Globalization has seeped into even the most niche markets. Therefore the decision to “go global” is no longer relevant as most CEO’s are already global. There are many barriers to effective global strategies such as market saturation, economies of scale for distribution, and differences in marketing and advertising techniques. In this article I argue that the CEO’s primary concern must be avoiding cross-cultural communication mistakes. I am not referring to such things as knowing when to bow or shake hands, how and when to say no to a gift, or even dealing with fasting rituals during negotiations. These are mistakes often over dramatized and although may cause some embarrassment can be easily overcome with a smile and acknowledgement of ignorance. In this article I address the more profound differences in cultural communication: those concerning the language, the verbal and nonverbal, as each varies depending on two distinct cultural factors; context and time.[i] The Global CEO must strongly consider these cultural factors in the pursuit of a more comprehensive understanding of the complexity of communication so as to enhance cross-cultural skills.[ii]
Context
Context is probably the most important cultural dimension and also the most difficult to define. It refers to the entire array of stimuli surrounding every communication event and how much of that stimulus is meaningful.[iii] Edward Hall identified two classic dimensions of culture, based on his experience in the Foreign Service; high-context and low-context cultures. High context communications feature pre-programmed information in the receiver and in the setting, with only minimal information in the transmitted message.[iv] China, Chile, and Iraq, for instance, are high context societies in which people tend to rely on their history, status, relationships, and a plethora of other information, including religion, to assign meaning to an event.[v] In low context communications, most of the information must be in the transmitted message to make up for what is missing in the context.[vi] In these cultures the speaker uses explicit language and meaning, leaving less chance of misunderstanding; as little is left to take for granted in the exchange. Examples of these cultures are the United States, Swiss, and Scandinavian.[vii]
Adapting to Context
There are two types of difficulties in communicating with people across cultures. The first is the inability to note and read the symbols other cultures display. The second is the tendency to attach to the symbols meanings perceived and derived from one’s own culture.[viii] Facial expressions serve as a typical example; it may seem obvious that the expression of happiness is universal, a smile is a smile after all. However, among the expressions of more negative emotions, such as sadness or anger the ability to recognize accurately those cues is not always certain. The missing element is context, but whose context? Loud speech and wild hand gestures may look like anger to some but to others be typical symbols of an engrossing conversation between friends. The ability to discern one from the other is the ultimate goal of all cross-cultural communication.
Time
Time permeates every part of a person’s social life and spans cultural, group, and individual levels of analysis[ix]. The experience and use of time are universal, but the experiences of time differ across cultures and individuals.[x] Americans tend to worship time and manage it as though it were a tangible and scarce resource; “time is money.” In many other countries time is more flexible. Arriving late to an appointment, or taking a long time to get down to business, is the accepted norm in many Asian, Mediterranean, and Arab countries.[xi] Within each culture people interact with and respond to the passage of time according to whether they have a mono-chronic or poly-chronic view of time. Edward Hall found that Northern Europeans and Americans have a mono-chronic view of life and think of time as a road or a ribbon stretching into the future, along which one progresses.[xii] In the workplace a mono-chronic viewpoint emphasizes deadlines, schedules, strict adherence to plans, privacy, and accomplishing tasks in linear fashion. On the other hand a poly-chronic view places more emphasis on the overall objective of plans, allowance for outside events to change plans, and relationship oriented activities to take precedence over time commitments.[xiii] Unlike North Americans, the Japanese and Arab nations have a poly-chronic view of time and therefore prefer prolonged social discourses prior to embarking on impending business, to do otherwise is considered rude and arrogant.[xiv]
Time is not the Enemy
Similar to context, time is variable across all levels of culture and its implications in the business environment are almost endless; management of agendas, appointments, decision making, and lead times for projects and so forth.[xv] Some of the most important time differences have to do with business relationships, thus a person from a “life is to be enjoyed” culture may regard someone from a “time is money culture” as unhealthy, obsessed, and not valuing family time.[xvi] It is essential CEO’s consider the use of time and invest wisely in time, while avoiding trivial pursuits that can appear important under the guise of one’s own national or work culture. In other words, an imbalance in “relationship-development” time can have dire business consequences.[xvii]
Overcoming Barriers
The issue is not discovering which approach to culture, context, and time is correct; it is how to adapt to and incorporate the best practices of each viewpoint. In a cross-cultural context, the CEO is increasingly confronted with the need to influence people from other cultures. Successful influence requires a solid understanding of these cultures[xviii]. Achieving this understanding begins with an openness to experiences and listening to people when they describe work or other issues.[xix] Listening accomplishes two things; first it is a sign of respect and the principal step toward relationship building and second it shows empathy. Empathy allows a deeper understanding of another’s viewpoint and the ability to convey that understanding to the other in their behavior and words. CEO’s have a great deal of freedom, as they define results.[xx] Therefore, a multilayered approach to decision-making that is responsive to various interpretations of cultural context and time is essential. In a culturally diverse world, the CEO must have a flexible mind and be comfortable with chaos and change[xxi]. It is this flexible mind that tolerates ambiguity and differences and incorporates a multifaceted approach to communication responsive to various interpretations of context and time. CEO’s that overlook the salience of intercultural communication differences might face potential relationship problems,[xxii] thus jeopardizing long-term ties and profitability for the organization.
Final thought
For most CEO’s, specifically those in the United States efficiency and clarity of communications are the key to success. Paradoxically, effective intercultural communication must be inefficient at times and to ensure its effectiveness may require vague communication techniques focused on relationships and trust building endeavors. Some in the U.S. believe that what they think is reality, because they live in a “word world” and anything other than words is less important in the communication process.[xxiii] I have shown that this view is the exception in some contexts and that the successful global CEO must be willing to step outside of his or her preferred “world” and adapt to new ways of thinking, doing, and of course, communicating.
About the Author
Paul Dannar recently retired after a 30 year military career. Over 16 of those years he served an internal consultant concentrating on organization development for various military organizations at the operational and strategic level. His culminating assignment was as a Special Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe and NATO. He is pursuing his Doctorate in Strategic Leadership at Regent University (Virginia). He can be reached at pauldannar@gmail.com.
[i] Hall, E. T. (1973). The silent language. Anchor.
[ii] Moseley, A. (2009). Improving cross-cultural communication skills: Ask-seek-knock. Leadership Advance Online, 17, 1-11.
[iii] Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Nicholas Brealey International.
[iv] Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor.
[v] O’Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johansen, R. (1994). Transcending Cultural Barriers: Context, Relationships, and Time. Jossey-Bass.
[vi] Hall, E. T. (1976).
[vii] Munter, M. (1993). Cross-cultural communication for managers. Business Horizons, 36(3), 69-78.
[viii] Dutta, B. (2008). Communication in cross-cultural context. ICFAI Journal of Soft Skills, 7-12.
[ix] Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. J. (1981). The structures and meanings of social time. Social Forces, 60(2), 432-462.
[x] Kaufman–Scarborough, C. (2003). Two perspectives on the tyranny of time: Polychronicity and Monochronicity as depicted in Cast Away. The Journal of American Culture, 26(1), 87-95.
[xi] O’Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johansen, R. (1994).
[xii] Hayden, F. G. (1993). Order matters, and thus so does timing: Graphical clocks and process synchronicity. Journal of Economic Issues, 95-115.
[xiii] Hall & Hall (1990).
[xiv] Spinks, N., & Wells, B. (1997). Intercultural communication: a key element in global strategies. Career Development International, 2(6), 287-292.
[xv] O’Hara-Devereaux, M., & Johansen, R. (1994).
[xvi] Berger, M. (1998). Going global: Implications for communication and leadership training. Industrial and Commercial Training, 30(4), 123-127.
[xvii] Kaufman–Scarborough, C. (2003).
[xviii] Deng, L., & Gibson, P. (2008). A qualitative evaluation on the role of cultural intelligence in cross-cultural leadership effectiveness. International journal of leadership studies, 3(2), 181-197.
[xix] Zweifel, T. D. (2003). Culture clash: Managing the global high-performance team. New York: Select Books Incorporated.
[xx] Hollenbeck, G. P., & McCall, M. W. (2003). Competence, not competencies: Making global executive development work. Advances in global leadership, 3, 101-119.
[xxi] Rosen, R. H. (2000). Global literacies: Lessons on business leadership and national cultures. Simon & Schuster.
[xxii] Salleh, L. M. (2005). High/low context communication: The Malaysian Malay style. In Proceedings of the 2005 Association for Business Communication Annual Convention (pp. 1-11). Harvard Business School Press.
[xxiii] Hall, E. T. (1976).
