Introduction
Globalization has led to an increase in the number of multi-cultural organizations all over the world. Consequently, recruitment of employees has become a global activity with at least 25 – 30% of a company’s workforce belonging to diverse cultural backgrounds (Persing, 1999). Such organizations face the challenge of embracing the cultural diversity and using it to promote productivity.
Cultural diversity refers to the “representation, in one social system, of people with distinctly different group affiliations of cultural significance” (White, 1999). Various concepts have been put forward, most notably by Edward T. Hall, to explain the approaches that different cultures have towards time and communication at the work place.
A culture may be low context or high context depending on the degree to which they rely on things other than words to convey meaning. Given that in a low context culture, nothing is left to chance, there is very little room for misunderstandings to occur (Hall, 2003).
In most instances, low context culture will provide clear explanations that do not bear any hidden meaning (Gamsriegler, 2005). In the case of a high context culture, many options exist that allow people to comprehend what is said (Gamsriegler, 2005).
Using Hall’s classification, cultures may also be either monochronic or polychronic depending on their perception of time. In monochromic cultures, time schedules are very important and must be followed strictly (Moseley, 2009). This is not so with polychronic cultures where people place a greater value on personal involvement rather than getting things done on time (Moseley, 2009).
By understanding these different perceptions, international organizations can curb some of the problems they face from having a culturally diverse workforce. Such problems include stereotyping, ethnocentrism as well as conflict between individualistic and collective approaches to task completion.
Managers of such multi-cultural groups must show a strong commitment to encouraging diversity in order to achieve harmony in the workplace (White, 1999). Understanding international organizational behaviour through appreciation of cultural diversity at the work place will not only reduce problems faced by the organization but also enhance cohesion.
Low Context versus High Context Cultures in International Organizations
Context can be referred to as “information that surrounds a communication and helps convey a message” (Moseley, 2009). Hall divided cultures into high context and low context cultures. Examples of high context cultures are the Japanese, Arabian and Chinese cultures while the Swiss and Scandinavian cultures are considered low context (Moseley, 2009).
Low context cultures are thought to show less intuitive understanding and are thus considered slow or less efficient in comparison to high context cultures (Gamsriegler, 2005). In high context cultures people do not explicitly state what they want but prefer to beat around the bush until someone else gets to understand what he or she is trying to say (Gamsriegler 2005).
Within a high context culture, majority of the communication uses non-verbal cues. A lot of emphasis is placed on body language unlike in the low context culture where majority of the communication is verbal (Hall, 2011). Whereas words carry so much weight in a low context culture, there is little emphasis on the choice of words when dealing with high context cultures (Advameg, 2011).
Low context cultures value contracts that are tangible and may come across as distrusting. The high context cultures will however enter into verbal contracts and tend to value personal relationships more than their counterparts.
High-context cultures are known to form extensive networks with friends, relatives, family as well as their clients that are both close and personal (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994). They value the knowledge from these relationships which goes to form a basis for their communication by giving meaning to events and communications.
As far as low context cultures are concerned, classifications by individuals are possible to such an extent that quite a lot of information is necessary for one to recognize the meaning of what is being said (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994). While low context cultures are characterized by confrontations, high context cultures tend to take a more polite approach (Advameg, 2011).
With respect to time and flexibility, the low context culture is similar to the monochronic culture while the high context culture is similar to the polychronic culture. The low context culture reveres time and emphasizes schedules while the high context culture is more open and flexible (Hall, 2011).
The low context culture will prefer to meet deadlines at whatever cost as opposed to the high context culture where deadlines are not set in stone. The general lack of specificity associated with high context cultures and the literal nature of low context cultures is a potential source of friction within any organization.
Monochronic versus Polychronic Cultures in International Organizations
“The handling of time is one of the key elements of culture” (Missana, n.d.) and this is what separates monochronic and polychronic cultures. Hall in his book “The Silent Language” writes a chapter on time with respect to cultural communication showing how the different cultural views on time can affect the work dynamic in an organization.
A classic example of the monochronic culture is the American culture that views time as something fixed in nature (Missana, n.d.). The French, on the other hand, are an example of a polychronic culture (Hall, 2011).
Within an organization, monochronic cultures tend to prefer completing one task at a time as opposed to multi-tasking like their counterparts (Dahl, 2007). This may present a problem when both are working together on a project as they would probably not agree on what needs to be done first.
Another difference between the two cultures is that monochronic cultures tend to put work before relationships unlike polychronic cultures (Hall, 2011). The polychron will happily put work aside to have a chat with a colleague, reply to an email or make a phone call. This is however sacrilege to a monochron (Hahn, 2011).
In polychronic organizations, the one-to-one interaction between a boss and his or her subordinate encourages openness and the formation of highly personalized relationships which is beneficial to the organization (Advameg, 2011). In contrast, monochronic organizations are more result oriented and there is very little interaction between the boss and his or her subordinates.
While monochronic cultures tend to value time schedules and stick to their commitments religiously, the polychronic ones do not care much about time and schedules and would rather operate in a more relaxed environment (O’hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994).
In addition to this, monochrons isolate their activities from organization and measure tasks in output per time; polychrons will however integrate activities into the organization as a whole and measure tasks as part of overall organizational goals (Dahl, 2007).
Moreover, while monochronic people have a high regard for personal property and privacy, polychronic people tend not to value privacy as much and borrow and lend much easier than monochronic people (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994). These are some of the differences that can cause significant tension within an international organization with both polychronic and monochronic cultures within its workforce.
Problems of Low/ High Context Cultures and Monochronic / Polychronic Cultures
Poor Communication
Communication depends on the context that surrounds the communication. Consequently, the more the communicator and recipient share in common, the higher the context of their communication and the lower the need for words (Advameg, 2011).
In a high context society, there is less need for explanations and wordiness. For an international organization, this may have several drawbacks, the most significant being a lack of understanding between the two individuals of different cultures. Low context cultures detest vagueness and ambiguity and prefer a straight forward approach instead (Advameg, 2011).
Take, for instance, the Japanese and German cultures. The Japanese are high context individuals as opposed to the low context Germans and for this reason they will experience situations differently (Gamsriegler, 2005).
The Japanese are generally closed-minded to outside information, highly subjective, focus on the specific rather than on the general and anticipate others’ needs by paying much more attention to the context than to the explicit message conveyed by their interlocutor (Gamsriegler, 2005).
A German on the other hand can not easily identify himself or herself with the concerns of others. He or she only accepts objective facts as truth and ignores all emotional statements or feelings of their interlocutor in a negotiation (Gamsriegler, 2005).
The different perception of time by these two cultures can lead to poor communication if for instance the boss is a monochron and his or her subordinate is a polychron. A monochronic system does not encourage a one-on-one interaction between the boss and his or her subordinate (Advameg, 2011). This may cause the subordinate to feel insecure and may lead to some degree of resentment towards the boss.
To him or her, the boss only cares about the bottom line and not about his or her welfare. This may impair communication between the boss and his or her subordinate who will avoid all communication unless necessary. Therefore, it is advantageous if the both superior and the subordinate were aware of all aspects – professional and personal, about their respective (Advameg, 2011).
Ethno – centrists
This is the feeling that an individual’s culture is more superior to that of others (Advameg, 2011). People who are ethnocentric see themselves as superior to out-groups and more competent (Neulip, Hintz & McCroskey, 2005). This severely affects performance within the organization by inhibiting teamwork.
Ethnocentric persons hold different attitudes and behaviors toward in-groups from those toward out-groups, in addition, ethnocentric persons foster co-operative relations among group members while competing with, and perhaps even battling, with out-group members (Neulip, Hintz & McCroskey, 2005).
Cultural problems in a multi cultural environment always arise because of a lack of knowledge (Advameg, 2011). Ethnocentrism, however, is baseless. A culture will view its own behavior as logical simply because it works for them not considering the fact that each culture has its own set of values so the concept of proper and improper becomes blurred (Advameg, 2011).
In a study carried out by Neulip, Hintz and Mcroskey (2005), manager-subordinate communication was found to be handicapped ethnocentrism. Ethnocentric individuals often regard managers from different cultures to be inferior and as such, may be unwilling to cooperate (Neulip, Hintz & McCroskey, 2005).
Ethnocentrism is a factor that can be found in a low context culture, high context culture, monochronic or polychronic culture as any of them would tend to view their culture as superior to the other thereby inhibiting cohesion at the workplace.
Territorial Principle
People who are low context tend to have a much higher level of territoriality than their high context counterparts. This is unlike high context cultures that are more willing to share territories with others (Hall, 2011). This may lead to constant squabbles over minor issues such as desk space, sitting positions or stationary.
With regard to polychronism and monochronism, the polychronic cultures tend to be a lot less territorial. The monochrons are very possessive of their belongings and rarely get to ask for things from others or even give what they own.
On the other hand, the polychrons borrow and lend things often and easily (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johanes, 1994). In my experience, territorialism affects output in an international organization as time is wasted resolving minor property issues that maybe as simple as one worker taking offence that another took his pen without asking, considering it ‘stealing’.
Misinterpretation
Interpretation can be said to occur when an individual derives meaning from observations (Gamsriegler, 2005). A great deal of non verbal communication occurs in the workplace and this can be interpreted variously by different cultures.
Misinterpretation often leads to stereotyping and consequently hampers progress within the multi-cultural organization. What we perceive is first influenced by a person’s cultural background and rarely reflects reality (Gamsriegler, 2005).
To the American people, time is a very critical factor that has to be well utilized by all (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994). This is unlike in other culture where time is seen as being abundant (Analytic Technologies, 2007). This may falsely lead Americans to believe that Asian cultures are lazy and cannot be bothered to get to work on time. This leads to impaired interaction at the work place.
The low context cultures tend to value short time relationships and are not fond of close personal relationship unlike their high context counterparts who value personal relationships (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994). Interactions between high and low context people can be problematic and this can be illustrated using the high context Japanese and low context Americans.
According to Advameg (2011), high context cultures have the habit of being direct and poorly interpreting communication unlike low context cultures. The Japanese can misinterpret Americans need to verbalize everything as being offensively blunt while Americans can find the Japanese to be secretive and ambiguous as a result of their high context nature. This will significantly increase the chances of conflict in the work place.
Frustration
There is an increased level of frustration in international organizations due to the cultural differences that exist between them. Monochronic cultures and polychronic cultures are said to differ in the criteria they use for promoting employees (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994).
Unlike polychronic Mexico advancements, monochronic Canadians and Americans tend to link career growth to past as well future accomplishments (O’Hara-Devereaux & Johansen, 1994). This would serve as a source of frustration to a polychronic employee working for a monochronic boss for many years without promotion.
Regarding context, frustrations come about with the dissemination of information. An example of this can be illustrated using the high context French manager and low context German employee.
Due to the lack of specificity on the French manager’s side when giving orders and instructions, the German employee can feel that the French manager provides no direction and hence experience difficulties in carrying out his or her duties leaving him frustrated.
A common result of these frustrations in international organizations is high staff turnover. Most unhappy employees end up leaving the organization (White, 1999).
The Individualists and Collectivists
Collectivist cultures dwell on the needs of the group particularly co-operation within the group as opposed to individualistic cultures that value individual needs. Monochronic cultures tend to be similar to the individualistic cultures and the polychronic cultures to collective cultures.
Monochronic cultures view interpersonal relationships as subordinate to personal schedules; the converse is true for polychrons (Dahl, 2007).
While none of these approaches can be deemed superior to the other, the dynamics of culturally diverse international organizations mean that an individualist may be required to work collectively and vice versa. This creates a problem within the organization. According to White (1999), collectivists will perform lowly when left to work alone instead of being in a group.
Individualistic monochronic cultures choose the individual at the expense of the team inhibiting teamwork; collective polychronic cultures choose the group thereby inhibiting individual initiative and innovation (Hall, 2011). In multicultural organizations the balance between individual and team jobs must be kept in order to ensure that each employee does not feel stifled.
Difficulty in Management
The management of culturally diverse organizations is plagued with several problems. Taking the simple human resource process; job evaluation as an example, monochronic Anglo-Saxon cultures tend to hold a Universalist orientation where the rules and obligations are paramount and these will be followed even when friends are involved dealing fairly and equally with all cases (Hall, 2003).
As a result, they are fond of universal or global solutions, policies and business models, and nervous about being seen to exercise power in a personal and arbitrary way (Hall, 2003). Polychronic societies, such as Asian and African societies, are more particularist where the particular circumstances are much more important than the rules; personal relationships are stronger than any abstract rule (Hall, 2003).
Problems arise where these different groups work in one organization, for example a polychronic boss may appoint a new director without regard to due process hence angering the monochronic subordinate.
When attempting to solve departmental problems, managers may face problems arising from cultural diversity. In a diverse setup, reaching a common decision is always a challenge that must be addressed (White, 1992). Managing a culturally diverse organization can then prove to be a very difficult task though it is not impossible.
Strategies of Managing Culturally Diverse Organizations
The myriad of problems associated with running international organizations have led to the development of strategies to deal with them to ensure efficiency and harmony in the work place. Several strategies have been put forward and they include:
Cultural Sensitization
This will improve communication skills across cultures and it starts with studying the different factors associated with various cultures. By teaching and engaging in active listening, cultural sensitivity can be developed and thereby reduce misunderstandings (Moseley, 2009). This also helps to reduce stereotyping, ethnocentrism and discrimination in the workplace.
People will begin to appreciate the benefits of another’s culture once they reach a certain level of awareness of cultural differences (Hall, 2003). “So long as individuals only accept the validity of their own view of the world, international working becomes a battle to get the French to follow the systems or to explain again to the Chinese that you are working to a deadline” (Hall, 2003).
Understanding the Language of Context and Time
Having an in-depth understanding of the language of context is vital in understanding cultural communications particularly with non verbal cues, such as body language, carry implicit messages (Moseley, 2009). Understanding the distinction between high context and low context cultures will greatly enhance communication and reduce conflict in the multi-cultural organization.
Understanding how the monochronic and polychronic cultures work will reduce unnecessary tensions at work (Moseley, 2009). For example, monochronic leaders should avoid making snap judgments if polychronic Latin America workers are late for important meetings, this will work to foster stronger work relationships (Moseley, 2009).
Valuing Diversity
From management to the lowest level of the organization, diversity must be appreciated in order to ensure that no group feels left out. It is essential to ensure that leaders are well trained to deal with issues related to diversity (White, 1999).
Opening up to new ideas and appreciating cultural difference requires that leaders listen more and spend more time with their team members in social functions after work hours; this will enhance cultural understanding as well as encourage respect for other’s points of view (Moseley, 2009).
Although it may not be very clear to every one in the organization, there are huge benefits of diversity in the organization. When different cultures are united to pursue a common goal, it is always the case that a lot of learning will take place.
Considering that different cultures have different strengths, the sum total of all the strengths can end up creating wonderful opportunities for all the team members to grow in their career and level of efficiency. Organizations should therefore do their best to learn the art of working in a multi cultural environment so as to reap the obvious benefits.
Efficient Communication
A diverse workforce cannot function without efficient communication developed by reducing bureaucracy and creating avenues that can be used to air grievances and give feedback within the organization (White, 1999). Monochronic leaders should go out of their way to ensure communication is open between them and their subordinates.
Closed door policies may come across as cold and unfriendly. It may also be helpful to train the team in the organization on the value of diversity. In this way they show that they value people of different cultures (Moseley, 2009).
The high context/ low context barrier in the workplace can be overcome by ensuring proper communication of duties and tasks. Once a new a person joins an organization, she or he should be given a clear job description, the criteria of measuring attainment of goals and objectives should be clarified and feedback of evaluation given regularly (Billings-Harris, 2007).
Creating an Inclusive Environment
People who are allowed to express themselves are much happier as compared to those forced to adopt a particular attitude that is unfamiliar to them, this require an open minded manager who is willing to compromise and is adaptable (Yanik, 2011). It fosters harmony within the organization as no particular group will feel sidelined or discriminated against by the leadership and as a result productivity is increased.
Another way to do this is to consider individual needs when enforcing company policies and guidelines in order to be fair (Billings-Harris, 2007). For polychronic cultures, relaxing time schedules and deadlines will make them feel less pressure at the workplace. This can be achieved by allowing flex-time as long as the total amount of time required for work is covered (Billings-Harris, 2007).
Conclusion
The increase in globalization means that there is no escaping the multicultural organization. Different cultures have different perceptions of time and communication which they bring into international organizations. Hall’s work in elucidating the different cultural perceptions has aided cross-cultural relations by demystifying various cultures.
While working in a multi-cultural organization, these perceptions can be constant sources of conflict among co-workers and between managers and their subordinates leading to a variety of problems and frustrations. Insensitivity and ignorance of different cultures are the root causes of majority of the problems that plague international organizations.
For this reasons, such organizations adopt strategies to foster harmony and understanding within the organization. By understanding international organizational behaviour, multi-cultural organizations can thrive.
As technology continues to advance, it is also important for organizations to realize that globalization is here to stay. This being the case, nothing should be left to chance when it comes to transforming into becoming international. Efforts should be made to ensure that an organization is able to diversify its operations globally.
Reference List
Advameg., 2011. Cross-Cultural / International Communication, Flossmoor, IL: Advameg, Inc. Web.
Analytic Technologies., 2007. Differences in Culture. Lexington, KY: Analytic Technologies. Web.
Billings-Harris, L., 2007. Managing Diversity in the Workplace. Ontario, CA: The Side Road. Web.
Dahl, S., 2007. Monochronic and Polychronic Cultures. Narragansett, RI USA: Coastal Institute. Web.
Gamsriegler, A., 2005. High Context and Low Context Communication Styles. Burgenland, Austria: Burgenland University of Applied Sciences. Web.
Hahn, H., 2011. Time Sense: Polychronicity and Monochronicity. California: Harley Hahn. Web.
Hall, E. T., 2011. Hall’s Cultural Factors. Germany: Changing Minds. Web.
Hall, K., 2003. Worlwide vision in the workplace. Global Integration. Web.
Missana, S., The Grip of Culture: Edward T. Hall. Los Altos, CA: Institute for the Study of Human Knowledge. Web.
Moseley, A., 2009. Improving Cross-Cultural Communication Skills: Ask-Seek-Knock. Leadership Advance Online, Issue XVII. Web.
Neulip, J. W., Hintz, S. M. & McCroskey, J. C., 2005. The Influence of Ethnocentrism in Organizational Contexts: Perceptions of Interviewee and Managerial Attractiveness, Credibility, and Effectiveness. Communication Quarterly, 53 (1) 41-56. Web.
O’Hara-Devereaux, M. & Johansen, R., 1994. Transcending Cultural Barriers: Context, Relationships and Time. Bakersfield, CA: California State University. Web.
Persing, D. L., 1999. Managing in Polychronic Times. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14 (5) 358-373. Web.
White, R. D., 1999. Managing the Diverse Organization: The Imperative for a New Multicultural Paradigm. Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, 4 (4) 469-493. Web.
Yanik, J., 2011. What techniques are there for managing cultural and organizational diversity? Coventry, UK: Warwick Blogs. Web.