Access to Asia. Waisfisz Bob

26 According to Hofstede's model, the higher the score, the more people within that culture will be uncomfortable with the new, unknown, and surprising. Such cultures deal with that discomfort with strict laws and rules; they also tend to espouse one unassailable truth. For more on this topic, see Chapter 3, pages 45–46. Scores on the uncertainty avoidance dimension range from cultures like Greece and Portugal, which scored 112 and 104 respectively, to Singapore and Jamaica, which scored 8 and 13 respectively.

      The U.S. score on the uncertainty avoidance dimension is 46, which Hofstede describes as the medium to low range, similar to Indonesia (48), the Philippines (44), and India (40). The U.S. score is quite different from that of Japan (92), South Korea (85), Taiwan (69), China (30), and Hong Kong (29). As these data illustrate, there are considerable variations of tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity throughout Asia. To assert that all human beings are “driven to create certainty” is misleading at best.

      Relationships Are Dynamic

       Access to Asia offers you an education in what we're calling the Global Three Rs:

      • Engaging in sufficient research (due diligence) about a culture

      • Showing respect for differences

      • Enhancing relationships through interaction

      Think about the word relationship for a moment. A relationship is a dynamic, involving two or more individuals or things. We cannot determine where we stand in relation to another culture until we have a better handle on ourselves. It is for that reason that this chapter does something few other books do: It holds up a mirror to U.S. culture.

      “A fish discovers its need for water only when it is no longer in it. Our culture is like water to a fish…What one culture may regard as essential – a certain level of material wealth, for example – may not be so vital to other cultures.”

– Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, Riding the Waves of Culture27

      We are often oblivious to what we think, what we value, and what we are motivated by because we take them for granted. We are like the goldfish mentioned in the previous chapter. We don't realize that we're swimming in water until the glass bowl is overturned – a feeling that is analogous to doing business in a new culture.

      Remaining unaware of how we see the world puts us all at a huge disadvantage – like the new recruit who is ignorant of organizational culture, also known as “the way things are done around here.” That's an alienating position to be in until you learn to adapt. But how can you possibly learn what you need to do to develop and maintain meaningful relationships with global clients, customers, and partners?

      This is where the eight questions can help – questions that surfaced after interviewing more than 100 people for this book. These questions speak to many of the dimensions identified by the work of Geert Hofstede, Fons Trompenaars, Michele J. Gelfand, Richard Nisbett, Robert J. House, Peter Dorfman, Mansour Javidan, Paul J. Hanges, Mary F. Sully de Luque,28 and George Simons.29 Think of them as the beginning of holding up a mirror to yourself, with the goal of succeeding in business in Asia.

       1. How Do We Prefer to Act – Individually or as a Group?

      You may already be familiar with the terms individualism and collectivism or communitarianism30 that refer to the tendency for cultures to be oriented toward the self or the group. In individualistic societies like the U.S., U.K., and Canada, for example, decisions are made, contracts are negotiated, and deals are cut for which people consider themselves individually responsible. Business people from collectivist cultures, like those covered among the 10 countries featured in this book, prefer group representation and group negotiations. In most cases, making a decision without group input is to be avoided.

      People in each of these two cultural dimensions have developed different social skills that, although essential to success in one's own culture, are not necessarily understood elsewhere. As Richard Brislin, professor of management and industrial relations at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, advises

      To transcend the distance between self and others, people in individualistic societies have to develop a certain set of social skills. These include public speaking, meeting others quickly and putting them at ease…making a good impression…These skills are not necessary for collectivists. When it comes time for a person to meet unknown others in a larger society, members of the collective act as go-betweens and make introductions, describe the person's accomplishments and abilities, and so forth. In short, individualists have to rely on themselves.... Collectivists have a supportive group that assists in this same goal.31

      If you are wondering what individualism and collectivism have to do with expanding into international business markets and boosting sales in Asia, know that when you sit at the negotiating table with your Asian partners, your conversation should not be about you and your company but about collaboration and working in harmony with them.

Table 2.1 on page 15 shows the Individualism Index from Geert Hofstede's research on cultural differences, including the rankings of the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, and eight of the Asian countries included in this book (Myanmar and The Philippines were not part of the original Hofstede study). In this index, the higher the number, the greater the degree of individualism. Countries positioned lower on this index are more focused on making sure that you will be consensus-seeking and team-focused before they commit to doing business with you long-term.32

Table 2.1 The Individualism Index

       ^* Myanmar does not have a world ranking because it was not included in Hofstede's cultural dimensions work,33 or the GLOBE Studies.34

       ^** This score is from an exploratory study of Myanmar culture by Dr. Charles Rarick,35 which uses Hofstede's value dimensions. Refer to Chapter 10 for more information.

       2. How Are Power and Authority Viewed?

      Many cultures around the globe are ascriptive. In ascriptive cultures, characteristics including class, age, sex, higher education, and religion are considered more important than in achievement-oriented cultures. In some ascriptive cultures, power is held over people. In others, including many of the Asian countries included in this book, power is considered to be participative.

      As Michael DeCaro, former Chief Audit Executive and VP of Finance, Asia Pacific, and Japan, for Dell, explains

      “Western leaders that arrive on the scene and simply announce decisions without getting everyone involved have a much greater likelihood of finding it difficult to achieve their objectives in Asia. For example, in Japan, a position of authority simply allows a leader to take the lead in gaining and developing consensus as to what the ultimate decision will be.”

The differences in perceived inequalities between people in Asian countries are captured by Geert Hofstede's Power Distance (PDI) dimension, reflecting the degree to which a culture is comfortable with power inequalities. The higher the PDI number, the greater the power distance, meaning members of a culture “expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.” For example, the U.S. score of 40 on the PDI in Table 2.2 is relatively low on the PDI, reflecting the belief that ‘all men are created equal.’

28

Robert J. House, et al., Strategic Leadership Across Cultures: GLOBE Study of CEO Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness in 24 Countries (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2013).

29

See: http://diversophy.com.

30

Ibid., 65-85.

31

Richard Brislin, Cross-Cultural Encounters: Face-to-Face Interaction (New York: Pergamon Press, 1981), pp 21-22.

34

Robert J. House, Paul J. Hanges, Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman, and Vipin Gupta, Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2004); Robert J. House, Peter W. Dorfman, Mansour Javidan, Paul J. Hanges, and Mary Sully de Luque, Strategic Leadership Across Cultures: GLOBE Study of CEO Leadership Behavior and Effectiveness in 24 Countries, (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2013).

35

C. Rarick and I. Nickerson, “An Exploratory Study of Myanmar Culture Using Hofstede's Value Dimension” (February 20, 2006), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1114625.