Inhalt/Contents

Inhalt/Contents ................................................................................................. 4

Teil/Part 1

Three Major Intercultural Business and Research Cases ........................... 5

Drei maßgebliche interkulturelle Fallstudien und Forschungsprojekte 5

Teil/Part 2

A selection of Intercultural Experiential Learning Sets ............................ 55

Interkulturelles Erfahrungslernen ............................................................... 55

Teil/Part 3

Intercultural strategies ................................................................................... 62

Interkulturelle Strategien .............................................................................. 62

Teil/Part 4

Intercultural Terminologies in English and German ................................ 73

Interkulturelle Terminologien: Englisch - Deutsch ................................... 73

Teil/Part 5

Bibliography .................................................................................................. 230

4

Inhalt/Part 1

Three Major Intercultural

Business and Research

Cases/Drei maßgebliche

interkulturelle Fallstudien

und Forschungsprojekte

5

Part 1 contains three intercultural research cases, where some of the cultural concepts

dealt with in the subsequent parts are applied.

1 'Anglo-German Business Communication' is a research report in 5000 words

on the challenges and potentialities inherent in Anglo-German Business

Communication. I have conducted this research in 2004. A dozen German and

British managers have been interviewed by me on this occasion. The report is

essentially a succinct summary of the findings from the analysis of this

sample.

2 'Chinefarge': Investigates the intercultural management challenges posed by

the Sino-French JV Chinefarge in 1500 words. It is based on a case posed by

the University of Cambridge. The theme is the attempt by the Paris-based

Corporation Lafarge to gain a foothold in Asia; the set-up and running of the

JV 'Chinefarge' with Huaibai Mining Company (HMC), near Beijing.

3 'The Amber Team': Is the investigation of the cultural dynamics of a global

business team as an instrument of globalization by a dispersed multicultural

research team (DICM, Programme for Industry, Univ. of Cambridge/UK) I was

part of in 2004, based on a narrative by Nigel Ewington from WorldWork

Limited London and the University of Cambridge.

6

1

Anglo-German Business Communication

Research

INTRODUCTION

Interacting Anglo-German managerial mindsets

In order to understand Anglo-German business communication

problems it is necessary to explore their origin and communication dynamics.

The collective mental programming of interacting Anglo-German managerial

mindsets comprises cultural, structural, corporate culture and subculture as

well as professional socialization components.

This study focuses on societal and corporate culture and subcultures as

determinants of Anglo-German business communication. Other components

are accounted for in as much as they impact inter-cultural corporate

interaction.

THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF THIS RESEARCH REPORT

The purpose of this research report is to find out, whether there are any

Anglo-German business communication problems or critical areas of

7

interaction, to identify them in business communication transactions and to

explore to what extent they can be explained in classical, mostly Hofstedian

intercultural dimensional terms.

METHODOLOGY

This study relies mainly on qualitative information, obtained during

guided interviews with four British and four German managers, drawing on

practical management experience at the Anglo-German intercultural

management interface. Most of the interviewees were managing directors of

German subsidiaries of British parent companies operating in the areas of

high-tech sales and design.

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

In the lead-up to my research I could identify

• a research gap

• a knowledge gap

• a training gap

REVIEW OF ANGLO-GERMAN INTERCULTURAL RESEARCH

A number of authors refer to a research and knowledge gap. There is cross- management research on top and middle management in both

countries, focusing on structural issues and managerial socialization. They

8

remain descriptive of two systems. They do not explore the potentials and

pitfalls of critical and creative interaction. Ghoshal, Bartlett and Birkinshaw

(2003, p161) have summarized the state of the art by synoptically presenting

elements of the following superimposed layers in a single matrix:

 Hofstede’s UAI X PDI matrix

 Stevens’s implicit organizational models

 Mintzberg’s configurations of organizations (Hofstede, 2003, p.152)

 Stuart et al.’s managerial behaviour observation (Stuart, 1994, p.87)

Bundling available information doesn’t provide information about

managerial interaction between the two cultures. It is comparative rather than

interactive. The GLOBE study findings - generally not validated by my eight

British/German interviewees - are no exception here. To complete this,

research areas of difference and critical issues of interaction need to be

• identified

• understood in terms of culture, in order to

• reconcile and synergize the value preferences in follow-up research

Intercultural training providers and the director of a specialized library

stated that there is neither professional literature, nor demand for UK culture

trainings. My preliminary research provided the following explanations for

the three types of gaps: research, knowledge and training gaps.

9

MUTUAL CULTURAL AWARENESS

German perception of UK

• Assumption of similarity and knowledge of British culture on the

German side results in a near zero demand for inter-cultural training. Even

the managerial class seems to equate holiday experience with cultural

competence.

• In the German educational system Britain enjoys a privileged position.

But with the focus on ‘culture one’, ‘culture two’ issues are ignored. This

reception of the other culture reinforces the assumption of knowing, acting as a barrier to the acquisition of intercultural competence.

• As nobody would learn the language of a negatively connotated

culture, educational policy, the media and politics jointly promote a

positive image of the UK. But apart from a vocational training project there

are no intercultural training and management initiatives.

UK perception of Germany

• In the UK a negative image is promoted by the media and politics,

connecting the present to the memory of the past, which conditions an

analogous perception and anticipation. This vicious circle might explain

the distrust of Germany expressed in the ‘Thatcher memo’ of 1990 (Price,

2000, p.160).

• Research on stereotypes confirms a more negative perception of

10

Germany - even in management literature - vs. positive German

stereotypes of the UK

• J. Nash (Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics, in my personal interview

in 1995) emphasized a British split between European and overseas

orientation. Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (2000, p97) explain

Britain’s ‘reluctant Europeanism’ by strong British individualism vs. continental communitarianism.

Bridging the gap? Mutual perceptual imbalances since the latter half of

the 20 ^th century are put in a wider historical frame by former BBC

expert Weidenfeld (1999, p55) who summarizes Britain’s relationship

with Germany as ‘fruitful cultural and economic partnership and

competition’ since the 19th century and earlier. A British manager

referred to King James II, to bridge the perceptual gap since WWI,

reconciling medium-term past by long-term past orientation.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Classification of culturally significant managerial responses to interview

requests

• Ethnocentric: two thirds

50% assumption of similarity, denial of difference (‘we are not aware of differences ’)

50% minimalisation (‘professional culture is more important’)

11

• Ethnorelative: one third

Flexible, negotiated British response translating as IDV concern

Assurance seeking German response translates a UAI concern

A striking feature was the outright denial of difference and any

problems by global firms, interpretable as a high-level of self-protection, an

unwillingness to assume the behavioural consequences of diversity, connected

to an unawareness of the diversity - creativity - innovation cycle.

One third of the managers, mainly German, voiced reserves about

disclosing information without parent company approval, interpretable as

hierarchical obedience (PDI) or internalised consensus-oriented feature of

British individualism.

COMPARISON OF MUTUAL COUNTRY CULTURE AND

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IMAGES

Time orientation seems to be a key to mutual perception: English national

culture is more past-oriented (up to WW1), resulting in a more negative

perception of Germany. German national culture is less past-oriented,

positively reinforced by all social subsystems, resulting in a positive

perception of UK.

Corporate culture, particularly knowledge-intensive firms are more

present and future-oriented. However, the majority are still at varying

12

ethnocentric stages of Bennett's IDM model or at the beginning of the inter-

INTERVIEW-BASED RESEARCH RESULTS

ANGLO-GERMAN ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS Implicit organizational models compared

Do implicit organisational models of ‘village market’ vs. ‘well-oiled

machine’ require correction? The assumption that the British organizational

model is neither centralized nor formalized may need some rectification,

because firms invest millions in software for control and formalization of

procedures such as Customer Relations Management. A computer-controlled

environment with a simultaneous presumed absence of rules and procedures

is a contradiction, as formalization of procedures is one of the objectives

pursued thereby. Stevens’s and Hofstede’s research need nuancing in the light

of automation. With regard to formalization, the gap between the two implicit

organisational models seems to be narrowing. This reduces critical areas of

interaction, particularly in the light of numerous mergers, which promote

similarity through transfers of organizational features. Numerous firms

addressed by me had changed ownership recently.

Anglo-German implicit organizational models and organizational design

HQ design communicates assumptions about management and leadership of

the past, present and future. The fact that German HQ design reflects

territorially defined hierarchy in the design of the managerial environment by

reserving a special floor for Senior Management suggests a stronger notion of

13

hierarchy and power distance than Hofstede’s and Stevens’s research indicate.

It points to a more centralized, hierarchical, authoritarian and territorially

defined notion of power - a more conservative organisational culture - than

the more innovative British design, which does not allocate space in terms of

hierarchy but rather in terms of functional relevance, more pragmatically. The

spatial language of hierarchy is a nuancing corrective to supposedly identical

Anglo-German PDI scores. The language of space can, additionally, be

translated into a corporate culture’s management of time and communication

flows. The spatial data of hierarchical compartmentalization also explain a

compartmentalization of time (LC), more rigid and slower communication

lines in the German model and more functional and flexible ones in the

British.

There is also a distinct language of colour in both corporate designs,

reflecting a British sense of uniqueness of its IDV orientation referred to as

horizontal individualism by Triandis (2002, p25) vs. a more functional German

task-orientation.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND NATIONAL CULTURE

Is there a connection between national and corporate cultures?

The British legal and political system is based on precedent, compromise and

negotiation (Mole, 1993, p.98) reflecting low UAV/PDI and high IDV scores:

There is no written constitution or legal code of law, corresponding to the

14

weak centralization and formalization of the ‘village market’. Conversely,

Germany’s written constitution and law reflect a higher UAI and LTO,

mirrored in the decentralized/formalized implicit organizational model.

Some authors (Stuart, 1994, p.67) argue, however, that the British

corporate structure is ‘more formalized than the German, but more malleable,

whereas the German would be less regulated, as German employees would

have internalised the rules and purposes. The latter - internalisation of rules,

control and purpose, referred to by Hofstede as internalised superego - results

in a lower need of person- and rules-vested authority.

In both countries, national and corporate cultures are a continuum

reinforcing each other and boosting the overall importance of culture.

Successfully interfacing managers therefore have to satisfy both standards,

societal and corporate, simultaneously.

CONVERGENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES

According to Child (Adler, 2000, p.66) similarity increases at the ‘macro level

of organizational structures and technology’, while dissimilarity persists at

‘micro level issues, like the behaviour of people within organizations’. The

information gathered in the Anglo-German knowledge-intensive and sales

environment seems to suggest that similarity at micro level also is on the

increase due to the following factors:

Emerging professional cultures •

15

Inter-cultural interdependence with regard to knowledge •

Similarity of pressures in the global market environment •

Transfer of corporate cultural features worldwide •

Standardization through IT. •

These factors may reduce or cover up the impact of culture on Anglo-

However, leadership and vision remain highly culture-contingent.

Should the micro level convergence assumption be confirmed, the

following Anglo-German diversity management issues would require a new

type of strategies, to prevent the loss of synergies:

• Management of subcultures aligning attitudes, behaviours and business

practices

• Safeguarding linear and systemic thinking style preferences

• Combining empirical and theoretical cultural preferences

• Combining people-management and technical expertise-based

management

• Unique Anglo-German fusion brand management.

INTERVIEWING AND ANALYSIS

Observations based on empirical interview information gathering

Consistent with the information gathered in the lead-up to the

interviews, mainly characterized by various stages of ethnocentrism, the

interviewees also displayed a low degree of conscious awareness of culture.

16

The challenge of the interviewer was to raise it from the out-of-awareness zone

into the light of conscious awareness. The lack of vocabulary, skills and tools

to manage intercultural interaction is, by far, a greater challenge than diversity

itself.

Reconciling culture-boundedness in research

Looking at dimensions sequentially is by itself a culture-bound

approach of linear thinking style that breaks down communication interaction,

(which involves a number of dimensions simultaneously,) into its dimensional

components, to study them one at a time. In Anglo-German interaction

uncertainty avoidance, consistent with Hofstede’s IBM-based research, can be

considered a pivotal dimension around which other dimensions are organised

so as to reinforce the former. IDV would be a British pivotal dimension. This

doesn’t exclude other construals. Thinking style or time conception can also be

argued for as a pivotal dimension, around which the culture profile can be

organised. The configuration of dimensions depends on the specific context:

The search for the unique right approach is a perfectionist quest of high

uncertainty avoidance; thinking in alternative models is a lower certainty- quest. The dilemma is that any approach, whether linear, alternatives,

holistic or the search for the perfect answer, they all translate culture- of the researcher, the former two Anglo culture-boundedness,

the latter two German culture-boundedness. Thinking in terms of

17

interconnectedness, of dimensional networking, is my reconciliation of the

diverse Anglo-German approaches.

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND EMPIRICAL INTERVIEW DATA

Collected information can be correlated to the following cultural

dimensions and ranked in three clusters:

Relevance ranking of cultural dimensions clusters

a) Highest ranking cluster

Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI)

b) Fairly high ranking cluster

Time orientation: long-term (LTO), past-present-future

Individualism vs. Collectivism (IDV)

Power distance (PDI)

High-context vs. low-context (HC/LC) communication style

c) Insignificant cluster

Masculinity vs. Femininity (MAS/FEM)

In Hofstede’s research UAI and IDV scores differ between Britain and

Germany, whereas PDI and MAS/FEM scores are identical. Managerial

information confirms Hofstede’s general UAI ranking. The ranking of

dimensions in the second cluster varies with the management context of

different managers. Particularly due to British short-termism, time orientation

18

ranks second. MAS/FEM is perceived as uncritical.

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE (Index: UK 35, GER 65)

In project management

German higher UAI, LTO scores and holistic thinking style are

mutually reinforcing, needing all details of an entire project in advance.

Although German culture members need less time for relationship-building,

due to their LC communication style and task-orientation, compared to the

British HC, relationship-orientation, preliminary thinking and clarification of

rules and roles require more time, whereas the English need less preliminary

clarification, move faster to implementation after clarifying the high-risk

factors and clarify the details as they go along.

Thus, a British team manager has to think more in detail, and provide more

detailed information. And, as the Germans are not going to begin a project

until they know how it’s all going to work in detail, the English perceive the

Germans as negative and unenthusiastic. An English manager might have to

protect his German team members in their communication with other English

managers not familiar with this trait by pointing out this cultural preference in

order to preclude misperception.

In engineering and science

Similar to project management, a strong need to be on the safe side is

19

evidenced by the request for and reliance on comprehensive specifications at

the outset of a project, whereas the English want to be certain of the high-risk

specifications, and beyond that, to rely on trial and error. According to

Hofstede (1980, p183) the ‘high UAI theoretical German approach and low

UAI empirical British approach are extremely promising’. Non-awareness of

these synergy potentials may be the greatest problem here.

In personnel environments

Germans seem to demand more detailed roadmaps and career paths

than their British counterparts. German HRM relies strongly on the legal

profession. Legalism can be connected to certainty. German companies

statistically employ two and a half times as many lawyers as British

companies, with many of them in HR. British management careers are more

determined by ‘what you make of it’ than by pre-determined career paths.

Due to different needs of predictability and planning, different information

policies are required, when managing the two cultures.

In sales contexts

Germans seem to be longer-term and product reliability-determined,

whereas the British seem to be shorter-term, price- and profitability- This difference in outlook may induce British parent company

management to stop the production of a critical product, in order to launch a

20

more profitable follow-up product. German clients fear, due to a perceived

cultural and geographic distance, that they may no longer obtain parts or

support, although systems may be functional. Due to this uncertainty and lack

of long-term reliability, Germans may tend to respond ethnocentrically and

purchase from a local competitor, particularly if there has been a negative

precedent.

While the former three critical scenarios can be addressed by enhanced

information following awareness of this culture trait, the latter may have

irreversible consequences of loss of customers and revenues.

Management philosophy

Legalistic orientation as well as technical expertise may be considered

risk-reducing and certainty fostering and thus confer authority to managers in

Germany, not so in Great Britain, which is a higher risk, man-management

culture. With both cultures on the same board, decisions may require more

negotiation.

RELATIVIZATION OF ANGLO-GERMAN UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE

SCORES

Uncertainty avoidance, HC/LC and thinking style

The general assumption of German corporate and societal culture as low-risk

and certainty seeking and British as higher-risk and far less certainty-oriented

21

cannot be validated in a simplistically polarized way by empirical interview

data. The general country score needs further refinement by interconnected

dimensions, organizational context and level considered. At a more

fundamental level of principles and strategies, particularly in connection with

thinking style, a reversal of cultural orientations as to UAI and HC/LC seems

to take place:

Due to the British linear, compared to the German systemic, holistic

thinking style, German comprehensive specifications can - contrary to

assumptions based on national culture scores - be considered as too inexplicit,

requiring still more explicitly formulated details for British

engineers/designers for instance to be able to process information effectively.

This can be explained as follows: British linear thinking style, splitting the

whole problem into chunks, processing each one on an input-output basis,

needs precise input data at each step to be able to process engineering design

issues for instance. When UAI is connected to thinking style, due the

sequential processing of information as input output modules, the British have

a higher need of specific and explicit information, resulting in a reversal of

general assumptions based on Anglo-German UAI and HC/LC scores.

Expanding the cluster of dimensions involved by Hampden-Turner’s and

Trompenaars’s (2000, p123) specificity-diffuseness dimension underscores the

informational needs analysis, as Britain is specific, Germany more diffuse.

In this critical scenario the dimension has to be contextualized to be

22

become an effective intercultural management tool. Context-unspecific

application of dimensions of cultural difference values may actually create

inter-cultural problems, because they do not correspond to the context-specific

cultural need: The combination and contextualization of dimensions illustrates

how a culture integrates a dimension. It highlights the need and the modalities

thereof. Without this awareness Anglo-German mutual information exchange

cannot meet the culture- and context-specific needs and requires multiple

iteration of the communication process.

TIME ORIENTATION (LTO index: UK 25, GER 31)

Short-term vs. long-term

As the second most referred-to dimension, the importance of time

doesn’t seem to be fully accounted for by comparative LTO scores, which do

not differ markedly. British ‘short-termism’ aiming at short-term profit

maximization versus German longer-termism is referred to by all informants.

British parent companies do not only expect short-term profitability, but also

tend to not reinvest profits locally, where they are made and needed.

Consistent with their short-term profitability orientation they invest where

they expect the highest short-term return. This conflicts particularly with

German subsidiary managers, who want to develop long-term strategies,

increase corporate value and expand their market share. But British subsidiary

managers feel also constrained by this parent company corporate management

23

culture - because it impacts their entrepreneurship - atypical of otherwise

British higher-risk corporate management style. Low-risk short-term profits,

multiplied by similarly positioned twenty, or thirty subsidiaries was referred

to as a profitability formula. ‘Are we making profit on that?’ was cited as a key

question. Should that not apply, in addition to short-termism, fast decision

making as to the continuity of operations may take place, where Germans

would perceive a need of and actually allow far more time. Long-term

observers of British business activities in Germany testify that the British give

up too soon in the competitive German market. Market penetration being

difficult, longer-termism, reconciling local corporate culture values would

boost British success in Germany. According to those observers the structural

reality of a highly competitive market would require an adequate cultural

response of longer time-frame profitability thinking. However, there are some

structural constraints promoting a short-term managerial ethos functioning a

as a barrier to German market penetration:

• British companies growth is driven by mergers

• Vulnerability to hostile takeovers

• Prioritisation of shareholder value

• ‘Short-termism favoured by the financial system’ (Hickson and Pugh, 2002, p.103)

German companies’ expansion, driven by organic expansion of

activities is necessarily longer-term.

24

Does British managerial culture only operate on the short-term pole of

time orientation? From an inter-cultural standpoint we may assume that

British corporate culture has to reconcile this dimension. Horovitz (Stuart

1994, p.134) differentiates the Anglo-German scores on time orientation,

stating that British strategic, particularly financial planning is not only long-

Time orientation and pragmatism/empiricism

Pragmatism, empiricism and stronger past orientation on the British

side are perceived as constraints to innovation, market penetration and

product launches by German business partners. British business being very

much faster in decision-making is perceived here as very hesitant - which

again contradicts fast decision-making in other strategic areas. Again, it

confirms a context-related pattern of reversal of cultural value preferences I

could identify.

Time management and methodology

Literature as well as managers tend to assume that Germans think long

and implement fast, whereas the British invest little time in preliminaries and

move fast to implementation, where they necessarily take longer as they have

to clarify issues that have been clarified in the preliminary phase by the other

culture. This stereotypical formula needs nuancing and understanding to

25

prevent misunderstanding in issues related to the distribution of activities in

time. Connected to thinking style and pragmatism, the starting point of the

British approach would set in faster with a 1st draft, which would evolve

gradually, based on trial and error and feed-back, whereas the German design- would clarify more context and process details in advance. The

advantage of the British approach is that, due to its evolutionary gradualism, it

can consider many alternatives, which can be interactively enhanced with the

client. The German preference for preliminary clarification of all relevant

details and the subsequent production of a supposedly optimum solution

leaves less space for feedback and negotiated input by customer requirements.

Thus we have a more probabilistic vs. a more deterministic, a fluid vs. fix

approach, a different management of activities in time.

INDIVIDUALISM (Index: UK 89, GER 67)

Critical incidents connected to Anglo-German IDV scores were cited

infrequently although the former is among the three highest and the latter

among the lowest among the wealthiest Western economies.

Whereas in the relationship-driven British corporate culture people-and task orientation are reconciled by interpersonal persuasion and

negotiation, in the German corporate culture the common language of the task

itself reconciles people and tasks. The British model highlights the role of

managers and leaders: the individual is the focal point. The German model

26

reduces the role of the manager and leader: cooperation, team and the task are

its hallmarks.

 The infrequent perception of critical areas of interaction associated with

individualism-collectivism may be attributed to two factors:

 It seemingly plays a greater role in internal corporate management than

at the Anglo-German interface.

 The interfacing of British individualist people or relationship

orientation with a more collectivistic German task orientation may not only

reconcile but also synergise the dimension creatively.

A German subsidiary manager reported a greater social concern in his

handling of personnel and layoff issues for instance than the parent company

management, contrasting also with a British subsidiary manager’s functional,

individualist handling of this corporate issue. The German manager was

aware of his own perception of what he termed a medium-size catastrophe

(due to his more socially-oriented individualism) where the British parent

company perceived only opportunities. Whereas the German attitude points

to a greater collectivist interconnection of the corporate with the macro- the British individualist corporate attitude clearly dissociates itself,

considering layoffs not only as a chance for the parties involved, but also as

Government and the individuals’ business. Decision-making, according to

Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars (2000, p96) is ‘fast and incisive in

individualist countries’. Different bases for personnel decision-making may be

27

a challenge, due to a possible corporate management culture - macro-culture

clash, when a British manager manages a German subsidiary or vice versa.

How far does the foreign manager have to adapt? To what extent is he bound

by parent company rules? As pointed out in the preliminary findings,

presumed conflicts of interest tend to be solved in terms of power, the

subsidiary manager displaying unconditional obedience to the British parent

company. But the search for consensus with the parent company management

can also be interpreted as a feature of British individualism.

In the area of design, subsidiary management has reported important

synergies due to the fusion of individualistic British uniqueness with the

German approaches of task-related expertise, resulting in a very sought after

fusion design. Seemingly the synergy potential outweighs the critical potential

of this dimension.

POWER DISTANCE (Index: UK 35, GER 35)

Stuart (1994, p185) explains the stereotype of British management

appearing more autocratic than German, in spite of identical scores, by a

misattribution of German more ‘conservative work relations’ as autocratic and

British ‘informal interpersonal style’ as less autocratic. Yet, one doesn’t

necessarily follow the other. On the contrary, one may argue that if task- is the common language and implicitly agreed standard of

behaviour, supported by internalised purpose, rules and control, as suggested

28

by the Hofstedian UAI X PDI matrix - associated with an internalised

superego - there is hardly any need of an authoritarian enforcement.

Consequently Hofstede’s findings invalidate this stereotype.

The interview data largely validate Hofstede’s scores, which, however,

need differentiation: Assuming similarity in power distance, the modalities of

its exertion and perception differ, due to its interconnectedness with different

UAI and IDV scores as well as time orientation in both cultures. Interviewees

referred to differences in decision-making and communication: Indeed, due to

their interconnection with higher individualism and shorter-term orientation

in a more liberal legal system, British decisions may be perceived by German

managers as harder and faster. German longer-term and more collectivist

orientation take in account longer-term social consequences of decisions.

Layoffs may be decided fast and even looked upon as a chance, whereas in

Germany they are pondered very long and considered as a drama, due to the

stronger social orientation of its individualism. The management practice of

speedy, self-oriented, profitability-oriented exertion of power increases the

British PDI score as perceived through the German cultural lens.

Interviewees experience German communication lines as stiffer than

British ones. A British manager would mind less being bypassed by

subordinates. This would confirm the general view of the British

organizational structure as more flexible and fluid and the German as more

structured. This is supported by traditional duty-fulfilling and obedience-

29

seeking management contrasting with the more US-aligned, less conservative

management, which seems to actually increase the German PDI score as

perceived by UK culture. Hofstede’s PDI scores have to be nuanced. Mutual

cultural perception provides not identical but differentiated PDI profiles. So,

practices associated with power distance seem to differ from attitudes

measured by Hofstede’s scores. Structural differences may be accounted for in

Hofstedian scores, not so much the dynamics of flows and speed within the

structures. Connected to different dimensions, PDI-related behaviours and

perceptions differ and must be taken in account at the inter-cultural interface.

COMMUNICATION STYLE (UK: HC, GER: LC)

Intercultural communication and the unconscious

According to Knapp (2002, p.127) ‘a consequence of the unconscious cognitive

processing of communication behaviour is that it blocks changes of perception

and interpretation’. According to his research a group of British long-term

residents in Germany misattributed German direct style to impoliteness. They

could not accept that the ‘relative impression of impoliteness of the Germans

is an effect of a different communication style, compared to the British’. Due to

the unconscious processing, information on the host culture does not change

an assumption or misattribution. Cultural self-awareness and cross-cultural

awareness training and empathy do.

Dimensions of difference

30

According to House’s research (Woodman, 2002, p.72), German subjects’

interaction is more ‘direct, explicit and verbose, more self-referenced and more

content-oriented…using less verbal routines’ than the English. There are ‘five

dimensions of difference’ (Woodman, 2002, p.72):

German English

• Directness Indirectness

• Orientation towards self Orientation towards others

• Orientation towards content Orientation towards addressees

Explicitness Implicitness ^• Ad-hoc formulations Verbal routines •

British HC, higher IDV/lower UAI and German LC, lower IDV/higher

UAI communication preference can explain these five dimensions of

difference. Communication style focalises the combined cultural

programming to such a degree, that Hall equates culture and

communication.

There is disagreement by linguists as to which communication style is

more self- or others-oriented (1). And, whereas verbal routines (5) signal a

stronger British need of certainty in communication, dimensions 2, 3 and 4 can

be explained in terms of higher German need of certainty.

The common mutual misperception of German communication style as

impolite and British as lacking honesty can be explained as Germans

31

prioritising unambiguous content of message, requiring explicit transfer of

messages (higher UAI, LC communication pattern) and the British prioritising

addressee orientation, requiring implicit transfer of messages (higher IDV, HC

pattern). Their communication styles are different. Communication

disfunctionalities only arise due to a mismatch of perceiving messages of

culture A with the culture B’s perceptual filter, instead of perceiving the other

culture’s message with the other culture’s perceptual filter: a message-context

mismatch explains communication misperception. Intracultural differences,

such as North-South cleavages in both countries with regard to directness- must also be taken in account. To prevent communication

problems a manager must learn to culturally contextualize the coding and

decoding of communication behaviours. Germans tend to take messages at

face value (LC) or alternatively, indirect orders (HC) seem too soft to them to

be carried out. Similarly, English culture members will feel ordered about by

German directness if taken out of cultural context. If the sender cannot

contextualize a message the critical interaction is defused if the receiver can.

The cradle of German corporations and organisational culture is

Prussia, with its ‘duty fulfilment and obedience seeking’ (Holden, 2004, p.3)

philosophy which still permeates organisational behaviour. If the associated

command language style is transferred to English, the latter is being used

‘atypically assertively’, which boosts directness. While the mismanagement of

misattributions remains a sensitive area, some informants have learnt to

32

synergize the two styles, drawing on the best of both according to need.

INSIGHTS IN DIMENSIONS OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCE

MANAGEMENT

A key insight is that country scores must be considered as context- and may be misleading, unless they are interconnected and

contextualized. One can observe a pattern of context-specific modification and

reversal of preferences and dimensional scores. National dimensional scores

are not applicable across the corporate environment.

No societal or corporate culture can exist at one pole of a dimension

only. The equilibrium is achieved by integrating poles of dimensions intra- as

well as inter-culturally. Three conditions must be met to operationalise critical

Anglo-German cultural dimensions:

1. Knowledge of the general cultural dimension score

2. Awareness of the areas, where the two cultures operationalise the value

preference and where not

3. The combination with other dimensions

EXAMPLES

Certainty

Whereas the British may obtain certainty from the use of verbal routines and

linear thinking style, a reassuringly signposted roadmap to go by in

33

communication and thinking, the Germans may not feel secure until they

perceive the system as a whole and predictable processes and procedures. The

two cultures derive their need of certainty from different areas. Unless one is

aware of the selective fulfilment of the need of certainty, the cultural

preference, due to the generalization as applicable to society in general, may

be indiscriminately applied in the wrong areas, where a culture cannot derive

its certainty. In some areas the British need of certainty is higher than the

Germans’. To be effectively operationalized in corporate interactions and not

become counterproductive through application in the wrong areas, one must

be aware in which area the value preference comes into play to satisfy the

cultural preference.

Power distance

Anglo-German PDI scores are identical. They are a working hypothesis. Both

need to manage their hierarchy-equality dimension. In addition to leading to

an assumption and projection of similarity, the PDI values cannot be

operationalized in managerial interaction, unless managers are aware of the

different sources of power in both organisational cultures. Whereas the British

manager derives his authority form his charismatic professional man- style, the German manager derives his authority form his

management by technical expertise. They derive credible power, authority and

leadership from two non-interchangeable contexts. When an Anglo-manager

34

manages in Germany and vice versa, they must be aware of the context- fulfilment of the cultural value preference. A British employee

would derive neither incentive nor motivation from a purely task and

technical expertise-oriented management style. Conversely, German

employees would not endorse a management style devoid of technical

expertise.

Individualism

Similarly we may ask where the two cultures considered derive the fulfilment

of their need of individuality. Whereas the British tend to derive it from

notions like privacy, eccentricity, uniqueness and personal initiative, Germans

will derive it form a stronger space and time compartmentalization, personal

territoriality and formalism in communication style. If these areas are not

identified the knowledge of the dimension scores cannot be operationalised.

Apart from leading to sensitive areas of interaction, managers cannot derive

the full benefit of their interactions.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Cultural dimensions scores, combinations and contextualization. The general

validity of Anglo-German cultural dimensions scores is confirmed. To be

managerial tools, however, they must additionally be connected to other

dimensions and seen in a specific management context. Specification of the

35

three parameters - in addition to personal and structural ones - is required, in

order to evaluate and interact satisfactorily from an inter-cultural standpoint.

British and German cultures are highly diverse and complementary

across dimensions, providing the complementary poles for their integration.

An intercultural communication problem exists only to the extent that

managers are unaware of these Anglo-German synergy potentials.

2

36

Chinefarge: A Sino - Western Joint

Venture

A research report

Culture: Corporate asset or liability?

Due to the high concentration of disfunctionalities in the psychological

area, signaling insufficient cultural awareness by JV partners, I raise the

question: What can be done to make culture work for, instead of against the

JV, in line with Ghoshal, Bartlett and Birkinshaw’s emerging change

management model (2002, p374), which addresses first psychology, then

physiology and finally anatomy?

Attitudes

Identification with the organization

Attitudinal, behavioral and relational deficits seem to be imputable to

the impossibility of reciprocating obedience and loyalty for care and control.

The parent company, high on IDV, might have underestimated the vertical

collectivist core values. It must evidence that the principle of reciprocation is

complied with, to obtain the trade-off of identification, trust, discipline etc.

Additionally, it depends on the solution of the double loyalty problem,

37

discussed below. It can also be fostered through facework (mianzi) in the

sense that affiliation with a notable global corporation is by itself face-giving

to the Chinese. Additionally, in a vertical collectivist society, which

differentiates between ‘in-group’ and ‘out-group’, it can be promoted by using

‘renqing’ (technique of converting out-group in in-group) and guanxi (doing

mutual favors in the interest of long-lasting family of friendship-based

relations) (Smith and Peterson, 2002, p.230). All in all, JV strategic policy

should be aware of and accept Confucian/Taoist cultural standards, first and

foremost ‘He’ (harmony, equality in inequality) along with Danwei, which

together constitute the all-pervasive reciprocity principle, based on the high

PDI, collectivist (vertical -) orientation. Those standards being not met, even

low UAV Chinese experience strong anxiety. Thus, the need of not only

accepting, but reconciling core values as JV corporate success factors.

Relationships

Loyalty - Individualism/Collectivism - Time-Orientation

Whereas western individualism identifies with the JV, the collectivist

orientation implies not only identification with the company but extends the

reference group to society at large. The benefits of the JV with its limited life

cycle and the long-term benefits of the macro-system are interconnected,

which raises the issue of conflicting loyalties towards the Joint Venture, the

former HMC danwei and the country at large. Absence of identification with

the JV and competing loyalties form a vicious circle. It may be transformed

38

into a virtuous circle through trust building.

Evolution of Trust

The evolution of trust can be effected, according to Blomquist’s model

of operationalising trust, through moral responsibility and positive intentions or,

according to Johnson, J and Cullen, J B (2002, p.342) on the following three bases of

trust: ‘motivational investment, risk and interdependence’. Through the lens of

Bennet’s IDM model transposed to the interfacing of organizational cultures, the

employees are still at the ethnocentric stage.

Trust and Collectivism

Research evidence suggests that collectivism and general trust correlate

negatively. Collectivism needs more specific referents for the evolution of

trust. Hence, to underpin communication policy, trust building and trade-offs

need specific referents and substantiation by concrete measures. HSE/HR are

areas for implementing specific measures with high visibility.

Structures

Organizational Models

Host country and parent company organizational models (Hofstede

1980, p. 316) coincide in person-vested authority. The parent company also

leads by rules-based authority and empowers middle management. Lack of

39

management education, impairment of mianzi and guanxi resist the

alignment. Supporting cultural standards are: The vertical collectivist society

considers ‘hierarchy as a given’ Triandis, 2002, p. 25.) Adding a new echelon

of real power fulfills the Confucian precepts according to which ‘he’ reins,

when everybody is in the right place and in the right role. It is also culturally

enforceable by the high PDI strategic apex.

The Board

Cultural polarizations within conflict with the parent organizational

culture of unity of command and strategic apex of the host country

organizational culture. Evidence of language and culture barriers should best

be addressed by culture-specific intercultural training/coaching. A disunited

board cannot serve as a role model of masterly charisma leading by vision and

example of cultural integration. It must be a beacon of integration and

communicate this vision internally and externally. Intercultural leadership

differences in communicating visions should be considered. The Chinese

mode of quiet politicking is what this culture is responsive to. Culturally

rebalancing the composition of the board progressively would offset the

deincentivizing polarization with the 'foreigners'.

HSE, Accommodation

Management can leverage the principle of reciprocation and specifically

substantiate communication strategy by enhancing these areas - upgrading

HSE-infrastructure, systems and services by EU parent company standards -

40