CROSS CULTURAL COURSEWORK Task 2

Pablo Anchstegui Mezquita 11th April 2013

1. What is the rationale behind this research paper? This paper seeks to draw attention to the problem of communication between different cultures when doing business. It shows that these problems of communication are derived by the lack of models that guide effectively. Usually they are using general studio models applied in particular cases because they do not exist. This system is useful to warn and point defects in communication between cultures but it does not apply tools to fix it.

Many times experts believe that the general differences between the two cultures are a problem and do not realize that they may not. They need a more specific study.

Hofestede notices the differences in value orientations. There may be many differences and it is evident. There are aspects of culture, which can be measured relative to other cultures. Also Thomas says that countries and organizations have different cultural standards. The problem is that everybody is concerned about these differences but they dont solve problems. What experts should do is to focus more on potential difficulties, which is observed by doing detailed research in specific cultural encounters rather than applying the general theory. (Trainers use to identify 110 culture models out of 170 in the most important or known authors such as Hofstede, Hall, Trumpenaars and Hampden Turner). This shows the importance of broadening the sources of knowledge

2. According to the author, what are the conventionally assumed differences between UK and German business cultures?

There are two assumed main differences between German and British. The first one is what Hall calls it Context Communication. It can be Low or High. British culture has a higher context communication. This means that there is no need for coded information or to says thing in an explicit way. When they speak between them they say things that are assumed by members of the culture/organization. Not like the Germans who are Low Context Communication and believe in the reliance on words rather than non-verbal signals. Things must been said literally. This problem is

accentuated even more with the language problems Germans may have. British assume, as the international language is English (mother tongue for them) that everybody is going to understand them. At the beginning they try to speak slowly but after a while they start speaking more quickly and with slang words that other cultures may not understand. This clashes a lot with German Low Context Communication.

The other difference we can see between these two cultures is that British are extremely low uncertainty avoidance while Germans are mid-high. This difference causes a lot of misunderstanding between them. British can adapt easily to unknown situations, as Germans are more precise when talking and doing business. They assume that punctuality and precision come naturally while English think it has to be learned. Germans think that Britons are unpredictable, unreliable an even chaotic while English think that Germans are rigid, hierarchical and uncreative.

3. What are the limitations of cultural values dimensions (e.g. Hall and Hofstede) in explaining any difficulties in interaction between the German and British managers in this case study?

There is some limitation of cultural values dimensions when applied to this case. What did British expect from Germans matches in some way with Hofstedes and Halls theories. Germans found difficulties. But there is one that doesnt match with the contrastive studies. It is the lack of process orientation of the British, which was supposed on them but didnt seem to be a difference for the Germans. And those expectations were wrong and supposed a problem for them. Indirectness was predicted and supposed a problem for them. On the other hand Britons reported as differences many of the study of Hofestede and Hall but the strange thing is that those differences didnt suppose a problem for them. So this case shows that even differences can be detected doesnt mean to be a problem. So it is necessary to implement different methods so managers get to solve differences in communication between cultures.

4. What alternative models are proposed? There are alternative models, which can help to better understand what causes difficulties between different cultures. As I said before, a problem is the language. It is not only the British assumption that everybody will understand them because they speak in English with them. It happens in other cultures that dont speak English. As Thomas research done with Germans and Chinese, it shows that there are better ways to approach with differences. A good solution is what they did. They were asked to take the critical issues that other culture members had with them and try to find out the reason of that and vice versa. Then they will collect the information and translate it to the other language so they get to know the real problems they had.

Thomas speaks about Culture standards. Each country measures these standards according to their culture. So they realize the differences when they cross with other cultures because they are using different calibrated sets of instruments. Critical incidents can be collected and analyzed and culture standards identified applying a basic research.

The problem between Germans and British was that their behavior was contrary to the expectations they had from the others. Time is necessary to get to know other cultures because as they start to identify problems, these will increase because of their differences.

Applying the linguistic methods could be the solution to these problems. So we need to emphasize the importance of meta-communication and the negotiation of meaning in intercultural management interaction. More research in these fields will be the optimal solution.

References: Franklin, P. (2007) Differences and difficulties in intercultural management interaction. In: H. Kotthoff & H. Spencer-Oatey [eds.] (2007)

Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.263284.