having analyzed cultural differences since the late 1960s, identified six “dimensions of national cultures,”19 three of which are especially pertinent to the J.B. example.
The first of these is what Hofstede identified as uncertainty avoidance, meaning the degree to which a culture is tolerant of ambiguity and feels comfortable with unknown situations. Ironically, the United States and India are closer to each other in terms of their comfort with uncertainty than either of them is with the Germans. However, as Hofstede explains, the Germans compensate for their desire to avoid uncertainty by relying on others' expertise. This aligns well with the Indian preference for power, another of Hofstede's dimensions. In India, power is unequally distributed throughout the culture, with the boss (J.B.) being the final decision maker. When the Germans asked J.B. if his suggestion was the best option, and he confirmed that it was, they accepted his opinion. The Germans were presumably able to reduce their level of uncertainty by giving credence to the power differential that J.B. is afforded in Indian society as the head of the company.
The third relevant dimension to mention here is that of short-term or long-term orientation. Germany and the U.S. are both examples of the Western tendency for seeking results in the short-term. In comparison, many Asian cultures, such as India, prefer to take a long-term view. As one Indian executive explained:
“By taking the long view, Indians are apt to make allowances for the fact that not everything is always going to go to plan. That includes the fact that early on in a relationship there are bound to be hiccups. This is only to be expected, given the complexity of human interactions. Yet it's remarkable to us how Americans hold to the belief in one Truth, whereas we Indians know there to be many Truths, each one applicable according to the context in which it is applied.”
Again, why is there more alignment between the Indian and German executives, and more friction between J.B. and his U.S. partners? Perhaps because of J.B.'s industry experience and expertise, the Germans received assurance that their short-term needs would be met. Trust is highly relevant here. Former President Ronald Reagan's comment, “Trust but verify,” is anathema to Indians, who would not consider the need for verification to be indicative of trust.
Why This? Why Now?
Cultural considerations vary geographically in many countries. In the U.S., for example, conducting business in the Midwest is different from doing so in Texas or California. As the former CEO of Coca-Cola, Doug Ivester, said, “As economic borders come down, cultural barriers go up, presenting new challenges and opportunities in business.”20 According to Athanasios Vamvakidis, an economist in the International Monetary Fund's Asia and Pacific Department, “Alongside the globalization process, countries have been increasing their regional economic links through regional trade agreements.”21
As economic borders have come down, what about the cultural barriers? The authors of Getting China and India Right, Anil K. Gupta and Haiyan Wang, stated that any organization looking to make progress in these markets needs to embrace the kind of long-term orientation typical of India and China and rarely found in Western countries:
According to Gupta and Wang: “Most companies will find that their existing knowledge about how to succeed in other markets teaches them little about how to succeed in China and India. If they want to aim for market leadership rather than merely skimming the cream at the top, they will need to engage in considerable learning from scratch.”
With that in mind, you are about to discover a little more about the ways U.S. culture compares with Asian cultures. What you find out will create a baseline for understanding the different perspectives among these cultures and help create deeper, more lasting, and more trusted relationships. After all, in order to know how to relate to other cultures, you first need to know where you are standing.
So, here's a question for you:
Who Are “Americans”?
The term American is very broad and includes the inhabitants of Central, Latin, North, and South America. It doesn't just refer to people who live in the U.S., as the following table illustrates.
Table 1.1
17“North America,” Worldatlas, www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/na.htm (accessed November 21, 2014).
18 “South America,” Worldatlas, www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/sa.htm (accessed January 9, 2015).
19 “Central America,” Worldatlas, www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/camerica.htm (accessed January 9, 2015).
20 Roger A. Kittleson, “History of Latin America,” Encyclopedia Britannica, April 10, 2014, www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/331694/history-of-Latin-America (accessed January 9, 2015).
There are numerous Americans in the world who have cultural customs and ways of interacting that are quite different from those found in the U.S. This is why, for this book, we have elected to use a more specific term and refer throughout to U.S. Americans.
Bear this in mind as you turn to the next chapter, in which we explore a little more about how U.S. Americans think.
Chapter 2
Exploring Country Cultures
“The most interesting thing about cultures may not be in the observable things they do – the rituals, eating preferences, codes of behavior, and the like – but in the way they mold our most fundamental conscious and unconscious thinking and perception.”
The Machiguenga, who live in a part of Peru close to the borders of Bolivia and Brazil, enjoy lives many of us would envy. Each family member has the freedom to choose what they work on and when to work. They balance their lives, men as planters and hunters and women as harvesters and cooks, with time for relaxation and fun. Given their relative isolation and self-sufficiency, the tribe has little need for cash.
Most Western scientists who visit this living Eden do so to conduct pharmacological research. UCLA anthropology graduate student Joe Henrich's interest in visiting the Machiguenga, however, was very different.23 Henrich wanted to explore whether human beings were psychologically hardwired to respond universally. In particular, he was interested in knowing whether concepts like fairness and cooperation were basic to all cultures, from Western industrialized societies to more isolated exotic ones like the Machiguenga.
Henrich devised an ultimatum game that is similar to what game-theory buffs and economists call the prisoner's dilemma. The game involved two players, unknown to each other, one of whom would receive the equivalent of several days' wages. The recipient would then decide how much cash to share with the other player, who had the option of accepting or refusing that sum. The dilemma was that if the second player refused the money, the first player forfeited his or her share.
Henrich had great difficulty getting the
Ibid.
Robert Rosen,
“Regional Trade Agreements or Broad Liberalization: Which Path Leads to Faster Growth?”
“The People of Manu,” PBS Online, www.pbs.org/edens/manu/people.htm (accessed November 20, 2014).
