Companies will face changing conditions in this fast paced world.  If they do not adapt to the changes, they may not survive as is exampled by Research in Motion (RIM), the makers of Blackberry phones (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014).  The authors’ purpose with Chapter 4 is to discuss how multinational enterprises (MNE) need to learn and deal with change to be successful in other markets.  They point out that RIM had rested on its laurels and did not spend much money on research and development while their competitors, Apple and Android spent more than double.  The point here is that they did not learn from the market.  Moran, Abramson, and Moran use another example of Ford Motor Company who almost came to ruins due to the same internal focus of believing they can continue to do what made them a large company.  For MNEs, the stakes are higher when it comes to learning in another country.  There is a lot that goes in to starting up a presence in another country and it takes a geocentric mindset to be successful.

There are three mindsets that exist with MNEs: Ethnocentric, polycentric, and geocentric.  According to Moran, Abramson, and Moran (2014), an ethnocentric mindset is one where the organization believes that their way is the only way even in other cultures and that the other cultures are wrong.  Polycentric organizations have a presence in another culture and rely on the local hires to handle the business since they know the culture.  Geocentric mindsets are “the ones that achieve the most effective and performance enhancing learning” (p. 122).  Geocentric mindsets rely on learning about and from the culture through local resources and integrate that into their corporate mindsets of being a profitable organization.

There are a number of internet companies that have tried to be present in China and most have failed.  In fact, three major American-based organizations have all pulled out of China after spending billions to break into what some call the largest internet market (Barboza, 2010).  E-bay and Yahoo are two major MNEs who tried to break into the Chinese market.  Both started strong, but ran into issues that the decided to ignore or not attempt to change.  E-bay kept charging fees for listings where a startup from Alibaba, taobao.com did not.  E-bay continued to charge, put its Chinese auctions on servers outside of the country, and finally had to pull up stakes and move out of China in 2006 (Barboza, 2010).  The largest organization to have issues in China is Google.  According to Barboza, Google thought it could ignore the Chinese governments influence on the Internet through censorship as well as other Chinese internet organizations who were providing services Google would not, namely social networking pieces.  Baidu, a Chinese-based internet search engine company was well entrenched in the Chinese markets and maintained over 60% market share even after Google came in.  Google invested in Baidu and tried to buy them outright but failed because of the strong demand for the social networking offered on Baidu.

Baidu also offered free downloads of pirated music and movies.  Google would not which was unfortunate because when this was happening in the early 2000s, downloading music was the number one thing people were doing on the Internet in China (Barboza, 2010).  Google continued to face pressures from the government and its censors who would repeatedly block results or attempt to delete them.  According to Barboza, when it comes to the Internet and what it can offer, it is very difficult to take over because of the depth of entrenchment in the Chinese culture.  The founders of Alibaba and Baidu are national names in China.

E-Bay, Yahoo, and Google failed to adopt the geocentric mindset.  They had the business acumen that made them billion dollar organizations, but they lacked the local integration to fully understand the Chinese culture and the government censorship.  However, it needs to be said that you cannot just take the culture of another country and integrate it into the existing culture within the organization (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994).  This is the equivalent of the ethnocentric mindset of believing your way is the only way and that you will still practice the same methods but throwing in a few cultural references.  The organization must adopt a Chinese organizational culture.  If Google wanted to take more market share from Baidu, they should have done a little more due diligence on the censorship and, more importantly, learned what the market wants which takes a lot of time and resources. However, in Google’s case, they could have just “Baidued it.”

 

References

Barboza, D. (2010, January 15). China, where U.S. companies often fail. The New York Times. Retreived from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/technology/16failure.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&

Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C. G. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences (9^th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

“I hate change.” A common statement heard and said by almost everyone at some point in their lives. Change has a bad reputation. However, it is necessary and with it can bring new positive possibilities. We often fixate on the process and difficulties of implementing change, and not the need for alterations and the end result. Our absence of forward thinking often creates resistance and avoidance.

In my previous organization, we referred to change as “future planning” with the hope to make any adjustments appear more positive. We began using this terminology for our change management program, after experiencing a few challenging years dealing with change. Our lesson, mentions that many organizations will use different labels for change to create a disguise to increase employees willingness to participate. (PSU, 2017). But as my Dad would say, “you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

MNE’S face three different kinds of change that effective their performance: crisis, reactive, and anticipatory. (Moran & Moran, 2014). For years my employer reported positive sales and growth without a bump in the road.  We contained to expand our business into new markets and did not see any need to implement new process or ideas into our daily business.

In 2010 sales suddenly took a significate turn for the worse, leaving us all in a panic. Market performance commonly motivates MNE’s learning behaviors. (Moran & Moran, 2014). Since we were performing well, we spent limit effort and resources into planning and developing for future changes, which meant that as a company we went into crisis change. Crisis change occurs when a company’s performance drastically declines and realizes the need for change is high. (Moran & Moran, 2014).

We understood change was needed; however, we were too ethnocentric minded to realize that certain practices would not work in every market. Our mindset meant that every few months we were retracting and reevaluating where we were going wrong. Sales continued to drop, moral was nonexistence, and terminations and resignation were unusually common. I was blessed to be in the one department that was producing positive productivity. However, we still felt the negative effects of our inability to learn and change. Eventually, things stabilized, new and appropriate solutions were implemented, but this was not without its fair share of casualties. I stayed through all the chaos but the exhaustion and effects on always operating in a reactive environment became too much, and many of my coworkers and I eventually left.

References:

Moran, Ph.D., R. T., Abramson, Ph.D., N. R., & Moran, MA, S. V. (2014). Managing Cultural Differences; Ninth Edition. Chapter 4: Global Leaders Learning from Others and Change. New York, NY, USA: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.

Pennsylvania State University, World Wide Campus (2017). OLEAD 410 Lesson 4: Global Communication. Retrieved on February 8, 2017. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1826457/modules/items/21654116

Slow is smooth and smooth is fast. Less is more. Quality over Quantity. These are concepts known by many. In the car industry, Toyota has produced some of the world’s most reliable vehicles with these philosophies. These are also concepts that were unknown to General Motors up until the mid-1980s. Both companies needed each other around this time period. “GM had to build small cars, but they were lousy and lost money. Toyota had its own problems. The company was facing import restrictions from the U.S. Congress. So, it had to start building cars in the United States” (Langfitt, 2010).

In steps the NUMMI project, where Toyota would take over and run a notoriously terrible GM plant in California to learn how to manufacture vehicles in the United States while teaching GM the “Toyota Way”. It seemed like a win-win situation for everyone until cultural differences in learning and change came along.

It seems that outside of the NUMMI plant, GM as a whole took an ethnocentric mindset when it came to learning the Toyota Way. “The lack of receptiveness to change was so deep… There were too many people convinced they didn’t need to change”, said one of the GM workers leading the change within GM (Langfitt, 2010).

American organizations are characterized, among other things, as individual decision-makers that thrive on rapid evaluation and promotion, based on individual responsibility (Abramson, Moran, & Moran, 2014, p. 124). This was evident before the NUMMI plant was implemented. “At the old GM plant… there was one cardinal rule that everyone knew: the assembly line could never stop” (Langfitt, 2010). As a result, many vehicles that left the plant would need repairs before every hitting the dealership lot. If there was an issue with a vehicle, it was up to the individual to fix it or let it be handled later on by another individual effort.

That all changed when NUMMI came into effect. “When Madrid trained in Japan, he saw workers stop the line to fix a bolt” (Langfitt, 2010). “I said, ‘Gee, that makes sense.’ Fix it now so you don’t have to go through all this stuff” (Langfitt, 2010). The typical Japanese organization can be described as a consensual style in decision-making as well as responsibility with slow evaluation and promotion and holistic concern (Abramson, Moran, & Moran, 2014, p. 125). The Toyota Way was no different.

“We, the home nationals of X company, are superior to, more trustworthy and more reliable than any foreigners in headquarters or subsidiaries” (Abramson, Moran, & Moran, 2014, p. 116). When the few GM managers trained in the Toyota Way attempted to spread this logic from one plant to another, it was met with the aforementioned mentality. “Weller said some managers were responsive. Others weren’t- like the one who asked him to leave his factory after Weller made his presentation about the NUMMI system” (Langfitt, 2010). “Disconfirmation is the process of showing organizational members that their current behaviors or attitudes are incorrect, and that continuing to behave in those ways will not only harm the organization, but themselves as well” (PSU: Lesson 5, 2017, p. 4). It appears that the leaders of this change did not do enough to emphasize this point.

Although GM attempted to make the employees feel discomfort by threatening to close plants that didn’t conform, the plants didn’t listen because of the power of the unions. They knew the union would not let that happen. So most plants never conformed and never changed how they conducted operations.

In the end, GM started to make progress and really notice a change throughout the company by the early 2000s. This was all great news until the great recession hit and destroyed GM, costing the taxpayers more than $50 Billion (Langfitt, 2010). “Mark Hogan was one of the NUMMI commandos who rose to run GM’s small car division in the U.S. He said GM might have avoided bankruptcy if it had moved in the late 1980s to implement the NUMMI system: ‘The productivity and quality changes that come with that would have been so profound, that this ever increasing loss in market share would have been stopped’ (Langfitt, 2010).

The moral of the story is, “the danger for the local partner (in a joint venture) is that the MNE will learn how to market and sell in its local market, and not need the local partner, before the latter learns the technology” (Abramson, Moran, & Moran, 2014, p. 112). In the case of the GM-Toyota joint venture, ethnocentrism and a lack of command by the leadership of the company caused GM to fail. Meanwhile, Toyota has gone on to be one of the most successful auto companies in the US due to a collective approach to business and a geocentric mindset.

References

Abramson, N. R., Moran, R. T., & Moran, M. S. (2014). Managing Cultural Differences; Ninth Edition. New York, NY, USA: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.

Langfitt, F. (2010, March 26). The End of the Line for GM-Toyota Joint Venture. Retrieved February 7, 2017, from National Public Radio: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125229157

PSU: Lesson 5. (2017, January 9). Learning and Change in a Global Setting. Retrieved February 7, 2017, from OLEAD 410: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1826457/modules/items/21654116

 

Check out this video for more information on NUMMI:

 

 

While doing research a few weeks ago, for my post, “Empathy in Business”, I came across something peculiar in an article that I immediately became steeped in, “Mirror Neuron System”. The Mirror Neuron System (MNS) was discovered by Professor Giacomo Rizzolatti and his colleagues. Rizzolatti is a Full Professor of Human Physiology at the Universita Delgli Studi Di Parma, Parma Italy. (Parma, 2017) Mirror neurons “are a variety of visuospatial neurons which indicate fundamentally about human social interaction. Essentially, mirror neurons respond to actions that we observe in others. The interesting part is that mirror neurons fire in the same way when we actually recreate that action ourselves.” (Acharya and Shukla, 2012) After reading about Albert Bandura’s theory of social learning, consisting of attention, retention, motivation and reproduction, it seemed so wonderfully familiar.

Bandura states that social learning is not mimicry or imitation but rather, it would be considered modeling. “The person doing the learning sees a behavior and replicates it, but also modifies it based on his or her own experiences and desires.” (PSU-WC, 2017) When I began researching to see if Bandura and Rizzolatti’s works were ever linked, I found that in many of the articles and studies where Bandura’s theory is analyzed, MNS is mentioned as well.

In the first step of Bandura’s four step process, “Attention”, “The first step to social learning is being able to focus one’s attention on the person and the behavior that is being learned.” (PSU-WC, 2017) The second step is, “Retention”, “is about memory: being able to store the observed behavior in the brain and then recall it when one wants to produce the behavior” The third step, “Motivation”, “is about the desire to reproduce the behavior.” Finally, in step four, “Reproduction is primarily about the actual physical performance of the behavior.” (PSU-WC, 2017) Mirror neuron research essentially explains why and how these steps are able to be carried out by humans, especially at such young ages. According to data from NCBI or the National Center for Biotechnology Information, “Human infant data using eye-tracking measures suggest that the mirror neuron system develops before 12 months of age, and that this system may help human infants understand other people’s actions.” (Acharya and Shukla, 2012) Additionally, “Mirror neurons are associated with one of the most intriguing aspect of our complex thought process, that is “Intention understanding”. There are two distinct processes of information that one can get observing an action done by another individual. The first component is WHAT action is being done? And the second more complex component is WHAT FOR or, WHY (Intention) the action is being done.” (Acharya and Shukla, 2012)

I theorize that being we are creatures of imitation, this also explains how and why the many key attributes of a culture are able to continue on throughout many generations. “Mirror Neurons are partly responsible for the development of language and culture. (Learning Never Stops, 2013) Bandura’s work essentially shows the mirror neuron system at work. This is how we see one another, we are actively teaching every single person around us in every given situation; how to behave in our responses, our love, patience, apathy, encouragement, support, our empathy towards another living being and/or the contrast of all.

The video below is from “Ted Talks”,  Neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran outlines the fascinating functions of mirror neurons.

 

 

 

 

 

References:

• Universita Degli Studi Di Parma (December 17, 2016) Department of Neuroscience. Staff. Academic Profile. Retrieved on February 7, 2017 from

http://old.unipr.it/arpa/mirror/english/staff/rizzolat.htm

• Acharya, S. and Shukla, S. (Jul-Dec, 2012) Mirror neurons: Enigma of the metaphysical modular brain. US National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health. The National Center for Biotechnology Information. NCBI. Retrieved on February 7, 2017 from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3510904/

• Learning Never Stops (January 16, 2013) Learning Never Stops. Understanding and Embracing Diversity. Mirror Neurons and Their Roles in Language Development, Learning and Autism. Retrieved on February 7, 2017 from

https://learningneverstops.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/mirror-neurons-and-its-role-in-language-development-learning-and-autism/

 

• PSU-WC (2017) OLEAD 410. Modules Lesson 05: Learning and Change in a Global Setting. Organizational Change. Retrieved on February 7, 2017 from

https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1826457/modules/items/21654115

 

About the author.

If it isn’t obvious, I find the Mirror Neuron System to be one of the most spectacular discoveries in the history of Psychology and of complete relevance to many, many areas of my life. For 17yrs, I was married to a narcissistic sociopath (yes, diagnosed). I had zero ideals about what “healthy” was until I began to watch other people in relationships, in different situations, how they responded to a myriad of different scenarios. It was my being hyper focused on the contrast from the outside world and the twisted, spun world behind my own front door, that helped me to only walk on the edge of severe depression rather than diving in head first. So, this information is in the grandest sense, a phenomenal discovery for me and maybe for you as well. I do encourage anyone who’s even just a tad curious about the Mirror Neuron System, go and explore. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

In the link for NCBI, empathy is discussed in relation to the mirror neuron system and if you google narcissist and mirror neuron system, you will see how the MNS impacts both sides. Additionally, you will also find that the discovery of the mirror neuron system has had much impact on Autism research.

 

 

 

 

As I read about this week’s lesson on change management, I struggled to remember a time where I made a significant change to an organizational process.  I thought about the two years I have been with my current organization and all of the mergers and acquisitions we have gone through.  I thought to myself is my entire time here simply maintaining the status que?  Then I realized the job I was hired into didn’t exist until I was bought on, and that the job I am currently doing is a large change for the organization, in essence my entire first year with the company was change management….

I was brought onboard in my current role as Supervisor of Talent Acquisition to implement a centralized recruitment function for my company.  This was a concept I was extremely familiar with as I came from an environment that was completely centralized and Talent Acquisition was the main hiring method for the US, Canada and EMEA.  There are two main forms of internal talent acquisition, centralized & decentralized.  Centralized recruitment is when one central department recruits for the entire organization.  This method streamlines the recruitment process by implementing consistent practices and procedures throughout the organization.  It also allows the organization to ensure that the same standards for talent selection are used company wide.  The decentralized model is when recruitment is done at the field level and primarily regionalized.  Most times the people doing the recruitment are Human Resources Managers or the regional department head.  As you can imagine this model allows for several different hiring processes to be established company wide and more often than not creates an environment where several different people have the same job title and very different regionally specific skills.  It also makes the recruitment process unmeasurable and hard to control.  At the time of my hiring the company was completely decentralized.

When I was hired I was tasked with building a centralized team and then creating a global talent acquisition process for the organization.  We did business in 22 states in the US as well as 4 provinces in Canada.  As you can imagine this was no small order, I need to scan the current environment to determine what was being done and then meet with the regional business leader to understand what their needs were.  The CHRO told me when she was hiring me that they had little to no data around talent acquisition and the main concern was to eliminate potential liabilities to the organization.  Having several different recruitment processes and no way of tracking the recruitment efficiency left the organization vulnerable to despaired treatment in the hiring process as well as potential discrimination risks.  In addition, not having control over a process that impacts the entire organization is a bit scary for Human Resources.

To start I scanned the entire environment and met with the regional business head to determine how recruitment was being handled at the site level.  I also wasn’t too familiar with 2 of the 4 provinces we were recruiting in and made it a point to get out to their sites to meet with leadership and understand what is customary in their regions.  While I didn’t realize it at the time I was taking a very geocentric approach to my change management by evaluating each country and region and formulating a holistic plan of attach.  My goal wasn’t to optimize the program for each region but to create a holistic geocentric strategy that would be effective for the organization as whole.  As Dr. Moran & Dr. Abramson said “the organizations & leaders that adapt a geocentric mindset are the ones that achieve the most effective and performance enhancing learning” (Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014)).

Next I met with my Sr. Leadership team to present my findings and recommendations.  What I found was that while as regions each business was doing OK with their recruitment as an organization we were well behind industry averages in time to fill (87 days, industry average is 55) and Cost per hire (not currently being tracked, industry average is $5,200).  Even worst, our candidate experience varied from site to site and our job description were not consistent.  For instance, in Canada a Project Manager was assigned to manage engineering project whereas in the US they were managing a treatment facility (we called them projects).  This not only caused confusion for our external candidate but internally we could not share talent because we didn’t know where it existed or couldn’t identify common jobs. It was my recommendation that to harmonize the process we would need to implement an applicant tracking system, harmonize job titles and descriptions and move to a completely centralized model.  While I didn’t know it at the time the approach we took was very similar to Lewins 3 stage model for change (PSU 2017).

The unfreezing process was as follows: First we picked a system to implement and then pulled together focus groups of our highest volume hiring managers.  We presented to them the benefits of a centralized model and solicited their help in picking a communication strategy.  Ultimately we decided to go with a phased implementation by region. The change process stated at the regional leadership meetings where the idea was presented at all of the regional leaders.  Next a top down communication method was used to communicate the change.  We enlisted “culture clubs” that would push the idea of change and promote the move internally.  The culture clubs main goal was to encourage the managers at their sites that the change would make the process quicker and ensure they were receiving the top talent available.  At the time we had a turnover rate of around 11%, this is high for the utility industry and during most exit meetings it was revealed to HR that the main reason for the change was a lack of career mobility.  We ensured the teams that if we had a central system which all jobs were posted that this would allow for more transparency in our hiring and greater internal mobility options for the employees.  The clubs were a success, mostly because the people we chose to part of these clubs were in the same demographic that we were seeing most of the turnover in (mid-senior level and under 40).  We next launched a series of internal communication to promote the change that focused on the individual benefits and business benefits of the change.  Finally the refreezing phase started with a phased implementation.  We started in the closest region to our centralized location as to ensure the most hands on experience.  The implementation was a yearlong process as we wanted to ensure that we could generate a buzz from our successes and get the other area that were not centralized excited about “joining the club”.  It was a success!  We hired candidates directly from our competitors and were bringing on people in high level positions that made immediate business impact.  Additionally, we had employees changing business units, managers, and regions like never before.  By the time we got to the last region the organization was buzzing and they were excited to join the centralized model.  We are now a year into full centralization and we have heard from many managers that they couldn’t imagine going back.

So there you have it, by using the model of freezing our current process, changing behavior and then refreezing we were able to successful shift the way my organization hires talent.  We brought the time to fill number down to 44 days and now know it cost us $2,473.21 per hire.  The approach we took was geocentric and mindful of how our Canadian counterparts did their hiring but also took mindful to the overall organizational impact of the change.  By enlisting our culture clubs and executive sponsor we were able to get top down buy in and create an environment where we value internal mobility and talent sharing.  We also now had a standard defensible process for hiring that was both consistent and measurable.

I didn’t realize it at the time but what we had done was truly global in a conceptual sense yet regionally effective.

 

References:

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences. Oxon: Routledge.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2016) LER201 Employment Law

The Japanese are world class negotiators and do business very differently than their American counterparts. “The negotiation process differs from culture to culture in language, cultural conditioning, negotiating style, approaches to problem-solving and building trust” (Moran, Remington Abramson & Moran; pg. 74).  Negotiating is a part of everyday life, but in business it’s absolutely critical to your success. Poor negotiation can cripple a company just as quickly as losing key customers. Doing business overseas, specifically in Japan, there is much to consider before you take that 17 hour flight forward and open the door to the several Japanese business associates waiting to meet you.

Maintaining balance and harmony is an important aspect of Japanese thought. Japanese do not want to “lose face,” (Moran, Remington Abramson & Moran; pg. 85) and they also do not want to cause you to “lose face.” Culturally, “saving face” is of utmost importance. One who loses face in front of his or her peers is politically injured or destroyed. It is never proper to criticize or humiliate another in public. Conflict is avoided at all costs.

Silence at a negotiation is common and appreciated by the Japanese (Moran, Remington Abramson & Moran; pg. 86). Silence is a time for thought and reflection. As negotiators, the Japanese speak less than most cultures and especially less than the Americans, who they view has blabbermouths, unpredictable, and selfish. When the Japanese do speak in a negotiation, it is almost always in the form of questions to get the other party to reveal information. This approach is also why it so hard to negotiate with them; it is nearly impossible to get them to disclose their interests or motivations. “Personality dimensions are universal to all humans regardless of their culture. If you understand the dominate personality types in the culture where you are doing business, and you understand your own personality predilections, you may have a useful and simplified stereotype to work with” (Moran, Remington Abramson & Moran; pg. 68).

Context of time is also a key factor when doing business overseas. Negotiating in Japan is a marathon, not a sprint, and in terms of business negotiations, especially large ones, are likely to take place over a longer period of time than in the West. A delay in reaching a decision is not a reflection of a Japanese counterparts inefficieny.  For instance, For westerners may find themselves complaining that on 6 visits to a company they will be met by 18 different people in groups of 3 and will have to say the same thing six times. This is time-consuming but necessary for the Japanese, as all the members of the group have to become acquainted with the visitors. After this ordeal, Westerners often press for a quick decision. They will not get one. If they impose a time limit, the Japanese will back out quietly. “Negotiating is not a theoretical activity. It is a face-to-face activity, kind of like a dance where partners in the dance influence each other” (Moran, Remington Abramson & Moran; pg. 71).

When negotiating in Japan, you will likely face a team of negotiators across the table, (Moran, Remington Abramson & Moran; pg. 85).  A key challenge will be to identify the real decision maker in the group — there is usually only one — and the individual or individuals who can influence the decision maker. “When people communicate, they make certain assumptions about other’s process of perceiving, judging, and reasoning patterns. Correct assumptions facilitate communication, but incorrect assumptions lead to misunderstandings, and miscommunication often results” (Moran, Remington Abramson & Moran; pg. 76). Thus, when dealing with a Japanese company that may, superficially resemble your own, do not assume similarities that are not there. Japan has modernized, not westernized, and true similarities are mainly only technical. Don’t assume that they mean the same as you do when they use words like leadership or motivation. They have something quite different in mind.

Why are Japanese companies so successful? If there is one key to Japanese success it is their ability to conduct a company’s internal affairs in a spirit of harmony and cooperation. Many foreign companies never do start business in Japan (or only enter the Japanese market through a distributor) simply because of the misconception, fueled by those infamous myths and misconceptions of doing business in Japan. Often times labeling the business culture is somehow too risky. Fortunately, Japanese business culture is not an impenetrable barrier to successful business in Japan. “In face-to-face negotiations, we give and receive nonverbal behavioral cues. Some argue that these cues are the critical messages of negotiation” (Moran, Remington Abramson & Moran; pg. 77). We must remember that personality and context are also determinates of behavior in any on country. “Behaving as an effective negotiator involves great skills of resilience, forbearance, emotional intelligence, thoughtful listening and the consideration of all sides of the argument” (Moran, Remington Abramson & Moran; pg. 71). Effective business negotiation is a core leadership and management skill. This is the ability to negotiate effectively in a wide range of business contexts. As more businesses expand their focus to include foreign markets, the demand for competent international business negotiating professionals increases. “In face-to-face negotiations, we give and receive nonverbal behavioral cues. Some argue that these cues are the critical messages of negotiation” (Moran, Remington Abramson & Moran; pg. 77). We must remember that personality and context of a culture are also determinates of behavior in any on country and can critically influence your strategy going into an international negotiation. Remember, in some cultures the turtle is more respected that the hare.

Reference

Moran, R. T., Ph. D., Remington Abramson, N., Ph. D., & Moran, S. V., MA. (2011). Managing Cultural Differences (9th ed.). London: Routledge

According to the Lesson 4 commentary, “if one isn’t able to take on another perspective, it is difficult to see what they want or need, but also to shape a message that they understand” (PSU 2017) This behavior is a contributing factor to distortion in communication, especially across cultures.  In getting to a point of understanding the other person’s needs, you have to understand how they communicate.

An area where communication can be distorted is in the low vs. high context communication variations between cultures.  According to Morgan, Abramson, and Moran (2014), “a high-context culture uses more vague forms of (or high context) communication.  A low-context culture employs more direct (or low context) forms of communication.”

Chinese culture, which is one of the most dominant and oldest cultures in the world dating back more than 5000 years, has a land area of 3,691,501 square miles and is over 1/5 of the world’s population, making it unlikely to conduct business globally and not have some interaction on some level with China.  In doing so, it is important to understand how to effectively communicate with a high-context communicator.

My professional and personal communication is high-context and I find myself agitated when I have to repeat myself.  In understanding my own biases, I must be mindful that everyone does not have the same shared context that I do and to clarify myself so that communication is not distorted.  This may also be a thought of Chinese individuals when faced with low-context communicators.  The intent is not to insult the sender, but rather more cultural in that the Chinese do not want to provide more information, or don’t know additional facts.  Low-context communicators will require additional background and ask probing question.  When dealing with low-context communicators, I find myself thinking ‘OK, they need all this exchange’ in order to ensure the communication is not distorted.  I must be patience and acceptance of differences in communication styles and looks for ways to close the communication gap.

 

References:

Chinese Culture – Communication Styles Low-context Westerners vs. High-context Chinese.  Retrieved from http://www.mandarinmorning.com/News/795.html

Morgan, R. T., Abramson, N. R., and Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing Cultural Differences (pp. 43, 44) Routledge

OLEAD 410, 001, SP14, Lesson 4: Errors in Communication. Retrieved from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1826457/modules/items/21654106

 

Video Credit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oYfhTC9lIQ

 

The most essential ability that global professionals must develop is figuring out how to viably impart knowledge and listen to diverse audiences. Values, social norms, attitudes, stereotypes, social organizations, roles in a society, and languages skills are variables that affect one’s ability to competently communicate in a global context (Moran, Abramson, and Moran, 2014). To encourage relationships with people who do not share the same qualities, culture, or methods requires skills and sensitivities so that those cultural and social contrasts become assets, instead of liabilities (Moran, Abramson, and Moran, 2014). The complexities of cultural communication have been studied from the multifaceted practices and components that each culture presents (Penn State University, 2016). For instance, a global professional’s non-verbal communication and physical movements indicate dialectic ability levels when connecting with other cultures (Moran, Abramson, and Moran, 2014). Cultural communication from professions that operate in a global context speak to cognizant decisions in view of social inclinations based on the levels of egocentrism that one chooses to exhibit (Moran, Abramson, and Moran, 2014). Additionally, intercultural communication is challenging and the advent of electronic communication is even more challenging because of cultural context (Moran, Abramson, and Moran, 2014).

Research indicates that cultural similarities are a good measuring tool to base comfort levels of those who have the most in common (Gunkel, Schlaegel, & Taras, 2016; Moran, Abramson, and Moran, 2014). This also indicates that personality dimensions are universal to all humans regardless of their culture. “Self-interested (I/It) and altruistic (I/Thou) relations are two universal bases for intercultural communication” (Moran, Abramson, and Moran, 2014, p. 62-63). Human in all cultures resist communications where other’ interests are forced upon them (Moran, Abramson, and Moran, 2014). Nonviolent communication (NVC) methods are more compassionate in that the flow of communication is: observe, state feelings, state needs, make a specific behavioral request (Moran, Abramson, and Moran, 2014). This is a useful construct for those who want to increase their level of negotiating in cross-cultural communication interactions.

Those who are able to express their emotions in communications with those similar and in the global context are said to exhibit high levels of Emotional Intelligence (EI) (Moran, Abramson, and Moran, 2014). Beatrix provides an emotional intelligence assessment to determine one’s EI. Further, Gunkel, Schlaegel, and Taras (2016) indicate that emotional intelligence refers to individuals’ ability to recognize, use, and regulate emotions. They also found that culture is a strong indicator of emotional intelligence in individuals (Gunkel, Schlaegel, & Taras, 2016). Consequently, the ability to be culturally sensitive in handling of conflicts in organizations increases job satisfaction, positively affects work-related outcomes, and helps in training employees for international assignments (Gunkel, Schlaegel, & Taras, 2016). In conclusion, according to Moran, Abramson, and Moran (2014) emotional intelligence plays an important role in the ability of an individual to conduct negotiations in a constructive manner.

References

Gunkel, M., Schlaegel, C., & Taras, V. (2016). Cultural values, emotional intelligence, and conflict handling styles: A global study. Journal of World Business, 51(4), 568-585.

Meatrix. (2017). EI Assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.maetrix.com.au/meit/eitest.html

Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing Cultural Differences (9th ed.). Oxford: Routledge.

Penn State University. (2016). Leadership In a Global Context, “Lesson 04: Global Communication,” Retrieved from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1802572/modules/items/21179073