Globalisation - avoiding the culture clash

The social and cultural implications of Globalisation can have an enormous impact on business negotiations.

India and China, although affected by the current economic climate, look set to be the world’s two best performing economies in 2009. Their growth is only slightly decelerated compared to the rest of the world, and they are likely to provide rich markets in the future.

In addition, Tholons, an outsourcing advisory and research company, maintain that long-term demand for outsourcing remains, and will pick up in Q4 2009. The BRIC countries, (Brazil, Russia, India and China), are also predicted to become the primary sources of global manufacturing and commodities by 2050, (Goldman Sachs, 2003).

With increasing interaction between East and West, different cultures look set to be conferring well into the future. However, there isn’t just an economic impact of reaching out beyond your own borders. In order to excel in business negotiations and make the most of opening markets, it’s essential to understand the social and cultural differences found around the world. Business practices that are both successful and commonplace in your own country may be your downfall in someone else’s.

So what are the main differences between cultures? Are they simply a matter of learning a new handshake, or do they go deeper than that? Can cultural differences really have that much impact on a business deal?

There are in fact significant differences in the way we think at the deepest level across cultures. In his book ‘The Silent Language’ (1959), Edward Hall first introduced the concept of personal space – a term with which we’re all familiar. However, he also identified a fundamental distinction between societies in the way they perceive time and use language. These different cultures are called Monochronic and Polychronic cultures.

Monochronic cultures, such as the US and European countries, have a strong linear view of time. It’s seen as a finite resource – a road stretching out in front of you with lines drawn showing calendar dates. These cultures refer to time as being ‘wasted, spent and running out’. Time is an inflexible, tangible commodity. There is a fixation with the present. The past is not dwelled upon, and the long-term future not an immediate concern.

A specific schedule co-ordinates activity. The clock dictates not only when an activity will begin, but also when it will end. Very often, biological needs are set to the clock. For example, in a Monochronic culture, people are more likely to eat because it’s lunch time than because they’re hungry. Appointments are rigid and lateness is considered rude. Only one task is focused upon at any given time.

Personal time is kept completely separate from work. The time schedule is more important than personal relationships, and communication can be strained at times of an approaching deadline. If someone is busy it is seen as rude to interrupt. Inactivity is seen as lazy, unambitious and wasteful.

In a Monochronic cultures, communication is termed ‘Low-context’. Language is direct and explicit. To understand the words that are spoken, there’s no need to have any previous knowledge of their context, as the information is held within the words themselves. Channels of communication are clear and to the point. Only one person will talk at once, and it’s considered rude to interrupt a conversation with a third party, for example for a phone call. Indeed, if someone is constantly interrupted, that person can be perceived as unimportant.

In a Polychronic culture, however, time is flexible and fluid. It has no substance or structure. The clock and calendar are there, but they are simply tools to be used when required – they don’t dictate how you live or work. Points of reference are memorable events rather than calendar dates. For example, “I met him before the river flooded”, instead of “I met him on April 16^th”.

Appointments are flexible and lateness is expected. Dates and times are merely a rough guide to when an activity may start, and certainly won’t dictate when one will finish. Biological needs are responded to as they occur. For example, if a Polychronic person is hungry, they will get something to eat rather than ‘wait until dinner time’.

Relationships are more important than scheduled breaks. If a friend or colleague needs a chat then that is more important than the time on the clock. Interruptions are normal. If someone gets very few interruptions they can be seen as unimportant.

There is little concept of a ‘working day’ as work and personal time are interwoven. If someone wishes to simply sit and think, that’s considered to be an important activity. Indeed, someone too active can be seen as immature and an inadequate thinker.

In Polychronic cultures, communication is termed ‘High-context’. Language is very indirect. The actual meaning of the words spoken relies heavily on body language, environment and the relationship between conversants. It’s not unusual for many conversations to be held at once.

The impact of these differences on business negotiations and relationships can be significant. Monochronic countries tend towards contract-based partnerships. They don’t need to like the person they’re in partnership with. As a result of this, many Monochronic cultures also have a lot of legislation. Haste is seen as a virtue and they are generally comfortable with aggressive and adversarial styles.

As they concentrate on the present, they may require an immediate benefit to an outcome rather than a long-term reward. They are also likely to require specific lead times and deadlines. Hard facts and figures are persuasive in these cultures.

On a personal level, Monochronic cultures can see Polychronic cultures as weak. They may view them as secretive and untrustworthy as the language they use isn’t specific enough. They may also be frustrated with the lack of clarity and direction in a Polychronic culture.

Polychronic countries, however, believe in trust-based partnerships. Time is taken to build a relationship with the people they’re going into partnership with, and they would need to like them on a personal level.

Patience and steadiness are virtues and they are likely to be uncomfortable with aggressive and adversarial styles. Facts and figures are less likely to be persuasive than simply trusting the people they are to do business with, and symbolic gestures of that trust. They are also less likely to require specific lead times and deadlines, or at least be more flexible in their use.

On a personal level, Polychronic cultures can see Monochronic cultures as overbearing and arrogant. They can view them as simply persuading, not negotiating. They can find Monochronic people offensively blunt, as the language they use is too specific. They may also feel a Monochronic person is constantly explaining the obvious and be insulted by this. As Polychronic cultures need to like the person they’re going into business with, this may cut short potentially lucrative partnerships before it’s begun, leaving the monochronic person completely unaware of what went wrong.

Here we’ve taken only a brief look at the deep-seated differences in the way different cultures think. Some of the distinctions do blur. For example, in France there is a mix of Monochronic and Polychronic traits. This could be a contributing factor towards the many disagreements between France and other EU countries. Similarly, Japan is Monochronic in that you are expected to be on time for appointments, but Polychronic in its priority of relationships.

Whether you are a Monochronic person adapting to a Polychronic culture, or vice versa, simply being aware of these differences can be helpful in overcoming some of the potential flashpoints. Our perception of the world around can be so ingrained that we often don’t realize that another way of looking at the world even exists.

With this knowledge comes the potential to overcome our deep-seated beliefs. Maybe it will help the Monochronic person take a deep breath when their meeting is interrupted for the 6^th time and no one seems even remotely concerned. Or maybe it will help the Polychronic person take a deep breath and remind themselves their intelligence isn’t being insulted when the seemingly obvious is stated for the 6^th time.

Whatever your culture, or whatever the culture you’re dealing with, it pays to be prepared. A deeper understanding of how the person you’re dealing with thinks on a fundamental level can only help your negotiations. There isn’t a right or wrong way to look at the world. Just a different way.

Hall, E.T. (1959) The Silent Language, New York: Doubleday.

Goldman Sachs, (October 2003), Dreaming with BRICS: The path to 2050, Global Economics, 99.
             
                                                                                                                                 Download this article: