This paper uses the theoretical foundations of Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions and Meyer's Cultures Map to develop feedback guidelines for a Dutch manager in Japan and a French manager in the USA. For this purpose, the countries concerned are first classified and compared using Meyer's and Hofstede's cultural classification methods. Based on the theoretical foundation, feedback guidelines are developed for the respective managers. With regard to the Dutch manager in Japan, it is particularly evident that he should be careful to use a language that is not too direct and that he needs to adapt to the Japanese high-context culture in both speech and behavior. The French manager in the USA is advised mainly to use diplomacy and understand flatter hierarchies and greater willingness to take risks.
In a further step, the developed guidelines are compared with feedback rules of the Dutch company Philips and the French company WEKA. In both theory and practice, great importance is attached to an efficient discussion structure. At Philips, importance is also attached to a conversation at eye level and the employee's point of view, which corresponds with the theoretical findings. In the French example, less emphasis is placed on preparation, which is surprising in terms of the theoretical classification of France. Instead, a calm and "non-violent" communication is called for, which to a certain extent is also addressed in the theoretically based guideline.
The results of the term paper provide assistance for managers in Japan and the USA. However, it must be remembered that cultures are a very complex construct and that, due to the scope of this term paper, it was not possible to include all components. Managers are advised to deal intensively with the host country's culture in order to ensure appropriate and efficient interaction with employees. The results also suggest further studies on the topic. Thereby additional theoretical approaches as well as experience reports from managers in practice should be included. Due to the constantly evolving worldwide cultural diversity, insightful findings can be expected.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
List of Figures
1 Introduction
1.1 ProblemDefinition
1.2 Research Objectives
1.3 Research Structure
2 Theoretical Foundation
2.1 Meyer’s Culture Map
2.2 Hofstede’s Value Dimensions
2.3 The role of giving Feedback and criticizing in the Workplace
3 The challenge of giving feedback and criticizing abroad
3.1 ADutchManagerinJapan
3.1.1 The Netherlands and Japan in Hofstede’s Value Dimensions
3.1.2 The Netherlands and Japan in Meyer’s Culture Map
3.1.3 Guidelineforcriticismandfeedbacktalks
3.2 AFrenchmanagerintheUSA
3.2.1 France and the USA in Hofstede’s Value Dimensions
3.2.2 France and the USA in Meyer’s Culture Map
3.2.3 Guideline for criticism and feedback talks
3.3 Comparing theoretical and practical Guidelines
4 Conclusion and Outlook
Appendix
Bibliography
Abstract
Communication in a culturally unfamiliar environment is a challenge for international managers. That applies particularly in sensitive situations, such as feedback discussions, in which criticism is given as well.1 This paper uses the theoretical foundations of Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions and Meyer's Cultures Map to develop feedback guidelines for a Dutch manager in Japan and a French manager in the USA.
For this purpose, the countries concerned are first classified and compared using Meyer's and Hofstede's cultural classification methods. Based on the theoretical foundation, feedback guidelines are developed for the respective managers. With regard to the Dutch manager in Japan, it is particularly evident that he should be careful to use a language that is not too direct and that he needs to adapt to the Japanese high-context culture in both speech and behavior. The French manager in the USA is advised mainly to use diplomacy and understand flatter hierarchies and greater willingness to take risks.
In a further step, the developed guidelines are compared with feedback rules of the Dutch company Philips and the French company WEKA. In both theory and practice, great importance is attached to an efficient discussion structure. At Philips, importance is also attached to a conversation at eye level and the employee's point of view, which corresponds with the theoretical findings. In the French example, less emphasis is placed on preparation, which is surprising in terms of the theoretical classification of France. Instead, a calm and "non-violent" communication is called for, which to a certain extent is also addressed in the theoretically based guideline.
The results of the term paper provide assistance for managers in Japan and the USA. However, it must be remembered that cultures are a very complex construct and that, due to the scope of this term paper, it was not possible to include all components. Managers are advised to deal intensively with the host country's culture in order to ensure appropriate and efficient interaction with employees. The results also suggest further studies on the topic. Thereby additional theoretical approaches as well as experience reports from managers in practice should be included. Due to the constantly evolving worldwide cultural diversity, insightful findings can be expected.
List of Figures
Figure 1: Four-quadrant-matrix: communication and evaluation
Figure 2: Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions in the Netherlands and Japan
Figure 3: The Netherlands and Japan in Meyer's Culture Map
Figure 4: Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions in France and the USA
Figure 5: France and the USA in Meyer's Culture Map
1 Introduction
1.1 Problem Definition
Managers who operate in an international environment and are confronted with foreign cultures have to face different challenges, such as an unfamiliar language and differences in the way of communicating.2 This can be particularly problematic in sensitive situations, such as feedback discussions or when giving criticism. In this context, the given term paper takes a closer look at two different feedback situations in an international environment.
1.2 Research Objectives
The objective of the given term paper is to develop a practically applicable guideline for feedback discussions in an international environment on the basis of the cultural classification methods by Meyer and Hofstede. More specifically, feedback guidelines should be developed for two different situations: that of a Dutch manager in Japan and a French manager in the USA. Furthermore, this term paper aims to show whether and how theoretically founded guidelines differfrom practical Guideline examples from Dutch and French companies.
1.3 Research Structure
The introduction in this first chapter is followed by the theoretical part of the term paper in the second chapter, which covers the scientific fundamentals of Meyer's Culture Map and Hofstede's Value Dimensions.
The third chapter deals with the development of practical guidelines for criticism and feedback talks in Japan and the USA. In a first step, the countries concerned are classified on the basis of the preceding presented theories by Meyer and Hofstede. In a second step, a guideline for each situation is developed. Subsequently, an examination of practical examples from companies operating in the concerned countries is carried out. Finally, a comparison of the theory-based and self-developed guidelines and the practical guideline examples is carried out.
The term paper concludes with a fourth chapter, which contains a summary and an outlook.
2 Theoretical Foundation
The following chapter sets out the theoretical basis for the work. Initially, the chapter focusses on Meyer's Culture Map and Hofstede's Value Dimensions. Afterwards the importance of managers giving feedback and criticizing in the workplace is elaborated.
2.1 Meyer’s Culture Map
International activities are associated with various challenges for managers, such as linguistic and cultural differences.3 With the Culture Map Erin Meyer provides a helpful tool to visualize these differences. In her publication “The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business”, Meyer defines eight central aspects, which often lead to culturally conditioned problems in interpersonal relations. The “map” results from the allocation of a culture on a template (see Appendix 1) containing the eight scales.4
Following, a closer look at the eight scales of the Culture Map and their contribution to improvement of international working practices is given.
The first scale of the Culture Map deals with the Communication. In this regard Meyer distinguishes between high-context and low-context cultures. In low- context cultures people tend to communicate explicitly, which means to speak with a low subtext und say directly what is really meant. In opposition to this, high-text communication is implicit. In high-context societies individuals tend to use a lot of subtext and to expect their conversation partner to be able to decode and interpret the carefully packaged message.5
In the second scale, Meyer focuses on evaluation and differentiates between direct negative feedback and indirect negative feedback. Cultures that apply direct evaluation give negative feedback frankly and unembellished. On the other hand, there are cultures in which negative feedback is only given indirectly. In these cultures, great value is placed on diplomacy and a sensitive approach to criticism. In the USA, for example, a very supportive tone is common in feedback discussions, while in France the "hard truth" is just told.6
There is a particularity between the first scale and the second scale: the communication style of a culture does not necessarily have to match its evaluation approach. The relationship between the scales results in a four- quadrant matrix, which is shown in Figure 1.7
Figure 1: Four-quadrant-matrix: communication and evaluation
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source 1: Own illustration based on Meyer, E., 2018. p. 57.
Meyer dedicates the third scale to persuading. In this scale, cultures are distinguished according to the way they argue. The types of argumentation are "principles-first" and "applications-first". While individuals from "principle-first" oriented cultures need a solid reason for action, people in "application-first" oriented societies need to know how goals are achieved.8
The fourth scale defines culturally influenced management styles. These can be egalitarian or hierarchical. In egalitarian cultures, members of a working environment are more likely to be treated equal. Employees can communicate freely and openly with their superiors. In hierarchical systems a clear differentiation of the levels of authority is lived.9
Cultures can further be distinguished according to their way of making decisions. In a fifth scale, consensual and top-down societies are differentiated. While in consensual cultures decisions are made by general consensus and with the participation of many, in top-down oriented cultures one person in authority decides. In most cases, decisions are made consensually in egalitarian cultures and top-down in hierarchical cultures.10
The different types of trust represent the sixth scale. "Cognitive trust" describes a confidence that arises from a person's work behavior and his or her abilities. "Affective trust", on the other hand, arises from a personal relationship and the bond with a fellow human being.11
The seventh scale classifies cultures according to their confrontational behavior. Cultures can be confrontational or confrontational avoiding. Even in countries that show their emotions openly, confrontations can be taboo. Therefore, confrontations should always be considered as a separate factor.12
The last scale describes the scheduling dimension. This aspect considers how people in a society deal with time. In cultures with a linear understanding of time, deadlines are met, and punctuality is valued. In cultures with a more flexible approach to time, a more relaxed handling oftime takes place.13
Meyer's Culture Map provides helpful information for working in an international environment and, among other aspects, shows the different ways in which societies deal with feedback and criticism.
2.2 Hofstede’s Value Dimensions
In the context of internationalization, the analysis of the international market environment is a prerequisite for the success of entrepreneurial activities. A market environment is influenced by technological, political, legal and sociocultural factors.14 Regarding the topic of this term paper a closer look at the socio-cultural factors is required.
The socio-cultural framework includes culturally determined modes of action and behavior. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are a method of characterizing cultural differences. Hofstede developed the dimensions as part of his work at IBM Europe. He carried out a study with 116,000 IBM employees in 72 countries from 1966 till 1973. From the results he derived four cultural dimensions: Power distance, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance.15 Later, long-term orientation and indulgence were added as two additional dimensions.16
The first dimension is named power distance. This Dimension describes the extent, to which a culture believes that institutional and organizational power should be distributed equally. In societies with a high power-distance, weaker members expect and accept an unequal distribution of power.17
Individualism follows as the second culture dimension. Individualism is characterized by loose ties between individual members of a society. The opposite of individualism is collectivism. In collectivist societies individuals are more strongly integrated into social groups.18
Furthermore, societies can be characterized as either more masculine or more feminine. If masculinity is high, the roles of the sexes are clearly demarcated. With high femininity, the roles of the sexes tend to overlap.19
Hofstede further characterizes cultures according to their avoidance of uncertainty. Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance strive for security and avoid unknown situations.20
The dimensions added later are long-term orientation and indulgence. Longterm oriented societies are focused on the future. With a short-term orientation, respect for tradition is particularly important. The dimension of indulgence describes the extent to which pleasure is freely experienced and appreciated in a culture.21
Points of criticism about Hofstede’s Culture Dimensions are that the data is quite old, and many cultures may have changed significantly in the meantime. In addition, the data was not collected from the average population, but only from employees in subsidiaries of a single company. Yet Hofstede's research is one of the most elaborate, comprehensive and recognized comparative cultural studies nowadays.22
2.3 The role of giving Feedback and criticizing in the Workplace
In social systems, which also include the working environment, the term “feedback” is understood as a comment or response on a behavior or a statement. In practice the terms feedback and evaluation are often used synonymously. Though a feedback is more of a description of perception, including the formulation of needs. A professional feedback is characterized by transporting information without feelings and judgement.23
In a working environment, feedback serves the purpose of informing how actions are perceived by others to influence future action. Since interpersonal communication is a complicated and failure-prone process, misunderstandings can often occur in everyday working situations. Structured feedback on a regular basis increases the probability that both the information and mutual expectations will be correctly understood. Through feedback, managers can ensure that key information is openly and correctly communicated to employees and also understand its own impact on others.24
A professional feedback dialogue should consist of both positive and negative feedback in order to promote the healthy development of employees. While positive feedback increases the self-esteem of employees and motivates them for further activities, negative feedback gives the opportunity to correct their behavior and prevent future mistakes.25
Negative feedback or criticism is a particularly sensitive part of a feedback conversation. Very few people deal with criticism easily straightaway. It is therefore important to pass on negative feedback in the right way, so that the recipient sees the possibilities for improvement as an opportunity.26 Criticism is therefore a difficult matter even in one's own culture. If additional variables are added to this situation, such as a foreign culture, there is a risk that a wrong given feedback will deteriorate the situation. In this case, the whole purpose of the feedback session would be missed.
Herewith the theoretical part of the term paper concludes and is succeeded by the practical approach to the topic.
3 The challenge of giving feedback and criticizing abroad
The practical part of this term paper deals with the development of feedback and criticism guidelines for international managers in two different situations. To begin, the concerned countries are classified on the basis of the theoretical foundations. On this background, guidelines for the international managers are developed. In a final point, practical examples of companies from the respective countries are compared with the elaborated guidelines.
3.1 A Dutch Manager in Japan
The first situation to be analyzed is that of a Dutch manager in Japan. In the following, we will take a closer look at the Dutch and Japanese culture with regard to their handling offeedback and criticism.
3.1.1 The Netherlands and Japan in Hofstede’s Value Dimensions
Figure 2 compares the scoring of the Netherlands and Japan in Hofstede’s Value Dimensions.
Figure 2: Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions in the Netherlands and Japan
Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten
Source 2: Own illustration based on Hofstede Insights -Japan and the Netherlands, 2020
Concerning the Power Distance, the Netherlands scores low. The working environment is characterized by flat hierarchies and decentralized power. Employees expect equal rights and to be integrated in decision processes. In terms of feedback, this rating means direct communication at eye level.27
Japan's score for power distance is placed in the middle range. Although the decision-making process is perceived as extremely hierarchical by Europeans, it is nevertheless more of an example of a low power distance, as there is not just one decision-maker, but everyone is involved.28
The Dutch are known as individualistic people. They score 80 points in the Individualism Dimension and prefer no involvement in static groups. In working contexts this means that the relationship with the employer is a contract based on mutual benefit. With 46 points, Japan scores in the middle range of individualism. The family system is not as developed as in other Asian cultures. Nevertheless, harmony within the group is very important.29
The Netherlands and Japan differ particularly strongly in masculinity. The Netherlands scores 14 points and is clearly a feminine culture. For feedback and criticism talks this means that managers strive for consensus, equality and solidarity. Conflicts are resolved by compromise.30 Japan, on the other hand, is one of the most masculine societies in the world. Especially in the working environment there is a very competitive atmosphere, although this is more likely to be carried out in a team than as individuals. Japan is still known for its workaholism and perfectionism. Work and leisure time are rarely balanced.31
With 53 points, the Dutch tend towards avoiding uncertainty, which can slow down change and innovation. In this respect, Japan shows an even more pronounced tendency and is rated one of the most security-oriented culture. In the business environment, much time and effort are spent on feasibility studies, and all risk factors must be considered before a project can begin. Managers request all detailed facts and figures before making a decision.32
Both the Netherlands and Japan are classified as long-term-oriented cultures. Dutch people are known as very pragmatic. In Japan, the dimension manifests itself in very high investments in the economy. The idea behind this is that companies are not there to make money for the current year, but to serve stakeholders and society for many generations.33
[...]
1 Cf. Roemer, E., 2014, p. 16.
2 Cf. Kotier, Ph.; Armstrong, G.; Wong, V.; Saunders, J., 2011, p. 1104.
3 Cf. Roemer, E., 2014, p. 16.
4 Cf. Meyer, E., 2018, p. 18-19.
5 Cf. Meyer, E.,2018, p. 30f.
6 Cf. Meyer, E., 2018, p. 56.
7 Cf. Meyer, E., 2018. p. 57.
8 Cf. Meyer, E., 2018, p. 72 - 73.
9 Cf. Meyer, E., 2018, p. 95.
10 Cf. Meyer, E., 2018, p. 112-113.
11 Cf. Meyer, E., 2018, p. 126.
12 Cf. Meyer, E., 2018, p. 147.
13 Cf. Meyer, E., 2018, p. 165.
14 Cf. Homburg, Chr., 2015, p. 1088.
15 Cf. Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, J., G., 2011, pp. 28-32.
16 Cf. Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, J., G., 2011, p. 37.
17 Cf. Homburg, Chr., 2015, p. 1088.
18 Cf. Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, J., G., 2011, p. 95.
19 Cf. Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, J., G., 2011, p. 154.
20 Cf. Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, J., G., 2011, p. 215.
21 Cf. Homburg, Chr., 2015, p. 1090.
22 Cf. Mooij de, M„ 2013, pp. 81 - 83.
23 Cf. Rummel, M., 2012 (online).
24 Cf. Tezcan, B.; Feyri, S., 2018, p. 2.
25 Cf. Tezcan, B.; Feyri, S., 2018, p. 2.
26 Cf. Rummel, M., 2012 (online).
27 Cf. Mulder De, E.; Pater De, B.; Droogleever Forujin, J.; Klerk De, L.; Dijk Van, J., 2018, p. 216.
28 Cf. Merkin, R., S., 2017, pp. 166-167.
29 Cf. n.u. 2020, Hofstede Insights - Comparing the Netherlands and Japan (online).
30 Cf. Mulder De, E.; Pater De, B.; Droogleever Forujin, J.; Klerk De, L.; Dijk Van, J., 2018, p. 217.
31 Cf. Merkin, R., S., 2017, p. 139.
32 Cf. n.u. 2020, Hofstede Insights - Comparing the Netherlands and Japan (online).
33 Cf. n.u. 2020, Hofstede Insights - Comparing the Netherlands and Japan (online).