Good Writer 64 | - ✏ Freelance Writer
Nov 09, 2015 | #1
Power/ Distance Individual/ Collective Uncertainty Avoidance Career/Life Confucian Dynamism Universalistic Particularistic
Amisi - 21 year old female (Egyptian) High Collective High Life Low Particularistic
Julie - 51 year old (Chinese-Singapore) High Collective High Life High Particularistic
Jinsoo - 27 year old male (S. Korean) High Collective High Career High Particularistic
Harpreet - 30 year old female (Indian)
High Collective High Life Low Particularistic
Tom - 33 year old (Irish)
Low Individual Low Career Low Individualistic
Akemi - 25 year old male (Japanese)
High Collective High Career High Particularistic
Felipa - 28 year old female (Mexican) High Collective High Life Low Particularistic
Henri - 33 year old male (French) Low Individualistic Low Life Low Universalistic
Vlad - 40 year old female (Russian)
High Collective High Career Low Particularistic
Rather than viewing leadership as a finite, stable cross-cultural concept, a number of new philosophies of leadership have suggested that truly effective approaches tailor the leader's methods to the needs of the task and the personality of the employee. For example, the path-goal approach to leadership suggests that both the task's complexity and the attitude and the knowledge level of the subordinate should affect the approach a manager takes to leadership. Directive leadership may be appropriate in scenarios where subordinates possess very little knowledge about the task at hand while more participative leadership strategies may be demanded when there are higher levels of task complexity and ambiguity. Supportive leadership is appropriate when followers need to be mentored and a pleasant work environment is required because of dull and repetitive tasks; other motivational strategies are needed to increase employee enthusiasm. Achievement-oriented leadership is best for highly motivated employees who embrace challenging tasks. However, when managing individuals from a different cultural context from one's own, it is important to factor in their perceptions of the situation and leadership approach, not simply the formula of the theory.
For example, in France, leadership decisions are generally dispensed in a decisive fashion and leaders are assumed to be people who can give clear, directive statements (Adler & Gundersno, 2007, p. 50). Open-ended approaches to decision-making are seen as weak and frustrating and a manager who leaves a subordinate like Henri to "figure things out himself" is reneging on his duties as a leader. An American business leader accustomed to attempting to make subordinates more enthusiastic about their work by providing them with greater autonomy might encounter unexpected roadblocks in France. This goes contrary to a U.S. business culture where organizations such as Google are praised for giving many employees leeway to pursue their 'pet' personal projects and where high-performance teams with relatively little designated hierarchies are being used at many organization (Jackson 2013). But "French companies follow a very clear, vertical line of command, with upper management always having the final decision that is then delegated to subordinates in information-disseminating meetings. If you're planning on discussing long-term strategies and important business decisions, be sure you are dealing with the CEO (PDG, in France) before you begin" (Jones 2011). Although respect must be shown to an employee like Henri, addressing him as an equal or sending someone of the same hierarchical status as himself within the organization to give direction would be a mistake and would not necessarily be viewed in a beneficial fashion.
When providing managerial direction, orders must be justified with reasoning, not with a simple appeal to one's position or paternalistic emotions (in contrast to the more familial atmosphere at many East Asian firms). The French appreciate logical argumentation versus viewing the organization like an extended family, in contrast to some other types of high-context cultures: "the French conversation style, especially in business, puts an emphasis on being direct and questioning. The French are most receptive to rational presentations that are well organized and presented, and will respect a low-key manner (avoid yelling, hand-waving or hyperbole) used to clearly highlight benefits" (Jones 2011). This emphasis on argumentation also means that there is an expectation of eloquence, once again tying in with the French expectation for clarity of language. "Eloquence is seen as a cardinal virtue in France, and French managers have been known to rise to their positions, and run their businesses, in part through the force of their rhetoric" (Jones 2011). Although France is a high-context culture to some degree in the sense that relationships are of great importance in interpersonal relationships, there is also more of a stress on meaning what one says than in other high-context cultures (for example in Japan or the Middle East) where the surface meaning seldom communicates the speaker's true intentions.
Informal socializing, which is also often encouraged at U.S. companies through events such as complementary fitness classes (once again, with Google leading the way), work 'outings' and the tendency to elide the barrier between work and one's personal life is not practiced in the same manner in France. It is said that: "cultural cues are especially important in France however, because of the rigid barriers most Frenchmen and women draw between their public and private lives, and the hierarchical system in which France's business world operates" (Jones 2011).While American organizations tend to boast of the lack of hierarchy at their institutions, and the fact that ideas versus the titles of workers are more important when evaluating the quality of an idea, at French organizations this is not the case. When negotiating with a French organization, sending someone of sufficient power to have clout in the eyes of the management team would be essential. It would be seen as profoundly disrespectful to send someone of lower status. Similarly, sending important messages via email or other informal means of communication to a valued team member like Henri would not carry the same weight as conveying the words directly.
To effectively manage a French employee, operating from a position of strength would be vital. This does not mean that all participative approaches must be permanently eschewed and only directive styles would be acceptable but rather that a more directive approach might be needed, even when dealing with a relatively open-ended problem with an experienced employee in a manner that might be considered overly intrusive in the U.S. Participative strategies might be used eventually but only after a hierarchy has been established. Supportive and coaching methods of leadership must be clearly given in a work context and not couched in the language of friendliness. Formal diction, dress, and 'correct' behavior are required. Out-of-work socializing is certainly practiced, but in a more reserved manner than in the U.S., often over a restaurant dinner, which has a ritualistic significance in the French context. Being invited to a business associate's home is a very rare occurrence. "Business lunches are often very long, running two hours or more, and may not even involve discussing business at all. Instead, they are often used as a way to build the close relationships that sustain business ties, or perhaps to discuss the finer points of an argument or contract detail" (Jones). In this instance, the stereotype of the French being more obsessed with food and wine than other nationalities is true; however, it is not merely a question of taste but also a respect for the heritage and the time that it takes to prepare and enjoy a meal.
Simply because meals might take longer in France, however, does not mean they are not business lunches. The French view of time is far more elastic than in the U.S. Coming late to meetings is not viewed with nearly as much disdain as it is in America where time is literally seen as money. But this does not mean that the actual content of the meeting is viewed as unimportant. The French can be just as individualistic and achievement-oriented as the U.S. but have a higher expectation that the needs of one's personal life will be respected by one's employers. Setting goals in a competitive atmosphere for top employees in a manner which would force them to constantly work overtime and give up vacation hours would not be well-received in a French place of business, in contrast to the U.S. where such an attitude is often expected in certain industries like investment banking and sales.
These examples illustrate the subtle differences between American and French culture. Americans cannot assume that simply because the French are Europeans that they share the same set of cultural assumptions as themselves, simply because the culture and language may seem less foreign than that of Japan or China. On the other hand, even though France may be more high-context in its orientation and more tradition-bound than the U.S. in terms of the hierarchical nature of its relationships, expectations of obedience to authority, it is not as wedded to tradition and protocol as some non-European high-context nations. "Beneath the surface of this simple, orderly system however, is a web-like network of personal relationships and alliances that actually shape day-to-day business within the French model. Although socializing across hierarchical lines is almost unheard of, within each level is an important emphasis on getting to know one's colleagues and where they stand" (Jones). The French might embrace formality and hierarchies but there is still jockeying for power and influence within different vertical levels of that system.
Finally, the commonalities between the two cultures should be acknowledged as a point of connection. One value shared between both U.S. and French organizations is that both are highly individualistic. "Personal ideology is also welcome in discussions, and the French appreciation for individualism carries through to a sincere admiration for freedom of opinion and knowledge of the intricacies of one's beliefs, allowing for impassioned discussion that will strengthen, not limit, a professional relationship with your French colleagues" (Jones). The French also have a very low tolerance for bribery and corruption, as might be expected in a highly rule-bound society. "France is ranked in the top 25 countries (on the Corruption Perception Index of government organisations) in the world for being perceived as least corrupt compared to 176 other countries. There are laws, regulations and penalties to reduce and prevent corruption in France" ("Business etiquette"). Doing business in France is not wholly foreign and yet French culture is quite distinct from that of American culture; balancing these similarities and differences is one of the cognitive challenges for every manager seeking to broach the divide.
References
Adler, N. & Gunderson, A. International dimensions of human organizational behavior. Cengage.
Business etiquette. Passport to Trade.
Jackson, L. The real secret of Google's corporate culture. Corporate Culture Pros.
Jones, M. Doing Business in France: 8 Cultural Cues That Make (or Break) a Deal. International Business Times.
Amisi - 21 year old female (Egyptian) High Collective High Life Low Particularistic
Julie - 51 year old (Chinese-Singapore) High Collective High Life High Particularistic
Jinsoo - 27 year old male (S. Korean) High Collective High Career High Particularistic
Harpreet - 30 year old female (Indian)
High Collective High Life Low Particularistic
Tom - 33 year old (Irish)
Low Individual Low Career Low Individualistic
Akemi - 25 year old male (Japanese)
High Collective High Career High Particularistic
Felipa - 28 year old female (Mexican) High Collective High Life Low Particularistic
Henri - 33 year old male (French) Low Individualistic Low Life Low Universalistic
Vlad - 40 year old female (Russian)
High Collective High Career Low Particularistic
Cultural analysis: Leading 'Henri,' a 33-year-old French male
Rather than viewing leadership as a finite, stable cross-cultural concept, a number of new philosophies of leadership have suggested that truly effective approaches tailor the leader's methods to the needs of the task and the personality of the employee. For example, the path-goal approach to leadership suggests that both the task's complexity and the attitude and the knowledge level of the subordinate should affect the approach a manager takes to leadership. Directive leadership may be appropriate in scenarios where subordinates possess very little knowledge about the task at hand while more participative leadership strategies may be demanded when there are higher levels of task complexity and ambiguity. Supportive leadership is appropriate when followers need to be mentored and a pleasant work environment is required because of dull and repetitive tasks; other motivational strategies are needed to increase employee enthusiasm. Achievement-oriented leadership is best for highly motivated employees who embrace challenging tasks. However, when managing individuals from a different cultural context from one's own, it is important to factor in their perceptions of the situation and leadership approach, not simply the formula of the theory.For example, in France, leadership decisions are generally dispensed in a decisive fashion and leaders are assumed to be people who can give clear, directive statements (Adler & Gundersno, 2007, p. 50). Open-ended approaches to decision-making are seen as weak and frustrating and a manager who leaves a subordinate like Henri to "figure things out himself" is reneging on his duties as a leader. An American business leader accustomed to attempting to make subordinates more enthusiastic about their work by providing them with greater autonomy might encounter unexpected roadblocks in France. This goes contrary to a U.S. business culture where organizations such as Google are praised for giving many employees leeway to pursue their 'pet' personal projects and where high-performance teams with relatively little designated hierarchies are being used at many organization (Jackson 2013). But "French companies follow a very clear, vertical line of command, with upper management always having the final decision that is then delegated to subordinates in information-disseminating meetings. If you're planning on discussing long-term strategies and important business decisions, be sure you are dealing with the CEO (PDG, in France) before you begin" (Jones 2011). Although respect must be shown to an employee like Henri, addressing him as an equal or sending someone of the same hierarchical status as himself within the organization to give direction would be a mistake and would not necessarily be viewed in a beneficial fashion.
When providing managerial direction, orders must be justified with reasoning, not with a simple appeal to one's position or paternalistic emotions (in contrast to the more familial atmosphere at many East Asian firms). The French appreciate logical argumentation versus viewing the organization like an extended family, in contrast to some other types of high-context cultures: "the French conversation style, especially in business, puts an emphasis on being direct and questioning. The French are most receptive to rational presentations that are well organized and presented, and will respect a low-key manner (avoid yelling, hand-waving or hyperbole) used to clearly highlight benefits" (Jones 2011). This emphasis on argumentation also means that there is an expectation of eloquence, once again tying in with the French expectation for clarity of language. "Eloquence is seen as a cardinal virtue in France, and French managers have been known to rise to their positions, and run their businesses, in part through the force of their rhetoric" (Jones 2011). Although France is a high-context culture to some degree in the sense that relationships are of great importance in interpersonal relationships, there is also more of a stress on meaning what one says than in other high-context cultures (for example in Japan or the Middle East) where the surface meaning seldom communicates the speaker's true intentions.
Informal socializing, which is also often encouraged at U.S. companies through events such as complementary fitness classes (once again, with Google leading the way), work 'outings' and the tendency to elide the barrier between work and one's personal life is not practiced in the same manner in France. It is said that: "cultural cues are especially important in France however, because of the rigid barriers most Frenchmen and women draw between their public and private lives, and the hierarchical system in which France's business world operates" (Jones 2011).While American organizations tend to boast of the lack of hierarchy at their institutions, and the fact that ideas versus the titles of workers are more important when evaluating the quality of an idea, at French organizations this is not the case. When negotiating with a French organization, sending someone of sufficient power to have clout in the eyes of the management team would be essential. It would be seen as profoundly disrespectful to send someone of lower status. Similarly, sending important messages via email or other informal means of communication to a valued team member like Henri would not carry the same weight as conveying the words directly.
To effectively manage a French employee, operating from a position of strength would be vital. This does not mean that all participative approaches must be permanently eschewed and only directive styles would be acceptable but rather that a more directive approach might be needed, even when dealing with a relatively open-ended problem with an experienced employee in a manner that might be considered overly intrusive in the U.S. Participative strategies might be used eventually but only after a hierarchy has been established. Supportive and coaching methods of leadership must be clearly given in a work context and not couched in the language of friendliness. Formal diction, dress, and 'correct' behavior are required. Out-of-work socializing is certainly practiced, but in a more reserved manner than in the U.S., often over a restaurant dinner, which has a ritualistic significance in the French context. Being invited to a business associate's home is a very rare occurrence. "Business lunches are often very long, running two hours or more, and may not even involve discussing business at all. Instead, they are often used as a way to build the close relationships that sustain business ties, or perhaps to discuss the finer points of an argument or contract detail" (Jones). In this instance, the stereotype of the French being more obsessed with food and wine than other nationalities is true; however, it is not merely a question of taste but also a respect for the heritage and the time that it takes to prepare and enjoy a meal.
Simply because meals might take longer in France, however, does not mean they are not business lunches. The French view of time is far more elastic than in the U.S. Coming late to meetings is not viewed with nearly as much disdain as it is in America where time is literally seen as money. But this does not mean that the actual content of the meeting is viewed as unimportant. The French can be just as individualistic and achievement-oriented as the U.S. but have a higher expectation that the needs of one's personal life will be respected by one's employers. Setting goals in a competitive atmosphere for top employees in a manner which would force them to constantly work overtime and give up vacation hours would not be well-received in a French place of business, in contrast to the U.S. where such an attitude is often expected in certain industries like investment banking and sales.
These examples illustrate the subtle differences between American and French culture. Americans cannot assume that simply because the French are Europeans that they share the same set of cultural assumptions as themselves, simply because the culture and language may seem less foreign than that of Japan or China. On the other hand, even though France may be more high-context in its orientation and more tradition-bound than the U.S. in terms of the hierarchical nature of its relationships, expectations of obedience to authority, it is not as wedded to tradition and protocol as some non-European high-context nations. "Beneath the surface of this simple, orderly system however, is a web-like network of personal relationships and alliances that actually shape day-to-day business within the French model. Although socializing across hierarchical lines is almost unheard of, within each level is an important emphasis on getting to know one's colleagues and where they stand" (Jones). The French might embrace formality and hierarchies but there is still jockeying for power and influence within different vertical levels of that system.
Finally, the commonalities between the two cultures should be acknowledged as a point of connection. One value shared between both U.S. and French organizations is that both are highly individualistic. "Personal ideology is also welcome in discussions, and the French appreciation for individualism carries through to a sincere admiration for freedom of opinion and knowledge of the intricacies of one's beliefs, allowing for impassioned discussion that will strengthen, not limit, a professional relationship with your French colleagues" (Jones). The French also have a very low tolerance for bribery and corruption, as might be expected in a highly rule-bound society. "France is ranked in the top 25 countries (on the Corruption Perception Index of government organisations) in the world for being perceived as least corrupt compared to 176 other countries. There are laws, regulations and penalties to reduce and prevent corruption in France" ("Business etiquette"). Doing business in France is not wholly foreign and yet French culture is quite distinct from that of American culture; balancing these similarities and differences is one of the cognitive challenges for every manager seeking to broach the divide.
References
Adler, N. & Gunderson, A. International dimensions of human organizational behavior. Cengage.
Business etiquette. Passport to Trade.
Jackson, L. The real secret of Google's corporate culture. Corporate Culture Pros.
Jones, M. Doing Business in France: 8 Cultural Cues That Make (or Break) a Deal. International Business Times.