Cross cultural differences Dr Joan Harvey

What are we covering today?  Understanding of culture and cultural differences  Asking the question: to what extent does behaviour vary across cultures?  Understanding of culture and cultural differences  Asking the question: to what extent does behaviour vary across cultures?

Where can we expect to see cross-cultural differences?  Examples:  Australia & Finland: differences in safety skills  Differences in driver anger between UK & US  Finland, UK, Netherlands differ from Turkey, Iran and Greece: driving style and culture determine N accidents  Americans more risk-averse than Chinese in relation to buying risky financial options [in 1998, not necessarily now!]

Why is cross-culture so important?  IJV failures  Breakdown of expatriate assignments  Breakdown of collaborative assignments  Product failure, errors, poor quality  Failure to understand the market, partner, consumers  Perception differences, including risk

Conceptualising culture  Culture as shared values  “Collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others” [Hofstede and Hofstede, 1995]  Evident in rules, procedures, ‘how we do things around here’  Is learned  Culture as shared values  “Collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others” [Hofstede and Hofstede, 1995]  Evident in rules, procedures, ‘how we do things around here’  Is learned

Geert Hofstede  Dutch social anthropologist  Obtained attitude data from IBM worldwide in late 1970s  Factor analysed and looked for factors which differentiated nationalities  Data on 50 countries, but only sufficient N for 40 in first book

Geert Hofstede  Originally four main factors  Masculinity- femininity  Ambition and desire to achieve versus social concern and interpersonal relationships  Power distance  Amount of power that can be wielded  Uncertainty avoidance  inflexibility  Individualism- collectivism  Help and commitment versus high personal achievement  and later added [in 1990s]  LT-ST orientation [Confucian dynamism]

CountryPDUAIMFICLTO Ger China USA Japan UK Finl Austria India Hung Denm Czech Slov Poland

Geert Hofstede  Issues:  Study was based in 1970s and many countries have changed a lot since then- has this affected their orientation?  Eastern European changes  Some developing countries are now developed  Others have changed politically- e.g. South Africa

Geert Hofstede  Issues:  All countries will have changed anyway in nearly 30 years  Changes in technology and global communication  Migration of peoples  Are cross-cultural differences still as pronounced?

Geert Hofstede  Issues:  This study put cross-cultural differences into the mainstream rather than “error variance” in other studies  Encouraged other theorists, e.g. Trompenaars  Recent developments with studies all over the world have increased considerably the number of countries that have been mapped

Two more factors that are interrelated.  Time perception  Polychronic or cyclical [e.g. southern Europe, China, Japan]  Monochronic [e.g. northern Europe, US]  Context  High means that perception of what is said is taken in context, including NVCs  Low means words are interpreted literally

Examples of other theories: [a] Trompenaars 7 factors:  Universalism versus particularism  Work relationships mixed with personal ones  Individualism versus collectivism  Affective versus neutral culture  Specific versus diffuse relationships  Distinct relationships versus diffuse ones  Achieving versus ascribing status  Earned through achievement or recognised e.g. seniority/age  Perception of time  Sequential [monochronic] or parallel [polychronic]  Relating to nature

Example [b] GLOBAL project  Assertiveness  Future orientation  Gender egalitarianism  Humane orientation  Institutional collectivism  In-group collectivism  Performance orientation  Power distance  Uncertainty avoidance

An EU study by Harvey et al.  Questionnaire built from case study & interviews and translated into Chinese  Measured engineers’ attitudes to:  Long hours, deadlines, obligations, relationships, trust, etc (55 items)  Interpretation of words such as ‘soon’  Responses if there is a deadline problem  Demographic variables  Responses to collaborators in other countries

Results of factor analysis of 55 attitude items  F1 quality focus  F2 tasks and time pressures  F3 long hours and obligation  F4 perseverance and respect for manager  F6 trust and loyalty (note F5 difficult to interpret so not included)

Means and ANOVA statistics for factors for the three country groups FactorsChinaBritainGermany/ Austria F prob F1 Quality focus F2 Tasks and time pressures <.0001 F3 Long hours and obligations n.s. F4 Perseverance & respect for manager <.0001 F6 Trust and loyalty n.s.

Perception of time questions Time issuesChinaBritainGermany /Austria Fprob quickly n.s. asap n.s. Soon if deadline is in 1week <.0001 Soon if deadline is in 2 weeks urgent n.s.

Figure 1: F1 quality focus mean scores for Chinese and European respondents by 2 age groups

F3 long hours and obligations mean scores for Chinese & European respondents by 2 age gps

Examples from the study  Negotiations of any kind  Europeans and West would shout out individually  Chinese got together to discuss and present group opinion  Respect for seniority  Clearly not a major issue for Europeans  But determines who speaks when in China and Japan

So what does it all mean?  Across cultures, differences in:  Speaking directly to a client  Interpreting ill-defined words such as ‘soon’  Referring matters up to manager before taking decisions  Emphasis on quality  Ages of those involved in collaboration important- relates to seniority

Other issues to be considered in this study  Guanxi (connections)  Face  Time perception  Monochronic, polychronic, cyclical  Attitudes to deadlines  Attitudes to quality  Respect, harmony, filial piety  Loyalty and trust  High or low context cultures  How communication is interpreted

More conclusions Differences in:  Perseverance  Respect for manager  Perception of deadlines  Preferences for multi-tasking  Some cultures prefer face to face meetings initially

Final points from the study  Importance of having empathy with, and understanding of, other people  If they think you are trying to understand, it helps the relationship  Arguing is not conducive to harmony  Importance of relationships in avoiding mistakes  Lack of cross-cultural understanding a major risk factor in project breakdown or negotiations  Information from the survey was used in software for a ‘plug in’ to workflow management engines

Other dimensions from indigenous social psychology  China  Confucian values  Filial piety  Industriousness  Giving and protecting face  Guanxi  Social networking crucial to business relationships  Ren ching  Respectful exchange of gifts, favours and obligations

Other dimensions  Japan  Amae and respect  Reliance and dependence upon indulgent love of an older person  Kanban  Concept of whole transcending sum of parts  Ringi  Upward communications and decision making  Sacred treasures-  life time employment, seniority, enterprise unions/families  Harmony and cooperation [‘wa’]  Gakureki Shakai  Social system attaching value to education

Other dimensions  Africa  Cognitive tolerance  Not on seat  Africa time  Indaba [Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania]  Ubuntu [Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania]  Tribal loyalty  Power and respect based on experience  Managers ‘right to manage’

Other dimensions  Several cultures resent ‘intrusiveness’ of western values, western research methods, e.g.  Philippines  Sub-Saharan Africa

Other dimensions  Latin American countries: emphasis on  Respect  Family  Hierarchy  Honour  Affiliative obedience  Cultural rigidity  Machismo  Sympatia

Other dimensions  India  Detachment as a coping mechanism, therefore working hard is unrelated to success or failure  Ingratiation techniques to advance personal goals within hierarchical collective context  [similar to parts of western Africa]

Example: Theory Z  Application of Japanese management principles to American & British businesses  Long term focus  Zero tolerance  Personal responsibility for self-development  Positive attitudes to seniority  Teamwork rather than individual achievement  Commitment and trust  Quality and pride  Multi-skilling

Key text Hofstede G and Hofstede G (2005) Culture and Organizations: Software of the mind. 2nd edn London: McGraw Hill

Joan Harvey Newcastle University, United Kingdom and Visiting Professor, Czech University of Life Sciences [CZU] Thank you for your attention