Overview
Communication is key. But how can communication be effective when working with people from other cultures? We interviewed a German professional who works in a Dutch company, providing critical administrative services to international clients. These clients range from small startups to large multinational corporations across various sectors, including the majority of Forbes 100 companies. The company operates globally, ensuring a comprehensive reach and leveraging local expertise for clients from different cultural backgrounds. Mostly, our interviewee works with people from Japan, a culture that exhibits significant differences compared to the interviewee’s primary culture, German, and the culture in their work environment, which is Dutch.
In this essay, these cultural differences and their effects on communication in the work culture are investigated. To illustrate the cultural differences between Germany, Japan, and the Netherlands, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions will be used to showcase examples. This functions as a base to explain behavioural differences, cultural limitations, and misunderstandings which are discussed in the Outcomes. The particular example that we focus on is the usage of CC in email communication. Finally, possible solutions to solve any possible miscommunication are presented.
Hofstede Dimensions
To understand how cultural differences influence the behaviour of people in different societies, it is useful to compare Germany, The Netherlands, and Japan according to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.
Power distance
In Germany, people prefer equality and shared decision-making, as shown by its low power distance score (35) Likewise, the Netherlands scores low (38), strongly favouring participative and decentralised decision-making. Japan scores higher (54), indicating a hierarchical orientation and a willingness to accept hierarchy and unequal power.
Individualism
Regarding individualism, the Netherlands scores the highest (80), indicating a strong emphasis on personal freedom and independence. They highly value individual rights and achievements. Germany follows, scoring 67, which means that Germans also value independence and personal achievements, although not as strongly as the Netherlands. Japan scores the lowest (46), suggesting a more collective mindset, prioritising group harmony and cohesion over individual needs.
Motivation towards achievement and success
Japan scores very high (95) on the scale of motivation towards achievement and success, reflecting a masculine society that highly values competitiveness and assertiveness. Germany also scores high (66), indicating a masculine culture that values being competitive and assertive, but not as strongly as Japan. The Netherlands scores very low (14), which means Dutch society is feminine, preferring modesty, cooperation, and quality of life over competitiveness.
Uncertainty avoidance
Japan scores very high (92) when it comes to uncertainty avoidance, structure, and clear rules to handle uncertainty. Germany also prefers rules and structure, scoring fairly high (65). In contrast, the Netherlands scores lower (53), showing a more relaxed attitude towards uncertainty and being more comfortable with taking risks and adapting to change.
Long term orientation
Japan puts a lot of emphasis on long-term commitments and traditions, scoring the highest (88) on this scale. Germany also values future rewards and perseverance, scoring lower (83) compared to Japan but still showing a significant orientation towards the long term. In contrast, the Netherlands takes a more balanced approach, scoring slightly lower (67) and considering both long-term and short-term perspectives.
Indulgence
In terms of indulgence, the Netherlands stands out as very indulgent, scoring high (68) on this scale. They are open to letting people have fun and indulge in life’s pleasures. In contrast, Germany, takes a more cautious approach, scoring 40. Germans are not as eager to enjoy life as the Dutch and can be described as restrained. Japan, on the other hand, is even more restrained-oriented. With a score of 42, Japanese culture priorities work over leisure and relaxation, showing less focus on indulgence and having fun.
Figure 1: Hofstede’s Dimensions for Germany, the Netherlands, and Japan
Outcome
Navigating diverse cultural landscapes presents its challenges, as evidenced by our interviewee’s experiences. While no significant cultural limitations in the work context were noted by our interviewee, it was highlighted that different cultures influence individuals’ behaviours and communication styles. For instance, our interviewee noted feeling a distinct difference when communicating in English compared to their native language, German. This variance extends to the workplace environment, where clients may feel hesitant to fully express themselves due to language barriers or cultural norms. Such instances of missed communication can hinder the company’s ability to effectively assist its clients, highlighting the importance of the right to fairness in communication, where all parties have the opportunity to express themselves fully and be understood without constraints.
An illustrative application of the right to fairness is demonstrated by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC was established following the signing of the Rome Statute, a treaty that outlines the court’s commitment to preserving and respecting diverse cultures and communities (TCPS Research Institute TV, 2021). One key mechanism the ICC employs to uphold these principles is the use of interpreters. The interpreters facilitate communication by translating the languages of the accused, witnesses, prosecutors, and other participants in legal proceedings. This ensures that all individuals involved can communicate and comprehend the proceedings in their native languages, thereby upholding the right to fairness.
The chosen international language in the interviewee’s organisation is English, which enables communication with clients without interpreters or translators. However, as English is not the native language for a lot of employees and clients, they are not able to express themselves fully. Non-verbal communication can go unnoticed and people cannot fully understand each other, indicating a lack of the right to fairness, and not being fully seen and heard.
Despite recognising this challenge, the company’s protocols could be improved creating a positive knock-on effect. While our interviewee recounted an isolated incident where a colleague provided interpretation for a client preferring their native language, such practices are not standard within the company. The interviewed organisation makes use of software technology to identify employees with cultural backgrounds or skills in the database for specific international projects. Thereby, the organisation makes use of people who are familiar with the primary culture of the respective client and guarantees that they can fully express themselves, ensuring the right of fairness is respected. Nevertheless, there are no dedicated interpreters or translators available to assist.
Cultural limitations also manifest in various cultural dimensions outlined by Hofstede. Firstly, while hierarchies are flat in the Netherlands and Germany, Japanese culture is strictly hierarchical. In Japan, hierarchy based on age and rank is visible in every organisation aspect (Yamamura et al., 2003). One example our interviewee highlighted is email communication. In Japan, a junior executive must always involve superiors in email communication with clients. It is considered prohibitive to send an email to a client without putting supervisors in the CC of the email, so they can transparently follow the conversation and intervene if necessary. In contrast, our interviewee described that their Dutch colleagues find it ridiculous and redundant to be in the CC for every email that is sent between the two parties. In Dutch and German culture, it feels inhibitive for workers to fully follow every step of a client conversation in the CC.
Secondly, the collectivist nature of Japanese culture, exemplified by the saying 出る 釘は打たれる “deru kugi wa utareru” which translates to “the nail that sticks out is getting hammered back in”, emphasises conformity and discourages deviation from societal norms. For instance, it is considered prohibitive to not deliver excellent results for a team project, as this violates the social mores that show respect to your colleagues and focus on the collective good (Yamamura et al., 2003). This includes being available at any time to support your team. For Dutch and German workers it would be inhibitive to cross personal boundaries for the sake of the group, which can be explained by their individualistic nature (Hofstede, 2011).
Thirdly, differences in motivation towards achievement and success, and indulgence between Japan, the Netherlands, and Germany underscore cultural limitations. Our interviewee described how hard work and delivering excellent results are equal to respect in Japanese culture. While respect for diligence is deeply ingrained in Japanese culture, it may lead to perceptions of “workaholism” from a Western perspective (Hofstede, Pederson, et al., 2002, p. 113). In Japanese culture, it would be inhibitive for a worker not to be available for clients or colleagues in free time or on vacation, as our interviewee explained. In contrast, Dutch workers put a high emphasis on work-life balance as reflected by their high score in indulgence. As a result, it would be prohibitive for them to be available for work-related matters in their free time. As a German, our interviewee grew up in a culture of restraint with masculine traits which is comparable to the Japanese culture, however, their descriptions emphasised that Japan exhibits a significantly stronger manifestation of both traits (Hofstede, 2011).
Furthermore, the interview revealed that Japanese workers prefer strict rules and guidelines on how to conduct work, as reflected by their very high uncertainty avoidance score. Even though the Netherlands and Germany feature a slight preference for the need for certainty, the Japanese require stricter plans, agendas, and procedures. It can therefore be inhibitive to Japanese workers if procedures are changed throughout a project (Yamamura et al., 2003). Moreover, our interviewee described how Japanese employees often ask for very detailed information that might seem redundant to Dutch and German workers, however, for the Japanese, this reduces ambiguities and creates a feeling of being prepared for any circumstances.
Finally, all three cultures agree on prioritising long-term over short-term gains, as reflected by their long-term orientation. They exhibit a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results (Hofstede, 2011). In the case of our company, this is reflected by a focus on establishing long-term partnerships and reaching sustainable results for all involved stakeholders.
Possible solutions
To mitigate the challenges posed by cultural differences and enhance communication, several strategies can be implemented.
Firstly, it is essential to establish clear communication protocols that respect cultural differences. For instance, addressing the use of CC in emails explicitly. According to the interviewee, in Japan, younger employees must include their superiors in the CC to show respect, while in the Netherlands and Germany, this practice may be seen as unnecessary; this is in line with each culture’s score in power distance. By discussing and agreeing on communication practices, such as when and whom to include in the CC, potential misunderstandings can be minimised. Thus, when the two sides are in contact, they must ask each other the following: “How do we wish to communicate?” The use of the CC is then, for example, a topic that must be brought up. “Will we use the CC? If yes, who must we put in it, and under what conditions?” Other examples of topics that should be discussed are: who should be contacted and under which circumstances, the periods between meetings, and who can be reached via telephone at which times.
However, when implementing this solution, it is crucial to consider differences in communication styles. Japan exemplifies a high-context culture, where non-verbal communication holds greater significance than verbal communication, and there is an emphasis on maintaining harmony (Weaver, 2013, p. 86). Conversely, low-context cultures like Germany or the Netherlands prioritise verbal communication and often communicate directly (Weaver, 2013, pp. 71-72). When initiating a meeting of this nature, it is important to address these differences. The act of directly discussing communication styles inherently aligns with low-context communication and could feel like imposing a cultural style. To make this discussion more high-context, Weaver suggests ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to voice their opinions (2013, p. 83). This can be achieved by appointing a leader in the meeting who will ensure that all participants have the chance to speak and will designate time for voting on decisions.
Secondly, implementing intercultural training programs can significantly improve understanding and cooperation among employees. These training sessions ostensibly cover cultural norms, communication styles, and expectations, ensuring that employees are better equipped to navigate cross-cultural interactions effectively. It is crucial to encourage cultural awareness and sensitivity, fostering a work environment where employees are encouraged to learn about and respect different cultural norms and practices.
Thirdly, the company should consider retaining interpreters and translators to address language barriers, especially in critical communications with international clients. This would ensure that all parties can express themselves clearly and be fully understood, thereby enhancing the right of fairness in communication. Leveraging technology for better communication is another practical solution. Utilising tools such as translation software can bridge initial language gaps, which still need to be verified by the native speaker, thus ensuring that messages are clear and understood despite the asynchronous communication across different countries and time zones.
Finally, establishing a system for regular feedback and evaluation of communication practices can help identify areas for improvement. This feedback loop ensures that communication strategies remain effective and are continuously refined based on employee and client experiences.
By implementing such solutions, the company can better navigate the complexities of cross-cultural communication, ensuring that all employees and clients can interact effectively and fairly. Miscommunication regardless of language barriers still plays a significant role in any client interaction. However, embracing cultural differences and learning from feedback can foster a more inclusive work environment and drive efficiency for international projects.
We will forward these ideas to the company and gather feedback to see to which extent our solution approaches can be implemented.
Authors
Laura Berger – Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Block 4 Semester 2, Date: June 16, 2024
Noa Balk – Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Block 4, Semester 2, Date: June 16, 2024
Nienke van Asselt – Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Block 4., Semester 2, Date: June 16, 2024
Wessel Thijmen Beekmans – Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Block 4, Semester 2, Date June 16, 2024
Luiza Buczma – Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences
Block 4, Semester 2, Date June 16, 2024