Bangalore IHRD conducts HR conference called 'BANGALORE HR SUMMIT' every year on varied themes. I presented a paper in the 2004 summit the text of which is as follows
Developing cross-cultural sensitivity.
Introduction
The discussion on developing cross cultural sensitivity should address the issue at two different levels. One, on the need, consensus and working towards developing universally accepted principles (in other words a world culture) and the other in the interim period, of coping with multiculturalism in the business world. The former belongs to the realm of the philosopher and the latter to the more pragmatic world of business.
This paper proposes to address the two questions and thirdly to postulate a few guidelines for managers to follow to develop cross cultural sensitivity.
Does a world culture exist?
Imagine a world where there were no different nations and no different cultures. A world where people were the same, wore almost the same kind of dress, enjoyed more or less same kind of food, spoke the same language understandable to each other, held more or less the same values, beliefs and attitudes on the whole gamut of subjects. In other words, a world where a large amount of homogeneity is a given.
We all know however that such is not the case with the world as of now. We have a world where a huge amount of diversity exists on all and many more of the parameters mentioned above.
In a way, like with biological diversity in the natural world this cultural diversity is the source of the world’s richness. And sadly the very same diversity also is the cause for many a strife in a complex world that it generates.
A differentiated and insulated world as was the case in a previous era provided a relative stability. However the reality of the world and the direction that it is taking is towards greater amount of openness in the general semantic implication of globalization and liberalization but with a relatively slower integration in values, customs and beliefs.
For example, Samuel P. Huntington a leading thinker has indicated the emergence of a polarisation in terms of the industrialized west and the more conservative world replacing the erstwhile polarization between the capitalistic west and the communist east.
Cultural relativism to universalism
On a moral plane, the dilemma is exemplified by the three positions of individual relativism, cultural relativism and universalism.
Individual relativism is the idea that propriety (in a larger sense right or wrong) depends entirely on feelings or attitudes of the individual. It therefore implies that society cannot or need not provide any basis for behaviour of its individuals. It is further argued and obvious that taking this position is impossible since it would by implication make social life an improbability. By and large this position is rejected due to the above. In fact the whole necessity and function of government at a certain level is to prevent individual relativism as otherwise life would be, to quote Thomas Hobbes “nasty, brutish and short”.
Cultural relativism is the idea that right or wrong depends on feelings or attitudes of the culture to which one belongs. This position upon further evaluation poses problems for the individual in a multicultural setting. The common adage “When in Rome do as the Romans do” is striking at first glance but runs into difficulty when analysed further. For example, should the Indian or will it be possible for the Indian to eat rat snake steak (without revulsion) when he is in China?
For argument’s sake let us take the contrary view “when in Rome do as you do back in your home country”. This also runs into problems as when the American is in Saudi Arabia. The question then is should the American or will it be morally possible for the American to treat women in Saudi Arabia, the way Saudis treat women? Or on a less severe level will it be acceptable for the Indian to eat with his hands when in a more westernized setting; will it be possible for the vegetarian to shed his habits when in a predominantly non- vegetarian setting?
The existence and need for universal principles.
The idea of universal principles have to be analysed from two points. One, are there some universal principles of behaviour in existence as the rules of gravity in the physical world? Second, if the answer to the above is no, will it not be necessary to invent at least some guidelines if not firm principles for international behaviour?
Sure there has been attempts to develop universalisms before. For example Akbar tried to put together a religion called Din-e- Ilahi. There has been attempts to develop international languages like ‘Esperanto’. The existence of the United Nations is with the broad objective of bringing together different nations and cultures.
However, the noble cause of global integration is a slow and painful process as the near failure of the above examples show. This means that the world has to live with the cultural diversity as a dominant position of international existence while working towards consensus on international behaviour. Outside the business realm in the larger context, this acquires even greater urgency as the world is interacting as never before due to advances in technology relating to travel and communication and more importantly because conflicts are costlier than ever before not least because of today’s technological capacity for global annihilation.
Culture defined
Culture is defined variedly as ‘the collective programming of the mind’, ‘the shared beliefs and values that distinguishes one group from the other’, ‘the coloured lens through which different peoples see things and events’, ‘a subjective perception of the human - made part of the environment’ etc.
There are a number of ways in which people differ on culture. This includes the conceptions of values, symbols, heroes and rituals. Out of the above, values are the most difficult to capture as they are largely internal unlike the other three which are external. According to Hofstede, a leading authority on the subject, in terms of values, the people of the world differ on a) the extent to which power is expected and accepted to be distributed unequally, otherwise the degree of inequality among people considered normal from relatively equal to extremely unequal b) the degree to which people in a country have learned to act as individuals rather than as members of cohesive groups: from collectivist to individualist c) the degree to which 'masculine" values like assertiveness, performance, success and competition prevail over "feminine values like the quality of life, maintaining warm personal relationships, service, caring, and solidarity: from tender to tough d) the degree to which people in a country prefer structured over unstructured situations: from relatively flexible to extremely rigid and e) the degree to which people consider time as something rigid and time as flexible. These four dimensions are respectively called the power distance (high or low), individualism (the opposite being collectivism), masculinity (the opposite being femininity), uncertainty avoidance (high or low) and time orientation (long term or short term).
Each culture can therefore be classified according to the combination of the above dimensions. A detailed discussion on the combinations is beyond the scope of this paper.
Culture and the practice of management in the multicultural context.
We will now turn to the second level: the pragmatic realm of business. To begin with, let us ask the following question. Why was the Indian collaboration with Peugeot a failure and the one with Suzuki a remarkable success? On a strictly business level one could cite many answers on the structure, function, technology, collaboration aspects. The less frequently asked question is, was there some element in the culture of India and France that led to the failure and secondly what, if any, were the cultural elements of India and Japan that was responsible for the remarkable success of the venture?
In a very fundamental sense management seeks to get things done in the most efficient way. To the extent culture and cultural differences hinder the above, culture is a deterrent to efficient management. Therefore like the scientific management objective of finding a better way or improving the process of management on scientific principles, the study of culture should lead to greater understanding on how culture interacts so as to smoothen dealings between people of different cultures.
A basic assumption of management thinking, education and practice as of today is that management is applicable irrespective of culture. This however is certainly felt to be incorrect as any practitioner would vouch that he/she is up against culture clothed variedly in conventions, norms and practices at various levels, departmental, organizational, national and in a large country like India between states as well. Culture in this sense acts as changing ground rules that renders the assumption of a common set of strategies or principles of management, meaningless. (Winsten Oberg). Both the above reasons call for cultural sensitivity.
Developing cross-cultural sensitivity.
We are all part of a culture and many may also find themselves in subcultures like the youth subculture or the culture associated with a profession etc. Our dominant cultural identity is obtained from our nationality. Hence the many stories about the English, the French, the Japanese, the Indian etc. which forms the basis of many a humourous anecdote. Here the humourist uses the cultural differences to create a joke. It is also possible to see that in the above example, the basic assumption is that the nation forms the basis of culture. This can sometimes be misleading. It is quite possible that the people from different parts of a country may have different cultures. Language is however a very powerful differentiator of culture sometimes more powerful than religion, the other major influence. This is especially true in a country like India where the states are linguistically demarcated.
The first and foremost requirement for developing cultural sensitivity is to accept and expect the paradigm of difference horizontally than inferiority (or superiority) vertically. This evens out a great deal of difficulty in understanding a different other by avoiding ethnocentrism (a tendency to view one’s own culture as superior). Of course this is more ideal than real but the effort is worth the objectivity required for a new competence.
The second requirement is to avoid stereotyping. This implies that one has to primarily view a person as a person first and not as a member of a cultural group. Attributing the common notions of the cultural group to a person from the group is a serious cause of subjective bias. This is a bit like checking an individual product for its own merit (or demerit) before one decides to buy, although the brand is well known and trusted.
The third is to be open to opportunities for exposure to cultural diversity. To quote Roy Wagner, “Culture is made visible by cultural shock, by subjecting oneself to situations beyond one’s normal interpersonal competence and objectifying the discrepancy as an entity; it is delineated through an inventive realization of that entity following the initial experience.”
One could however develop a sensitivity to practices which are necessary for the smooth functioning at the interpersonal and the intercultural level. The development of cultural sensitivity could be at the individual level or the group or organizational level. At the individual level it is necessary to observe and be genuinely interested in the practices that one may come across. (There are also a number of movies that juxtapose two cultures. For example ‘WITNESS’ an 80’s movie depicts the mainstream American with the Amish culture.)
Observe common themes but different expressions. For instance OK in English and ‘thiik hai’ in Hindi are linguistic variations of the same theme in conversations. Both convey sense and agreement of correctness as indications of approval and feedback only they are in two different languages. The underlying sense is one of correctness. But see the linguistic equivalent in Gujarati. In that language the equivalent expression ‘barrabar, is more reminiscent of a deal or a transaction that is perceived to be just and mutually equivalent, so much a part of the lives of the people of that particularly enterprising linguistic group. Here language renders the almost instinctive conveying of the entrepreneurial nuance. One might do well to look for such give away expressions.
References
1, “Business Ethics and Cultural Relativism”, Norman E Bowie, (1993), Business Ethics, A philosophical approach:790-799. New York: Mac Millan Publishing Company.
2.Culture's Consequences International Differences in Work-Related Values. Hofstede, G. (1980). Newbury Park, SAGE Publications, Inc.
3.The Invention of Culture, Roy Wagner, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
4. “Cross- cultural perspectives on Management principles”, Winsten Obereg, Journal of the Academy of Management, Vol 6 No. 2 June, 1963...
No comments:
Post a Comment