Cross cultural communication principles and practice

Cross-Cultural Communication

Globalizations' effect on cultures continues to rapidly force the integration of often widely divergent countries and regions together in the pursuit of common objectives, whether they are commercial or non-profit in scope. As companies partner with one another based on the potential of gaining competitive advantages in global markets, the pressure for people from widely divergent cultures to quickly assimilate with each other and accomplish shared objectives grows. The rapid increase in joint ventures, mergers, acquisitions and shared risk business models accelerates the need for intercultural and international communication (Sirkin, Hemerling, Bhattacharya, 2008). The intent of this paper is to analyze how cultures, both within organizations and within nations are being changed by the rapid pace of change attributable to globalization (Sirkin, Hemerling, Bhattacharya, 2008). While social networking and Web 2.0 technologies are increasingly being used to bridge the physical gaps between work teams (Bernoff, Li, 2008) there still exist significant gaps in how cross-cultural teams perceive each other. These perceptions need to make more congruent through dialogue and appreciation for how subcultures have unique communication requirements (Yankelovich, 1999). The internal and external forces that impact cultures are making ethnocetricism more noticeable given the urgency to assimilate teams from widely different cultures and quickly attain shared business objectives (Marques, Dhiman, King, 2009). Navigating this new global landscape of cultures requires a set of concepts and frameworks.

Setting the Foundation for Intercultural Dialogue

Of the many frameworks which can be used for determining the level of congruency or lack thereof between cultures the Cultural Dimensions Model (Hofstede, 1998) has been pervasively adopted and cited by well over 500 additional empirical studies according to Dr. Hofstede (1998). Using the Five Cultural Dimensions variations between cultures can be quantified and analyzed to determine the best possible strategies for enabling greater dialogue and communication. The five cultural dimensions include the Power Distance Index (PDI), which indicates how willing or accepting members of organizations, both social and professional, are willing to accept power being distributed unequally. To the extent that members of a society are willing to accept a high PDI is the extent to which they are more likely to prefer hierarchical, highly structured organizations that have very clear lines of authority and definitions of status and roles. The PDI also indicates how prevalent acceptance of inequality is across cultures as well. These are invaluable insights in determining how to create a communication strategy with someone in another culture. Figure 1 provides a global map of the PDI ratings by nation.

Figure 1: PDI Cultural Dimension Graphed by Nation

Source:

http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/power-distance-index/

The second cultural dimension, Individualism (IDV) measures a cultures' propensity to form tight groups or have a strong collectivism mindset, relative to a strong individualist approach of loosely defined connections throughout a group. Strong individualist societies including the United States focus on ensuring the immediate family is taken care of; collectivist societies are more focused on the entire group or extended family. In terms of dialogue and the ability to attain levels of trust across cultures, knowing a given country's level of individualism vs. collectivism is vitally important. The defining of the cultural context of individualism vs. collectivism is critically important for defining the context of a dialogue and discussion. Creating empathy and a shared sense of observation, perception and perspective is critically important for dialogues across cultures to be successful (Yankelovich, 2007). Additional cultural dimensions include how roles within a culture are assigned by gender, or the delineation of Masculinity (MAS) versus femininity. Analysis of the MAS index value shows that women have a higher level of congruity over perceptions of role-based values vs. men, who have significantly different perceptions of their roles, even amongst themselves within a given culture (Hofstede, 1998). Imagine having to create a multinational team that allows for men to have leadership locally in a culture with a high MAS score yet be subordinate to a woman in the U.S. The need for careful dialogue and the development of scenarios that would allow for organizational culture to take into account variations perceptions of roles is critical (Zhang, Tansuhaj, 2007). This would certainly be the case for any organization creating a virtual development team of engineers from Japan for example, which has a MAS score of 95, reporting to women in the U.S. Conversely the countries of Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, with some of the lowest MAS scores, would find these working arrangements in a virtual team amendable and easily adapted to. Two additional measures included in the Cultural Dimensions Index, are the Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) and Long-Term Orientation (LTO). UAI is a measure of risk aversion in a culture and LTO is one that defines the perspective of time itself in a culture. Not surprisingly China leads all nations included in the index in LTO as their culture greatly values the ordering of relations and the defining of status over time.

Taken together all of these factors provide insight into how a lack of awareness or perception of cultural differences can lead to ethnocentrism relatively quickly (Hammond, Axelrod, 2006). When these factors are taken into account from the Cultural Dimensions Model it is also apparent how critically important it is for dialogue to be frequent, genuine, and deliberately seek to create shared trust between individuals, groups and organizations involved.

While the speed of globalization is only going to increase, the use of frameworks such as the Cultural Dimensions Model are critically important for creating more of a foundation for understanding. The basic determinants of culture emanating from material objects, ideas, values and attitudes and most important expectations and perceptions of patterns of behavior, must be taken in context and not assumed to be in a familiar context. For any member of a virtual team for example, the need to create the proper context of their role in an organization is predicated on having insights into these cultural dimensions. For the manager of a virtual team to have the cultural sensitivity to gain the greatest level of cooperation from each team member, and most importantly, to give them the best possible support to ensure their success, an appreciation and sensitivity of cultural dimensions is critical.