4th September 2011 - UWE, Bristol Parkway.

Put this date in your diary

10 AM, 4^th September 2011

Day Event hosted by SIETAR UK and UWE, Bristol (Bristol Parkway)

Venue:

 In recognition of the significance of efficient communication in modern complex workplaces there has been an explosion of interest in cultural diversity and intercultural (IC) facilitation and training. Leading training companies in the UK report a steady growth in demand for training over the past few years and studies on IC skills/competence and IC training provide evidence suggesting that training is of benefit to trainees but also to the companies as a whole. Intercultural communication discourses have also become dominant in social life and found their way into policy documents (e.g. National Occupational Standards for Intercultural Working) referring to the skills an individual needs to have or acquire in order to interact ‘successfully’ and work ‘efficiently’ in multinational/multilingual contexts. What is particularly relevant to the IC field however is the scarcity of work bridging theory and practice. Accordingly the aim of this one day event is to bring academic research closer to professional practice and for the experience of the IC trainers and practitioners to feed back into academic research.

 

For further programme details please contact: Dr Jo Angouri (Jo.Angouri@uwe.ac.uk)

Preliminary programme (further details will be announced and circulated soon)

10.00 Conference Opening

10.30-11.30 Celia Roberts, King’s College, London

11.30-12.00 Coffee break

12.00-13.00 Carlos Gonzalez-Carrasco, Transcultural Business Group

13.00-14.00 Lunch break

14.00-15.00 Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini,  University of Warwick

15.00-16.00 George Simons, Diversophy

16.00-17.30: Round table and Coffee: Details tbc  

17.30. Conference Close

 

 

Registration: http://sietarukconference.eventbrite.com/

SIETAR members and BAAL conference delegates: £65

Non members: £90

Students: £35

 

Details on how delegates can register will be announced soon.  For registration queries or to join SIETAR, UK please contact

Matthew Hill (hillmatthew100@mac.com)

Please note BAAL delegates will need to register separately for this event.

 

http://sietarukconference.eventbrite.com/

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

7 Remote Leadership Skills Seminar

http://7remoteleadeshipskills.eventbrite.com/ 

Please join us for the “7 Leadership Skills for Managing Diverse Global Teams” Seminar Event - 7PM, 19^th July 2011 at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Bloomsbury Square, Holborn, London, WC1A 2 LP. UK.

How are you coping with your international colleagues? Why is communication sometimes so difficult? Does teamwork have to be so stressful? 

This will be a high-energy 3-hour event that will take you from curious to competent in the following areas… 

1. Channels for Powerful Communication – The main issue with remote teams is the narrowing of information exchange due to distance and the media. We will suggest methods to enhance your presence, impact and influence from a distance. 

2. Mind the Culture GAP! – We will provide a model of cultural difference that may surprise you! You will be shown a new way to look at cultural difference and describe new possibilities for creating trust across the bridge that is culture. 

3. Managing, Leading and Influencing - We will point out the critical differences between managing, leading and influencing and show you what works well and where others often get it so wrong. 

4. Building Trust Remotely – We will take a more scientific look at the 3 components of trust and see what you can do to guarantee rapport, relationship growth and reciprocity. 

5. Dealing with Conflict - We will show you 3 ways to stop the painful disputes and how to turn around hot and cold conflicts. 

6. From Confusion to Value - In this seminar you will be shown some of the advanced techniques used by the biggest global companies to make diversity positive and productive for all. 

7. Remote Moderation - We will demonstrate great ways to chair remote meetings, grow trust and accountability and get your team moving forward, in the way that makes sense for you and promotes accountability and empowerment within your remote team. 

How does that sound? – Can you afford NOT to be there? 

Refreshments provided with a networking break after an hour. (3 hour event) 

Tickets are £37 each with an early-bird offer of £27! Space is limited, so take action TODAY! 

Book now! at http://7remoteleadeshipskills.eventbrite.com/

Who should come along? 

If you are working with a remote team or within a diverse team, then this evening event will help you get engagement, diffuse tension and get to super-performance within your team. 

Please feel free to call if you have any queries on 07813 760 711

What’s in it for you? 

This is a unique and comfortable opportunity to measure your readiness and ability in dealing with difference and distance. You will raise your awareness of your “cultural blind spots” and, in so doing, free yourself to become much more effective in managing remotely and getting the job done. 

We look forward to welcoming you on the 19^th July at 7PM. 

Look at the video 

Speaker Profile 

Matthew Hill

Matthew Hill is an experienced Leadership trainer, coach, public speaker and consultant working in 

Matthew has held the positions of Managing Director, HR Practice Leader, Client Operations Manager and Team Leader for two long-standing global executive search and HR consultancies. 

His experience extends beyond the UK and the Continent to include Asia, Central Asia and a 6-year tour in the Czech Republic where he held a regional role for Central and Eastern Europe. Here he successfully shaped project requirements, designed and lead international training and consultancy assignments.

Matthew graduated from London University (Psychology and Life Sciences) and has professional qualifications in advertising, marketing and intercultural training as well as extensive in-house training and development experience. He is a licensed practitioner of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

He regularly writes, broadcasts (both radio and podcast) and speaks for the BBC, the APU in Cambridge, Newcastle University, the Belgian and Hungarian Embassies, the CIPD, The British, Australian and New Zealand Chambers of Commerce, UKTI, the Trade Council of Iceland, the Institute of Directors  - IOD, The Tomas Bat’a University in Zlin, Czech Republic, HR Director magazine, European CEO magazine, Human Capital Management magazine, International Trade magazine, International Trade Forum magazine, Global Connection magazine, HR Review magazine, The Personnel Zone website, Construction News, SIETAR, The Association of European Businesses, IIC Partners, IIR Conferences (Globally Mobile Executives) and the ECIA (Engineering and Construction).

He had recorded a number of CD’s including Coaching For Change (2009) and written a number of books including Step Up to Leadership (2009), Kill Conflict DEAD! (2010) and Coaching for Change (2010). His newest book on young and new leadership will appear later in 2011.

He now lives in London and is Chairman of the charity - the Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research – SIETAR UK.   

Matthew Hill

07813 760 711

Book your space now; http://7remoteleadeshipskills.eventbrite.com/

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

As of Sept 15, 2010, I stepped down as the Global Fund for Women's President & CEO. I remain a Senior Advisor. I am currently a Visiting Scholar and Fellow at Stanford University's Center for Democracy,Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) as well as the Center for Philanthropy and Civil Society (PACS). You may reach me at knramdas@gmail.com. Thank you for your solidarity & support!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

As of Sept 15, 2010, I stepped down as the Global Fund for Women's President & CEO. I remain a Senior Advisor. I am currently a Visiting Scholar and Fellow at Stanford University's Center for Democracy,Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) as well as the Center for Philanthropy and Civil Society (PACS). You may reach me at knramdas@gmail.com. Thank you for your solidarity & support!

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Americans are Different - Perceptions of American business people from a British perspective

The 4^th of July

Whilst speaking to someone in the States on the telephone last summer I was asked if I was going to celebrate the 4^th of July holiday, which was due in a day or so. I was taken aback for a moment by the question? I thought to myself, “But why would I? I mean after all, we (the British) were the ones that lost the War of Independence weren’t we?”

I don’t think that the full historical context was uppermost in the person’s mind when they asked me that question. They were simply spreading the ‘goodwill’ that the 4^th of July event can evoke in the States.

Holidays and the celebration of them are not the only differences between cultures. In fact, along with national food dishes they are often the easier parts to understand and join in with.

Business communication

It can be a very different story when we examine the way we communicate in the global world of business.

In the U.S., an extremely vast country, there is a surprising amount of homogeneity; especially in the way that business is conducted. Core values that can drive behaviour in the American office (as well as in US subsidiaries overseas) are a strong focus on getting the task done, a strong sense and pride in individual achievement and an all-encompassing attitude to time and efficiency. Speed is king. There is, as well, often a greater comfort with uncertainty - bouncing back is often seen as much more important than getting every detail right, before moving forward.

Language

American business language can, to a Brit. And to other non-Americans, seem powerful, assertive and dynamic. But enjoying it and understanding it sufficiently to be able to respond are very different things.

Sports language at the business table

The baseball and American football language that flies around the table at meetings can be difficult to make sense of without a rudimentary knowledge of the games they refer to. To touch base, play ball, get a home run, coming from left field, batting a thousand, has two strikes against him and of course the need to cover all the bases are but some of the colourful phrases in common usage. Its use in business reflects the need of Americans to use language that is full of energy and vitality. Where better to take it from that from two very exciting sports.

Fair play & dodgy wickets

Where the British may reference sport in a business setting it more likely to refer to fair play, a level playing field, giving someone a sporting chance or a dodgy wicket. This use of sporting language reflects a much more measured and conversely less dynamic atmosphere around the table at meetings.
And divided by a common language is only the half of it.

From the others’ perspective

Looking at the reality of how might we (Brits. & Americans) may see and experience each other, some of the following observations may be useful.
Some Americans may see the Brits, as: cynical, cold, distant, argumentative, implacable, distrustful of each other, pessimistic, out of touch, over-cautious, lacking spontaneity, bureaucratic, secretive, uncommitted to results, autocratic.

And Brits may see the Americans, as:naive, childish, superficial, insincere, lacking in conviction or depth, foolish, aggressive, workaholics, scatterbrained and undisciplined, small-minded, poor judges of character, over-reaching of themselves and of course wasteful.

Making sense of it all

The American friendliness and openness which is designed to promote trust as a proactive and constructive approach to life and business may be seen by Brits as somehow naive or childish. We have learnt through our long and often bitter history that to trust less is probably safer. One is less likely to lose ones’ head either in real terms or figurative terms. Americans sees this attitude as cynical and pessimistic. The Brits see it as necessary realism.

Americans are, on the whole much more spontaneous that Brits. They like to ‘brainstorm’ their way through the problems and challenges of life and business, the more ideas the better. The Brits. see this as rather undisciplined, disorganised and unpredictable and highly dangerous.

In such uncertainty one never knows what may end up being suggested!

To a Brit. it is much better to prepare precisely what you wish to say, choose your words very carefully, in a ‘blame culture’ like ours a person will be held accountable for what they say.

Americans see this as overly cautious, guarded and lacking in spontaneity. For Americans this dull British approach can almost crush the desire for freedom and creativity. How repressed says one side – how immature says the other.

Changing times

But things are changing. The truth is that in the business world, we in Europe, have progressively borrowed from America more and more cultural traits, business practices, idiomatic expressions and the language of business communication than we may realise or be willing to admit.

In some ways we have all become a little bit American around the office or on the shop floor.

Perceptions from the past

In a recent research project the following question was asked:
What negative stereotypes/prejudices about people from the US have you heard?
These following answers were given by Americans in Europe about their own culture.

What the Americans mentioned about themselves:

• fat
• ugly
• loud
• impolite
• impatient
• pushy/rude
• bossy
• ignorant (of world events)
• don't understand irony/ have a sense of humour
• arrogant
• rich
• spend too much money
• racially bigoted
• language-impaired
• self-centred
• overly individualistic
• don't work vary hard
• not on time for anything

The above may be comforting confirmation to the Europeans of how they believe the Americans really are but the current reality is always caught in a time warp of comfortable stereotypes that say more about the past than the present.

Today’s Americans

The Americans who travel the world today on business are a very different group from those that came over to Europe in the 60’s. Today they much more savvy and attuned to the cultural differences around them. They may still prefer the American way of doing things but they are increasingly more open to difference and to experimentation – if it can be proved to work. Perhas it is time to update the stereotypes.

Richard Cook is an intercultural trainer and coach and can be contacted on richardcook@global-excellence.com or on +44 (0)20 8579 1980

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The Bulgaria – US Gap. Is it a Bridge Too Far? 

I was recently asked to help with a simple cultural training programme that has rapidly grown into a complex and vivid example of how relatively sympathetic cultures and countries can throw up major gaps in values and understanding. 

The Scenario 

The task was to assist a Bulgarian call centre team to improve the quality of their soft skills and politeness as they served a US customer base (remotely.) 

On the surface the mission seemed achievable and straightforward. The Bulgarians would be shown US norms of behaviour around US good manners and expressions of appreciation for their loyalty as customers. It did not, at first, seem overly complex. 

By the way – the team were performing well as a call centre, dealing with technical queries, arriving on time and getting the call centre job done to a high standard. 

Then came some details, about what incidents had occurred and, suddenly, this looked like a much bigger job. 

The Cultural Issues

Maybe you can start to imagine the mismatch in communication based on the different worlds and different cultural values of the two countries. 

Bulgaria was under the Soviet spell for a long time and still has a special relationship with Russia. The synthetic, peach culture; “How are you this fine day?” and “Thank you so much for your custom” do not trip lightly from the Bulgarian tongue and there is no reason why they should. 

Under communism, profit was illegal and customers were just fellow travelers in an equal world of scarcity. If you were brought up with no choice, why should a customer choosing to call you, and not someone else, matter? – To the company that spent $$millions they need that loyalty. For you the one choice shopper, it is fairly meaningless. 

In communist societies in general and Bulgarian communities in particular, a relationship is an important thing. It takes time to exchange, build trust and establish that the other party are unlikely to do you harm with a betraying phone call to the authorities. Add to this the East - West propaganda about the US being an “Imperialist, free-market capitalist, indulgent consumer society that is over-bloated and corrupt”, and you may begin to see where the gaps appear between desired behaviour and actual behaviour. 

When the Bulgarian call centre operative takes the next call, they are fully aware of how little, compared to the caller, they have, how limited their immediate options are, and how unconsciously privileged the caller is. 

From this starting point it is easier to see that saying “thank you” a lot may begin to stick in the Bulgarian throat. That and the fact that smiling at a stranger is seen as a sign of insanity in Bulgaria! 

As the assignment unfolded, the parallels between an old oppressive authoritarian regime and a free market democracy became more and more clear. 

Add in the technical reality of the call centre operative being monitored and recorded by supervisors and the communist irony becomes almost absurd. 

So, What is the answer? What is the solution? How can we reconcile the called with the caller and make something beautiful, profitable and sustainable? 

More later… 

Matthew Hill is an intercultural trainer and leadership coach. Telephone 07813 760 711

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I do check this email for matters related to the Global Fund,but can be reached much more quickly at knramdas@stanford.edu or at knramdas@gmail.com. Thank you for your solidarity & support!

**The Global Fund changed its email system on September 20th. If you sent me an email prior to the 20th, please resend it to my Stanford or Gmail account.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

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

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

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. 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

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

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

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

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

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

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

 – 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/

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

June 3, 2010

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Many congratulations to our Colleague from the Transcultural Business Group who has successfully accomplished climbing the seven peaks of the world. Ania Lichota, who was born in Poland, has just reached the summit of Mount Everest and sent intercultural greetings from the roof top of the world.

In 2005, living and working in Russia, Ania decided to climb the highest peak on every continent for herself and to raise funds for UNICEF. "I do it because only through pushing my comfort zone I can develop and grow as an individual and be able to add value to the world."

Ania has mentored and coached quite a number of people to go beyond what they thought was possible. She does public presentations and inspirational talks to raise aspirations and ability through sharing her mountaineering experiences.

To help Ania raise funds for the Sarswati Foundation please click here

See more photos here: http://www.ania-lichota.info/7summits/everest-pics.htm

Well done, Ania. Our heartiest congratulations go to you!

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

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 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

To start the ball rolling, and to make my position clear, I quote the Summer 2009 edition of Springboard, the official journal of UK Trade and Investment, the British Government’s organisation for promoting British business worldwide.

“Improving language skills could add up to £21 billion per year to the UK economy.”

“ ... businesses that are proactive in their use of foreign languages achieve, on average, 45% more export sales.”

It is clear that, at a time when it is becoming difficult to learn a foreign language at university, with no compulsory language teaching in schools, it is more and more important that British SMEs, in particular, invest in the future by training staff in relevant foreign language use.

In 2006 a report was released, sponsored by the EU, into the effects of language skills on the economy of Europe. The ELAN project, led by Professor Stephen Hagen, thoroughly researched language use in relation to won and lost contracts by SMEs, starting from the premises that small companies are less efficient than larger companies, and that exporting brings hidden and unquantifiable benefits, such as increased technical knowledge, cost savings and more efficient processes.

This report surveyed 2,000 SMEs – 11% of which claimed that they had lost a significant contract owing to a lack of language skills. While exact figures were hard to discover, those who indicated a value of the contract suggested that £33 million worth of contracts were lost in 2005/6 because of lack of language skills – and this survey only looked at SMEs, although one of the side effects of the research was to conclude that, among larger companies, “... demand for skills in languages other than English was greater than the demand for English itself.” (ELAN Project, 2006.)

This suggests that our European partners are negotiating in the languages of their markets, and not, as we British have assumed, using English as a lingua franca; indeed, the main final conclusion of the report was that an SME that was prepared to invest the time and money in developing a language strategy and encouraging language skills could expect to maintain a 44% higher export proportion than a comparable organisation without such a strategy. The UK was found to have the lowest percentage of companies prepared to offer staff language training. 90% of Czech companies, 76% of Austrian and 70% of Swedish offered staff language training on a regular basis, while the UK was second from bottom with 10%. (ELAN Project, 2006.)

This ELAN report confirms the findings of a survey in 2004 by the British Chambers of Commerce, which discovered a specific link between the importance an export manager placed on using local language skills in business and annual turnover. Those who spent time and energy learning the language were much more likely to sustain export success and negotiate longer-term export contracts. (British Chambers of Commerce, 2003, 2004.)

One surprising finding of both the ELAN study and the British Chambers of Commerce report was that, despite the role of English online, other languages, such as Chinese, Russian, Spanish and Portuguese, are becoming comparatively more important, owing to the economic importance of the so-called BRIC countries. (ELAN Project, 2006.)

SMEs are more vulnerable in times of economic difficulty because there is far less room to make cost savings, and so the surest way of ensuring survival is to capitalise on existing opportunities and maximise growth. A company with a product for export can make the most of its export opportunities by implementing a comprehensive programme of language training which encompasses all levels of the business; there is no point having a fluent French speaker in sales if the receptionist cannot direct a French-speaking caller to the correct person because of a lack of language skills.
 
A quick word on ways of learning languages:  without doubt, the most effective and long-lasting way to learn a foreign language is to start as an infant embedded in the native atmosphere of the language, attending school and conversing with peers in the “foreign” language. No less true is the fact that this is not an option for most SMEs beyond a certain element of luck in recruitment.
 
Albert Menut, in a research piece for the US Army Language School, advocated immersion/intensive courses (Menut, 1953):  these offer a compromise solution which satisfies our impatience and desire for instant results by combining efficiency of time and effort with a close reproduction of the way infants learn their first language, through repetition and simple explanations embedded in the language itself, rarely reverting to the native language. So-called ‘drip-feed’ language programmes rarely succeed, especially in business. An hour a week, or even two, is given too low a priority, and the time between lessons is too long to ensure that the second language can ever become part of the consciousness of the individual and thereby encourage fluent use.

(Originally published at http://bit.ly/3gVBJ Relocate Magazine)

Bibliography

British Chambers of Commerce. (2003, 2004). The Impact of Foreign Languages on British Business. LSC

ELAN Project. (2006). Effects on the European Union Economy of Shortages of Foreign Language Skills in Enterprise

Menut, A. D. (1953). Language Courses: Content and Techniques. The Modern Language Journal, 37 (4), 189–194

Permalink | Leave a comment  »