Tag: motivation

Horizontal/Vertical Cultures & Advertising: Does Status, Pleasure, or Relationships Appeal to Your Culture?

Posted on by Leave a comment

The glossy page of an in-flight magazine shows an ad of a woman running while clutching a sleek new mobile phone.

Several passersby turn to watch her run past.

The ad reads “Turning heads with America’s Slimmest Phone!”

Does this ad appeal to you?

Would it appeal generally to the people of your culture?

While it’s not uncommon to encounter advertisements promising to elevate a consumer’s status and leave a lasting impression on others, the role of culture in shaping the resonance of such appeals cannot be understated. 

The degree to which such advertisements motivate consumers may vary depending on the cultural context.

This study set out to explore the influence of culture on the use of persuasive appeals highlighting the allure of status benefits and various other advantages.

The Study’s Hypotheses

The study’s hypotheses stem from a nuanced consideration of cultural distinctions, particularly the contrast between horizontal cultures, which value equality, and vertical cultures, which emphasize hierarchical structures. 

The researchers argued that this cultural distinction offers a unique lens through which to make predictions, revealing insights not traditionally associated with broader cross-cultural differentiations between individualism and collectivism.

The delineation between vertical cultures and horizontal cultures offers a fresh perspective on the prevalence and content of advertising appeals. 

The Study

Through a comprehensive content analysis encompassing 1,211 magazine advertisements across five diverse countries (Denmark, Korea, Poland, Russia, and the United States), researchers uncovered distinct patterns in ad content that underscore the significance of this cultural distinction.

In their in-depth examination, they delved into these ad content patterns and their implications. 

They undertook a comparative analysis, pitting the predictions derived from the vertical/horizontal cultural distinction against those derived from the broader individualism-collectivism framework, ultimately subjecting these predictions to empirical testing.

Notably, the analysis revealed variations in the emphasis on status benefits and uniqueness benefits within advertisements, mirroring the countries’ categorization as vertical or horizontal cultures.

The Results

The study’s comprehensive analysis of magazine advertisements spanned several countries, each representing distinct cultural orientations, including VI (United States), HI (Denmark), and VC (Korea, Russia, Poland).

Researchers noted a distinct emphasis on status-related benefits within advertising appeals in countries aligned with VC cultures, which includes Korea, Russia, and Poland, as well as the VI culture in the United States. 

This emphasis encompassed depictions of luxury, references to prestige, impressing others, prominence, affiliations with high-status groups (e.g., ivy league graduates), endorsements by high-status individuals (e.g., celebrities), and other forms of distinction (e.g., “award-winning”). 

This focus on status benefits corresponded with the cultural profiles of these countries. 

Notably, in all VC societies examined, status benefits emerged as a dominant theme in advertising, often overshadowing appeals emphasizing pleasure, uniqueness, or relationships. 

In stark contrast, the emphasis on pleasure appeals was preferred in the HI culture of Denmark.

Uniqueness-related appeals, which included elements of differentiation, self-expression, self-reliance, and novelty, were also more prominent in HI cultures compared to VI and VC cultures. 

These appeals portrayed the product as a means of self-expression, aligning with cultural contexts emphasizing individuality, distinctiveness, and self-reliance.

Notably, although both the United States and Denmark are categorized as individualistic societies, their advertisements significantly differed in their emphasis on uniqueness and status, reflecting the nuances of their vertical and horizontal cultural values. 

These patterns were not anticipated by conventional analyses based on the broader individualism-collectivism classification.

As expected, the prevalence of ads emphasizing pleasure benefits largely corresponded to the individualism-collectivism orientation of the society. 

These appeals, which cater to personal hedonic goals valued in individualistic cultures, were more prevalent in individualistic societies than in collectivistic ones, with the contrast between HI and VC cultures proving particularly significant.

However, no significant differences emerged across individualistic and collectivistic cultures in regard to relationship appeals, which focused on sociability, nurturing, warmth, and belongingness. 

Overall, the study found that the conventional individualism-collectivism framework falls short in predicting the prevalence of such appeals, making the horizontal/vertical cultural distinction a valuable addition to cross-cultural theory and research.

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.

Cultural Bodyclock: How to Adjust to Polychronic or Monochronic Time Perception

Posted on by Leave a comment

Research by Harvard Business Review found that

“between 10% and 20% of all U.S. managers sent abroad returned early because of job dissatisfaction or difficulties in adjusting to a foreign country.”

One of the primary adjustments to make as a manager in a foreign country is adjusting one’s bodyclock to the culture’s time perception.

As we’ve learned these past few weeks, polychronic and monochronic cultures operate according to clocks that have been set very differently – not just in two different time zones, but more like in two different space-time continuums.

Polychronic cultures have a more fluid view of time, while in monochronic cultures, time is linear.

If you’re sent to manage a company in another country, you might need to acquire – or at least adjust to – their view of time.

But you can’t just reset your watch, so how do you make these adjustments actionable?

Being a Monochron

For those coming from a polychronic culture into a monochronic culture, you might proactively focus on these aspects of time perception:

  • Punctuality and organization – both the manager and the staff know their schedule in advance and are expected to be prompt at meetings. Punctuality is key to keeping everything else on track, like a well-oiled machine.
  • Time management tools – many countries in monochronic cultures use time management tools to keep joint calendars as a team and stay on task. Tools like Scoro, Asana, and Trello come to mind.
  • Linear activities – monochronic time systems move one step at a time. Once one task is completed and accounted for, an employee can move onto the next, ensuring focus and efficiency.
  • Individual drive and achievement – individual successes are celebrated, both personally and by the company (think “employee of the month”). This motivates personal drive and performance.
  • Meeting deadlines – deadlines in monochronic cultures are hard stops. Work is expected to be completed promptly by deadline in a task-oriented fashion.

If you, as a polychron, can tune into these time- and motivation-related aims, you will be a more successful manager in a monochronic culture.

Being a Polychron

For those coming from a monochronic culture into a polychronic culture, you might proactively focus on these aspects of time perception.

  • Interaction – relationships and personal connections are a normal part of the workday. While tasks are set, personal interaction with colleagues and clients is expected and often prioritized.
  • Integrated activities – multitasking is common, and tasks are completed in an integrated and often leisurely fashion, with those who have finished their tasks pulling in to help others.
  • Group effort – as mentioned above, tasks are more often a group effort, as polychronic businesses often have a flat management structure where peer support is encouraged. Thus, individual recognition isn’t so important as group recognition.
  • Flexibility – there is a more flexible agenda in polychronic cultures, with employees not worrying too much about a hard deadline.
  • High context communication – all crucial information is shared, along with background information, and often in a manner where tone and visual cues are emphasized and interpreted.

When stepping into another culture’s time perception, making pointed actionable adjustments will help you adjust your bodyclock in a concrete way to a foreign culture.

Stereotypes: A “Solid Impression” or a Funhouse Mirror?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Imagine you’re trying to navigate yourself to a restaurant in a big city.

You open up Google Earth, plug in the address, and find the coordinates.

At first, you’re in satellite view. So many details – lines, colors, buildings, trees. With such an intricate bird’s-eye perspective, it’s hard to focus and find the way.

Gps Maps Google Map Navigation Location Navigator
Gps Maps Google Map Navigation Location Navigator

However, when you switch over to map view, everything is suddenly simplified and much clearer.

Analogies are the map views of a culture. They simplify a culture’s complexity, clearing the way to understanding by providing less – but more pertinent – information.

Analogies strip away the details you don’t need, leaving only those that you do.

While this is most certainly helpful in a lot of ways, you must be careful with simplified views.

A simplified map can leave out roadblocks, traffic jams, or other valuable information that might have altered your chosen route or decision-making.

This can especially happen when we use stereotypes as our simplified cultural maps.

A “Solid Impression”

The word “stereotype” is rooted in the Greek words for firm/solid (“stereos”) and impression (“typos”).

Literally translated, stereotype means “solid impression.”

In the late 18th century, the term was used by Firmin Didot in printing to describe printing plates that duplicate typography.

Rather than using the original plate, the stereotype (duplicate printing plate) was used for printing.

The meaning of the word changed in the early 20th century when American journalist, Walter Lippmann, used it analogously in relation to the characteristics of a group of people.

As a stereotype is a solid impression in the printing process, so it is in people’s minds in relation to groups or cultures.

Lippmann saw this, defining the word as,

“a distorted picture or image in a person’s mind, not based on personal experience, but derived culturally.”

Stereotypes are like a funhouse mirror: conditioning that distorts our image of “the other.”

Lippmann warned of the dangers of such bias. In Public Opinion (1922), he wrote,

“The only feeling that anyone can have about an event he does not experience is the feeling aroused by his mental image of that event.”

In this way, our feelings about an event (or a people) are not based in truth if we have no experience with said event/people.

They’re based on a stereotype.

Stereotypes condition us to deflect valid and true claims that do not align with our own, grounded in often negative attitudes and perceptions of “the other” – attitudes that are regularly driven by social and political motivations.

How Are Stereotypes Different Than Analogies

Although stereotypes and analogies work in a similar fashion in that they simplify the mechanics and behaviors that drive a culture’s people, the aim of creating analogies is to enable one to work effectively in a cross-cultural environment.

The aim of stereotypes, on the other hand, is often to contrast characteristics of other cultures that conflict with one’s own, essentially blanketing them over an entire group.

Stereotypes can often be intolerant, toxic, discriminatory, prejudicial, and downright dangerous.

Swiss are punctual; Indians are late.

Italians are jovial; Brits have a stiff upper lip.

Russians love vodka; the French love wine.

Americans are superficial; the Japanese are polite.

While stereotypical characteristics may not always be negative or evil, applying them to an entire people can result in prejudice of said people and individuals, which is of course ineffective to cross-cultural leadership and understanding.

Next week, we’ll talk about taking a wise approach to stereotypes.

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.

Cross-Cultural Management: Understanding Motivating Factors for Different In-groups

Posted on by Leave a comment

As we discussed in a previous post, individualist motivational management is obviously very much centered around the individual.

Praise for outstanding work, recognition, both material and immaterial. “Employee of the Month” springs to mind.

For individualist cultures, being recognized for individual achievement means you are succeeding in your career – and at life.

But these same tactics do not always work in other cultures.

So, what does work?

Translating Cultural Dimensions into Workplace Management

In order to discover what works in managerially motivating across cultures, you must identify the in-group.

Last week, we talked about how economic success does not depend wholly on whether a culture is individualistic or collectivistic.

Rather, the in-group is what matters.

Whether company or country, in-groups are the primary drivers of workplace motivation.

Loyalty to groups is key to economic growth, and identifying the culture’s in-group can help you adapt your management style to the culture’s values.

In many collectivist cultures, the in-group is the family or the clan. The fact that it isn’t the company or oneself creates motivational differences from individualist cultures.

Learn Some Cultural Motivations

Diplomas – Diplomas are a way to climb the status ladder in collectivist cultures. Rather than seeing diplomas as paving the way toward the career ladder of better opportunities, diplomas are a door opening to a higher status group.

Because of this cultural perspective, diplomas are not sought to increase self-confidence in one’s abilities, but rather primarily to gain status.

Mobility – There are various types of mobility – occupational, geographical, hierarchical, etc. – and they are viewed differently across cultures.

In collectivist cultures, where the in-group is incredibly important, mobility across all types is lower, because it results in a change in one’s in-group.

Why?

If you have geographical mobility, you might leave your family. If you have hierarchical mobility, your in-group must approve of any upward change in position within your company, or this new position must be consistent with the role they’ve bestowed upon you.

An example: becoming the company boss of a clan elder is likely out of the question. The in-group’s hierarchy (which, in this case, is the clan) will always supersede that of a company’s organizational formalities.

Nepotism – Hiring or promoting family members/friends is seen as morally wrong in Western cultures, particularly if that family member has no qualifications for the role.

This is because individualist cultures view employees as “economic persons” who are motivated to pursue the employer’s interests if it aligns with their own self-interest.

Not so much in collectivist cultures.

One’s self-interest – and/or that of one’s employer – is always usurped by that of the in-group.

Therefore, nepotism in a collectivist culture would not only be acceptable, it would be expected.

One example of this in a collectivist culture: Burkina Faso’s former President Blaise Compoare not only hired family members to fill positions in government, but he also built a zoo and an airport in his village and supplied it with electricity (the only village with light for years, at the time).

While this action may have caused an uproar in a Western country, the culture saw Compoare’s actions as morally just. He was caring for his in-group, his people, which is seen as a positive thing in Burkina Faso.

Next week, we’ll talk more about the employer-employee relationship across cultures.