A group of four students, two from Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, one from Kozminski University in Warsaw Poland, and one from Auckland University of technology in Auckland New Zealand conducted an interview with a male Bulgarian national who has lived in Amsterdam for five years. The interviewee works for an American company with British colleagues that focus on business performance. The interview works predominantly with British and Dutch colleagues and clients. The aim of the interview was to identify any cultural limitations within the interviewee’s work environment. Cultural limitations identified were primarily centred around miscommunication caused by the conflict in high-context and low-context communication styles and expectations around workplace etiquette.
The interviewee stated that the British communication style was too high-context which made it difficult when receiving performance feedback. The interviewee felt that the ambiguous language hindered performance improvement due to that lack of explicit feedback and planning. In addition, certain workplace norms such as the expectation to work unpaid overtime, limited decision making at the lower end of the company hierarchy, and office etiquette such as the expectation to turn on one’s video camera during calls have roots in an American work culture which may conflict with non-American work values. Productivity and thoroughly completed work are at the core values of this company however the company’s structural focus of productivity may be eliciting complacency which may diminish innovations and ambitions from workers that could improve productivity.
Hofstede Dimensions
Uncertainty Avoidance
This dimension entails the way in which the society of a culture deals with the future. It includes questions such as if the future should be controlled or if everything should just try to leave everything the way it is and not control what happens in the future. The ambiguity shows how a culture copes with fear and anxiety in different ways. Therefore, one can state that uncertainty measures the extent to which members of a culture feel threatened to ambiguous or unknown situations and create beliefs and institutions to avoid those.
According to figure 1, Bulgaria (85) clearly has the highest score. This indicates that they strongly try to avoid uncertainty. Therefore, working hard with precision and being punctual. Furthermore, security is highly motivating members of the culture. UK (35) with the lowest score clearly shows the serenity of the culture concerning uncertainty, not having a problem within changing their path in case new information arises. This indicates a comfortableness with uncertain situations. This results in non-detailed planning and non-clear goal setting in the working environment. Netherlands (53) and U.S. (46) are more of the “middle players”. Whereas the Netherlands have a slight tendency to avoid uncertainty whereas the U.S. tends to be more comfortable with ambiguous situations.
Long-term vs. Short-term orientation
This dimension measures the extent to which a culture maintains links to the past while dealing with challenges in present and future. Either a society is long-term or short-term oriented. The culture with low scores i.e., prefers time-based traditions and norms during cultural change – long-term orientation. The culture with a high score i.e., is more pragmatic and encourages change and views change as a way to prepare for the future – short-term orientation.
As we can see in figure 1, the U.S. scores lowest (26) and is therefore rather short-term oriented, whereas Bulgaria (69) and Netherlands (67) score pretty high which indicates that they are rather long-term oriented and therefore have a more pragmatic view on the situations and therefore believe that truth depends on situation, context and time. American culture on the other hand is not pragmatic but rather practical. For example, new information is analysed and checked for its truthfulness. This is also shown in the short-term measurement of performance in American companies. It encourages individuals to strive for fast positive results. Though, the U.K. (51) has no clear tendency to either short-term or long-term orientation, therefore one can state that it is easier to align to either one of the two aforementioned spectrums.
In the interview, the interviewee told us about monthly meetings, where he discusses his achievements during the month, which represents a short-term view on the employees’ success, therefore again, we have a rather American management style.
Outcome
The relationship between power distance, individualism and masculinity
The interviewee explained that he is highly influenced by the Dutch culture after studying and working in the Netherlands for five years. Yet, he is working for an American company and his main colleagues are British.
Both the Netherlands and England score relatively low on the dimension of power distance (38 and 35 respectively) according to Hofstede’s Country Comparison tool. Overall, this is noticeable within the interviewee’s direct team, as the communication is relatively informal and the British supervisor tries to implement an egalitarian leadership style (Meyer, 2016). On the other hand, when important decisions need to be made, it becomes clear that the company makes use of a top-down decision-making system and has a tall organizational structure. Possible changes need to be discussed with the manager of the interviewee, then with the manager of the manager, and so on. This is a result of the high level of individualism (91) and masculinity (62) that can be found in American society. Even though the United States scores fairly low on power distance (40), American organizations establish hierarchy for convenience and managers expect to be consulted on a regular basis. Moreover, the average American aims for the highest possible position and attaches value to status. Installing top-down decision-making systems is one of many ways to ensure that certain positions have more power than others. Contrarily, the company’s code of conduct also consists of feminine traits. The company states that sexism, racism or any other actions that strengthen inequality is prohibited behavior and for example shows this through including topics such as the significance of celebrating Pride Day in its weekly newsletter.
According to the interviewee, transparency and proactivity are two core values of the company (bottom of the iceberg model) which could be caused by the individualistic mindset of the supervisors who expect their team members to carry out their tasks independently and share information frequently (Weaver, 2014). This could also explain why the interviewee provided the example of switching off the camera during an online meeting as inhibitive behavior within the company, because it can be seen as a breach of trust.
A traditional organization with a top-down decision-making system makes sure that employees have less responsibility, as the degree of freedom they have in the decision process is limited. This can reduce the workload of the employees which can decrease their job stress levels (MacDonald, 2003). However, this degree of freedom in the decision-making process is also defined as autonomy value. Autonomy is an intrinsic motivational factor which increases skill sharing, creativity, innovation and organizational dedication (Belias, 2015). With a top-down decision-making system the autonomy level is relatively low, as it offers less flexibility in work procedures. The low autonomy level is not in line with the proactivity value the company claims to include in its business culture. The main reason for this is that proactivity is not triggered when employees are not allowed to participate in decision making. Because of this, it seems that proactivity is a minimal behavioural trait on the surface and is rather a false sense of having control / independence within one’s job, while docility is the actual core value. This contradiction causes role unclarity, which is a role stressor, as there can be confusion about what is exactly expected from employees. For example, the supervisor of the interviewee and his team members encourages them to develop innovative ideas. Yet, such an idea is almost never realized, even when the supervisor has acknowledged the relevance and beneficial aspects of it. This situation makes employees doubt what their responsibilities are and can negatively affect their intrinsic motivation and their level of productivity.’
Furthermore, autonomy can be influenced by how well messages are communicated between employees and supervisors. The interviewee’s supervisor organizes one on one meetings on a monthly basis to discuss the peer’s performance and provide feedback. These personal meetings are often informal and reflect the low power distance between the two parties. On the other hand, the interviewee mentioned that the feedback is often vague and not constructive enough. The Netherlands has an explicit low-context culture, meaning that the ideal communication is precise and simple. When it comes to the British, they are more high-context and tend to speak between the lines. On top of that, while the Dutch are used to receiving direct negative feedback, the British provide negative feedback subtly and usually within positive feedback. Therefore, the chance exists that the supervisor’s feedback is misinterpreted by an employee who has a different cultural background and is not aware of the non-verbal signals or behaviour. This situation may result in misunderstandings and dissatisfaction among both parties, as the employee will not clearly comprehend what is expected from them and the supervisor will not see the desired changes that she asked for.
Possible solutions
The first small “problem” that could be solved is the formal and informal way of dressing and communication. The company could write guidelines about meetings with a dress code and topics to avoid when in cross-cultural situations. The guidelines should not be a way of telling how to dress but advice employees how to respectfully dress for business meetings. To improve even more the company could set up guidelines with cultural preferences for international business meetings with people of different cultures. Top-down management is proven to be inefficient most of the time (Kooten, 2019). Especially in businesses that drive on creativity and employee motivation or input. Ashby’s law of requisite variety states that decision makers or systems should have as much variety as the people that it manages. Without it the organization cannot function efficiently. So top-down management does not listen to employees within the business enough to make it successful and will guarantee miscommunication and a falling of the system. Ways to improve this is by deleting layers between the top and the bottom of the company. This would work with the situational leadership styles of Hersey and Blanchard, that will make sure that the span wide of managers is not exceed. Managers will give employees more room for input and creativity. A clear example where this happened is the reorganization of Vattenfall (Kooten, 2019).
Student Authors
Emmi Fens (LinkedIn)
Student – University of Amsterdam Applied Sciences
Block 2, Semester 1, 2021
Daan Muilwijk (LinkedIn)
Student – University of Amsterdam Applied Sciences
Block 2, Semester 1, 2021
Skylar Watt
Student – Auckland University of Technology
Block 2, Semester 1, 2021
Emilia Matthis (LinkedIn)
Student – Kozminski University
Block 2, Semester 5, 2021