Transnational Firms - Implications for Corporate Intercultural Consultants,
François Knuchel, 1993 (printed in Ibuka Communication News, SIETAR-Japan Bulletin, 1994)
Trends in management theory talk of notions of 're-engineering' companies, creating 'network' organisations, 'learning organisations', 're-engineering and so on. These principles are concerned with (re-)organising work and operations more efficiently at a domestic level. Some aspects of these ideas are also present in the concept that Professor K. Hayashi recently presented to us on 'transnational organisations', but addressing the international dimension. While the 'transnational' model is theoretical, many Western companies, especially in Europe, are using it as a guideline for future directions. One of the key features of the 'transnational organisation' is that it capitalises on the cultural diversity that so far have been viewed as barriers in business. Rather than viewing culture as a soft issue to be ignored, an impediment to be overcome through central controls, or as something to adapt to without integration, the 'transnational model tries to exploit cultural differences and create new synergies from them which are stronger and internationally compatible, in order to gain competitive advantage.
There are potential pitfalls in relying on such conepts: For instance, the model should not be rergarded as a static end in itself, but rather as a dynamic process - thus there is nothing wrong if what comes out ends up looking different from the original blueprint. Some might suspect that the transnational notion is another management export from America or Europe - if a European headquarters tells its Japanese branch it must follow this pattern, without working out how it is going to work out in practice, as I have observed in one case, then it is dictated from above, without consensus and it represents the same old way dressed up under a new management fashion. There is some doubt about the practicality of the model, since it is based on an ideal world with free markets and a perfect environment. Nevertheless it seems to me that one aspect that is different from previous international models is that is recognises cultural differences and views that in a positive light, focussing on their complementarity. In the current fragmented world of conflict, as an interculturalist, I find this an enlightening sign.
As a corporate intercultural practitioner, however, I also need to ask myself what the model means for our professional activities: Do interculturalists continue to do what they have been doing so far, or will the trend, if indeed it is more than a fad, imply a redefining of the profession itself (if, indeed, it was ever defined)? In the following I would like to explore some potential practical implications 'transnationalism' may have for corporate interculturalists in their work. Bearing in mind the current trend of large international firms down-sizing and splitting into independent profit and loss centres, I think we need to consider 'transnationalism' in a broader perspective embracing global alliances, mergers and cross-company networks which are dispersed but integrated, and not purely in terms of a variant of the old multinational giant. The implications I present here are not based any any specific research, but are purely ideas I have been toying around with, and I hope by thinking out load I can generate some discussion among other practitioners in Japan.
SOME IMPLICATIONS:
Since on of the key features of the 'transnational' organisation is its international networking ability, multi-laterally over many different cultures (rather than reporting to and from one centre as in traditional models), transnationalism assumes that its players will be capable of actively communicating in different directions and of assimilating various cultures simultaneously to create 'synergies' more powerful that what any one element could achieve alone. While newer computer software programs will undoubtedly play an important role in enabling this, as interculturalists we need to look at what this all signifies for the human beings involved in this transnational dance.
One ramification, as Professor Ohta presented to us a few weeks ago, is in the need to train Japanese to function more effectively in low-context environments. This includes the ability to articulate unconscious aspects of one's high-context culture in a low-contextually comprehensible way. As Ohto-Sensei pointed out, this goes a long way beyond pure language skills, since people have to go through an agonising process of bringing to awareness what those subconscious values and patterns are and how they affect us. While a process consulting approach may be suitable for people with extra-cultural experience, the main difficulty remains for those without actual experience (the famous 'how do you explain water to the fish who has never been out of it dilemna); in this case awareness building techniques, such as perception tasks or simulations, are necessary to create experienced contrasts, and thus gradually lead to articulation skills.
Since cross-cultural encounters are by nature low-context, it is argued that low-context cultures are at an advanctage, since they already possess, by definition, those articulation skills and are used to spelling everything out and working on a digital what you say is what you mean platform. While this may be true to a certain degree, I would argue that low-context cultures also need to learn how to operate in high contexts. This is because high-context itself is not created purely out of history, tradition, customs and so on, but also by the very way people operate and relate to each other. In the 'Japanese' open space office, for instance, there is a tremendous amount of information which is 'just there', not intended for anyone in particular, but just there 'floating in the air', so to speak; anybody in the office thus has 'access to it', whether (s)he needs it or not; most of it is absorbed naturally on a sub-conscious level. Nonetheless this phenomenon also creates, or is, context. Anyone 'swimming in it' is always 'in the know'. Most people from low-context cultures, however, even if they work in this open kind of environment, do not seem able to access this or plug into it, probably because of the monochronistic approach where they can only do one thing at a time. Low-context cultures would hence need to learn to operate poly-chronistically in the 'floating air of information' of high-context cultures for a true (multi-lateral) synergy of cultures and meeting of minds to be possible.
I am still not sure what the most effective way is to help low-context people operate in high-contexts, but it seems to me the conventional Western cybernetic model of communication with Sender, Receiver and Feedback loop is inadequate for this. It cannot explain the 'floating air of information'. This basic assumption behind the model is that all communication has a one-directional purpose going from a source in coded form to a destination, normally in order to acheive something (information or request) at the destination end. Accordingly, if there is not purpose, there is no need to communicate ('time is money'). In the 1950's some people argued against this highly functional model of communication, preferring, for instance, to define communication more in terms of expression that just exists, ethetically, as in art, architecture or music (ironically many Westerners do work with music, or muzak, in the air). Unfortunately these voices have largely not been heard since, and the functional view of communication dominates, at least in the West. Both models are 'true' in a complementary sense. Interculturally high-contexted cultures need to learn the more linear digital mode of interaction, while low-context people need to gain skills inn functioning 'without purpose' in the more circular holistic analogue mode. I will come back to this point later when I look at the implications for corporate language training.
Going beyond the low/high-context issue, other implications for corporate interculturalists include counselling and training conflict resolution and team-building skills which are applicable to multi-channel multi-cultural networks with various world centres. While in some instances this is already taking place, to a large degree intercultural consultants are only called in (if at all) after problems have arisen, which is very unfortunate. Consequently I suspect a lot more money is wasted correcting intercultural problems than what would otherwise had been the case if the problems had been prevented from arising in the first place. A more preventative approach is this required: 'TPI - Total Preventative Interculturalism'? (One taks interculturalists may need to perform, possibly through SIETAR, is to prepare documentation to inform people of the virtues of a preventative approach to intercultural conflict resolution, and more positively, transcultural synergy building). A related area for the interculturalist is his/her role as a facilitator of understanding; not consultant or advisor, but facilitator helping people help themselves. Approaches in learning strategies, process counselling and action learning are useful here.
While many companies are now striving to create cross-cultural synergies through policies such as making their boards more international, planning information exchange meetings, building multi-national work teams, increasing 'foreigner' at head office, and generally rotating staff around the world across different cultures, such activities in themselves are unlikely to bring the hoped for results, because people do not synergize simply by putting them together. They not necessarily gel. Instead what you get is just people somehow co-exisiting. What is really required is to fully exploit the potential energy (where the total is more than the sum of it parts, to use the cliche) that comes from complementarity. Funnily, most people seem to understand this in sex, but I do not see so much of it happening in business or international trade. In order for synergy to happen more active efforts are required: cross-cultural parties need to make implicit (cultural) knowledge explicit (e.g. high to low context), agree on the outcome and process of their interaction, understand why each culture does things in the way it does, agree on joint approaches to reach the outcome, and then, after implementation, constantly review the situation much in a Deming Circle kind of way. Increasingly, interculturalists will need to assist such processes to promote synergy-enabling skills.
In this context corporate business language training will need to make some shifts in focus. In the last ten years or so corporate language training has been largely functional, building around communicative business skills (e.g. language and communications skills for telephoning, making and replying to requiests, describing processes, presenting graphs, preparing an agenda, directing a meeting etc.). Based on what I said earlier about the inadequacy of the linear communication model, however, it is possible that such a functional skills approach is flawed, while pragmatic, because it views communication and business interaction in a purely linear or digital fashion, and does not take synergy-enabling skills into account. In order to maintain the parity required for true synergy to take place, Japanese businessmen would also need to learn to communicate in foreign languages in their natural high-context style, and not just be drilled in an alien language behaviour. Conversely other cultures need to learn foreign languages in both digital and analogue mode. As far as I know, no research has been done in this aspect of language acquisition, despite the numerous methodologies available, but it may justify the Japanese generalist's propensity, driven intuitively, to 'eikawa'.
Traditional business language training skills therefore need to be reviewed in light of intercultural understanding. Corporate language training for meetings, for instance, normally focusses on skills such as debating, i.e. presenting one's argument rationally, argumentatively, time-efficiently and assertively in order to make decisions on the spot based on the most logical idea. This contrasts sharply with other cultural styles where the weight may be more on harmony, rapport, formality, pecking order, seniority, face-saving, creativity, brain-storming and consensus-building etc.. The language used or needed in meetings depends largely on the style used. Consequently, by 'drilling' people in linear presentation skills, one may inadvertently be preaching just one (Anglo-Saxon) approach to business, which could actually inhibit, in the long run, the potential for synergy, since it assumes that one approach is the right or universal one. Similarly in business negotiating language, although there has been a shift from the old beat-your-adversary style to the current win-win style, the language taught is still based largely on a linear or digital view. In order to rectify this situation, applied linguistic research will need to take a much more intercultural perspective.
In an ideal world all businessmen involved in the transnational network dance would be interculturally trained and proficient in different languages. In practice this is financially and physically not feasible; and yet companies cannot rely on linguistically rathe than technically competent people to run their businesses either. There will thus always be a need for 'assistants', like interpreters and translators. While thee are many computer projects underway trying to develop translation machines, these can only work in highly mechanical contexts where human judgment and values play no role. Humans will always be required to deal with the human aspect. So far, however, most 'assistant's have largely been language-based, i.e. interpreters or translators, who are charged with translating what was said verbatim, but not with explaining the cultural context to also make it meaningful. What is therefore required is a new kind of professional: in addition to the language interpreter we need the 'cultural interpreter', whose main job is to try to clarify the context of what (and why) is being said. Since the language side is already pretty well defined, this means developing 'cultural interpreter' training schools for future professionals, and also short courses for those poor bilinguals in companies who are always called upon to help because of their language skills.
Finally, corporate interculturalists may need to become more involved at a management level in the future. This may mean consulting top management on different ways of looking at organisational processes and structures. Whereas so far most Western management activities have centred around functions or concepts (production, R&D, marketing, finance, strategy etc.), the people involved in these are often neglected. Consequently concepts like intercultural skills have largely been regarded as soft skills, a fringe benefit or luxury, not a necessity. However with increased transnationalisation, people will be the key resources to enable complementarity and synergy. Corporate interculturalists will thus need to become actively involved as specialists in management itself, much like financiers,lawyers, marketeers and engineers are involved as specialists. This is not only to enforce the proper policies to enable synergy, but also so that corporate needs feed back to the general intecultural profession as a whole, and thus directs research where it is most necessary and relevant. For this, however, interculturalists will need to develop 'management' skills, so that the can cope as managers. In transnational networks interculturalists may in some respects be better suited to function as 'coordinators' (facilitators rather than central controllers), but they will need the necessary other skills (technical, financial etc.) to do this. While business managers may well need to take a 'softer' intercultural approach, I think interculturalists will also need to take a 'harder' management view with an understanding of what it takes to run a business. Somewhere the two might converge.
CONCLUSION:
Transnationalism may imply a variety of shifts to the focus in the professional activities of corporate interculturalists. This may include a stronger involvement in management and in business decision-making. The key point here, however, is that for this to happen, interculturalists will need to learn management, financial and other business-related tools and skills. If corporate interculturalists want to show management how important intercultural issues are in business, they will also have to become a bit more business-oriented themselves, assuming business as a whole will 'transnationalise'. So far the most succesful area of globalisation has been finance-oriented, probably because finance deals in figures, the only Esperando language of the world. If businesses transnationalise, there will be an increased need for corporate interculturalists, though at the same time a redefinition of the 'profession'. If business takes a different direction and Babylonia falls, on the other hand, the world may see a deglobalisation process, and interculturalists will no longer be required.
Interestingly enough, similar concerns seems to be going on within SIETAR-International: So far SIETAR-International has been truly 'international', i.e. with a centralised mission and global controls: exporting internationalism from the US. Thanks to various local groups, especially in Europe, there has recently been a move to a more multi-national approach, i.e. with decentralised, independent units; but with the potential danger of lack of coordination between them. The most current model consists of decentralised units, but with a central coordinating information Secretariat. Once the Secretariat itself starts moving around the world depending on who can best handle it at any point, and once different local groups start communicating to each other, rather via the centralised H.O., who knows, then we may well have something approaching a transnational SIETAR. If that happens, we may have to consider giving SIETAR-International a new name. How about SIETAR-Transnational.
| © Transcultural Synergy | Fax: +44 (0)70 9237 0950 | Tel: +44 (0)870 383 4655 |