Communicate More Effectively With People Across Cultures

Introduction

Communication with people across cultures is particularly important in the globalized environment in which companies operate. Most organizations have international ties, and their employees need to understand the characteristic features of their partners to maintain successful relationships over time.

Without understanding the psychology and values of foreign cultures, it is impossible for our company to sign contracts with international partners. Negotiations for joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, licensing and distribution agreements, as well as sales of products and services all require face-to-face interaction. As Adler (1989) notes: crucial aspects of all such interorganizational relationships are face-to-face negotiations” (p. 515).

The success of negotiations depends greatly on understanding the cultural differences of potential partners with whom the company wishes to sign an agreement. Although European and American nations share many similarities, companies located in Africa or the Middle East require completely different approaches.

The company’s personnel possess the ability to communicate effectively with people from different cultures. This skill has enabled the organization to maintain a large share of the market while also creating opportunities to increase partnerships overseas. The paper discusses major theories related to training employees in cross-cultural communication.

The research describes the most important theories, including those of Hall (1960), Hofstede (1994), Trompenaar and Hampden-Turner (1998), among others. The paper argues that effective communication with foreign partners is crucial for companies in the modern world. The development of organizations greatly depends on establishing ties in the global market.

Training Programs Overview

Training staff in effective cross-cultural communication is a challenging task for organizations. To build an efficient strategy, companies must first determine which foreign countries they are particularly oriented towards and what partners they plan to obtain in the future. Based on the countries of current or potential business partners, a training strategy should be established. Dupont (1982) and Plantey (1980) have described the most important aspects of training employees for interactions with French partners.

The peculiarities of Russians have been discussed by Beliaev, Muller, and Prunett in 1985. Fisher (1980) has described communication with Mexicans. The organization needs to determine which country is of particular interest and design a training program based on research provided for that culture.

One of the reasons why communicating with partners from other cultures is particularly difficult is that the cross-cultural communication and psychology literature suggests that people behave differently with members of their own culture than with members of foreign cultures” (Adler 1989, p.515). When communicating with people from other countries, mistakes can occur, causing employees to be more cautious and in many cases unable to realize their full potential. To enable them to apply all of their skills, training needs to take place. An important part of this training is learning how to act under pressure in situations characterized by stress.

According to Bartlett and Ghoshal (1989) and Melin (1992), multinational staff must adhere to cross-border corporate strategies. Harrison (1994) identifies four key strategies for companies in this area: multinational, international, global, and transnational. Each of these strategies requires different CCT needs for corporate managers (Harrison 1994, p.21).

According to the objectives of the mentioned strategies, training programs should include seven major steps. Firstly, companies need to identify the major threats and benefits of cross-cultural communication. Secondly, they need to establish coordination among employees for effective communication across cultural borders. Thirdly, organizations must determine which aspects of communication require emphasis to bring more profits and which aspects should be minimized due to their negative impact on company activities.

Fourth, it is important to manage the flow of information between the organization and its cross-cultural partners. Fifth, employees of the company should receive sufficient training on cultural differences and methods for effectively influencing their foreign partners. Sixth, new teams should be established within the company to facilitate efficient communication across borders. In some cases, organizational restructuring may be necessary to ensure maximum efficiency in this process.

Seventh, communication with partners from other cultures needs to be established on the same level as domestic partners. To achieve maximum efficiency, the company must attain a high level of communication with foreign partners that does not require any additional effort.

The information needs to flow easily, just as it does in the home country, and agreements must be signed without any problems. The last step can only be fulfilled if all previous steps have been successful. Companies must ensure that their training programs are organized in a way that allows them to achieve their strategic goal: making communication across cultural borders as easy as communication within the country. To achieve this high level of skill development among employees, CCT must be planned and delivered by multinational teams and offered to multinational participants (Adler & Bartholomew 1992).

Training programs are especially crucial for employees who need to work temporarily in other countries, such as consulting with foreign partners. According to Harris and Moran (1991), In order for expatriates and their families to function successfully in another culture they must learn the differences in behavior that exist across cultures.” These differences can be significant, ranging from varying values to different attitudes towards work.

Theories of Cross-Cultural Communication

Many authors have conducted research on cultural differences in the business environment. According to Adler (1989, p.515), there is a growing body of research on this topic, ranging from the pioneering efforts of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) to the widely referenced approach of Hofstede (1980) and the recent work of Hampden-Turner and Trompenaar (1993).

According to Hall (1960), communication across cultures can be very challenging because different nationalities have different ideas about duration. For example, for Asians, three years spent on contract preparations is a short term, while Americans would already be going crazy with impatience to sign the contract within such an incredibly long time. Hall has stated that the expression time is money” is typically American, while in the East, time seems to flow much slower and representatives of this region do not try to make fast decisions.

According to Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), cultural differences among nations can be characterized by various characteristics. They identified six dimensions that describe the cultural orientations of societies:

• How people view humanity
• How people see nature
• How people approach interpersonal relationships
• How people view activity and achievement
• How people view time
• How people view space

(Adler 1989, p.515)

The theory of Hofstede (1980) differs significantly from the theories discussed above regarding training for communication across cultures. In order to support his argument, Hofstede conducted research based on 160,000 managers and employees of IBM Company working in 60 different countries. He identified four dimensions of cultural differences that form the basis for work-related attitudes: individualism versus collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity versus femininity (Harrison 1994, p.18).

However, after analyzing several companies across five continents, Hofstede concluded that there was a fifth dimension. This new dimension pertains to whether a culture’s values are focused on the future (long-term orientation) or on the present and past (short-term orientation) (Harrison 1994, p.18).

The understanding of culture by Hofstede is very unique in many ways. He “offers a broader definition of culture- one that includes all the patterns of thinking, feeling and acting, which one learns from early childhood.” (Williams 2002, p.23). Hofstede “calls culture “software of the mind.” This analogy suggests that culture shapes the way humans behave, think and feel just as programming determines how computers behave.” (Williams 2002, p.23). As the author himself mentions, “I treated values as part of culture, the latter defined as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.” (Hofstede 1998, p.16).

According to some specialists, Hofstede’s approach to determining cultural differences is very radical. Culture is not just software in the human mind, but also a part of creative activity. Some argue that Hofstede’s analogy may be inappropriate, especially for artists who strive for individuality and creativity in expression. As Williams (2002) asks, How can human feelings be programmed or automated like a computer?” (p.23).

However, Hofstede’s approach can be successfully applied in business. Foreign businessmen often act according to the cultural paradigm typical for their country. Although they are not robots, they still have values and traditions ingrained in their minds by their culture. Therefore, it is crucial for the training manager to ensure that all employees in the company understand the cultural programming of their foreign partners.

Hofstede argues for the importance of language peculiarities in communication with people overseas. He identifies language as the most superficial manifestation of culture, similar to visual icons, flags, and modes of dress. Language serves as an outward symbol that conveys meaning (Williams 2002, p.23).

Hampden-Turner and Trompenaar (1993) proposed their theory on communication across cultures. To achieve this, they administered questionnaires to 15,000 international managers worldwide and identified a set of value differences that distinguish practitioners of capitalism in various countries (Harrison 1994, p.18).

The values that the authors considered crucial for the questionnaire were diverse, including universalism vs. particularism,” “analyzing vs. integrating,” “individualism vs. communitarianism,” “inner-directed vs. outer-directed orientation,” “time as sequence vs. time as synchronization,” “achieved status vs. ascribed status,” and “equality vs. hierarchy” (Harrison 1994, p.18). The training programs established based on these theories need to consider all of the values marked by the authors.

Building Cultural Awareness

It is necessary to mention the major steps of building cultural awareness among employees working for a multinational organization and seeking to improve their communication skills with partners overseas. According to Harrison (1994), the first step in cultural awareness is recognizing and accepting differences in other cultures as indicated by the aforementioned studies” (p.18). One of the most important tasks that training managers need to achieve is making employees understand their own cultural characteristics first, then gradually shifting to the cultural differences of their partners. Bennett (1986) suggests that “by educating individuals to recognize their own values, they can better identify contrasts with other cultures and then apply these insights gained to improving cross-cultural interactions.”

On the second step, it is important to assist trainees in recognizing particular national values (Harrison 1994, p.19). Many features of national culture need to be analyzed. For example, outstanding differences that separate Americans from the rest of the world concern problems such as work attitudes (If there’s a will, there’s a way.”), relationships (individualism versus group), use of space (My space or yours?), and power (Who’s in charge here?) (Copeland & Griggs 1985).

During the following steps of the training program, managers must make trainees aware of workplace differences in different countries that need to be considered. According to Brislin et al. (1986), The physical appearance of the workplace is often similar regardless of location. Due to these familiar aspects, expatriates may assume that behaviors in their host culture locations will also be similar.” On the final step, managers should prepare trainees for efficient work and communication with new colleagues in other countries.

Conclusion

Most organizations have realized the importance of efficient training programs to prepare their employees for communication with foreign partners. Without such programs, it is difficult to sign international agreements. Creating a successful training program can be a complicated task, but basic principles can be applied to any program. For instance, companies need to identify their relationships with foreign countries, prioritize certain cultures and train their workforce accordingly. This ensures efficient communication with partners from those countries.

The major points that need to be emphasized here are the characteristic features of the national culture of the organization and its differences from the culture of partners. Employees need to realize what features distinguish them from their foreign partners and seek ways to eliminate these differences, making communication as easy as possible.

Application of relevant theories of communication across cultures can be very helpful for all organizations. Theories from authors such as Hall, Hofstede, Hampden-Turner, Trompenaar, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck can be useful for companies that provide training programs for their employees. Managers must ensure that the choice of theory for the development of the training program aligns with the company’s position in the international market and its communication needs with foreign partners.

Bibliography

1. Adler, N.J. and Bartholomew, S. (1992). Managing globally competent people.” Academy of Management Executive, 6(3), 52-65.
2. Adler Nancy J., Graham John L. (1989). Cross-Cultural Interaction: The International Comparison Fallacy? Journal of International Business Studies. Volume: 20. Issue: 3.
3. Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing Across Borders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
4. Beliaev, E., T.Mullen and B.J.Punnett (1983). Understanding the cultural environment: U.S.A.-U.S.S.R trade negotiations. California Management Review, 27(2):100-12.
5. Bennett, J.M.(1986).”Modes of cross-cultural training: Conceptualizing cross-cultural training as education.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations,10 ,117-134.
6. Brislin,R.W.(1979).”Orientation programs for cross-cultural preparation.” In Marsella,A.J.,Tharp,R.G.,and Ciborowski,T.J.(Eds.),Perspectives on cross-cultural psychology.New York:Academic Press.
7. Copeland,L.and Griggs,L.(1985).Going International.New York,NY : Plume
8. Dupont,C.(1982).La Negociation : Conduite,theorie ,applications.Paris:Dalloz
9. Fisher,G.(1980) .International negotiation.Yarmouth ,ME:Intercultural Press
10. Hall,E.T.(1960).”The silent language in overseas business.”Harvard Business Review ,38 :1-3
11. Hampden-Turner,C. and Trompenaar,A.(1994).The Seven Cultures of Capitalism.New York,NY:Doubleday
12. Harris,P.R.and Moran,R.T.(1991).Managing Cultural Differences.Houston,TX:Gulf Publishing
13. Harrison J.Kline (1994).”Developing Successful Expatriate Managers: A Framework for the Structural Design and Strategic Alignment of Cross-Cultural Training Programs.” Human Resource Planning.Volume:17.Issue:3.
14. Hofstede,Geert(1998).”A Case for Comparing Apples with Oranges : International Differences in Values.”International Journal of Comparative Sociology.Volume :39.Issue :1.
15. Kluckhohn,F.,and Strodtbeck,F.L.(1961).Variations in Value Orientations.Evanston,IL:Row,Peterson.
16. Melin,L.(1992).”Internationalization as a strategy process.”Strategic Management Journal 13,99-118.
17. Plantey,A.(1980).La negociation internationale : Principles et methods.Paris:Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
18. Williams,Kenneth(2002).”Cross-Cultural Communication in the Music Studio.”American Music Teacher.Volume:52.Issue:1.August-September 2002.