Increased exposure of one culture to another in the context of economic globalisation is bound to lead to cultural clashes. It is unlikely that a person of one culture, entering a country of another culture, will completely forget his own culture and the familiar rules of his game, nor that he has a mission to achieve his corporate goals in the host country. It is impossible that he will be completely assimilated by the culture of the host country. The same is true for the people from the other culture. They cannot be expected completely to accept a foreign culture and to lose their own cultural identity. Given these cultural stances, the convenience of using self-reference criteria for people of both cultures will naturally come into play, and this is in fact the primary source of cultural clashes.
Cultural clashes can take many forms and it is impossible to produce an exhaustive list identifying all the sources of cultural clashes, because people interaction is a dynamic process. Table 4.2.2 summarizes the most common complaints by both westerners and Chinese about the problems they face in cross-cultural communications.
Complaints from western managers | Complaints from Chinese managers |
---|---|
Marathon negotiations and decision-making | Lack of understanding of the unique local environment |
Decisions reached by discussion instead of voting | Over-rigid in handling business affairs and lack of flexibility |
Indirect expression of opinions | Impersonality and rule-orientation without giving consideration to circumstances |
Great importance is given to 'face' | Lack of thrift in the use of corporate money |
Dependent on Guanxi and personal emotions in business dealings | Disregard local management suggestions |
Submissive and lack creativity | Individualistic and arbitrary in decision-making |
Ambiguity in policies, laws and regulations | Money-making is the top priority |
Bureaucracy | Lack of respect and care for staff/ employees |
Excessive government intervention | Ignore the interests of Chinese partners |
Complicated and closely-knit interpersonal relations | Arrogance and conceit |
Two things can be done to bridge the communication gap. One is to learn to understand the Chinese way of communication and the other is to educate Chinese counterparts to understand the rationale of your way of doing things. Sometimes, an intermediary who understands both mindsets can be helpful in communicating the differences and achieving understanding.
Abrupt and forceful transplantation of western rules of management into a joint venture will only lead to conflict. In a Chinese-French joint venture, for example, the French brought, along with their equipment and technology, a complete set of French management rules, which were enforced without adaptation by the French managers who occupied all key managerial positions . Such an exercise aroused strong resentment from the workers and eventually triggered a strike, which was finally resolved by the mediation of the Chinese government and the French Consulate General. A staff of the joint venture commented later: 'If the French style management was executed by Chinese managers, it might perhaps be easier for us to accept. We just couldn't put up with the bullying and over- bearing of the French.' This extreme case of cultural clash demonstrates the need for improved and effective communications to achieve mutual understanding and respect. Although the elements that should be taken into consideration for cross-cultural management are far more complicated than in a mono-cultural environment, readiness to understand and adapt to a foreign culture is certainly an effective means of improving efficiency. In the same Chinese-French joint venture, the Chinese managers suggested restricted use of the copying machines, which, at that time, were not popular office equipment. The French did not listen, and placed the machines in the corridor for free use as they did in France. The result was that the machines often went wrong because of wrong operation, and some Chinese staff used the machine to copy personal documents, all of which led to unnecessary increase in the cost of maintenance and paper. The French eventually adopted the Chinese suggestion and the cost related to the copying machines was brought under control. This example shows that people of different cultural backgrounds have different ways of thinking and behaving. The differences, if properly communicated, will complement one another as driving forces rather than barriers.
Education of the Chinese partners and workers at large is absolutely necessary. The objectives of education can be achieved through training, which should concentrate not only on skill improvements but also management understanding. A number of multinational companies have successfully implemented training programmes aimed at achieving trust and understanding. Hewlett Packard has successfully introduced its 'HP Way' into its China operations. Motorola has implemented training programmes, not only for its own staff, but also for its suppliers and customers. GE has established its core value of business ethics, honesty and credibility, by trying a number of different ways of communication including the distribution of booklets of corporate ethics to its staff. Chinese workers at Lucent Technologies are motivated to produce better quality products than their counterparts in Atlanta.
Apart from the purely cultural, there are other differences, such as the attitude towards and ability to handle market changes, corporate development strategies, conception of business management and management style. In addition, educational background and professional experiences vary among Chinese and western managers. All of this will lead to clashes in the communication of corporate strategies, development plans and so on. One elevator joint venture was once in serious confrontation on issues of corporate development strategy. The foreign partner suggested that the joint venture should improve services and provide maintenance to customers, while the Chinese management, whose average age was 58, put the emphasis on improvement of production. On accounting issues, the foreign partner proposed that unrecoverable accounts should be written off as bad debts , while the Chinese side expressed concerns that the joint venture would suffer an accounting deficit. Similar clashes as a result of differences in the conception of corporate development strategies were also seen in another joint venture, a Sino-American automobile manufacturing operation. In the early stages of the joint venture, the American partner suggested that the dividends should be rein- vested into the joint venture to expand the scale of production. The response from the Chinese side was that the joint venture was comfortably well off, with annual sales of several hundred thousand cars , and the market demand was so strong that there was no need to invest in expansion and to divide the annual profit of RMB200 “300 million would be the practical choice. The American partner made a concession by offering a unilateral increase in their capital contribution; this was declined by the Chinese side who calculated that the change in equity ratio would reduce their share of the dividend. By the mid-1990s, however, the market had begun to change and the old model quickly lost its market.