TOP

What if men had to adapt to women in the workplace?

Dec 18
Posted by Rebecca Parrilla in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence

My partner Sue emailed me a link to a NYT article this week, and prefaced it with: “Look, the wage gap has a cultural component! (Of course.) Very interesting story!”  Well I finally had a few minutes to read it and interesting it was.  It touches on various things, but among them is culture – which many people are often afraid to touch for fear of being seen as someone who sees women as “less equal” than men.  I tend to get extremely excited when culture is brought up as a component of the (complex) reasons behind why a male/female wage gap still exists in the U.S.  Culturally learned behavior and perceptions are real, and to ignore them is to consciously decide they either don’t matter or don’t exist (both of which are an insult to both men and women).  In particular, this article mentions that many (though of course not all) women have learned, explicity or implicitly, that speaking up and assertively asking for things like raises and higher pay can be perceived as “unladylike” and can be seen as pushy or arrogant.  And therefore in many cases, women may not even realize that they are “allowed” to ask!  In fact, the article talks about how being assertive or being percieved as not nice enough or not friendly enough (relative to how women “should” be) sometimes actually results in negative consequences for women, like not being offered a job because you weren’t likable enough.  Many if not most of these cases may be due to unconscious bias, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it happens.  The point of the article is that “the good news is that all of these things [assertiveness in negotiating salary and raises] can be learned.”  It cites various entities and individuals who are teaching these skills to girls and young women.  But something about this just doesn’t sit all that well with me.  And I think it’s this: teaching women to be more assertive and agressive in speaking up and asking for stuff is all well and good, and it will certainly help women be more successful in a man’s world – but it’s yet another example of how women must adapt to men to get ahead.  Why is it never the other way around?

Imagine this alternate world: women hold the vast majority of leadership and powerful positions in business, education, and government.  Men are paid 77 cents on every woman’s dollar. It’s found that part of the reason for this is that men tend to be too blunt and too forceful when they ask for what they want, and aren’t warm enough in their interpersonal interactions.  Studies have found that employers generally find this type of behavior to be in opposition to teamwork, effectiveness, and success, and so men tend to get hired less often.  How do we close this gender wage gap? Well here’s the good news - humility, collaborativeness, and warmth can be learned!  Let’s go around the country and teach men when they’re young how they can work on their indirectness and modesty skills.

In that world, this solution might work – at least on the surface – because the reality there is that most places that hire people are run by women.  But wouldn’t many men feel a little odd, a little uncomfortable, or even a lot uncomfortable – acting in ways that don’t feel natural to them? Would they be able to be their full selves at work, and make their best contribution, by acting as someone other than themselves?   Maybe some of them would, but I’d venture to guess most of them wouldn’t.  And that’s what bugs me about this article.  When we start leveraging and embracing everyone’s styles – when we see the benefits of competition, collaboration, assertiveness, modesty, intensity, warmth, pushiness, and cooperation – and not systematically penalize one side over the other – we can explode our self-created limits and create and think in ways that we never thought possible.

Read More
Comments (5)
TOP

Foreign Policy, Debates, and Political Culture

Oct 23
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Chinese Culture, Cross-cultural, Intercultural Competence

A Bloomberg BusinessWeek article published today asks the question: How do the Chinese see the “China bashing” that has been a highlight of the 2012 debates?  China was mentioned 35 times during last nights’ debate.  The article brings up a number of points, but I think most salient for me:

  1. America and China have a symbiotic relationship, and it would be economic mutually-assured destruction (possibly for the whole world) for either country to start a tariff or trade war.
  2. This is mostly rhetoric intended to score political points, rather than any kind of real threat to engage in hostile economic actions.  That goes for Obama’s WTO complaints, and Romney’s assertion that he would label China as a “currency manipulator”.

I think what’s really happening, is that as many Americans seem to lament the fact that America is no longer the world’s only superpower, there’s a fear of “the other” there, and that fear can be used to try to influence voters, in either direction of the US’s political spectrum.  Turning the electorate against a perceived threat outside the US borders has been a time-tested tactic for presidents and other elected officials since the United States was founded, and is an ingrained part of our political culture.  No matter the outcome of the 2012 elections, I think that there will continue to be extensive economic activity between the US and China, regardless of the rhetoric.  The American consumer-spending based economy, and the Chinese manufacturing-based economy absolutely need one another.  I doubt either country would be willing to cut off its nose, to spite the other’s currency.

It’s always best to take this kind of rhetoric with a grain of salt (as the article recommends), as understanding that the words spoken by world leaders, and hopeful candidates, are a reflection of their own values and beliefs, but moreover, part of a specific sub-culture of political discourse, that might not always reflect an objective reality.  If we’re working from a space of Intercultural Competence, then we know that interpreting the political discourse of another country can’t be done in the context of one’s own country’s political culture.

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comments (0)
TOP

(The Right) Diversity Training Works –The Impact of Cross-Cultural Training

May 17
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence, Training

You may have seen a series of articles and blog posts regarding the value of diversity training recently, most of which refer to a study which was done by scholars Frank Dobbin, Alexandra Kalev, and Erin Kelly. The gist of these articles is that diversity training is “a waste of time” – and completely ineffective at preventing workplace conflicts, mitigating misunderstandings, or preventing lawsuits. The Bregman article starts off with an anecdote about an HR manager whose company is being sued, lamenting the fact that their company was doing any kind of diversity training at all, since the training has somehow failed to prevent the offending behavior, and the subsequent lawsuit. Interestingly, the HR manager and the author seem to be blaming the training for the lawsuit. The Suzanne Lucas article lists 5 ways to improve communication in the office (ostensibly while ignoring cultural differences or acknowledging any differences at all):

• Don’t look to be offended.¹
(I’m not sure I would suggest to workers that their experience of being offended is a result of their actively looking for it.)
• Treat everyone nicely and fairly.
(This presumes that everyone has the same interpretation of ”nice” and “fair”)
• Look to yourself first- it’s possible to find discrimination around every corner, even if it doesn’t exist. (I don’t think asking “is my coworker equally rude to everyone?” is necessarily the place to start when confronted with behavior that you interpret as discriminatory.)
• Report truly discriminatory behavior to HR or the chain of command
(Given the previous recommendations that one should “not look to be offended”, and that it’s possible “to find discrimination in every corner, even if it doesn’t exist”, how am I supposed to know if it’s “truly discriminatory”)²

What these articles have in common is that their proposed alternative solutions (since diversity training theoretically doesn’t work) focus on “the individual”: Don’t reinforce categories, and treat everyone the same…but as a unique individual. Focus on your own behavior, and your own thinking. The apparent measuring stick for success? The presence or absence of lawsuits.
According to Peter Bregman, acknowledging categories just leads to more conflict, so he proposes “communication training” as a viable and more effective alternative:

“We decided to put all managers through communication training. It still fulfilled the requirement of the lawsuit. But it did something more. People learned to listen and speak with each other — no matter the difference — which is the key to creating a vibrant and inclusive environment. As it turns out, it’s also the key to preventing lawsuits. The communication trainings I led for Bedia were ten years ago and they haven’t been sued since.”³

The obvious question, of course, is what exactly is “communication training”? The author doesn’t explain. It leads me to wonder how people are being taught to communicate? And in what cultural contexts is that communication style the norm? Given that we’re ignoring differences, are we also ignoring differences in communication styles? It’s interesting to attribute a 10-year absence of lawsuits to training done 10 years ago.

The study that all of these articles are referencing is a little bit dated (2007; a more current study by Dobbin can be found here), and after careful review, this particular study cannot be interpreted as stating: “Diversity Training doesn’t work.” I don’t doubt the good intentions of Bregman and Lucas, but I think it can be said that some of the study data has been extrapolated without interpreting the results comprehensively. So what does the study say? This is the paragraph that sums it up for me:

“There are two caveats about training. First, it does show small positive effects in the largest of workplaces, although diversity councils, diversity managers, and mentoring programs are significantly more effective. Second, optional (not mandatory) training programs and those that focus on cultural awareness (not the threat of the law) can have positive effects.”

In other words, the study says that cross-cultural training does have a measurable impact… In other words, it can work. Now, the study does indicate that mandatory, compliance-based, legal/lawsuit-inspired training rarely, if ever produces the desired results. And in our experience, this kind of legal/compliance-based diversity training can definitely make people defensive, and worsen a situation, which I think is what Bregman and Lucas are recounting in their own experiences. This is why anyone serious about behavioral change should avoid diversity training that is rooted solely in compliance and superficialities. We have found extraordinary benefit for organizations who are serious about good training, provided it is linked to a comprehensive strategy, that it is consistent with senior leadership’s messages and delivered first to the most senior leaders- Training that it is modified appropriately for each participant’s level, role, the overall organizational culture, and that it is designed for skill-building rather than just awareness-building in working with differences. At LCW we call this approach “building cultural agility” or “developing intercultural competence”.

In our reading of the study, the headline “diversity training doesn’t work” is not a great interpretation of the conclusions, and a little misleading in our opinion. We think it is also erroneous in its assertion that glossing over differences, and focusing on commonalities will always lead to better results for an organization. The orientation towards cultural differences communicated in these articles is called minimizationª. Sometimes, it is certainly advantageous to focus on the commonalities between people, particularly if you know nothing about their specific culture(s). However, it’s quite possible to understand how another person is likely to be different from you based on their cultural communities, but not stereotype them based on them (while at the same time not ignoring the commonalities). Understanding these differences doesn’t mean that you have to put someone in a box; it means that you understand the dozens of cultural “boxes” that people have lived in during their lives, and how those experiences have affected what they believe, how they act, and what they value, in reference to yourself. We can follow the golden rule, but following that rule doesn’t work if others don’t want to be treated, or communicated with the same way that we do.

To summarize, cross-cultural training does help develop intercultural competence, and it can have a positive, lasting, and measurable impact, depending on the type of training, its goals, and its methodology.

 

¹Italicized sentences in parentheses are my own responses.

² Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500395_162-57425771/why-you-should-stop-attending-diversity-training/

³ Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-we-work/201203/diversity-training-doesnt-work

ª“Minimization” as defined within the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (3)
TOP

Do you believe in “American Exceptionalism”?

May 01
Posted by Rebecca Parrilla in American culture, Cross-cultural, General, Intercultural Competence

If you speak with cross-cultural competence, don’t run for office – at least in the U.S.

That’s the lesson I learned, anyway, by the current fight over who is a firmer believer of “American Exceptionalism” in the U.S. political arena.

In November of last year, New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote about the decline of American exceptionalism.  He noted that in 2011, for the first time, a majority of Americans (51%) did not agree with the statement: “Our people are not perfect but our culture is superior to others” in a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project.  To be sure, Pew has only been asking the question since 2002 (when only 40% disagreed) so we don’t have a whole lot of history to go on, but we do know that the idea of the U.S. being “the greatest nation in the history of the Earth” (Mitt Romney), a place where all others want to go and want to be like, even a place anointed by God him/herself, has been around for a long time.

There’s nothing inherently wrong in believing that your culture is superior to others.  However, if your goal is to achieve cross-cultural competence in your interactions with colleagues, co-workers, clients, and others – then we have to talk.

The Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC) is a scientific model that shows the various developmental stages of intercultural competence that people go through, as their experience with cultural differences expands.  There are monocultural stages and intercultural stages.  In the monocultural stages, the world is seen solely in the context of your own life experiences and socialization.  Your own worldview – with its foregone conclusions on what’s right and appropriate (and what’s wrong and inappropriate) is taken for granted and is “just the way things are.”  There’s a (usually unintentional) lack of awareness that you are how you are because of the culture and context in which you were raised and the ways those around you – your parents, teachers, friends, and role models – rewarded you or penalized you.

The Pew survey statement reflects the stage of Defense, which is a monocultural stage.  In Defense, people tend to see the world in “us vs. them” ways – where “us” is superior or more evolved and complex, and “them” is usually inferior, simplistic, and sometimes even threatening.  People in Defense tend to think that the reason why others haven’t jumped on their ship is because they don’t know better or haven’t been adequately informed about “our” way (if they were, they would surely agree with us!).

What’s missing in Defense is not only the ability to see what “us” and “them” have in common (which requires knowing “us” well first!), but also the ability to observe and evaluate other cultures without judgement and in their own cultural context.   When we act with intercultural competence, we understand that our own worldview is complex and we’re able to explain why it makes sense for us.  We also understand that others’ cultures and worldviews are just as complex and just as explainable and sensible when seen through the set of circumstances in which they were raised and rewarded and penalized.

Being cross-culturally competent and being a true believer that your country is the best place on Earth are not incompatible states.  It’s the unbending belief that our culture is inherently superior, the act of deliberately shutting our eyes and ears to understanding why others may have valid reasons for disagreeing, that is monocultural.

Perhaps President Obama’s response in 2009 to whether he believes in American exceptionalism shows this best: ”I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”  He went on to explain why: because of the values laid out in the Constitution, including free speech and equality. “I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world.”

But if you’re running for office in the U.S. right now, I would keep comments like that under your hat!

Read More
Comments (0)
TOP

Hunger Games: Why Didn’t Some Readers Notice Black Characters?

Mar 29
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence

By now, you’ve likely heard or read about the controversy surrounding the “Hunger Games”, and some viewers’ reactions to the casting.  Quite a few people expressed disdain, dislike, or general consternation via social media with the fact that some of the characters that they had envisioned as white, were portrayed by black actors and actresses… though in reality, the casting decisions reflect the actual descriptions of the characters in the book.  The feeling from these viewers seems to be that the casting was done in a manner to consciously include actors and actresses of color, as some sort of Hollywood affirmative action program.  I don’t dispute that the reactions are extremely distasteful, but at the same time most of the viewers in question appear to be in high school, so we can at least point to age and immaturity as minor contributing factors.

I think what really struck me personally (as I’m unfortunately not shocked at overt racism on the internet anymore), is that these readers didn’t notice that the characters were black.  The book clearly spells it out (albeit briefly), and an interview with the author in 2011 specifically states that these characters are African-American.  So the readers read the passage, they understood and comprehended everything else that was going on in the story, but somehow their image of what the main characters looked like in their mind’s eye didn’t gel with what they were reading.  It didn’t even register!  Ugly reactions to their appearance aside, how can it be that a person wouldn’t notice something like this?

I think part of the answer lies in unconscious bias, but also in our own orientations toward cultural differences.  People who are oriented in the monocultural stages of the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (or what we at LCW refer to in shorthand as the DMIS) may see differences and assign value judgments to them (Defense/Reversal), or be incapable of seeing or acknowledging differences at all (Denial).  People may be oriented in monocultural stages for a number of reasons, but lack of experience with those different from themselves, or having experiences limited to stereotypical portrayals in the media can be two contributing factors.  Being punished for noticing and verbalizing differences when we’re young, or being taught that our own culture is superior by our elders can also play a role. These may not be intentional lessons in racism or discrimination, but clearly though, there is some unconscious bias occurring here.

There is no other explanation for completely glossing over a literal description of a character… though it’s not difficult to think of white people as “normal” or “default” when looking at the statistics on minorities on Television and in the movies. If you haven’t seen some of the “bias” videos on YouTube, such as Michael Shermer’s 2005 TED talk, it’s highly recommended.  Another great tool is Harvard’s “Project Implicit”, a series of assessments to help show you your unconscious biases –and as it turns out, I have biases too, according to the tests and my own honest reflections.  We all do, in reality.  Understanding and working through our unconscious biases, and discovering where those biases come from, is a key component of developing intercultural competence.

 

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0)
TOP

The Assumption of Difference…or the Possibility of Difference?

Feb 27
Posted by Randall Stieghorst in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence, Training

In our work with intercultural competence, we focus on helping others understand that our cultural backgrounds impact the way we think and see the world. People from different cultural groups (be those national cultures or sub-cultures within our own country) logically bring a different life experience to most every interaction.  There are certain times and situations, however, where someone who has a background very different from our own may actually be quite similar to us in their way of thinking and acting.  It is for this reason that when we talk about our own intercultural competence, we underline the importance of understanding that there is the potential for divergent ways of thinking and acting…but that it is a possibility and not necessarily a guarantee.

The assumption of difference, a core tenet of intercultural competence, should sometimes be re-framed as the potential for difference. It is indeed interculturally competent to walk into a conference room and anticipate that the cultural background of your colleagues is likely to contribute to different perspectives, attitudes, and expectations. It is also interculturally competent, however, to anticipate a level of commonality in objectives, interests, and definitions of professionalism.  Commonalities are what allow us to get along quickly and easily – to build common ground and to give the benefit of the doubt when we are unsure what is driving someone’s approach. Acknowledging the possibility of difference is what allows us to leverage our intercultural competence to move beyond interpersonal conflict when it arises.

This reliance on commonalities coupled with the expectation for the potential for difference is especially valuable for a group of professionals who have already developed some form of intercultural competence, either through a concerted self-development effort, or through the more passive learning that accompanies having spent significant time adapting to one or more different cultures. In such an environment, the potential for difference exists, but the likelihood that those differences will be disruptive to the process at hand is much lower.  Knowing when and where to expend the time and effort to seek out and adapt to below-the-surface cultural differences is the sign of well-developed intercultural competence.

Ignoring both the assumption of difference and the possibility of difference reflects a less-developed understanding of culture and its impact, and will undoubtedly lead to problems with interpersonal communication and relationships in a culturally diverse environment. So the next time you gather with a new team, or an old team, anticipate similarities…and anticipate the potential for difference.

 

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0)
TOP

“I’ve Lived All Over the World… What do you Mean I’m Not Interculturally Competent?”

Feb 14
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence, Training

LCW administers hundreds of Intercultural Developmental Inventory® assessments and coaching sessions every year.  We’re big believers in the power of the IDI to help guide growth along the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS).  The amount of research that has been devoted to demonstrate the statistical validity of the IDI® makes it an ideal tool to use when working with organizations that want a concrete ROI for their intercultural competence/global diversity and inclusion efforts.  Given that we often deliver debrief sessions to  participants at the executive-level,  it is not uncommon to find ourselves coaching former expats and other “global nomads”, many of whom have lived all over the world, immersed in many different national and organizational cultures for years at a time.

It may be surprising, but on a fairly regular basis, when taking the IDI® these global nomads will test in minimization as their Developmental Orientation; that is, they tend to most often navigate cultural differences by focusing on commonalities, often at the expense of recognizing and understanding differences.  People in minimization will sometimes be able to successfully navigate cultural differences, but in general their “blind spot” is that they generally view others as having the same motivations/needs as themselves.  Many of these participants are surprised by their score, and often there is a significant gap between their Developmental, and Perceived Orientations.  But how can this be?  If someone has vast global experience living and working among people from different cultures, then how can they lack the necessary skills for intercultural competence?

The answer has 3 considerations:

  1. Just because a person has lived in a culture(s) that’s not their own, doesn’t mean they have interacted primarily with that local culture.  Many expats and executives of global organizations choose to associate primarily with other individuals that are more culturally similar to themselves, rather than to immerse themselves in the unfamiliar local culture.
  2. Minimization can sometimes be an effective strategy.  After all, there are some universal human needs, and over-focusing on the commonalities doesn’t mean that you’ll get it wrong every time.  That being said, you will miss opportunities to craft truly cross-cultural solutions if you don’t pay attention to the differences as well.
  3. People can become adept at mimicking another culture’s behaviors, without understand the larger institutions of influence, and underlying values that guide those behaviors.  Developing intercultural competence entails understanding not just the “what” and “how”, but also the “why”.

In the modern globally-interconnected economy, more and more organizations understand the business case for an interculturally competent C-suite, managerial staff, and workforce.  But just because your organization has a globally-experienced staff, don’t think that these staff will automatically have the skills needed to effectively navigate cultural differences.  IDI® coaching and other training efforts can pay huge dividends by helping your organization’s personnel develop the skills they need to understand the values and behaviors of workers and managers in non-home-country-locations, and increasingly, understand their culturally diverse coworkers and business partners domestically as well.

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (3)
TOP

Happy Holidays? Or Minimizing Christmas?

Dec 19
Posted by smccuistion in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, General, Inclusion, Intercultural Competence

I love this time of year. Sometimes, I think I’d be perfectly happy if the year ran from October 30 to January 2 then started all over again. All of the celebrations and fun and joy that seem to happen at this time of year are simply unmatched the rest of the year, in my opinion.
However, this time of year can cause people a lot of angst when greeting others. In the United States, where we worry so much about being politically correct, we’ve moved to a greeting of “Happy Holidays,” hoping that we won’t offend anyone and that our blanket statement will cover any holiday that a person might celebrate. Now I personally like this greeting, because I think it’s more inclusive. I celebrate Christmas, so saying “Happy Holidays” instead of just randomly wishing someone “Merry Christmas” actually makes me think and realize that not everyone celebrates the same holidays I do. It allows me to avoid possible gaffes and embarrassing situations where I might wish someone the best for a holiday they don’t celebrate, which could unintentionally make them feel diminished or excluded.
Having said that, I also think we’ve gone overboard with it in some contexts in the US; that is, not calling things what they are in order not to offend. For instance, Christmas trees have turned into “holiday trees”. Other holidays celebrated at this time do not celebrate with decorated trees, so to call a Christmas tree a holiday tree is unnecessary, and maybe a little disingenuous. Although people from many backgrounds light candles this time of year, a menorah is a menorah and a kinara is a kinara, and neither are ”holiday candles”. We attend holiday parties at our places of work, but I’ve found those are often exclusively decorated with Christmas decorations, even though it’s called a holiday party. Minimizing all holidays to one big “Happy Holidays” can devalue the meaning of any one holiday. It can also seem like an attempt to disguise Christmas, which can leave both Christians and non-Christians feeling frustrated.

 

So, while I will wish people “Happy Holidays” if I’m addressing a group, or if I don’t know what holiday a person celebrates, I will also wish them a Happy Hanukkah, a Merry Christmas, a Happy Solstice or a Joyous Kwanzaa, if I know what they celebrate. And if someone wishes me a happy something-other-than-Christmas, I will not be offended. After all, I believe the intent with wishes this time of year is always good.

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Comments (2)
TOP

Americans, Relationships, and Contracts

Nov 21
Posted by Randall Stieghorst in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, Intercultural Competence

Why do American businesspeople often seem less focused on personal relationships in the business world, as opposed to many of their global counterparts?

One of the most salient differences between Americans and many other cultures when it comes to establishing new business partnerships is the American tendency to “dive into business”, “get down to the nitty-gritty”, and negotiate some sort of written or verbal agreement as quickly and efficiently as possible.  Although we do our due diligence, we don’t necessarily feel the need to make a deep personal connection with everyone we intend to partner with.  Why, then, do business people from a great many other countries tend to rely on both due diligence *and* building a deeper personal connection?

In the U.S., we have a vibrant legal system. We have plenty of lawyers, a well-defined history of contract law, a relatively efficient and impartial court system, and a transparent, albeit sometimes expensive, process for leveraging the court system when necessary.  The bottom line is that in the US, we have recourse. We have little doubt that if we sign an agreement with someone, or even enter a simple verbal contract, it will be enforceable.  And if we do have to enforce it, we have systematic and institutionalized ways to do that.  The US is often criticized (sometimes rightfully so) for being a very litigious society; we rely on our court system to be the enforcer of last resort when protecting our personal and professional rights.  It’s the efficiency of the court system that makes this possible.  Even for minor grievances, we have “small claims court”. In the end, we don’t need to trust our potential business partners on a deeply personal level because we know that we have options if they don’t stand up to their end of the deal.

In many other countries, the legal system is simply not as transparent, easy to maneuver, or efficient. In such cases, businesspeople who are forming a new agreement will want to be sure they have other methods of enforcement besides the court system.  Building a strong relationship and getting to know your potential business partner (including their team, their family, and their social network) gives you a deeper and stronger connection.  Enforcement can then be based on commitment to friendship, an aversion to being shamed in front of one’s friends and family, or unwillingness to cause long-term damage to a professional network.  And in some places, those factors may act as a much more timely enforcer than a court system that may requires several years to reach a decision on a contract – by which time the market opportunity may not even exist any longer.
So for many Americans, the need to build strong personal relationships before entering into a business relationship is less intuitive, whereas for many international professionals, there is no better option to ensure success in a partnership.

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0)
TOP

DIN Game Debrief: “The Sales Strategy Meeting”

Oct 05
Posted by Sean Oliver in American culture, Cross-cultural, Diversity, Intercultural Competence, Training, Working with...

Here is the debrief from the October 4th DIN Game. Any comments or other observations are welcome.

Describe
Julie’s Words and Actions  

Was asked by company HQ to increase Indian subsidiary’s sales by 20% in one year

* Scheduled a meeting with Divyesh

* Arrived at the meeting at precisely the prearranged start time

* Participated (listened and spoke) in the meeting

* Asks Divyesh to “get down to business” and to present his unit’s sales strategy

* Tells Divyesh she appreciates his briefing

* Asks Divyesh for specific action steps and timelines to achieve sales targets

 Divyesh‘s Words and Actions 

Prepared for the meeting

* Participated (listened and spoke) in the meeting

* Arrives to meeting 20 minutes after the prearranged start time, and tells Julie that he had to take his son to school

* Asks Julie questions about her stay in India

* Provides Julie with information about his unit’s

history and sales strategy

* Offers to put together a detailed action plan for

Julie within a few days
 

Interpret
From Julie’s Perspective 

 

From Julie’s Perspective

* I’m very much looking forward to Divyesh’s ideas on how to achieve a 20% sales increase in his unit. The Bangalore office is key in India, and falling short there will almost certainly affect my career path.

* I have so much to do, and I don’t have that much time to meet with Divyesh. I’m frustrated that he’s so late, and he didn’t even apologize!

* He’s already late, and now he wants to engage in small talk? He seems like a nice enough guy, but let’s get on with the important and pressing issues first, then later if we have time, we can get to know each other. HQ only cares about results.

* Why is he giving me all of this irrelevant background? Sure, it’s interesting, but today’s meeting is about how to meet our sales targets. I hope he has a detailed plan, which will increase my confidence in him. A plan is also something tangible I can present to HQ.

* He doesn’t have any specifics! This meeting has essentially been a waste of time. I’m a little disappointed in Divyesh. Can I trust him and his team to deliver the results that HQ demands?

 

Cultural archetypes at play: task-orientation,

low context/direct communication, equality

and individualism (expectation of self-initiative),

sequential, universal

From Divyesh’s Perspective 

*I am very well prepared for this meeting. I have all the information Julie will need to make an informed decision about my unit’s sales strategy.

* I’m glad I had time this morning to take my son to school. I know I’ll be a little late to the meeting, but Julie will understand the special situation I was in. We can also just stretch out the meeting a little longer if need be.

* I want to make sure Julie feels at home and comfortable with her new surroundings, because she is my boss AND because she is not from here – I want to be a good host. I hope she’s successfully adjusting to life in India. Let me ask her some questions.

* I wonder what kind of person Julie is, what she likes to do, where she chose to live in Bangalore. I should ask her some questions to see how I should act (and how I should expect her to act towards me) when we interact.

* Why was Julie so abrupt when asking if we could “get down to business”? She must want to hear more about our local office, so I’ll give her as much background and as much detail as possible. It’s the least I can do, since it’s her first time here.

* Why would I have specific action steps? She never asked me for this before, plus it’s her job as Sales Director to come up with the specifics. It would be presumptuous of me to think otherwise! Of course I can’t tell her this. Now I feel upset for having disappointed her and embarrassed for appearing as if I wasn’t doing my job.

 

Cultural archetypes at play: hierarchy, conscious, indirect/high context and face-saving, communication, synchronic, situational

Navigate 

Approaches that take both perspectives into consideration

*Cognizant of the Indian strong sense of hierarchy, Julie could have been more explicit when communicating her expectations for this meeting in advance. She could have done this by providing Divyesh with a detailed agenda and/or a list of data she’d like to see during the meeting, sending him a detailed email, or simply clearly telling him beforehand.

* Divyesh could have asked Julie to provide him with specific expectations for the meeting, i.e., what exactly she would like him to present and communicate.

* Knowing and respecting the Indian synchronic cultural archetype, Julie could have communicated to Divyesh (in advance) of the importance of being at the meeting at the prescribed time, and the consequences of not being there on time. She could have asked Divyesh to let her know in advance if he thought he would be late or had to cancel, and they could have come up with contingency plans (a different time or day or meeting arrangement, etc.).

* Knowing and respecting the American sequential cultural archetype, Divyesh could have called Julie as soon as he knew that he would not make the prescribed meeting time.

* Knowing the importance of relationships in India, Julie could have budgeted enough meeting time to allow for non-business related discussion, particularly since this was the first time she was meeting Divyesh. She could have also mitigated the situation entirely by scheduling a separate “get to know each other” time.

* Cognizant of the American task-focused and sequential cultural archetypes, Divyesh could have scheduled a separate event (lunch, coffee, invitation to his house for dinner, etc.) either before or after the meeting as a non-business related “get to know each other” event.

* Divyesh could also have asked Julie in advance if he could schedule an orientation meeting, to help her get to know the office, during which he could have provided her with company’s local background details, which he believes are so critical for her success.

 

Read More
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0)