Handbook of Intercultural Communication and Cooperation PDF

Alexander Thomas Eva-Ulrike Kinast Sylvia Schroll-Machl (Editors) Handbook of Intercultural Communication and Cooperation Volume 1: Basics and Areas of Application With 23 Figures and 14 Tables 2nd Revised Edition Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht  Translator: Charlotte Weston-Horsmann...

Alexander Thomas Eva-Ulrike Kinast Sylvia Schroll-Machl (Editors) Handbook of Intercultural Communication and Cooperation Volume 1: Basics and Areas of Application With 23 Figures and 14 Tables 2nd Revised Edition Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht  Translator: Charlotte Weston-Horsmann Proofreader: Megan Hayes Translator’s note: I have tried to include the pronouns for both genders (he/ she) as far as possible. However, in translating longer passages and for purposes of clarity, I have used only the “he” form. Knowledge Unlatched Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available online: http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-666-40327-9 © 2010, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Oakville, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial- No Derivatives 4.0 International license, at DOI 10.13109/9783666403279. For a copy of this license go to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Any use in cases other than those permitted by this license requires the prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: Satzspiegel, Nörten-Hardenberg  1. Theoretical Basis: Intercultural Communication and Cooperation Alexander Thomas 1.1 Culture and Cultural Standards 1.1.1 A Private Conversation “Say, Mark, what do you think of this? Last Friday, my boss gave me a book with the comment, ‘Have this read by Monday, will you, so you can be pre- pared!’” “What kind of a book, I mean, what’s it about?” “I’m supposed to lead a pretty high-ranking delegation of industrial en- gineers from Peking around the plant next Wednesday. The title of the book is ‘Dealing with Chinese Business People’. That’s ridiculous, what on earth for? I mean, I don’t intend to become a China expert.” “But it can’t hurt, can it, to learn a few words of Chinese? Just imagine the impression you’ll make when you pick them up at the airport!” “No, no, it’s not a language text book. It’s a sort of listing of do’s and don’ts, like a recipe for correct behavior. It was written by some guy who did a short stint in China. Perhaps that would be something for Henry. He’s the one who is going to China to join the joint venture for three years. This really isn’t my thing. After all, people are people and the Chinese can’t be that different from us!” “I wouldn’t be so sure about that. I’m sure they have different work hab- its and other ways of doing things. For one, their eating habits are different from ours.” “That’s fine with me! But if they fly over here to visit our plant, I expect them to adapt to our ways. We aren’t backward, you know! Anyway, friend- liness and a warm smile should do the trick. Most importantly, I’m sure they’ll be impressed by our quality and the history of our plant, especially the multi-media part. Oh, by the way Mark, what I wanted to ask you: Do 18 Basics: Theoretical Basis you know our new corporate promotional film ‘Mobility-Global 2000’? Let me tell you, it’s great. The music and visuals are simply fantastic!” “Is it suitable for our Chinese guests though? They might be used to totally different visuals.” “Oh, stop being difficult! People are the same all over the world. Anyone, anywhere can distinguish between quality and trash.” “Did it occur to you that no two individuals can ever be alike? There never was and there never will be an exact replica of you. You are unique!” “I like the way you say that. How come I get along with you and others well enough if I am so unique? I spent my last holiday in Thailand. One day, I took a bike trip around the countryside. I can’t speak Thai and the people there don’t speak English but I was able to communicate with them all the same. I smiled constantly like they do and gesticulated a lot. They could tell that I wanted something to eat or drink or go shopping. They could even give me directions. So much for each person is different. You can’t believe how many similarities there are!” “Yeah, I guess you’re right. So differences and similarities can exist side by side. ‘All people are similar’ and ‘each one of us is unique’.” “Alright, so stop philosophizing and tell me what you think of my boss giving me this book. I’m not going to turn into an expert on China just because a few visitors from China will be running around the premises.” “Well, I’m afraid our opinions differ. I can understand your boss quite well. The Chinese not only have other customs and conventions, they have also developed a culture that is entirely different than ours.” “What do you mean culture? We’re not interested in organizing some concert or art exhibit, nor is the Chinese state circus arriving with some sort of cultural agenda. All we are talking about here is a simple visit to our production facilities... something that happens on a daily basis around here. The only difference is that these visitors aren’t German, but Chinese, and that they are not staying for one day, but for four. What does that have to do with culture? Even in the book I mentioned, they refer to cultural differences, comparisons between cultures, intercultural learning, under- standing culture, cultural influences and so on in every other sentence. You know what? I’m not at all worried about this visit. I’ve actually been looking forward to it. It’ll be a pleasant change from some of the American or Eu- ropean visitors we get with their persistent questions. I’ve heard that the Asians are very reserved yet really friendly. But since my boss showed up with that book and now with you going on about culture, I’m starting to feel a bit edgy. I’m not even interested in going through with this anymore. It just means more work. I’m tired of hearing about all this culture stuff. I think I’ll go over my presentation again and make sure there’s enough tea. That should do the job.”  Alexander Thomas: Culture and Cultural Standards 19 1.1.2 What is Culture? In cultures that differ radically from each other, human interaction devel- ops along the lines of entirely different rules of conduct and regulations. Not knowing the rules, or understanding how to apply them, inevitably leads to misunderstandings in a given country. The rules we are speaking of here are nonnegotiable. They constitute a generally accepted mode of behavior in a given culture, are respected and adhered to. Most important- ly, they impart an intrinsic sense of belonging to members of that culture. There are many definitions of culture. By 1952, Kroeber and Kluckhorn had found over 150 and began comparing them. The American psychologist Harry Triandis, for example, defines culture as “the human-made part of the environment” (1989, p. 306). The Dutch cultural psychologist Hofstede (1991) defines culture as “the collective pro- gramming of the mind”. All researchers dealing with the concept of culture on a theoretical basis agree that culture covers a very broad field. The scope reaches from man-made objects, tools, etc. to values, ideas, worldviews, languages and philosophies, including the way in which animate and inan- imate things, subjects and objects are treated. A more practical, albeit narrower, definition of culture as applied, for instance, in the case of optimizing the conditions for cooperation between individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds postulates: Culture is a universal phenomenon. All human beings live within a spe- cific culture and contribute to its development. Culture creates a structured environment within which a population can function. It encompasses ob- jects we created and use in our daily lives, as well as our institutions, ideas and values. Culture is always manifested in a system of orientation typical to a country, society, organization or group. This system of orientation consists of specific symbols such as language, body language, mimicry, clothing and greeting rituals and is passed on to future generations from the respective society, organization or group. This system of orientation provides all members with a sense of belonging and inclusion within a so- ciety or group and creates an environment in which individuals can devel- op a unique sense of self and function effectively. Culture has an influence on the perception, thought patterns, judgment and action of all members of a given society. The culture-specific system of orientation creates possi- bilities and motivation for action, but also determines the conditions and limits of the action (Thomas 2003). The ability to orient in the world and to be able to rely on one’s sense of orientation is a basic human need and central to a system of orientation. The need for orientation is met when an individual is equipped with an adequate amount of reliable knowledge about the material artifices and rit- 20 Basics: Theoretical Basis uals of social interaction that define the particular environment and has the experience and ability to implement this knowledge efficiently and ef- fectively. In an effort to obtain orientation, “culture”, as defined here, allows us to find meaning in the things, people and objects that surround us, as well as in complex processes and the consequences of our behavior. Under normal circumstances, we are not conscious of what “makes sense” to us, thus we perceive and process relevant information automati- cally. It is a uniquely individual experience that does not occur spontane- ously or by coincidence, but is directed by collective, culturally relevant and binding social norms and rules. Under “normal” everyday conditions, a person living in a culturally fa- miliar setting is likely to be understood and accepted by other members of the collective who share the same cultural background. In special cases, clarification may be required to create rapport and understanding. How- ever, the common culture-specific background knowledge is generally enough to facilitate mutual understanding without further clarification. In the course of each person’s socialization process or the “absorption” into the society of a given culture, one is faced with the task of developing in- dividual as well as socially relevant behavioral patterns and experiences in interactions with others. In this sense, the individual does indeed grow into the social network. This socialization process is not limited to early child- hood nor to certain life phases, but continues to develop throughout life. Specific, socially relevant behavior must be learned during each develop- mental phase in order to deal effectively with difficulties in a given societal setting. The success of this socialization process or inculturation becomes evident when an individual acts in accordance with his worldview and this behavior is shared, understood and accepted by other individuals within a given social network. In this sense, culture provides a common frame of reference. Once a person has passed through such a socialization process, he knows the ropes and is aware of what is acceptable and what is not. Appropriate behavior is acknowledged by society when the person acts according to ex- isting norms and rules. Inappropriate behavior, on the other hand, results in direct or indirect disapproval and a sense of failure because efforts did not lead to success. If the socialization process in a particular field proves successful, then perception, thought, judgment and behavioral patterns are internalized to the point where general cognizance of the function, dynam- ics and consequences of these processes is no longer required. They have become part of the individual’s operating behavior. Awareness of the pro- cesses sets in when unexpected and repeated events or reactions occur within the familiar social setting or in similar situations. Such a re-evalua- tion may occur on its own under favorable circumstances or through out-  Alexander Thomas: Culture and Cultural Standards 21 side help. The situation is “reviewed” and subjected to critical censorship. This may result in a transformation of the familiar thought/action pattern and require a new system of socially relevant information processing. The individual learns new coping skills or “tools” (theories, methods, norms, rules etc.) with which to survive and reorient. These tools help in adapting to existing conditions in a natural social setting as well as to changes in existing situations. The benefits are twofold: on the one hand, individuals are able to adapt and on the other, to innovate. The culture-specific system of orientation with it’s sense-giving function and the tools required for adaptation that have been acquired during the course of an individual’s socialization process do not apply if the interac- tion partner comes from another country, organization or group. The oth- er-culture partner has developed a different culture whose members ad- here to a different system of orientation, apply other adaptation and innovation tools and have internalized other norms, values and rules of behavior. This condition leads to a so-called critical interaction, in which either one of the partners, but most often both partners, are confronted by unexpected behavior and reactions, the meaning of which is not clear to them and which cannot be deciphered on the basis of their respective and familiar cultural system of orientation. 1.1.3 Cultural Standards If culture is defined as a national and linguistic entity, which provides its members with a sense-giving system of orientation, then the question aris- es which culture-specific orientation signals come into play for persons of different cultures when the encounter takes place under particular circum- stances such as conflict resolution or managing specific, work-related tasks. Observation and relevant research of German-American work groups (Zeutschel 1999) came up with the following results: During the product development phase, Americans tend to consider the potential customer and how the product can best serve them. Next, they determine effective- ness and customer advantage. After much discussion and mutual feedback, they get to work on the technical details involved in production. German technical experts, on the other hand, indulge in in-depth discussion about technical details and how to develop a near-perfect product according to the status of state-of-the-art technology. The goal, after long and detailed discussions on this topic, is to get a clear idea of the “problem” involved before getting to work on production. These different approaches are not 22 Basics: Theoretical Basis coincidental, but rather a result of different culture-specific systems of ori- entation. On the one hand there is the effectiveness and customer orienta- tion, and on the other, the emphasis on facts in connection with technical perfection. No doubt, both the German and the American project teams are equally goal and performance oriented. However, each is convinced that their problem-solving strategy is the more successful: a “trial and error” approach together with much feedback from the consumer and mutual support as opposed to “a search for meaning” and the central question of “what holds the world together”, coupled with clearly assigned tasks and a high degree of initiative and responsibility. Since these different behavioral patterns are not limited to specific pro- ject teams involved in a specific task under specific work conditions, but can be observed in typical American and German patterns of orientation related to complex problem solving, it can be assumed that different cul- tural standards apply in this situation. In general, cultural standards can be defined on the basis of the follow- ing five indicators: – Cultural standards are forms of perception, thought patterns, judgment and interaction that are shared by a majority of the members of a spe- cific culture who regard their behavior as normal, typical and binding. – Own and other unfamiliar behavior is directed, regulated and judged on the basis of this cultural standard. – Cultural standards provide a regulatory function for mastering a given situation and dealing with people. – The individual and group-specific way of applying cultural standards to adjust behavior can fluctuate within a range of tolerance. – Forms of behavior that exceed this specific range are not accepted or sanctioned by the respective collective. One can ask individuals from other countries what, in particular, they no- tice about their encounters with Germans and what difficulties they en- counter repeatedly. For example, they find it difficult to understand their behavior and their reactions under certain circumstances and what factors seemed to contribute to complicated interaction? The information gleaned from these critical interactions lends itself to comparisons between coun- tries and can be evaluated and analyzed on the basis of cause-and-effect in such difficult situations. The results point to a large consensus on a number of behaviorally relevant indicators, which can be defined as German cul- tural standards. Other indications of a German culture-specific worldview can differ depending on the perspective of dissimilar others. From the per- spective of such culturally different countries as France, England, Spain, the Czech Republic, the U. S., China, Japan, Korea and Indonesia, German be-  Alexander Thomas: Culture and Cultural Standards 23 havioral patterns in all areas of life are determined by its cultural standards (Thomas 2000a). Seven German cultural standards and orientation patterns become evi- dent on the basis of this research and emphasize: – task orientation (tasks are more important than people) – rules and regulations (structures and rules are held in high esteem, ad- hered to and expected) – directness/truth (low-context communication style. There is right and wrong and very little in between. The most direct path is always the most goal oriented and efficient.) – interpersonal distance (don’t get involved in the business of others: keep your distance and be discrete!) – internalized control – time management (time is a valuable commodity and may not be squan- dered. Planning and scheduling are essential.) – separation of the personal and public domains If such culture-specific, in this case German, cultural standards are validat- ed by other scientific disciplines such as literature, philosophy, sociology, ethnology and religion, in addition to studies in comparative culture, then it can be assumed that these are core cultural standards. Core cultural standards can be defined as such because they come into play not only in specific problem situations or a narrowly defined scope of action, but tend to mirror overall culture-specific orientation patterns. These standards be- come the unmistakable and characteristic behavioral patterns of individ- uals of a specific country or cultural environment. In the example of the visiting Chinese delegation at the beginning of the chapter, the German host refuses to deal with the Chinese culture and his guests’ cultural characteristics. After arguing with his colleague, he decides to concentrate on improving his presentation slides and “getting the job done”. Again, the emphasis is on the task rather than the people involved. In this scenario, the German cultural standard of “task orientation” kicks into gear since the German expects to be successful if he behaves “normal- ly”, that is he welcomes his guests in a friendly manner, focuses on the facts and his task of hosting the delegation and presents highly sophisticated in- formation. The Chinese guests, on the other hand, expect their German hosts to go out of their way to organize, facilitate and direct procedures in order to create an atmosphere of utmost social harmony and build a basis for mutual respect, trust and acknowledgment, especially since this is the delegation’s first visit. The Chinese themselves are accustomed to such for- malities and, as guests, will attempt to support their hosts in achieving this goal. Thus it is extremely important that social standing be emphasized in 24 Basics: Theoretical Basis public, at meetings and dinner engagements. The social hierarchy becomes evident when high-ranking individuals are addressed first, receive suffi- cient praise and acknowledgment and are seated according to their rank. According to their specific cultural standard of “maintaining and giving face”, the Chinese will attempt to simplify matters for the host by appearing modest to the point of self-effacement. They will compliment their host frequently, bring appropriate gifts upon their arrival and show profuse gratitude whenever possible. This show of modesty and discretion clearly does not indicate that they have nothing to say or do not have an opinion. Although they express gratitude at nearly every turn, it does not necessarily mean that they are overly impressed by their German partner’s organiza- tional ability with regard to the management of the site visit. All these ges- tures have to do with giving face in an attempt to create harmony and build trust. From the Chinese point of view, this behavior is a part of their natural etiquette and is expected in the presence of high-ranking hosts. If they were to behave differently, they would feel guilty and socially incompetent. Most likely, the head of the German delegation will remain oblivious to this as- pect of his guests’ behavior. From his purely task-oriented perspective, he will be aware of only a fraction of the efforts being made on the part of his Chinese partners to ensure an atmosphere of harmony. The behavioral as- pects that he does notice, he will probably regard as unnecessary beating around the bush and irrelevant chitchat. His judgment and rejection of this behavior is based on his conviction that it has nothing to do with “the task” at hand and that there is no concrete reason for the exaggerated praise for task-related performance. The example of comparisons between core cultural standards such as “task orientation” from the German perspective and “giving and maintain- ing face” on the part of the Chinese can also be observed in individuals from different national cultures in identical areas of task-related actions. Behavior can be documented and evaluated according to the differences and similarities observed, including the extent to which it differs. In the case of the previous example involving the different approaches to dealing with complex problem situations preferred by the German and American work teams, the domain or department-specific cultural standards become evident and can be defined. This makes it possible to predict and explain the observed individuals’ behavioral patterns. In contrast to core cultural standards, domain-specific cultural standards require a specific task frame- work in which to operate, such as in the example given above involving complex problem-solving strategies in workgroups. Thus, they are goal, task and context bound and, as such, are relied on for orientation and ap- plied by individuals who operate within this context. Relevant studies (Thomas and Schenk 1996) indicate that aside from  Alexander Thomas: Culture and Cultural Standards 25 core and domain-specific cultural standards, something resembling con- textual standards can also become operational. What is meant here is cul- ture-specific basic orientation that obligates or even forces individuals of a given culture to act according to a very specific and narrowly defined basic behavioral pattern. This basic orientation operates holistically, that is, on all three psychologically relevant levels (cognitive, emotional and behavior- al). According to Confucian teachings, the elderly are treated with rever- ence and special respect not only within the own family, but also in all as- pects of public life, regardless of their social status, personal fame or personality (Thomas and Schenk, 2001). This form of “seniority orienta- tion” is responsible for the profound transformation that takes place when a much older person joins a group of younger people of nearly the same age and begins to get involved in the social happening. The entire situation, the ambience and the social setting undergoes a shift. Everything changes. The operational frame of reference and the dynamic change as the focus shifts to the older person. Without having to speak or act in any particular way, all those present must reorient. Through activation of the contextual cultural standard “seniority orientation”, new action impulses and possi- bilities arise but also impose limitations. Much of what occurs in the group after the older person arrives is the cultural standard in action, which, upon closer analysis, can only be understood within the context of the entire so- cial setting. 1.1.4 Identifying Cultural Standards Much research has been done in an effort to identify cultural standards (Tiandis 1995; Brislin et al. 1986; Landis and Bhagat 1996; Thomas 2000b), all of which attempted to analyze the so-called critical incidents. The goal here was to identify those cultural differences and special characteristics that came into play during an intercultural encounter. The most practical and frequently used approach is to interview a large pool of candidates with experience in diverse encounter situations, for example within the context of student and youth exchange programs, field experts assigned overseas or international experts working on assignments in Germany. The questions asked relate to the difficulties and problems they experienced re- peatedly in dealing with foreign partners, which different, unexpected and inexplicable reactions they typically encountered on a regular basis when dealing with their other-culture partners and what explanations they had for unfamiliar and unexpected behavior. For instance, German managers 26 Basics: Theoretical Basis in France were asked to describe encounters with their French partners, in which they frequently experienced unexpected behavior. In this example, the situational context, the Germans’ own goals and expectations, as well as their observations, considerations, intentions and actions were noted. The French reaction to unexpected behavior on the part of the Germans and the Germans’ assumptions about the underlying causes for the reac- tions were also documented. Consequently, it is not the description of a particular situation, but rath- er about a prototypical interaction process that characterizes French be- havior from the German perspective. After interviewing a large number of people, a single sentence that contributes to the critical interaction can be identified. This sentence is then analyzed in order to filter out the cultural standards that come into play during the interaction. The analysis is con- ducted by experts in the field of comparative culture studies, who are in- digenous to and well versed in both cultures. A detailed analysis of the re- sults is compared to earlier research findings based on comparisons, for example between German and French behavioral patterns, and provides insight into French cultural standards. The same holds true for German cultural standards upon analysis by French experts. Cultural standards identified in this manner, say eight to twelve core cul- tural standards, are in no way indicative of an entire culture. Nor does a network of such cultural standards provide insight into what makes up the respective culture as a whole. They are, however, helpful in navigating and accumulating knowledge about the other-culture system of orientation and serve to explain unexpected and unfamiliar behavior on the part of the interaction partner. Such orientation aids also provide a point of reference from which to become aware of one’s own system of cultural orientation and a basis for reflection. The network between core cultural standards, their relevance to analyses based on cultural heritage and the context in which they arose can be com- bined with prototypical critical incident case studies to provide the basic background material for developing intercultural trainings. The goal of such trainings is to sensitize and prepare individuals for working with dis- similar others. At the same time, understanding that other-culture cultural standards have created their respective systems of orientation paves the way toward mutual respect and acknowledgment and lays the foundation for intercultural competence. An ancient Chinese proverb states, “Only he who knows his opponent well can be victorious in a thousand battles”. With reference to the chal- lenges of an intercultural encounter, this wisdom could mean, “Only he who knows himself and his other-culture partner well can achieve mindful and productive cooperation”. Well-founded knowledge of cultural stand-  Alexander Thomas: Culture and Cultural Standards 27 ards together with the ability to deal with both own and other-culture standards, improve the chances of realistically perceiving other-culture be- havior and of adequately reading characteristic signals of own and other- culture systems of orientation. Furthermore, they can be applied when ini- tiating, directing and controlling behavior in an intercultural encounter. On the intentional level, such behavior is determined by cultural sensitivity. On the reactional level, it is determined by a high degree of intercultural understanding. The actual encounter does not aim to adapt perfectly to the other-cul- ture system of orientation nor does it attempt to force one’s own system of orientation on the partner. Instead, the intercultural encounter is influ- enced by the intent to initiate and maintain an interpersonal cooperation based on respectfulness and esteem for cultural diversity. This allows both parties to deal with cultural differences productively without one-sided dominance and loss of orientation. References Brislin, R. W.; Cushner, K.; Cherry, C.; Yong, M. (1986): Intercultural Interactions: A Practical Guide. Beverly Hills. Hofstede, G. (1991): Culture and Organization – Software of the Mind. London. Kroeber, A. L.; Kluckhohn, C. (1952): Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Cambridge, 47 (1). Landis, D.; Bhagat, R. S. (Eds.) (1996): Handbook of Intercultural Training. New- bury Park. Smith, A. H. (1900): Chinesische Charakterzüge. Würzburg. Thomas, A. (2000a): Globalisierung und interkulturelle Managementkompetenz. In: Fahrenhorst, B.; Musto, St. A. (Eds.), Grenzenlos. Kommunikation, Koope- ration, Entwicklung. Berlin, pp. 162–174. Thomas, A. (2000b): Forschung zur Handlungswirksamkeit von Kulturstandards. In: Handlung, Kultur, Interpretation – Zeitschrift für Sozial- und Kulturwissen- schaften, 9 (2), pp. 231–278. Thomas, A. (2003): Psychologie Interkulturellen Handelns. 2nd ed. Göttingen. Thomas, A.; Schenk, E. (1996): Handlungswirksamkeit zentraler Kulturstandards in der Interaktion zwischen Deutschen und Chinesen. Regensburg, unveröffent- lichter Abschlussbericht Projekt Nr. II/673621 Volkswagen-Stiftung. Thomas, A.; Schenk, E. (2001): Beruflich in China. Trainingsprogramm für Man- ager, Fach- und Führungskräfte. Göttingen. Triandis, H. C. (1989): Intercultural Education and Training. In: Funke, P. (Ed.), Understanding the US – Across Culture Prospective. Tübingen, pp. 305–322. Triandis, H. C. (1995): Culture specific assimilations. In: Fouler, S.; Manford, M. (Eds.), Intercultural Sourcebook (Vol. 1). Yarmonth. Zeutschel, U. (Ed.) (1999): Interkulturelle Synergie in Arbeitsgruppen. Lengerich.