German and Dutch intercultural communication

Table of Contents

A. List of abbreviations

B. List of figures

1. Introduction

2. Literature Review
2.1. Culture as meaning
2.2. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
2.2.1. Germany
2.2.2. The Netherlands
2.3. The impact of culture on the organisation and on strategy
2.4. Historical overview
2.4.1. Germany
2.4.2. The Netherlands
2.5. The relationship between the two countries
2.5.1. Mutual cultural perceptions
2.5.2. Intercultural tangency
2.6. The languages
2.7. The effects of cultural meanings on work style
2.8. Communication style descriptor list
2.9. Related academic precursors
2.9.1. Going beyond Hofstede
2.9.2. Czech-German work relation

3. Elaboration of research questions

4. Methodological devices and items to take into account
4.1. Semi-structured interviews
4.2. Data sample
4.3. Items to take into account
4.3.1. Cultural values
4.3.2. Practices and communication styles
4.3.3. Additional relevant factors

5. Results
5.1. Cultural values
5.1.1. MAS
5.1.2. UAI
5.1.3. IDV
5.1.4. LTO
5.2. Practices and communication styles
5.2.1. Formality
5.2.2. Compromise
5.2.3. Language
5.2.4. Negotiation strategy
5.2.5. Social relationships and competence in discussion
5.2.6. Criticism
5.2.7. Preparation
5.2.8. Technical language
5.2.9. Communication style descriptors

6. Analyses and conclusion

7. Limitations and future research

8. References

A. List of abbreviations

illustration not visible in this excerpt

B. List of figures

Figure 1–World Average for Hofstede’s Dimensions

Figure 2–Hofstede’s Dimensions for Germany

Figure 3 –Hofstede’s Dimensions for the Netherlands

Figure 4–The 5D Model of Professor Geert Hofstede

Figure 5–Hofstede’s Cultural Map on UAI and PDI

Figure 6 –Historical Timeline of Germany and the Netherlands

Figure 7–German Students in the Netherlands 1995-

Figure 8–Main Framework of the Elaboration of Research Questions

Figure 9–Graphical Depiction of Germans and the Dutch on 12 Cultural Elements

Figure 10–Graphical Depiction of Germans and the Dutch on

Communication style descriptors

Table 1– Overview Table of the Results

1. Introduction

"Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster."

Prof. Geert Hofstede, Emeritus Professor, Maastricht University. (Source: http://www.geert-hofstede.com)

This quote plays an important role in this master thesis because it stresses the ambiguity of culture and shows the importance of a well functioning cultural fit since synergy is defined as “the blending of individuals or groups that creates an emerging culture that has greater potential than the individual parts” (Armstrong, Barber & Najafbagy, 1986; Preston & Armstrong, 1991, p. 66). In the case that a firm correctly takes two cultures into account it can achieve higher returns and effectively perform in the intercultural context.

Moreover, Doctoroff (1977) states that the most important elements of synergy are trust, creativity, rapid feedback, creative conflict and effective communication (Preston & Armstrong, 1991, p. 66). In addition, this master thesis refers to the term intercultural because the main aspect of investigation will be the examination of two distinct cultures meeting each other (Ulijn et al, 2004). This actual tangency could have positive or negative effects on the cooperation and its success highly depends on the cultures itself.

Countries within the European Union are growing closer together. They share laws and regulations and even have the same currency. The Netherlands and Germany are direct neighbours within the European Union, have closely related languages and a long lasting common history. Nevertheless, national cultures of these two countries differ importantly (Ulijn, Nagel & Tan, 2001). Cultures even seem to differ to the extent that recent Alliance failures of Dutch-German cooperation, are, like 70% of all Alliance failures (e.g. the Fokker-DASA venture), due to cultural differences (Ulijn et al, 2001).

According to Hofstede (1981), “culture is the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of one group from those of another. Culture in this sense, is a system of collectively held values” (Hofstede, 1981, p. 24). This shows the importance of culture and gives an idea of how big the impact of national culture can be on human behaviour. Ulijn, Lincke and Wynstra (2004) point out that most studies about national culture mainly deal with its influence on communication issues and therefore the main focus of the master thesis will lie on the topic of intercultural communication between the Dutch and Germans.

An even more detailed focus lies on the context of SME companies. One reason for choosing this focus is the basic assumption that in such a context national culture plays an even more important role than, for example, in a multinational corporation where corporate cultures are used all over the world.

It has been said before that the two countries at hand are closely related on multiple layers but still have many issues of potential conflict. The tremendous impact of the Second World War on the Netherlands and the many other historical interactions of the two neighbouring countries have fostered rivalry and conflict between the citizens. Even in the field of sports, or more especially, in football competition, the two countries are archenemies. Additionally, rivalry is also shown in the existence of many nicknames for one another (Linthout, 2006). These aspects show why the impact of culture on intercultural communication in the Netherlands and in Germany will play a major role for this master thesis. Understanding the major communication style characteristics of each country will help to enhance intercultural communication between Dutch and German people in the business context. The problem statement of this master thesis, therefore, is:

An examination of intercultural communication between Germans and the Dutch.

The four main sub-questions derived from this problem statement are:

1. How different are the communication styles of German and Dutch people?
2. Is there friction resulting from the different ways of communication and if yes, how does it look like and how to deal with it?
3. Which communication differences originate in values and which in practices?
4. What are possible success factors in this intercultural communication context?

To answer this problem statement and the related sub-questions, a qualitative research will be examined. Qualitative research can be performed in a number of ways and the method which will be approached here is that experiences of individuals from their professional practices will be analysed (Flick, 2007).

Several interviews with multiple individuals at small and medium sized organizations will be carried out . Moreover, the interviews will be examined with employees and employers who are experienced in the field of Dutch-German communication matters. Since in qualitative research in international business the context is very important, this master thesis will make use of a stratified sample (Marschan-Piekkari & Welch, 2004). The respondents are situated in the frontier region of Gelderland (NL) and the Niederrhein (GER).

Furthermore, historic differences between the two countries will be scrutinized in order to explain those cultural differences that most likely shape organisational behaviour. For instance, German engineers are more technology oriented whereas Dutch tradesman are more market oriented and therefore ground the proposition that education and history could play a major role in explaining different organisational behaviours between the two countries (Ulijn et al, 2001). History has shown that Dutch international success has been heavily related to tradesman behaviour whereas German entrepreneurs were more focused on inventing new technologies, like e.g. Carl Benz, or basing successful firm establishment on other technological advancements.

Another important influencing factor for Dutch and German employees and employers is their educational background. Bosma, Jaarsma and Snijders (2003) stated that education plays a crucial role in affecting people’s mind-set with regard to exploiting entrepreneurial skills. The context of education itself is, of course, highly embedded in cultural values and reciprocally influences people’s behaviour. Because of this, the cultural dimensions of Hostede (2007) of the Netherlands and Germany will be used in this master thesis. It will be highly interesting to see what the differences between German and Dutch people in the business context are and, most importantly, how to impede problems.

So far, research on intercultural communication has been fragmented and did not focus on Germany and the Netherlands and therefore a strong theoretical background is lacking. The thesis will aim at finding the most common and severe problems related to Dutch and German cross-cultural interaction and will then try to find a sound list of appealing success factors for intercultural communication for German-Dutch business relations. It will be interesting to examine what kind of communication problems people experience and what those people actually think about each other.

The outline of the master thesis to accomplish the maximum results of the before mentioned goals, is first, to establish a sound literature review part and based on this, develop a methodological framework. The literature review part will cover the most important aspects for the issue at hand:

1. A broader and more appropriate definition of the term culture will be given.
2. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions for the Netherlands and Germany will be mentioned and explained.
3. An idea of how culture can influence the organisation and its strategy will be provided.
4. A short historical overview of both countries will be given, whereby the most relevant aspects will be stressed.
5. It will be investigated how at the moment the two countries are related to each other in the sense of mutual perceptions and with respect to facts of current interactions.
6. The lingual aspect of the countries will be covered and the impact of this on cultural behaviour will be derived.
7. It will be highlighted what the current academic literature writes about the effect of Dutch and German culture on their work style and atmosphere.
8. The importance of different communication styles and a descriptor list will be presented.
9. Last, some important related previous researches (going beyond cultural value analysis) will be summarised and will lead to the elaboration of research questions.

After the elaboration of research questions, the fourth chapter will cover the following issues:

- The methodology of the qualitative research in the form of semi-structured interviews will be explained.
- The data sample will be described.
- The research questions will be linked to the methodology and by this show which items are taken into account when analysing the results.

The following two sections will be dedicated to show what the interviews have resulted in and how the outcomes can be analysed and discussed. Conclusively, the master thesis will answer the problem statement and provide the reader with some important and useful managerial implications. Finally, the merits and limitations of this master thesis will be stated and possible sources of future research will be mentioned.

2. Literature Review

The literature review part of this master thesis will provide the reader with a sound background of the current situation of academic literature concerning cultural characteristics of Germany and the Netherlands. Furthermore, this part will summarize information about the impact of culture on business and elaborates on the communication focus of this master thesis. In summary, the literature will consistently lead to the research questions of this master thesis and form the basis for the applied qualitative research.

2.1. Culture as meaning

In the introduction of this master thesis one common definition of the term culture has been applied from one of the leading experts in the academic field of cultural differences, Geert Hofstede. Nevertheless, there have been varying opinions with respect to possible extensions on Hofstede’s view on culture. This is important to note because this master thesis will go beyond Hofstede’s findings by extending it to cultural communication styles.

As has been mentioned before, Hofstede highlights the shared and acquired values and practices by a group of people as the description of culture (Verluyten, 2000, p. 23). In contrast, Ting-Toomey (1999, p.10) defines culture as follows: “A complex frame of reference that consists of patterns of traditions, beliefs, values, norms, symbols and meanings that are shared to varying degrees by interacting members of a community.” This definition importantly adds several items to the original definition of Hofstede.

The important fact that cultural values are only the underlying factors influencing the individual norms, behaviours and the practices in social interactions, is acknowledged by Ting-Toomey (1999) and will be taken into account in this master thesis.

Most importantly, in this master thesis, culture will be regarded as a system of meaning, because within a culture, there are still big differences in behaviours and attitudes but the meaning of it is relatively understood by all members of a culture. Meaning is reflected within the interaction of people and the way people communicate with each other and by this, is reproduced between the people. This shows that the system of meaning is not obliged by definition but is given sense by the people themselves. This also explains why culture is said to be constantly moving and changing (Douglas, 2004, p.88). According to Douglas (2004), it is a dynamic process influenced by demographical changes of society like, e.g. migration, expatriation and immigration. Landis (2007) adds to this that culture is also modified by the political and economic environment of the country. Furthermore, Landis (2007) states that there will still be an overriding culture that alters slowly and then defines the cultural identity of a country.

This broader definition of culture is important when talking about cultural interfaces because the interaction of meaning, communication styles, values and practices determine possible differences between two cultures. Cultural groups perceive behaviour under their certain framework of meaning. This, in turn, leads to the fact that certain behaviours are perceived differently by different cultural communities. Next to this, the particular context and relation under which behaviour occurs could affect the interpretation of it. For instance, the meaning of distance (i.e. in the sense of physical distance and psychological distance) between people, when communicating, highly depends on the context and the relation of the people interacting, e.g. friends talking in a bar have a shorter distance between each other than two colleagues discussing at work.

Other examples of different contexts and relations are: the family context or interaction with strangers. Keeping in mind that culture as meaning also takes into account many different contexts and relations shows the tremendous complexity of intercultural tangency. Repeated interaction in groups could create certain norms of behaviour under specific conditions and in particular contexts. This, on the one hand, explains that cultures have, through repeated interaction over the ages, deeply embedded cultural meanings for certain behaviours. On the other hand, it shows the opportunity to enable totally different people to engage in repeated interactions. People with the same cultural background share a certain system of meaning and by this can interact with each other although they are probably radically different. Moreover, the fact that already a once repeated interaction could create behavioural norms could enable people from different cultures to build up a shared system of meaning for their particular context and relation.

It is important to note that shared systems of meaning also highly influence major issues in society. For instance, how to deal with hierarchy is institutionalised in the shared system of meaning. The same counts for the dealing with structure, time, uncertainty, loyalty to other people and disagreement. Hence, many different dealings with distinct situations are kind of regulated by the shared system of meaning. All people are different, only that people from the same culture share a certain system of meaning and by this understand each other better (to varying degrees) than people with other underlying cultural values. Most important for this master thesis is the aspect of how culture as meaning is reflected in practices and communication styles in the business context. It will be investigated how the underlying values, based on Hofstede’s dimensions, can be detected in the embedded communication styles (like body distance, speech tone and formal/informal addressing, etc.), in other business practices and in traditions, will lead to conflict or synergy.

It is highly important for this master thesis to understand that culture is a system of meaning. In order to capture the whole impact of culture on the interaction between Dutch and German people in a business context, it will be constantly kept in mind that people from distinct cultures perceive certain situations, behaviours and communication styles differently. The development of situations in the business context includes special gaps. The development starts with the different ways a situation is described, then how it is interpreted and finally how it is evaluated. These steps deliver sources of conflict for the intercultural interaction, since each step may be perceived in a different way because of a different system of meaning.

Hofstede’s (1991) dimensions are important parameters to analyse cultures and their differences and are therefore also mentioned in this master thesis but the broader view of culture as meaning takes this master thesis one step further. The common analysis around theories like Hofstede’s (1991) dimensions only aims at categorizing values but this master thesis also seeks to examine the related practices and communication styles. This is why the definition of culture as meaning is explained here and will be applied throughout this master thesis.

2.2. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions

Probably the most prominent and most widely accepted attempt to categorize cultural characteristics of different nations is the one of Geert Hofstede (1980). His cultural dimensions became standard literature for many academic authors dealing with cultural issues and by this he became the most cited author in this field (Dahl, 2004). In the original work, culture was divided into four different fundamental dimensions: Power Distance Index (PDI), Individualism (IDV), Masculinity (MAS) and Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI). Later on, Hofstede (1991) introduced a fifth dimension, which was called Long-Term Orientation (LTO) (Dahl, 2004).

To start with, the five dimensions will shortly be defined and later on, in the country specific elaborations on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, they will be explained in more depth.

- The first dimension, PDI, has been defined as the extent to which unequal distribution of power in society and in organizations is accepted and expected.
- IDV describes the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups, it shows to what extent a society is collectivistic or individualistic. In individual societies relations between individuals are loose and in a collectivist society people are part of protective loyal groups from birth on.
- The third cultural dimension, MAS, refers to the gender role distribution in society. The feminine role is characterized by modest and caring behaviour, whereas the masculine role is described as assertive and competitive. In feminine countries men also dispose the caring feminine characteristics and in masculine countries this is not the case, which leads to a bigger gap between the male and female values in these countries.
- The fourth dimension supposedly indicates a countries’ tendency to tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity. UAI shows the extent to which people from a certain country feel uncomfortable with unstructured, i.e. unusual, situations.
- The fifth dimension is related to Confucian theory and deals with cultural values that indicate whether people are characterized by thrift and perseverance (associated with long-term orientation) or by respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations and protecting one’s “face” (associated with short-term orientation) (Hofstede, 2007).

Below, in figure 1, the world averages on the five dimensions are illustrated. It can be seen that, on average, countries tend to be around the index rate of 50 and that there are tendencies of cultures to be somewhat higher on uncertainty avoidance and lower on individualism. Figure 1 should also be used in comparison to the below provided illustrations of the characteristics of the Netherlands and of Germany. The world averages as shown below are: PDI=55, IDV=43, MAS=50, UAI=64 and LTO=45. (Hofstede, 2007)

Figure 1.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Hofstede, 2007

2.2.1. Germany

The following numbers of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are illustrated below in figure 2.

- Germany has a PDI of 35, which means that Germany is ranked 42nd out of 53 countries, i.e. Germany is more egalitarian than many other countries and there is a strong belief in equal opportunities.
- Germany’s score on IDV is 67 which is equivalent to the 15th position in Hofstede’s (1991) ranking (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003a). This individualism indicates that German people stress the importance of individual achievements and personal rights. Although group work is important, the individual person has the right to have his own opinion and tends to have many loose relationships.
- Germany as well is ranked pretty high (9-10th) on masculinity with an index score of 66 (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003a). This means that, according to Hofstede (1991), the masculine traits of assertiveness, materialism, power, individual achievement and self centeredness are pretty common in German society and clearly characterizes male and female in this country.
- UAI has a similar value as masculinity and individualism, namely 65, this number ranks Germany 29th on Hofstede’s ranking (1991) (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003a). It clearly shows that Germans try to avoid uncertainty, which can be achieved by rules, laws and regulations. Uncertainty avoiding cultures tend to plan changes step by step, believe in one absolute truth and are more emotional.
- The degree of LTO of 31, points out that German culture is more inclined to be short-term oriented, which basically means that the characteristics described above of short-term orientation apply more than the characteristics of long-term orientation (Hofstede, 2007). The following figure summarizes Germany’s cultural dimensions.

Figure 2.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Hofstede, 2007

2.2.2. The Netherlands

The second country under investigation is the Netherlands. Since it is a direct neighbour to the above described country of Germany, one could expect similar values for the Dutch cultural dimensions. Nevertheless, this section of the master thesis and the master thesis in general will certainly show that there are important differences worthwhile to take into account.

- The Dutch score on PDI is 38, implying the 40th position of the 53 countries including ranking (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003a). This rather low position means that the Netherlands, like Germany, is more egalitarian than many other countries and that people actually believe in equal opportunities.
- The highest number and rank on Hofstede’s (1991) cultural dimensions is IDV: With an index number of 80 it is ranked 4th together with Canada. This high rank and number indicate that Dutch society has more individualistic attitudes and loose bonds with others than in most of the other countries. People rely on themselves and their close family members. Society considers privacy as a cultural norm and to integrate personally may be difficult. According to Hofstede (2007), individual pride and respect are important values and to degrade or criticize somebody is easily understood as offence.
- The most differentiating cultural dimension in comparison to Germany is MAS. Dutch are more feminine with a value of 14 and a 51st rank (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003a). These numbers are indicative of a lower level of differentiation and discrimination between genders (Hofstede, 2007). It also indicates that Dutch people value a good working relationship and cooperation with each other more than in most other countries (Ulijn, Lincke & Wynstra, 2004). It probably also shows a more openly caring culture (Hofstede, 2007).
- Another index number which is lower than that of Germany is the one of UAI. The Netherlands scores 53 with a 35th rank (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003a). This shows that the Netherlands is well below the world average score of 64, illustrated in figure 1 above, whereas Germany is slightly above world average. This Dutch moderate score on UAI means that there is also, but weaker than in Germany, a tendency to reduce uncertainty by rules, laws and regulations etc.
- The level of LTO is 44 in the Netherlands, which indicates that the Dutch culture is also more short-term directed, but less than Germany (Hofstede, 2007). Figure 3 presents the Dutch scores on the cultural dimensions.

Figure 3.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Hofstede, 2007

Figure 4 below shows the Dutch and the German cultural dimensions in comparison. As it has been stated above, both countries share a number of values and tend to the same cultural direction. The only cultural dimension which points at opposite directions is the one of MAS: Germany being characterized by masculine values and the Netherlands by feminine values. But next to this obvious different dimension it has been clearly stated that the differences in the other dimensions are not negligible and in sum give the two countries two distinct cultural identities.

Nevertheless, at this point, it is important to remember the thesis’ definition of culture as a system of meaning and the viewpoint that behaviour depends to varying degrees on the context. Hofstede’s concept does not necessarily mean that cultures can be categorized easily into 5 dimensions, it only shows one manner to deal with the topic of culture. Human behaviour depends on many factors, like e.g. a specific context and for this reason, the cultural values as described by Hofstede will be regarded as background for this master thesis where the varying degrees of culture and the communication styles play a prior role.

Figure 4.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Hofstede, 2007

2.3. The impact of culture on the organisation and on strategy

As has been pointed out above, cultural values differ on multiple dimensions which apparently have an impact on the cultural system of meaning, the attitudes and the behaviour of people living in the particular country. This section of the master thesis will highlight in what ways cultural differences in general can affect an organisation and its strategy. According to Hofstede (1981), culture programmed the behaviour of people living in a particular society. Behaviour that originates in the culture of people can be detected everywhere: in the way people think, feel and react and by this, is implemented in institutions, traditions and values (Kluckhohn, 1951).

Schneider and Barsoux (2003a) examined the impact and the reasons of culture on organisational systems, processes and structures. The main conclusion of this is that these aspects differ among countries. They examined the degree of centralized power, specialization of jobs, formalization of rules and procedures and found out that organisations in different countries have different ways of organising. Schneider and Barsoux (2003a) argue in direction of a culturalist view, i.e. culture creates structure and not a structuralist view where culture is created by the structure. The latter culture-free explanation of differences is based on the view that structure is determined by organisational characteristics like size and technology. According to Schneider and Barsoux (2003a) bigger firms have more specialised labour and are more formalized regarding rules and procedures but are not by definition more centralized. Next to that, technology like mass production speaks in favour of a more mechanistic, i.e. centralized and formal, organisational structure.

Nevertheless, the culturalist view is applied here since, according to Schneider and Barsoux (2003a), management techniques are rooted to historical and societal contexts. Examples of this are the theories of the German Max Weber, who favoured bureaucracy, the French Henri Fayol, who established an administrative model and the American Frederick Taylor, who theorized scientific management. These theories can be detected in the German legacy’s emphasis on structure and competence, the French importance on social systems, relationships and roles and the American task system and machine model of an organisation. The approaches applied in each nation show the different cultural assumptions regarding, for instance, human nature and the role of relationship and task orientation. On the one hand, institutional factors, like the nature of markets, educational systems and the government also have an important influence on organisation's strategy and structure. These institutional factors are, on the other hand, highly related to the influences of culture because they jointly developed over time (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003a).

As mentioned above, Hofstede examined the impact of different cultures on management since the 1960s and also discussed the consequences of cultural characteristics on motivation, organisation and leadership. Brodbeck and Frese (2004) and Thierry, den Hartog, Koopman and Wilderom (2004) as well discussed the impact of culture but focused on the different approaches of leadership and based their reasoning extensively on the historical backgrounds of the societies and on Hofstede’s findings. Next to the cultural dimensions described above, Hofstede (2007) found country clusters and established cultural maps on which he categorized countries according to their characteristics on the cultural dimensions. E.g. one map has four categories based on UAI and PDI. On the map, illustrated by figure 5 below, one can detect which organisational structure applies to that country (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003a).

Figure 5.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Source: Schneider & Barsoux, 2003a, p. 91

Next to Hofstede, many other authors found evidence for cultural differences affecting organisations. For example Stevens at INSEAD showed that some differences in structure are due to distinct ways of diagnosing equal problems and lead to diverse solutions. An experiment with British and German students yielded the result that Germans interpreted a problem between two department heads as a problem of structure and therefore suggested to build up a clearer policy and procedure. The British interpreted the same problem as an interpersonal communication issue and suggested interpersonal skills training for the department heads. This shows that culture as a system of meaning has a deep impact on how people perceive problems and by this, also on how to react to it. A consequence of the example mentioned is that, according to Schneider and Barsoux (2003a), German organisations tend to be flatter and span of control tends to be broader whereas British organisational structure is more flexible and decentralized.

Schneider and Barsoux (2003a) furthermore state that the primary determinants of culture seem to be related to interrelationships of people regarding power, status and the way of dealing with uncertainty. Much research has been conducted and findings have been based on questionnaires, experiments, interviews and observations in different countries. As mentioned before, the impact of culture is on diverse aspects, not only structure, but also the way organisations handle processes, control decision-making, etc. (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003a)

According to Hofstede (1981), culture affects organisations in its impact on the distribution of power, on the “values of the dominant coalitions” (Hofstede, 1981, p. 28) and on the values of the majority of an organisation. Hence it influences the way an organisation manages its business operations, how decisions are taken and how workers function within an organisation (Hofstede, 1981). Another aspect Schneider and Barsoux (2003a) mention with respect to German organisations is that there are not such detailed job descriptions, which is in contrast to the expectations one might have because of the high UAI. The reason is that, according to Schneider and Barsoux (2003a), Germans are specialized and job descriptions are internalized because of the tendency to keep the same job for a longer period and therefore task descriptions do not need to be that detailed.

Another interesting finding mentioned by Schneider and Barsoux (2003a) is that Germans seem to have the highest participation rate in decision-making. One possible reason for this is that the work councils in Germany play an important role when deciding upon business affairs. Brodbeck and Frese (2004) also point out this aspect of German institutionalisation of employee participation in decision making. Next to that, Schneider and Barsoux (2003a) state that in the Netherlands such labour representations do as well exist and that decision making requires searching for compromise.

Furthermore, Schneider and Barsoux (2003a) conclude that countries with comparable cultures, like for instance the two countries under investigation, have important differences because of the importance the past plays. Important to note here is that this master thesis acknowledges cultural differences as dependent on certain contexts and therefore culture is seen as a complex system of meaning. If the past is more important, decisions are probably taken more slowly. This shows that dissimilarities in decision making approaches might be due to various cultural dimensions which are additionally interacting.

Another aspect Schneider and Barsoux (2003a) mention is in line with the definition of culture in this master thesis: even if the degree of participation in decision-making is the same, the reasons for participation may still be different among diverse countries, i.e. the cultures depend on the context and by this differ to varying degrees. For instance, in the Netherlands participation in decision-making is said to support social welfare, whereas in Japan a high level of participation serves to enhance relationships and group harmony.

A further issue mentioned by Schneider and Barsoux (2003a) concerning the influence of culture on the organisation and on strategy is the one of “best practice” (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003a, p. 109) models of management and whether these are transferable between countries and cultures. It is stated that transferring best practice somehow assumes universality among countries and that this assumption is doubtful since “cultural differences often undermine the best intentions and the assumed rationality (…)” (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003a, p. 110). The willingness to adopt approaches of management of other countries may also differ. Schneider and Barsoux (2003a) give the example of the Japanese who have always been adopting models from other countries and Germans who are said to be reluctant to adopt management approaches from abroad. Opposing, a growing convergence of management structures among countries in Europe, the US and Asia can be detected (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003a).

Hofstede already discussed in 1981 the convergence theory and stated that differences between countries are getting smaller. Nevertheless, Schneider and Barsoux (2003a) concluded that national cultures have an impact on the exploration of an organisational model that fits best to the context and that these models are not unavoidably taken from the domestic country.

Schneider and Barsoux (2003b) define culture as “solutions to problems of external adaptation and internal integration” (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003b, p. 118) which is highly related to the way strategy could also be defined. This shows the close linkage between these two terms and indicates the importance of culture for strategy and especially external environmental alignment. Schneider and Barsoux (2003b) examined in how far different strategies show an underlying cultural system. As has been stated before, the cultural system of meaning has an impact on values and thinking in general and therefore different strategies are implemented in various countries based on diverse cultural assumptions. For instance, Islamic principles show “strategy as a collective process (…)” (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003b, p. 120) stressing the importance of emotions and feelings and not only rational thinking.

Another dissimilar cultural assumption is seen in the Japanese approach of viewing strategy in a broader sense, in comparison to the western view. The Japanese therefore regard the western view of reality as being too simple since it is only based on theories. But the western author Henry Mintzberg as well challenged the simple theories of cause and effect and states that strategies can emerge in an informal, gradual, spontaneous and collective process. This means that organisational leaders would have less control over their environments and that strategy should be evolutionary. To handle the lack of control over the environment, the Resource Based View (RBV) suggests to build a corporate identity that gives the company the capabilities to react flexibly to changing environmental circumstances. (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003b)

Two Cultural models affecting strategy

Additionally, two cultural models based on cultural assumptions affecting strategic behaviour are presented. The controlling model characterizes formal and central strategies and is regarded as being the model of Nordic and Anglo cultures of the west. It is focused on internal integration of capabilities and “strategy is clearly articulated” (Schneider & Barsoux, 2003b, p. 127). The opposite model is the adapting model which tends to be more existent in Latin and Asian societies and is related to a decentralized and informal strategy. Furthermore, the adapting model is focused on external issues and because of this becomes, in the course of the rapidly changing environments and the international approaches of the companies, also more important to western societies. As a result, the two approaches are also related to the defender strategy, being in line with the controlling model, and the prospector strategy, sharing the characteristics of the adaptation model.

Conclusively, Schneider and Barsoux (2003b) state that the way an organisation understands its strategic issues and responds to its environments is dependent on the assumptions made towards control, uncertainty, hierarchy and the degree of individualism. The example of a Spanish and a Danish bank reacting very differently to changing conditions showed the high degree to which culture affects organisations. The Spanish bank regarded the changing regulative conditions as a threat and therefore put the project as priority whereas the Danish saw it as an opportunity and dealt with it in a usual way. These different reactions demonstrate that cultures with contrasting approaches might experience problems in trying to find a common fit when collaborating.

Schneider and Barsoux (2003b) also provide an interesting explanation for the late internationalization of German organizations by stating that the German model seems to be fitting more for focusing on domestic markets and exporting. This again shows the far-reaching impact of the cultural dimensions and illustrates that the recognition of the different cultures enables firms to rethink their own approach and implement a strategy that could provide the firm with a competitive edge.

2.4. Historical overview

Having looked at the impact of culture on the organisation and strategy, this section will provide a basis for examining the impact of the past. To achieve this, the historical background will be examined for the two countries under investigation. The overview will focus on the topic at hand and provide the reader with possible explanations for societal and cultural behaviour of citizens of the two nations. These enlightenments of history will further be used as a basis for the elaboration of research questions part and the analysis of the results of the master thesis.

[...]