Read the label (carefully, before throwing it away)

When you buy a jar of jam, you know it’s jam inside because the label says so. You know what to expect from jam, you know what to do with the jam, and you know what the jam will do to you. The label forms the basis of our interaction with the jam. If we open the jar and find that there are processed peas inside, we will be disappointed, shocked and disappointed (whoever heard of peas on toast).

I suspect you are wondering where I’m going with this....

Every day we use linguistic labels (or categories) to simplify our interaction with the world: labels such as ‘man’, ‘woman’, ‘black’, ‘white’, ‘gay’, ‘straight’. But there is a huge problem with such labels. There is no such thing as a gay man. Really there isn’t. Neither is there any such thing as a black man, or a French woman, or a straight Indian.

Now, before you start building a bonfire to encourage me to recant my evil ways, think about it a bit more carefully: how would you describe, for example a “gay man”? If you were to come up with a description (I won’t attempt to myself) would that description have any relevance to any real person? If it doesn’t resemble a real person, it is without value and meaningless. Let’s try an easier (for me) example. Describe a British man. It’s impossible – there are approximately 55 million people with British passports, of whom approximately 48% are male – call it 27 million male. If we assume 25% are under 16 years old (and therefore boys, not men – sorry, more labels) that leaves us with approximately 18 million people. I don’t have exact percentages for the ethnic break down, but there is no way you can describe a group of 18 million people of mixed ethnicity, backgrounds, religions, educations, wealth, status etc etc etc with any meaningful accuracy. In fact even if you take identical twins, you cannot describe them both in the same way accurately.

Having established that the label is hard to apply, we have to ask ourselves, why we use labels. The simplest answer is that we have to in order to simplify the way we interact with the world, but how we use them is significant. When we refer to a group of which we consider ourselves to be a member we use the words “we”, “us”, “our” etc. As an employed person, when I talk about people who have another job, I say “the unemployed”, “they” – the academic word for this is “othering”. In other words (no pun intended) we create the “other” group as one we are not part of. When I talk about “gay men” I am asserting that I am straight. When a government minister talks about terrorists, s/he is asserting that s/he is a legitimate member of society.

There is however another use of the labels, and one that to me is even more concerning – when someone stands up and says “we whites” or “we blacks” or “we gay” they are claiming for themselves rights and a status that is above, more important, more significant than the “others”

(Please note: I am not homophobic, racist, culturist, ethinicist, ageist, chauvinist etc etc – please read with an open mind!).

I fully accept that people who claim these labels have a strong argument for claiming that they have been on the receiving end of some very unpleasant, and in many cases lethal, behaviour – this cannot not ever be condoned. What I am suggesting, however, is that the use of labels is part (not all!) of the problem. When a minority group of any kind (to avoid stereotyping, lets invent a group called “minortorians”) uses their label they are setting themselves apart for special treatment. If minortorians instead avoided the label, and insisted on being counted as part of the “whole” (another very difficult subject) the discrimination would be reduced. Instead of campaigning for minortorian rights, the minortorian can campaign for general rights applied to every one equally. Society should be in integrated whole, not a fractious disjointed morass of individuals, each with his/her own label.

Let’s take this a step further: is a minortorian only a minortorian? Can’t a minortorian be a woman? or a man? or a parent? or unemployed, or employed, or Christian? or atheist? or big? or small? or fat? or thin? etc etc ad infinitum. I claim the label minortorian when it is advantageous to me to do so, but ignore the other categories that I fit into. I am assigned the label minortorian when someone else wants to generalise, stereotype or treat me differently. Who chooses which label is used when? Surely we should be more egalitarian and reduce the use of the labels, therefore becoming more evenhanded in our treatment of everyone without regard for the label. If a group feels that it is being unfairly treated, then surely the problem is with the designation – remove the designation and you remove the problem. One of the huge advances in discrimination and equality legislation in the UK has shown the value of this. Rather than affirmative action (where you are forced to proactively discriminate in favour of a group) you merely remove the category – thus you may not ask a potential employee about his or her marital/family status, you may not ask questions about race on a named application form etc.

We are not there yet and I have not tested this hypothesis in any way at all but surely we can see that, although not perfect, there is some common sense in this approach?

Increasing export sales in recession

James Foreman-Peck, in a report written for the Cardiff Business School, suggested that in 2005 British SME’s lost out on £3billion worth of export trading due to a lack of foreign language skills.

A Grant Thornton report in 2004 shows that less than one third of UK executives are capable of negotiating in more than one language.

A 2007 report under ELAN project showed that 11% of the businesses surveyed blamed the loss of a specific contract on lack of language skills – contracts with a value of between 8 and 25.3 million Euros.

All three of these studies suggested that SME’s and larger companies that have an active language policy fare better in international trading than those without.

Less than 16% of UK SME’s report that they have hired a native speaker to help with export to a specific market.

From these numbers we can deduce that British companies are relying on their native English and the fact that many non-English speaking countries do invest heavily in foreign language acquisition. There are very few companies of any size who can claim that business is growing in the current climate, and yet from these figures it appears that we are missing out on a trick! Selling at the moment is hard, and we need to be more aware than ever of anything that will improve sales.

There is a careful analysis to be made: how long will it take to learn the language well enough to be confident enough to take an active part in meetings in that language? How much will those lessons cost against the value of the contract and potential future business? What about the time involved – can the time spent learning the language, and not sitting at the desk looking for new business be justified?

So how long do you need? Well that mostly depends on how you learn, and not “how good” you are at languages! Learning for one or two hours a week may well take you a life time to get a basic conversational level, and the same may well be true for self-study. Each time you start a new lesson, or pick up the books/tapes you will spend almost as long remembering the previous lesson as you do learning new material. An unstructured visit to the target country is almost useless – speaking English is compulsory in most hotels, restaurants, and you would need to make a huge effort to practice the foreign language. The ideal solution is an intensive programme of study where you are immersed in the language for a large part of the day on a one to one basis, followed by an immediate opportunity to use the skills in a work environment. Two weeks of intensive tuition, followed by a week or so resting with a third week of tuition should provide a solid level of most European languages, and provided the language is used with native speakers in a business context, near-fluency is not hard to obtain quite quickly.

Culture is just hot air...

....well, a gas actually

Culture is like a gas, a reactive gas such as O2.
Gases always expand to fit the container they are in, and if oxygen comes into contact with another reactive substance, it will react and become something else.
It is therefore unstable, dynamic, constantly changing and unpredictable.

Culture is in the same way dynamic, constantly changing. Whenever you interact with someone, you create a culture – a way of defining the commonly understood rules of behaviour, etiquette, power distribution and face strategies that will govern that interaction.

Let’s break that down a bit.

When you talk to someone it is very very rare (rare enough to put to oneside for the moment) that you start by intending to offend them. We have an intuitive need to maintain our own face (our public identity, how we are viewed by those around us) and a desire to maintain the face of those we are communicating with. Each of us has slightly different expectations of how we perceive that our face should be maintained, and more importantly our expectations differ greatly depending on the context we are in.

To take a simplistic example, a Captain in the army expects subordinates to stand to attention, salute, and use “sir” (or “ma’am”) when speaking. When the same Captain comes home, she will certainly not expect the same attitude and deference from her children. In most familiar circumstances we instinctively know how to behave at a job interview, in a pub with our friends, in the office, in a client meeting etc etc. In each circumstance I portray a different identity, which is nonetheless still “me”.

The difficulty comes when we are in an unfamiliar environment, or meeting people whom we do not know, and cannot immediately guess their relative power status in relation to ourselves. In our familiar environments, we know how to be polite, to be deferential, to be humourous, to demonstrate authority. When a woman introduces her new partner to her circle of close friends, he is initially unsure of himself: firstly the woman is torn between two identities – that of best friend to her girlfriends, and that of partner. But more importantly the man is as yet unaware of the rules governing the group of friends – do they kiss on greeting each other for example – if the assumption is yes, and it is wrong, embarrassment and confusion will ensue. The group of close friends have a shared resource pool that they will index partially without repeating all the details. For the newcomer, a statement such as, “What an awful meal we had last week” will mean nothing. The “we” will be understood by the in-group, it will be clear what meal they are talking about and the group will continue with the details “taken as read” – for the outsider to the group, they need further explanation, even to the extent of whether it is appropriate to challenge the speaker.

In this kind of relaxed informal context mistakes are relatively easy to mend and rarely have longer lasting consequences. However if we take the same issues into the context of major international business meetings we suddenly have serious consequences riding on the outcome of being able to decide almost instantaneously which strategies are appropriate to what context.

One of the first negotiations to take place concerns power – who takes the lead in the meeting. If we follow a common assumption that whoever sends round the agenda or calls the meeting is the lead, can we be sure that that is always the case? Well, actually, no, we can’t.

A supplier may well request a meeting with an important client to discuss invoicing terms. This immediately upsets the established “culture” of interactions between the representatives of the two companies. One might normally expect the supplier to be deferential to such a big client, and to hand over the lead in a meeting to their representative. But in this instance they need to draw attention to the fact that several large invoices are outstanding, and they want to resolve the issue urgently, so they request the meeting, send round an agenda and nominally chair the meeting. However they don’t want to lose potential future business from this client, so it is clear that the power is renegotiated here, tacitly, and without anyone really noticing, but nevertheless it still happens.

For those who speak Russian, I have another analogy. My Russian teacher, Dr Gotteri (of Sheffield University fame) explained aspect in Russian verbs as like cricket balls and jelly. The perfective aspect – loosely related to the perfect forms of English tenses (have done, will have done, had done etc) - is the cricket ball: it’s stable, firm, no arguing. The imperfective aspect, which again, very loosely conforms to the continuous forms of English verbs (is doing, was doing, will be doing) is jelly – amorphous, unstable, readily mixes with other bits of jelly.

In my analogy this cricket ball is the now outdated view of culture that wants to limit us to defining ourselves by immutable, static groups with exclusive memberships – you can’t have two cricket balls occupying the same space at the same time. However it is becoming clear that we need a model that more resembles jelly – undefined, constantly adapting to its surrounds. The best bit is that it actually makes it easier for us. If we take the cricket ball approach to culture, we need to learn a set of rules and “culture scores” for each national/ethnic group we meet, and hope that the individuals conform to the rules. But the jelly approach means that we merely need to be aware that our assumptions and expectations may (or may not) be different from anyone else’s whatever their background and it is up to us to negotiate the rules of the encounter as we go along – which we do anyway.

Does this mean the end of intercultural training? Not at all, in fact it makes it much more interesting, because we can look at the strategies and ways we negotiate power and face, how we “do” politeness, and we can not only improve communication, but because we know how it is done, we can move to take control and give ourselves the advantage. More importantly, these lessons won’t be restricted to one country, but will have a universal applicability

Infinite dimensions

As the initiated will know, there is a little controversy around Professor Hofstede and his research into Cultural Dimensions, first published in 1980.

For those who aren’t aware, Hofstede took survey results from IBM and from the identified 4 “dimensions of culture” (he later added a fifth), to distinguish between nationalities. There is a large amount of criticism aimed at his research methodology – not being an expert, I’m not really in a position to comment too much on that, however I can use an analogy and let people draw their own conclusion. There are 2 adults and 2 children in my family. Our average ages are 24.5. Can I therefore claim that the members of my family are around 24.5 years old? If I am unable to survey one member of the family, the average age will be significantly different. Hofstede took the average score across the various dimensions to be representative of a national cultural identity!

Please consider another situation. If an alien were to visit the earth to do some research into each nation, and were to ask humankind to choose a single specimen from each nation, what sort of person would you choose to represent Japan? (*Answer below)

One of the current views of culture that has gained a lot of credibility, especially among “social constructionists” is that we “do culture”. In other words, we create our own identity which is negotiated continually depending on the situational context. There are certainly national elements to this negotiation, but it is implausible to claim that the national is the most important feature in any context (in some it may be, however hard it might be to identify). Social constructionists and current interculturalists believe that an individual has an infinite number of cultural identities, none of which are fixed or stable, and represent all our past experiences, observations and perceptions. For example we behave very differently when we are with our children and/or parents than when we are at business meeting, and we will portray a very different worldview.

Hofstede presents a very practical, easy to use model of culture, and the alternative is infinitely harder to confine and present (especially if you’re an intercultural trainer trying to sell your services to business), however the intercultural model that pre-supposes infinite, negotiated, unstable cultural identities presents us with an approach that is of much wider benefit – instead of learning the dimension score for each “national culture” and devising a specific approach for each, we can start looking at a more universal approach that is not limited to one situation.

It’s an area I have only just come across (better late than never, I suppose) but after a strict diet of measurable and easily identifiable national culture, it is a fantastically interesting approach!


*Answer to the above “typical” Japanese – if you take just the statistical average, you would choose a 46 year old woman, with only high school education, living in a suburb, who has never joined a union, and probably works in retail

Do you really understand

Do you really understand? Communicating across cultures

Imagine a situation. You have just received a memo from your CEO (you work for a huge global organisation). In the memo, the newly appointed CEO states his vision for the company, and the core values he will be implementing as part of his new strategy. The core values are: Freedom, Respect, Integrity. Very simple values and easily understandable. In fact there is little doubt what he is looking for......or is there?

Are you really sure that you have the same definition of respect, freedom and integrity as your CEO?

Some examples might help, one I have lifted shamelessly from Mijnd Huijser (Author of “The Cultural Advantage”). An American newspaper published an article denouncing the levels of freedom and democracy in Singapore. It cited laws banning smoking in public places, consumption of chewing gum, the seemingly hereditary post of Prime Minister, the authoritarian manner of policing, and dictatorial government style. The conclusion of the article was that Singapore was not a free country, and the US government should be pressurising Singapore towards democratic reform. This article prompted (unsurprisingly) a large response from Singaporeans – one in particular was highlighted by Mijnd Huijser, which pointed out that if you were to walk two blocks from the Post building after dark you had a very high chance of mugging. Americans may well have the freedom to smoke and chew gum in public, but Singaporeans had the freedom from the fear of mugging (Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world) and a very stable government that is able to present a consistent style.

For the American “freedom” is “freedom to....” – to the Singaporean, “freedom” means “freedom from....” Which interpretation is correct?

What about “respect”? For Western cultures, respect is largely a two-way process, that allows each person to value the others, to listen carefully, be polite, but it allows a certain amount of conflict (i.e. providing I am constructive and polite, I reserve the right to criticise, disagree, and ignore). In Asian cultures “respect” is one way – from the bottom to the top. In other words, your boss gets all your respect, whether you like him or not, whether you are work or not. Fons Trompenaars (one of the founding fathers of intercultural theories) uses a dilemma – would you paint your bosses house if he asked you to? To us Westerners, once you had removed the expletives, the answer would be “no”. However studies show that, for example, in China almost 70% of the workforce would definitely paint their boss’ house!

Again, we can ask, which interpretation is correct?

Integrity is another grey area. I suspect I am not shaking any idealist too much if I claim that everyone lies to some extent in their day-to-day life. However we try to remain true to our concept of integrity – honesty in our negotiations and relationships. Trompenaars uses the dilemma of a car crash which is entirely your fault, but witnessed by your friend. How will you expect your friend to describe the event to the police? In many cultures (covering approx. 80% of the world’s population) they would expect the friend to tell a huge lie to protect your driving licence. In Britain we would probably expect our friend to avoid the truth, by saying for example, they couldn’t really judge the speed, or they hadn’t noticed me drinking etc. In Switzerland 97% of those asked said they would tell the truth (that I was over the speed limit and had been drinking) – in fact there is a joke about the Swiss: Why is the crime rate so low in Switzerland? Because breaking the law is illegal!

Is it fair for the Swiss to judge the remainder (80% of the world’s population) as dishonest liars? Is it fair for a Venezuelan (70% of whom would tell a lie to protect their friend) to judge the Swiss as traitors to their friendship? Again, who is right?



If we return to our imaginary CEO and his equally imaginary memo above, we realise that he (or she) has a huge problem. If his core message cannot be communicated clearly, he is going to have to explain to his shareholders that he has failed in setting a new strategy for the company.

Again a hypothetical situation: a company wants to tap into the success of the Coffee shop franchise and make its chain of small coffee shops more “upmarket”. The CEO sends a memo to the local franchisees around the world– bring in some class to your operations. In New York the coffee shop brings in Styrofoam cups with lids on, and speeds up the service time. In Germany, they bring in recyclable cups. In Italy, the franchisees invest in bone china, expensive furnishings and artwork. In Britain, they put the price up. Unsurprisingly the CEO is horrified out how his employees have completely missed his point!


Intercultural communications skills focus on ensuring that your meaning is the same as the meaning as perceived by those who hear your message. We have to remove our assumptions of comprehension and become more explicit. Testing and retesting comprehension (obviously in a culturally sensitive manner – no one likes being patronised!). Learning how to transfer a message across cultures is one of the most important skills an international manager can have!




(Sources: The Cultural Advantage, Mijnd Huijser; The World’s Business Cultures, Tomalin/Nicks; Riding the Waves of Culture, Fons Trompenaars)

Just a quick post with a link to an article on how badly things can go wrong when you don't pay attention to all aspects of the cultural values of a country. Most people don't realise how deep Russians' feelings for the Orthodox church is, until they get it wrong. Well worth a read!

http://kylekeeton.com/2008/01/russia-coca-cola-woke-up.html

Trends

I suppose it's "traditional" to post a New Year welcome message, so I thought I'd start off by looking at where people are moving to.

Apart from the traditional "oil" expats in Nigeria, Middle East and Central Asia, we've seen Brazil and Argentina become much more popular destinations for business expats. India and China remain frequent subjects for the training I'm involved in, although the number of actual expats seems to be in decline - more and more companies seem to prefer either using local management companies, or relying on a combination of visits and remote management. This is particularly true for companies in Russia, where the soaring cost of expat life, along with perceived security issues makes people reluctant to move their families to Russia.

At Farnham Castle we have been doing a lot more in intercultural personal development in recent months. More and more companies are recognising that cultural misunderstandings are effecting their productivity. The main change is that attendees on our courses have become more outwardly focussed. Historically, the focus has been "getting on with" colleagues, but more and more frequently we are asked to help develop relationships with business partners, clients, suppliers and governments, and more commonly the training is aimed at a global or regional work, rather than with a specific culture. For the future I can see that anyone working internationally is going to be expected to have global skills, and knowledge of a single specific market is likely to be much less valued.

The British at Work...

Reserved and Repressed or Resourceful and Released?

It is a fascinating challenge to introduce newly-arrived employees from abroad to what they might expect to encounter in the workplace during their stay in Britain. Many have a stereotyped view of the British at work, perhaps based on films or John Cleese training videos. Whilst operating in a wide range of work cultures and environments, they will be in a better position to anticipate and understand the behaviour of their fellow workers if they can appreciate some of the major changes that have taken place here in the last five to ten years.

Change is continuous
The only constant likely to be common to all their employers is continuous change, and a drive towards reduced costs and increased profits to satisfy the stock market. Mergers, takeovers, management buy-outs and flotations will have meant new strategies, restructuring, re-engineering, decentralisation and a variety of performance-enhancing methodologies. These will often have led to downsizing, outsourcing, lean and mean management structures and many new books to describe it all! For some this will have meant genuine empowerment and a release of their skills and inhibitions. For others it will have produced fear, stress and new behavioural patterns, creating new words such as 'presenteeism'.

Winners & losers
Winners in this tough change environment will probably welcome the new arrival from overseas, be keen to learn from them and prepared to develop a real relationship. Losers though could feel threatened and jealous, resulting in obstructive behaviour and thinly disguised anger. New arrivals may be surprised to discover how these fundamental changes in the workplace have affected the famous British reserve, with open expressions of enthusiasm, passion and real anger as employees react to new incentives, environments and continuing pressures. It might be less of a shock to them if they can understand some of these major workplace changes, and also reflect on why so many people apparently dropped their emotional masks after the death of Princess Diana.

Exporting to the USA

Love it, or hate it, the USA should not be ignored. The economy is larger than the whole of Western Europe. Individual states have economies larger than many countries. California equates to the UK or Italian economy in size. New York State equates to China and Brazil.
Since 1948, the USA has been one of our top five export markets. It is our largest single market for both visible, and invisible exports. The UK and the US is each the largest investor in the other.
The biggest mistakes that new exporters to the USA make are:

• Underestimation of the sheer size of the country.
• Insufficient dedication of adequate management time/resources.
  

To succeed, concentrate management resources to win.
This requires planning and research. It is best to choose one state where there is a potential concentration of business, and then expand in gentle concentric circles. It takes time to enter the most competitive market in the world. Think in terms of ten years and plan for five.

Suggested methodology:

• The home page of the US Small Business Administration (www.sbaonline.gov) gives access to good pro-forma business plans (see Starting, Expanding, Marketing buttons).
• Use the gaps identified as a basis for your research.
• Define your potential target organisation closely.
• Identify the US Trade Association to which they belong. Obtain the directory.
• In which state are the membership concentrated?
• Is there a trade show(s)/convention that the Association sponsors?
• Amongst the associate members, are there candidates for distributorships, or consultants that could provide in-depth industry research?
• Is there a trade press issue that is a gazetteer of the industry?
  

Some useful do's and don'ts:

• Use US legal advisers for your GTS, distributorship, other agreements.
• The US is litigious. Their legal system and language is different.
• Obtain adequate product liability coverage.
• Can you sell your product in seven words? Americans have a short attention span.
• Everyone targets the US. Buyers are only interested in cheaper supply, a better technology, but demand commitment to the market.
• Quote only in US dollars, c.i.f. to their doorstep.
• Metric measurements are alien to most Americans.
• In all communications, avoid English colloquialisms. They will not be understood.
  

To be successful you will need three essentials, the right product, sufficient financial capital and adequate management resources. If you are missing one, my advice is don't attempt the market. If you have them, go for it!

Bob Smeaton is an occasional lecturer at Farnham Castle International Briefing Centre. He is also an Export Promoter, i.e., an external commercial adviser, for the North America desk of Trade Partners UK, the export branch of the Department of Trade and Industry with more than 30 years of direct experience with the USA and Canada including working and living in California, Texas and New York. May 2002.

Learning a new language

I am one of those fortunate people who speaks a foreign language well – English is my native language, but I also speak Russian fluently. People I meet often say, "How clever you must be to speak Russian". But I am almost embarrassed to say that learning Russian was not hard at all. So am I "gifted" at languages? I answer emphatically, "No, I'm not". I did French, German and Latin at school, and my second language at University was Czech. German and Czech are completely alien to me (except where the Czech and Russian overlap, which they do occasionally), and I can struggle through in basic French. I really had a hard time at languages at school, and did not take to Czech at all later on. I will freely admit that my Russian was helped by extensive time in country, although I have also lived in Czech Republic and visited France frequently.

I strongly believe that there is no such thing as "being good at languages". The vast majority of people acquire their first language fairly easily from parents and siblings, and later on at school, and although there are some factors around the written language that cause some problems, the spoken language is learned at an instinctive level – in my view this shows that we have the ability to learn language. Whether we learn a new language as a child, or later on in life as an adult, my belief that there are two overriding factors that influence our success: methodology and motivation.

Motivation

The single most important factor is your desire to learn. Learning purely for academic purposes is hard, because you cannot necessarily see the end result. If however you have an end goal (a successful business negotiation or you cannot shop locally for example) you have a good reason that can inspire you. It is not a surprise that unaccompanied expats often find it much easier to acquire a good standard of the local language – chatting someone up is much easier if you can understand each other, and those who are romantically attached to a native speaker can have an advantage, although, in my experience, the first language you speak to someone tends to be the one you continue in – so if you start speaking English on the first date, you will almost certainly continue speaking English.

Methodology

However motivation is not enough – I have a really important meeting with a Japanese client in three months, huge bonuses await, I've got a Japanese girlfriend, but the language is going nowhere. The second most important element is the way you learn, and there are several parts of that:

Time

You have to make time (not TAKE time, but MAKE time) to devote to study. Language learning requires full concentration, constant repetition and practice, and it is an active skill that you can lose if you don't keep using it. Drip-feed tuition (i.e one or two hour lessons a couple of times a week) is one way to learn, but it is hugely inefficient – you spend a lot of time at the beginning of each lesson revisiting the previous lesson, and unless you are very disciplined in keeping up with the practice between lessons, progress is slow and can be demotivating. Much better, although much harder to fit in to most people's schedules is an intensive course – one-to-one tuition or at most a group of two learners to one tutor is the best way to learn a language, when you have a specific short term goal and can form a great basis for doing a drip-feed course later on. You spend each day practising the skills you have learned at the same time as moving on to the next. There is very little knowledge loss, because you are immersed in the language, and have no other distractions

Teaching

It goes without saying that you need a good teacher with whom you can develop a close rapport. But the style of learning has to suit you as well. A lot of research has been done into learning styles, and language learning is a very personal form of learning that takes you out of your comfort zone, it is essential to take your learning style into account when deciding how you will be taught.

Practice

As mentioned earlier, you need to practice a new language, as much as any new skill. Using a language socially will have much greater benefit that continuing lessons, because you utilise the language you need for communication. In my view teaching of Latin is doomed because one of the first phrases you learn is "Davus servus est" (Davus is a slave). I will never ever ever need that phrase, even if I study old texts. In communicating socially you are talking about thing s you want to talk about and are interested in, but more importantly the focus is on communication not necessarily on grammatical accuracy, and after all that is what language is all about!

 

http://www.intercultural-training.co.uk/language_speak.asp

 

Why is Intercultural Training for expats so important?

Because it is! OK, so I'm expected to say that aren't I? If I was working in the mobile phone industry, I'd probably be saying that you can't live without the newest handset.

But in this case there are serious objective reasons why preparing expats in advance of a move abroad is important. There is plenty of research available, some of it quite recent that gives the return on investment, and the statistics showing that expats who have been prepared are more efficient, settle better, and improve the company's image in the host country – but again, we are in a generation that doesn't tend to believe statistics. I also agree that not all pre-departure training is the same, and that I am speaking with experience of one (and of course in my opinion the best!) provider – Farnham Castle

So let's try and look at some of the issues involved in relocating a family to a new country and how a good pre-departure training session can help.

Culture Shock

"Culture shock is a term used to describe the anxiety and feelings (of surprise, disorientation, confusion, etc.) felt by an individual caused by coming into contact with an entirely different environment, such as a different country. It often relates to the inability to assimilate the new culture, causing difficulty in knowing what is appropriate and what is not. Often this is combined with strong disgust (moral or aesthetical) about certain aspects of the foreign culture. "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_shock

Anxiety and stress are suffered by 1 in 5 UK employees (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/HealthAndSafetyAtWork/DG_10026604 ). It is one of the biggest causes of sick leave, and is an element in relationship breakdowns. UK employers are obliged by law to take steps to alleviate workplace stress. Reread the definition of culture shock above – it has much in common with stress, and it is an element of stress that can be removed. The surprise and confusion elements can be almost entirely removed by preparing employees for the different culture they will be encountering. If you know in advance that Brazil is a very hierarchical country and that time is more flexible, then you are not going to be overly concerned that your boss constantly keeps you waiting, and is quite distant. As a Brit I expect to have quite a friendly relationship with my line manager at work, and that if we arrange a meeting for 3pm, s/he will make every effort to be there on time, and won't be late back from lunch.

A genuine example at a very basic level. A Brit was hugely frustrated by his US boss: he had emailed a suggestion to him before an important strategy meeting. He had taken a lot of time and effort into researching figures and predictions, and was confident that, although radical, there was a lot of potential. His US boss emailed back "I think we'll table that proposal". Leaving aside the level of context provided, if you are more used to UK English, you will understand that the Brit was hugely disappointed that his proposal was not even mentioned at the strategy meeting, and in fact in this instance he assumed that his boss had stolen the idea and presented it as his own in a private meeting with senior management. Those more familiar with US English will be astounded that the Brit was so upset – he had been told quite clearly that his proposal had been set aside.

I will freely admit that even the most detailed cultural training programme will not give you a list of every single nuance in vocabulary (in UK English, "to table" means to put something on the agenda; in the US it means to leave off the agenda), however every decent cultural awareness session will help you to question and to look for reasons behind unexpected reactions. The session will show you the essential values of the host culture (i.e whether relationships are more important, what level of detail you are expected to provide in a proposal, fluidity of time etc) and will help you to create a personal and business strategy to cope with the major points of difference.

In any workplace your family life will have an effect on your productivity, and yet when someone is relocated to a foreign country we move the whole family (including partner and children) away from their social support networks, possibly from work and schools and insert them into a completely new environment. Add to that a possible new language as well and you're leaving a partner with no friends, no job and huge difficulty talking to neighbours or even going shopping for essentials. Boredom can become a huge factor and that leads to niggling about all the differences, a constant unfavourable comparison with "back home". More importantly is the availability of a wonderful scapegoat for all the normal problems of life – "this wouldn't have happened if you hadn't taken this job!"

Cultural training not only prepares the family for some of the issues, it can provide you with introductions to expat networks, give you advice on where to find essential items, and much more. However one of the main benefits is that the sponsoring company is showing its willingness to involve the family in the relocation. Possibly for the first time, "trailing spouses" are involved in their partners' careers – the training includes (or should include) elements for the whole family. It also raises some of the issues that will be faced, suggests options for fighting off boredom and can help finding ways of making friends outside the expat community.

 

Any organisation that offers pre-departure training will give you the benefits of it, but in my view you should be asking several evaluating questions:

Do the trainers have personal experience of the country?

Have they recently lived in the country as expats? (Although locals have insider information, living as an expat is VERY different from living as a native)

Does the training cover the practical as well as cultural aspects?

 

One final tip for expats in conclusion:

Even before you arrive in your new country you will probably be planning a return trip home quite quickly, to visit friends and relatives. My advice is to make the trip back to your "home" country the second trip you make. I would always advise going on a short holiday to a third country, preferably one you have never visited before. The reason is fairly simple: when you come back from holiday, you go "home". In order to settle properly in your host country it must feel like home, but if you only visit relatives in your "home" country, going back will in fact will be just "going away" again.

 

Business Culture in the Central Asian States

The former Soviet republics of Central Asia - namely Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tadjikistan - have come a long way in liberalising their economies since becoming independent countries at the start of the 1990s. While for much of the twentieth century, these countries were largely closed-off to trade and commerce with the outside world during their time under central authority directed from Moscow, in the 1990s they have become increasingly open to foreign businessmen.

The massive task of re-constructing their planned Soviet economies to ones based on market institutions, has called for voluminous capital injection into these states and resulted in their governments actively seeking to co-operate with the international business community. Many vital sectors of their economies, including oil and gas, mining, agriculture, telecommunications, power, steel works, and tobacco, have been officially open to foreign businessmen for much of the past decade, resulting in an increasingly cosmopolitan business environment emerging in a number of these countries. While their economies were previously monopolised by government enterprise, they have become highly diversified in recent years, still consisting of many state-owned companies, but also catering to a thriving private sector, numerous foreign investors and representatives of foreign companies, as well as joint-ventures between the foreigners and locals.

However, despite this new-found economic cosmopolitism, doing business in Central Asia's former Soviet republics remains a substantially more challenging experience than one may expect in the mature market economies of Europe, North America and other parts of Asia. In particular, from the perspective of business culture, one should appreciate that these are culturally very different societies to those in which we have developed our business acumen. Much of the population of the Central Asian countries hails from a Muslim civilisation that, while containing many of the personality traits from the Middle Eastern and South Asian Islamic societies, has been absorbed by the social values and the business practices which prevailed under the Soviet Union. The resulting business culture in Central Asia is therefore an interesting hybrid of Soviet formalities and protocol (very similar to that encountered in Russia or Ukraine for example), and Central-Asian Islamic cultural practices - conservative social values, respect for seniority, strong clans and family networks in business, as well as genuine hospitality and often a highly social attitude towards the conduct of business (i.e. relentless wining and dining as a means of developing the business relationship). Or, to put it in other words, a strong blend of the post-Soviet secular modernism mixed with the deeply entrenched cultural traditions of the Central Asian states. The business experience awaiting the foreigner in these countries can therefore be just as rewarding socially, as it can be challenging from the cross-cultural aspects of doing business itself.

In the first encounter with Central Asian business counterparts, one is likely to experience a relatively formal welcome, from either Slav or Asiatic men or women donning Western style business attire, eagerly handing out their business cards (and expecting you to do the same) and generally trying to present themselves as modern corporate citizens. The opening moments of the first encounter are likely to be filled with long-winded comments of welcome from the senior Central Asian business official, giving some background about their enterprise, before coming to the main issues of the their potential business cooperation with the foreign company. They are generally likely to conduct their dialogue in Russian, speaking through a capable English language interpreter. They will then expect you to reciprocate, telling them about your enterprise abroad and about how you can potentially work with them to develop a mutual joint venture, symbiotic for both parties. The officials are just as likely to be women as they may be men, since, despite the region's conservative heritage, urban women are an emancipated (and vital) member of the region's workforce and have been omnipresent in economic life for much of the past century.

It is rather important for the foreign businessman to develop a good relationship with their potential Central Asian partners during this first meeting, as it will set the standard for much of the subsequent meetings to come and will make the locals feel more comfortable in dealing with the visitors. Important points to note for the first encounter are to make the locals feel that they have your respect, particularly by maintaining good eye contact, being open-minded and courteous in the manner you construct business related comments, responding to their humour when necessary and (despite the fact that you are most likely coming from a more advanced country economically) avoiding pompous, or "imperialist", behavior. You will find that the local business population does not like to be talked at, as opposed to engaged in a dialogue between business partners perceived as equals, and promoting such a course of action will quickly lead to a rather burdensome business experience for the foreigner in Central Asia.

There are two further points of business culture to consider in this brief introduction to the topic. The first is that the foreigner should learn to exercise a good degree of patience with the locals. When travelling to countries like Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan for example, one will quickly see that the local workforce and business community has little experience with modern business practices equivalent to those long taken for granted in the advanced market economies. This means that the locals are likely to have far less experience in effectively managing a foreign investor's business that one would generally like. However, given their eagerness to learn, and all round good work ethic, its will be far more effective for the long run to persevere with local employees and show patience, rather than getting frustrated when things don't always go as planned. The other point is that much of the local Muslim population in these countries, is quite emotional in character and, as a workforce, can demand a lot of attention both in and out of the workplace. They may expect you to spend time with them on weekends, meet their families, and take up other offers of their - generally very sincere - hospitality. While this can at times seem exhaustive, it is generally recommended to accept such invitations where possible (despite one's desire to maximise their business input time), particularly if they come from the elderly or from people of seniority in business or society. Such gestures on the part of the foreigner will be taken as a sign of "paying your respect", and are often a vital ingredient in developing a harmonious business relationship in Central Asia.

Marat Terterov was born in Odessa, Ukraine in 1968 and is an Australian citizen resident in the United Kingdom since 1995. He has published a book entitled Doing Business in Kazakhstan and is presently completing similar business titles on Russia, Egypt and the Republic of Georgia. He has substantial experience relevant to business practice in the former Soviet Union, particularly in the Central Asian Republics, having lived and worked in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, as well as in Georgia and the Russian Federation.

Home visits

Great article at http://www.batgung.com/expats-trips-home-from-Hong-Kong#comment-5298

Well worth looking at

"‘We care locally.’
That three-word profundity comes from a weblog written by Joe Posnanski, a sports writer whose work I enjoy.
Joe has just returned to the USA from Japan after covering Japanese baseball’s version of the World Series. He made the comment in reference to the deeply uninterested reactions he received when he tried to convey to his associates the wonders he’d witnessed in Japan. He actually was there to see the unprecedented phenomenon of two pitchers combining to throw a perfect game, and it --
Let’s stop right there: thanks for reading this far, but you don’t really care about Joe, or the Japanese World Series, or what I think about either of them, do you? You didn't follow those links. You’re wishing already that I move on to some more interesting and relevant topic.
Well, that’s just the point: for most of us, our range of interests is relatively narrow, and we’re far more interested in the places we live, or at least have visited, than we are in even the most exotic place we’ve never seen.
This can be an unpleasant lesson for expatriates to learn......"

Full article at http://www.batgung.com/expats-trips-home-from-Hong-Kong#comment-5298

Raise your virtual hand if you know the answer...

This is the brave new world of the integrated global e-economy. Widespread access to the web will solve all our business and learning needs. The fact of the matter is that key decision-makers including, of course, the readers of this article, were educated in a traditional manner and their interpersonal and management skills have come from human experience, not from any virtual world.

The message is that we need to remember the human amongst the glare of technology in this increasingly virtual world. We need to find the right balance between the silicon chip and human behaviour.

At the start and end of every communication and transaction - from a handshake or smile to an email or contract - is a person. That person is a unique creation of their culture and environment and far more sophisticated than any machine or software. That person is our client or partner or manager and we need to make at least as much effort to understand that human being as any technology with which we communicate.

Like it or not, we are in an increasingly borderless world and new cultures and new ways of thinking are coming our way. Today you might work for a national company and tomorrow find yourself part of a multinational group. Your clients and colleagues might be next door today and half way round the world tomorrow. To effectively work with these people from different backgrounds we all need to learn about the cultural psyche that drives these people. What are you going to do to survive?

The answer is to learn, and learn well.

The next logical questions therefore concern where and how to learn? Will new electronic learning replace traditional methods? Does the Internet really offer a better solution than plain old-fashioned hands-on experience? Is the internet some kind of new magic solution that means we can forget that human relations are both essential and hard work?

Let's look at a few answers to these questions.

With its vast content of electronic data, the web seems set to replace face-to-face education and training, we are told. Time will tell, but in the meantime the demand for old-fashioned non-virtual education services, offered by specialist training centres and universities the world over, continues to grow rapidly.

Also, it is hard to deny that using technology to learn is exciting compared with the idea of squeaking chalk on a blackboard and the repetitive chanting of simple mathematical formulae or simply doing some hard work in personal learning and development.

The idea of video conferencing with the latest high speed connection and digital imaging seems much more modern than travelling and sitting down with your business partners.

The internet has allowed humans to get access to data and to enter into discussions and interact without the need to actually meet anyone or make friendships and relationships. I would again draw a cautionary note from the past about such attempts to ignore the hard work needed to build and understand human relations.

What history, wisdom and common sense tell us is that we need a blended learning solution and the potentially vast data from the internet must be supplemented with human interaction. Success with applying factual data about a foreign market comes from a deep understanding of local culture and providing for its needs and wants.

Just the data alone will not make any of us successful. Without interpretation and guidance the mere words alone are not enough. We can all download a recipe from the internet but does that make us master chefs? The human input into the interpretation of some written words and an assembly of ingredients is the difference between haute cuisine and a dog's dinner.

When we think back to earlier years we can all remember an individual such as a teacher, relative, colleague or friend who changed our understanding and shaped our lives as a result. Anyone had this experience from a web page or a CD ROM recently? I doubt it.

We are all the product of a blend of experiences and ideas. The person who has an imbalance in the blend is easy to see. Knowing these basic human realities, who can doubt the need for a human in the key input of education?

Can we risk relying on just a virtual education? Do we want a virtual hug or a virtual family or a virtual customer? No, we all want a real one and that comes from real experience and real learning in a real world with real people.

Real people? Maybe even real foreign people? That sounds like real hard work and expensive to learn. After all, other people are so unlike us. I am sure many of us find the habits of those people in the next street different enough from us and goodness only knows about those from another town or even another country.

Maybe we can all try to save money and effort and hide behind our screens and text messages like sulky teenagers with no social and intercultural skills. Well, there is only one thing more expensive than being trained and prepared, and that is being untrained and unprepared.
Most individuals' experience of business is that people want to do the best they can and have the best they can get.

We know that in the foundation of any success in business there are three key things we need to work at and these are 1) relationships, 2) relationships and 3) relationships. I wonder how we will manage these by the internet?

So should we give up on IT as just a gimmick or fashion accessory? By no means.
We need to find a blend of the new and old and take the best of these to succeed in a global marketplace.

If you can understand all the ideas in this article you owe thanks to many human beings. If you can adopt and implement the suggestions in the article then you can understand and teach and lead other human beings.

That's a real skill and nothing on the web comes close.

Master the technology alone and ignore the person and their culture and you will fail.

The Role of Culture in Effective Global Management

'One of the most important rules to remember when working within a multi-national organisation is that there is not necessarily one right way of doing things,'says Professor Geert Hofstede

With developing globalisation of business, the ability of employees to work effectively together across borders has become increasingly critical to business success. Cross-cultural understanding by individuals and the organisation as a whole serves to eliminate misunderstandings that could harm the business and maximise the best attributes each nationality has to offer.
Effective international operators are those with the wisdom to seek competitive edge through intercultural training, thus gaining insightful understanding of their global markets and mobilising the motivation triggers of their staff.

"One of the most important rules to remember when working within a multi-national organisation is that there is not necessarily one right way of doing things," says Professor Geert Hofstede.

Characteristics of National Cultures
Professor Hofstede has undertaken in-depth research on the characteristics of national cultures, providing a wealth of information and insight into how people in different societies function and suggestions as to what benefits those differences can bring to a multi-national organisation.
Each nationality has its own characteristics, which combine to contribute to the strength of the organisation. For example, in countries such as Britain and the US with a culture of small power distance between top management and general staff, organisations benefit from an environment of empowerment and acceptance of responsibility. In countries where management maintains a large power distance, staff will follow a much tighter regime of discipline.

Likewise, in countries in which there is a culture of strong avoidance of uncertainty, such as Japan, people will be more inclined towards detail and precision. Britain and the US are countries which demonstrate the opposite characteristics, with their culture of weak uncertainty avoidance providing more freedom to innovate.

An understanding of what drives and motivates people of different cultures within an organisation can contribute to the development of an organisation's own country- specific internal culture. If a British or American company with a culture of individualistic achievement and empowerment imposes the same values on its staff in an office in the Far East where collectivism and unquestioning respect for authority are valued, it will certainly experience difficulties.

In the same way expatriate managers moving to work in a developing office abroad, need to understand and accept the culture and values of the people with whom they are working. Management practices used in the home country will not necessarily be effective in international business both internally and externally.

An attempt to impose home country values and beliefs will often lead to frustration and an inability to achieve target goals. For example, strict timekeeping is likely to be impossible to implement in Latin countries. Direct criticism of staff in front of others in Asian countries will cause the recipient embarrassing loss of face. And the use of indirect language to soften the impact of what is being said will be met with annoyance by Germanic people who prefer to be direct.

On the surface, an overseas office with an expatriate manager may run smoothly until such time as things go wrong and suppressed local staff discontent begins to simmer.

Similarly, for external business dealings, the importance of understanding the local culture cannot be stressed enough. Examples abound of US and Northern European companies that have not fully appreciated the necessity of forming personal relationships in the Middle East and Asia before entering a business relationship. In these countries a strong network of contacts is indispensable and trust can only be established over time.

What's right - what's wrong?
Other problems can arise through a cultural gulf between the perceptions of what is right and what is wrong. What may be seen through the eyes of a Western European business as bribery and corruption, may be seen by counterparts in the Middle East as a genuine giving of gifts which is a normal part of establishing the personal business relationship.

As important is an understanding of the temperament and the values which local people hold highly. In the Far East, for example, great weight is placed on the maintenance of harmony and humility. The opposite extreme is the assertive, energetic individualism favoured in the United States.

These general differences between personalities of people shaped by their culture are very important in terms of recruiting the right person for an overseas appointment.

Professor Hofstede proposes five personality traits which should be used to create a profile of the type of people who would be successful working in a particular culture.

The three basic characteristics which should be the criteria for selection of expatriate personnel regardless of where they are going are emotional stability, openness and agreeableness. The weight given to the two remaining dimensions of conscientiousness and extraversion depends entirely on the position, country and culture for which the person is being selected.

Organisations - their support & training role
While the matching of the correct personalities to the country and culture contributes significantly to business success abroad, the support and training given by the organisation also plays an important role in the effectiveness of an expatriate assignment.
According to Diane van Ruitenbeek, who presented her initial research findings into expatriate expectations, lack of organisational support, language problems and a poor understanding of the local culture were major factors influencing poor performance.

One quarter of the expatriates who took part in Diane van Ruitenbeek's study indicated that they had been let down by their organisation. Their pre-departure expectations of the job, working and living conditions had not been met and they indicated that their job satisfaction, commitment and performance had correspondingly suffered. These people reported that they were more likely to quit the assignment early.

With the significant expense to a company of sending a person abroad and the cost of a failed assignment, simple investments can be made to avoid such situations. The respondents in the survey indicated that a company should not make any promises it cannot meet and provide a realistic picture of the job and living conditions.

High demand for cross-cultural & language training
Cross-cultural and language training prior to departure featured high on the respondents' list of actions a company could take to assist their adjustment on arrival in the new environment and their on-the-job effectiveness.

The confusion that can arise from being unprepared to deal with the attitudes and behaviour of people of another country can be summed up in the words of one respondent to Diane van Ruitenbeek's research:
"There seems to be a completely different logic to doing things here."

This feeling of utter confusion and helplessness experienced by the expatriate illustrates how a simple investment in improving an understanding of the culture through specialist country-specific training could make the difference between a successful, profitable overseas assignment and an ineffective, long term struggle.

Focus on Poland

Three reasons make Poland a different market from other post-Soviet block states. To start with, Poles were able to travel to the Western countries during the Soviet regime. Small businesses and private ownership were allowed to exist after 1945. And finally, around 19m people outside Poland claim Polish background and maintain contact with Poland. These factors made a significant contribution to the latest rapid growth of the economy.

Firstly, those who travelled abroad (250-500,000 people per year) brought back not only hard currency earned "moonlighting" in Germany or the UK but also ideas and Western notions of quality. Sums were significant, this was quickly recognised by the regime, which legalised foreign currency accounts in the early 70's.

As soon as democracy was re-established in Poland, many expatriates or second generation Poles were willing to return and bring contacts, knowledge of Western technology and business practices back to Poland. Businesses, large and small, were set up using cash, credit or expertise supplied from Chicago, London or Sydney. The Polish SME Sector received an enormous boost, unprecedented in Eastern Europe, and quickly became an important contributor to the economic recovery.

The Polish market is relatively large and promises good growth in the years to come. Entry barriers to many market segments are still low. Its geographical location is ideal for entering the post Soviet markets. However, Polish corporate and social cultures are different from those in the West, so a number of issues should be remembered:

Emotions play a very serious role in Polish business and politics.

Organisations have rigid structures and hierarchies. Task delegation is poor.

Bureaucracy is still ripe and so is corruption and nepotism.

In negotiations, small talk is important, as are personal relationships with partners.

Corporate hierarchy is often based on age and on university degrees. It is unwise to send a young technician to negotiate with an experienced Commercial Director with a PhD or MSc to his credit.

Poles are macho-oriented, easy to offend, intolerant and racist.

Poles are also hospitable, emotional and optimistic. Most of them tend to make promises, which they hope to be able to deliver "somehow".

Gadgets, mobile phones, cars and computers play a significant part in creating a corporate image.

Business ethics are dubious and working relations bear marks of the past era.

When searching for a partner, look outside Warsaw. Provincial towns offer lower costs and staff are easier to keep.

How culturally aware are you?

One of our leading intercultural trainers, Philippe Nitzer, has devised this short quiz for you to test your knowledge...
1 In Spain, the main purpose of a business meeting would usually be to:
a) make decisions by discussing in length the pro's and con's of an option
b) reach agreements by consensus between everyone concerned
c) brief their team about something already decided by specific decision makers


2 You are asking a question of your junior Japanese colleague and he/she looks down and answers you after a few seconds. You think the chances are that he/she:
a) has something to hide and is looking for an answer that would boost him/her in your eyes
b) is paying respect to your position and your question
c) hasn't got a clue what the answer is and feels ashamed

3 In Italy, the majority of people think that a good manager should:
a) have at hand precise answers to most questions his/her subordinates may raise about their work
b)be able to direct his/her subordinates to those who may have the right answers to most of the questions they may raise
c) be critical of his/her subordinates for asking him/her questions as he/she considers that, if they are in the right position, they should know the answers themselves

4 In Germany, performance review is usually perceived:
a) very well, as a way to give a chance to everyone to develop their own competences
b) very badly, as it may be seen as a way to challenge their skills and knowledge
c) as an opportunity to impress their colleagues and superiors

5 Do you think that, to be effective in a multicultural organisation, a successful competency framework should:
a) be designed in such a way it could be implemented by everyone, irrespective of their cultural background
b) take into account the cultural diversity of an organisation and be designed accordingly
c) stick to the one which has proved successful at home

6 You hear your German colleague saying about your latest proposal: "don't take it personally, but this idea is stupid". You think that:
a) he/she is very blunt and rude and these are not proper business manners
b) he/she is expressing politely and clearly his/her view about your proposal
c) he/she is purposely trying to undermine your proposal for political reasons

7 You are making a presentation in Tokyo in front of a group of Japanese executives and two of them are sitting with folded arms, their head down and their eyes closed. You think that:
a) they are very rude to be sleeping during your presentation (after all, you should be the jet-lagged one)
b) they are deliberately pretending they are sleeping to show that they are not supporting your proposal
c) they are listening attentively to your presentation

8 Your Mexican potential client has arranged to meet you in a cafe at 10 a.m. in Mexico. You are there on time but he arrives 30 minutes later and says "Sorry, I'm a little late". It may very well be that:
a) he arrived late intentionally to show you indirectly that, being the potential buyer, he is in a position of power
b) he arrived late intentionally to let you have the time to settle in and enjoy the atmosphere
c) he arrived late, as all Mexicans would, because it is well-known that business is taken very lightly over there and besides, he didn't give you any good reason for his delay

9 You email your Dutch fellow team member in these terms: "Let's meet ASAP to discuss this project.". The reply comes: "Who is Asap?". You think:
a) your colleague has a sense of humour that you didn't expect
b) your colleague probably did not understand the expression ASAP
c) your colleague doesn't seem to be co-operative as you think he/she may have meant "why ASAP?"

10 You make a request to your Norwegian junior colleague in these terms: "I wonder if you would be kind enough to do that for me when you have time". Two days later, you are still waiting. The chances are that:
a) your colleague is sulking because in his/her culture, this way of expressing a request would be considered as an order and might be offended
b) your colleague does not know how to do what you requested and does not dare to ask as it would show that he/she hasn't got the right skills for the job
c) your colleague thought that you gave him/her the choice to do it now or later and decided that he/she didn't have the time right now

The Answers

1. In Spain, the main purpose of a business meeting would usually be to: make decisions by discussing in length the pro's and con's of an option

2. You are asking a question of your junior Japanese colleague and he/she looks down and answers you after a few seconds. You think the chances are that he/she: is paying respect to your position and your question

3. In Italy, the majority of people think that a good manager should: have at hand precise answers to most questions his/her subordinates may raise about their work

4. In Germany, performance review is usually perceived very badly, as it may be seen as a way to challenge their skills and knowledge

5. Do you think that, to be effective in a multicultural organisation, a successful competency framework should: be designed in such a way it could be implemented by everyone, irrespective of their cultural background (answer b is probably also acceptable here)

6. You hear your German colleague saying about your latest proposal :"don't take it personally, but this idea is stupid". You think that: he/she is expressing politely and clearly his/her view about your proposal

7. You are making a presentation in Tokyo in front of a group of Japanese executives and two of them are sitting with folded arms, their head down and their eyes closed. You think that: they are listening attentively to your presentation

8. Your Mexican potential client has arranged to meet you in a cafe at 10.00am in Mexico. You are there on time but he arrives 30 minutes later and says "sorry I'm a little late". It may very well be that: he arrived late, as all Mexicans would, because it is well-known that business is taken very lightly over there and besides, he didn't give you any good reason for his delay

9. You e mail your Dutch fellow team member in these terms: "Let's meet ASAP to discuss this project". The reply comes: "Who is ASAP?". You think: Your colleague probably did not understand the expression ASAP

10. You make a request to your Norwegian junior colleague in these terms: "I wonder if you would be kind enough to do that for me when you have time". Two days later, you are still waiting. The chances are that: your colleague thought that you gave him/her the choice to do it now or later and decided that he/she didn't have the time right now