IBS 372 EXAM 2

Role expectations

Different cultures harbor different expectations for those in various roles (e.g., the roles of a manager), meaning that departures from the role expectations that a receiver is accustomed to can create noise.

Consensual decision-making

Decisions are made in groups through unanimous agreement. i. Implications: 1. Time horizon: The most important implication of consensual decision-making approaches is that decision-making takes longer. 2. Commitment to a decision: The second implication of consensual decision-making approaches is that there is strong commitment to decisions, they can be implemented rapidly (after they are reached), and it is difficult to change a decision. In this sense, Myer calls these decisions with a capital "D.)

Emic differences in trust

Cultures differ in their understanding of what trust is, how it is developed, and how long it takes to develop.

Confrontational Approach to Disagreeing

- Debate is a positive thing for teams and organizations -Open confrontation is appropriate and will not hurt relationships Implications: a. People will openly express disagreement with your ideas/recommendations (people will favor "spirited debate"). b. Disagreement and confrontation is (often) viewed as separate from those involved, and it should not be taken personally. Hence, even after confrontation, debate opponents may act as if there was no personal conflict (because it was not personal). Historical explanations: As mentioned in the lecture on "persuading" some countries' education systems are heavily influenced by Rene Descartes' method of principles first reasoning (formulate a hypothesis -> seek to prove or disprove it), and Friedrich Hegel's dialetic model of deduction (Thesis/foundational argument -> antithesis->reconciliation/synthesis). In both of these approaches, explorations of the antithesis or alternative explanations are very important. Hence, open disagreement can be an important element of debate, because it is a venue for the expression of antitheses or alternative explanations.

Country/Culture Specific factors relating to Trusting

-Americans are "peaches" with a cognitive trust system, and there is a strong cultural preference for only showing your professional self, but also showing a positive version of our professional self. This can be confusing to other cultures (including other "peach" cultures that have different expectations on how professionalism should be presented). e.g., Comment from Spanish Executive speaking about Americans: "...everything is wrapped up in a package of positivity that we Europeans feel is impenetrable. My colleagues call Americans superficial and fake..." China: Chinese business people are more likely to mix cognitive and affective trust systems. For this culture, "guanxi," or relationships are often key. Japan: During the day, Japanese often take a task-based approach in their organizations. ii. However, a more relationship-based approach is common in after hours socializing, and alcohol is often used as a platform for getting reserved co-workers to express their "honne" feelings (true inner feelings) rather than their "tatemae" feelings (feelings presented to the outside world). This "nomunication" ("nomu" = to drink) is recognized as a platform for identifying bad feelings or conflicts, and addressing them before they spin out of control. Under no circumstances should the conversations of the night before be discussed the next day. Also, if you do not drink, karaoke is an alternative relationship-building platform. i. In some Arabic speaking countries, "wasta" is an important part of building affective trust. Wasta basically describes the phenomenon of finding connections that create preference, identifying relationships that give you influence, or relying upon who you know. (e.g., Having a mutual (trusted) friend/colleague introduce you, to transfer some of the existing trust between these people to your own relationship).

Recommendations for leading in an hierarchical society

1. Ask your team to meet without you to brainstorm as a group, and then have a meeting later where they can present their ideas/results... otherwise, individuals may be reluctant to volunteer ideas off the top of their heads (removing the boss removes the need to defer) 2. When calling a meeting, give clear instructions a few days in advance, about how you would like the meeting to work and what questions you plan to ask 3. Your role is to chair meetings, so "invite" people to speak (they may not individually volunteer)

General recommendations for working with people in a hierarchical society

1. Communicate with people at your level (or get your boss's permission to "skip levels" in communication) 2. If you need to approach your boss's boss, or subordinate's subordinate, get permission from the person in-between first 3. When e-mailing, address the recipient by last name (unless they have indicated otherwise)

Recommendations for task based trust systems

1. Even if both cultures are from task-based trust systems, a good general rule of thumb is that it is still worth investing extra time developing a relationship-based approach. The formation of affective trust may help to overcome other cultural differences that can create transaction costs and communications problems. a. If your others resist any suggestions to meet socially or spend time getting to know each other without discussing business, do not push it and just accept this reluctance... If you constantly suggest social outings (especially drinking in some cultures) you may be viewed as unprofessional. 2. If you are from a relationship-based trust system and you find yourself in a task-based trust system, do not feel offended if your colleagues/partners, clients, or suppliers spend very little time on socializing and jump right into business. This shows that they are respectful of your time and would like to interact with you in a professional context to assess your (cognitive) trustworthiness.

If you are from a top-down culture, and are in a consensual cultural environment:

1. Expect decision to take longer and involve more communication (i.e., meetings, e-mails, etc.) 2. Demonstrate patience and commitment (i.e., resist your gut reaction to "resist inefficiency") 3. Check-in with counterparts regularly to demonstrate your commitment, participation, and availability 4. Cultivate informal relationships within the team/organization 5. Resist the temptation to "leap" to quick decisions. Instead, focus your nervous energy on information gathering and soundness of analysis, because once a decision is made, it may be more difficult to change down the road than you are used to

If you are from a consensual culture, and are in a top-down cultural environment:

1. Expect decisions to be made by the boss with less discussion and less solicitation of opinion 2. Be ready to follow a decision, even if your input was not solicited, or was overruled 3. When you are in charge, it is absolutely fine to solicit input and listen carefully to various opinions, but strive to make decisions quickly (otherwise, you may be viewed as an "ineffective" manager) 4. When the group is divided and there is no obvious leader present, put it to a vote. All members are expected to follow the majority vote, even if they did not agree with the majority 5. Remain flexible during the implementation process. Decisions are not necessarily set in stone, and can be revisited later as information and the environment changes (note: this is different from contracts...)

General recommendations for working with people in an egalitarian society

1. Go directly to the source when communicating (even if you have to "level hop") 2. Think twice before C.c.-ing the boss on e-mails (may suggest that you do not trust the main recipient, or that you are trying to get them in trouble) 3. Skipping levels probably will not be a problem 4. In Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and Australia, you may be okay using first names in e-mails (in the US and the UK, this may depend upon regional and circumstantial differences)

Recommendations for presenting/persuading across principles- vs. applications-first cultures:

1. If you are presenting to a principles-first audience, spend more time setting the parameters and explaining the background before jumping into your conclusions. 2. If you are presenting to an applications-first audience, get to the point and stick to it.

If you are in a mixed group of leading

1. It can be helpful to openly discuss the differences between decision-making styles. Then, ask all members in the group to classify decisions made as either little "d" decisions or big "D" decisions.

The unique Japanese system: Nemawashi and Ringi

1. Notice how Japan ranks very high on the hierarchy side of the "leading" scale, but also very high on the consensual side of the "deciding" scale. For the most part, the leading preferences and deciding preferences will line up very well. Nemawashi Ringi (via ringisho) Decision meeting (A formality, decision already made) Informal (bottom-up) Formal (bottom-up) Formal 2 There are, however, a few exceptions, and Japan is one of them. In particular, even though Japan has a very hierarchical leading preference, decisions tend to be made in a structured bottom-up consensus-building process. Initially, informal discussions are used to discuss issues, in what is called "nemawashi" (a gardening term that means to prepare roots for planting). After nemawashi, some organizations (but not all) move on to a more formal system called "ringi" where lower levels in an organization circulate a document with proposed ideas, make changes, sign-off, and then pass the document (a "ringisho") up to the next level up to repeat the process. In some cases, companies even use a special software developed to facilitate/manage ringi. After the ringisho has been approved from the bottom-up, a formal decision-making meeting will occur, but this is largely a symbolic meeting, as the decision has already been made via consensus. iii. Note: Germany is another outlier that is slightly more hierarchical in leading, relative to the consensual preference for decision-making.

Recommendations for relationship based trust sytems

1. Try to develop personal relationships. a. Importantly, in relationship-based cultures, trust is your contract/insurance. Hence, even if spending large blocks of time seems wasteful and inefficient to you, it will pay dividends. These relationships can be especially important in developing economies with weaker institutions and legal frameworks (for contract enforcement). b. One strategy for developing relationships is to build on common interests (e.g., ask about music, sports, and any other interests that you have... you are likely to find something of mutual interest). If you cannot find common interests, get your counterparts to help you develop a new interest (e.g., ask them to recommend music or films from their country, listen/watch, and then use this as a common point of conversation to build upon). c. Show your "true self" in socializing. That is, resist the urge to constantly be on guard and only present the best professional version of yourself when interacting. In many relationship-based cultures, this conveys a lack of authenticity. You are more likely to establish good relationships if you show the non-professional you, in socializing situations (e.g., restaurants, tea houses, bars, etc).

Recommendations for leading in an egalitarian society

1. Use "management by objectives," and start by seeking each department's vision over the next year, as well as individual "personal" objectives (you are a facilitator) 2. Objectives should be concrete and specific (and they may be linked to bonuses or other rewards) 3. Set objectives for a 12-month period and check in monthly. If progress is good, you can meet less frequently 4. Dress as your team members dress 5. Minimize the use of titles in countries to the extreme left (i.e., the most egalitarian countries)

Negative Attribution

A phenomenon where a receiver looks for an explanation for the sender's behavior, but is unable to understand the behavior, resulting in negative perceptions of the sender (e.g., evil, inferior, stupid, incompetent, unreasonable, illogical, etc.). Cultural noise can be a factor in the receiver's lack of understanding and can therefore increase the likelihood of negative attribution.

Meyer Approach

builds upon Hofstede's power-distance dimension, and the GLOBE study's egalitarian-hierarchical dimension, to suggest that the major source of friction in cross-cultural leadership will be how egalitarian or hierarchical a culture is in its preference* or application of leadership.

Noise

Anything that undermines the communication of intended meaning Examples (Negative) Attribution •Emic differences in trust •Attitudes •Social organizations •Thought patterns •Role expectations •Language •Non-verbal communication & symbols •Differing communication channels •High- vs. Low-context differences! (the main culprit)

Behavioral approaches (Leading)

Attempt to determine the distinctive styles used by leaders (i.e., What leaders do), and typically offer that the behaviors of leaders will focus more on either task-centered behaviors, or people-centered behaviors (and the degree to which a culture prefers one or the other will be emic).

Quadrant A: Low-context & direct negative feedback:

Communication from these cultures can be fairly easy to decode/understand, and they are perceived as being direct by cultures in each of the other quadrants. Messages are sent literally, but the meanings are not intended to be offensive, but rather as a sign of honesty, transparency, and professional respect. Recommendation for communicating negative feedback with people in this quadrant: It is possible to go too far in blunt feedback, and as an outsider, this line is difficult to identify. Hence, the best strategy is not to mimic them in offering direct negative feedback, and at the same time to accept direct negative feedback in a positive manner.

Quadrant C: Low-context & indirect negative feedback:

Communication with these cultures can also be puzzling for outsiders because the use of indirect negative feedback departs from the common perception/stereotype of cultures in these quadrants (E.g., "Americans lack subtlety."). Negative criticism is softened and delivered indirectly, which can be perceived as false/fake and confusing by other cultures. Recommendations for communicating negative feedback with people in this quadrant: First, do not try to mimic this style, instead, continue to be explicit with both positive and negative feedback. However, do not jump into negative assessments until you have also explicitly stated something that you honestly appreciate. This is not because people in these cultures find it difficult to accept negative criticism, but rather they perceive an emic "proper/polite" protocol for delivering negative criticism. Second, openly explain that your culture has a different approach to offering feedback, and what it is. People in this quadrant will generally accept this if you explain it openly.

Top-down decision-making

Decisions are made by individuals (usually the boss) i. Implications: 1. Time horizon: Decisions are typically made by a boss, and in the absence of a need for consensus, this can be a very rapid process. 2. Commitment to decision: decisions are often viewed as flexible, and can change along with a changing environment and information. Hence, Meyer considers decisions made in top-down cultures to be decisions with a lower case "d." ii. Note: the US is slightly more egalitarian in leadership preferences, but slightly more top-down in decision-making preferences.

Approach to disagreeing that Avoids Confrontation

Disagreement and debate are negative for the team and organization • Confrontation is inappropriate and will disrupt harmony and damage relationships Historical reasons: The greatest level of importance is in many Eastern cultures, where "saving face" is critical • Confucian teachings and their emphasis on harmony Implications: -People are less likely to express disagreement, because they do not want you to lose face, thereby creating dis-harmony • People may feel personally attacked if disagreement is openly (and directly) offered

If you are from a culture that prefers a "confrontational" approach to disagreeing, and you find yourself in a culture that prefers to "avoid confrontation" in disagreeing:

If you are the boss, consider skipping the meeting. In many "avoid-confrontation" cultures, it may be possible to disagree openly with a peer, but disagreeing with a boss, superior, or elder is less acceptable. ii. Depersonalize disagreement by separating ideas from the people proposing them. (e.g., Have people anonymously write down proposals, ideas, recommendations, and so forth, and then ask everyone to comment on them without knowing who wrote them.) iii. Conduct meetings before the meeting. Again, this recommendation is specifically for Japan, where nemawashi offers opportunities for ideas to be discussed and debated informally among peers at the same level in the organization. Then, disagreement does not need to be explored during the final meeting, because "even asking another's point of view can feel confrontational in our culture (Japan)." -Japanese vice president at a Danish pharmaceutical company. iv. Adjust your language. Use more "downgrader" words (e.g., "a bit"), and avoid using "upgrader" words (e.g., "totally").

Recommendations for avoiding "culture-clashes" in cross-cultural groups with different decision-making preferences

Importantly, we are rarely even aware of the decision-making system of our own culture, but we follow the pattern without thinking about it, and this increases the possibility for defensive reactions (e.g., negative attribution) when we encounter a different approach.

application first reasoning

In "Applications-first" cultures (Inductive reasoning cultures): Individuals are trained to begin with a fact, statement, or opinion and later add concepts to back up or explain conclusions as necessary. The preference is to begin a message or report with an executive summary or bullet points. Discussions are approached in a practical concrete manner. Theoretical or philosophical discussions are avoided in a business environment. 1. This approach is most often seen in countries heavily influenced by British philosophers Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon (observations -> theories/understanding). a. E.g., In these countries, foreign language instruction often involves an initial period of practice language (i.e., getting pushed into the deep end) before progressing to more in-depth study of grammar concepts that have been (unknowingly) acquired through practice conversation. b. E.g., In these countries, math is often taught through the repetition of practice problems... over and over again, until students become proficient with a math application. c. E.g., Applications-first cultures tend to have common law systems, where judicial bodies do not start with a general rule (i.e., codified law), but instead look to see how rulings were applied in similar past cases. 2. This style of reasoning has several implications: a. Employees tend to focus less on the why and more on the HOW, when bosses give direction. b. People in these cultures tend to prefer a summary/bullet points at the START of a presentation, e-mail, or any other forum for persuasion, "Short and sweet!"

principles-first reasoning

In "Principles-first" cultures (Deductive reasoning cultures): Individuals are trained to first develop a theory or complex concept, before presenting a fact, statement, or opinion. The preference is to begin a message or report by building up a theoretical argument before moving on to a conclusion. The conceptual principles underlying each situation are valued. This approach is most often seen in countries heavily influenced by Rene Descartes' method of principles first reasoning (formulate a hypothesis -> seek to prove or disprove it), and Friedrich Hegel's dialetic model of deduction (Thesis/foundational argument -> antithesis->reconciliation/synthesis). E.g., In these countries, foreign language instruction often involves an initial intensive study of the language's grammar, followed by conversation practice. E.g., In these countries, math is first taught through the understanding of foundational principles, and once these principles are understood, students apply them to individual math problems. c. E.g., Principles-first cultures tend to have civil law systems, where judicial bodies start with codified law (i.e., a general principle) and then apply it to individual cases. 2. This style of reasoning has several implications: a. Employees may want to know WHY their boss makes a request before they move into action. b. In presentations, e-mails, and just about any other venue for persuasion, people in these cultures may prefer to give recommendations and conclusions AFTER lengthy theoretical build up.

Coconut Culture

In "coconut" cultures (e.g., Poland, France, Germany, Russia, and more), people are more closed (like the tough shell of a coconut) with those that they do not have friendships with. They tend not to smile as much at strangers, ask casual acquaintances personal questions, or offer personal information to those that they do not know intimately/closely. It takes a long time to get through the initial hard shell, but as you do, people will become gradually warmer and friendlier. While relationships are built up slowly, they tend to last longer.

Peach Culture

In "peach" cultures like the USA and Brazil (to name two), people tend to be friendly ("soft") with others that they have just met. They smile frequently at strangers, move quickly to first-name usage, share information about themselves, and ask personal questions of people they hardly know. But after some friendly interaction with a peach person, you are likely to get to the hard shell of the pit, where the peach protects its real self. In these cultures, friendliness does not equal friendship. *ex: USA or Brazil

Quadrant D: High-context & indirect negative feedback:

In general, cultures in this quadrant can be difficult for an outsider to figure out, because communication (including negative feedback) is subtle, and indirect. Recommendation for communicating negative feedback with people in this quadrant: First, do not give individuals negative feedback in front of a group. Second, blur the message by giving hints over time (including informally over food and drinks). Third, in some cases, you can communicate negative feedback by not saying anything at all.

Ending meetings

In low-context national cultures it is common practice to 'recap' key points from a meeting and summarize decisions made during the meeting to ensure that everyone understands the same key points. In addition, summaries are also sent out after meetings in e-mail or memo format. However, this may be less common in relatively higher context cultures (e.g., this difference may be apparent when comparing UK and French business practices).

Saying 'no' between the lines

In many high-context cultures, it is often more comfortable to say 'no' indirectly, especially to a superior. A sharp sucking-in of breath, or non-committal answers may signal an indirect 'no' (e.g., "it will be difficult, but I'll do my 5 best," "we'll think about it," or "it will be hard for these reasons, but let me consider it."

Strategies for multicultural collaborations

In multicultural collaborations, with members from 3+ countries, it is impossible to develop a dyadic (two member) comparison. Hence, low-context processes are often important. This is because, low-context to low-context communication can be very easy, but high-context to high-context communication can be difficult. Even though both high-context groups can communicate beautifully (within their own cultures), they will not share the same context. 1. However, you should also explain that this is common practice in a low-context culture, and ask for the gracious indulgence of high-context members. This is important, because while recapping and creating written follow-ups is the hallmark of professionalism in low-context cultures, high-context cultures may see this as a sign that other groups do not trust them, or think that they are incompetent.

Differing communication channels

In some cultures, informal communication channels (meeting co-workers for drinks after work, friendly chats) are as important as formal communication channels (meetings, memos, etc.) for communicating meaning. Being unaware of these channels can create noise in the communication process.

E-mail etiquette

In the low-context nations of the US and the UK, if you send a person an e-mail and that person does not have an immediate answer, it is common etiquette for that person to respond within 24 hours, even if they do not have an answer yet (e.g., "I received your message and will respond to it on Thursday, when I have the information that you need."). That is, in a low-context culture, you will even explicitly communicate that you will eventually have an answer. High-context cultures are more likely to wait until they have the information before responding (e.g., this difference may be apparent when comparing US and Japanese business practices, or UK and Spanish business practices).

Emotionally Expressive + Avoids Confrontation

In these cultures, people speak with passion and emotion, but it is difficult to separate the opinion from the person. Hence, open disagreement/confrontation can damage relationships, so people tend to avoid confrontation to avoid destroying relationships. "If you attack my idea, I feel that you are attacking me also, which means I am likely to want to shy away from open disagreement just in case it damages our relationship." Note: People in Latin American and Arabic-speaking countries may speak loudly and move their bodies expressively (which can look like an argument to outsiders), but speaking with passion is not the same thing as disagreeing. Note: Because we so often associate confrontation with emotion, it can be counterintuitive to visualize these countries as preferring to "avoid confrontation," but if we ignore the expressive nature of these countries and simply focus on their preference for maintaining relationships and the perception that confrontation is personal, this becomes more intuitive.

Quadrant B: High-context & direct negative feedback:

Interactions with these cultures can be more puzzling, because they are able to "read between the lines" and communicate in subtle indirect ways, but they are also comfortable offering direct (and sometimes sharp) negative feedback. (Note: For some of the countries in quadrant B (e.g., Russia), direct negative feedback is not as easily dispensed to those in higher positions, but easily dispensed to subordinates, close acquaintances, and strangers.) Recommendation for communicating negative feedback with people in this quadrant: Once again, it is possible to go too far in blunt feedback, and as an outsider, this line is difficult to identify. Hence, the best strategy is not to mimic them in offering direct negative feedback, and at the same time to accept direct negative feedback in a positive manner.

Five sources of power

Legitimate Power, Reward Power, Coercive Power, Expert Power, Referent Power.

education influencing cultural understanding

One interesting phenomena that has been identified is that "education tends to move individuals toward a more extreme version of the dominant cultural tendency" (Meyer, 2014). That is highly educated individuals from low-context cultures tend to become even more low-context in their communication style, and highly educated individuals from high-context cultures tend to become even more high-context in their communication styles. But of course, one should use caution when applying 'national' cultural expectations to individuals.

Social organizations

Membership in particular groups can influence the values, approaches, and priorities of members, potentially creating noise in the communication process. Social psychologists might call this in-group identification, where individuals adopt the views of group that they identify with and belong to, potentially creating noise in their communications with members of out-groups.

Flexible-time (polychronic)

Project steps are approached in a fluid manner, changing tasks as opportunities arise. Many things are dealt with at once and interruption is accepted. The focus is on adaptability, and flexibility is valued over organization. Historical/contextual explanations for flexible-time preferences: 1. Current/recent agrarian social base 2. Rapidly changing political/economic environment (people must remain flexible when confronted with unstable governments, currencies, and so forth) 3. A preference for relationship building (i.e., If relationships are the priority, they will come before the clock). With a few exceptions, cultures that put a premium on relationship building tend to fall on the flexible-time side of this scale Implications: 1. Lines are less important and cutting in line is a national past time 2. Schedules are more flexible and are not typically created early in advance 3. Events may actually begin after scheduled times (and being on time may put unprepared hosts in an awkward position... so being a little "late" is polite)

Linear-time (monochronic)

Project steps are approached in a sequential fashion, completing one task before beginning the next. One thing at a time. No interruptions. The focus is on the deadline and sticking to the schedule. Emphasis is on promptness and good organization over flexibility. Historical/contextual explanations for linear-time preferences: 1. Early industrialization Implications: 1. Forming a line is sacred ("You must form a line, and cutting in line is a cultural crime!") 2. Fairly rigid and detailed schedules are created well in advance of events or meetings 3. Events begin at scheduled times and not earlier or later (do not be late)

Persuasion tactics:

Rational persuasion, Inspirational persuasion, Consultation, Ingratiating tactics, Personal appeals, Exchange tactics, Coalition tactics, Pressure tactics, Legitimating tactics.

Emotionally Expressive + Confrontational

This is the most straightforward group of national cultures. Emotions are expressed, and disagreements can be expressed with little likelihood of relationships being harmed.

high context cultures

The following historical characteristics tend to create a shared context among people. i.e., so they do not need to communicate in an explicitly direct way (this is similar to how old married couples know exactly what each other mean, even with indirect communication) a. Longer (uninterrupted) shared history b. Relationship-based cultures (usually) c. Long periods of homogeneity in the country

Emotionally Unexpressive + Confrontational

This quadrant is the least intuitive, because we often associate confrontation with an emotional response. Cultures in this group are generally not emotionally expressive, yet they see debate and disagreement as a critical step on the path to truth. This pattern is illustrated by a real exchange between a German Daimler executive and an American Chrysler executive during a cross-cultural training class (from: Meyer, 2014: 206-207):

Egalitarian

The ideal distance between a boss and a subordinate is low. The best boss is a facilitator among equals. Organizational structures are flat. Communication often skips hierarchical lines. i. Hypothesized historical explanations for egalitarian preferences in some countries 1. Viking influence (turns out that Vikings were incredibly democratic... who knew?) 2. Protestant reformation (largely removed traditional hierarchy from the church) ii. Implications of egalitarian leadership preferences 1. It is fine to disagree with your boss, even openly in front of others 2. People may move into action without getting the boss's okay in advance 3. If meeting with clients/suppliers, there is less focus on matching hierarchical levels 4. Okay to e-mail or call people several levels below/above you 5. With clients/partners, you will be seated and spoken to in no particular order

Hierarchical:

The ideal distance between a boss and subordinate is high. The best boss is a strong director who leads from the front. Status is important. Organizational structures are multilayered and fixed. Communication follows set hierarchical lines. i. Hypothesized historical explanations for hierarchical preferences in some countries 1. Expansion of the Roman Empire, with its strict system of stratification and hierarchy (e.g., Only the emperor wears a purple toga, senators wear a white toga with a broad purple stripe, equestrians wear a white toga with a thin purple stripe, etc.) 2. The spread of Confucian teachings in East Asia, with the "wu lun," or five principles that outline hierarchical relationships and obligations for each party in the relationships ii. Implications of hierarchical leadership preferences 1. Effort is made to defer to the boss's opinion, especially in public 2. People likely to seek boss's approval before moving into action 3. There will be an emphasis on matching hierarchical levels in meetings with suppliers/customers/partners 4. Communication follows the hierarchical chain 5. In meeting with clients/partners, you may be seated and spoken to in order of hierarchical position

constructive criticism

The importance of constructive criticism is an etic value, but how this criticism is framed and communicated is very emic. In particular, cultural preferences for constructive criticism can range from highly indirect and coupled with complements to extremely direct with an emphasis on deficiencies. Additionally, the preferences for indirect or direct negative feedback do not always correspond to expectations if we are comparing high- versus low-context cultures.

Thought patterns

The logical progression of reasoning varies widely around the world and greatly affects the communication process.

high- and low-context cultures.

The main cultural source of noise in the communication process is differences between high and low context cultures

Communication

The process of sharing meaning by transmitting messages through media such as words, behavior, or material artifacts. The communication process can be interrupted or undermined by noise.

Contingency approaches

This approach suggests that affective leadership behavior depends upon the situation at hand, but the situation (and affective leadership styles) will change depending upon emic cultural factors.

Emotionally Unexpressive + Avoids Confrontation:

This group is straightforward. Emotions are expressed more subtly and disagreements are expressed more softly or indirectly. Open disagreement may damage a relationship and destroy harmony, so confrontation is often avoided.

Cognitive trust

This is confidence that comes from your head, and is based on the confidence you have in another person's accomplishments, skills, and reliability. i. "We have worked together, you work well, you have shown that you are reliable, consistent, intelligent, and transparent... so I trust you in business contexts."

Affective trust

This is confidence that comes from your heart, and is based upon feelings of emotional closeness, empathy, and friendship. i. "We have spent time laughing and relaxing together, so I feel a sense of affection and empathy for you, and I feel that you feel the same for me...so I trust you in business contexts."

If you are from a culture that prefers to "avoid confrontation", and you find yourself in a culture that prefers a "confrontational" approach to disagreeing:

This situation is more difficult, because it is hard for a cultural outsider to develop a solid and nuanced grasp on exactly where the line is drawn between acceptable debate and inappropriate attack. So the best recommendation is often to not adjust your disagreeing style to match the host culture's style (i.e., do not mimic them). Instead: 1. Remind yourself that what feels aggressive in your culture may not feel so in another culture. 2. Do not take offense (if possible). 3. Engage in relaxed debate or discussion without confronting back.

Evaluating

To judge and assess (E.g., to evaluate a subordinate's performance, or a classmate's case study presentation.)

Task-based trust systems

Trust is built through business-related activities. Work relationships are built and dropped easily, based upon the practicality of the situation. You do good work consistently, so you are reliable. I enjoy working with you, I trust you. Implications: 1. People in these cultures tend to separate cognitive and affective trust, preferring cognitive trust in business contexts (i.e., "don't mix business and pleasure"). 2. It is relatively easy to move into AND out of networks. 3. If a business relationship proves to be unsatisfactory to either party, it is a simple matter of closing that relationship and moving on to another. 4. As a sign of respect and appreciation for partners, customers, or suppliers, meetings will make efficient use of time and interactions and will center upon business-related tasks and discussions (e.g., ordering in sandwiches so that parties can work through lunch, engaging in only very brief social conversation before business discussions begin, and parting ways after a long-day's work (instead of socializing late into the night).

Relationship-based trust systems

Trust is built through sharing meals, evening drinks, and visits at the coffee machine. Work relationships build up slowly over the long term. I've seen you at a deep level, I've shared personal time with you, I know others well who trust you, I trust you. Implications: 1. People in these cultures tend to mix cognitive and affective trust in business contexts. 2. It takes longer to develop relationships and enter networks, as trust needs to be built up. 3. Affective trust is likely to last even after business interactions have ceased. Hence, it can be more difficult to move out of relationships of networks. a. e.g., If someone is fired, their customers/clients (who harbor affective trust) may follow... loyal team members may also follow...loyalty is to individuals and not to companies. 4. Social interactions may be integrated with business interactions, or they may precede business interactions (e.g., long lunches, late night drinking sessions, frequent 'getting to know you' visits...)

Holistic Approach to Reasoning

You may notice that many Asian cultures do not fall neatly in this principles- versus applications-first dyad. Instead, many Asian cultures have a very different style of reasoning that is deeply ingrained. In particular, these cultures tend to have a "Holistic approach to reasoning." In holistic reasoning, people start by emphasizing the interconnectedness and interdependencies surrounding an object, action, or phenomena, before describing it and offering recommendations. Hence, this is really a macro-to-micro approach.This logical reasoning approach is influenced by Buddhism and Confucianism, both of which emphasize harmony between various elements dependent upon one another. This is different from western cultures, which are often micro-to-macro. That is, principles-first and applications-first reasoning tends to focus on specific things and/or contexts and then make macro generalizations (e.g., Principles first cultures will build a theoretical argument, then test it, and then make generalizations based upon the results... and applications-first cultures will make many observations or attempts in a context, and based upon these observations or results they will make generalizations.). The holistic style of reasoning has several implications: a. Presenters will often start by discussing broader concepts (which can appear very peripheral to westerners), and then loop back to the key topic of interest and offer recommendations. b. Westerners may think that people from some Asian cultures are going around all of the key points without addressing them deliberately (and, East Asians may see westerners as trying to make a decision by isolating a single factor and ignoring significant interdependencies). Recommendation: Start by explaining the big picture in some detail

Strategies for working with people from lower-context cultures

i. Be as transparent, clear, and specific as possible ii. Assert your opinions transparently iii. Re-cap key points again, or send an e-mail repeating these points directly after a meeting/interaction iv. Do not try to 'read between the lines'... instead, state clearly what you do not understand and ask for clarification (this will not reflect badly upon you)

Recommendations regarding scheduling

i. If you are a visitor in a culture with a different approach to scheduling, the easiest way may be to simply switch to the scheduling style of your host culture. ii. If you are the leader of a multicultural team (with different approaches to time), this is more difficult. One approach is for the team to socialize and have a break out session where they have a clear discussion about scheduling upfront and then draft a "team charter" that spells out how scheduling and time should be managed for meetings (e.g., "Members can arrive up to 10 minutes after the scheduled meeting time, but if they arrive later, they will need to contribute 5 dollars to the team fund for dinner outings!")

Strategies for working with people from higher-context cultures

i. Listen more carefully (e.g., try to listen for what is 'meant,' rather than what is said. Also, reflect more and be more receptive of body language.) ii. Before repeating yourself, stop talking... wait to see whether saying it once was enough. If you are constantly repeating yourself, this may become irritating to a high-context receiver... even if there are few signals that the person has understood you. iii. If misunderstandings eventually frustrate you, fall back on self-depreciation, laughing at yourself, and using positive words to describe the other person's culture. (e.g., "I am terrible at figuring out this type of process, but I know that Koreans are very good at seeing the best way to get through this process. Would you mind writing down the steps that I need to take?")

Cultures preferring an indirect approach to constructive criticism:

i. Use a lot of "downgraders," or softening words that precede or follow negative feedback (e.g., kind of, sort of, a little, a bit, maybe, slightly, etc.). 1. E.g., "This report is kind of rough at this stage."... or, "It is not quite there yet." ii. Listeners from a different culture may actually miss the meaning of indirect constructive criticism, or it may sound insincere.

Cultures preferring a direct approach to constructive criticism

i. Use a lot of "upgraders," or emphasizing words that precede or follow negative feedback (e.g., absolutely, totally, strongly, etc.). 1. E.g., "This report in absolutely wrong." ii. Listeners almost never miss the meaning of direct constructive criticism, though people from cultures preferring indirect constructive criticism my find it "very" unpleasant.

low context cultures

the following historical characteristics illustrate that low-context styles are a coping mechanism for a lack of shared context among people. i.e., they need to speak directly to communicate with each other a. Shorter shared history b. Less relationship-based cultures (usually) c. Lots of different groups; often times many different immigrant populations

relationship-based trust systems

where trust is based upon long-standing informal relationships and networks (e.g., China, Japan, Italy).

formalized-trust systems

where trust is established through exchanges and/or contracts (e.g., The USA, UK, Germany).