The World At Work

Conflict Across Cultures Series

By Matthew Hill  

Have you had enough time to think about the Oranges puzzle from a couple of weeks ago? 

Here is the background to remind you… 

If one party wants to grow orange trees and the other party has a child to nourish, (and there are 2 oranges), what is the solution? 

Take a minute and try to think of a reasonable solution…

How you think and what type of answer you come up with will reflect your influences, your programming and your thought patterns now.

Did you take a side and try for a Win – Lose, distributive arrangement? E.g. The mother wears down the farmer with the baby’s crying and gets both oranges!

Did you take a moral stance? Did you abandon logic or move away from an equal starting point?

To get the best solutions you have to attempt the impossible – to transcend your culture, your learning and your patterns of behaviour.

The principles of negotiation help us to achieve this as they have a magical synergistic quality to them anyway.

By centering on interests and needs, by looking at collaborative strategies, by acknowledging difference and individual motivation, an optimal solution can be arrived at.

In this example, the farmer has need of the pips and the child can benefit from the orange juice. They can both have all of the resource they need most!

How will you apply this learning next week?

Until the next time…

Matthew Hill is a Leadership Trainer and Executive Coach - +44 7813 760 711

Intercultural trainers and academics are nervous of each other.  Academia either produces more and more complicated models or more and more vocal criticisms of the theoretical approaches of the trainers.  Trainers on the other hand are accused of mis-applying models and theories, or ignoring latest developments and are branded culturist and reductionist.

The best trainers, and the most resourceful academics, are more open minded and can take lessons from each other. 

Which is why I dare to write a short article on pragmatics, or more specifically what pragmatics can bring to the debate about intercultural communication.

Intercultural communication studies are at some stage bound by their very nature eventually to concentrate on communication failure, examining the reasons for misunderstandings and miscommunications, verbal and non-verbal CITATION Sie08 \l 2057  (Sierra, 2008).  Taking the view expressed by Scollon and Scollon (2001) that intercultural competence is the ability to communicate with

                people in social interaction with each other  CITATION Sco01 \l 2057 (Scollon, 2001)

we can state that all communication is intercultural.  Taking the definition of pragmatics as explained by Atkinson, Kilby and Roca (1988:217; in Grundy 1995) that pragmatics focuses on the distinction between the literal meaning of a speaker’s words, and what the speaker may intend to mean by those words, we can see that pragmatics is one of the essential tools we have at our disposal to examine intercultural training. 

When speaking to familiar people who share the same native language we can reasonably assume that the majority of our talk is understood, (for example in  CITATION Mol05 \l 2057 (Molinksy, 2005) when, as in the case of intercultural communication we are talking across language or international borders we can presume that communication breakdown is more likely to occur. 

A communication exchange can only be successful where it takes place within the realm of the participants’ shared knowledge and experience.  As both speaker and hearer have to make presumptions about what this “common ground” entails, and within the cooperative principle the speaker must assume that the common knowledge is shared by all participants in the talk.  However, crucially the speaker can never be sure that this is the case  CITATION Bos06 \l 2057 (Bosco, Bucciarelli, & Bara, 2006).  We can therefore deduce that one of the main causes of miscommunication is relying on false assumptions.

If you’re still reading, a more practical approach:

When you go into a client meeting, think about all the presumptions you make. 

1.        Language

Most meetings are conducted in English, but how many business people check in advance, or even better, apologise if they are unable to conduct the full meeting in their hosts’ language?

2.        Intentions

We presume that we have similar intentions – in other words if we are there to present a proposal, we have a reasonable expectation that there is some chance of success. 

3.        Understanding

We have an instinctive ability to interpret verbal and non-verbal messages, and for clarifying meaning.  However these are based on our own personal experience which may differ significantly from those of our partners in interaction.  At a very simplistic level 99.9% percent (rough guess) equate BBC with the British Broadcasting Corporation, however my daughter knows the BBC as the Better Behaviour Centre at her school (fortunately she has no personal experience of it!). 

Usually the context of a conversation gives us good clues as to what it means, but if she were to come home saying she had been to the BBC today and was then distracted by a phone call, she would get away with her crime completely without having uttered a single untruth – yet it is clear that I have been deceived. 

In an international context, personal experiences are likely to be much more varied, and therefore conversations will have a much smaller area of common ground and higher levels of misunderstanding.  With remote communications and slangy emails abundant, we need to double check our understanding instinct

4.        Rules of engagement

Life is made up of rules, and communicative interactions even more so.  The problem is no one has written the rules down.  We nearly always manage to avoid swearing in front of our parents or at an important business meeting.  We always manage to avoid addressing our closest friend as Mr Y or Ms Z (maybe occasionally with irony...).  We understand at an instinctive level when a conversation is over, when it is our turn to talk, whom we can interrupt and who cannot be interrupted – these rules are part of our transition from babyhood to adulthood – we often term those who cannot adhere to these rules as “immature” – they have not learned the correct way. 

However we assume that these underlying rules are universal, or at least that OUR rules are best and not to be questioned.   I have no idea whether these pictures are genuine or not but they illustrate the point better than me http://bit.ly/d0en4l

In summary these 4 points are scratching the surface of what we can gain as trainers from pragmatics without delving into overly complicated methodological debates and arguments.  What better way to justify training content than referring to well researched academic texts that support our training activities.  Austin in 1962 was one of the first to  look at the intentions behind utterances, and by identifying the stages of locution, illocution and perlocution he implicitly recognises that what we actually say and the effect it has on our partner in discourse may be two (at least) very different things .  Dascal makes the important point that participants in conversation must comply with two essential duties: to make oneself understood, and to understand (Dascal, 1999).  As part of those duties, interlocutors make every effort to ignore superficial, insignificant “errors” in grammar, pronunciation in order to maintain a smooth flow of conversation – if we can promote the ways in which we can make ourselves understood and in return make it easier for  us to understand others then we are achieving the goal of intercultural training

If we, as trainers want to provide training on avoiding intercultural misunderstandings then we should not ignore those who have gone before. 

Conflict Across Cultures

By Matthew Hill 

When you next think you are in conflict with someone with a different background, how do you feel?

Do you feel “first world” guilt? Do you ignore the differences and judge the other party by your own standards and codes? 

It is not easy, but applying culture theory can help. 

When in deadlock, there are several pathways out. They centre, not on position but interest; not on win – lose but strategy; not on hogging scarce resources but integrating needs; and not on “right-wrong” but recognizing the values, drivers and believes of the other party and coming to a respectful and rational arrangement. 

If one party wants to grow orange trees and the other party has a child to nourish, (and there are 2 oranges), what is the solution? 

How you answer will reflect your cultural programming, your power and your conflict style. 

Have a think… More anon. 

Matthew Hill is a Leadership Trainer and Executive Coach - +44 7813 760 711

The World is Not Enough

by Matthew Hill 

Intellectually, the first world would say, we have a global economy, shared responsibility for climate change and that every country has a sporting chance to compete in the World Cup. 

I want to pose a simple question; can humans think globally?

During the World Cup, we have all been passed by cars sporting one or two polyester flags on plastic poles attached to their doors. This is a symbol of patriotism and national identity. This is evidence of people wishing to belong to a group. In this example, that group is their country. 

Again there is a question; is there something for humans to think nationally about? Is a nation a useful or usable social unit? 

I want to attack this from another perspective. If we look at history, maps and diversity then our understanding of a country being one fixed place with one fixed people falls apart pretty rapidly. 150 years ago Italy and Germany were not countries.   Belgium and Pakistan were made up.   In London, there are more than 300 different ethnic groups and a quarter of the children born now have parents who were born elsewhere. There is nothing very fixed about this.

An interesting reason for countries existing, is the need for us to feel we have something in common with those around us. The definition of the space around us various. 1000 years ago it would have been how far you can walk in the day. 150 years ago it would be how far you can travel by train in the day. Nowadays the BBC seems to report from anywhere and everywhere.

Have we invented countries to simplify and digest difference so that we feel safer; so that our fear and stress levels are reduced? Was not the EU and the “Eurozone” formed as an economic bridge of cooperation to foster the prosperity of people and therefore avert a repeat of the scarcity-based causes of World War II?

So the larger bodies - the EU, countries or the carbon space are a fiction that allows expression of our higher drives and goals.   Intellectually, we can talk about dollars and carbon but emotionally, we need to feel secure enough at home in order that this debate continues and does not become too selfish and nasty. 

There are a lot of assumptions that must be made for this to occur and we must swallow and accept the fiction of countries in order to make progress. 

Country theory is written by the winners and has been undermined by the sub-prime American banking crisis, which could still take us all down. When time are tough, we think more about ourselves and a lot less about others.

Even before America’s partial economic meltdown, most of the world could not participate in the economic prosperity that the few took for granted.

There is not one world. There is not a global anything and countries are an artifice, an idea, and a convenience. 

Is there another way to promote healthy human behaviour by the “haves” and to protect the interests of the “have-nots”? And how can we avoid the negative basic drivers taking over; competition, domination, and war?

Food for thought.

Matthew Hill trains groups in Raising Cultural Awareness and International Teamwork. 07813 760 711

Why is Cultural Perception Never Pure?

By Matthew Hill

We will never fully transcend our cultural influences to have an objective view.

Everybody is trapped by their history, community, education, language, family upbringing and body.

Our five (or 8 senses) take in everything around us. If this information were to be made readily available to us, we would be paralysed and blinded; swamped by data overload.

Instead, we filter and look for patterns and repetitions that allow shortcuts, shorthand and second-guessing. This is why optical illusions are so strong – we have been trained to bring the assumptions from our past learning to the present situation. The effect is shocking. Just how much of our experience of the world is a guess based on learnt patterns and particularly past pain.

We are brainwashed by early rules – Can you remember what your Mother told you never to do? We are heavily influenced by the kindness and charm of those with influence and proximity – What was your favourite subject at school? Now answer this. Does this correspond to your favourite subject? For many the answer will be YES. Something to think about.

Our peers have influenced us to an extraordinary extend using social approval – What we like, don’t like, our political views and even our life choices. Many of you will, in effect ending up marrying your “BLIND” date, i.e. it will have been programmed or arranged for you, by your buddies!

Society only functions because rules exist and they are subtly policed by…the members of that society. The chant of “the greater good” in the film Hot Fuzz is pretty near the mark.

Our language is a shorthand and its structures and forms also limit our permitted experience of the world – German speakers listen because they have to. The operator verb occurs on at the end of a long sentence. Some Asian scripts have pictorial characters making the readers into super-efficient visual clue spotters.

The result is that our cultural truths are held in the words and noises we use, the pictures we see and create and the way we move and hold our bodies (Non Verbal Communication.)

The (pre-programmed) pessimist will see this as a tragic joke of pretend freedoms and false individualism.

The (pre – programmed) optimist will see this as a liberating lesson in the meaninglessness of everything, that enables the possibility of infinite creation.

Something to think about (within the limits of your culture, of course.)

Matthew Hill

Leadership Trainer and Executive Coach

matthew.hill@hillnetworks.com

07813 760 711

 – How difficult can it be?

By Matthew Hill 

A significant amount of overseas investment is wasted each year because there are invisible core differences between the American and British cultures. These are not always appreciated by corporations and leaders. Consequently the result can be culture clash. The damage to US – UK relationships leads to an absence of trust, the erosion of communication and cooperation and failure to achieve the common goal. When management time is applied to the ensuing crisis often only the symptoms are tackled.

So, what are the differences, how did they occur and what can we do to get over the shock and pain of culture clash?

Time is Money

The first obvious difference concerns pace, speed of response and the choice between urgent and important actions. In the US time is money. When the Founding Fathers and the settlers were staking land claims and working together to create a survivable environment time was life death. The threat was from starvation and exposure. The solution was food warmth and shelter. Critical survival decisions were taken quickly and persistently allowing the best prepared to make it through to spring.

Man has largely tamed the extreme effects of climate and scarcity of food but, whilst the enemy is different, (competition, cheap foreign labour, commoditization of mature products etc,) modern fears and behaviours are comparable. Money and wealth are now taken as signs of survival and   success. Rather than “appropriate” actions being taken, the UK view can be that, for the US, any action is preferable to none at all.

For some an hour of scheduled time has a dollar value and correspondingly a missed hour has a dollar cost.

Power and How it is Used 

If we take another dimension of difference – hierarchy - we can see an historical difference in the source of power, how power is manifest and the different ways in which it is perceived today.

The newly settled America had sheriffs and Mayors. Having been meritocratically elected or chosen they had real status and power but were also accountable to the mood of the crowd. This can easily be related to the modern US CEO. Whilst in power and being successful, they had authority and permission to give direct orders and put the company’s staff under pressure to act and perform to standards they have set and for the people to make personal sacrifices and take risks to get to those goals.

It could be a black and white existence with a large price paid for failure. If we look at the pharmaceutical, investment banking or automotive businesses we see that management styles can be explicit, direct and commanding in nature. Teams are expected to decide rapidly and take action quickly. Efficiency and deadlines are critical. It is “hard work now” for dream of “rewards in the future”.

The employee is automatically expected to have values that fit with the corporate ethos- ambition, intensity and focus and the desire for salary, bonus, promotion and ever more responsibility. Status is important and is measured by title, salary, office and trappings.

What is the solution to these contrasting styles? Can a foreign manager in the UK have it their way regarding reporting, deadlines, open communication and measures of quality and customer satisfaction? 

Can an American leader develop a UK team to have a sense of dynamism, accountability and pace that would match the US model? 

 So it's impossible, right?

The symptoms and differences are shocking but not insurmountable. Britain and America would not enjoy such high amounts of mutual investment if it could not be made to work and to work well.

The shock experienced by US Leadership as they enter the UK is probably more extreme than the underlying differences themselves.

At this point it may be useful to avoid the stereotype trap and that of being judgmental. It is a waste of time and talent to judge either nation as good or bad, easy or difficult, right or wrong. They are simply different.

Post imperial Britain is a complex and confused place. We have lost our superpower status, our world ranking, and much of our credibility as innovators and pioneers.  We have lost our manufacturing base, our certainty and comfort. No longer are there jobs for life with large British firms paying good pensions at the end of a predictable career at the age of 60 or 65. As a nation we do not have a clear single identity, threat or goal. We have post – Empire confusion and nothing to unite against.

There are, though, fundamental differences. The US is imperial, the UK is post - imperial, the US is still a superpower, the UK is not. The US has a short history the UK a long one and the US has a Presidential system the UK a Monarchy.

How do the British do business?

Regarding feedback British managers will soften criticism, harsh realities, the appraisal or review process to the point where it difficult to directly detect what is being said. Difficult issues are not tackled in a straightforward manner but by writing lines that must be read between or by starting a whispering campaign around the coffee machine. 

The key difference though is subtle and unconscious. The UK is a relationship-based country. It’s who you know and who’s in the gang, on the inside, in the club or “one of us.”

Pace, action and urgency are not ranked as highly in UK culture companies. It is more about pragmatically getting to the result “somehow.”

Class?

Finally class, though disguised, is alive and well in the UK. Upper class values tell us that hard work is acceptable only if it does not show. That to look as if achieving something has cost you effort undermines the thing you are trying to achieve. The modern version of this is COOL.

We can quickly build up a picture of just how far apart our cultures actually are. 

What tools can help?

Everyone is free to use the knowledge that relationships are core to UK commercial life.

We need good manners, indirect speech and equal status communication to break through, bond and to form UK working relationships that are robust. This is the most powerful tool in translating US objectives into UK delivery.

By employing small talk, active listening and coaching techniques based on eliciting facts and answers from the person sitting opposite you the foreign manager will get a lot further than by giving commands or talking about shareholder value. If we can mobilize an employee using that employee’s own resources we will have created an empowered, independent and proud UK worker who will contribute more. 

The American manager, when shocked to discover that he has 10 or a hundred of these tricky Brits to manage, can begin by looking out for individuals that might bridge the cultural gap. These people will be identified by their values which will seem closer to home. Test them, recruit them and invest the most precious resource in them – MANAGEMENT TIME. They can spread the message in a UK friendly manner. They can also test the temperature and tell if things have gone too far.

During the US leader’s 6 - month or 3 – year assignment in the UK he can make an impact with the corporate team. It will not be achieved by shouting at them like a recruiting sergeant or by asking them about company vision and mission statements. It will come about by adjusting his communication styles by 5 or 10% to radically change the relationship with the British team. The start may seem slow and painful but the reward will be worth it as cooperation begins, and differences are leverage to create a positive outcome.

So? 

Adjusting tone, pace and vocabulary should make the leader more effective as his amplified message creates rapport and a strong platform for useful dialogue.

Without engagement, relationship and trust, and outsider should not expect to be successful in effecting change in an established British team. However using the techniques described above it should be possible to begin to break through and to learn something about how we can continue to develop communication and leaderships skills to be ever more effective both with foreign culture teams and our own.

Matthew Hill is a Leadership Trainer and Intercultural Coach who aims to provoke but never offend (Unless he does.) Telephone 07813 760 711     He can be heard, now, at; http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/MatthewHill/

June 3, 2010

The British like to work in teams and identify with personal commitment to a group. Individual initiatives are generally taken following a group consensus to proceed. However, there is also a strong feeling of individual accountability for implementation.  Most managers aspire to be effective, decisive and above all ‘fair’. Fairness in relationships is more important than closeness (the Brits overriding value system lies in the concept of ‘fair play’).

Meetings start on time and conclude on time. A meeting without a concrete decision or result is seen as a ‘waste of time’.  Unlike many other cultures, meetings are generally informal in style and begin and end with social conversation.  Participants are expected to make a contribution, not necessarily just in their own specialist area. Opinions are encouraged and listened to.  Advance papers may not have been read thoroughly before the meeting (unlike the French, German and Finns). 

Although English is spoken all over the world, many cultures need an interpreter to understand if the British are saying “Yes”. Wanting always to be polite and to have time to think, a standard business response is, “We’ll think about it” or “How interesting”. Communication is open, somewhat indirect, impersonal and detailed. It can be contradictory; but it should never be personal. Northern Europeans often fail to understand the true meaning of British communication as it is not as direct as theirs. Humour is frequently used as a defence mechanism, often in the form of self-depreciation or irony and can become quite sarcastic during disagreements or arguments.

Presentations are structured and formal, but usually have an element of humour. Nowadays, an element of entertainment is expected.  Understatement is very common. Brits hate over emphasis (hyperbole), they see it as boastful and pushy. Sometimes Brits appear less enthusiastic than they really are. Don’t give British people a ‘hard sell’ or what they refer to as an ‘American sell’. They dislike it, seeing it as manipulative and pushy.  They’ll walk away. The audience will expect to ask questions at the end.

Best tip for working with the British: beware of the ‘stiff upper lip’ which gives the British the appearance of formality and detachment, they traditionally use this when faced with difficult situations.

Dr Deborah Swallow is a leading authority on intercultural communication and international business practices. Follow the links for further information on her seminars, conference speaking or advice on cultural differences. 

Related articles:

Cultural Understanding and British Values

Doing Business in 15 European Countries