Samenvatting Intercultural Communication in the Business
World
Lecture01 - INTRODUCTION
Lecture02 - IDENTITY—IDENTITIES
Lecture03 - CULTURE—CULTURES
Lecture04 - INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE
Lecture05 - LOOK WHO’S (DOING THE) TALKING
Lecture06 - POWER DISTANCE
Lecture07 - COLLECTIVISM VS. INDIVIDUALISM
Lecture08 - BIOLOGY VS. MENTALITY (MASCULINITY)
Lecture09 - UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE
Lecture10 - NEW DIMENSIONS FOR CULTURAL DIMENSIONS
EXAM QUESTIONS JUNE 2021
Prof D. Vermandere
2020-2021
Colleges (SEM2)
, Lecture01 - INTRODUCTION
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” Shakespeare
- reality is more complex than generally perceived
- we are rather focused and therefore ignore what’s around us
Intercultural interaction is a dynamic moment that is most often defined by the feeling you have “when you
do not know what to do next” while trying to interact with someone else.
- It’s a point in time where you realize that you might have said something wrong
- When there are no stable/clear reference points, when the situation is murky, unclear, and when you
don’t know what could happen next
≠ nationalities, as it is more related to distance and difference
Intercultural interaction / communication is a dynamic move that tries to bridge a certain “distance” that is
felt by a participant in the communication or interaction
- Bridge: presupposes contact between at least two parties one of which feels a certain distance
- Necessary: willingness to find common ground (crucial for IC)
Intercultural vs cross-cultural communication: the prefix debate
- Inter-cultural: inter-action, the meeting space between two people of different cultures (dialogue, e.g.
people of different cultural backgrounds refuse to shake hands)
- Cross-cultural: comparative, rather static (non contact) happening that includes between members of one
cultures - which is then compared to other cultures (e.g. How do Belgian people great one another?)
1.1 Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
Hofstede did cross-cultural research where he compared different countries to one another. It’s a statistical
average of ‘national culture’ as there’s no interaction with other cultures (static approach).
- Comparison of different countries
- Popular among economists (because of mathematic component)
Hofstede is a bad example of intercultural interaction, as it is rather a cross-cultural studies on values.
Other problems:
- The initial surveys are rather old (60’s)
- Problematic framework regarding national cultures, e.g. ‘Belgium’
- Incorrect use of methodology: no reference to the questions of Hofstede but only to the position on
the Index, which is back translated to individuals (“lumping”)
1.2 Intercultural awareness
= being sensitive to intercultural aspects that arise during (intercultural) interaction or communication
Intercultural awareness is a contributing factor to being able to cope with intercultural interactions and
communications. One has to seen what could go wrong/has gone wrong and how to solve it.
Important: there should be a tolerance for ambiguity = what people do requires different
interpretations
,1.2.1 Cultural differences
Cultural differences are the starting point (NOT the end point) of intercultural interaction (bridging distance).
Differences should not be ignored, however, they have their drawbacks:
Example: monkey business illusion
= spotting differences runs the risks of…
- focusing only on spotting things you are able to see
- focusing on differences rather than on similarities
Cultural differences are therefore typical for an external, etic perspective, meaning a cross-cultural
comparison between different peoples, cultures and communities.
But: there are also similarities
- People don’t just wear something, there’s extra to it (color, pattern, layers…)
- People don’t only eat with their fingers, they want an extra layer between their fingers and food
- Hygiene aspect: is clean running water available ?
Meaning: people have different solutions to the same problems
Focusing on similarities implies the internal, emic perspective, which requires adopting the viewpoint from
within (a different group). It’s about understanding why people go about their ways in a different way.
- Presupposes seeing/being aware of differences
- Being culturally aware
- Seeing similarities in differences
- Core values are quite similar across different societies
When dealing with people who share our background and social context, we’re used to see things as we are,
which is why it works well when people share a lot of common ground.
But: people with different backgrounds experience differences and risks of errors
1. leads to more negative feedback (not reacting the way you expected)
2. leads to confirming negative stereotypes of differences
3. leads to less interest in interaction with different people
4. more risk of errors when interactions happen
Conclusion: negative feedback loop (1 leads to 2, 2 to 3…)
Cultural awareness
= knowing how to avoid the negative loop of only seeing differences (avoiding to never being able to bridge
the gap)
Culture, like language, is a tool for enhancing group harmony and identity. Moreover, it distinguishes
between in-groups (who we are friends with) and out-groups (with whom we share little).
- In-group favoritism = people are looking favorably to people from our own in-group
- When they perform well: it’s a personal and group characteristic
- When they perform badly: it’s the environment that ‘made them do it’
Example: when your uncle gets stopped by the police for drunk driving, it’s assumed that he’s going
through a tough time and normally has a good nature
- Out-group = not favoring externals
- When they perform well: it’s the environment that was favorable to them
- When they perform badly: it’s a personal and group characteristic
Example: when they make a good exam, it’s because the exam was easy (not because they studied
well)
,1.2.2 Social identity theory (Henri TAJFEL)
Distinctions between people mostly work out badly for non-group members. Moreover, stereotypes work
differently between…
- In-group members (mostly positively)
- Out-group members (mostly negatively)
—> Daniel Kahneman: system 1 (fast and spontaneous) and system 2 (rational), where system 1 easily
confirms stereotypes
Awareness n°1
= being aware of positive and negative stereotyping done on in-group vs. out-group members
- Have flexible, open, dynamic group memberships
- Insisting on ‘your own specific cultural identity’ is raising the stakes for intercultural interaction
(counterproductive!)
CASE: Volvo & Renault
Both wanted to form a strategic alliance and had been collaborating intensively, but on september 6 in
1993, when the fusion of Volvo and Renault was announced, their partnership almost immediately ended
(one year after).
Why? “The suspicion among the Swedes was that the French fought because of power-seeking
Awareness n°2
= being aware of differences and acting on those differences
BUT: does not necessarily yield positive results
Why? because of lumping and binarism
- Lumping: putting people of out-groups in one group and forming stereotypes
e.g. Person X is late and comes from Spain, “ha! that’s why, in Spain they’re always late”
—> a lot of times, stereotypes exclude other rational explanations (e.g. bus is late)
Therefore, do not assume people behave because of your own preconceptions about their supposed
behavior. Always ask why!
Important: being culturally aware means being able to read the air = taking into account the bigger
picture, different meanings, different intentions and context
When using stereotypes and biases, the likelihood of making errors increases! This is due to…
- Using stereotypes without correcting them
- Taking people for granted on the basis of their out-group association
CASE: South Africa
A teacher is teaching a three week course and has office hours. The first student comes in and
immediately sits down on the chair; afterwards the same happens with the second one, the third one ... My
colleague is a bit upset and thinks it’s quite rude not to wait until you’re invited to sit down - she talks to her
South-African colleague about it
—> students did not want to stay standing up as it is disrespectful being physically higher (in hierarchy)
than the teacher and therefore immediately sat down
= self-reference criterion
,1.3 Surface vs intended behavior
“Facts don’t carry their explanations on their sleeve” Chomsky
= surface behavior is not the same as intended behavior
- Surface behavior = observable acts
- Intended behavior = intention by both parties
1.3.1 Self-reference criterion
= evaluation metric based on ‘self’
= interpreting events from your own usual reference points (habits, culture…)
Problem: attribution error
= attributing intentions to someone who doesn’t have them
e.g. “a waiter waiting very long = bad service = they really dislike foreigners”
Most of the times, it’s about adjusting instead of using the self-reference criterion. Moreover, attribution error
can be avoided by using a pause button.
1.3.2 Taking for granted
= thinking that someone will act in a specific way “because” she/he is “from that culture” =
“culturalising” (using “culture” as an explanation for almost everything)
Lumping = acting as if all people are always behaving alike, as obligatory “representatives” of a
“national” culture (= denying internal differences)
1.4 Culture
CULTURE” : one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language” Williams
Culture has 4 interpretations…
1. “the iceberg”: culture is a massive thing that is for the largest part hidden under the waterline, what we
see (icons, etiquette) is only a small part emerging from the water, most however, is invisible
2. “the onion”: culture is layered, like an onion; you have to peel away different layers in order to get to the
core and the single layers don’t define the onion - it’s the layering itself
3. “glasses”: “we don’t see things as they are - we see them as we are”: culture is framing, looking through
(coloured) lenses towards the world
4. “fish tank”: the fish in its bowl takes its environment for granted more than it reveals, and strangely
enough, what it hides, it hides and doesn’t have to think about what lies outside (“Culture hides most
effectively from its own participants” (Edward T. Hall)
There’s two lines of culture, defined by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (300+ definitions of culture!) and defined by
Hofstede (“Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group
from another”).
1.4.1 Definitions of culture
1. Robert Kohls: Culture is an integrated system of learned behavior patterns that are characteristic of the
members of any given society. Culture refers to the total way of life of a particular group of people. It
includes everything that a group of people thinks, says, does, and makes — its customs, language,
material artifacts, and shared system of attitudes and feelings. Culture is learned and transmitted from
generation to generation
2. Jean-Claude Arteau: “Culture refers to whatever an identifiable group of people shares in order to meet
its basic human needs and maintain its sense of identity”
3. Richerson & Boyd: “Culture is information capable of affecting individual’s behavior that they acquire from
other members of their species through teaching, imitation, and other forms of social transmission”
4. Spencer-Oatey: “Culture is a fuzzy set of basic assumptions and values, orientations to life, beliefs,
policies, procedures and behavioural conventions that are shared by a group of people, and that
, influence (but do not determine) each member’s behaviour and his/her interpretations of the ‘meaning’ of
other people’s behaviour”
5. Edward T. Hall: “Culture hides more than it reveals, and strangely enough, what it hides, it hides most
effectively from its own participants”
6. Clifford Geertz: “Believing... that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has
spun, I take culture to be those webs”
7. David Hachen: “Culture as “social glue”
8. Brian Street: “Culture is a verb”
9. Hinnenkamp: “Culture as adapted in most linguistic sub- disciplines has unfortunately become a passe-
partout notion: whenever there is a need for a global explanation of differences between members of
different speech communities the culture-card is played - the more “distant” in geographic and linguistic
origin, the more “cultural difference!”
1.4.2 Problematic interpretations of culture — EXAM
1. Culture is homogenous —> no, it’s heterogeneous (with different subcultures within one country that
react differently to situations)
2. Culture is holistic —> no, it’s specific (it makes specific claims on behavior, as cultures have specific
ideas on what you can wear, with what car you can drive…)
3. Culture is exclusive —> no, it’s layered (onion culture, people can be part of different -sub-cultures,
doing things differently than other people in the same culture)
4. Culture is etiquette —> no, it’s meaningful (it’s more than rules written in etiquette, as meaning is
attached to rules)
5. Culture is stable —> no, it’s changing (how people interact is changing)
1.4.3 Culture…
- is manifested via different types of regularities, some of which can be more or less explicit than others (cf.
“onion” model);
- is associated with social groups, but not two individuals within a group necessarily share the exact same
number of cultural characteristics;
- culture affects people’s behavior and interpretations of behavior;
- culture is acquired and/or constructed through interaction with others
“Another important fact about cultures is that they are essentially open. Cultures are ideational entities, as
such they are permeable, susceptible from influence from other cultures. Wherever exchange among
humans occurs, the possibility exists of the influence of one culture by another. (Even when such influence
does not occur it is because those in one culture consciously reject the foreign or strange culture: but this
rejection is itself another way the alien culture interjects itself into the home culture). Human history is in part
the story of the ways different cultural groups have rearranged cultural boundaries by expanding contacts,
tolerating outsiders, and fashioning interactive arrangements. Even the creation of stricter boundaries
involves mutual impact. The human world is not composed of a motley of independent, encapsulated, free-
floating cultures; rather it is one of constant interplay and exchange. BRIAN FAY 1996 - Contemporary
philosophy of social science” (Oxford, Blackwell)
1.4.4 Culture as heuristic tool (Scollon & Scollon, 2001)
- the definition(s) of culture allow you to understand how someone views “culture”, in particular as a
PRODUCT or as a PROCESS
- the GOAL of this course is to try to foster the idea that it is more likely a PROCESS than a product
- yet you also have to be able to understand the “product” position held by some
The division between culture as a process and product…
- Process: dynamic, open (something people do)
- Product: static, closed (something people have)
Quote: “culture is roughly everything we do, and monkeys don’t” Raglan
, Lecture02 - IDENTITY—IDENTITIES
Intercultural communication: seeing differences people have, taking them into account and trying to adapt
to the differences
In Hofstede’s framework, individuals belong to nation states and these nation states imprint their citizens
with their very own cultural framework of reference. So, countries are defined as having specific values on
different ‘cultural dimensions’. The citizens of the nation thus have similar values.
Idea: people are identified by their nationally
—> ‘killer identity’ according to Maalouf, as it reduces all options to only your ‘nationality’
- simplistic view of identity
- cannot be correct: nationality is rather an administrative notion
- what happens with double nationality?
The intercultural field (and cross-cultural one- thrives on notions like:
- cultural identity: intended as a specific, fixed cultural passport for the individual
- national culture: a general, stable, and unifying cultural ‘passport’ for the nation AND the individual that is
a member of that nation
—> national cultural identity
However, there’s more identities…: ethic, social, personal, gender… identity
2.1 Identity
The twenty statements test (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954) analyses how people view their identity by saying:
“There are twenty numbered blanks on the page below. Please write twenty answers to the simple
question ‘Who am I?’ in the blanks. Just give twenty different answers to this question. Answer as if
you were giving the answers to yourself, not to somebody else.”
The results are…
- people give different answers
- census data: date of birth, place of birth…
- private data: deep emotions
- I-self (way I see myself) and me-self (the way others see me) — not always a match
“Personal identity” => intended as “the identity of a private person” has both individual and communal traits
- Front-stage = ‘arena’, what is known to yourself and to others
- Back-stage = ‘façade’, what is known only to you
Johari window = detecting different types of personal information
e.g. façade rule: not wearing religious signs in public companies/
functions, regardless of who that person really is (it’s more about the
service)
Therefore, façade can sometimes be forced by authorities, as
individual “neutrality” is enforced via a façade ruling (the individual
has to hide his/her religious convictions)
,2.1.1 Definitions of personal identity
a. The sameness of a person or thing at all times or in all circumstances; the condition of being a single
individual; the fact that a person or thing is itself and not something else; individuality, personality.
b. Who or what a person or thing is; a distinct impression of a single person or thing presented to or
perceived by others; a set of characteristics or a description that distinguishes a person or thing from
others.
Both definitions are a rigid characterization of personal identity
- “sameness at all times and in all circumstances” is problematic as it is too strict
- Ageing means evolution, acquiring new skills, attitudes, mental development…
- Can also imply physical changes (e.g. losing limbs changes the identity)
- “differentiation” from others is also not that strict: your personal identity does not have to be 100%
different from that of your neighbour
Hofstede’s theoretical assumptions are not in line with…
- current thinking about identity: identity is not as deterministic as thought
- current thinking about culture: identity is really not so uniform
Hofstede’s use of “national cultural identity” is leading to a very inflexible notion of group identity in which “the
individual” has disappeared in favor of a “statistical average”.
Important: ‘sameness at all times’ is therefore not good, but it’s more about continuity
Exception: census data, which define a person, remain more or less constant, e.g. date of birth,
place of birth, name of mother and father, name of grandparents…
—> more an objective criterion of distinction rather than ‘identity’
2.1.2 Personal identity is layered
a. Census definition: rather fixed and rigid (exception: gender and legal/social/biological parents)
b. Psychological description of who you are (subject to change/disease/life changes)
The psychological description is not always stable and fixed, as it has multiple components:
- Temper or character: how one reacts to situations, which is possibly genetic (e.g. fight-flight-freeze
response in danger situations)
- Habits: what you generally do and how you like that, which is part of socialization and self-regulation
(e.g. not liking coffee the first time you drink it, but now drinking it everyday)
- Values: what you consider important, and is part of socialization
Values therefore are not simply ‘values’ (as described in Hofstede’s work through the Onion model), but
more: desires, goals, aims, motives, needs, traits, aversions, tastes, interests, likes, attractions, dispositions,
attitudes, preferences, sentiments…
—> psychological constructs may reinforce, contradict, or be of direct influence in specific situations
In Hofstede’s work, values are more about practices. In his definition of culture, he refers to values being part
of our individual identity.
2.1.3 Continuity
Continuity between different stages in life is a social construction, and continuity is not ‘real’ as far as
personality goes, as people grow up, hold different opinions, aims, opinions… Therefore, continuity is more
about identification.
Identification = how you identify yourself with regards to earlier stages of self
—> doesn’t matter if they were ‘different’, once you identify (positively or negatively) with these
stages, you relate them to your current self
,Identification processes are social actions…
a. Personal identity: people explicitly deny or refer to former stages of their selves
b. Social identity: people also explicitly relate themselves to others/groups (it requires identification by
others as well)
Identification with…
- stages of self (generally past / also future)
- the social identity
- that wants to be part of a group
- that needs acceptance by that same group (who identifies the person as a valid member)
2.2 Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1981)
The Social Identity Theory refers to a personal identity and a social identity being on a continuum. It’s about
identification of ‘social identity’.
Social identity = identification with (a) group(s)
—> “no man is an island” according to Tajfel, indicating social identity is inherently part of your
identity
Social identification is the process into a group and by that very same group creates:
a. In-group favoritism: positive, as it’s a sense of belonging
b. Out-group homogeneity: negative, refers to stereotypes / bias / prejudice
In-group favoritism
- in-group relationships will be met with favor and will be preferred
- information about in-group members is generally very detailed and complex
- seeing them as “persons | individuals” you can relate to
Out-group homogeneity
- out-groups can be met with overt hostility, or coldly disregarded (cf. “caste system”), or worse
- members of out-groups are considered as representatives of their out-groups and not as individuals with
their own ideas…
CASE: Sectarian violence (out-group phenomenon)
cf. Rwanda 1994 genocide between Hutu and Tutsi
Neighbours of both tribal affiliations who had been living next to one another without any problems are
suddenly seen to be killing one another without second thoughts
Out-group homogeneity is problematic…
- in the out-groups hardly anyone ever asks what their specific background is (Nigerian, Hmong,
Vietnam, Cuban, Mexican, Chinese, Congolese, Kenian..): they are “Asians”, “Africans”, Latinos
- in the in-groups: people know very well what their backgrounds are => Latinos split up into smaller in-
groups according to their local background, idem for Asians, …
The difference between out- and in-group is problematic as it leads to…
1. Binarism: one can only belong to one group (either someone’s in-group or not)
2. Lumping: saying everyone out the out-group is the same (“Belgians are all the same”)
Both binarism and lumping lead to stereotypes: they generalize to all/nothing situations (binarism) and they
generalize to all members (lumping)
- Binarism: leads to oversimplification as there’s only two options
- Lumping leads to overgeneralization, as if every individual can always be reduced to a bigger group
, EXAMPLE binarism and lumping
It is often said that Belgium is not a country, but a compromise. Belgium was created in 1830 when the
Catholic provinces of the Low. Countries that had achieved independence from Spain in the seventeenth
century broke away from the Calvinist north. Basically Belgium is two nations—a Flemish-speaking one in
the north and a French-speaking one in the south. The two groups do not like each other, particularly
since the balance of power is currently passing from the formerly mine-rich French speakers (Walloons) to
the nouveaux riches and numerically superior Flemish, who are developing the hinterland of Antwerp,
Europe’s second largest port. To complicate matters further, the city of Brussels is a predominantly
French-speaking enclave in Flanders, and a German-speaking minority lives along the German border. In
Brussels rival linguistic groups occasionally take down street signs in the offending language in the
middle of the night. Political compromise has been reached by the appointment of three prime ministers
—Walloon, Flemish and Belgian. Parochial squabbles are numerous, but bad tempers rarely escalate into
violence.
= a bad example of how to pin someone down on their identity
2.3 Identities as a plural
Classification of individual identity:
Identities, whether ethnic, cultural, social,
personal… are open and changing.
- Subjective: I-self
- Objective: me-self
Moreover, they play at different levels/layers.
Types of identities:
- Ethnic identity = the level of ‘ethnic’ heritage (e.g. Slavic, Asian, Hispanic, Arab…)
- Has typical physical traits and characteristics and cultural expectations
- Is generally used in a fixed way
- National identity = the level of official, formal and explicit international identification (e.g. Belgian,
Moroccan, Australian…)
- Is related to administrative recognition (‘passport’, right of abode = being able to come back to a country
at all times when you have a passport that allows entering your own country…)
- Cultural identity = the level of cultural praxis and social
- Can be chosen freely
- Does not have to match ethnicity or nationally (e.g. Korean girl adopted into a Belgian family will be
considered to have Asian ethnicity, but has mixed cultural identity - or not)
Cultural / social / personal identities are “open” social constructions people arrive at via interaction
(“socialisation”) with others whom they identify with (“in-group”), with other whom they distance themselves
from (“out-group”).
Important: the identification + distinction is part and parcel of social interaction and categorization (it
is inevitable) BUT not necessarily only positive
Essentialism: whatever identification is used, it’s going to define what you are
(about ‘attitudes’)
e.g. national identity = Belgian, it defines everything
e.g. gender debate : male or female used as categories
Essentialism = reducing all possible options to only one interpretation
