![]() ![]() Orientation to the past, present, and future is another aspect of time in which cultures disagree. ![]() Whether time is perceived as a commodity or a constant determines the meaning and value of being “on time.” Think of the misunderstandings that can occur when one culture views arriving late for a meeting as bad planning or a sign of disrespect, while another culture views an insistence on timeliness as childish impatience. This viewpoint influences how organizations in those cultures approach deadlines, strategic thinking, investments, developing talent from within, and the concept of “long-term” planning. In synchronic cultures (including South America, southern Europe and Asia) the flow of time is viewed as a sort of circle – with the past, present, and future all inter-related. By then, you are so anxious to stay on schedule, you’ll give away the whole deal.” A Chinese executive explained: “All we need to do is find out when you are scheduled to leave the country and we wait until right before your flight to present our offer. The American commoditization of time not only serves as the basis for a “time is money” mentality, it can lead to a fixation on timelines that plays right into the hands of savvy negotiators from other cultures. I once cashed a traveler’s check at a Panamanian bank where the teller was counting my money, talking to a customer on the phone, and admiring the baby in the arms of the woman behind me. In many other parts of the world, professionals regularly do several things at the same time. In sequential cultures (like North American, English, German, Swedish, and Dutch), businesspeople give full attention to one agenda item after another. Some cultures think of time sequentially – as a linear commodity to “spend,” “save,” or “waste.” Other cultures view time synchronically – as a constant flow to be experienced in the moment, and as a force that cannot be contained or controlled. ![]() business leaders may fall into is a (costly) disregard for the importance of building and maintaining personal relationships when dealing with individuals from high-context cultures.Ĭultures are either sequential or synchronic The latter place emphasis on sending and receiving accurate messages directly, and by being precise with spoken or written words. The former are looking for meaning and understanding in what is not said – in body language, in silences and pauses, and in relationships and empathy. By contrast, low-context cultures (most of the Germanic and English-speaking countries) expect messages to be explicit and specific. High-context cultures (Mediterranean, Slav, Central European, Latin American, African, Arab, Asian, American-Indian) leave much of the message unspecified – to be understood through context, nonverbal cues, and between-the-lines interpretation of what is actually said. In others, the meticulous wording of legal documents is viewed as paramount. In some cultures, personal bonds and informal agreements are far more binding than any formal contract. The determining factor in medium preference may not be the degree of industrialization, but rather whether the country falls into a high-context or low-context culture. But Japan, which has access to the latest technologies, still relies more on face-to-face communications than on the written mode. Certainly the United States, Canada, the UK and Germany exemplify this trend. For example, it has been noted that industrialized nations rely heavily on electronic technology and emphasize written messages over oral or face-to-face communication. Even the choice of medium used to communicate may have cultural overtones. Every aspect of global communication is influenced by cultural differences. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |