Issue 2/2004
03/02/04
Interculturally competent?
Dr. Ursina Böhm
A German, a French man and a Chinese man meet… What sounds like the beginning of a harmless joke is becoming an increasingly characteristic feature of every day business life. Through cooperation across borders or mergers with foreign partners, through the takeover of foreign companies or the establishment of branch offices abroad, to name just a few examples, companies try to produce more efficiently, to profit from legal or tax-related advantages, to spread risks and so on. More and more people are cooperating with members of foreign cultures and acting in intercultural overlap situations, in which different ways of thinking and behaviour meet.
Category: Issue 2/2004
Posted by: Editor
Intercultural cooperation is not limited to the higher management levels or to expatriates. Employees working in the home market are also in contact with members of foreign cultures: at trade fairs, while working in multicultural teams or on international committees, due to the cultural diversity of one’s own company, in contacts with foreign clients and suppliers or through interaction with foreign colleagues, partners and customers with the help of modern means of communication such as telephone, fax, e-mail and video conferences. Even medium-sized businesses can hardly avoid giving their strategy a more international orientation.
However numerous cross-border activities fail. Obviously, economic advantages, good intentions and mutual frankness are not sufficient conditions for successful intercultural cooperation. Apart from technical and economic knowledge, communication and cooperation with people of other cultures call for further knowledge and capabilities, which the members of staff on account of their professional training often do not have or only in inadequate form: intercultural competence. However, as long as the management is not sufficiently aware of the significance of the factor culture and the necessity of taking it into account in an international business environment, too little importance will be attached to cultural aspects, and the problems related to this will be simply ignored. The resulting misunderstandings lead to wrong decisions and costs arise in the sense of process, time and quality losses.
Now some people might argue that in the course of globalisation the differences between the cultures increasingly disappear and therefore why should one be bothered at all with intercultural questions? From San Francisco through Stockholm to Shanghai, a uniform culture – the American culture – seems to be forming. But what we can observe is not – as wrongly assumed in many cases – the disappearance of local culture. Instead it is a change of behaviours within the scope of culture. An example: In China the family is extremely important. Meals take place largely within the family circle and fulfil a social function within the family structure. In the USA, on the other hand, the social function of eating is not culturally anchored. In many cases eating takes place alone or only within the immediate family. When the Americans enjoy a “Chinese meal”, then this refers only to the food itself – but not to the dealings with eating or the socio-cultural function of eating. On the other hand, one can observe large Chinese families on Sundays in Shanghai at MacDonald’s. Eating is therefore integrated into the own cultural environment, but is interpreted completely differently.
This phenomenon arises due to the complexity of culture. Thus the externally observable forms of behaviour are only an interpretation of the underlying values and norms. So how is culture defined?
Definition of culture
According to Hofstede, culture can be defined as “the collective programming of the mind, which differentiates the members of a group or category from people of another group” and is acquired and spiritualized consciously or unconsciously by each generation anew within the scope of socialization. Culture is therefore a system of orientation which allows frictionless and effective interaction, communication and cooperation within the group. Apart from this orienting, interpreting and identity-giving function, culture at the same time delimits members of a group from other social groups.
Culture represents the group-specific or category-specific level of mental programming of the person and must be differentiated from human nature on the one hand and from the personality of an individual on the other hand (see Figure 1). Human nature – as the lowest level – comprises all that which is common to all people and therefore universal. Apart from the physical function, this also involves in outline the psychic function, such as the human capability to have feelings. How the individual deals with these feelings and expresses his sentiments, however, is determined by culture and in contrast to human nature is not inherent but acquired. The personality of an individual, on the other hand, is his unique personal combination of mental programmes, which he shares with no other individual and which is partly inherent and partly acquired (individual-specific level).
A foreign culture presents itself like an iceberg: only a small part is accessible to human perception (see Figure 2). This part consists of the visible expressions of culture, such as symbols, heroes and rituals (explicit culture). Symbols are objects and directly perceivable signs of a culture, such as language, food, clothing, architecture, art. The heroes of a culture can be dead or living, real or fictitious and have characteristics which are highly regarded in a culture (e.g. sports stars such as Formula 1 driver Michael Schumacher or the golf player Tiger Woods). Rituals are regularly recurring, collective activities which are practised in a cultural circle often only for their own sake. Their benefit and function is not always apparent for outsiders (e.g. Christmas celebrations, hoisting the flag on national holidays, “Koninginnedag” in Holland, carnival processions).
The invisible part of the iceberg, on the other hand, contains values and norms which determine human thinking and action in a culture and which are based for their part on basic assumptions (implicit culture). Values reflect the emotional views in a culture and make positive or negative statements. They are an expression of the objectives which are considered desirable in a society and therefore convey to us what we should do. Values are relatively constant within a cultural group. We have learned to deal with these values without perceiving them – because it simply is so. We judge others by drawing on these values and interpret their behaviour as an expression of the underlying values. On the other hand, norms express how we must behave in concrete situations. They represent rules of behaviour which guarantee the carrying out of values in everyday practice. Apart from explicit norms (e.g. prohibition of smoking, deportment, traffic regulations), implicit norms which are not formalised or fixed in writing can also develop in a culture (clothing regulations for example are mostly dealt with implicitly). Whoever offends against norms is usually made aware of this by the environment. Basic assumptions as the lowest course in the cultural model presented are based on the fundamental answers of a culture to the elementary survival questions. Thus the significance of many institutions, values and norms can be explained. The development of the consent-oriented Polder model as a socio-economic class model of Dutch society, for example, can be explained against the background of the joint struggle against water.
Now how can cultural common ground and differences be put into words, in order to be able to better prepare ones dealings with members of other cultures and therefore prevent colliding with the iceberg “culture”?
Cultural dimensions
One of the main points of emphasis of intercultural research in the last few decades consisted in the derivation of so-called cultural dimensions through the systematic investigation of cultural differences. The findings by Hofstede belong to the most extensive and most recognised in culture-comparative Management Research and are based on the results of questioning of IBM employees in 64 countries. Hofstede differentiates four cultural dimensions:
- Power distance as a measure of readiness to accept or to expect uneven distribution of power in a society or organisation.
- Individualism/Collectivism as a measure to describe the degree of integration of individuals in groups. In individualistic societies the bonds between individuals are loose. One expects from each individual that he looks after himself and his immediate family. On the other hand the individual in collectivistic societies is integrated right from birth in strong closed we-groups, which protect him throughout his life and demand loyalty for this.
- Masculinity/Femininity as a measure to describe the expectations of the individual of masculinity and femininity. In masculine societies the roles of the sexes are clearly delimited from each other: Men must be determined, hard and materially oriented; women should be more modest and sensitive and attach importance to the quality of life. In feminine societies the roles of the sexes overlap: Both women and men should be modest and sensitive and set value on the quality of life.
- Uncertainly avoidance as a measure, in which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain situations, and the resulting need for predictability and for written and unwritten rules.
The less two cultures overlap in the dimensions listed, the stronger is the experience of strangeness. If slightly pronounced, curiosity and reconciliation behaviour can result. If strongly pronounced, fear, insecurity, rejection or escape behaviour can arise.
The individual members of a culture do not all show identical markedness of the respective cultural dimensions. The American or the French man does not exist! Figure 3 illustrates this based on the example of the dimension Individualism. While the American culture is generally more individualistic than the French culture, the degree of individualism varies considerably within the French and the American culture. Therefore on the normal distribution curve for France, one will find areas where the dimension Individualism is more pronounced than for the USA and vice versa.
Cultural dimensions represent a reference system for the complex phenomenon culture. They make it possible to consciously reflect one’s own culture due to the comparison with other cultures and thus to recognize the dependence of thinking and behaviour on one’s own culture and the relativity of one’s own cultural framework. The necessary knowledge is provided in those areas where culture-related differences between members of foreign cultures are to be expected. Future and also past experiences of intercultural interaction can be processed and classified cognitively. However it is important to remain open for deviations from model statements which are specific to culture and individuals, since otherwise there is the danger of thinking increasingly in stereotypes.
Figure 4 gives a summarizing overview of the markedness of the cultural dimensions for the European countries Germany, France and the Netherlands as well as the USA and China.
How can the knowledge of cultural common ground and differences of the cultural dimension model be implemented in concrete form in situations of intercultural interaction? Since every form of behaviour has communicative character, the question arises in regard to the culturally adequate communication behaviour.
Intercultural communication
Communication processes take place not only in the sense of exchange of information. Rather they offer the basis for human relations. The special aspect of a culture, namely what characterizes a culture and differentiates it from others, is essentially a product of communication processes.
Communication is a process, in which a sender ciphers a message in a certain code and sends it via a communication channel to reach the receiver, who then decodes it and on whom it generates an effect. Therefore communication is only effective when the processes of transforming the message at sender and receiver level are compatible. Only then does the receiver get the message which the sender wanted to convey. If the sender and receiver originate from different cultures, then we talk about intercultural communication. As codes are learned and therefore specific to a culture, the encoding and decoding in intercultural exchange becomes more difficult.
Communication takes place mostly at paraverbal and nonverbal levels (see Figure 5). Investigation results indicate that the effect of a message is based only 7 % on verbal communication, but instead 38% on the manner in which these words ar e said (paraverbal communication) and 55 % on body language and mimic (nonverbal communication). Beside these communication levels, culture-specific particularities can affect the directness of the statements and the ratio between content level and relationship level. Table 1 gives an overview of important differences in the communication style of Germans and Chinese. In comparison to other European countries or the USA, an added factor making things more difficult for China is that the Chinese language and characters have a completely different structure. Just like the individual word or symbol, the individual person in Chinese society – taken for himself alone – is nothing: only in the context of his relations and bonds, his family or his working environment does he attain his value. This accentuation of the personal focus in contrast to the issue-related focus of western individualism is essential for the Chinese style of communication.
To avoid culture-related misperceptions and misinterpretations in the communication process, in general the following three rules should be taken into account:
- To show understanding for the other person, by putting oneself mentally in his position and trying to think according to his system of experiences and values.
- To listen actively, by presenting oneself verbally, nonverbally and paraverbally towards ones conversation partner as friendly, open and willing to talk.
- To obtain feedback from the other person, by inquiring about the perception and behaviour of the conversation partner.
In view of the complexity of the intercultural communication process, one might ask how intercultural interaction can turn out successfully at all. This leads us to the concept of intercultural competence.
What is understood by intercultural competence?
Intercultural competence makes it possible to take into account in appropriate form culture-related differences in the planning of ones own actions. Interaction situations in the intercultural environment can therefore be interpreted and arranged consciously. Apart from a cognitive component in the form of aspects of knowledge (knowledge of differences and common ground between cultures), intercultural competence presumes an affective component in the form of aspects of attitude (emotions), in order to be able to implement the conscious sensitization of behaviour in the sense of competence of action. The aim is to be able to interact effectively with people of another culture and therefore to cope with problems and conflicts resulting from cultural differences or to avoid these right from the start.
Intercultural competence cannot be reduced to one single capability, but instead should be understood as a combination of partial competences:
• Tolerance of ambiguity
Capability of being able to tolerate the tense relationship between contrasts and ambiguities without becoming incapable of action or without reacting inappropriately. It enables one to act effectively even in unstructured situations.
• Awareness of dissent
A precipitate or compulsive consent has a negative effect in the long term, because it only covers up (cultural) differences, but does not eliminate them.
To hold different positions and viewpoints consciously is therefore important, in order to bring about acceptance of all participants.
To hold different positions and viewpoints consciously is therefore important, in order to bring about acceptance of all participants.
• Empathy
Ability to think in different roles, patterns of thought, viewpoints and functions and to carry out a change of perspective. It enables us to imagine ourselves in the world of thought and experiences of other people, to see situations in a different light and to understand their reasons and motives.
• Flexibility
Willingness to learn new things and to correct ones own pattern of thinking and behaviour; ability to adjust quickly to unusual situations.
• Knowledge of foreign languages
Since language and culture are mutually dependent, the knowledge of the respective foreign language contributes considerably to understanding the culture.
• Ability to communicate
Ability to approach others actively and to be able to build up communication networks, instead of withdrawing.
• Communication control
Ability to prevent and eliminate communication difficulties by active control (e.g. by asking for indications in regard to suitable methods of procedure, active search for feedback, summary of the contributions of participants); ability to carry out the role of moderator or mediator.
• Cultural knowledge
Knowledge of ways of thinking and behaviour on the basis of values and norms of the foreign culture (based on the cultural model) and of differences and common ground in comparison to ones own culture (based on the cultural dimension model).
• Unprejudicedness and intercultural willingness to learn
Willingness to show oneself open to and interested in the foreign culture and to be prepared to encounter unfamiliar ways of thinking and behaviour without prejudice; to regard intercultural situations as a learning situation and not as a threat or a necessary evil. This should be linked with curiosity for strange new things.
• Polycentrism
As opposite to ethnocentrism: ability to interpret intercultural patterns of action not against the background of own cultural experiences; recognition of the independence of other cultures; willingness to quality culture-specific evaluations.
• Synergy awareness
Willingness not to want to hold on to existing structures, but to act in a process-oriented manner and to promote the emergence of a qualitatively new element which is “typical” neither for the one nor for the other culture. Flexibility is a prerequisite.
• Tolerance
Closely linked with empathy: willingness to try to understand and to explain the overstepping of acceptance limits by others from their point of view.
• Target orientation
Ability even under difficult conditions to work purposefully towards achieving the set target. The hope for success outweighs the fear of failure.
Taking a closer look at the partial competences listed, it becomes clear that the knowledge of and the sensitivity and understanding for other forms of behaviour and patterns of thinking alone are not sufficient. Instead this must be coupled with the self-confidence and the ability to convey ones own point of view transparently, to be understood and respected. Therefore it is a question of sounding out the greatest possible areas of tolerance. It is necessary to recognize and respect the sovereignty of the foreign partners, to be in the position to recognize and deal with irreconcilabilities, to explain ones own position and to understand the foreign one.
As cultural differences are mainly precieved as a cause for conflict it is often overlocked that they can also offer considerable opportunities. Intercultural cooperation opens up the possibility of bringing new work and organisation forms, methods of procedure and points of view and know-how into a company. Synergies through access to
complementary strengths can create additional competitive advantages. An example for possible synergies in Franco-German cooperation is presented in Table 2.
The fundamental prerequisite for using of intercultural synergies is – in the sense of the above mentioned partial competence: Synergy awareness – the willingness to recognize and constructively interlink the culture-specific strengths of the individual colleagues. The mere search for cultural common ground in the sense of the smallest common denominator and the suppression of differences proves to be just as wrong as an exclusive fixation on the differences. Instead, organisation, functions, processes and management must be designed specifically so that as many colleagues as possible can contribute their strengths, without losing their cultural identity.
In summary, Figure 6 illustrates the incorporation of the individual partial components of intercultural competence in the overall cycle of cognitive, affective and behaviour-oriented components. The more knowledge exists about a culture, the more likely is an increased sensitivity for the individualities and particularities of this culture and a change of personal attitude towards what was foreign up to now. Since for the selection of situative appropriate forms of behaviour the relevant environment factors must first be perceived and correctly interpreted, intercultural competence of action calls in turn for sensitivity and knowledge.
Concluding remarks
Intercultural competence allows to reduce start-up difficulties, misunderstandings and failure in intercultural cooperation and failure thus serves to secure and improve the worldwide competitiveness of a company. Since culture is not inherent but acquired, intercultural competence can also be taught and trained. Measures to develop intercultural competence should therefore be part of the regular management training.
Literature General:
Blom, Herman/Meier, Harald: Interkulturelles Management, Berlin 2002.
Hofstede, Geert: Lokales Denken, globales Handeln, München 2001.
Trompenaars, Fons/Hampden-Turner, Charles: Riding the Waves of Culture, London 1997.
Hofstede, Geert: Lokales Denken, globales Handeln, München 2001.
Trompenaars, Fons/Hampden-Turner, Charles: Riding the Waves of Culture, London 1997.
Focus on China:
Harvard Business Review: HBR Spotlight: China Tomorrow, HBR, October 2000, P.69-99.
Lang, Nikolaus: Interkulturelles Management in China, Wiesbaden 1998.
Reisach, Ulrike/Tauber, Theresia/Yuan, Xueli: China – Wirtschaftspartner zwischen Wunsch und Wirklichkeit, Vienna 1997.
2/2004
