Tag: hierarchy

Tactical Negotiation Across Cultures: Learning Cultural Context

Posted on by Leave a comment

Negotiating across cultures requires more than just mastering negotiation tactics; it demands a deeper understanding of cultural norms, practices, and values. 

This is why you should seek to understand differences in basics, like small talk, which we’ve discussed over the past few weeks.

And you should also familiarize yourself with negotiation practices and customs in specific cultural contexts.

In this post, we’ll shed light on key considerations for successful negotiations in East Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latin American cultures.

East Asian Cultures: Harmony and Hierarchy

In East Asian cultures like Japan, China, and South Korea, negotiation is deeply influenced by values of harmony, respect for authority, and long-term relationship building. 

Negotiators prioritize maintaining harmony and preserving face, often preferring indirect communication and subtle cues to convey messages.

Key Considerations:

  • Emphasize building trust and rapport before diving into negotiations.
  • Be mindful of hierarchical structures and deference to authority figures.
  • Avoid confrontational or aggressive negotiation tactics, as they may damage relationships.

Middle Eastern Cultures: Relationship-Building and Hospitality

In Middle Eastern cultures such as those found in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, negotiation is characterized by an emphasis on personal relationships, hospitality, and honor.

Negotiators value trust and loyalty, and negotiations may involve lengthy discussions and socializing before reaching agreements.

Key Considerations:

  • Invest time in relationship-building and demonstrating respect for cultural customs.
  • Be prepared for indirect communication and the use of intermediaries in negotiations.
  • Show patience and flexibility, as negotiations may progress slowly due to the emphasis on building trust.

Latin American Cultures: Warmth and Flexibility

In Latin American cultures like those in Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina, negotiation is marked by warmth, flexibility, and a focus on interpersonal relationships.

Negotiators value personal connections and may prioritize socializing and building rapport before engaging in formal negotiations.

Key Considerations:

  • Demonstrate warmth, friendliness, and openness in interactions with counterparts.
  • Be prepared for negotiations to be fluid and dynamic, with a focus on finding win-win solutions.
  • Respect cultural traditions and customs, such as taking time for small talk and building trust gradually.

Embrace Cultural Diversity

Navigating negotiations in diverse cultural contexts requires sensitivity, adaptability, and a willingness to understand and respect cultural differences. 

By recognizing the unique negotiation practices and customs of East Asian, Middle Eastern, and Latin American cultures, negotiators can build trust, foster collaboration, and achieve successful outcomes in a globalized world. 

Cultural Values and the Negotiation Table: Unlocking the Impact of Individualism vs. Collectivism, Hierarchy, and Uncertainty Avoidance

Posted on by Leave a comment

Negotiation, the art of reaching agreements, is not merely a transactional exchange of offers and counteroffers; it’s a complex dialect of cultural values, beliefs, and norms. 

Understanding how cultural values influence negotiation outcomes is essential for achieving results in the global arena. 

So, let’s take a look at the impact of cultural values such as individualism versus collectivism, hierarchy, and uncertainty avoidance on negotiation strategies and outcomes.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Welcome to the boardroom.

On one side of the table: a U.S. company; on the other: a Japanese firm. 

While discussing a joint venture, their priorities differ, based on their individualist versus collectivist values.

The American negotiators emphasize their company’s strengths and seek to secure the best possible deal for their organization. 

The Japanese negotiators prioritize building trust, fostering mutual respect, and ensuring alignment with their company’s broader goals and values.

One of the most fundamental cultural dimensions impacting negotiation is the degree of individualism versus collectivism within a society. 

In individualistic cultures like the United States, negotiation is often approached from a competitive standpoint, with an emphasis on individual goals, autonomy, and personal achievement. 

Negotiators may prioritize their own interests and seek to maximize their outcomes, even at the expense of others.

Conversely, in collectivistic cultures such as Japan or China, negotiation is viewed through a communal lens, emphasizing harmony, cooperation, and group cohesion. 

Negotiators may focus on building relationships, consensus-building, and ensuring the well-being of the collective. 

In these cultures, concessions may be made to preserve group harmony and maintain long-term relationships.

Hierarchy

The boardroom, round two.

On one side: a German company; on the other: a Brazilian company.

While discussing a partnership agreement, their priorities differ based on their views of hierarchy.

The German negotiators expect a collaborative approach, with decisions made based on merit and expertise rather than hierarchical considerations. 

The Brazilian negotiators defer to senior executives and prioritize building rapport and respect for authority.

Hierarchy, or the degree of social stratification within a society, significantly influences negotiation dynamics. 

In hierarchical cultures like those found in many Asian and Latin American countries, respect for authority, status, and seniority plays a central role in negotiation interactions. 

Negotiators may defer to higher-ranking individuals, and decisions may be made by those in positions of authority.

In contrast, in egalitarian cultures such as those in Northern Europe or Australia, negotiation tends to be more egalitarian, with an emphasis on equality, meritocracy, and consensus-building. 

Negotiators may engage in open dialogue, challenge assumptions, and seek input from all stakeholders, regardless of rank or status.

Uncertainty Avoidance

The boardroom, round three.

On one side: a Swedish company; on the other: a Saudi Arabian company.

While discussing a business partnership, their priorities differ based on their level of uncertainty avoidance.

The Swedish negotiators are more open to exploring creative solutions and adapting to changing circumstances. 

The Saudi negotiators prefer clear agreements, detailed contracts, and a structured approach to minimize uncertainty and risk.

Uncertainty avoidance, or the degree to which a culture tolerates ambiguity and uncertainty, shapes negotiation outcomes. 

In cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, such as those found in many Asian and Middle Eastern countries, negotiators may prefer clear rules, detailed contracts, and predictable outcomes. 

Negotiation strategies may focus on minimizing risk and ensuring stability.

Conversely, in cultures with low uncertainty avoidance, such as those in the United States or Northern Europe, negotiators may be more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty. 

Negotiation approaches may be more flexible, adaptive, and open to innovative solutions, with less emphasis on rigid rules or formalities.

Come to the Negotiation Table Prepared

Cultural values – particularly individualism vs collectivism, hierarchy, and uncertainty avoidance – play a profound role in shaping negotiation outcomes, influencing everything from communication styles to decision-making processes. 

By understanding and respecting cultural differences, negotiators can adapt their strategies and approaches to navigate diverse cultural landscapes successfully.

Insightful Cross-Cultural Analogies: How Hofstede’s Power Distance & Uncertainty Avoidance Aid Understanding

Posted on by Leave a comment

Power distance. Uncertainty avoidance.

We’ve discussed these two dimensions at length in previous posts.

Not only are they stand-alone aspects that aid cross-cultural understanding, but social psychologist, Geert Hofstede, has applied these two dimensions to create cultural analogies that help simplify foreign workplace environments.

Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance Review

These two dimensions relate to workplace behaviors.

Power distance is the degree to which cultures accept and expect the unequal distribution of power amongst members of organizations and institutions.

For instance, those employees in cultures of high power distance will not directly confront a superior; those employees and superiors in cultures of low power distance rely on communication and the consultation of each other, which de-emphasizes the hierarchical nature of status.

Uncertainty avoidance is the measure of acceptance and expectation for unpredictability and chaos in society.

Those cultures with high levels of uncertainty avoidance have a low tolerance for unpredictability and ambiguity, resulting in rule-oriented, law-abiding societies.

Those cultures with low levels of uncertainty avoidance have a high tolerance for the same, resulting in societies willing to take more risks, tolerate a wider variety of opinions, and not follow rules so strictly.

The Analogies

Arranging these two dimensions on the axes of a matrix, Hofstede produced a set of helpful analogies to better understand the work cultures of the United Kingdom, China, Germany, and France.

monkey_charts_CMYK-14

With its low uncertainty avoidance and low power distance, a typical English company is like a village market, in that it combines risk-taking with flat hierarchies, resulting in the classic entrepreneurial spirit.

Germany also shares the flat workplace hierarchies (low power distance) with the British; however, German culture has a high uncertainty avoidance, making typical German companies efficient and inflexible, more like a “well-oiled machine” or a clock. Rules are strictly followed, with decentralized decision-making and each equally important wheel working together.

The typical French company is described as a “royal court” or “pyramid of people.” The culture is one of high power distance, where everyone knows their place and decision-making is centralized. They also share high uncertainty avoidance with the Germans, meaning rules are strictly followed, resulting in a complex network of relationships across the levels of hierarchy. Power and authority are highly valued.

The best analogy for a Chinese company is that of a family with a head patriarch. Like France, China values high power distance and, like England, low uncertainty avoidance. This means that, despite having a typical hierarchical society that values company loyalty, risks and rule-bending are embraced, which has helped to position China as an economic superpower.

Although I can’t stress enough that analogies are never perfect and nothing is one-size-fits-all, they do allow managers to form mental models, aiding understanding in the workplace environments of foreign countries.

A New Frame of Interpretation: How Analogies Can Help Direct Cross-Cultural Behaviors

Posted on by Leave a comment

Meet Marie.

Marie is a German business consultant tasked with reorganizing a French company.

Excited with the prospect, Marie initially enjoyed her frequent trips to Paris and the directive with which she was tasked. But soon, she faced regular roadblocks that would make the fun project a chore.

The French company she was to reorganize was hierarchical and centralized. Despite this, Marie had difficulty identifying the appropriate decision-makers, as a number of people claimed to be in charge though they didn’t actually hold any power in moving the project forward.

Their interference threw rocks into the cogs of this project, slowing it to a standstill, and the delay resulted in even less support from the French team.

At this point, she wasn’t even able to secure a meeting with management or access the information required to complete her mission.

Marie had two choices: a) abandon the project, or b) find someone who could assist in her cross-cultural understanding of the way a stereotypical French company functions.

The Working Parts of a French Company

Marie was lucky enough to find her Zookeeper at the wedding party of a friend.

Using an analogy, this Zookeeper – a French manager who’d worked for over a decade in Germany – managed to crystalize Marie’s understanding of the hierarchy in the French office and the politics with which it functioned.

The Zookeeper told her, first of all, to abandon her German ideas of how an office should function. Unlike in Germany, companies in France don’t function like well-oiled machines.

Instead, he said, they are more like royal courts, in which the CEO reigns supreme. He is the king, and surrounding him, are his noblemen, knights, servants, etc. – all of whom vie for his attention.

They do this by constructing their own fiefdoms.

As Marie was someone sent in from the outside to manage a project, she should navigate this world like an earl.

As quoted from I am the Monkey, the Zookeeper advised:

“Be humble in the right moment. Be bold in the right moment. Be courteous when required. Be rude when needed. Build your political relationship and network, until you have the ear and favor of the king or one of his important ministers.”

By abandoning her expectations that a French office should function like a German one, Marie would be able to get the job done effectively in this foreign culture.

A Culture’s Office Hierarchy is Often a Microcosm of the Country’s Structural Macrocosm

France, itself, has a thousand-year-old history of strong monarchies. Further, its current politics is centered around a strong presidential state; so much so that President François Mitterand was deemed the “last French King.”

French thinking and the stereotypical hierarchies of French companies have been influenced by this historical structure and the way in which it functions.

In understanding this, Marie was able to adapt her behavior to a new frame of interpretation.

The idea that “French companies are like royal courts” created a firmer, almost visceral blueprint for not only what was expected from her, but for the methods by which she could achieve her goal in this setting that differed greatly from her own back in Germany.

This is one example of how analogies can aid a manager’s understanding of a new cross-cultural environment. We’ll be talking more about creating analogies in the coming weeks.

Relationship- vs. Rule-Based Cultures: Socially-Based Control vs. Individual Autonomy

Posted on by Leave a comment

Imagine living in a culture where the village and the individual are one and the same.

That’s how the Bantu cultures of sub-Saharan Africa see things: an individual’s welfare is dependent on the village’s and vice versa.

One example of the way this manifests in the culture’s social norms is in their greeting.

The Shona people greet others with Maswere sei (“How is your day?”).

The response is Ndiswera maswerawo (“My day is OK if yours is.”).

Relationships are a fundamental part of the culture, so social control is exercised through relationships.

Last week, we talked about how cultures differ in their views of rules and relationships.

In the Shona society, certain relative figureheads are in authoritarian roles over subordinates in the family. Wives are subordinate to husbands, children to parents, younger siblings to older siblings, and all to the village elders.

The culture sees this subordination as natural. Subordinates don’t buck against the hierarchy, because it is the way of life, and the society’s baobab roots are formed and interconnected by relationships.

In contrast, rule-based cultures don’t see rules and relationships this way.

Human Beings as Autonomous Individuals

Rule-based societies view human beings as autonomous (i.e. having no natural authority over others).

As we saw in last week’s post, the authority in such cultures is rather embodied in the rules – rules that are applied to everyone.

This Western cultural concept can be traced back to God and the Ten Commandments.

God is seen as a lawmaker. He governs using universal rule of law.

The Greeks also influenced the West’s rule-based values, as they saw individuals as generally rational and rules as generally logical.

This idea is the basis of “homo economicus,” a principle in which a prosperous society is based on a logical and rational people.

It follows then that, in rule-based cultures, management and behavior is based upon the culture’s respect for rules.

Both cultural types have rules, but they differ in their relation to these rules in two ways:

  • In relationship-based cultures, the authority of rules is directly related to the authority of the person who lays down the law, while in rule-based cultures, rules are respected for their sake.
  • Moreover, in relationship-based cultures, supervision and shame ensure compliance with rules, while in rule-based cultures, fear of punishment and guilt are used for the same.

How This Difference Affects Business Relations

These complex differences can sew distrust between business partners.

Each culture views their own perspective on rules and relationships as just and right. In turn, they view the other’s perspective as corrupt.

Imagine this scenario, adapted from Riding the Waves of Culture:

A manager in a relationship-based culture offers his nephew a lofty position in the company, despite the fact that this nephew is unqualified.

A rule-based colleague of this manager tells his counterparts:

“They’ll always help their friends and family over more qualified candidates. It’s nepotism. They cannot be trusted.”

On the opposite side, the relationship-based manager sees his rule-based colleague pass up a friend for a position in lieu of a more qualified candidate.

He tells his team:

“He will not even help a friend? How can we trust him?”

In this way, cross-cultural business relations can be easily damaged or decimated, when the motives of other cultures are not understood.

Next week, we’ll talk about how to avoid this misunderstanding.

The Employer-Employee Relationship Across Cultures: Concept of Self, In-groups & the Workplace

Posted on by Leave a comment

How do you view your relationship with your employer?

Do you see the employer-employee relationship as something of a family link?

Or is the relationship strictly professional and contractual?

The way you view this relationship is conditioned by your society’s concept of the in-group. As with many things, this concept is formed according to where your culture lies upon Hofstede’s cultural dimension spectrum of collectivist vs. individualist.

We are Family

Collectivist cultures view the employer-employee relationship as a moral one, a familial one.

Whether or not the company is the in-group, the company is expected to behave according to the in-group’s rules and values.

As we mentioned in last week’s post, the in-group usurps all.

Strictly Professional

On the other hand, individualist cultures see the professional relationship as a contractual one.

The structure and hierarchy of a company/organization are not expected to follow the rules and values of any in-group the individual employees are a party too. Rather, the employees submit to the structure of their company and their company culture.

Why?

It’s pretty simple: because the company is built for the owners/employers and customers, and it’s in the employees’ personal interest to align themselves with this structure. Otherwise, they’re out of work and their self-realization of upward mobility ceases.

Abstract Relationship vs. Social Fabric

Individualist cultures view employee/employer relationships abstractly.

The relationship is built on a contract. Salary in exchange for work…and, hopefully, some employee satisfaction.

Collectivist cultures view companies/organizations as part of the community’s social fabric.

Members are the vehicles of the company’s purpose and meaning.

The companies, themselves, are often run by a family/clan, which can often lead to family hiring and nepotism. As we mentioned last week, this is acceptable – and even expected – in collectivist cultures.

Benefits to senior managers and individual shareholders are not the end-all, be-all of the organization’s development and success in a collectivist society. Instead, the organization serves the society/clan.

Motivational Theories

This is why Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs,” Herzberg’s two-factor theory, and other models for human motivation, created by Western researchers, don’t withstand cross-cultural tests.

They do not account for the fact that human needs and human motivation (particularly, in the workplace) differ greatly across cultures, which means the incentives to motivate teams will too.

Concept of Self

These differences are related to the concept of self.

The individualist vs. collectivist perspective of self is, understandably, a topic well researched.

Markus and Kitayama (1991) wrote:

“People in different cultures have strikingly different construals of the self, of others, and of the interdependence of the two. These construals can determine the very nature of individual experience, including cognition, emotion and motivation.”

concept of self

This chart shows an overview of various nations’ concept of self.

The US falls on the individualist end of the scale, while Asian countries fall on the collectivist end. European countries lean toward individualism, while others – like India, Spain, and Russia – are more central, balancing individualist values and ideals with collectivist ones. The Middle East, African countries, Mexico, and Japan are more collectivist-leaning.

While this chart isn’t too surprising, the way self-concept manifests in cultures in the areas of cognition, emotion, and motivation varies.

We’ll talk more of self-concept next week.

No Absolutes

The bottom line is there are absolutely no absolutes when managing and motivating across cultures. Motivational tactics that work in an individualist culture may not work in a collectivist one.

As a Western manager, don’t become the monkey in your workplace. Know that there are no absolutes. Know that, just as individualism is not the only driver of economic success, individualist motivators are not the only possible drivers for your employees.

You must adapt. In collectivist cultures, manage groups instead of individuals.

Social Power Structures & Business Culture: Where are You in the Pecking Order?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Can you question authority in your company? Are you allowed to talk to your boss…look at him/her directly? If you’re on the low end of the pecking order, is your voice heard?

If you answered ‘yes’ to these questions, you’re probably working in a Western company culture.

If you answered ‘no,’ you’re probably in the East.

We’ve been talking about the differences between individualist cultures and collectivist cultures for the past two weeks. Now, let’s take a peek at what happens in a business, East vs. West.

Social Power Structures

Social power structures are one of the most obvious contrasts between the East and the West.

The East centers around a hierarchical structure. Think of it as a building with no stairs. Only floors. Those in a higher position of power socialize at the top level, and those in a lower position of power socialize at the bottom. There is no crossing between the floors. There are social barriers. And, in fact, one might lose face if they mingled with a lower class.

The West, on the other hand, has an egalitarian structure. There are stairs and elevators in the building, and everyone from CEOs to janitors is welcome to cross between. Conversation is much looser and less formal. Inclusiveness is important. And you could argue that those who are able to talk to everyone on their level with grace, treating all with dignity and respect, would gain face doing so.

Social power structures are deeply ingrained in a culture. In the West, the homeless may be invisible to most, but they have a voice to others. In the East, they are invisible and voiceless to all.

Innovation & Business Culture

Ambition and initiative are also Western values which, if imitated in the East, would not go over so well.

For instance, say you’re a newbie at a company. You’ve got a brilliant new idea that will speed productivity sevenfold. You present it to upper management, without prompt, during a morning meeting.

Would you a) be rewarded, or b) be shunned?

In Western companies, this free-thinking initiative would be viewed positively. Ambition is, more often than not, a valued trait in the West.

In Eastern companies, a newbie trying to crack through the hierarchy would be seen as disobedient and, perhaps, a bit dangerous to upper management. This is due to the top-heavy concentration of power. Those in the lower ranks who try to “prove” themselves are putting a toe out of line, breaking the harmony. And they’d lose face because of it.

Cross-Cultural Environment

If you intend to work in a cross-cultural environment, knowing the values of the culture in which you’ll be working – especially the social power structures and business culture – will improve your chances of success.

Knowing these intricacies of culture will help you not to lose face before you even gain one.