Carol Kinsey Goman* says in the increasingly globalised world of work, it has never been more important to recognise and appreciate the many different ways of doing things.
On a speaking tour several years ago, I travelled from the United Arab Emirates to Hong Kong to India to Malaysia to the Philippines to Indonesia.
It seemed to me that with every country, the audience was arriving later and later.
When I reached Jakarta, my pre-dinner speech was scheduled for 7pm. “Just ignore that announcement,” I was advised.
“We tell people to get here at seven, hoping they will arrive by eight, but just to be on the safe side, the speaker never goes on before nine.”
Contrast that to an experience I had in Toronto where my session was to be the opening keynote at 8am.
Wanting to check the audio-visual equipment, I arrived an hour early, only to see a long line of people already standing outside the auditorium.
Frantic that I had misunderstood the program schedule, I was relieved when the meeting planner assured me.
“Don’t worry. You’re fine. We Canadians just have a habit of getting places early,” he told me.
Here’s the question: Which was right — the Indonesian more relaxed concept of time or the Canadian view of promptness?
Your answer, of course, depends on the cultural standards you use, because different cultures relate to time very differently.
Some cultures think of time sequentially — as a linear commodity to ‘spend’, ‘save’, or ‘waste’.
Other cultures view time synchronically — as a constant flow to be experienced in the moment, and as a force that cannot be contained or controlled.
The American concept of time as a commodity not only serves as the basis for a ‘time is money’ mentality, it can lead to a fixation on timelines.
In synchronic cultures the flow of time is viewed as a sort of circle — with the past, present, and future all inter-related.
This viewpoint determines how organisations in those cultures approach deadlines, strategic thinking, investments, developing talent from within, and the concept of ‘long-term’ planning.
Synchronistic cultures use the past as a context in which to understand the present and prepare for the future.
Any important relationship is a durable bond that goes back and forward in time.
In these cultures, relationships are pivotal to doing business, and it is often viewed as grossly disloyal not to favour friends and relatives in business dealings.
When it comes to the concept of time (and all other cultural variances) what’s proper and correct in one culture may be ineffective or even offensive in another.
Think of the misunderstandings that can occur when one culture views arriving late for a meeting as bad planning or a sign of disrespect, while another culture views an insistence on timeliness as impolite impatience.
Culture is, basically, a set of shared values and rules for behaviour that a group of people hold.
Few of us are aware of our own cultural biases because cultural imprinting begins at a very early age.
While some of a culture’s knowledge, rules, beliefs, values, phobias and anxieties are taught explicitly, most of the information is absorbed subconsciously.
The challenge for multinational communication has never been greater.
Worldwide business organisations have discovered that intercultural communication is a subject of importance.
This is not because of increased globalisation, but also because their domestic workforce is growing more and more diverse, ethnically and culturally.
We are all individuals, and no two people belonging to the same culture are guaranteed to respond in exactly the same way.
However, generalisations are valid to the extent that they provide clues on what you will most likely encounter when dealing with members of a particular culture.
Here are two more of these generalisations.
High-Context vs. Low-Context
In some cultures, personal bonds and informal agreements are far more binding than any formal contract.
In others, the meticulous wording of legal documents is viewed as paramount. Much depends on whether that culture is high-context or low-context.
High-context cultures (Mediterranean, Slav, Central European, Latin American, African, Arab, Asian, American-Indian) leave much of the message unspecified.
It is to be understood through context, nonverbal cues, and between-the-lines interpretation of what is actually said or written.
By contrast, low-context cultures (most of the Germanic and English-speaking countries) expect messages to be explicit and specific.
Affective vs. Neutral
In international business practices, reason and emotion both play a role.
Which of these dominates depends upon whether we are affective (readily showing emotions) or emotionally neutral in our approach.
Members of neutral cultures do not telegraph their feelings, but keep them carefully controlled and subdued.
In cultures with high affect, people show their feelings plainly by laughing, smiling, grimacing, scowling, and sometimes crying, shouting, or walking out of the room.
This doesn’t mean that people in neutral cultures are cold or unfeeling, but in the course of normal business activities, neutral cultures are more careful to monitor the amount of emotion they display.
Emotional reactions were found to be least acceptable in Japan, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Norway, and the Netherlands and most accepted in Italy, France, the United States and Singapore.
Reason and emotion are part of all human communication.
When expressing ourselves, we look to others for confirmation of our ideas and feelings.
If our approach is highly emotional, we are seeking a direct emotional response: “I feel the same way.”
If our approach is highly neutral, we want an indirect response: “I agree with your thoughts on this.”
In reality, no culture is right or wrong, better or worse — just different.
The key to cross-cultural success is to develop an interest in, an understanding of, and a deep respect for, the differences.
*Carol Kinsey Goman is an international keynote speaker and leadership presence coach. Her work involves Government Agencies and universities. She can be reached by email at [email protected].
This article first appeared at carolkinseygoman.com.
