Global Diversity: Basic Principles of Cultural Difference
It might seem that, in the wake of increased globalization and attempts to define corporate-wide cultures in companies, the significance of the various national cultures of a firm’s employees would diminish. In fact, however, studies indicate that national cultures can explain 50 percent of the difference in employees’ attitudes and behavior—more than professional role, age, gender, or race. The discipline known as global diversity is largely about managing those differences to maximize their positive affect and minimize the inevitable problems that will erupt when cultures collide. To do so, we need to understand the basic cultural assumptions from which our differences arise.
Cross-cultural researchers have developed systems for describing differences in cultural assumptions. The following outline is based on Nancy J. Adler’s book, International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior1 and reflects commonly used categories and terminology2. (See, also, ORC’s article Global Diversity: Understanding Cultural Difference in Communications Style, for a somewhat different way of categorizing cultural differences, in this case focusing on how people perceive and talk about reality.)
Individualism v. Collectivism
Individualism implies loosely knit social networks in which people focus primarily on taking care of themselves and their immediate families only; collectivism is characterized by tight social networks in which people strongly distinguish between their own groups and other groups. Individualistic cultures such as the US place greater value on efficiency and less on loyalty than do collectivist cultures. In collectivist cultures such as the Arab countries, Japan, and Mexico, harmonious relationships and saving face tend to be more important.
Power Distance
Cultures differ in terms of the extent to which less powerful members of organizations accept unequal power distribution. Great acceptance is known as high power distance; low acceptance is known as small or low power distance. High power distance correlates with bureaucracy/hierarchy and with low task orientation. Bypassing someone in the chain of command in order to get something done is going to bend the bypassed more out of shape in a high (Pakistan, Portugal, Venezuela) than a low (United States, Ireland, Canada) power distance culture.
In cultures such as the US, Netherlands, and Britain, the manager’s role tends to more that of a facilitator/problem solver than an expert. Managers in these countries do not suffer a severe loss of credibility by virtue of not having precise answers to subordinate’s questions. The French, Japanese, Spanish, and Indonesians, on the other hand, are more likely to expect their managers to be experts.
Uncertainty Avoidance
In some cultures, people tend to be less comfortable with ambiguity and more likely to take actions to avoid it. Companies in high uncertainty avoidance countries such as Japan, Portugal, and Greece place greater value on job security than do companies in low uncertainty countries such as the United States, Denmark, and Singapore.
The following chart, where the vertical axis represents power distance (PD) and the horizontal represents uncertainty avoidance (UA), shows how different permutations of the two characteristics can create very different cultural affects.
High PD, Weak UA Organizations resemble traditional families:
|
High
PD, Strong UA Organizations resemble pyramids
|
Low PD, Weak UA Organizations resemble village markets:
|
Low PD, Strong UA Organizations resemble well-oiled machines:
|
Career v. Quality of Life Orientation
Cultures differ in terms of whether career success or quality of life is accorded higher value. For example, Japan and Austria strongly emphasize career success; the Scandinavian countries strongly emphasize quality of life. As a result, Japanese quality circles were more bottom-line and less work-satisfaction oriented than analogous Volvo work groups. Gender roles tend to be more strictly defined in cultures that emphasize career.
Universalism v. Particularism
Cultures differ in terms of a universalistic or particularistic orientation toward rules. In the former (e.g., Canada and the United States) general principles are more important than who is involved in the situation. In particularistic cultures (e.g., South Korea and Venezuela) the nature of the relationships among the parties is more important than general principles. Transactions involving parties from both orientations can involve ethical problems for one or both parties, as well as communication problems.
Task v. Relationship Orientation
Some cultures (e.g., US, Scandinavian) tend to be more task-oriented than relationship oriented. As a result, folks in those countries tend to think about fitting people to work, while those in many other cultures (e.g., southern Europeans, Asians, Latin Americans, and Middle Easterners) tend to reverse the emphasis and think about fitting work to people. The task-oriented though process is from the task to the people; the relationship-based thought process is the reverse. Task-oriented cultures also tend to be less bureaucratic and hierarchically organized than relationship-oriented cultures, where there is more adherence to the chain of command.
Implications for Managing Global Diversity
In our eagerness to appreciate and celebrate the differences among people, diversity professionals sometimes gloss over the very real problems that cultural differences can present, for example:
- Increased ambiguity, complexity, and confusion.
- Difficulty communicating.
- Greater effort required to coordinate action.
- Inefficiencies from needing to tailor solutions rather than use a “one-size fits all” approach
Of course, diversity also provides advantages in that it
- Expands meanings through multiple perspective and interpretations and openness to new ideas
- Expands alternatives
- Is responsive to local situations
The challenge for a global diversity manager, then, is to manage the negative affects of diversity and optimize the positive. No diversity manager can internalize all the differences among the myriad cultures that make up today’s global corporations. Cultural competence means being sensitive to the existence of differences and open to learning about and accommodating them. For starters, global diversity managers should practice:
- Not assuming that you are on the same wavelength with someone else; assume that you are not.
- Describing a situation rather than (or at least prior to) interpreting or evaluating it.
- Trying to see the situation through the eyes of the other person.
- Treating any explanation for a situation as a hypothesis to be tested.
Nor can a diversity manager expect to be able to develop a global strategy and programs from the home office. Managing global diversity requires a process for involving and learning from stakeholders around the globe. No one individual is going to be able to memorize and internalize all the various characteristics of all the cultures represented among a global company’s workforce. What the global diversity manager can and should do is practice recognizing where cultural differences might have an impact on organizational effectiveness and facilitating sensible, sensitive responses.
Steps in Cross-Cultural Facilitation and Accommodation3
- Recognize the potential for conflict.
- Describe the situation. What is the situation from your perspective? From the perspectives of other stakeholders?
- Determine the underlying assumptions. What are the assumptions that explain the perspectives and behavior of all stakeholders?
- Assess the similarities and differences among the stakeholders' approaches.
- Create synergistic alternatives. Identify options and characterize them in terms of comfort and fit for all stakeholders
- Pick an option, and proceed to implement it, taking cognizance of the differences and similarities of all stakeholders.
If you would like more information on global diversity or on ORC's diversity consulting and networking services, contact Liz MacGillivray or Deirdre Golden.