Cultural Behaviour in the Workplace - Research Paper Example

Cultural Behaviour in the Workplace Introduction The level of cross-cultural communication has increased considerably, because of today’s globalization. This has influenced the economic sector, as business partners from different cultural backgrounds, participate in business negotiations. Companies interact with other companies abroad, work on projects together, and outsource services. Nonetheless, business interactions with parties from diverse cultural backgrounds are a major source of problems in cross-cultural communication today. However, when interacting with members of different cultural backgrounds, technical skills alone will not guarantee successful interactions. According to Condon & Yousef (1975), people skills and intercultural communication competence contribute to successful cross-cultural business interactions. Culture determines the nature of business interaction of individuals. Cross-cultural business interactions happen between different countries with distinct political, economic, and cultural backgrounds. For economic development, different countries and international companies collaborate to contribute positively to the global economy. However, cultural intolerance is a major cause of conflicts and misunderstandings experienced in the world today (Ayoko 2007). It is difficult for people of different cultures to understand each other, since they are cultured to do things in a specific manner. Sebenius (2002) notes that, this problem faces most companies engaged in cross-border business. Therefore, there is need for all companies to adopt an international global perspective of conducting business. Background This study aims at creating a rich understanding of cultural behavior in the workplace using primary data and theory. The American, Chinese, and Russian cultures form the basis of this study. This will develop an understanding of the nature of business interactions of the American, Russian, and Chinese, and Hofstede’s five dimensions model will be applied in their presentation. This study bases on the assumption that culture is important in determining business interactions at the workplace. Basing on the challenges experienced by employees, this study will answer the question; how does culture influence business interactions of Americans, Chinese, and Russians. This will also develop propositions for addressing challenges that arise in a multicultural workplace. The study findings will offer guidance on how to ensure effective business communication with Russians, Chinese, and Americans. The study setting is the Sharjah chamber of Commerce & Industry. This United Arab Emirates Company serves a major purpose of organizing economic life and ensuring prosperity of trade in the region. This includes making proposals for economic projects, engagement in legislation dealing with industrial and economic affairs, and launching opportunities for investment (SharjsaCityGuide n.d). The nature of this company allows for interactions with companies from different parts of the world, in order to work jointly on projects or negotiate on business deals. During such cross-cultural communication, cultural differences lead to considerable challenges. The participants in this study are employees of this company, who have experience working with foreign delegates, specifically, Russian, American, and Chinese. These will share their experiences and major challenges in their dealings with the foreign delegates. Methodology This study aims at gathering information concerning the experiences of the employees of the Sharjah chamber of Commerce & Industry in dealing with delegates of Russian, American, and Chinese origins. The experiences of participants reflect their attitudes toward the foreign delegates, therefore, this study explore subjective data. Therefore, in order to achieve the aims of this study, a qualitative approach will be employed, as this is concerned with subjectivity understanding. Specifically, this study employs the focus group method of data collection. A focus group is a group of interacting individuals, who have common interests and characteristics, and are brought together by a moderator, who uses the group as a source of data in their study topic (Krueger 1988). An ideal focus group comprises 7 to 10 people, who might be unfamiliar with each other. However, a researcher selects these individuals, because they share specific characteristics, which relate to the area of study. According to Krueger (1988), the moderator in focus group discussions develops a nurturing environment, where the participants are allowed to contribute to the discussion freely, without feeling pressured. A focus group approach is effective in this study, as it is capable of providing information on how people feel or think about a particular topic or issue. This also helps to explore reasons why people hold certain perceptions. Furthermore, a focus group might provide information, which can act as a platform for developing effective interventions to a situation. Using focus groups helps the researcher to acquire data more quickly. Moreover, the researcher is able to interact directly with the respondents, thus allowing him or her to get clear responses, as he or she can read the non-verbal responses of respondents and supplementing with their verbal responses (Krueger 1988). The sample size of focus groups is usually smaller, as compared to that of other methods, since elements of behavior, attitudes, and experiences require a longer contact with the participants. The focus group approach mainly involved use of open-ended questions, and these were intended to allow the participants to express their opinions without any restrictions or limits. Before conducting the study, the researchers sought informed consent from the participants. The participants were informed about the purpose of the study, and assured of confidentiality. This was a voluntary study; therefore, no participant was coerced into participation. Different ethical problems might result from both qualitative and quantitative researches, including the way through which a researcher obtains information from participants, and effects of the study on participants. In this study, the ethical requirements of a qualitative study were upheld. The participants, after recruitment were made aware that their names, personal information, or identities will not be disclosed. This is important in order to earn the trust of participants, thus leading to quality data (Bell 2005). This study involved three focus groups, comprising seven people each. Participants were drawn from the Sharjah chamber of Commerce & Industry. These were employees of this company, who have an experience dealing with Russian, American, or Chinese delegates. The focus group discussions were held at the company grounds. Of the three focus groups, one had experience dealing with Russian delegates, another with American delegates, and the last one had interacted with Chinese delegates. The participants in each focus group were, therefore expected to share their experiences dealing with these delegates, including the challenges they experienced, the lessons they learnt from each delegation, and how the experience adapted them to future dealings with other such delegations. Findings The study identified the challenges employees experienced while working with foreign delegates of Russian, American, and Chinese origins. The data from each focus group discussion was compiled and analyzed to come up with the common challenges, which most participants in each group identified. Some of the themes that develop in the study findings include time orientations, communication styles, social behavior, and personal style. According to Salacuse (1999), these cultural factors determine the behavior or attitude of an individual at work, or in business negotiations. The participants in each focus group were engaged in a discussion, which was necessary in establishing the major challenges they faced while working with the specific delegates. From the discussions, it was clear that the culture of these delegates was a major factor behind their communication styles, and business ethics and values. Therefore, the different communication styles and overall cultures of the delegates were the main source of misunderstandings during most interactions with employees in the company. American Delegates The employees working with American delegates shared different experiences. More than three-quarters of participants in the focus group raised the issue of the high level of time-consciousness of the American delegates. For instance, in a scheduled meeting, the Americans would arrive at the exact announced time, and call the meeting to start immediately, irrespective of whether everyone had arrived. The Americans also wanted to have a job done as fast as possible. Therefore, most employees in the company felt that the American delegates attached too much importance on time and efficiency. Secondly, the employees had issues with the high level of control, which the American delegates exhibited, with regard to their personal space, possessions, and ideas. Some participants pointed out that most of the American delegates did not like their work to be criticized or edited by another person. Additionally, the Americans demanded credit for their ideas and work. Most employees found this strange, since they know that credit is given voluntarily. Overall, Americans came out as assertive, with high level of directness. Some employees considered such direct mode of communication rude. Another major challenge the participants identified is that Americans would suggest and push for bigger projects, which the employees thought would be impossible to achieve or risky to undertake. Most employees considered such suggestions unreasonable. Therefore, this would result in differences in opinion and misunderstandings with the American delegates. These aspects provided important insights into the American culture. The employees were able to learn about the perception of time of Americans, their value for control and personal space, and their risk-taking nature. Therefore, in future dealings with American delegates, the employees have learnt how to interact with them. For instance, they will adapt to American time orientation by going to meetings at the exact scheduled time, not getting into the personal space of Americans, and changing their attitudes toward risks and risk-taking to be in line with those of Americans. Russian Delegates Most employees that interacted with the Russian delegates expressed how impressed they were with Russians’ perception of time and punctuality. Although Russians valued punctuality, they did not mind anyone being a few minutes late. They would engage in a small talk before starting a meeting, as they believed that it was important to know how the other members were faring on. Although most employees were okay with this, others felt that this attitude resulted in time wasting. Most employees reported that while dealing with the Russian delegates during the earlier days, the Russians appeared to be distant and highly formal. It was hard to get any information from the Russian delegates, as they would refer one to their colleagues concerned with the issue. Their high value for bureaucracy, therefore, made interactions with them quite difficult. In addition, these were very keen on detail, and demanded several clarifications and background information for most issues. Therefore, most employees felt that by dwelling on even the less important issues, Russians led to time wasting in meetings. In addition, the employees noted that the Russians placed high importance on status symbols. The manner in which these dealt with people depended on the status of the individual. When interacting with high-ranking people, Russians treated them with great respect. This differed with the way they interacted with the employees of the company. Therefore, most employees felt that they were uncomfortable with the kind of discrepancy that emanated from the way the Russians treated or interacted with different people. From these experiences, the employees learnt three major aspects of Russians. First, Russians do not place a lot of importance on punctuality, and allow small talks before starting meetings. Secondly, Russians appear very distant when dealing with new people for the first time, and are keen to detail in such cases. Finally, the nature of Russian interactions with people depended on the status of the individual in society. Therefore, in future dealings with Russian delegates, the employees will adapt to these Russian cultural components, so that none of these will be a source of offence while dealing with Russians. Chinese Delegates In dealing with the Chinese delegates, most employees reported that they faced a challenge with the aspect of names and titles. The Chinese considered it important to be addressed using their full titles, including professional titles such as director, doctor, and engineer, among others. However, most employees would forget this and instead address them with the titles Mr. or Ms. only. Some of the Chinese delegates considered it disrespectful, thus creating a misunderstanding between them and the employees. Additionally, two employees reported a similar case, which was a major challenge to them. While making a point and trying to prove their argument to some Chinese delegates, on different occasions, these employees made a hand on arm contact with the Chinese. However, reading from the body language of the Chinese, they showed contempt and disgust. This forced the employees to apologize. This became challenging, as the employees had to remain cautious about their body language, including physical contact, when interacting with the Chinese. From this, the employees learnt about the communication style of the Chinese. First, they resented physical contact with new people. Additionally, they preferred to be addressed by their professional titles. Therefore, in future dealings with Chinese delegates, the employees will adapt to their communication styles, in order to avoid making similar mistakes, which could lead to further misunderstandings. Hofstede’s Five Cultural Dimensions More insights into the Russian, Chinese, and American cultures can be drawn using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. These help to determine the attitudes of individuals, their communication styles, conflict resolution strategies, decision-making process, negotiation styles, and teamwork, among others. The five dimensions include power distance, collectivism versus individualism, masculinity and femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation (Chang 2003). It is therefore, possible to explain the nature of interaction of the Russian, American, and Chinese delegates with the employees, as well the challenges, which employees faced. Hofstede’s 5D model will therefore, be used to explore the Russian, Chinese, and American cultures. The charts show the results for each culture (refer to appendices). Compared to China and Russia, America is the most individualistic culture. In individualistic cultures, individuals are expected to be independent, while in collectivist cultures, strong social ties bind individuals (Chang 2003). For this reason, therefore, Chinese and Russians tie great importance to relationships. This explains why Americans did not entertain small talks about family and general welfare of partners before the beginning of meetings. Closely related to this is long-term orientation. China scores highly, as compared to America. This shows that the Chinese aim at establishing long-term businesses and relationships, unlike Americans, who are focused on short-term goals, thus little value for relationships. Power distance on the other hand refers to the extent to which a community perceives power and authority among individuals (Chang 2003). Americans score low, as compared to Russia and China. This explains why Americans were more assertive, asking openly if anyone opposed their suggestions, and demanded credit for their ideas. This also explains why Russians interacted with people differently, depending on their social status. Additionally, this also shows why the Chinese valued titles, which acknowledged the status of an individual. In this case, Americans believe that inequalities based on power among people in the community should be minimized. With regard to masculinity and femininity, all these cultures score high, meaning that they are all driven by competition and success. Finally, uncertainty avoidance refers to the level of threat people feel due to unknown circumstances (Chang 2003). Russia scores high in uncertainty avoidance, meaning that Russians are highly threatened by unknown situations. This therefore, explains why Russians seemed distant during their initial interactions with the employees, whom they considered ‘strangers.’ This also explains why Americans advocated for bigger projects, which employees considered risky. Therefore, by using Hofstede’s five dimensions, it becomes easier to understand cultures, and the differences that exist between them. Solutions and Recommendations This case provides the experiences of employees in dealing with the Chinese, Russian, and American delegates. Although the employees faced challenges interacting with the delegates, the following solutions would have led to effective communication. Nonetheless, applying these in future interactions will prevent cross-cultural misunderstandings. 1. Thinking outside the cultural box - the employees ought to have widened their communication repertoire, and adapted to different cultures. This way, they would have understood why the delegates acted the way they did, thus promoting cultural tolerance. 2. Adopting a mentality of “Both/And” - this would have helped employees to adapt to the delegates’ culture, thus opening them up to numerous opportunities for rich relationships. 3. Widening the communication repertoire – the employees should have learnt to read the body language of others, pay attention to their tone, adapt to their cultures, and appreciate their communication styles. Nonetheless, the following are some recommendations on how to interact with the Russians, Americans, and the Chinese people in business. 1. When meeting the Chinese for a business, it is important to address them by their full titles, including their professional title. 2. When meeting an American for an appointment, punctuality should be highly observed. 3. A small talk before a business meeting is important for Russians. 4. It is important to take intercultural communication training, in order for one to have efficient intercultural communication skills, including cultural intelligence (Imai & Gelfand 2010). Conclusion This study has identified some of the challenges employees faced while interacting with the Russian, Chinese, and American cultures, at the Sharjah chamber of Commerce & Industry Company. Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions, model has been used to analyze how culture influenced the business interactions of Russians, Americans, and the Chinese. Culture helps to determine the behavior of people in different interactions. Therefore, understanding cultural differences is important for effective cross-cultural communication and negotiations. The focus groups approach was effective in collecting data, as this offered an opportunity for in-depth information from participants through probing. Nonetheless, based on their experiences, a major lesson is that, it is important for one to know about their culture, as well as cultures of colleagues, as this is helpful for effective intercultural communication. References Ayoko, O.B 2007, “Communication openness, conflict events, and reactions to conflict in culturally diverse workgroups,” Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 14(2), pp. 105-124. Bell, J 2005, “Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-time Researchers in Education, Health and Social Science,” McGraw-Hill International, London. Chang, L.C 2003, “An examination of cross-cultural negotiation: Using Hofstede framework,” Journal of American academy of business, 2(2) pp. 567-570 Condon, J. C., & Yousef, F 1975, “An introduction to intercultural communication,” MacMillan, New York. Imai, L & Gelfand, M.J 2010, “The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence on negotiation sequences and outcomes,” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), pp. 83 – 98. Krueger, R 1988, “Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research,” Sage Publications, New York. Salacuse, J.W 1999, “Intercultural Negotiation in International Business,” Group decision and negotiation, 8(3), pp. 217-236 Sebenius, J.K 2002, "The Hidden Challenge of Cross-Border Negotiations," Harvard Business Review, 80(2), pp.4-12 SharjsaCityGuide n.d, “Sharjah Chamber of Commerce & Industry,” Viewed 29 June 2013 Appendices Figure 1: Russia culture through the lens of Hofstede’s 5-D Model Figure 2: US culture through the lens of Hofstede’s 5-D Model Figure 3: China culture through the lens of Hofstede’s 5-D Model Read More