OLEAD 410: Leadership in a Global Context

Cultural Leadership blog

French Contradiction of Scores in Power Distance and Individualism

by 1 Comment

The attitude toward work and business is quite different in French culture than in the United States. These differences become apparent when examining a publication written for a regionally specific audience, as I was researching topics covered in chapter 14 of Managing Cultural Differences, I stumbled across Forbes France. I found reading what I typically thought of as a U.S. only magazine with articles and tips about to navigate business from the perspective of a native author from another culture very intriguing.

Many of the latest articles from Forbes France, discussed our current global situation brought on by COVID-19 and the need to work remotely. French leaders have a very different struggle than those in the States; France has a power distance score of 68, which is high and indicates a preference of hierarchical structure within an organization (Hofstede Insights, n.d.). Employees have a high level of dependency on their leaders for constant direction, but how does that translate when working remotely? Micromanaging employees from a distance is a cause for great concern and is stressed as fear of “losing control over their employees” (Forbes France, 2019). Working remotely requires a high degree of independence, this may be an issue from the management’s point of view, but France also has a high score in individualism. With a score of 71 in individualism, this makes for a unique combination; generally, high power distance cultures are collectivist (Hofstede Insights, n.d.). The French declare they hold fellowship and equality as central points of their culture, but the high score in individualism states otherwise (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014). The conflict in these scores indicates subordinates respect and show compliance to their boss’s demands, but when left to their own devices may do the opposite of what they have committed to, as they believe that they know better (Hofstede Insights, n.d.). As the weeks of quarantine have progressed requiring the adoption of telework practices by the majority of the French workforce, the view of the primarily U.S. practice has changed from ridiculous and unacceptable to a means of achieving increased productivity and work-life balance (Forbes France, 2019; Midena, 2020).

Differences in business behaviors and practices are evident and can be examined not only by applying behavior and cultural theories, such as Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions, but by comparing articles in the same publication for different regional audiences. Forbes is a business magazine published in 55 countries and features articles written about leadership and management from the cultural perspective of the local culture. I found it very interesting to read business articles from another cultural view. With the help of google translate, I think I will continue to explore other regional business practices through similar sources while applying lessons from this course. 

References

Forbes France. (2019, October 21). Etats Unis VS France : Des Leviers De Motivation Au Travail Différents. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.fr/management/etats-unis-vs-france-des-leviers-de-motivation-au-travail-differents/?cn-reloaded=1

Hofstede Insights. (n.d.). Country Comparison. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/france/

Midena, M. (2020, April 8). Télétravail Intégral : L’Exemple De Fizzer. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.fr/management/teletravail-integral-lexemple-de-fizzer/

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

China’s Cultural Dimensions: Power Distance and Individualism

by 1 Comment

Lesson 10 of the Leadership in a Global Context course has provided a fair amount of insight into the effect culture has my Chinese counterparts; I have been struggling to understand the pace at which they make a decision. I work with team members from China and I have experienced some noticeable differences in the process they follow in making a decision. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions provide tools to see how my global team members think and what is driving their behaviors. Power distance and individualism seem to be two major factors in the difficulties I am currently facing and will discuss them in further detail. 

Power distance is the degree to which the subordinate members of an organization will allow and favor unequally distributed power (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014). Influenced by Confucius, a philosopher, and politician, Chinese society has a preference for simple organizational structures, in which subordinates obey and respect their superiors without question. China belongs to a high power distance culture. The average of PDI (Power Distance Index) of Asian countries is 64, but the PDI of China is 80 (Hofstede Insights, n.d.). Inequalities among people are acceptable, and the subordinate-superior relationship tends to be polarized. I have experienced this, in that only managers or supervisors from China will attend meetings where technical discussions are being held with U.S. team members. Because these discussions don’t include the individuals from China that actually do the work, there is a disconnect, and Chinese attendees on a regular basis state they aren’t close enough to speak about that topic.

Unlike small power distance cultures in which the emphasis is to minimize social or class inequalities, questioning or challenging authority figures, reducing hierarchical organizational structures, and using power only for legitimate purposes (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014). On the other hand, cultures that prefer large power distances believe that each person has a rightful place in the social order, that the actions of authorities should not be challenged or questioned, that hierarchy and inequality are beneficial. Rank is extremely important in a business relationship, and you must keep rank differences while communicating. For example, when you attend a meeting with Chinese business partners, you need to address those with higher rank first. 

Individualism is the relative importance of individual versus group interests (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014). Cultures with a low score of individualism prefer collectivism, to work as a group for the benefit of all rather than the benefit of the individual (Penn State World Campus, n.d.). China has an individualism score of 20, which represents a highly collectivist culture, a society based heavily on the interdependence of its people and the importance of relationships (Hofstede Insights, n.d.). Because relationships and the group are viewed as a higher priority in China than in the U.S., the use of indirect communication as a way of maintaining harmony and not challenging others; this can be quite difficult if you are trying to debate the pros and cons of adopting a new process. Being from the States, I have a direct approach to communicating and appreciate “hashing things out” to make the best decision, but it is tough when your team members won’t tell you are wrong because they don’t want to offend you.

Being aware of these social nuances and using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to view behaviors from a different perspective can lead to more effective communication and interaction with a global team.

References

Hofstede Insights. (n.d.). Country Comparison. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/china,the-usa/

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

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2018). OLEAD 410 Lesson 10: Asia: Focus on China and India. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2041071/modules/items/27977873

Bridging the Literal and Figurative Gaps of a Global Team

by Leave a Comment

A global team consists of a geographically dispersed group working together to accomplish a common goal; this type of team faces not only time zone and cultural differences but also different languages, national customs, values, and norms of behavior. As the world continues to become more connected, working within a global team is becoming more common. Global teams don’t always have the luxury of meeting face-to-face due to budget and time constraints and instead rely on virtual team meetings. These meetings can be full of pitfalls; I know from personal experience the struggles a global virtual team can face.
An ethnocentric view is a lens through which one views the world and is developed through an individual’s experiences (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014). As we mature, we try to make sense of a chaotic world, drawing conclusions from what we observe and experience in our little corner of the globe. If we aren’t exposed to other cultures, beliefs, and values, our conclusions go unchallenged; the longer this remains, the more entrenched we become in our ethnocentric view (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014). A geocentric view, is one takes the time to consider and understand another’s perspective; adjusting the approach to communication and behaviors to eliminate noise that can be added by
The following are some tips to ease the issues of virtual team meetings:

Face to face meeting

If possible begin a project with a face to face, it strengthens the ties between team members and can be used to establish the scope of the project as well as ownership tasks.

Create an agenda

Distribute an agenda prior to the meeting and stick to the topics outlined in the agenda. Any meeting can meander off-topic, but because of behavior and language differences, you need to mindful of showing respect for everyone’s time (Oshri, Kotlarsky & Willcocks, 2008).

Request feedback

Seek feedback; you may need to set due dates for feedback and stress the importance of responses from everyone involved. It isn’t always clear when you are finalizing a decision, and you may receive feedback at the last minute. Be direct about requiring input within a specific timeframe (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014).

Take attendance and plan ahead

Keep track of who attended each meeting; global teams can celebrate different holidays, and alignment to everyone’s schedule can be especially challenging. I am currently working with a global team consisting of individuals from France, China, and the United States. You can save a lot of time if you are aware of when others will be out of the office and can set deadlines based on this information (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014).

These tips help with awareness and can bring you one step closer to adopting a geocentric view. Being globally aware will help you build a stronger working relationship with colleagues who are from a different background than your own, which can then help you all be more successful.

References

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

Oshri, I., Kotlarsky, J., & Willcocks, L. (2008). Missing links: Building critical social ties for global collaborative teamwork. Communications of the ACM, 51(4), 76-81. doi:10.1145/1330311.1330327

 

Reading Between the Social Cues

by Leave a Comment

We are all individuals, and although you can’t assume that two individuals from the same culture will respond in precisely the same manner, generalizations are valid to the extent that they provide hints on what you will most likely experience during an intercultural exchange. Not only do we face language barriers, but assumptions in behaviors and mannerisms can lead to further errors in the communication process. Egocentrism, assuming others will interrupt your actions in the same cultural context as your own, is a source of the breakdown in message creation and interpretation (PSU WC, 2020, L.4).

Cultural differences influence global Communication; even the choice of medium used to communicate may have cultural overtones. While there are many models of Communication, the basic process involves encoding and decoding a message through a channel between a sender and a receiver (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014). The determining factor in medium preference is depended on whether the country falls into a high-context or low-context culture. High-context cultures leave much of the message undefined; to be interpreted through context, nonverbal cues, and between-the-line interpretation of what is verbally communicated (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014). High-context is looking for meaning and understanding in what is not said, observing body language, in silences and pauses. Japan is one country that uses high-context Communication, and when speaking to a low-context communicator, it can be perceived that they are leaving out information. In contrast, low-context cultures expect messages to be explicit and specific, emphasizing the sending and receiving of accurate messages directly and by being precise with spoken or written words (PSU WC, 2020, L.4). The United States is a low-context communication country, and such can appear to be speaking down to a high context communicator.

Adding to the complexity of intercultural communications, you may consider the sense of time. Running late in some countries isn’t seen as rude, but as a given; in these cultures, time is polychronic. Polychronic cultures approach time as flexible, and the quality of the work outweighs the timeframe (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014). On the other hand, monochronic cultures view time as rigid and emphasize promptness(Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014). They also tend to be task-oriented, whereas people from polychronic cultures are people-oriented. Cross-cultural methods to time influence doing business internationally and should be an important consideration before seeing another’s action as inconsiderate. 

In summary, communicating in one’s own culture can be complex, add to this another language and learned a set of behaviors and you see you are navigating a minefield of social misunderstandings. As we will further explore the differences between cultures in this course I hope to learn how to properly interpret intercultural communication, as it is a large part of what I do every day.

References

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

Pennsylvania State University. (2020). Leadership in a global context – OLEAD 410. Lesson 4: Global Communication, Penn State World Campus. Retrieved from

https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2041071/modules/items/27977836

Introduction

by 1 Comment

Hello everyone, my name is Racheal Burgess, and I am a Sophmore in the Organization Leadership program, returning to school after 16 years. I am a Design supervisor in Charlotte, North Carolina, with 20 years of experience in Design Engineering, but this is my first supervisor role. I am excited about this course as my position includes trying to align design practices with my global counterparts in France and China. Communicating through web meetings and emails has been difficult, but I think the issue isn’t that we don’t speak the same primary language. We struggle to understand each other because of cultural norms and social queues. This semester I hope to gain a better understanding of my team members outside of the U.S.

Have a great semester, everyone.

 

Skip to toolbar