Intercultural fluency: A crash course for the busy manager
(First published in Focus on Change Management Issue 50, December 1998/January 1999)

by Jonathan Steffen

Abstract

The globalisation of business is bringing together individuals and organisations from widely differing cultural backgrounds and with widely differing cultural expectations. Inevitably, however, most of us are only conversant with the norms of our own culture.

Intercultural specialist Jonathan Steffen explains how by increasing our awareness of the dynamics of culture in the workplace we can learn to tackle unfamiliar professional challenges with heightened confidence.

Wanted: Dynamic, results-driven professional (30 to 35 years old) with at least ten years' experience of international project management.

Fluent in French and German, and with English as your native language, you will have spent a minimum of five years working overseas in a blue-chip environment, where you will have demonstrated creativity, self-reliance and a high degree of flexibility while achieving exceptional financial results. Your articulacy, stamina and excellent interpersonal skills make you an outstanding team leader as well as a first-class negotiator.

A qualification (degree level or higher) in International Studies is expected of the successful candidate, who will ideally have additional credentials in the interpretation and implementation of European patent law and US GAAP.

Even on a crisp and bright October morning, with a cerulean blue sky and hint of woodsmoke on the crystal air, the most self-confident thirtysomething in the world might blanch at the above job description. And even the canniest fortysomething, expertly rejigging his or her CV with a view to a prudent career move, might have difficulty packing quite such a breadth of international experience onto that carefully laid-out sheet or two of A4.

Exaggerated though the above (fictitious) description may be, it highlights a paradox of modern working life. The upwardly mobile manager of the late 1990s is expected to demonstrate not only professional qualifications and linguistic expertise but also intercultural competence. A degree in architecture is good; but it’s doubly good if it was obtained from a Swiss as well as a British university. Expertise in IT management is desirable, but it becomes much more intriguing if it was acquired in the context of cross-border projects. And of course everyone in business has to get their sums right, but they will really impress their superiors if they can relate those figures to the current performance of financial markets in South-East Asia.

Short of renouncing sleep forever, cloning ourselves or indulging in at least a modicum of intercontinental dematerialization, there is little most of us can do to conjure those global laurels onto our home-grown CVs. There is, however, a great deal we can do to improve our awareness of the way different cultures operate in the workplace in order to approach the challenges of the global business environment with heightened confidence.

The changing meaning of ‘culture’

In recent years, the term ‘culture’ has come to be used in radically new ways. Whereas in the past it was generally used in a prescriptive manner to characterise the ‘high’ values of the ‘polite’ classes (as epitomised by the Bach concerto or Beethoven symphony), it is increasingly being employed in a purely descriptive manner, and is nowadays generally understood to mean ‘institutionalised group behaviour’ in the broadest sense of that term. Thus phrases such as ‘clashing cultures’, ‘culture shift’ and ‘cultural change’ are used to describe behavioural patterns which are identified in a value-free manner and which are, more importantly, perceived as being susceptible to conscious influence. ‘Culture’ is now used to describe something which is by its very nature transient, an interim solution to a changing set of requirements. And ‘cultures’ in this sense can be adapted, subverted or merged to specific ends: many an employee survey will testify to this use of the word, with anonymous complaints being articulated by frustrated members of staff to the effect that ‘The cultures of the two companies don’t go together’ or ‘Managers should improve the culture of the organisation’.

While there is no doubt that ‘cultures’ in this sense can very definitely be changed, it is essential to bear in mind that an organisation’s ‘culture’ - in the sense of its prevailing behavioural patterns - is composed of a complex matrix of individual cultural manifestations. Thus the language in which an event occurs will provide one of its cultural components, whilst the industrial sector in which it takes place will provide another. The mix may be compounded by expressions of national or local culture, while the setting in which the event takes place - be it a telephonic inquiry or a clash of opinions over the conference table - will certainly provide the context of at least one corporate culture.

The various elements of the cultural amalgam that makes up any interaction between human beings can never exist in full isolation of one another, therefore; but for the purposes of discussion, it is helpful to view them separately, as illustrated by figure 1.

Fig. 1: Five aspects of culture

Corporate culture

In 1996 the world-wide value of mergers and acquisitions was $ 1.1 trillion, according to Securities Data, the specialists in mergers and financing information based in Newark, N.J. In the first nine months of 1997 alone, this figure rose to $1.2 trillion. Against this background – and with megamergers such as that between BP and Amoco and the one between Chrysler and Daimler-Benz reinforcing the trend – the term ‘corporate culture’ is on virtually every employee’s lips these days. This is no surprise, because virtually any employee could now, literally overnight, become involved in a merger or acquisition. Moreover, some 21 per cent of mergers fail to meet their targets on account of the cultural incompatibility between the companies involved. The merger between US pharma group Upjohn and Sweden’s Pharmacia to form Pharmacia & Upjohn in 1995 has been fraught with cultural problems, for instance, and the aborted 1998 merger talks between Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham were marked by grave cultural incompatibility.

One key point for any executive to bear in mind here is that any company will have at least two cultures. These are the official one (as it appears in annual reports, adverts and corporate videos) and the unofficial one (as it manifests itself on the desks of employees, on canteen notice-boards and in conversations around the coffee machine). The fact that the second form of culture is not official does not mean that it is not powerful. In fact, it is often more potent than the company orthodoxy, for it is based on voluntary collusion rather than instructions from on high. Representatives of large organisations with a powerfully projected corporate culture will occasionally confess, in an aside, that ‘The way to get things done around here is actually very different …’, and the most influential employees in any organisation are those who master both its official and its unofficial cultural codes.

When negotiating with a representative of another organisation, therefore, it is important to bear in mind which codes are being used at any given time, and how likely they are to help you attain your goal. A prospective business partner is unlikely to hold to any understanding arrived at during negotiations with you (in ‘unofficial’ code, perhaps) unless he or she is prepared to present the same understanding to his or her superior (in ‘official’ code). Similarly, the meeting you hold with that prospective business partner may have many unofficial functions for that person which have no bearing whatsoever on the subject officially under discussion. Its real aim might be to make that person appear busy in the eyes of his or her colleagues, for instance, or to demonstrate how assiduously he or she cultivates potentially useful business contacts. In such a case, the value of the meeting to you might be precisely zero, however many expressions of goodwill are exchanged.

The complex interrelation of the official and the unofficial mode of communication is compounded, of course, in the context of global organisations or organisations that cover a wide area of industrial sectors. For all corporate structures are expressions of distinct industrial cultures. This leads us to the question of industrial culture.

Industrial culture

The chemicals and software businesses may be taken as illustrative of the two poles of industrial culture in the modern world. In between them lies an infinite variety of gradations.

Many of the great chemicals companies boast a history extending back into the nineteenth century. In the course of their existences, which have featured constant exposure to fluctuating industrial cycles, technological revolutions, and two world wars, these organisations have developed from unregulated, entrepreneurially-minded start-ups to industrial monoliths struggling to maintain their position in an increasingly mature and regulated market environment. These firms have a corporate memory longer than that of any of their individual employees, and their terms of reference are concomitantly vast. While it is true that many of these companies – Hoechst, in Germany, for instance – are trying to reinvent themselves in order to acquire the speed and flexibility they had in their industrial youth, the fact is that their scale, wealth and sheer age militate against this. Decision-processes are likely to be lengthy, hierarchies strict, and political structures ramified.

Software manufacturers represent the opposite extreme. With regular sales growth in excess of 60 per cent, Germany’s SAP, for instance – Europe’s leading software house and the fourth largest in the world – is not in the least interested in its history but passionately interested in its future. The obsolete technologies, the environmental liabilities and the regulatory labyrinths which tie the hands of so many of the old industrial giants barely apply to the sleek new creatures of the IT age. Indeed, the US government’s current face-off with Microsoft is probably the first serious regulatory problem the software industry – which has hitherto written its own rules and obliged other industrial sectors to learn them – has faced.

Words like ‘flat hierarchies’, ‘short decision-paths’, ‘empowerment’, ‘networked’ and ‘flexible’ are thus far likelier to apply to operators in this sector, and one can expect their employees to be more innovative and externally focused. This does not mean that these companies will be easier to do business with than their more traditional counterparts, however. On the contrary, the pressure to stay one step ahead of a constantly evolving market can mean that people in these organisations work at terrific speed – and expect their business partners, and even their clients, to do the same.

It is thus essential to bear in mind the acquired norms of one’s partners in business, whatever their industrial sector, and to be aware of how these might affect any professional relationship. One cannot expect an automotive manufacturer to behave like a TV channel, or a steel producer to act like an advertising agency. If a company’s view of timescales, prices or standards seems aberrant, this may be traceable to the history of the industry within which it is operating, just as much as to that industry’s present situation. To be aware of this enables one to act accordingly rather than merely shaking one’s head in bewilderment at what seems inexplicable behaviour.

What holds true for industrial sectors holds equally true for professions, of course. Thus the accountants of a firm (‘men in grey suits’) are likely to distrust the sales force (‘wide boys’), who in turn are likely to have little time for the people in R&D (‘egg-heads’). The caution of the accountant is not required of the dynamic salesperson, however, just as neither profession requires the inventiveness of research staff. As with the industrial sector within which a person works, the profession he or she chooses will influence the decisions that person makes and the way in which those decisions are made, which will in turn of course be influenced by that individual’s personality, age and experience.

National culture

The globalisation of businesses and processes is bringing together people from widely divergent national backgrounds. This is not a new phenomenon as such if we think of the merchant navies or mercenary armies of world history, but its scale is new. And the fact is that most of us are (and will continue to be) formed in our youth by a single dominant national culture which then affects our view of everything else we encounter in the world.

The remarkable thing about this is our own amazement at each other’s national differences. Just as jokes about the Englishman, the Frenchman and the German continue to be told, so do businesspeople regularly treat their colleagues to amazed stories about the conference they attended in Stockholm or the car they hired in Sydney. The reasons behind those astonishing tales are as often as not extremely simple and logical if one troubles to research them, however.

The houses in which people live, the food they eat, and the schools to which they send their children have an enormous impact on their behaviour. Thus the idea of moving house frequently is perfectly acceptable to most Americans, and perfectly terrifying to most Germans. The prospect of working in August is inconceivable to most Italians, but then so is the Anglo-Saxon predilection for putting their children in uniform. And the skimpy lunch-breaks snatched by the pallid office workers of northern Europe seem positively sadistic to employees in Spain and Portugal.

Most of us are not inspired linguists and professional globetrotters, and we have no opportunity to immerse ourselves in a wide range of foreign cultures. But a little thought and perhaps a little research preparatory to a conference, a meeting, or even a mere telephone call can make the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful outcome. If francophones prefer not to be addressed in English, one might pause for a moment to consider why. And if Californians are refusing to answer your phone calls, it might simply be that they are still in bed when you dial their number.

Local culture

Just as important as the national element in the cultural matrix is the local or regional aspect. If most countries have always had traditional inter-regional rivalries (the north/south divide in England, for example, or the division above and below the ‘white sausage’ line in Germany, roughly equivalent to the course of the river Main), the force of regionalism is stronger now than at any time in decades. Anyone doing business in Belgium without knowing something of the vexed relations between the Flemings and the Walloons, and between Brussels and the rest of the country, is likely to make many an error of judgement. The same holds true of the tensions between rural Austria and Vienna (which houses one fifth of that country’s population) or the north of Italy, with its secessionist tendencies, and the south of that land, which is regularly referred to by certain northern Italians as ‘Africa’. Such rivalries, which have found most violent expression in the disintegration of former Yugoslavia, the Basque separatist movement ETA and the tragic past quarter-century in Northern Ireland, can have very major implications for any long-term entrepreneurial plans.

Linguistic culture

Finally there is the aspect of linguistic culture, which can give expression to any of the above-listed cultural manifestations. Companies have their corporate-speak, professions their jargon, and countries their languages (Microsoft has an internal jargon, ‘Microspeak’ so specialised that a dedicated website exists for its translation).

Of course most of us associate business with the English language. The fact that English occupies this paramount role should not lead us to imagine that it is always the best language to speak in a business situation, however. It is hard for native speakers of English, who are accustomed to hearing foreigners speak their tongue all the time, to imagine the impact of using those other languages in a business situation. As former West German Chancellor Willi Brandt remarked: ‘You can talk to me in any language you like, but if you want to sell me something, you’ll have to speak German.’ Most of us may not possess sufficient fluency for a sales pitch in a foreign language, but a few words spoken in an apposite moment as a mark of courtesy can do a great deal to foster a climate of mutual respect and trust.

The importance of such verbal courtesy is more important than ever now - as witness British premier Tony Blair’s speech in March 1998 to the French National Assembly. This was hailed as a triumph of linguistic skill, but it was even more a triumph of diplomatic sense. Yet even as Tony Blair was speaking, the cultural ground was shifting. The French government announced in October 1998 its intention to give (albeit limited) recognition to the regional languages of France. These run to an astonishing seven, and comprise Alsacian, Basque, Breton, Catalan, Corsican, Flemish, and Provençal (Occitain). The renaissance of these and other minority languages – an expression of the regionalisation increasingly marking both political and economic life - will mean that while successful businesspeople will communicate in a handful of national tongues, principally English, the sensitive and intelligent use of translators and interpreters will remain essential for effective involvement at regional level.

Outlook for the busy manager

So where does this leave our thrusting thirtysomething? Not miraculously transformed into a globetrotter, by any means, and still not with those coveted intercontinental credentials, but perhaps just a little more aware of how his or her behaviour might be construed by business partners. Aware of how an innocent remark might give offence or a well-meaning gesture be fully overloooked. And that little awareness might one day make a big difference in the context of a business relationship. It might make all the difference between the big deal and the brush-off, between the daily round and the big career move.

Top of page

Previous Page