Chapter 12

CROSS-CULTURAL SENSITIVITY

(Source: Chapter 12. – “Bilateral Diplomacy” by Kishan Rana)

Practical diplomacy involves dealing with countries that represent varied cultures. Multiplication of constituencies in the foreign partner state adds to the diversity.

Why Cross-Culture Skills?

The cultural diversity issue is posed for the diplomat more sharply than before on account of some new elements. First, the breadth of diversities is far greater than what confronted the earlier generations of professionals, in a global community of some 189 UN member-states. Second, we live in an age when diversity is celebrated, and burnished with pride more than ever earlier. Third, within countries, there are sub-state diversities that have gained new impetus around the world, and this adds to the cultural management challenge. We see this in differences, between regions, communities and religious and ethnic groups. For instance, the same Europe that is witness to the world’s most intensive political unification process via the EU, now enjoys greater diversity at subsidiary levels. Fourth, the professional diplomat is less homogenous in background and training, and his/her values are no longer cast in the same template as could be assumed even a few decades in the past. Further, this diplomat has dealings with a far wider range of government officials and those outside the government, especially the civil society representatives, academia, and other constituencies, at home and aboard. Taken together, all these elements constitute a strong cross-culture management challenge.

The prerequisite to cultivating cross-cultural skill is to develop an understanding of the other culture, through a study of its history, its value system, and all the other specific factors that identify and differentiate it. Regardless of pride in one’s own heritage, notions of superiority and rejection of the other have to be put aside. This is much harder to actually practice, than to accept it intellectually. Genuine curiosity and a desire to learn is a good guide to moving to the higher plane of cross-cultural understanding. The principle to absorb should be that different societies and peoples have evolved their own distinct qualities that are neither superior nor inferior to other ones. Diversity is what human society as a whole celebrates, and the factors of commonality are more profound than surface differences.[1]

Opinion is divided on whether it is worthwhile to categorize different cultures, in order to train diplomats. This has the danger of creating and reinforcing concepts of “stereotypes”, and a false impression that another culture is identifiable by rigidly categorized behavior or value systems that are common to all. In reality, there are a huge number of variations and many individuals and groups that differ radically from notional stereotypes. Indeed, one of the tasks of diplomacy is to convince others to view one’s own nation beyond simple stereotypes. Therefore entrenching new standardized, rigid images is counterproductive.

Another perspective can be taken. As long as caution is exercised, cultural categorization is a useful tool for analysis, and is not intended for classification into absolute categories. It offers a first basis for approach, one that is replaced with the experience one accumulates over time, which enables one to move beyond the stereotypes. This analytical method is a tool for learning, which gives an insight into the kinds of differences that are encountered, and the adjustments one has to make to deal with cross-cultural situations.

Lewis Classification

In his book When Cultures Collide: Managing Successfully Across Cultures, Richard D Lewis has divided cultural characteristics in three broad types, to argue that different nations and their peoples exhibit these traits in varying degrees. The categories are titled “linear-active”, “multi-active” and “reactive”. I personally find the last term reflecting a bit of inadvertent cultural bias, and prefer instead the word “autonomous”. Some countries are identified as the exemplars that exhibit the most extreme symptoms of the three cultural types. If we adhere to the Lewis classification, some of the typical traits in each group are:

LINEAR ACTIVE	MULTI-ACTIVE	REACTIVE (or “autonomous”)

introvert	Extrovert	introvert
patient	Impatient	patient
quiet, speaks to the point	Talkative	silent, good listener
likes privacy	Gregarious	says little
plans ahead methodically	plans grand design, impatient with detail	looks at general principle, masters detail
does one thing at a time	several things at once	reacts
works fixed hours, appointments need notice	works any hours, will receive at short notice	flexible, much prefers systematic method
dominated by timetable & schedules	timetable unpredictable	reacts to partner’s timetable
compartmentalizes projects	lets one project influence another	sees whole picture
sticks to facts	juggles facts	statements are promises
job-oriented	people-oriented	people-oriented
accepts favors reluctantly	seeks favors	protects face of other
follows procedures	pulls strings	inscrutable, calm
completes action chain	completes human transaction	reacts to partner
uses memoranda	rarely writes memos	plans slowly
dislikes losing face	makes excuses	must not lose face
rarely interrupts	interrupts frequently	does not interrupt
separates personal & professional	interweaves personal & professional	connects social & professional
limited body language	unrestricted body language	subtle body language
mastery over procedures, “devil is in the detail” mindset	excellent at human relations, cross-cultural skills	keen understanding of systems, looks to the grand scene
easily upset over the unexpected	handles “chaos” well	accommodates the unexpected
principle more important than context	will bend principle to context	seeks to harmonize principle to context

Abridged and modified from When Cultures Collide, p. 41, fig. 7.

Lewis asserts that different countries exhibit these three kinds of characteristics in varying degrees. The ones who reflect the Linear-Active traits in the most acute form are the Germans, the Austrians and the Swiss, while arch-examples of the Multi-Active type are Italians, Latin Americans, Arabs, Africans, Indians and Pakistanis. This latter group is too wide a cluster, and much clearer differentiation is required. Research into unraveling the distinctions that actually exist among Africans, Arabs, and Latin Americans is obviously insufficient. The Japanese, and to a lesser degree the Chinese, are held to be typical of the Reactive kind.[2]

Some would find the Lewis method to be too broad in its’ categorization, and over-simplified. Other disadvantages:

q Surely not everyone that belongs to a particular culture exhibits the attributed traits.

q It can lead one to make erroneous assumptions, if it is used as a rigid guide.

q Identification of “country” stereotypes ignores the national sub-groups within a state, as also difference along other ethnic, religious or linguistic sub-categories.

But if used with caution, such classification also offers advantages. These are:

a) We can use it as an initial device for identification of the traits that are likely to emerge in cross-cultural encounters, as flags or warning signs to look out for, without relying on it either excessively, or exclusively.

b) One can plot along a scale or graph the typical blend of characteristics encountered at each cross-cultural encounter, as a kind of personal or practical guide.

c) As one builds up one’s own knowledge based on experience, it becomes easier to identify those interlocutors that fit into the stereotype and those who do not. This enriches one’s insight and perception.

At seminars with business representatives I have used the Lewis classification on several occasions, on the premise that Germans tend to exhibit many of the listed characteristics of the Linear-Actives and that Indians show most of the traits listed against the Multi-Actives.[3] This approach has met with general agreement, though some observers have found it to convey implied criticism, and a bit disturbing in its directness. The method is useful in cross-culture training for businessmen, helping them with initial orientation, and sensitizing them to become observant.

Examples

The complexity of cultural attributes can be illustrated with some examples. When I reached Algeria in 1975, I was told that the cultural style of the officials of that country was one of dourness, rigidity and relative insularity — all traceable to the terrible war of liberation that the country had waged against French colonialism from 1954 to 1962, with an estimated half to one million of the ten million population of the time killed, and another three million displaced as internal refugees. This made Algerian officials and others secretive and uncommunicative — a complete contrast to the gregarious Egyptians and other Arab national types. The Director of the Asia Division in the Foreign Ministry (who later became a good friend) advised that I should understand this and adjust my expectations accordingly. A wise British Ambassador conveyed further insight (during one of the many customary courtesy calls I paid on various diplomatic colleagues), that the Algerians would typically observe a foreign envoy for a couple of years before they made up their mind if he or she could be trusted. If they decided favorably, all kinds of doors would then open up, and the same officials who had been inscrutable or difficult earlier would become communicative. This was precisely what happened, and the relationships eventually established with Algerians became highly productive, as well as personally rewarding.[4] The point this illustrated was not that the general perception regarding Algerian stereotypes was wrong, but that it dealt with surface characteristics, and overlooked the deeper attributes.[5]

The lesson offered is that there are different layers of cultural behavior that have to be discerned. We all deal with the surface, but the diplomat is concerned even more with the underlying elements. He needs to peel back the layers, in the task of building sustained contacts across cultures.

Even an outwardly homogenous society, dominated by one single ethnic and linguistic heritage, like Germany, presents different cultural sub-categories, each with subtle differences in behavior. The Bavarian of the South is quite different from the Ost Fresian of the North, and both differ again from the Prussian type that may be found in the Berlin region. Naturally, individuals will differ in terms of their own distinctive behavior, but the regional types offer some clues on “typical” mindsets.

Take a country like India with an extreme, layered and pluri-form of diversity.[6] If a foreign businessman comes and seeks to understand the kind of behavior and value systems he will encounter in the country, the first question confronting is the region where his potential partners are located and the “community” to which they belong. (There is no easy definition of the word community as it is used here; it relates to the distinctive caste sub-grouping, of which there are many hundreds in the country. A score or more of them are very prominent in business, like the “Marwaris” of Rajasthan, originally traders who moved throughout the country some centuries back leaving their famine-ravaged land, and set up trading and later manufacturing business. They account for some 30% of total business in the country. Another community prominent in business is the Chettiyars of south India. While some of the value systems of the two are similar, in other ways they are as different as chalk and cheese. But despite these differences we can speak of some more-or-less-common Indian business characteristics.

It is through examples that cross-cultural behavior is perceived and understanding inculcated. It is useful to make a record one’s own cross-cultural observations.

Practical Application

We use a category-based analysis (like the Lewis method) in order to sharpen skills of observation and technique of handling cross-cultural interactions. The following elements are important in practical application of the theoretical concepts.

a) One should first develop an objective understanding of one’s own culture, looking to history and the source of different traits, plus comparative strengths and weaknesses. This will build a foundation for cross-cultural understanding.

b) To be adept at cultural understanding does not mean that one should adopt the cultural style of others, or abandon one’s own cultural characteristics. The aim is to reduce the distance from the “other”, and to gain insight, (using the term in the sociological sense of a cultural entity that is used deliberately or unconsciously as a contrast to one’s own.)

c) No one can be a master of all knowledge or a practitioner of cultural styles of even of the countries in a particular region. Looking at the problem in terms of detailed knowledge, in any case, is the wrong method. The better method lies in the attitude of mind with which we approach diversity; an objective analysis of foreign traits helps to accept differences, and develop understanding.

d) One professional hazard for those who live implanted in foreign lands (diplomats, businessmen or others), is the lapse into an “us” and “them” mindset, which becomes especially acute in situations of adverse bilateral relationships, or at locations where negative factors are predominant. This also happens when closed societies are encountered (like in the communist countries before the end of the Cold War), where local contacts are severely restricted. Diplomats – and foreign journalists and businessmen – stationed there fall back on intensive interchanges among themselves. For example, this happened to diplomats posted in China before the gradual opening up there after 1979; in the earlier time contacts with locals were non-existent, and the foreign community in Beijing functioned like a closed enclave.[7] The same can happen at other locations where physical hardship or insecurity is acute.

e) There is a reverse risk, of “localitis” or an excessive solicitude for the foreign country and culture, among diplomats who have been at a post for too long a time.[8] It is essential to have empathy for the host country; indeed a basic diplomatic duty is to dispassionately represent the viewpoint of the host country to the home government. But carrying it to excess is a danger. Cross-cultural understanding should not degenerate into aping the foreigner.[9]

f) Language is closely connected with culture. Learning a foreign language involves imbibing much of the culture, in a natural fashion. This is one more reason for diplomats to develop language skills. No individual can master the language at each country of assignment, but the diplomatic service as a whole should be able to offer language competence, at various levels of seniority, covering all the countries and regions that are of importance in external relations.

g) At negotiations, having officials who speak the language of the partner is of enormous value. But even when one has mastered the foreign language exceptionally well, it is wise to negotiate in one’s own primary language, not only for reasons of convenience to the entire home delegation. There is usually a subtle change in one’s personality that is projected via a foreign language, and it is better to be true to oneself in one’s own language. This danger is especially acute with “hard” languages like Arabic, Chinese or Japanese.

Cultural understanding is linked with other professional abilities, including receptivity to non-verbal signals, many of which are culture specific. The development of one skill reinforces the other abilities (see the following chapter).

Traditional diplomacy presupposed communication ability as a fundamental skill that was honed through practice. Today, the addition of many layers of diversity in international contacts demands explicit training in this area. But as always, the practitioner must integrate theory with actual practice, and continually adapt his learning on the basis of experience.

Bibliography

1. Lewis, Richard D, When Cultures Collide: Managing Successfully Across Cultures (Nicholas Brealey, London, 1993).

2. Ulrich, Karl, Chaudhry, RS, and Rana, Kishan S, Managing Corporate Culture (Macmillan, New Delhi, 2000).

Questions:

1. Do you think that cross-cultural studies are useful in diplomacy? Please offer some examples of your own if possible.

2. Where would you place your own country on the Lewis classification? And how would you place France and Russia in terms of the characteristics?

3. Please give three examples of your own that show different cultural traits in a single country.

4. Please give an example of non-verbal signals that can be received better through good cross-cultural abilities.