Travels in China, and Thoughts on Cross-Cultural Competence
Last week I was in China, supporting our local HR team in their succession planning efforts. As I met with our local leadership team, one of the recurring discussions focused on cross-cultural competency, and preparing our employees to operate across geographies and cultures. This applies to expatriates from Western cultures going to work in China, and to our Chinese talent that we’d like to export to other parts of our global organization.
Enhancing cross-cultural competencies is an essential part of the business case for Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) at Joy Global. And it’s not that we are starting from nothing in this space. For decades, Joy Global has successfully collaborated across geographies to meet customer needs on six continents. That doesn’t happen without some degree of cross-cultural competency. Rather, this is a continuous improvement opportunity. To me, it begs the question of how much more effective and efficient we could be if we knew how to build stronger relationships, more quickly, with our international colleagues.
And of course it gets to the heart of inclusion as well. If I respect someone else’s culture, and I take the time to educate myself, and adapt my style to meet theirs, then I am actively working to break down barriers to inclusion. This is one area, however, where the business case for enhanced productivity and teamwork is abundantly clear. And it bolsters the overall business case for D&I.
It’s easy to over-simplify cross-cultural competency, summarizing that skillset as being primarily about openness and respect. Openness and respect are certainly a part of the required mindset, but cross-cultural competency also includes an awareness of the differences that shape our perspectives, and how those differences are impacted by the social, institutional, and organizational inputs that we each receive from an early age. The seminal research in the field was published in 1980 by Geert Hofstede[1], a Dutch psychologist who posited that there are six dimensions of national culture that can be measured, compared, and used to understand fundamental differences in perceptual style as you move from one geography to another. This research has formed the backbone of cross-cultural education and tools for the past 30 years.
The most common of these tools asks a user to complete an online self-assessment that charts the individual across Hofstede’s six dimensions:
Power Distance Index
Individualism vs. Collectivism
Masculinity vs. Femininity
Uncertainty Avoidance Index
Long Term Orientation vs. Short Term Normative Orientation
Indulgence vs. Restraint
I recently completed a self-assessment through the Hofstede Centre, and chose to compare my scores to a baseline average for China. It gave me a sense of pitfalls that I may face when interacting with colleagues in China, particularly as I facilitate knowledge transfer activities. For example, the report suggests that I may demotivate participants “by trying to give them a grand picture without a lot of substance in terms of detailed information.” In my daily work, I might consider that “big picture view” as a positive, and indication of strategic thinking. And that might play really well for some people in the United States. But it’s something that I need to be aware of, and modulate, when operating in China. Similarly, my tendency to convey passion for the work that I’m doing has the potential to be seen by Chinese counterparts as overly emotional, and indicative of a lack of self-control.
What’s interesting to me in this approach is that it challenges me to think beyond my natural inclinations. What I’m comfortable with, and what may work for me in my work with colleagues in the U.S., could really be a barrier to success in another country. And if I don’t at least consider adapting my style, it could be viewed as a sign of disrespect.
Now this isn’t to say that we should all work to change ourselves utterly with each new stamp in the passport. Authenticity and integrity are important. But I believe there’s a balance that can be struck between who I am, and how I choose to present myself. It’s not a violation of my values and principles to provide more structure and detail when I present to a roomful of Chinese colleagues. It’s not a subversion of my identity to reign in emotional pleas, and build a more fact-based argument. I can be true to myself, and modulate the way that I interact with international counterparts.
That’s respectful, and open. It’s also effective, efficient, and smart business.
At the end of last week, I was having dinner with a friend in China, and talking about a fantastic little bar I’d found, and a bit of impromptu karaoke that I (kind of) instigated. At one point, she asked “When you travel, are you more yourself, or do you find that you just are more apt to try things that are outside of who you usually are?” It was a fantastic, thought-provoking question. And I ended up giving an inconclusive, though very truthful, answer. It’s both. When I get the chance to interact with people from other backgrounds and experiences, I can be fully myself, but I can also acknowledge and adapt to our differences and, in doing so, create even greater opportunities for everyone involved.
[1] Geert Hofstede, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Second Edition, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications, 2001
