Cross-cultural Management 1

CULTURE: A FIRM SOFTNESS

Cultures dont meet; people do.
1

(Hoffman, 1999, p. 187)

1. INTRODUCTION

Cultural differences can make or break international business deals, have quite an influence
on the net effect of you international contacts and may even determine whether you can work
successfully in an international environment. For this reason you need to know what culture
is, how it effects you and how you can deal with it. We appear to neglect culture because of
its more or less automatic functioning in the background, although it does determine
important aspects of our behaviour and it may make or break an international contact or a
stay abroad. On the other hand a full consciousness of our culture would be impossible. It
would imply full consideration and evaluation of each behaviour, each thought, each attitude
and each emotion. We would block ourselves. Instead an inbuilt mechanism takes over for
us, enabling us to turn our attention elsewhere.

Culture is nothing but a label scientists use for understanding the behaviour of groups of
people. For this reason the starting point for the study of culture may be found either in a
theory or in the observation of the behaviour and patterns of thinking of people. In the end
the two approaches need to be reconciled either in a theory which fits reality or in an
understanding which goes beyond the here and now.

Culture is not limited to differences between countries but also influences your own way of
thinking, feeling and acting. Cultural differences between countries have quite a strong
impact on business. Furthermore, culture directly influences your way of living and your
relations with other people. If you stay abroad for a longer period of time, you may recognise
the effects of culture and try to deal with them by minimalising the negative consequences
and maximising the positive aspects. Learning about cultures is learning about yourself and
working with cultures is working on yourself. For these and other reasons knowledge and
understanding of culture is required, as well as cultural differences (us and them) and
ways and means to deal with these differences.
OBJECTIVES AND TARGET GROUPS
This small book started as the English summary of a book in Dutch on cross-cultural
management but ended as a text in its own right with its own objective and target group. The
Dutch book was written for Dutch students at universities of applied sciences. It took the
Netherlands as a country and its institutions as a starting point, a common base to explore the
world of culture and a world of differences. Starting to write an English summary you realise
that the book not only may be read by people who do not speak Dutch (e.g. students in the
international programmes at Dutch universities) but also that those readers do not have the
same starting point and hence, need other directions to reach a similar understanding of
culture. Indeed, cultural differences need to be taken into account.

For this reason this small book is both wider and shallower. It is wider because its content is
available for readers from many different national backgrounds. Using Dutch culture as a
common framework and Dutch situations as examples would be prohibitive for such readers.
Indeed, no single national background should be used as a starting point, if such an approach
would be possible. The author cannot escape his national background either. Approaching
culture in such a more general way, using human experience in general as a framework,
makes the book less specific and hence, shallower. In addition this book is not a study book,
aimed at helping students getting the best possible marks at exams but a rather general text,
aimed at enhancing the understanding of culture.

2 Culture Experienced


The target group of this book is at the same time wider. It is not only aimed at Dutch
students in higher education but at everyone who wants to develop his or her cultural
competence (discussed in more detail below). While writing the original book in Dutch
several people in quite different disciplines indicated to be interested as well. Available
books are often too theoretical or hundreds of pages long. Those additional readers who
presented themselves included business men with part of their jobs in the international arena
but also normal Dutch citizens (if such a phenomenon indeed exists), trying to get a better
understanding of their multicultural society.

The importance for business to understand cultures has already been mentioned. Business
discovered that you have to instruct employees in another country in another way in order to
ascertain the production in terms of quantity, quality and date of delivery or to provide
services according to the companys standards. In addition, every year billions of Euros are
lost as a result of failing economic co-operation across borders due to cultural differences.
Not surprisingly business is paying more and more attention to cultural differences between
countries and in a comparable way the effects of organisational culture on production or the
delivering of services. Business men and women recognise more and more that they cannot
work only from their national backgrounds in an international context and face the
difficulties in doing so.

Governments and to a lesser degree civil society face similar problems but pay less attention
to them. Although governments nearly by definition operate in an international environment,
they do not always take cultural differences into consideration or the consequences for
international relations. National governments within the European Union should recognise
this but this is not always the case. Even foreign policies do not always take cultural
differences into account, either during their development or in their implementation.
However if you know that a policy would be applied in the relation with another country,
you may suppose that the implementation may be more effective if cultural background are
taken into account.

An additional objective consists of the enhancement of understanding yourself through the
exploration of culture. Discovering your own culture is like recognising the basso continuo
in a piece of classical music. Studying culture may be compared with studying a symphony.
On the one hand you can listen to the music as a whole and on the other you may look at
individual instruments. An understanding of the parts does not give an understanding of the
whole and the other way around. A student at Maastricht University, Elitsa Katzarova, drew
a similar comparison on Rembrandts painting The Anatomical Lesson. Knowing how every
single organ functions hardly gives you information on the functioning of the body as a
whole. For this reason culture requires a continuous change of perspectives from the specific
to the whole and back. This book follows a similar approach.
MESSAGE
The title of this book reflects its key message. Culture appears to be rather soft but is quite
hard in its consequences. As mentioned above business pays billions of Euros for neglecting
culture. People get physically hurt in political demonstrations which reflect cultural
misunderstandings in modern societies. If those consequences of culture are indeed so hard,
people may better be prepared to face the consequences. The attraction of democratic
societies with open market economies makes these societies multicultural by consequence,
even if we leave the argument for the need of low skilled labour aside.

An additional argument was conveyed in the title of the Dutch book. This title was a word
play on becoming enriched through differences in combination with the need to reach out, a
willingness to become familiar with other mental frameworks. In English the equivalent
would be something like enreaching out through differences. The multiple level message is
that you need to be willing to reach out to other cultures and their differences with your own
Cross-cultural Management 3


culture in order to enrich yourself as a person. Working with culture is in that way a selfish
undertaking because of its benefit for the development of oneself.
COMPETENCE
The educational system in the Netherlands is mainly focused on competences. A competence
is an integral combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Each job may be described in a
dozen competences. If you master these competences, you master the job. Competence based
learning should result in a tighter fit of supply and demand, people who just finished their
studies and the requirements of the labour market. In addition, new employees need less time
to get adapted to their job.

This idea of a competence (capability) nicely coincides with the concept of cultural
intelligence of the authors Thomas and Inkson
2
. Cultural intelligence is an integral
combination of knowledge, behaviour and mindfulness. Because behaviour is a skill and
mindfulness an attitude, cultural intelligence may be considered a competence. Within the
framework of this book the emphasis lies on knowledge, knowledge as a starting point for
appropriate adaptation of behaviour and as a motivation for an open mind set in confronting
every new situation. Knowledge you can learn, changing you behaviour is already more
difficult and an attitude of mindfulness will often remain hard to realise for many. The
reason for the latter difficulty results from the idea that the basis for attitudes often lies in
childhood. A good example is a shop assistant selling shoes. You know immediately whether
someone is really friendly and customer oriented or whether someone has been following a
training in these fields.

Another question is who needs to obtain an intercultural, cross-cultural or trans-cultural
competence (inter~ focuses on differences and cross~ on commonalities; trans~ aims at a
new reality which encompasses both commonalities and differences). The short answer is:
everybody. On the one hand most of us live in a multicultural society and on the other one
may easily defend the position that in the European Union no job is without international
aspects. Such a competence is of course required for everyone who maintains international
contacts in his or her job and for everyone who deals with international and EU
consequences for his or her organisation.

2. STUDY OF CULTURE

Prior to any discussion of culture an important proviso has to be made. Each human being is
part of a number of cultures (see below), influencing the very perception of culture just like
physics where the very observation of fundamental particles influences the object studied.
This implies that a fully objective study of culture cannot be made. Culture has its effect on
all and everything we do, think and feel, more often than not unconsciously. Indeed, none of
us escapes culture and we would not even be human without it. Even the calculation of the
cost of living indices in different countries has proven to be prone to cultural perceptions.
For this reason research of culture often appears inconsistent or contradictory. Furthermore,
perceptions of culture are irrevocably linked to ones own mental make-up. Because of this
personal involvement in each study of culture (the linkage between a person and his or her
opinion of culture) you have to be aware of your own background and the reasons for
knowing more about culture.

Although we all have some idea of cultural differences, a structured discussion proves to be
rather difficult, also in view of the above mentioned proviso. The first problem in the study
of culture is the definition of the object and the further delineation of the study. Such a
definition tends to be elusive due to the intangible nature of the object and the circumstance
that a human being cannot function without it. Culture is us and we are culture; culture is all
encompassing. Because we cannot step outside ourselves, the final word will never be said
on the topic. An entomologist may study bees by placing a piece of red glass in the beehive
4 Culture Experienced

(bees cannot see red light), but he cannot communicate with the bees.

However, thanks to the research methods of the social sciences we may research important
aspects of culture. We may make observations, process and aggregate them, study the
differences, interpret and draw some conclusions, all the time hoping for further refinement
over time. Looking back to these efforts, we see hundreds of definitions on culture, each
reflecting a slightly different intention or approach in trying to get a grip on the concept.
These definitions (discussed in some more detail in chapter 3) may be divided in two groups:
culture as in the arts and culture as a condition of human behaviour. The two of them do
not exclude one another but rather reinforce one another. Culture as a condition of human
behaviour encompasses the expression of ideas in art.

This book focuses on the second or behavioural concept of culture. The words condition of
human behaviour refer to a number of scientific disciplines, in particular cultural
anthropology, sociology, psychology and business studies. The idea is the same each time:
we may observe human behaviour and try to draw conclusions from this behaviour. The
focal point for cultural anthropology is culture as such, for sociology the group and
behaviour and for psychology the individual person and patterns of thinking. In addition
culture may be studied on the basis of the size of groups (see paragraph 4c). Researchers try
to understand from the behaviour of people and to formulate statements with a predictive
validity: certain groups of people in certain circumstances show certain behaviour (or have a
limited set of options for behaviour).

The conclusions and hypotheses of researchers result in a concept of culture. It is not
something we can touch, not a physical object but something we play around with in our
heads. In the more technical sense of the social sciences we call it a construct. Researchers
use this construct in their efforts to explain behaviour. In this way researchers need national
culture as one of the differences between two groups of people from different countries. In
those cases talents and environment no longer provide sufficient explanations. Only
theoretically you may imagine two groups of people with only cultural differences but in
reality all kind of other aspects have their effects (e.g. place of living, contacts with others,
climate, race). We still do not have the answer to the nature nurture debate (whether
behaviour is determined by biology or by the environment) but more and more research
point to the fact that the two go hand in hand.

Whatever method you choose, to study culture you will always be the victim of the fallacy of
averages. Imagine two groups of equal size, one consisting of 1s and the other of 3s (figure
1). The average of both groups is 2s but nobody of either group will feel like a 2. You start
with individual values and beliefs and
end with averages. No single person will
fully match the national average of his or
her nationality. It also implies that when
you are aware of the common perception
of your national culture, you still need to
wonder where you stand as an individual
person vis--vis that average. This
fallacy of averages also constitutes the
first point in cross-cultural communication: look for the individual behind the labels of
nationality, employer or function.

Another general point of warning when dealing cultural differences has been called the
intercultural paradox. People stress the differences but tend to forget that they have much
more in common. Although approximately 98% of our DNA is exactly the same we may not
say that people are for 98% the same because personal development results in wider
differences.

3. DEFINITIONS
Figure 1: fallacy of averages
Cross-cultural Management 5



For reasons mentioned in chapter 2 a single definition on which most people would agree, is
impossible. Not only does it mean different things to different people in a way you have as
many cultures as you have people culture is also dynamic and changes with the context.
Furthermore, different disciplines study cultures on the
basis of different (scientific) paradigms, resulting in
different perceptions. The contrast between a multitude of
perceptions and a single definition may be compared with
two definitions of a circle. The classic definition of a circle
takes a centre and a radius and then draws the circle. An
alternative approach is the enclosed space of all tangents to
the circle (see figure 2). The latter approach is followed in
this book. This may also help in dealing with cultural
differences because you may consider yourself as a circle
and all tangents the influences of all groups you have ever
been a member of. Such an understanding of oneself
clarifies the starting point in dealing with cultural
differences.

The study of culture started a few centuries ago with observing tribes outside Europe,
resulting in the discipline of cultural anthropology. An early definition from this field is by
E.B. Tylor in 1871:
Culture is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals,
law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of
society
3


The key point here is that culture is not nature but nurture, something we learn.

An often cited definition from later days of cultural anthropology is by Kroeber and
Kluckhohn.
Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behaviour acquired and
transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups,
including their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of
traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached
values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on
the other, as conditioning elements of future action.
4
.

This definition relates to the already mentioned keywords group and behaviour.
Furthermore, culture is shared within the group and it determines not only behaviour but also
perceptions of reality and hence, the interpretation of experience. This definition also
contains the idea of transfer from people who already have a given culture to people without
that culture, in particular the intergenerational passing on of culture. However, this
perception may put us on the wrong footing when discussing specific subcultures. In a
specific youth culture hardly any age differences exist, its members do not belong to one
social group and concepts like achievement and traditional are hardly applicable.
Everybody in the subculture of for instance a disco nevertheless learns the socially
acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Furthermore, this definition stresses the bidirectional
nature of culture and behaviour.

Studies of culture by cultural anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists did not fit well
with the needs of business. International business required one model for comparing the
cultures of many different states, resulting in clear guidelines of what to do with these
differences. The research by Hofstede and Trompenaars, independent of one another,
responded to this need. Hofstede applied a thorough statistical analysis (multivariate factor
analysis) on the answers to a large number of questionnaires and concluded that the answers
to the questions could be divided in four groups or patterns. If the answer of respondents
within one country on a specific question tended in one direction, answers to other questions
Figure 2.: approach of
culture
6 Culture Experienced

(within the same cluster) proved to be related. A decade later Trompenaars used the same
technique, all differences between the two research projects notwithstanding.

Hofstede defines culture as collective mental programming which differentiates the members
of one group or category of people from those of others
5
. It concerns the thinking of people
in certain patterns, just like computer programmes. The latter however, are less flexible than
the thinking of people. Furthermore, the thinking has an collective element, the thinking of a
group of people in a similar way. Hence, Hofstede regards culture as a more or less fixed
way of thinking. It results in behaviour, although that has not been mentioned in the
definition. The same applies for the concepts of norms and values which belong to the core
of culture.

Trompenaars based his research on approximately 50,000 questionnaires from more than 100
countries. He does not give a strict definition of culture but rather a description
6
. Culture is a
collective system of meaning with a number of layers. The outside, the easiest aspect to be
observed, shows explicit products of culture, such as language, food, architecture and art.
One layer deeper we see the norms and values. Trompenaars takes the uncertainties mankind
faces as his starting point. These uncertainties may be divided in seven dilemmas (further
divided into the relations between people, the experience of time and the relationship
between men and nature). Each national culture deals with these dilemmas in a unique way.

The reality of doing international business resulted in a number of interesting definitions,
such as the approach by John Mole
7
. From the title of the Dutch translation of one of his
books I derive a practical definition of culture: the way we do things here. Culture is then a
specific behaviour, limited to time and place. The word here expresses both limitations. At
another time and in a different place we do things differently.

Looking at the hundreds of definitions of culture we may recognise six areas which are being
mentioned. Combining all six of them in a single
definition would result in culture is the
behaviour of a group of people, based on
patterns of thinking and feeling and the related
values and belief, at a specific time and place.
This does not include the idea that culture is
passed on from one generation to the other,
because many cultures would not be included
(e.g. organisational cultures, youth culture,
family culture). The idea that culture is
something we learn and transfer to others and
not something we are born with, is implicit. On
the one hand behaviour and patterns of thinking
are concepts which result from learning. On the
other hand, if culture would be something we are
born with, we would see much less variation.
4. CONCEPTS

Definitions mentioned above clearly indicate the difficulty of defining culture and even more
so, agreeing on one definition. For this reason many authors prefer to describe rather than
define cultures.

On the brink between a definition and a concept is the remark by Joel A. Barker that culture
is a paradigm jungle. A paradigm is a set of rules and procedures (written and unwritten)
with two effects: the definition and indication of borders; and the description of how to
handle with success within the defined limits. Each of us has a knowledge and understanding
of dozens of paradigms, inherited from all the different groups we have been a member of
(family, schools, jobs, sport clubs, men/women, nationality et cetera). All these paradigms
co-exist in our minds and each time we try to select the best possible paradigm for dealing
Figure 3 Summary of definitions of
culture
Cross

with a situation at hand.

4A VAN ASPEREN

Mrs. van Asperen a concept of perceiving culture in three different ways
represents the idea that my culture is more beautiful and better than every other culture and
that other culture is inferior to mine. Over a century ago Europeans perceived the rest of the
world in such a way. A clear example is the main charact
Around the World in 80 Days by Jules Verne.

Relativism represents the idea that all cultures are equal but also so specific that you can
never truly understand another culture. You cannot be raised twice. Hence, you ma
the other culture as such. The consequence is for instance that within one city cultures live
next to one another, according to national background, and in fact together do not constitute
a community. Relativism is a major factor to deal with when
multicultural society.
Monism Relativism


one civilisation
other cultures are
primitive or behind
culture determines
people
cultures are strictly
separated phenomena
cultures are equal

Figure 4: Model Van Asperen

In the third situation, moral communicative universalism, people recognise that cultures have
common elements, like the universal human rights (whether this is the best example and
whether these rights are truly universal is a topic of another discussion).
elements are the starting point for communication between cultures.

4B PINTO

Professor Pinto stresses in his model tight and loose structure
to group and individualistic cultures
individual first and foremost serves the interests of the group
s/he belongs to. These cultures are tight in the sense that the
individual has to follow many rules of appropriate behaviour.
In individualistic culture the individual is
her own interests and uses groups to reach these individual
objectives. These cultures are loose because the individual is
not caught in a tight web of rules but rather has many
opportunities to set his or her own rules

The idea of tight and loose cultures or group and individualistic cultures comes back in quite
a few concepts of culture and is also linked to styles of
Understanding cultural differences
8
Edward en Mildred Hall discuss the concepts of high
Figure 5: Pinto's model
Cross-cultural Management
Mrs. van Asperen a concept of perceiving culture in three different ways (figure 3). Monism
represents the idea that my culture is more beautiful and better than every other culture and
that other culture is inferior to mine. Over a century ago Europeans perceived the rest of the
world in such a way. A clear example is the main character, Phileas Fogg in the famous book
Verne.
that all cultures are equal but also so specific that you can
never truly understand another culture. You cannot be raised twice. Hence, you may accept
the other culture as such. The consequence is for instance that within one city cultures live
next to one another, according to national background, and in fact together do not constitute
a community. Relativism is a major factor to deal with when solving the problems of
Communicative moral
universalism

culture determines

cultures are strictly
separated phenomena
cultures are equal
every human being is
unique
cultural phenomena
change through a
ongoing process of
interpersonal contacts
In the third situation, moral communicative universalism, people recognise that cultures have
common elements, like the universal human rights (whether this is the best example and
whether these rights are truly universal is a topic of another discussion). The common
elements are the starting point for communication between cultures.
tight and loose structures. These structures are related
to group and individualistic cultures. In an group culture the
individual first and foremost serves the interests of the group
s/he belongs to. These cultures are tight in the sense that the
individual has to follow many rules of appropriate behaviour.
In individualistic culture the individual is focused on his or
her own interests and uses groups to reach these individual
objectives. These cultures are loose because the individual is
not caught in a tight web of rules but rather has many
opportunities to set his or her own rules.
ght and loose cultures or group and individualistic cultures comes back in quite
a few concepts of culture and is also linked to styles of communication. In their book
Edward en Mildred Hall discuss the concepts of high
7
8 Culture Experienced


and low context cultures. Communication takes place within a certain context and the
meaning of that context (e.g. history, relation, status, atmosphere, time of the day, place)
varies from culture to culture. In a low context culture the receiver of the communication
gets most of the information from the message itself, while in a high context culture much of
the information is hidden in the person of the sender and the context. In the former case
information is explicit and in the latter implicit.

The position of the Netherlands within this dichotomy of group and individualistic cultures is
quite interesting. As a (post-)modern country the Netherlands is considered an individualistic
country, fitting will with the commercial traditions. On the other hand Dutch people also
look for the comfort of the group. Research in the results of elections indicates that the Dutch
vote according to group patterns. The Dutch want to have their cake and eat it too.

4C THE TRIANGLE MODEL

In addition to concepts developed by others we introduce our own triangle model to structure
different shapes of culture (e.g. national and organizational culture). This model has not been
based on patterns of behaviour or patterns of thinking but rather on the size of groups.
National cultures are composed of a large number of elements, each with a different weight.
The one element has a stronger impact on external observation than the other. Although
hardly anybody will deny the differences between countries, the descriptions of these
differences vary considerably. This is also influenced by the background of the observer;
from which culture does he or she come, to what degree is he or she taking cultural
differences into account and what background information is available?

The difficulty results in part
from the layered nature of
culture, as demonstrated in
figure 4. The drawing represents
four levels of culture , from top
to bottom the levels the state, the
organisation, the small group
(team, family) and the
individual. By distinguishing
between these four levels you
may be more specific and more
consistent on what you are
discussing and hence, avoid
confusion. In this way a proper
understanding of culture may be
obtained.

The graphic representation in the
form of a triangle indicates an
ever smaller number of people
from top to bottom. At the same
time each layer is interrelated with the others. However, this representation is in itself a nice
demonstration of cultural consequences. When this triangle was used during a lecture on
culture, one person in the audience pointed out that the triangle representation gives the idea
of culture bearing down on the individual, making the individual more or less the victim of
culture. He proposed to present the same idea in the shape of four concentric circles with the
individual in the middle. That, however, is giving to much credit to the individual (the
individual in the middle of the circle) to our liking, as if s/he is the core of existence. The
triangle on the other hand depicts the idea of an exchange between individual and group,
between determining and being determined and between influencing and being influenced.
Furthermore, such a drawing with concentric circles makes it difficult to recognise that the
Figure 6: the triangle concept
Cross-cultural Management 9


individual is a member of many different groups.
INDIVIDUAL CULTURE
At the bottom of the triangle we see an individual with juggling balls, trying to keep them all
in the air. These balls represent the different groups and hence the different cultures the
individual belongs to. Each person belongs to many different groups, each with different
characteristics and intensity. These groups vary from virtual to realistic. Realistic groups
may indeed come together (e.g. the staff of one department, the members of a family) and
virtual groups only share certain characteristics (e.g. the group of all women in a society, all
academics in a certain discipline worldwide, leisure time coaches of the sports team of son or
daughter, Saturday supermarket visitors). Each group results in different behaviour on the
basis of different cultures and the individual person switches continuously between these
cultures. In this sense one may say that ones identity is the sum of ones (sub)cultures.

On this level culture results in individual behaviour. A number of individuals however, may
show similar behaviour and may share at that moment some culture, causing similar
behaviour. Group behaviour may be related to pressure in different degrees. The question is
who exercises this pressure and for what reason but also why the individual adapts
him/herself accordingly (socialisation processes). Answers may be found through
sociological and psychological approaches of culture. The same applies to socialisation
processes.

On the individual level we may also discuss the idea of identity. The triangle with four layers
of culture may on the individual level be represented by a cultural backpack everyone
carries. This backpack represents all cultural experiences (groups, paradigms, values and the
like) an individual has collected over time. These experiences influence (sometimes even
determine) the behaviour, feeling and thinking of the person who carries the backpack. We
may investigate the contents of each others backpack but we cannot borrow the backpack of
someone else.

SMALL GROUPS

One level up you see the small group, e.g. a family or a project team. At this level
interactions with others and communication are added. The individual meets others and has
to clarify his/her position, defend his/her interests, ask something etcetera. However, the
individual is still recognised as such, an individual person with all his/her good and bad
habits and other characteristics, not as a means to an end, realizing the objectives of the
organization.

A small group may be work related, like a team, particularly if the team can set its own rules
to a certain degree. The culture of a smaller group may also be found in (nucleus) family.
Certain habits may exist for generations, e.g. first name which originate from a childs own
mispronunciation when small.

LARGER GROUPS

The second layer of the triangle represents the cultures of larger groups. This type of culture
may be divided in group culture and organisational culture. The picture shows three people
standing on top of one another, representing hierarchy. However horizontal an organisation
may be, someone is ultimately responsible, implying that no organisation goes without
hierarchy. The important thing at this level however, is not hierarchy but that persons do not
count on this level as individual persons but rather as people who fulfil certain functions in
reaching the objectives of the organisation. People at this level are important for their role,
not who they are.

10 Culture Experienced


Organisational culture is quite an important topic in view of its effect for the functioning of
an organisation. It requires a separate discussion which is outside the scope of this book but a
few key points may be mentioned. First of all organisational culture is an instrument
management may use. The better organisational culture matches the objectives of the
organisation, the more focused employees work and the more they are satifsfied with their
work. (Fine)tuning organisational culture to reach this ideal is often promoted by the HR
department but is a responsibility of management and requires the involvement of
everybody.

Organisational cultures may vary according to sectors and occupations (marketing and
finance stress different values for instance). In the same vein organisational cultures vary
from one company to another, even if they are direct competitors and are comparable in most
ways. However, such variation does not deter some researchers in trying to find out what the
optimal organisational culture might be in a certain sector. For others such efforts look like
scientific management (e.g. Taylorism and Fordism) which reduces the human factor to a
machinelike quality.

Another point of discussion refers to the relation between organisational culture and the
organisational structure. Three arguments may be heard: structure influences culture, culture
influences structure and culture and structure influence one another. If you take the dynamic
aspects in consideration (variations over time) the latter appears to be the most realistic
although is the most complex relation which is also the hardest to prove.

Influencing or even changing organisational culture shows to be rather difficult, just because
people do not like to change their patterns of thinking and behaviour. Hence, such an
endeavour requires quite some efforts, as well as the involvement of a large majority of the
staff. This process is also influenced by national cultures in view of the relation between
employer and employee. These relations are far from standard and may vary for instance
according to acceptance of hierarchy or egalitarian approaches on the other hand.

The linkage between national culture and company culture is not always simple or direct.
Even if only Dutch people work in a company with full Dutch property, national and
company culture will not coincide. The Dutch people bring of course their culture with them
but nobody fits exactly in the national picture. The accidental combination of those
employees is one factor, next to the mentality of the founder, the company objectives and
some more factors make their own, unique combination.

NATIONAL CULTURES
Finally, at the top we see culture on the national level or the state with patriotism and the
like. People are not recognised as individuals but rather as numbers in a population. As a
whole they represent that state, they form the political, economic, cultural and other power
factors of the state in the international arena.

A state in turn consists of many different organisations, small groups and individuals. The
triangle clearly clarifies that culture at the national level is an aggregated concept; an
average, which gives an overall idea but which also does not do justice to individual persons.
I am not my national culture; I only contribute to it.

The triangle may be extended at its top with for instance European or even worldwide
cultures. Such an approach refers to the idea that such wider cultures would replace national
cultures (e.g. McDonaldization or American pop music). However, research indicates that
these identities are not replacing national ones but rather co-exist with one another. People
within the European Union are expressing more and more their identities at lower of sub-
national levels (province, region, municipality).

Cross-cultural Management 11


TWO PROCESSES

The four layers of culture as described above, do not only differ from one another but they
also show similarities. At each level two similar processes may be perceived, even if they
differ from one another in their expression (fractal
9
). These two similarities are answers to
the search of individuals and groups for identity and certainty.

Regarding identity I mentioned already the idea that an individual person switches
continuously between the cultures of all groups in which s/he participates. This implies that
individual identity is not something that stands on its own. People try to define their identity
in an exchange between the individual and the group. At the one but lowest level identity is
defined as member of a family or of a working group. One level higher people derive
identify from the organisation for which they work (loyalty to the employer). At the highest
level an individual obtains the nationality of a state. Looking back to the practical definition
of culture given, identity is shown in the word we.

At the same time people try to avoid uncertainty (up to a point; some cultures allow much
ambiguity). The way in which this happens, differs again from one level to the other. The
larger the group, the more it may offer a sense of security (more people, more defence). At
the same time it demands increasing adaptation of the individual and hence, loss of
autonomy.

This quest for certainty is also reflected in the practical definition of John Mole, the way we
do things here. As long as you act according to the norm of the group, you do not have any
problem. The search for identity and certainty may take many forms and result in many
different answers. These answers are presented in or expressed through a more or less
coherent package, the fundament of our thinking, feeling and behaviour, culture for short.

5. ASPECTS OF CULTURE

After definitions and concepts of culture we may mention many aspects of culture to further
clarify what culture is. In view of the objective to keep this a small book only a few aspects
are mentioned. The list of aspects is far from exhaustive and rather intended as some
examples.
history
The history of a country or organisation gives a first indication of its culture, explaining
up to 50%. An example of how Netherlands national culture may be derived from
history may be found in Han van der Horsts The Low Sky
10
. The impact of history on
culture will not be further elaborated and will be intuitively clear to most of you. To
understand another country, you have to know about its history, normally by reading
about it.
Consultants on organisational culture often start with analysing the history of an
organisation to find clues (e.g. influence of the founder of the company, stories which
go around like myths or legends, key issues, phases in the development of the
organisation, previous employees who are presented as examples). In this way
understanding a culture starts with reading and digging in the past.
development of culture
Culture changes slowly over time, due to societal developments or in case of an
organisation due to changing objectives. However, change comes about slowly and
often at considerable (human) costs. People do not like to change too much and rather
prefer to continue doing things as in the past. However, as the saying goes if you
always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got. Some
changes just present themselves as sheer necessity but are even then not welcome.
stereotypes
People tend to think in categories, like the Dutchman or the Frenchman. In doing so they
fall prey to the fallacy of averages, because THE Dutchman or whatever nationality does
12 Culture Experienced


not exist, only the image of a nationality in the mind of someone. That image will not be
representative. Even in your own country you are hardly aware of all the different
groups in society and hence, the image of your own nationality is not representative.
Although we cannot avoid stereotypes we may be aware of them and try to look beyond
these concepts and try to discover the individual characteristics of the persons we are
involved with. An individual Italian may even be cheaper than a Dutchman!
prejudices
Prejudices build on stereotypes in not only accepting them but also taking them for
granted and not opening yourself to information which might qualify this perception. In
this way prejudices not only reflect a mental short-sightedness (often hard to point out or
to accept) but may do more harm than good because of the insult experienced by the
victims of these prejudices. Regrettably people are easy victims for developing
prejudices (probably each of us has some), just because man is more or less by
definition not perfect.
in- and out-groups
In-groups are groups we belong to. We may reservations about certain aspects but in
principle we agree with what people in these groups do. Out-groups are groups of
others, of them, people we either do not care about, reject or admire (groups we cannot
belong to even if we wanted to). In case of out-groups stereotypes and prejudices are
more often than not at work. Mental divisions between in-groups and out-groups
determine our perception of reality.
climate
Climate appears to be an independent factor but shows to influence culture. Some
economic and development theories try to delineate the influence of culture. Moderate
climates like in the Netherlands force people to work hard for shelter and food but also
allow people to enjoy the benefits of this labour. Cold climates would result in a more
single minded focus on survival while hot climates could be prohibitive for physical
efforts.
food and drinks
Although every human being needs to eat and drink, what we eat and drink and how we
do it varies enormously. In this way eating and drinking is an aspect of culture; what
we eat is who we are. Each of us has some idea of a few national cuisines like Turkish
food, the Italian kitchen, French cuisine and so on but once again, within those countries
the variations are larger than outsiders are aware of. The same idea applies to the way of
eating, e.g. with knife and fork, with only a fork, a spoon, chopsticks or your hands.
the relation between culture and the economy
The way we do business reflect our culture and the other way around. In the most
general way this relation is reflected in economic models like the Rhineland model or
the Anglo-Saxon model. Specific examples include the relations between employer and
employees, bonus systems and flexible pay, labour conditions, organisational culture
and the role of contracts. Is a contract a contract which needs to be served whatever the
circumstances or may a contract be changed if the circumstances change? Trompenaars
(see chapter 6) uses this example in his description of the dilemma universalism
particularism.
religion
For some people religion is all encompassing and everything a human being thinks and
does, fits within this wider framework. You may only respect such an opinion,
discussing it will be to no avail. From a strictly scientific point of view, however,
religion is part of culture (see also the paragraph a further perspective in chapter 4).
Religion then encompasses the relation between mankind and the supernatural,
including ways of dealing with uncertainties and defining moral principles. Some
religions surpass national cultures (Islam, Christianity) and some are linked to ethnicity
(Jews, Incas) or tribes. In the limited interpretation religion is a channel for giving
answers which might otherwise be provided by culture.
culture and international relations.
International relations of states consist of the co-operation between governments of
different countries. Because each country (like any other group) has its own culture,
Cross-cultural Management 13


taking the cultural differences into account might help in maintaining these relations.
However, this perception often appears to be more of an ideal than a reality. Diplomats
even try to find ways of dealing with one another and with other governments which are
based on international standards (independent of national cultures), the diplomatic
culture. Although diplomats sometimes appear to succeed in these endeavours, a closer
study might well reveal that they cannot get rid of their own national and other
backgrounds.

6. COMPARING NATIONAL CULTURES

National cultures are particularly important in international business because of the concept
of national sovereignty and the need to conduct business affairs within national, legal, and
political frameworks.
11


As mentioned before business has a need for a framework for comparing national cultures
with one another in a consistent way, resulting in recommendations for dealing with the
differences found.

National cultural differences are a classic example of us and them; they are doing things
(sometimes) in strange ways; odd, why cannot they do it our way? Many researchers tried
to get a grip on these differences by conducting comparative studies between countries
according to certain aspects. Hofstede used existing material and derived four dimensions
from his analysis. His main research was done in the 1970s. Later he added a fifth
dimension. Trompenaars did his work more than a decade later, developed his questionnaire
on the basis of the theories of cultural anthropology regarding uncertainty and found seven
dilemmas.

These studies give insight into the cultural differences between countries and also help to
deal with them. However, rational understanding differs from emotional apprehension, does
not automatically result in different behaviour or adaptations in communication. If you really
want to bridge cultural differences you should be willing to adapt. However, by stressing the
differences we should not forget the commonalities. We are all human beings and have more
in common than what divides us.

The research by Hofstede results in easy to use key figures per country. However, this cannot
be stressed enough, these figures are not more than aggregates of individual perceptions and
an individual person never fits completely his or her national average. Furthermore, a
national culture consists of many subcultures, which may vary considerably from the overall
picture. Next to this rather general word of caution, other researchers have expressed
methodological criticism, requiring even more caution in the use of this research. However,
we should keep in mind that this research was an innovation, the first large-scale sociological
comparative research of national cultures and is still widely used.

Hofstede defines the original four dimensions as follows
12
:

Power Distance: the extent to which the less powerful members of society accept that
power is distributed unequally
Masculinity versus femininity
Masculinity: the dominant values in society are achievement and success.
Femininity: the dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life.
Individualism versus collectivism
Individualism: people look after themselves and their immediate family only
Collectivism: people belong to in-groups (families, clans or organizations) who look
after them in exchange for loyalty.
Uncertainty Avoidance: the extent to which people feel threatened by uncertainty and
ambiguity and try to avoid these situations.

14 Culture Experienced


For each of these four dimensions Hofstede developed lists of characteristics for scoring
either high or low on a given dimension. He also translated the four dimensions to business
environments. Below you find the scores of some selected countries according to these four
dimensions (on a scale from approximately 1-100) as an example of this research.


COUNTRY
P
o
w
e
r

D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e


I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
i
s
m


M
a
s
c
u
l
i
n
i
t
y


U
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y

A
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e


Austria 11 55 79 70
France 68 71 43 86
Germany 35 67 66 65
Japan 54 46 95 92
Netherlands 38 80 14 53
USA 40 91 62 46

As matrices go, you may read the table above or the more extensive tables in the
works by Hofstede either vertically or horizontally. The former gives you an idea
how a dimension is distributed over countries and the latter an idea of a specific
country. If you want to know where the major differences between two countries,
you simply take the two rows out of such a table and you see immediately what the
major difference is. Each possible difference in turn may be dealt with according to
fixed procedures with enough scope for individual circumstances.

Trompenaars
13
perceives culture as finding answers to the key dilemmas (in contrast to the
dimensions of Hofstede) of life. People find their own positions somewhere between the two
extreme positions and may move back and forth between those positions. Trompenaars does
not give figures per country but he does show how populations in different countries answer
to questions, related to his seven dilemmas. These seven dilemmas are divided in three: He
formulated three domains: relations between people, attitudes to time and attitudes to
environment. The first one (relations between people) is further split in five.

relations between people
universalism versus particularism
universalist: obligation to adhere to standards which are universally agreed to by
the culture in which we live; rule-based; abstract
particularist: focus on the exceptional nature of present circumstances
individualism versus communitarianism: what we want as an individual versus the
interest of the group we belong to (prime orientation to the self; prime orientation to
common goals and objectives)
neutral versus affective
neutral: not showing emotions, keep them carefully controlled and subdued
affective: showing our emotions, also receiving an emotional response.
specific versus diffuse: degree to which we engage others in specific areas of life
and single levels of personality, or diffusely in multiple areas of our lives and at
several levels of personality at the same time
achievement versus ascription
achievement: accord status to people on the basis of their achievements (achieved
status); refers to doing
ascription: accord status to people on the basis of age, class, gender, education
etc. (ascribed status); refers to being; logically or not logically connected with
business effectiveness
attitudes to time
Cross-cultural Management 15


sequential (line of events) versus synchronic (cyclical and repetitive)
we think about past, present and future with relative time horizons
attitudes to environment
survival meant acting against and with the environment; economic growth has to do
with controlling nature
inner directed: societies believe that they can and should control nature by imposing
their will upon it; this kind of culture tends to identify with mechanisms
outer directed: societies believe that man is part of nature and must go along with its
laws, directions and forces; tends to see an organisation as itself a product of nature

Although the research by Hofstede and Trompenaars is based on tens of thousands of
questionnaires in dozens of countries, they show different pictures. Hofstede sees for
instance the Netherlands as a country with limited power distance between people, a high
femininity (focused on the quality of existence and care for others), individualistic and
average on the dimension of uncertainty avoidance. Trompenaars perception of the
Netherlands is strongly universalistic, moderate individualistic, neutral in showing emotions,
strongly specific, inclined to according status on external characteristics (ascriptive), with
fairly long time horizon (less so to the future than to the past) and inner directed.

Hofstedes picture of the Netherlands Trompenaars picture of the Netherlands
power distance 38% universalism 90%
individualism 80% individualism 65%
masculinity 14% slightly affective 46%
uncertainty avoidance 53% specific 91%
achievement status 70%

reasonable long time horizon but less so
to the future than to the past
internalistic

These differences should not surprise you. A national culture is of course composed of a
large number of different elements, each with a different weight. One element may have a
stronger effect on the external perception of culture than another. Although nobody denies
the differences between countries, the descriptions of these differences vary widely. This is
also influenced by the background of the observer: what is his or her (sub)cultural
background, does s/he perceive cultural differences and to what degree and what is his or her
background? Other causes for differences in perceptions of national cultures may be the
result of another point in time of the research, the theoretical framework, the research
method and the target group.

These differences between the results of two researchers, both dealing with the same,
established culture, highlight the point that their results only should serve as a source of
inspiration. Building up experience with cultural differences over time, you will prefer the
one point over the other on the basis of your own individual preferences
14
. By then you have
discovered what for you, again as an individual, is an important indicator of cultural
differences.

The effects of national cultures on organisational cultures (layer one and two in the triangle
model) has been demonstrated by several researchers, including John Mole
15
. He gives a
16 Culture Experienced


clear picture based on research and on personal experiences as an international consultant. In
the graph below business cultures are plotted on the axes of leadership and organisation. The
horizontal axis represents the form of the organisation, ranging from organic to systematic.
An organic organisation grows over time and gets its shape as a result of all developments
with a major impact on the organisation. Nobody can describe how such an organisation
functions, but somehow it does. A systematic organisation is one, which is designed as if on
the drawing board and implemented as such. The vertical axis depicts leadership, from
individual to collective leadership (from the strong boss to the management team). On the
one end you may find the strong boss or the single owner who established the firm, on the
other the management team. The dominant company culture according to these axes has
been indicated by country.
Philip dIribarne also clarifies the linkage between national and company culture. He
investigated three identical aluminium melting plants of one company in France, the US and
the Netherlands. He shows not only the differences in company cultures but also the linkage
between the national culture and the national history
16
.

7. VALUES

The core of culture consists of values and beliefs. They shape the deepest and strongest
motivations of people. Examples of values are justice, individual freedom and thrift. Norms,
values and beliefs only change over years, particularly because they are only developed in
our pre-adult years.

A general definition of values may be found in the European Values Study., p. 1).
Values are deeply rooted dispositions, orientations, or motives guiding people to act or
behave in a certain way. They are believed to be more complex, more basic, and more
enduring than attitudes, opinions, and preferences.
17


The researchers Sagiv and Schwartz somewhat more explicit.
We define values as conceptions of the desirable that guide the ways social actors (e.g.
organizational leaders, indivual persons) select actions, evaluate people and events,
and explain their actions and evaluation.
18


Professor Jack Denfeld Wood makes a further distinction between values and beliefs. Not all
researchers in this field follow this example.
By belief I mean a seemingly rational conviction about what is true and what is
false. Belief is existential in the sense that it concerns what is presumed to exist
as fact. A belief need not include a valuation. By value I mean something more akin to
individual
group
organic systematic
leadership
organisation
Finland

Denmark
Greece
Luxemburg UK Netherlands
Italy Ireland
Portugal Austria
Belgium Germany
US
Spain
France
Russia
Figure 8: national and organisational culture
Cross-cultural Management 17


a felt emotional conviction about what is good and what is bad. True and false are
not equivalent to good and bad. A value implies comparative worth. A belief can be
more or less neutral but a value cannot. A value is always relative.
19


Values (and beliefs) are often mentioned in the same breath with norms, because norms are
the application of values in day-to-day reality, the actual expression of values. Values (and
beliefs) have their effects over centuries, even if we do not know exactly how we pass them
on over generations. Another aspect of values (and beliefs) is that people obtain them in their
pre-adult years. Afterwards values (and beliefs) do not or hardly change anymore. In
combination with the necessity of certain values for a functioning democracy and market
oriented economy (theory by Inglehart, see below), the populations in the Central European
EU Member States would need at least two generations (starting late 1989) to complete the
desired transformation into democracy and market oriented economy.

Although some people say otherwise, the question remains whether truly universal values
exist, like freedom, democracy, justice or welfare. The question is related to the question of
universal human rights. If such universal values do exist, they form only a small part of the
values of a given society. In order to know the values of a country, you need a thorough
understanding of that country, something you normally only acquire after a couple of years.
However, you may read on the history of the country, its institutions (see below) and its
culture, giving you an appropriate first idea to develop your knowledge of the country in
question in more detail.

Research of values is difficult. Values are of course no concrete things but a deduction or
interpretation of the behaviour of people; a construct. Furthermore, values are mostly
unconsciously present in our thinking. Hence, we cannot ask for values directly. You might
determine values by long-term observation but such an approach costs lots of time, the group
should not be too large and the researcher gets more and more involved. A solution lies in
carefully drafted questionnaires, asking all the time what people consider important, often on
the basis of a series of alternatives.

Gabril van den Brink clearly demonstrates the strong role of values in the developments in
the Netherlands, marked by the rise to political fame of Pim Fortuyn
20
. His research focuses
on the shifts in the political habitus of the Dutch people, an excellent area for seeing values
at work. On the basis of societal changes Van den Brink differentiates between three types of
citizens: the threatened citizen, the resigned citizen and the active citizen. The threatened
citizen faces difficulties in dealing with societal changes and prefers an active attitude of the
government. They liked Fortuyn because he promised a more active role of government
regarding these problems, perceived and experienced as threats. The active citizen on the
other hand wants an as limited as possible involvement of government because s/he may
solve the problems him or herself. Fortuyn appeared to be an attractive alternative also for
this group due to the promised of a leaner government.

A good example of values research may be found in the European Values Study (EVS) and
the World Values Survey (WVS). Tilburg University started the former in the late seventies,
a comparative research project to delineate value patterns in a number of countries. In each
country a partner university is responsible for conducting the survey on the basis of a master
questionnaire by submitting it to a representative group of people. The original focus areas
were religion and morality, work, family and politics. After surveys in 1980 and 1990 these
efforts were joined by a similar US research project in other countries. The outcomes of the
surveys in 2000 by the two groups were merged in one database and is accessible through
internet (www.worldvaluessurvey.org; data from the 2008 survey are not yet available). The
research provides lots of interesting materials, urging others to do follow-up research (e.g.
finding explanations) or to develop theories. One of these for instance indicates that Europe
differentiates from other continents because of the influence of Christianity, antiquity, the
Enlightenment and nineteenth century nationalism (EA Europe is not America, Africa,
Asia, Australia, Antarctica).
18 Culture Experienced



Ingleharts theory
21
deals with the change from western, industrial society to the next phase
of human development, postmodern society, a similar change as the earlier one from
agricultural to industrial or modern society (leading to the modernity discussion in the 19th
century with Marx and Weber as the best known representatives). For the first time in history
modern man in the West does not need to worry about survival, thanks to quite a number of
provisions (retirement funds, illness insurance, unemployment benefits and the like). This
development results in different values and beliefs and a society with less emphasis on work
and politics and more on quality of life and individual self-expression.

8. DEALING WITH CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

Knowing about cultures and recognising their differences is one thing, dealing with these
differences quite another. To start with, not all differences between people from different
countries are cultural differences. If you think of the triangle model, you may easily realise
that differences may be the result of a different employer or a different line of work, different
family background or personality (layers two through four).

Next, stating the need for respect for cultural differences is easier said than done. If the
behaviour of the other strongly contrasts with ones own perceptions emotional rejection
may likely be stronger than rational acceptance.

The first step of dealing with cultural differences is being aware of them. If you would travel
to another country without being aware of cultural differences, like children going with their
parents on holidays abroad, you may some things in stride but you will be mostly surprised
or annoyed or finding it difficult to get your message across. This book has already indicated
some theories to describe those differences, including Hofstede, Trompenaars, European
Values Study, World Values Survey.

Another way of finding the differences (without forgetting the commonalities!) is of course
your own observation. This may start from language and include things like building styles,
traffic patterns or advertising. Your own observations are of importance for you yourself
because they indicate the major differences with your own mental frameworks. Another
question is whether they have a more general value. The more you would pool observations
of for instance Dutchmen on Tanzania together, the more the key differences will emerge but
at the cost of decreasing focus on individual points of attention. Switching back and forth
between the general and the individual requires some background knowledge, an open mind
and a dialogue with oneself. Ultimately you may draw up your own list of points of attention
in dealing with cultural differences (see below), based on research, descriptions and
observations.

Observing cultural differences has a strong link with ones own culture. Key points are the
degree of openness to other cultures and willingness to learn and adapt. Cultural differences
appear smaller if you adapting more. Not every Dutchman is willing to eat grilled
grasshoppers, even if you recognise the positive value of food being offered by a Maasai in
Tanzania.

Not all differences may be bridged. Sometimes you get no further than limiting or
neutralising negative consequences (for you). Positive aspects and potential may have to wait
for your discovery.

Although we may study and discuss cultural differences in much detail, we should not only
focus on these differences. Solely emphasizing the differences may result in
misunderstanding and conflict. Respect for these differences and trying to bridge them on the
other hand, leads to comprehension and co-operation. Less conflict and more co-operation
between people and countries are important conditions for progress.

Cross-cultural Management 19


Wood
22
suggests that cultural differences may be bridged by personality and ideology. If you
try to apply his model to actual situations, you notice that the idea of ideology and
personality bridging cultures is much too limited. It would imply that you may bridge the
differences only if persons have a common personality and/or ideology. In reality more
means exist to overcome the differences, boiling down to the recognition of common
interests. Furthermore, the distance between cultures may vary considerably and may even
partially overlap.

On the basis of this idea and our own experience we rather depict the idea of dealing with
cultural differences as a bridge between your own culture and the culture of the other party
you are dealing with (figure 9). Such a bridge is founded on respect for the other as a
fundamental condition, based on the equality of people
23
.
Do not say that the other is behaving in an odd way, just accept the way he or she is
behaving and try to understand where this behaviour is coming from. Respect implies a
restraint in judgement on different behaviour and the start of a dialogue with the recognition
that your own behaviour is strange to the other. Respect also implies a dialogue, aimed at co-
operation. As mentioned above Thomas and Inkson prefer to speak of mindfulness, because
it stresses even more to keep an open mind in evanluating the situation.
The second necessary condition (on this basis) is the recognition of common interests. The
picture also draws attention to the necessity of knowing your own culture; how does your
own culture comes across to your discussion partner? Finally, the figure stresses the
importance of trying to understand the culture of the other.

Figure 9 also ties in with the earlier mentioned idea of cultural intelligence or a trans-cultural
competence.
knowledge of
yourself, the cultures which influence(d) you and their influence on communication
and behaviour.
the image of your own nationality abroad and your own position vis--vis that image
(the degree to which you are part of it and your own perception).
the culture of the other, if possible the whole range of the triangles of everybody you
deal with across borders.
culture in general and its effects.
ways and means of dealing with cultural differences.
skills to
your own culture
the other culture:
similarities and differences
respect
common interests
Figure 9: Dealing with Cultural Differences
20 Culture Experienced


adapt your behaviour to another situation and person.
communicate without hurting others.
be continuously alert of possible cultural differences (particularly in behaviour and
communication) and to find ways to discuss them.
speak the language of the other.
attitudes
show respect / mindfulness
refrain from judging immediately; do not say that the other shows odd behaviour but
rather different behaviour; accept that behaviour as is and try to understand on which
it is based.
realise that your own behaviour may come across quite differently than intended.
presupposes dialogue and focus on co-operation.

A simple or widely accepted method to deal with cultural differences does not exist.
Definitions and methods are at present insufficiently clear or limited in their application.
Furthermore, national cultures are hard to describe, because they consist of many different
smaller scale cultures. Even if you would be able to find a comprehensive description of
national cultures, you should adapt it to yourself, your individual perceptions, character and
the like. In this way, you are once again referred back to yourself in trying to deal with
cultural differences. However, the study of these differences gives you a handle, even if only
by raising your awareness. Reading and talking about cultural differences shows the wide
variety of what might happen and also what you may do. Some people try to keep the
dimensions of Hofstede or the dilemmas of Trompenaars in mind, while others have
indicated to feel comfortable with for instance the concept of Van Asperen or the triangle
model.

The triangle model introduced in paragraph 4c has already shown its value its practical value
in dealing with differences. If you experience differences with a foreigner or difficulties in
your communication with him or her, you may wonder whether these differences result from
differences between national cultures, however constructed or perceived (top layer).
Differences may also be due to a different working environment. Bookkeepers have different
competences than salesmen and in that sense you may think of the culture of bookkeepers or
the culture of salesmen (second layer). The background to differences may also be found in
working in different teams or family background. Whether you are the child of a high level
civil servant or a welder in a manufacturing plant makes quite a difference (third layer).
Finally, differences may be the result of different personalities. With some people you just
get along much better than with others (bottom of the triangle model).

Specific aspects of bridging cultures include the following.
spot the differences: different rules of behaviour, psychological aspects and mentality,
concepts and theories of culture
spot the individual, the persons behind all the labels (e.g. stereotypes like nationality,
man/woman, age, profession), image and prejudice you may apply to him or her.
develop your own path for dealing with cultural differences with respect / mindfulness,
acceptance, empathy, adaptation and knowledge as key concepts
know about yourself, your own background (character, behaviour, mentality, image,
willingness to adapt et cetera), your communication style, your cultural backpack in
short.
specific knowledge of a country: history, demography, politics, economics et cetera.
try thing out, learn in day-to-day practice from mistakes
reflect on your experiences, the things you learn, discover which are for you the key
points.

From my (Pieter van Nispen) own experience I would like to give you the following points
of attention in dealing with other cultures. This list has only limited value for others. It
reflects my own personal experiences in dealing with cultural differences on the basis of my
own background and personality. Nevertheless it may inspire others in drafting such a list for
Cross-cultural Management 21


oneself and to adapt it whenever necessary.
respect
mentality, background, development
give time, opening
question yourself, never be satisfied about yourself
transfer of information: form and content, interactive, variation
language! jokes: yes and no
sensitivity for status
collectivity versus own responsibility
obedience versus initiative

Again and again, respect or mindfulness and politeness are excellent starting positions,
enabling you to avoid serious mistakes, even without understanding why. Many examples
and anecdotes may be only sources of inspiration. Some theory may give you some
background information. However, bridging the cultural gap depends in the end on
individual persons with all their personal characteristics in a unique situation. You have to
develop your personal style while keeping an open mind.



1 Hoffman, dr. E.M. (1999) Het TOPOI-model, Een pluralistische systeemtheoretische
benadering van interculturele communicatie, Universiteit Utrecht (proefschrift), p. 187.
2
Thomas, D.C.and Inkson, K. (2004) Cultural Intelligence, People Skills for Global
Business, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.
3
Tylor, E.B. in Primitive Culture, 1871/1958, quoted in Kottak, C.P (2000) Anthropology,
The Exploration of Human Diversity, McGraw Hill, p. 62.
4
Adler, N. (1996) International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour, South Western
College Publishing.
5
Hofstede, G. (1999) Allemaal andersdenkenden, omgaan met cultuurverschillen,
Uitgeverij Contact (Dutch translation of Cultures and Organizations, Software of the
Mind), p. 16.
6
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (1997) Riding the Waves of Culture,
understanding cultural Diversity in Business, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, chapter 3.
7
Mole, J. Zo doen we dat! over het omgaan en samenwerken met Europeanen,
Schoonhoven, 1997, Academic Service; Dutch translation of Mind your manners:
Managing Business Cultures in Europe.
8
Hall, E. en Hall, M. (1990) Understanding cultural differences.
9
This perception of similarities between different levels is called a fractal. A fractal is a
term from chaos theory, which in turn discusses non-linear, dynamic systems.
10
Han van der Horst: The Low Sky, Schiedam, 2001, Scriptum.
11
Thomas and Inkson, work quoted (note 2), page 27.
12
Hofstede, work quoted, pages 39 (power distance), 71 (individualism), 108 (masculinity)
and 144 (uncertainty avoidance). After the conclusion of his original research he added a
fifth dimension, long-term orientation or Confucian dynamism (p. 206-208).
13
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, work quoted, chapters 4-10.
14
Knowledge and understanding of ones own culture is an important condition for co-
operation with people from other cultures. Concerning the Netherlands I refer to the still
relevant work by Chorus, H. (1965) De Nederlander uiterlijk en innerlijk, Sijthoff (fourth
edition). An approach from a historical angle may be found in the work by Horst, H. van
der (2001) The Low Sky, Scriptum. For a comparative, qualitative study I refer to Iribarne,
P. d (1998) Eer, contract en consensus, Management en nationale tradities in Frankrijk,
de Verenigde Staten en Nederland, Uitgeverij Nieuwezijds. The original publication by
dIribarne is in French (La logique de lhonneur, 1989) and the Dutch translation
summarizes the study in its title: Honour, Contract and Consensus, Management and
national Traditions in France, the USA and the Netherlands. This study also links national
and organizational cultures.
15
Mole, work quoted, p. 265.
22 Culture Experienced



16
Iribarne, work quoted.
17
Halman, L. (2001) The European Values Study: A Third Wave. Source book of the
1999/2000 European Values Study Surveys, EVS, WORC, Tilburg University, p. 1.
18
Sagiv, L. en Schwartz, S.H. (2000) A New Look at National Culture: Illustrative
Applications to Role Stress and Managerial Behavior, in: Ashkanasy, N.M., Wilderom,
C.P.M. en Peterson, M.F. (2000) Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, Sage
Publications, Inc., p. 419.
19
Wood, J. D. (1997b) The Nature of Ideology, in Mastering Management, Financial Times
Pitman Publishing, p. 616-617.
20
Brink, G. van den (2002) Mondiger of Moelijker? Een studie naar de politieke habitus
van hedendaagse burgers, Sdu Uitgevers.
21
Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization, cultural, economic and
political change in 43 societies, Princeton, 1997, Princeton University Press.
22
Wood, J.D. (1997b): Culture is not enough, in: in: Mastering Management, work quoted,
p. 417.
23
See for instance Sennet, R. (2003) Respect in een tijd van sociale gelijkheid, Amsterdam,
2003, Uitgeverij Byblos; translation of Respect. The formation of character in an age of
inequality.