If looked upon from a distance, we can come up with some interesting dimensions along which cultures vary.
High context versus low context: 'tell me more!'
A low context culture is one in which things are fully yet briefly spelled out. These cultures rely on making things explicit. They often refer to what is actually said or written. A high context culture is one in which people assume a great deal of common knowledge and views. A lot less is spelled out. Much more is implicit or transferred in indirect ways. In low context cultures, listening literally is more important. And people have to work harder to stay plugged in to social networks. Examples of low context cultures are Anglos, Germanics and Scandinavians. High context cultures include Japanese, Arabs and French. This difference explains why Japanese find Westerners offensively blunt. Westerners on the other hand can find Japanese to be secretive, dishonest and lacking in sharing information. High context versus low context: 'tell me more!'
Monochronic versus polychronic:'can I have some focus please?'
Monochronic cultures like to do just one thing at a time. They value a certain order, appropriate schedules and a time and place for everything. They do not value interruptions. Polychronic cultures like to do multiple things at the same time. A manager's office in a polychronic culture typically has an open door, a ringing phone and a meeting all going on at the same time. Polychronic cultures include the French and the Americans. The Germans tend to be monochronic. This is why German businessman have difficulties understanding why the person he is meeting is so often interrupted by phone calls. Is it meant to insult him? When do they get down to business? And can you imagine how an American employee in a German company is easily being disturbed by all the closed doors? This may seems very cold and unfriendly to him. I find it difficult to define the Dutch as either monochronic or polychromic. Probably because I notice some pretty big regional differences. This is why these conflicts are very recognisable in a Dutch context.
Future versus past orientation: 'let's make some changes!'
Past-oriented societies are concerned with traditional values and ways of doing things. They tend to be conservative in management and slow to change those things that are linked to the past. Past-oriented societies include China, Britain, Japan and most Spanish-speaking Latin American countries. Present-oriented societies include the rest of the Spanish-speaking Latin American countries. They see the past as passed and the future as uncertain. They prefer short-term benefits. Future-oriented societies have a great deal of optimism about the future. They think they understand it and can shape it through their actions. They view management as a matter of planning, doing and controlling. Don’t go with the flow, rather make things happen! The United States and, increasingly, Brazil, are examples of future-oriented societies. The Dutch are shifting at the moment, from future orientation to past orientation. First of all, this is of course an entrepreneurial risk. Secondly, in a work environment it tends to isolate and shove away valuable future oriented employees.
Quantity of time: 'trust me, we'll manage!'
In some cultures, time is seen as a very limited resource. It's like having only one leaking bucket filled with water, and it’s running down the drain. You have to use it now, or it is wasted. In other cultures, time is more plentiful, sometimes even infinite. In old agricultural societies for example, time was often seen as circular, renewing itself each year. It’s easy to see punctuality becoming an issue. If you find time limited, it’s an insult to waste someone’s time. If you do so, you indicate that you are superior to the other person.
Power distance: 'my manager made some mistakes!'
The dimension of power distance defines the extent to which people accept differences in power. To what extent do we allow this to shape the many aspects of work life? Is the boss always right because he is the boss, or only when he gets it right? In low power countries such as the US and most Northern European countries, bypassing your manager is usually not such a big deal. In high power countries, like most agrarian countries, bypassing a superior would mean insubordination. In the Netherlands, superiors and employees often interact socially as equals. An outsider watching a party of professors and graduate students typically cannot tell them apart. This would be a great recipe for confusion in Spain or Argentina.
Individualism versus collectivism: 'let me take care of this!'
This is a typical difference between Anglo and Asian cultures. In individualist cultures, uniqueness and self-determination are virtues. You are all the more admirable if you make up your own mind, show initiative and work well independently. Collectivist cultures expect people to identify with and work well in groups. In exchange for loyalty and compliance, these groups protect their individual members. But there is an unusual paradox. Individualist cultures tend to believe that there are universal values that should be shared by all. On the other hand collectivist cultures tend to accept that different groups have different values. Change often accelerates faster in individualist cultures. Innovation tasks are typically assigned to only a few people, which are very well equipped for the task. Where American companies take a few weeks to get going, Asian companies might take months. Filipinos just might delegate the work to the entire department. But then everyone changes, to a greater good, whereas the American companies have difficulties to shift up and to motivate their employees. In Dutch companies individualism is only natural. But if we want to get the best out of our Japanese employees, we’d have to change our game. For Dutch career women, Japanese multinationals in Amsterdam might just not the best next career move. If you feel like sticking out to the crowd, don’t expect a super promotion.
