no deadline. “To work against the clock” suggests you have deadlines to meet and are competing with time to meet them.

These are just a few examples in which the monochronic valuation of time has eked into language.

There are also characteristic differences between the two cultural types.

Characteristic Differences

Shared in the conference paper, “Everything is about time: does it have the same meaning all over the world?” a number of qualities and values between the people of polychromic and monochromic cultures differ. Here are a few:

Polychronic Monochronic
Do multiple things at once Complete one task at a time
Are subject to interruptions and distractions Concentrate on the task at hand
Time commitments are flexible Deadlines and schedules are strict
Are relationship-focused Are job-focused
Often alter plans Are plan-oriented
Consider the relationship when prioritizing time Time priority is emphasized
Build life-long relationships Build short-term relationships

We’ll talk more about why these differences in time perception sprang up between polychronic and monochronic cultures next week.

Time as a Measurable Substance: What are Chronemics?

Daily life is dictated by time. And time is dictated by daily life.

Both vary across cultures.

You can set your watch by a Swiss train, but to do so in India may very well put you in a different timezone.

Cross-cultural expectations in the workplace are impacted by how cultures conceptualize time.

A breach of expectations in meeting deadlines or appointments can be detrimental to cross-cultural relations, particularly regarding countries that are time-sensitive.

So, how do you even begin to understand another culture’s time expectations?

You start out with the basics.

Concept of Time

Time is a measurable substance. If you think of time in linear terms, it is portioned in intervals, based on activities.

That’s why “time lines” exist.

At any point along the line, one activity has ended, and another has begun.

But not all cultures measure time with the same yardstick.

And the measurements that they use can influence everything from their lifestyles to the speed of their speech.

This is why a firm understanding of a cross-cultural business partner’s measurement of time will allow managers to account for these differences in expectation.

Knowledge of the culture’s time etiquette enables managers to plan accordingly.

For instance, when you make an appointment, understanding the other culture’s expectations about punctuality or tardiness will direct you to behave according to their concept of time – or at least prepare you to allow for their cultural norms without feeling disrespected.

And these norms are largely dictated by whether the culture is polychronic or monochronic.

Chronemics

Chronemics is the study of time’s role in communication – particularly non-verbal communication.

What does chronemics cover?

It evaluates a culture’s:

  • Perception of time
  • Structure of time
  • Time values (i.e. punctuality)
  • Response to time frames (i.e. patience in waiting)

The perception of time, itself, is like a cultural time capsule. Cultural norms in relation to time encapsulate so many aspects of a culture, you can almost sketch out a general idea of their cultural baobab, simply from their concept of time.

Chronemics is divided into two different time systems: monochronic and polychronic. We’ll discuss both at length next week.

Cultural Ambiguity & Uncertainty: Following the Line of Logic to Understanding

One of the most difficult parts of managing across cultures is a sense of ambiguity and uncertainty when it comes to rules.

Those from rule-based cultures, thrust into relationship-based environments, likely find the rules ambiguous, and vice versa.

Unsurprisingly, the rule-based US culture professes a fundamentally rule-based management theory, decidedly offering straightforward advice regarding successful management.

Take “ad res” versus “ad personam,” for example.

Ad Res vs. Ad Personam

hierarchychartAmerican universities teach an “ad res” organizational theory, in which organizations are structured in a chart adapted to the business. The names can be altered in the chart, as the organizations are indifferent to the people who fill the roles.

However, this differs from how relationship-based cultures view organizational structures. In these cultures, organizations consider “ad personam” to be correct, which is quite the opposite of “ad res.”

With “ad personam” organization, the individual people come first.

Vagueness Leads to Misunderstanding

This is just one example of the way a culture’s values shape their management theory and structures. Just one more reason to clarify any cultural ambiguity or uncertainty in order to better manage within another culture.

Uncertainty stems from vague values, norms, and behaviors, which lend themselves to wrong assumptions.

When things are uncertain or ambiguous, the first step is always to seek understanding.

As we talked about early in this blog, finding the rationale behind the values, norms, and behaviors of your cross-cultural counterparts is essential to clarifying uncertainty and ambiguity.

And the first steps in seeking understanding are to:

  1. Identify the conflicting issue – pinpoint whatever it is that’s rubbing your own values and beliefs the wrong way.
  2. Look at the issue from the other culture’s baobab tree – keeping in mind what you’ve learned about the culture, try to see the issue from their perspective, their standpoint, their worldview.
  3. Seek out the advantages in their perspective – when you approach the issue from your own baobab, you’ll probably see the other’s perspective in a negative light; but from their baobab, a spotlight is shone on their train of thought, allowing you to see more clearly.
  4. Find the line of logic – while seeking understanding may not bring you in line with the other’s ideas of personal and social responsibility, finding their line of logic will lead you to a place of clarity. And with clarity comes understanding.

What Are Their Advantages?

When faced with conflicting cultural behaviors, values, norms, and management methods, ask yourself these questions:

What are their baobab’s benefits?

Why and how are their methods successful in their culture?

When you seek understanding instead of discriminating; when you start looking at another culture through their own lens, you may just discover significant advantages to their methods and values.

In doing so, you may also see the disadvantages and limitations of your own culture and ways you can improve your own culture. In fact, you may adopt certain behaviors, values, or norms that you appreciate.

Next week, we’ll take a look at one of the limitations that the individualistic West has started to improve on: corporate social responsibility.

Rule of Law in Culture: Are Laws More Important Than Relationships?

A hypothetical scenario:

Your best friend is picking you up to head out on the town. As you head into the city center, you notice your friend is driving quite fast; 40 mph in a 20 mph zone down a crowded street.

You see a pedestrian take a step off the sidewalk ahead of your friend’s car. “Look out!” you shout. But it’s too late. Your friend accidentally hits the pedestrian.

An ambulance is called, paramedics try to save the victim, but he doesn’t make it. He dies on the way to the hospital.

Weeks later, you are called to court as a witness to the fatal accident. You know your friend was driving well over the speed limit, but if you tell the truth, he’ll go to prison. If you lie for your friend, he’ll walk away.

Would you lie? Or would you tell the truth?

Survey: Venezuela vs. USA

This was the exact scenario given in a survey sent to 46,000 managers in 40 different countries in a study by Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner.

As a preface, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions define the US is a rule-based society; Venezuela is a relationship-based society.

Knowing this, which society do you think would choose to be truthful in this matter? And which do you think might lie to protect a friend?

As you can see below, the results were exactly as you’d expect.

additional_charts_CMYK-02

96% of American citizens surveyed said that, when confronted with this situation, they would tell the truth and abide by the law. Only 34% of Venezuelans agreed.

The majority of those from the relationship-based society of Venezuela would protect their friend above the law, while the overwhelming majority of Americans would put their societal responsibility before their friend’s fate.

Everyone is Equal in the Eyes of the Law

Western cultures are largely rule-based or “universalist.” Generally, they believe that, in order to be just, established rules and laws should be applied universally.

According to the purest form of justice, all people – friend or stranger, rich or poor, black or white – should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. And, with that perspective, most people in a law-based society would strive toward the rule.

Rules and laws are also seen, more or less, as a black and white matter.

A red light at a pedestrian crossing illustrates the seriousness of law in a rule-based culture.

In Germany or Switzerland – both strict rule-based cultures – place a foot out of line when the pedestrian crossing light is red, and you will see the reaction. Those around you will make it clear – albeit, likely with only a frown – that they’re not happy with your disobedience, albeit likely just with a frown. Even if it’s 2 in the morning.

Laws in a rule-based society are also considered essentially permanent.

For instance, a law that is a law today is unchangeable; it will be the same tomorrow (unless, of course, it’s changed through an often lengthy democratic process that involves party votes and public opinion).

Not even the highest office in the country has the right to change the law in an instant; neither is this highest office immune to the laws.

Beyond the Individual

While rule-based cultures often align with a high degree of individualism, relationship-based cultures walk hand-in-hand with collectivism. This results in a different prioritization of social norms in individualist vs. collectivist cultures.

One Confucian ideal puts this in perspective: care for one’s parents/grandparents comes first; then comes care for one’s children; then, for oneself.

Collectivists see human existence as reaching beyond the individual; rather an individual’s existence is a symbiotic relationship with extended family, the tribe, the village, society. One’s connection to others is part of his/her existence. Existing apart from this is a form of death.

As such, relationships are highly important; oftentimes, more important than rules. The alternative is ostracism which is, again, death.

Imprisonment is a form of ostracism. Should you confess that your friend broke the law, thereby sending him to prison, you are virtually putting him to death.

In this way, you can see the stark and dramatic difference the truth would make in this matter.

In this way, you can see the difference in perspective between relationship-based and rule-based cultures.

In this way, you might begin to understand motivations across cultures.

Understanding Cultural Values: With What “Group” Does Your Culture Identify?

Some cultures most identify with their nationality. Others their church. And still others, their family, tribe, or even workplace.

We’ve discussed collectivism in this blog and the mentality of society over self or group over individual.

But of what “group” are we speaking?

In order to better understand the values and norms of a culture, identifying the group with which a culture most closely identifies is essential.

Let’s take a look at some examples.

Who is Your Group?

  • The Irish culture strongly identifies with religion, the Roman Catholic Church.
  • The former Eastern Bloc identifies with Slavic ideals and the party.
  • The French identify with their country, which they call “la grand nation.”
  • The Japanese identify with their company and workplace.

While these are all generalizations (after all, not everyone falls in line with societal values and norms), these broad strokes do highlight the roots of the cultural baobab.

Group identity is flexible. And this is not to say that other groups in said societies are not important.

Family, after all, is important in nearly every culture, and there are other in-groups – like subcultures and company cultures – to which individuals of any society might feel strong ties.

But when trying to understand a culture as a whole and what makes that culture tick, identifying the group that most often defines or impacts the mechanics of society as a whole is essential.

Collectivist vs. Individualist

Group identity, social responsibility, and interdependence are values emphasized in collectivist cultures.

Individuality, self-fulfillment, and independence are those emphasized in individualist cultures.

One wants to fit in.

The other strives to stand out.

One sees conformity as negative.

The other sees singularity as deviant.

As one of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions, the scale between collectivist and individualist cultures is just that – a scale. No culture is at the polar extreme, one way or the other.

There are elements of collectivism and individualism in every culture.

And sometimes, these elements are surprising.

We’ll talk about that more next week.

Society Over Self: Collectivist Cultural Management

The core group in collectivist cultures is family.

And the definition of family differs across cultures, as we’ve previously discussed.

The West often considers the two-generational core to be “family,” while other cultures include extended relations – or even an entire village – under the umbrella.

Other “groups” in collectivist cultures include in-groups, like the company one works for, or society as a whole.

A group’s success and survival – whether the group is family, the village, the company, or society – ensures individual success and survival.

Because of this, harmony is valued in collectivist cultures, as is interdependence of individual members.

Children are socialized in groups early on in order to become interdependent.

Everyone depends on everyone else, because the group only survives as one.

Being recognized for individual achievement is almost unheard of; rather, collectivists work in tandem and share with group members – both their successes and their failures.

Group Loyalty = Self-Loyalty

In a collectivist culture, group loyalty is self-loyalty.

Think of it this way: society, a company, or a family is like a human body. Each member is a limb or an organ; each member is vital to the body’s function.

So, if one organ fails, the body fails.

If one limb is neglected, then the body isn’t functioning at its most optimal.

It’s with this mentality that collectivist cultures place a higher value on the group than the individual.

An individual’s personal goals and ambitions come second to the group’s overall success and well-being.

To return to our analogy, if a body’s personal goal or ambition was to win an arm-wrestling contest, so it pumped iron every day, focusing only on building up the biceps, but forgot about its legs or its core, then the arms might be able to succeed in meeting their ambition, but the rest of the body would suffer.

This is how collectivist societies view personal goals and ambitions.

Your arm (you, the individual) does not work alone.

A collectivist would sacrifice his own career goals for the sake of the group’s.

Society, First

When society comes first, self comes second.

This is one of the main reasons that in collectivist societies, management differs from individualist cultures.

Last week, we talked about how these differences clash through workplace incentives. “Employee of the Month” is one way in which management in individualist societies incentivize hard work.

But would this work in collectivist cultures? Not so much.

What would then?

We’ll talk about that more next week.

Individualist vs. Collectivist: How Important Am I?

Say, you were given a group project, involving teamwork and cooperation.

Your team includes you (of course), Paul, Lisa, and John.

Some of the tasks are more intensive and time-consuming than others. Some are tedious, some are simple, some require no brainwork at all.

As with most team projects, not all members invest the same amount of time and effort into the group project.

You complete 50% of the work on your own.

Lisa and Paul knock out about 22.5% of the work, each.

And John, who was a complete deadweight, contributes about 5%.

With the successful completion of the project, your group is awarded $20,000.

How should this award be distributed?

Individualists vs. Collectivists

“Distribute the money based on individual contribution. Those who did more work should be awarded more, while those who did less work should be awarded less.”

If this is how you answered, then you are likely from an individualist culture.

“The project was completed together, and a team is only strong as a unit. The fairest distribution would be an even split, in order to benefit everyone in the group equally.”

If this is how you answered, then you are likely from a collectivist culture.

“From each according to his ability…”

Craig Storti asks readers to complete the above exercise in his book, Figuring Foreigners Out.

He argues that each mentality – whether the distribution of the award should be even or based on contribution to the project – is based on what your culture teaches you is fair.

Individualist cultures believe fair distribution means being awarded according to one’s effort.

Collectivist cultures believe that fairness lies in the well-being of the whole group, no matter who contributed what.

Of all of Hofstede’s dimensions, some believe the differences between collectivist and individualist societies are the most important.

Social psychologist, Harry Triandis, is one of them. He stated:

“Perhaps the most important dimension of cultural difference in social behavior, across the diverse cultures of the world, is the relative emphasis on individualism versus collectivism.”

Individualist versus collectivist ideals do not apply only to the distribution of wealth, of course. The deep level thinking of an individualist versus a collectivist fundamentally impacts the way each lives their social life: whether one thinks as an individual or as a member of a group.

Hofstede wrote:

“Some animals, such as wolves, are gregarious; others, such as tigers, are solitary. The human species should no doubt be classified with the gregarious animals, but different human societies show gregariousness to different degrees. Here again then, we have a fundamental dimension on which societies differ: the relationship between the individual and the collectivity.”

Hofstede differentiates the two cultures by defining individualistic ties as “loose,” with each individual expected to look after only himself and those in his inner circle, while collectivist ties are integrated from birth, requiring individuals to be cohesive within a group, exchanging unquestioning loyalty for protection.

We’ll talk more about the differences between individualist versus collectivist cultures next week.

Hofstede and IBM: the Beginning of Significant Cross-Cultural Research

If you looked at Geert Hofstede‘s life, there was nothing particularly remarkable that might make you imagine he’d one day be at the forefront of cross-cultural research.

The Dutch researcher called the Netherlands home. He lived and studied there, after which he entered the military.

He became a management trainer at IBM, as well as the manager of staff research. It was in the latter role that he became entrenched in systematic research which would later hone in on the field of cross-cultural studies.

International Employee Opinion Research Program

In his role as manager of staff research, IBM’s International Employee Opinion Research Program became Hofstede’s brainchild.

Hofstede and his colleagues gathered and analyzed over 116,000 survey questionnaires over six years. The questionnaires were collected from 72 countries and involved 183 questions about the work environment, completed by IBM employees.

Providing a number of options, questionnaires asked employees to choose which option was the most important to them.

An example:

Which is most important to you?

  1. A job that allows personal/family time
  2. Challenging work that provides a sense of accomplishment
  3. Freedom to adapt your approach to work

Employees could choose their preference and, although the word “culture” wasn’t used in any context by IBM staff, and they weren’t charged with researching cross-cultural differences, nevertheless, the data revealed various patterns of cultural opinion and behavior.

Still, no cultural opinions were drawn from the data at the time.

Hofstede’s Findings

Taking a sabbatical from IBM, Hofstede taught at the IMD in Switzerland. It was there that he was allowed the time and academic engagement to analyze the IBM research.

He found that nationality could account for the behavioral differences resultant in the survey.

In order to test his theory, he questioned folks from various countries who didn’t work for IBM.

It became clear that cultural differences were there. 

The value of Hofstede’s research was lost on many for a while…it was lost even on him.

He had no idea what a significant gold mine he’d come across, from the standpoint of international business.

At the time, economic success was not dependent on cultural sensitivities. The United States was the number one unchallenged economic power.

As to the matter, Hofstede said:

“In the 1970s I was living in Brussels when I started developing my ideas of culture and I approached the European Commission about this, but found myself initially directed to an official who was responsible for museums! Such was their idea of culture!”

But all this changed in the ‘80s and beyond – a period which we’ll talk more about next week.