University of Southern Denmark, University of Odense September, 2002Department of Organization and Management

Differences That Make a DifferenceCultural Differences that Influence Work Relations between

Expatriated Danish Managers Working in Romania and Romanian Nationals

Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements for the Degree of Cand. Merc. International Management

LUKKET OPGAVE

Students: Academic adviser:Madalina Oana Vircolacu (130576-MOV2) Mikael Søndergaard

Razvan Lorin Dumitrescu (030476-3477)

Table of contents

Foreword and acknowledgements..........................................................................5

Executive summary.........................................................................................................6

1. Introduction...................................................................................................................8

1.1 Purpose of the study........................................................................................................8

1.2 Type of study.................................................................................................................11

1.3 Delimitations of the study.............................................................................................11

1.4 Why qualitative research?...........................................................................................13

1.5 Structure of the paper..................................................................................................15

2. Concepts and methods............................................................................................16

2.1 Key concepts..................................................................................................................17

2.2 Qualitative methods of data collection........................................................................192.2.1 Research relationship...............................................................................................192.2.2 Sampling strategy.....................................................................................................202.2.3 The interviews..........................................................................................................22

2.3 Qualitative methods of data analysis...........................................................................24

2.4 Dimensions of culture...................................................................................................262.4.1 Hofstede’s dimensions of culture.............................................................................272.4.2 Other dimensions of culture.....................................................................................30

2.5 Previous literature........................................................................................................33

2.6 Validity issues................................................................................................................36

2.7 Conclusion.....................................................................................................................37

3. Analysis of the empirical data............................................................................38

3.1 Communication styles...................................................................................................403.1.1 Differences in the communication styles of the Danes and Romanians..................403.1.2 Disagreements and conflicts....................................................................................453.1.3 Hierarchical communication....................................................................................493.1.4 Conclusion and recommendations...........................................................................51

3.2 Perception of time.........................................................................................................533.2.1 Compartmentalization, planning and the value of time...........................................543.2.2 Deadlines and punctuality........................................................................................583.2.3 Work hours...............................................................................................................633.2.4 Time horizon............................................................................................................65

2

3.2.5 Conclusion and recommendations...........................................................................66

3.3 Perception of rank and status symbols.......................................................................693.3.1 Rank.........................................................................................................................693.3.2 Status symbols.........................................................................................................733.3.3 Conclusion and recommendations...........................................................................77

3.4 Separation of private and professional lives...............................................................803.4.1 Private and professional life in the company...........................................................803.4.2 Private and professional relations with business partners........................................873.4.3 Conclusion and recommendations...........................................................................89

3.5 Trust...............................................................................................................................913.5.1 The basic attitudes about trust in the Danish and Romanian cultures.....................913.5.2 Contractual relations................................................................................................953.5.3 Trust, delegation and control...................................................................................973.5.4 Conclusion and recommendations...........................................................................99

3.6 Personal connections (Relaţii)....................................................................................1013.6.1 The different perception of personal connections in the Danish and Romanian cultures............................................................................................................................1013.6.2 The importance of personal connections in Romania............................................1073.6.3 Conclusion and recommendations.........................................................................110

3.7 Bribery (Şpagǎ)...........................................................................................................1133.7.1 Corruption and black money..................................................................................1133.7.2 Gifts........................................................................................................................1173.7.3 Conclusion and recommendations.........................................................................120

3.8 Know-all attitude........................................................................................................1223.8.1 The Danes’ know-all attitude and how it is seen by the Romanians.....................1223.8.2 Conclusion and recommendations.........................................................................126

3.9 Responsibility..............................................................................................................1283.9.1 Responsibility as decision making.........................................................................1283.9.2 Responsibility as accountability............................................................................1343.9.3 Responsibility and motivation...............................................................................1373.9.4 Conclusion and recommendations.........................................................................139

3.10 Conclusion.................................................................................................................143

4. Training the Danish managers and Romanian employees to respond the cultural challenges...........................................................................146

4.1 Objective, goals and content of the training program.............................................149

4.2 Types of training activities.........................................................................................151

4.3 Risk elements of the training activities.....................................................................157

4.4 Behavioral requirements of the training activities..................................................157

4.5 Learners’ characteristics............................................................................................158

4.6 The structure of the training program......................................................................162

4.7 Conclusion...................................................................................................................164

5. Final comments........................................................................................................165

3

5.1 An overall picture of the differences that make a difference..................................165

5.2 Preparation for the intercultural contact.................................................................168

5.3 Limitations of the study..............................................................................................170

5.4 Future research...........................................................................................................171

Appendix – Interview questions...........................................................................173

References.........................................................................................................................176

4

Foreword and acknowledgements

Our interest in culture goes back to the bachelor studies completed in Romania and it was

deepened and shaped more clearly during the course in International Management that we

attended at Odense University. As Romanians living in Denmark we came to realize the

importance of culture in interpersonal interactions with people with a different cultural

background than our own. During our studies in Denmark, we have often experienced

situations that we completely misunderstood, due to ignorance, lack of knowledge or

understanding, which increased our curiosity about the cultural differences that influence

interactions between Romanians and Danes.

This study would have not been possible without the contribution of all the other people who

were involved, to whom we would like to extend our gratitude. First and foremost, we would

like to thank our supervisor, Mikael Søndergaard for his patience and invaluable guidance that

were of great help. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the Danish and

Romanian respondents who participated in the project, as well as of others who facilitated the

initial contact.

This study is the result of a team effort of both authors. From the beginning of this study,

throughout the different stages of its development and the reporting of the results, we have

worked together every step of the way, so our individual contributions, in terms of the effort

we each invested into the project, were equal. The few instances when the work was

conducted individually (e.g. we each transcribed half of the interviews), had no impact on the

actual content of the study or the workload balance between us. Therefore, we both assume

full and undivided responsibility for the entire study.

5

Executive summary

The main purpose of this project was to study the cultural differences that influence work

relations between expatriated Danish managers working in Romania and Romanian nationals

and to discuss their consequences. The work setting was chosen as the most appropriate

context for studying these differences, due to the frequent and intense face-to-face interactions

between representatives of the two groups.

The point of departure was the conceptual framework of the study, namely the concept of

culture and related notions. In order to collect the empirical data that represented the

foundation of the study, qualitative methods of data collection were employed. The empirical

data consisted of the Danish and Romanian respondents’ narratives about behavior and about

perceptions of behavior. The data were first analyzed using qualitative methods, and patterns

of differences in interpersonal behavior that emerge at group level were identified. The

differences that resulted were clustered in nine themes that deal with elements that influenced

Danish-Romanian internal, external firm work relations, or both. A number of dimensions of

culture were then selected from the literature, briefly discussed and related to the context of

the present study. These dimensions were used as an explanatory framework, in order to make

sense of the empirical data. The point of departure was Hofstede’s five dimensions, but they

were supplemented by three of Trompenaars’s dimensions (universalism-particularism,

specific-diffuse, achievement-ascription) and Hall’s monochronic-polychronic time and high-

context/low context communication.

In the next part, the empirical data was further analyzed in-depth, through a process of

interpretation, in order to go beyond the visible elements. At this stage, the dimensions of

culture outlined before were also employed in order to explain, to make sense of the

differences in interpersonal behavior that were identified. This in-depth analysis of the

empirical data revealed the cultural differences and certain particular elements of the two

cultures that influence work relations. The results indicated that there are numerous and

significant differences between the Danes’ and Romanians’ behaviors, attitudes and values

that can largely be explained by culture general dimensions, which represent a powerful

explanatory framework.

6

The consequences of these differences were, in more general terms, misunderstandings,

frustrations, tensions, but more specific problems were also discussed. In response to these

problems, recommendations addressed to both groups were provided, aiming at guiding

adaptation and specifying conditions for more constructive work interactions.

The analysis of the empirical data indicated that the representatives of both groups tried to

teach the “others” their own ways, i.e. the Danes tried to impose their work style that reflects

the Danish values and the Romanians tried to socialize the Danes to the Romanian practices

that reflect the Romanian values. In this context both groups appeared to be culturally blind

and many of the problems that occurred could be attributed to a lack of understanding of the

two cultural backgrounds.

Therefore, in part four we addressed this issue by providing a model for an intercultural

training program with the aim of helping the actors become aware of and understand the

underlying cultural differences behind the patterns of behavior that they observe in daily

interactions. In doing so, we showed how the theory on cultural differences could be used in

practice, as a tool for improving intercultural interactions. In building the model for the

training program, we also drew inspiration from the existing theory on cultural differences, as

well as from the empirical data, which was a rich source of real-life examples that could be

used in the different training exercises.

Finally, the most important results of the study were integrated in order to reveal certain

internal connections and provide an overall picture. The limitations of the study and potential

courses for future research that can build on the results of the present study were also

discussed.

7

1. Introduction

For more than fifty years, from 1947 to 1989, Romania has been closed behind the Iron

Curtain. Due to this isolation little has been and still is known about Romania, just as

Romanians knew very little about the West. The dramatic change in the political system that

occurred in 1989 ended the isolation period and Romania started to gradually change from

planned economy to market economy. In this context economic cooperation with Western

nations grew exponentially. However, it also became apparent that Romanians are

substantially different from many Westerners. Together with technology and know-how

Western companies also tried to bring their specific work style and practices, but in spite of

the obvious economic advantages the general feeling that the Romanian mentalities are both

very different and enduring grew.

1.1 Purpose of the study

In the context of the political and economic changes that followed 1989 the interest of Danish

companies in the Romanian market also grew. At present, there are a large number of

companies with Danish capital established in Romania1. Some are companies started by

people of Romanian origin and Danish citizenship. Some other companies also have Danish

managers based in Romania. But still, there is a significant number of companies with Danish

capital and only local management and employees. This could be explained by two factors.

Firstly, there may be a low economic interest attached to some of these companies, thus, not

requiring permanent Danish management. It is also likely that, as the importance of these

subsidiaries established in Romania increases, there will be a growing population of expatriate

Danish managers in Romania. Secondly, the perceived differences in mentalities may scare

away many Danish mangers. Moreover, a number of technical assistance programs involved

Danish specialists working on short-term basis in Romania. All these reasons emphasize the

practical importance of finding out more about the cultural factors that may influence the

work relations between Danish managers working in Romania and Romanian nationals as a

precondition to better prepare individuals from the two groups to work together.

1 According to a listing from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania (July 2001) there are 244 companies that have a minimum of 50% Danish ownership.

8

A number of studies have referred to the different aspects of the Danish culture. Some

researchers focused on the Danish culture or on its effects on organizational and managerial

processes (e.g. Fivesdal and Schram-Nielsen, 1993; Gertsen, 1987; Lindkvist, 1988); other

researchers have discussed aspects of the Danish culture or it effects on organizational and

managerial activities in relation to other cultures (e.g. Djursaa, 1988; Madsen, 1990;

Søndergaard, 1990; Worm, 19972).3 Much less has been written about the Romanian culture.

The few exceptions that we identified were Hofstede, Kolman, Nicolescu and Pajumaa

(1996), Hofstede (2001), Foris and Foris (1996), Su and Richelieu (1999). The first three

studies refer to the positioning of Romania on Hofstede’s dimensions, while the fourth one

surveys the perceptions and attitudes regarding business ethics of Western and Romanian

managers. We do not know of any study comparing the Romanian and Danish cultures or

studying the interactions between the two cultural groups. Moreover, not all the differences

between the two cultural groups may be relevant in work relations. All these points 4 underline

the lack of research in this field and the need to study intercultural interactions between Danes

and Romanians.

Keeping in mind the practical and scientific motivations presented above we formulate the

overall purpose of the present study:

To study the cultural differences that influence work relations between expatriated Danish

managers working in Romania and Romanian nationals.

This overall purpose can be divided into research (primary purpose) and application

(secondary purpose). The research purpose is to improve knowledge of the cultural

differences that affect intercultural work interactions between expatriated Danish managers

and Romanian nationals. With this aim in mind, the main research problem is outlined:

The differences in the Danes and Romanians interpersonal behavior are identified, analyzed

and explained, in order to reveal the cultural differences that influence work relations and

their impact.

2 Worm (1997) compares the Scandinavian (Danish, Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish) and Chinese cultures.3 For a review of some of the studies dealing with aspects of the Danish culture we recommend the reader to refer to Askegaard, Gertsen and Madsen (1995).4 The limitations of previous research and how they are addressed by the present study are explored in more detail in chapter 2.5 Previous literature.

9

In terms of applicability, the secondary purpose is to improve the intercultural work

interactions between the expatriated Danish managers and Romanians. The secondary

problem (application) is outlined:

Based on the results of the research, tools that could help the representatives of the two

groups to better understand and cope with these differences are proposed.

The purpose and problem statements of the study are based on the assumption that the

national culture influences interactions among individuals with different cultural

backgrounds. Many researchers have advocated this idea, but one of its strongest supporters is

Geert Hofstede (1980, 1991, 2001), whose work had significant impact in the field of cultural

and organizational theory. The view that we adopt in this study implies that interactions

among people from different cultures presuppose understanding of the underlying reasons for

their pattern of behavior.

In this study, we focus on cultural differences as they appear in interpersonal interactions and

we discuss how these differences influence work relations. Therefore, the point of departure is

the identification of systematic differences that appear in the Danes’ and Romanians’

interpersonal behavior. We attempt to explain, i.e. to make sense of, to interpret, the

differences in the Danes’ and Romanians’ interpersonal behavior using a number of

dimensions of culture selected from the existing theory.

Despite the fact that the focus of this study is on cultural differences, we are not suggesting

that cultural factors have greater influence on interpersonal relations than other factors, such

as political, social, economic or situational factors. We only imply that cultural factors have a

significant impact on interpersonal work relations and they deserve appropriate attention. We

recognize the fact that other factors play an important role as well, and therefore, we shall also

discuss such factors when relevant for explaining the differences occurring in the Danish-

Romanian interpersonal interactions.

In relation to the secondary problem and the practical motivation of the study, we shall make

practical recommendations for intercultural adjustment and propose a structure for an

intercultural training program that emphasizes the need for understanding the underlying

cultural backgrounds that drive individual behavior as a precondition for improved

intercultural work interactions. The recommendations, as well as the training program are

10

addressed both to the Danes and the Romanians. The two perspectives, adaptation

(recommendations) and understanding (training program) are not regarded as mutually

exclusive. On the contrary, we believe that the two perspectives can complement each other.

1.2 Type of study

This study is primarily an intercultural study. The focus on the interaction between

individuals from the Danish and Romanian cultures differentiates this study from cross-

cultural studies, which typically compare different cultures, without taking into consideration

the interaction between them. Our primary aim is not to compare the two cultures taken

separately, but to focus on the intercultural work interactions. It is also a diagnosticating

study, in the sense that it is aimed at identifying the problems that typically occur in the work

relations between the Danish managers and Romanians, which are addressed through

recommendations and the model for an intercultural training program aimed at improving the

intercultural contact.

1.3 Delimitations of the study

The present study only focuses on cultural differences that have particular importance for the

work relations, the “differences that make a difference”. This means that it is outside our

scope to make an exhaustive analysis of all the cultural traits of the two groups involved.

There may be both differences and similarities between the two cultures, but we only study

cultural differences that emerge as important in the intercultural work interactions.

The intercultural interactions analyzed in this paper are generally confined to work relations.

Thus, other types of relationships that do not occur in work settings are not analyzed. We use

the term work relations to delimit those relations one has with people with whom he/she

interacts in connection with his/her job. Therefore, the terms work relations and work

interactions are used synonymously throughout the paper. We view the firm as an open

system constantly interacting with its external environment, which in this case is conditioned

by the Romanian culture. Therefore, work relations are not confined to the internal

11

environment of the firm, but they also span its boundaries. By work relations we refer to those

that occur inside the firm, as well as outside, with business partners and authorities.

The present study focuses on expatriation situations, because the cultural differences are

identified and analyzed in the context of the work interactions between the expatriated Danish

managers and Romanian nationals. This focus is motivated by the fact that the expatriation

situation presupposes that the Danes are actively involved in the operations in Romania, that

they are working and leaving in the Romanian culture. This means that the interactions

between them and Romanians are frequent and extended over a longer period of time (see also

section 2.2.2 Sampling strategy), which makes the experiences of both the expatriated Danes

and the Romanians that work with them meaningful and information-rich in the context of the

present study. In addition, the expatriate literature emphasized that culture and cultural

differences play a major role in the expatriation process (Rahim, 1983; Tung, 1988 – cit. in

Harrison, 1994; Caudron, 1991; Sanchez, Spector and Cooper, 2000; Katz and Seifer, 1996).

Even though the myth of high expatriate failure rates, in the sense of premature return, has

been “demolished” on grounds of lack of empirical evidence (Harzing, 1995), it can still be

argued that expatriates that have a poor understanding of their own cultural background, as

well as that of host country, may do more damage by staying on (in terms of declining market

share, lost business opportunities or damaged relations in the host business environment).

All these reasons underline the fact that the expatriation situation is a meaningful setting for

studying the cultural differences that influence work relations between Danes and Romanians.

Thus, other types of cooperation that do not involve expatriated Danish managers based in

Romania are not examined, because in this context the intercultural contact is more limited,

i.e. work relations do not involve frequent face-to-face interactions over a longer period of

time (see also section 2.2.2 Sampling strategy).

The expatriation literature covers various topics – expatriate organizational strategy, selection,

training (in particular the need for cross-cultural training), gender relations, dual-careers,

adjustment and repatriation (reviewed in Beaverstock, 2000). However, the focus of the

present project is culture and it only studies the cultural differences that influence work

relations between expatriated Danish managers and Romanians and addresses one of the

major implications of the existence and impact of these differences – the need to improve the

intercultural contact, by providing recommendations for intercultural adjustment and a model

12

for an intercultural training program. Therefore, specific issues of expatriation are not covered

in this study.

We referred before to the impact of the national culture on interpersonal interactions. In his

research Hofstede uses the same concept, but he emphasizes that nations should not be

equated to societies and that strictly speaking, a common culture refers more to societies than

to nations (Hofstede, 1994:12). However, he goes on to argue that in many cases “nations do

form historically developed wholes” (ibid). In this study we treat both Denmark and Romania

as unitary cultural areas, i.e. the Danish and Romanian cultures are generally confined to the

boundaries of the respective national states5. Therefore, the Danish and Romanian societies

are used interchangeably with the Danish and Romanian nations. This is justifiable because

Denmark is “often regarded as one of the world’s most culturally homogenous nation-states”

(Askegaard, Gertsen and Madsen, 1995:4). We can also assume a relatively high level of

cultural homogeneity in the case of Romania, primarily because of the linguistic, ethnic6 and

religious7 homogeneity.

1.4 Why qualitative research?

The present study is based on a number of qualitative interviews conducted with both Danish

and Romanian respondents. Qualitative research methods were used to collect the empirical

data for several reasons:

1. We did not know a priori what we would find, i.e. which were the cultural differences that

influenced work relations. Firstly, as we mentioned before, several studies offered useful hints

about the characteristics of the Danish culture, but on the other hand, much less has been

written on the Romanian culture. No prior literature compares the two cultures. Our own

experiences of living and studying/working in the two cultures gave us an idea of these

differences, but the impact of our own preconceptions on the study had to be carefully

scrutinized in order to minimize the researcher’s bias (see section 2.6 Validity issues).

Secondly, the objective of this study was to identify the cultural characteristics that were

5 This geographical delimitation excludes Greenland and the Faroe Islands from the scope of the study.6 Nearly 90 percent of the population consists of Romanians. The only significant minority are the Hungarians (ca. 7 percent). (Romanian Embassy in Denmark, 2001)7 Nearly 87 percent of the population is Eastern Orthodox, the next significant religious group being Roman-Catholic with 5 percent of the population (Romanian Embassy in Denmark, 2001).

13

important in the interactions between representatives of the two groups (not all traits of the

two cultures), and there are no prior studies pointing in this direction. Therefore, the study

focuses on the participants’ perspective, i.e. the perception of the Danes and Romanians of

their own behaviors and attitudes, as well as of each other’s behaviors and attitudes in

interpersonal interactions. This approach was taken in order to understand the meaning and

importance for the participants in the study of the observed differences. These reasons also

underline that quantitative methods were not suitable for the present study. A quantitative

survey would be based on a predefined set of characteristics, and constructing the study in this

way, based on characteristics of the two cultures identified in the literature, would have

limited the possibility to discover the culture specific elements that are important in the work

interactions between Danes and Romanians. Moreover, as said before, it would have been

impossible to construct a set of characteristics relevant for the Romanian culture due to the

lack of previous research in the field. An open qualitative approach gives the opportunity to

discover aspects that we could not anticipate before collecting the data.

2. We wanted to generate rich data embedded in the context. The context refers to the work

relations between the Danes and the Romanians that are established and developed in

Romania. Generating rich data was useful for several reasons. Firstly, it provided a better

understanding of how the different cultural traits of the two groups influenced interactions in

work relations. Secondly, it provided a strong basis anchored in the specific context of these

interactions for making recommendations as to how the negative impact of the cultural

differences could be ameliorated. Thirdly, it provided reach real-life data that could be used to

develop an intercultural training program. Fourthly, it was important to generate results that

are understandable and experientially credible, which have greater applicability and informing

potential. Again, quantitative methods were not suitable to generate the rich data necessary to

address the purpose and specific problems of the present study.

The above reasons, which are grounded in the purpose and specific problems of the study, and

are in line with the general strengths of qualitative research methods (cf. Maxwell, 1996:17-

21), indicate the qualitative research methods, as the appropriate and meaningful approach for

this study.

14

1.5 Structure of the paper

The subsequent discussion is organized around four main parts – concepts and methods,

analysis of the empirical data, training the Danes and Romanians to respond the cultural

challenges, and final comments.

In part 2, we discuss the key concepts in this study, as well as the selected qualitative methods

of data collection and analysis and how we applied them in the present study. The relevant

theory on cultural differences and how it was used to analyze the differences derived from the

empirical data are also approached. Finally, a critique of the previous literature specifically

referring to the Danish and Romanian cultures is presented, which is followed by a discussion

of validity issues in connection with the present study.

Part 3 encompasses the in-depth interpretation and analysis of the empirical data. The

discussion is organized in nine themes derived from the empirical data, which cluster the

cultural differences that influence work relations between the Danes and Romanians. In each

of the chapters we present and analyze manifestations of these differences and their

consequences. The conclusion to each chapter also includes a set of recommendations aimed

at improving the intercultural contact and diminishing the negative effects of the cultural

differences that are identified.

Based on the implications of the analysis, the existent theory on intercultural training and

theory on cultural differences, and drawing inspiration from the empirical data, in part 4 we

propose a model for an intercultural training program. The program is aimed at improving the

intercultural contact by increasing the understanding of the Danish managers and their

Romanian employees of the cultural differences that lay behind the differences in behavior

and attitudes that they confront in everyday work interactions.

In part 5 (Final comments) we integrate the most important results of the study and we discuss

the study’s limitations. Following, potential courses for future research that can build on the

results of the present study are discussed.

15

2. Concepts and methods

The purpose of the chapters in part 2 of the paper is to clarify a number of key concepts used

in this study, as well as the methodology and theories employed at different stages in the

acquisition and analysis of the empirical data. The discussion follows the internal logic, as

well as the actual time line in the development of the study (Figure 1). First, we refer to the

key concepts that underline and delimitate the present study – culture, culture specific

elements and culture general dimensions, and intercultural interactions.

Figure 1. Development of the study

16

Key concepts

Data collection

Empirical data

Qualitative methods…

of data collection…

of data analysis

First stage of data analysis

Differences clustered in nine themes:

Communication stylesPerception of timeRank and status symbols Separation of private and professional livesTrustPersonal connections (Relaţii)Bribery (Şpagǎ)Know-all attitude

Responsibility

Second stage of data analysis

Dimensions of culture Previous literature

Purpose of the study & problem statements

Explain/interpret Validate

The methods refer to concrete means used to answer the problem statements and to achieve

the study’s purposes. Therefore, the choice of the research methods is grounded in the

problem statements and purposes of the study. The selected qualitative methods are presented

and integrated with how we applied them in practice. The methods of data collection are the

point of departure, since the empirical data represents the basis of the study. In continuation,

the qualitative methods of data analysis represent the first stage in the investigation of the

empirical data that resulted in the identification and clustering of the different patterns of

behavior in nine themes. Then, the relevant dimensions of culture are presented and we

discuss how they were used in relation to the empirical data (second stage of data analysis).

Previous literature including several relevant studies referring to the Danish and Romanian

cultures are then reviewed for the purpose of discussing their limitations in relation to the

topic of the present study, which further justifies the research purpose of the study; we also

explain how some of the findings in these studies are used in relation with our empirical data.

Finally, validity issues and how they were addressed in this study are discussed.

2.1 Key concepts

Culture is the central theme in this study. It is a familiar, frequently used world, but probably

most people would be puzzled if asked to define culture. That is because culture is an

extremely complex concept that has more than just one simple meaning. The concept of

culture has caused controversy and confusion among scholars as to its precise meaning. In his

research, Tayeb (1988:42) quoted one review (Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952) that listed no

less than 164 different definitions of culture. Our understanding of culture, as used throughout

this paper, is based on Hofstede’s definition of the concept of culture as:

“…the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or

category of people from another” (Hofstede, 2001:9)

Culture is manifested in symbols, heroes, rituals and values. The first three manifestations of

culture are visible to outside observers and they are subsumed under the term practices.

However, values are invisible until they become evident in behavior. (ibid) In the context of

intercultural interactions observable differences in behavior, as well as perceptions of

behavior hide invisible differences in values, which could be uncovered and understood

through interpretation and analysis of the visible differences.

17

Hofstede’s definition of culture has two important implications. Firstly, he distinguishes

between culture as civilization or refinement of the mind (culture one) and culture as software

of the mind (culture two), which is a broader, collective phenomenon to which the above

definition refers.

Secondly, it implies that culture is not inherited in one’s genes, but learned through

socialization in one’s social environment. Culture as collective programming of the mind

must be distinguished from an individual’s personality (unique) on one side and from human

nature (universal) on the other side. (Hofstede, 1994:5-6) The demarcation lines among these

three levels of human mental programming are not always clear-cut, but it is nevertheless

important to distinguish between them. In identifying the cultural differences that influence

work relations between Danish managers working in Romania and Romanian nationals,

distinguishing between differences that represent culture and differences arising from

personality traits has been a primary concern. This was achieved by identifying patterns of

differences that emerge at a group level (Danes versus Romanians) and therefore, eliminating

the differences arising from individual personalities (see also the discussion about sampling

decisions in section 2.2.2 and first stage of data analysis in section 2.3).

In comparing two cultures it is also useful to distinguish between the specific and the general,

because as Triandis (1994:85) emphasizes “differences must be embedded in a framework of

similarities”. Cross-cultural scientists have recognized the fact that cultures have both specific

and universal elements. Cultural specific refers to phenomena, which are more dominant in

one of the cultural areas that are compared (Denmark and Romania), but they are not

necessarily traceable only in either of them (Worm, 1997:20). Culture specific represents the

relatively unique and specific elements that characterize one culture. The comparison of

cultures requires that cultures share some universal characteristics, that there is a common

denominator that allows comparison. Culture general dimensions represent aspects of a

culture that can be measured relative to other cultures (Hofstede, 1994:14). The universal

dimensions of culture represent the framework that allows comparisons among cultures.

The context the present study is focused on presupposes frequent interactions between

individuals from two cultural groups (Danes and Romanians), which are labeled intercultural

interactions. By intercultural interactions we understand the encounter of representatives of

18

the two cultures, primarily in the form of frequent face-to-face interaction. In understanding

these intercultural interactions we shall also discuss, whenever relevant, interactions that take

place within the two cultures between individuals belonging to the same cultural group. This

is useful, because interactions among members of the same culture are an integral part of the

context in which the intercultural interactions appear. In addition, they also reflect the

different cultural background of the Danes and Romanians and consequently influence the

intercultural interactions (between Danes and Romanians).

2.2 Qualitative methods of data collection

This section refers to three aspects of the data collection process – establishing a research

relationship, sampling strategy and the actual interviews.

2.2.1 Research relationship

The research relationship refers to how one negotiates accesses to the source of data (in our

case the respondents), but it is not just a single event, it is a complex and changing entity

(Maxwell, 1996:66-67). It implies that the research relationship has an impact on the

researcher, the participants to the study, as well as on other parts of the research design

(Maxwell, 1996:67). With this in view, our concern in establishing the research relationship

was (1) to gain access to the sources of data and (2) to insure the quality of the collected data.

We had no prior relation to any of the respondents and therefore, establishing contact was

critical for the research relationship. Our approach was to establish contact with the

companies through formal gatekeepers (Seidman, 1991:34-35), either by contacting the

mother-company in Denmark or the Danish general manager based in Romania, because

firstly, the Danish managers were themselves targeted as respondents and secondly, it was

unlikely that any of the Romanian employees would accept to be interviewed without the

consent of their boss. The first contact was usually established by phone, because we believed

that personal communication would be more effective in explaining our project and would

give the other party the opportunity to ask questions and express any concerns they might

have. This was usually followed by an e-mail or letter providing additional details.

19

In order to address the two concerns mentioned above, it was also important that the research

relationship was based on mutual advantage. Therefore, we emphasized from the beginning

that the companies participating in the project could directly benefit from the results of the

study. In addition, in order to address any confidentiality concerns the respondents might have

and to encourage them to speak openly, the respondents were informed that no names of

companies or persons would be made public. To illustrate, we tried to anticipate that the

respondents might be reluctant to openly discuss about the differences that had a negative

impact on the work relations or about other related phenomena (e.g. bribery). Therefore, it

was critical to insure confidentiality of the information in order to collect relevant, accurate

and sufficiently detailed information.

2.2.2 Sampling strategy

Miles and Huberman (1994: 27) suggest that as much as one may want to, it is impossible to

study everyone everywhere doing everything. This calls for a conscious sampling strategy

based on solid criteria. In making our sampling decisions we pursued a purposeful sampling

strategy. According to Maxwell (1996:70), who borrowed the term from Patton (1990), a

purposeful sampling strategy is one in which “particular persons, settings or events are

selected deliberately in order to provide important information that can’t be gotten as well

from other choices”. The logic and power of it lies in selecting information-rich cases (Patton,

1990:169).

Therefore, the first consideration was to choose both Danes and Romanians who had a

sufficiently long history of direct face-to-face interaction to make their experiences as

meaningful and complete as possible. Therefore, the location of the study was Romania and

most of the Danish respondents had been living and working continuously in the country for

more than two years (the average was 4 years). There were two exceptions. One Danish

manager who did not permanently live in Romania, but for more than four years he had spent

a minimum 100 days a year in Romania. Another Danish manager had only been working

with Romanians for 7 months and had been living in Romania for 5 months. The Romanian

respondents had been working with the Danish managers for more than one year (the average

was 3 years and 9 months). Some examples of respondents we came across during the

20

sampling phase that did not meet this criterion and were not included in the study were

Danish technical advisors, who had not spent more than a few weeks in Romania or cases

where the Danish companies had a subsidiary in Romania, but no Danish personnel spending

a longer period of time in Romania.

When selecting the Danish respondents, the length of their interaction with Romanians was a

sufficient criterion. All the Danish respondents had managerial positions, because of the

nature of their work and their role in Romania. When selecting the Romanian respondents,

applying this criterion limited the number of respondents to those that through their work

were in constant contact with the Danish managers and excluded other employees that rarely

interacted with the Danes. Our experience of living in Romania, which was confirmed during

the first two interviews, suggested that the Romanian respondents might be reluctant to

openly discuss about differences and potentially negative consequences and attempted to

present their work relation with the Danish managers from a superficial, positive perspective.

Therefore, in order to be able to obtain meaningful and accurate information we asked the

Danish managers to indicate those Romanian employees that were known to be more

outspoken and not so reluctant to talk about anything that might add a negative connotation to

their relationship with the Danish managers. The Romanian respondents included both

managerial and non-managerial employees.

A second concern was to interview a relatively large number of people in various companies

in order to insure the generalizability and validity of results, because of two interrelated

reasons. First, our focus on cultural traits emphasized the need to identify shared patterns that

cut across the individual cases (companies) that we studied, and derive their significance from

having emerged out of heterogeneity. Second, the focus on cultural traits required to rule out

behaviors or attitudes connected to the specific personality of an individual respondent (cf.

chapter 2.1 Key concepts).

Identifying the companies that might have expatriate Danish managers working in Romania

posed a serious challenge, because there was no one source that listed all these companies.

The first sources that we approached were The Danish Foreign Ministry, The Danish

Investment Fund for Eastern Europe, The Romanian Embassy in Copenhagen, The Danish

Embassy in Bucharest, Krak Forlag, as well as word-of-mouth. Later we gained access to an

exhaustive list of companies with minimum 50 percent Danish capital based in Romania

21

(n=244)8. This list added only a few names on the list of potential companies that we had

developed from other sources, because of several reasons – (1) most of the companies listed

did not have Danish personnel, (2) others were no longer operational, but still legally

registered and (3) in some cases the list contained incorrect phone numbers and addresses.

However, this list was particularly useful to insure that all potential companies had been taken

into consideration.

The final sample included 12 companies that operated in a variety of industry sectors, varied

in size and were based in 5 different locations (in 4 different towns in Romania and 1 in

Denmark). Out of these, 8 were Danish companies (7 located in Romania and 1 in Denmark),

1 Romanian company (the agent of the Danish company based in Denmark), 1 Swedish and 2

multinational companies. All three non-Danish companies had Danish managers in Romania.

In these three cases the consistency of the responses with the responses of the participants

from the other companies led us to believe that the culture of origin of the two companies had

little influence on the work relations. In addition, the Romanian respondents from the two

multinational companies, specifically contrasted the behavior of the Danish managers to that

of previous managers who were not Danish, thus adding to the validity of the results. At the

level of the individual respondents the study included 12 Danish respondents and 17

Romanian respondents.

2.2.3 The interviews

The primary method of data collection was the qualitative interview. The study is based on a

total of 43 interviews with both Danish and Romanian respondents. The purpose of the

interviews was to collect data about the respondents’ experiences in interacting with each

other and to find out what different behaviors or attitudes they encountered when interacting

with the representatives of the other culture, as well as how these differences were perceived

by both sides and what implications they had for the work relations. In formulating the

interview questions we constantly related them to the purpose and problem statements of the

study, because the goal of the interviews was to generate data that would contribute to

achieving the purpose and answering the problem statements. All the interview questions

were initially constructed in English and then also translated into Romanian.

8 The list was issued by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania (July 2001).

Our intention was to interview both the Danish and the Romanian respondents twice. The

interviews were conducted in English with the Danish respondents and in Romanian with the

Romanian respondents. All the interviews were audio-taped in order to insure the accuracy of

the empirical data that was subsequently analyzed. Not doing so, might pose a serious threat

to the validity of the study, because it would be impossible to accurately describe what the

respondents said during the interviews.

All the interviews were preceded by a short introduction that had two functions: (1) brief the

respondents in connection with the interview and (2) establish a minimum level of trust that

would facilitate the collection of data. The respondents were briefly informed what the

interview was about, that the information they give during the interview would be

confidential, that the interview would be taped in order to preserve the accuracy of the data

and that we would be willing to stop the recording at any time during the interview, if the

respondent would feel uncomfortable being taped, while touching rather sensitive issues.

The scope of the first interview was primarily to identify the differences observed by the

respondents. The interview was based on a predefined set of open-ended questions9, written

out in advance the way they were going to be asked during the interview. However, the

purpose of the interview we conducted was not to minimize variation among the interviewers

by asking them the exact same questions. The scope was to construct a set of questions that

would stimulate the respondents to think and talk about the differences they observed by

referring to their own experience. Therefore, most of the questions were rather general and

not focused on specific issues. This was particularly important, because we wanted to find out

what the participants perceived as being the important differences. In addition, as mentioned

before, the lack of research in the field did not allow building a set of predefined categories

about which the respondents could be asked to share their experiences. The scope of the

interviews was to explore a relatively uncharted territory, not to provide data that would

confirm/refute predefined categories. Consequently, the experiences of the respondents

controlled the content of the collected data to a large degree.

The scope of the second interview was to explore in more depth the issues identified by the

respondents during the first interview and to find out more about the consequences of the

9 The actual questions that compose the interview are available in the Appendix.

differences they observed, if/how the Romanians helped the Danish managers adapt to some

of these aspects and vice versa, what problems still persisted over time. In short, the aim of

the second interview was to gain more insight into the differences that the respondents have

observed and their impact on the work relations.

Both the first and the second interviews were about 45-60 minutes long. Out of all the

respondents, 6 Danes and 8 Romanians were interviewed in this fashion. In the rest of the

cases, the tight schedule of the respondents did not allow to interview them twice. Therefore,

a slightly different strategy was necessary. The interview questions were the same as for the

first interview, but during the interview we asked the respondents to go into more details on

the issues they raised and their consequences, instead of doing this separately in a second

interview. Therefore, in these cases the interviews were longer (about one and a half hours)

than in those where the respondents were interviewed twice.

The interviews generated a large amount of empirical data that was subsequently analyzed in

two chronological steps – first, using a variety of qualitative methods of data analysis and

second, based on dimensions of culture selected from the literature.

In addition to the interviews that were the primary method of data collection, we also used our

own observations during the interactions with the Danish and Romanian respondents, as a

secondary method. Our own observations were recorded in the form of interview notes. To

illustrate, we wrote down during the interviews when a respondent answered his/her mobile

phone during the interview or when the Danish managers personally served us with

refreshments, as opposed to the Romanian managers who usually asked their secretary to do

it. The interview notes served two additional purposes - (1) to capture the key phrases, terms

or points made by the respondents, and (2) to note the participants’ responses, when they

suggested that we should interrupt the tape recording (this only occurred in two situations).

2.3 Qualitative methods of data analysis

During the first stage of data analysis several methods were used chronologically. After the

interviews were conducted, they were transcribed10. This was a time consuming process (the

ratio of transcribing time to tape time was about 5:1) that resulted in over 400 pages of text. In 10 Two of the interviews could not be transcribed due to technical recording problems. Therefore, no data from these two interviews were used in Part 3 Analysis of the empirical data.

24

spite of the effort it required, the transcripts were extremely useful in order to make an

accurate analysis of the data. The interviews were transcribed in the language in which they

were conducted. As to the interviews in Romanian, only the examples that were quoted in the

study were translated into English.

The transcribed data were afterwards coded using the grounded approach of Glaser and

Strauss (1967:105-108). During coding, each quote/incident was compared with previous

quotes/incidents in the same and different groups (e.g. deadlines and punctuality, time

horizon, value of time) coded in the same category (e.g. perception of time) in order to insure

the accuracy and validity of the coding process. The codes and categories were inductively

generated from the empirical data. For each code, group or category, memos were written

during this stage of analysis. Miles and Huberman (1994:72) suggest that memos “are one of

the most useful and powerful sense-making tools at hand”. In taking this approach we adopted

a categorizing strategy (Maxwell, 1996:78-79), which allowed the data to be fractured and

rearranged into categories that facilitated comparison. This strategy was chosen because the

purpose of the study was to identify group level patterns of behavior underlining the cultural

characteristics of the two groups and to compare them.

During this stage of the analysis we made extensive use of memos to capture and clarify our

ideas about the emerging categories, but also as the first step of making sense of the data

through the theory of cultural differences (see chapter 2.4 Dimensions of culture).

As a specific tool, the computer program ATLAS.ti was used at this stage of the data analysis,

because it proved to be an effective tool for quoting, coding, categorizing and linking these to

the memos. It also facilitated the compilation of separate documents including all the quotes

assigned to a specific code, which was used to analyze all the data falling into a certain

category. Besides, it was also used to review each quote in the context of the transcript from

where it was extracted, in order to avoid misinterpretations of the empirical data that could be

caused by completely decontextualizing the quotes and analyzing them exclusively on the

base of the documents compiled for each code or category.

As mentioned before, the analysis of the empirical data included two stages. This first stage of

data analysis was intended to identify patterns of behavior in interpersonal interaction

characteristic for the two groups. At this stage the concrete examples given by the respondents

25

(individual data entry-points) were delimited, analyzed comparatively and grouped into

categories.

2.4 Dimensions of culture

In this section we present and discuss a number of dimensions of culture selected from the

literature and we explain how they were used in the analysis of the empirical data.

If we were to approach a comparative study of cultures by starting from universal dimensions

categorizing cultures, these dimensions could be applied to create an overview. No matter

how comprehensive the picture, these dimensions are ecological measures and they are too

general to become the base for a country specific comparative study. One possible

consequence of making such use of ecological measures is that while two countries may have

the same position on a certain dimension, the effects of this positioning could be different

from one country to another. Therefore, if the starting point is culture general, much of the

substance and specificity of the cultural differences could be lost. On the other hand, if the

starting point is culture specific elements, we believe that the dimensions of national culture

can be much more meaningfully applied in combination with other country specific factors

(e.g. institutional factors) to make sense of the identified differences in the Danes and

Romanians interpersonal behavior. In other words, in this study the dimensions of national

culture are used as an explanatory framework, as a tool to make sense of culture specific

elements identified from the responses of the Danes and Romanians.

The dimensions of culture that form the explanatory framework in this paper are: power

distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long-

short term orientation (Hofstede, 1980; 1994; 2001); universalism-particularism, specific-

diffuse, achievement-ascription (Trompenaars, 1993); monochronic-polychronic time, high-

low context communication (Hall, 1959; 1966; 1976; Hall and Hall, 1990). The choice of

these dimensions is not arbitrary. We have only chosen those dimensions that are relevant, i.e.

have explanatory power, for the specific issues identified in the interviews. The point of

departure is Hofstede’s dimensions, but in order to achieve a more meaningful analysis, they

are supplemented by dimensions employed by the other three researchers.

26

2.4.1 Hofstede’s dimensions of culture

Hofstede’s theory outlines five dimensions of culture that are briefly discussed here. His

theory emphasizes cultural differences in the sense of how one group defines itself as

different from a similar group in a similar situation.

Hofstede’s first dimension, power distance is related to the different solutions to the basic

problem of human inequality (Hofstede, 2001:29). Power distance is the extent to which the

less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is

distributed unequally (Hofstede, 1994:28). The relevance of power distance in our study is

related to the fact that the degree to which inequality of power is accepted/expected within

organizations is reflected in hierarchies and manager-subordinates relationships. As

mentioned before, the work relation between the Danes and Romanians interviewed in our

study is essentially manager-subordinate. In addition, the degree of power distance in society

in general, also influences the environment within which the company operates and therefore

may explain some aspects of the interactions between people from within the organization

and, for example, business partners, when the individuals represent different positions of

power.

The individualism-collectivism dimension is related to the integration of individuals into

primary groups (Hofstede, 2001:29). In individualist societies, the ties between individuals

are loose, everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate

family (Hofstede, 1994:51). In contrast, in collectivist societies people from birth onwards are

integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to

protect them in exchange for unquestionable loyalty (ibid). In the present study the

individualism-collectivism dimension is related to the nature of the relation between

colleagues within an organization or between the individual and others from outside the

organization, and the degree of emphasis on in-group membership in business relations,

which are key points in explaining the differences between the Danes and Romanians.

Associated with collectivist societies (Hofstede, 1994:61) and useful in explaining some

aspects of the identified differences, is also the concept of face, i.e. losing face means being

humiliated. Hofstede draws on the definition of face given by David Yau-Fai Ho: “Face is

lost when the individual, either through his actions or that of the people closely related to

27

him, fails to meet essential requirements placed upon him by virtue of the social position he

occupies.”(Ho, 1976:867, cit. in Hofstede, 1994:61).

Hofstede’s dimension masculinity-femininity refers to the division of emotional roles

between men and women (Hofstede, 2001:29). Masculinity refers to societies in which men

are supposed to be assertive, tough and focused on material success and women are supposed

to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life, while femininity pertains to

societies in which both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned

with the quality of life (Hofstede, 1994:82-83). The masculinity-femininity dimension is

relevant in this study because it can be used to explain various aspects, such as the importance

of material success and showing-off, or the roots of certain motivational factors (e.g.

recognition).

Hofstede’s forth dimension, uncertainty avoidance, refers to the level of stress in a society in

the face of an unknown future (Hofstede, 2001:29). Uncertainty avoidance is the extent to

which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations (Hofstede,

1994:113). In the present study the dimension uncertainty avoidance is related to the need for

predictability in carrying out a job or the acceptance/search for solutions that represent

deviations from pre-established patterns.

Hofstede’s fifth dimension long-term/short-term orientation was later added to his model

and is related to whether people prefer to focus their efforts on the future or on the present

(Hofstede, 2001:29). Societies characterized by a long-term life perspective emphasize values

such as persistence (perseverance), ordering relationships by status and observing this order,

thrift and having a sense of shame. On the other hand, short-term orientation is characterized

by values, such as personal steadiness and stability, protecting your face, respect for tradition,

reciprocation of greetings, favors and gifts (Hofstede, 1994:165-166). The long-term/short-

term orientation dimension is relevant in the present study in connection with such aspects, as

investments or people’s focus on immediate benefits or career development with potentially

increased benefits in the future.

Hofstede’s research has been criticized for three major constraints, summed up by

Søndergaard (1994:449). Firstly, some reviewers questioned whether the dimensions were not

specific to the period when the data were collected (1967-1973). Secondly, the study has been

28

criticized for limiting the research population to IBM employees. Therefore, a certain social

imbalance cannot be excluded, but it could be argued that Hofstede’s study underestimates

rather than overestimates the national cultural differences. Finally, some reviewers questioned

the validity of using only attitude survey questionnaires as a base from which to infer values.

Despite these limitations, Hofstede’s five dimensions provide a powerful framework for

comparing national cultural values. Therefore, they are particularly useful in this study, since

the focus is on interaction between individuals from different cultures and differences, rather

than similarities are what matters. Hofstede’s dimensions are used to explain and understand

specific elements derived from the empirical data.

The positioning of Denmark and Romania on Hofstede’s dimensions (2001:500, 502) is

shown in Table 1 below.

In an independent study, Foris and Foris (1996) have measured Hofstede’s first 4 dimensions

for Romania. However, their approach was to literally translate into questionnaires the key

differences presented in the summary tables included in Hofstede (1994). The scores they

derive are therefore not directly comparable with Hofstede’s scores. The authors conclude that

Romania is large power distance, low individualism, high masculinity and high uncertainty

avoidance. In spite of the methodological flaws, the most important question raised by the

study is that Romania might be more masculine than Hofstede estimated, since according to

Hofstede’s estimates Romania is positioned mid-way on the masculine scale, while Foris and

Foris (1996) suggest that Romania is high masculinity.

29

Table 1. The positioning of Denmark and Romania on Hofstede's dimensions

Dimension Denmark Romania1

Power distance

Score = 18

3rd lowest in 50 countries and 3 regions

2nd lowest in Europe

Score = 90

between 4th and 5/6th ranked in 50 countries and 3 regions

highest in Europe

Individualism (vs. collectivism)

Score = 74

9th highest in 50 countries and 3 regions

5th highest in Europe

Score = 30

equal to 32nd ranked in 50 countries and 3 regions

3rd lowest in Europe

Masculinity (vs. femininity)

Score = 16

4th lowest in 50 countries and 3 regions

4th lowest in Europe

Score = 42

equal to 37/38th ranked in 50 countries and 3 regions

10/11th highest in Europe

Uncertainty avoidance

Score = 23

3rd lowest in 50 countries and 3 regions

lowest in Europe

Score = 90

between 7th and 8th ranked in 50 countries and 3 regions

4th highest in Europe

Long term orientation (vs. short term orientation)

Score = 46Rank = 10 of 34

Not measured or estimated

Source: Based on Hofstede (2001:500, 502)Notes: 1. Romania was not included in the IBM survey. The scores represent Hofstede’s estimates based on Hofstede, Kolman, Nicolescu and Pajumaa (1996), other dimensions, observation and descriptive data (Hofstede, 2001:502). Romania’s ranking has been calculated by the authors of the present study, by comparing Hofstede’s estimated scores for Romania with the scores measured by Hofstede for 50 countries and 3 regions (Hofstede, 2001:500).

The subsequent analysis of the empirical data is based on using Hofstede’s model as an

explanatory framework, relying on the characteristics of the dimensions and therefore the

actual scores of the two countries have less importance.

2.4.2 Other dimensions of culture

The US anthropologist Edward T. Hall distinguishes cultures based on their way of perceiving

and organizing time along a monochronic-polychronic time dimension (Hall, 1959; 1966;

Hall and Hall, 1990) and on their way of communicating, along a high-context - low-context

communication dimension (Hall, 1976; Hall and Hall, 1990).

30

High-context communication is one in which very little information is transmitted directly,

explicitly as part of the message, because most of the information is already in the person. In

antithesis, low-context communication is one in which most of the information is transmitted

in the explicit code. (Hall, 1976, cit. in Hall and Hall, 1990:6) By context, Hall means the

information surrounding an event, which is closely bound with the meaning of that event

(Hall and Hall, 1990:6). The context refers to how much people have to know before effective

communication can occur, how much commonly shared knowledge is taken for granted in

communication and how much reference there is to tacit, common ground. The high/low

context communication dimension is relevant in this study, because all interactions between

the Danish managers and the Romanians are based on communication (mainly verbal) and the

empirical data suggest that numerous misunderstandings occurred due to different

communication styles in the two cultures.

The existence of extended information networks of friends, colleagues, clients or family with

whom people nurture close personal relationships in high-context cultures, but not so much in

low context cultures (Hall and Hall,1990:6-8) suggests a possible link between Hall’s

high/low context communication dimension and Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism. This

point is also confirmed by Hofstede, who maintains that high-context communication is

frequent in collectivist societies, while low-context communication is typical for individualist

societies (Hofstede, 2001:212).

Monochronic time refers to ”paying attention to and doing only one thing at a time”, while

polychronic time means ”being involved with many things at once” (Hall and Hall, 1990:13).

The essence of monochronism is that time is perceived as linear, it is experienced and used

almost as a tangible commodity, as if it were money. Monochronic time is characteristic for

cultures in which people compartimentize and schedule time very carefully (Hall, 1966:173).

The characteristics of polychronic time are almost the exact opposite. Polychronic time is

much less tangible and it is manifested by the simultaneous occurrence of many events and

greater involvement with people (Hall and Hall, 1990:14). Hall and Hall also indicate that

monochronic people are low-context and polychronic people are high-context (Hall and Hall,

1990:15). The distinction between monochronic and polychronic time is connected to several

aspects of the differences between the Danes and the Romanians identified from the empirical

data, such as the way time is perceived and allocated, or the emphasis placed in the two

cultures on timeliness.

31

Hall and Hall (1990:7,14) maintain that Scandinavian cultures are both low-context and

monochronic, but no indication is given regarding the orientation of the Romanian culture.

Therefore, the interpretation of the differences identified from the empirical data is mainly

based on the characteristics of the two dimensions.

Another large-scale study of cultural value orientations has been carried out by Trompenaars

(1993) who differentiated cultures using seven dimensions11. Trompenaars’s model is based

on the problem solving definition of culture (as “the way in which a group of people solves

problems” – Trompenaars, 1993:6)12. Out of Trompenaars’s seven dimensions, only three of

them (universalism-particularism, specific-diffuse and achievement-ascription) are relevant

for this study. These three dimensions encompass different aspects of relationships with

people, which were useful in interpreting the empirical data.

The universalism-particularism refers to how people judge other people’s behavior based

either on standards universally agreed by the culture (universalism) or on the exceptional

nature of the circumstances or the nature of the relationship to the people involved

(particularism) (Trompenaars, 1993:31). This dimension is useful for the analysis in this paper

in interpreting the different behaviors and attitudes of the Danes and the Romanians, either by

adherence to standards or observance of particular obligations.

Specific-diffuse refers to the degree to which people engage others in specific areas of their

lives and single areas of personality (specific) or in multiple areas of their lives and at several

levels of personality at the same time (diffuse). In specific cultures, individuals have much

more public than private space, while in a diffuse culture public space is relatively small and

private spaces are large and diffuse. (Trompenaars, 1993:73-74) In relation to the present

study, the sharp versus less sharp separation of the people’s different areas of life may explain

several aspects of the Danes and the Romanians interpersonal interactions, such as the

different strategies of approaching business partners or the degree to which private and

professional lives are separated in the two cultures.

11These dimensions are universalism-particularism, individualism-collectivism, neutral-emotional, specific-diffuse, achievement-ascription, attitudes to time and attitudes to the environment (Trompenaars, 1993:8-11)12 Trompenaar’s definition is a simplified version of Schein’s (1985) more comprehensive definition of culture as “a set of basic assumptions - shared solutions to universal problems of external adaptation (how to survive) and internal integration (how to stay together) – which have evolved over time and are handed down from one generation to the next”.

32

Achievement-ascription refers to how societies accord status to people either on the basis of

their achievements or by virtue of who they are (age, class, gender, education, a.s.o.).

Achieved status refers to doing, while ascribed status refers to being. (Trompenaars, 1993:92)

In the interpretation of our empirical data, achievement versus ascription is related to such

aspects as the importance and perception of titles or how people perceive and judge each other

based on their status reflected by their position or title and not necessarily by competence.

Based on the data given by Trompenaars (1993), it is rather difficult to draw a conclusion

regarding the positioning of both countries on these three dimensions. Denmark appears to be

in the upper half on the universalism-particularism, specific-diffuse and achievement-

ascription dimensions. However, Romania is listed only in some of the questionnaire items

presented for each dimension, thus making it difficult to draw a clear conclusion. Because of

these inconsistencies, the interpretation of the identified differences between Danes and

Romanians based on Trompenaars’s dimensions, relies mainly on the characteristics of the

dimensions.

Concerning Trompenaars’s dimensions, Hofstede (2001:223) argues that they represent

categories rather than dimensions, because they are not statistically independent and that they

capture “various intercorrelated flavors of individualism”. Despite the fact that

Trompenaars’s three dimensions used in this study are associated with individualism-

collectivism, they are still useful in interpreting the empirical data, because they represent

particular aspects, which allow making useful distinctions, even though within the broader

dimension of individualism-collectivism.

2.5 Previous literature

In this section we critically examine several studies referring to characteristics of the Danish

and Romanian cultures and we show how the present study addresses some of these

limitations and contributes to further knowledge and understanding in the field of intercultural

interactions in work settings. Following, we also specify how the findings of some of these

studies are used in relation to the analysis of the empirical data in the present study.

33

In a review article Askegaard, Gertsen and Madsen (1995) draw on the results of previous

research in order to identify a set of specific characteristics of the Danish culture that may

have an impact on the international activities of Danish firms. These characteristics were

equality, informality, social introversion, professional accuracy, know-all attitude, softness

and weak career orientation. Their review is based on three types of studies13 – (1) general

studies, not specifically comparing Denmark with another culture (e.g. Gertsen, 1990;

Madsen, 1990); (2) multi-country studies of cultural differences (e.g. Hofstede, 1980); and (3)

culture specific studies including some aspects of the Danish culture in relation to one or two

other cultures (e.g. Djursaa, 1988; Schramm-Nielsen, 1991; Søndergaard, 1990).

The more general studies present the cultural traits relying exclusively on the perspective of

Danish respondents and therefore the results may reflect the cultural biases of the

respondents’ culture of origin. This is also the case in some culture specific studies (for

example Djursaa, 1988 tries to determine the Danish image in Great Britain based exclusively

on interviewing British respondents). Another study (Fivelsdal and Schramm-Nielsen, 1993),

which was not included in Askegaard, Gertsen and Madsen (1995) review presents some

characteristics of the Danish management with reference to cultural factors underlining them,

but these are not seen from an intercultural interaction perspective. Other culture specific

studies that include the perspectives of respondents from both cultures (e.g. Schramm-

Nielsen, 1991; Søndergaard, 1990) largely solve this problem. However, it is still difficult to

infer from findings of previous studies, which of the characteristics of the Danish culture

would be relevant in interactions with people from cultures not included in these studies.

Moreover, traits of the Danish culture not identified in previous studies may appear in the

interaction with other cultures (e.g. Romanian).

In a later study, Worm (1997) investigates the effect of cultural differences on interpersonal

relationships and the management of Scandinavians firms in China. In his study Worm

interviews both Scandinavian and Chinese respondents, but the latter are far outnumbered by

the former (28:12). Moreover, without denying the usefulness and validity of Worm’s study,

we would like to note that his research addresses a Scandinavian audience. In addition, the

study is based on the alleged cultural similarity between the Scandinavian countries, which

relies on the similar positioning of these countries on Hofstede’s dimensions. However, there

13 The discussion of the limitations of these studies is based on Askegaard, Gertsen and Madsen’s (1995) description of the objectives and methods of the studies included in their review.

34

may be cultural traits that individualize the Danish culture within the Scandinavian culture,

which are not treated by the study, since it does not specifically focus on the Danish culture.

Turning to research regarding aspects of the Romanian culture, it should be emphasized that

this is mainly limited to studies referring to the positioning of Romania on Hofstede’s

dimensions (Hofstede, Kolman, Nicolescu and Pajumaa, 1996; Hofstede, 2001; Foris and

Foris, 1996) and sporadic specifications made by Trompenaars (1993). In another study, Su

and Richelieu (1999) analyze the perceptions and attitudes of Western managers working in

Romania and of Romanian managers. However, this study focuses exclusively on surveying

Western managers and from their perceptions, the authors conclude what practices are

ethical/unethical for both Western and Romanian managers, which again reflects the bias of

the Western managers’ perspective.

In light of the limitations of previous research, the present study is important for three

reasons:

(1) In the context of increased economic cooperation between Denmark and Romania, which

was outlined in the beginning of the paper, the importance of studying the cultural differences

that make a difference in work relations between expatriate Danish managers and Romanian

nationals cannot be ignored.

(2) The focus on the perceptions of both Danish and Romanian respondents of their own

behaviors and attitudes, as well as of each other’s, addresses some of the limitations of

previous research (the bias of a unilateral perspective that may reflect the cultural values of

only one group). Including a comparable number of respondents from both cultures (12 Danes

and 17 Romanians) provides a fair balance in the representation of the two groups.

(3) In the intercultural work interactions between Danes and Romanians, characteristics of the

two cultures identified in the literature may or may not be relevant. Thus, not all the

characteristics of the two cultures identified in previous research may be relevant, i.e. make a

difference, in the particular Danish-Romanian interactions, while other important cultural

specific traits may appear in this particular context.

While acknowledging the limitations of previous research, we also recognize the usefulness of

some of the findings in these studies in relation to the analysis of the empirical data in the

present study. Therefore, reference to the results of previous research dealing with

characteristics of the two cultures is occasionally made in order to validate our own findings.

35

However, we must emphasize that it is not the purpose of this study to find support for the

results of previous literature.

2.6 Validity issues

In order to increase the validity of the collected empirical data, triangulation of both data

sources and methods was used. The general principle of triangulation refers to “collecting

information from a diverse range of individuals and settings, using a variety of methods”

(Denzin, 1970, cit. in Maxwell, 1996:75).

Sources of data. First, the data were collected from both Danish and Romanian respondents

in order to minimize the bias of a unilateral perspective that would reflect the cultural values

of only one of the groups. Second, the Romanian respondents held both managerial and non-

managerial positions14. Third, respondents were selected from different companies, both small

and large, operating in different industries and based in different geographical locations. An

additional source of data was our own detailed notes of observations, made during and just

after the interviews.

There was also a question whether what the respondents told us was true. In order to insure

the reliability of the data we assured the respondents of the confidentiality of the information

and we agreed to stop the tape recording, whenever they felt uncomfortable talking about

sensitive issues. Interviewing both Danes and Romanians in the same company provided the

opportunity to corroborate their answers. In addition, both Danish and Romanian respondents

were critical of each other’s behavior, as well as of their own, which further added to the

reliability of information15.

Methods. The primary method of data collection was the interview, but it was also

supplemented by interview notes, which systematically recorded our own observations during

and after the meetings. In order to insure the accuracy and completeness of the data, the

interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. In addition, the cultural characteristics derived

14 The same distinction was not possible for the Danish respondents, because the role of the Danish expatriates in Romania was to run the local operations.15 However, as mentioned before, in the case of the Romanian respondents it was necessary to ask the Danish managers to indicate employees that were known to be outspoken in order to avoid getting only polite answers.

36

from the empirical data were externally validated by results of previous research when such

results were relevant and available.

Researcher’s bias. We have tried to avoid imposing our own preconceptions about what

cultural traits might be important in the work interactions between Danes and Romanians by

identifying them based on an open-ended interview comprising of general questions. Another

threat that we were aware of from the beginning of the project, was that our subjective

opinions should not interfere with the collection and analysis of the data. Therefore,

throughout the project we tried to critically reflect on our preconceptions and confront them

with the empirical data. Besides, working as a team also provided the opportunity to critically

cross-examine each other’s ideas or interpretations. For example, if at the end of a meeting,

we both reported the same observation without prior consultation, confidence grew. The same

was applied during the analysis and interpretation of the empirical data. Finally, we had no

prior personal relationship with any of the respondents that might influence the content of the

data collected.

2.7 Conclusion

In this part of the paper, the conceptual and methodological framework of the study has been

discussed. The point of departure were the key concepts that underline and delimitate the

study. The first stage of the study relied mainly on qualitative methods of data collection and

analysis, which were discussed in some length, because the quality of the data collected

largely depended on the choice of methods and the way they were applied. In addition,

decisions regarding data collection and analysis (first stage) were made with a view to address

a number of validity issues. In relation to the second stage of data analysis we discussed a

number of dimensions of culture, how they relate to the study and how they are employed to

interpret the empirical data. Finally, several studies touching on characteristics of the Danish

and Romanian cultures were reviewed and we showed how the present study addresses some

of the limitations of previous research. However, some results of previous studies are also

useful in the analysis of the empirical data (second stage) in order to validate our own

findings. In the next part, the differences in the Danes and Romanians interpersonal behavior

are presented and analyzed in depth.

37

3. Analysis of the empirical data

In the following chapters (3.1 to 3.9) the various elements of the Danes’ and Romanians’

interpersonal interaction are further analyzed through a process of interpretation, in order to

go beyond the surface (differences in behavior) and to reveal their hidden meaning. At this

second stage of data analysis, the dimensions of culture outlined before are also employed in

order to explain, to make sense of these differences. When relevant non-cultural factors (e.g.

institutional factors16) that may influence certain elements of interpersonal behavior shall also

be discussed. The scope is to identify the cultural differences that influence work relations

between the Danes and the Romanians and to discuss their implications. The conclusion to

each chapter also includes a set of recommendations for adjustment, which are based mainly

on our interpretation of the empirical data and the actual negative effects of the cultural clash.

The description and analysis are based both on the answers of the respondents about what

differences in behavior and attitudes they noticed at the representatives of the two cultures,

and also on our own observations made during the interviews.

The structure of the following analysis is presented in Figure 2 below. The criterion that lays

behind the structure of the analysis is the distinction between differences that influence work

relations inside the organization and those influencing work relations that cross the

organizational boundaries (e.g.: with business partners and authorities), because the

companies in the present study not only have Romanian employees, but they also operate in

the Romanian business environment. Moreover, the intercultural contact is more intense

within the organization than in external firm relationships. Therefore this distinction is both

necessary and useful. The discussion starts with the most comprehensive differences, those

that affect work relations inside the organization and with its external environment (chapters

3.1 to 3.5). Afterwards, we shall refer to differences that are relevant only in work relations

with the company’s external environment (chapters 3.6 and 3.7). Finally, attention is focused

on differences that have an impact mainly on work relations within the organizational

hierarchy (chapters 3.8 and 3.9).

16 Institutional factors mainly refer to the impact of the communist regime on the Romanian society. The discussion of these factors is based on our own experiences of living in Romania, because many of these particular aspects are general knowledge in Romania and even though people often speak about them, little has been written about many of these particular aspects.

38

Figure 2. Structure of the analysis of the empirical data

39

Pro

gres

sion

in th

e an

alys

is o

f th

e em

piri

cal d

ata

3.1 Communication styles3.2 Perception of time3.3 Perception of rank and status symbols3.4 Separation of private and professional lives3.5 Trust

3.6 Personal connections (Relaţii)3.7 Bribery (Şpagă)

3.8 Know-all attitude3.9 Responsibility

3.1 Communication styles

The first major area where we have identified differences between the Danish managers and

Romanians refers to communication styles. We have chosen to start the discussion in this

area, because communication is the fundament of the intercultural interaction between the

Danish managers and the Romanians. Frequent interactions both inside and outside the

organization are based on communication regardless of the setting of the interaction.

Therefore, differences in communication styles may affect how other differences between the

two groups are communicated and perceived.

Communication includes both verbal and written messages, though the focus here is on the

former, since it is the prevalent form of communication in the everyday work interactions.

The empirical data indicate that the Danes are more direct and to the point, while Romanians

adopt a more indirect, ambiguous communication style. Therefore, this chapter starts with a

general discussion of the findings regarding the differences in the communication styles of the

two groups (section 3.1.1), as they were perceived by the Danish and Romanian respondents,

and their general implications. An important manifestation of this difference is reflected in

how the Danes and Romanians perceive and handle disagreements and conflicts on job related

issues, which is discussed separately in more details (section 3.1.2). Section 3.1.3 refers to

hierarchical communication, which is influenced by both the different communication styles

and the perceived difference between hierarchical levels.

3.1.1 Differences in the communication styles of the Danes and Romanians

Talking about the differences in communication styles, one of the Danish respondents said:

“I used to call it a very philosophic style. […] They [the Romanians] talk in pictures, they talk a long time about something and they never really get to the exact point, but all the picture ends up to what is it really the thing about. Yes, I may have been a little short temper at the time on that, saying ‘Get to the point and let’s finish it!’, but not very often, because I tend to believe that I come to understand their way of talking and their way of communicating. […] At times I may have been too direct.” (Danish respondent)

40

This quote indicates that the verbal communication style of the Danes and Romanians is

substantially different. Talking in pictures or metaphors means that only suggesting what is

meant is characteristic for Romanians. Therefore, they circle around the point that is behind

the message, which needs not be expressed in a concise, blunt form. They prefer to be subtler

and hint rather than directly transmit the information and they expect the other party to be

intuitive and read between the lines of the message, to discover the hidden meaning, instead

of saying it straightforward. This indirect form of communication, where part of the

information is not transmitted explicitly, but implicitly, requires an additional effort from the

receiver of the information in order to decode the message. On the other hand, the Danes are

open, direct and they prefer to get to the point, because the main purpose of the message is to

transmit precise, necessary information to the other party. “Get to the point and let’s finish it”,

suggests that the Danes are concerned with how efficiently information is transmitted without

wasting time with unnecessary information. The form in which the message transmits the

information is a concern to the extent that it should be clear, non-equivocal and should give as

little room for interpretation or ambiguity, as possible. The other party should easily

understand what it is all about and therefore, an additional effort for decoding the message is

not required. These characteristics point to the fact that the Danes’ direct versus the

Romanians’ indirect communication can be explained in terms of high-context versus low-

context communication (cf. Hall and Hall, 1990:6-9).

Because of these differences sometimes communication can become quite confusing for the

Danish managers:

“…sometimes I do not really find out what is the purpose of the visit. Sometimes I will have to have one of the [Romanian] boys come in and tell me what is going on here. We have come with a project to Romania and we have…, we pay a lot of money to [our Romanian partners]. But sometimes they are in need of money and then they come to me. And I taught myself to be very listening, to listen what they really want, because they never say directly. In Denmark you will say ‘I need some money. Can you help me? Can I have a little advance payment?’ and we’ll see what we do. They never say this thing.” (Danish respondent)

This example shows that the Danish manager finds it difficult to understand what his

Romanian business partners are trying to communicate. As the respondent clearly states, the

Danes would be very direct in communicating what they really want. Because he is used with

a very direct and explicit manner of transmitting and receiving information, characteristic for

low-context societies, the Danish manager expects the purpose of the visit to be expressed

41

explicitly in conversation. Consequently, even if he were aware of the financial difficulties of

the Romanian company, it would have been very difficult for him to make the connection and

decode the message. This is why he believes he must teach himself to “listen” and read

between the lines.

On the other hand, the Romanians expect the Danish partner to know that they may have

financial difficulties and based on this information deduct the true purpose of the meeting, so

it is not necessary to express it explicitly. This example indicates that for Romanians the

context plays a major role both in transmitting and understanding/interpreting the message. In

communication between Romanians, the message will go through as long as the participants

to the discussion know each other well enough to draw on commonly shared knowledge or

experience, or the message can be decoded by reference to historical background and both

parties expect to have to read between the lines. That is why the Danish manager in the above

example needs the assistance of his Romanian employees to decode the message.

It sounds almost like every conversation has a riddle behind it, or an unspoken hidden agenda,

or things that are better left unsaid. However, through extensive socialization with people with

whom they work, the Romanians develop many close personal relationships that form vast

networks of contacts and friends (see chapter 3.4 Separation of private and professional lives

and chapter 3.6 Personal connections (Relaţii)). Therefore, they often share a mutual, tacit

understanding with people they communicate with and they already have the information that

forms the context of the message, which enables them to understand what is not said

explicitly. This is characteristic for high-context cultures, because in such cultures,

communication heavily relies on the context of communication, which is preferred and

possible, since people maintain extensive information networks of friends, colleagues, clients

or family, with whom they nurture close personal relationships (Hall and Hall, 1990:6-7).

Here is how a Romanian describes the difference in communication styles:

“… when you have a personal or work related problem you know how to approach the issue, just as direct, but you have to say it in a certain way, with a certain tonality; you can say ‘How about …’ or ‘What if…’ not just come and say straight out ‘Look this is to inform you that…’. It’s a totally different tonality.” (Romanian respondent)

42

This example points to a slightly different perspective - that for Danes it is important what is

said, while for Romanians it is more important how things are said. As one of the Danish

managers also emphasized, Romanians “are paying bigger attention to the words, if they are

correct instead of the meaning; they please too much the other person [and] they do not want

to be impolite”. The Romanians’ preoccupation with how things are said, underlines their

concern for being polite or for the emotional effect of the message on the other person. This

suggests that the Romanians ascribe high importance to the relationship they have with the

receiver of the message, which they feel could be damaged if the message is too direct. In

contrast, for the Danes the “meaning” of the message (what is said) seems to be more

important, in order to convey the information pertaining to the work related task in a clear and

concise manner.

This contrast could be explained in terms of the individualism-collectivism divide. In an

individualist society (Denmark), people focus primarily on the task (Hofstede, 1994:67). This

justifies the emphasis on what is said, because if the meaning of the message is moderated or

altered in order to be polite or avoid hurt feelings, carrying out the task could be negatively

affected. In a collectivist society (Romania), relationship prevails over task (ibid), which

explains the focus on how the message is formulated. In a collectivist culture maintaining

harmonious relationships is a primary concern (Hofstede, 1994:58), because of the intense

social interaction (as opposed to relationships being guided by the focus on tasks). As one of

the Romanian respondents put it “what we always tried was to keep a pleasant relationship

with him [the Danish manager]. This was maybe one of the key elements we emphasized”.

The different communication styles also become apparent in the written messages:

“… a lot of our letters we normally do by points and you are telling this and then, point and a short sentence. So it is totally clear for everyone. […] you will see this a lot of times if you see a letter formulated in Romanian language, then everything is put in one chapter or something, is not … You have to structure. First of all the heading is very pleasing and so on and then is just put together instead of … we use that a lot of times to make those quick points. And short sentence, so it’s understandable. […] you have to be very short in your sentence and very clear. And it’s not a polite language, but it is functional.” (Danish respondent)

In written communication, the Danes are concise and make clear and distinct points often in

the form of bullet lists, because functionality is the primary concern. The Romanians, on the

contrary, prefer to express their ideas in lengthy, elaborate paragraphs abounding in

43

information and they use extensive standard phrases expressing respect and consideration to

the addressee. The attitude of the Danish manager reflects again the focus on the task, while

the Romanians’ concern for observing the rules of politeness in relationships and elaborate

sentences is regarded as confusing.

In addition to the concrete examples of difficulties experienced by both the Danish and

Romanian respondents, we could also observe the different communication styles directly

during the interviews. All the Danish respondents were more direct and to the point. Besides,

they did not display restraint in talking about the different behaviors they have observed and

they did not seem to be embarrassed by the existence of these differences. However, in

relation with the Romanian respondents two points should be made here. First, they were all

more indirect in communicating what they observed17; they were often giving vague, general

examples expecting us to guess or infer the actual point of their message. Second, some

respondents showed a deliberate attempt to minimize these differences, i.e. they either

avoided talking about them or tried to minimize their importance18. This attitude shows their

concern for preserving the appearances of harmonious work relations, because openly

admitting these differences could add a negative connotation to their relationship with the

Danish managers. In relation to both points made above, the fact that some Romanian

respondents were both more direct in communicating and willing to talk about the different

behaviors they had observed can be attributed partly to their personality, but also to the

process of adaptation caused by the frequent face-to-face interactions with the more open and

direct Danish managers19.

The effects of the difference in communication style on the work relations are significant, in

the sense that they lead to misunderstandings about what the message communicates and also

generate tensions in the daily interactions. The Danes perceived the Romanians’

communication style as being: “indirect”, “not open”, “beating around the bush”, “not going

17 This was a matter of degree and some Romanians were more direct than others, but overall we perceived them as being more indirect than the Danish managers.18 Only some of the Romanian respondents had this attitude, because, as mentioned in chapter 2.2.2 Sampling strategy, in order to obtain meaningful and accurate information we asked the Danish managers to indicate those Romanian employees who were likely to be more outspoken and not so reluctant to talk about differences that might add a negative connotation to their relationship with the Danish managers.19 This argument is also supported by several respondents stating that after having worked together with the Danish manager(s) for several years, some of the Romanians did become more open, direct and to the point than they were at the beginning of their cooperation. Still, this adaptation is always a question of degree, so overall, even after several years of working with Danish managers, the Romanian employees were still rather indirect and not as open as the Danes.

44

in a direct discussion”, “do not speak up”, “philosophic”, “just bla, bla, bla”, “seemingly

extrovert, but in fact hiding something”, “opaque”, “diplomatic”, “very polite”, “running

around in circles”. From the perspective of the Danish managers, the problem was that they

did not quickly get the clear and precise information they needed. On the other hand, the

Romanians saw the Danes as being “direct”, “open”, “outspoken”. The Danes’ directness was

often perceived as “aggressive”, “arrogant”, “hard”, ”rude”, “can easily offend”, “impolite”,

“not showing respect”, “tough”, “frank” and “not friendly”, even though no such message was

intended by the Danish managers. From the Romanian respondents’ perspective, the problem

was that the Danes did not attribute the same importance to relationships, to avoiding hurting

each other’s feelings and maintaining a harmonious, friendly atmosphere. These very different

perceptions are the result of each side seeing the other through the eyes of its own culture.

3.1.2 Disagreements and conflicts

The difference in communication style is also reflected in the way people from the two groups

perceive and deal with disagreements and conflict, regardless of the hierarchy. Differences of

opinions on work-related issues exist in all societies, but the difference in the interactions

between the Danish managers and their Romanian employees occurred in how disagreements

were perceived and (not) communicated and how conflicts were handled.

The following quote illustrates this difference:

“If you don’t like it just say it. In Romania they don’t like that. You agree and as soon as you leave the door, then you say that you didn’t agree. I think it goes back to the fact that Romanians are very friendly people, they hate making each other upset, so they will be friends upfront and as soon as you leave then they will disagree. But in front of you they will agree. […] Living with the problem is different and much easier than to do something about the problem. It’s the same in the management style.” (Danish respondent)

The Romanians try to avoid as much as possible open disagreements or conflicts.

“Confrontation is one of the things that we fear”, said a Romanian manager. Avoiding

upsetting each other, even if it only creates an apparent state of harmony is the base of

keeping good work relations with colleagues and business partners, which are often based on

friendships or at least good personal relationships (see also chapter 3.4 Separation of private

and professional lives and chapter 3.6 Personal connections (Relaţii)). As the above quote

45

suggests, open confrontation is seen as a threat to the maintenance of harmonious

relationships.

When there is a matter of disagreement of opinions the Romanians prefer to tell each other

that they agree, even if in reality they completely disagree, which indicates that they may also

be concerned with preserving each other’s face and open confrontation is likely to make one

loose face. Therefore, the Romanians will often discuss the problem with a third party,

internalize the tension arising from an unconsumed conflict or disagreement, and live with the

problem rather than take the confrontation up with the other person. Romanians seem to

perceive non-action, in the sense of avoiding disagreements/conflicts and burying tensions, as

the right way of keeping good work relations. Such good work relations are maintained by

preserving an apparent state of harmony and protecting one’s face, rather than eliminating the

tensions through open discussion.

The opinion of another Danish manager reflects the different attitude of the Danes:

“The Romanian way, in that way is less efficient […]. I think this can be solved between people, but this requires an amount of courage, of directness and not thinking that a conflict is the end of the world. I, in fact, provoke and tell people to have conflicts, constructive ones. If you never have conflicts, I don’t think you are moving anything.” (Danish respondent)

The above quote indicates that the Danish manager welcomed confrontations of opinions, and

taking up a conflict with the other person was regarded as the efficient way of dealing with

such situations. “Danes are probably quicker to take up the confrontation and getting over

with it”, said another Danish manager. If the conflict is not consumed, it just creates

unnecessary tension and will affect the handling of the daily tasks. Conflictual situations or

disagreements should be dealt with in a “constructive” manner through open discussion.

Action/discussion is preferred to non-action or avoiding confrontation. That does not mean

that the Danes are not concerned with having good work relations, but rather that good work

relations should be preserved through open discussion and mediation of

disagreements/conflicts, instead of burying tensions.

The explanation behind this difference can be found in the individualism-collectivism divide.

In the case of the Romanians, because of the continuous and intense social interaction

characteristic for collectivist cultures, the maintenance of harmony with one’s social

46

environment becomes a key virtue (Hofstede, 2001:228). Hofstede also argues that this

extends beyond the sphere of one’s family (ibid), in the present case to the social environment

including colleagues or even business partners. This context, added to the fact that in

collectivist cultures, direct confrontation of another person is regarded as rude and undesirable

(ibid) explains the attitude of the Romanians, which frustrates the Danish managers

conditioned by their own cultural background. The Romanians’ concern for preserving face in

relations with peers can be also regarded as a manifestation of collectivism in the Romanian

society. On the other hand, the Danes’ open and direct approach to disagreements and

conflicts reflects individualism. The norm in an individualist culture is that a sincere and

honest person should tell the truth about how he or she feels, and confrontations or clashes of

opinions are accepted and believed to lead to a higher truth (Hofstede, 2001:228-229). In the

case of work interactions this could be a better solution to the problem/task, so people are

encouraged to speak openly.

The concern for keeping harmonious relations also extends to relations with business partners.

One of the Romanian respondents indicated that the Danish managers were confronted with

situations, when Romanian business partners did not directly decline a business offer and

avoided saying “no”. What they did was just to show polite interest and ask for information,

instead of bluntly declining the offer. Such responses puzzled the Danes who were not used to

read between the lines that the client was not interested in the offer and they kept investing

time and effort, regarding him/her as a potential client. It was then necessary for the

Romanian employees to point out to the Danish managers the true meaning of the attitude

displayed by the business partner.

One particular aspect of the perception of open confrontations that resulted from the empirical

data is the criticism of one’s professional performance. As suggested by several respondents

the approach of the Danish managers to work-related criticism was strictly functional and

therefore, impersonal. The objective of such criticism was to help a person responsible for a

certain task, to perform better and improve his/her skills in time. It was seen in the context of

performance appraisal and it was confined to the clear boundaries set by work relations - “at

the end of the day business is business”.

However, the empirical data indicate that professional criticism is often perceived by the

Romanians as a severe personal attack. Here is the viewpoint of one of the Danish managers:

47

“I think it’s much easier instead of beating around the bush to get into the point. [Does this create any problems?] Yes, because they take it personally. If I come to something, I say directly and they take it personally. If I would take 10 minutes and get to the same conclusion [it] would maybe be easier for them. But why spend 10 minutes on waiting for the tea to cool? Just say it, get it over with it and then move on to the next thing.” (Danish respondent)

This example indicates that the Romanians feel uncomfortable, when criticized on work-

related issues, because they perceive it as something highly personal20. “Who likes to be told

the truth straight in the face?” said one Romanian respondent. When a Romanian is directly

criticized he/she feels humiliated, looses face, because the Danish manager has made public

something that he/she perceived as being private. From their own cultural perspective, it is

then natural for the Romanians to assume that criticism is a personal attack. In order to avoid

loosing face and avoid the private confrontation, it is then important to take a long time before

getting to the point. For a Romanian the worst situation of loosing face is when such criticism

is made in front of colleagues or friends (“It’s embarrassing, because none of us likes to be

criticized in front of the colleagues and friends, but especially in front of the colleagues”, said

a Romanian manager). These are characteristics of a diffuse orientation, because in diffuse

cultures professional criticism is often perceived as a personal attack, which makes it

necessary to communicate it in such a way that would avoid a private confrontation and the

loss of face (Trompenaars, 1993:78).

On the other hand, the attitude of the Danish managers indicates a clear compartmentalization

of the various areas of life, a separation between what they perceive as being their private and

their public life, which is typical for specific cultures like Scandinavian cultures

(Trompenaars, 1993:88). In specific cultures with their small areas of privacy clearly

separated from public life it is then possible to criticize one’s professional performance

without affecting his/her whole life space. Work-related criticism is part of one’s public life

and is therefore not taken personally.

Being conditioned by his/her own cultural frame, it is difficult for a Dane to fully comprehend

the emotional effect that open criticism may have on a Romanian. The Danish manager in the

above example does not understand why it is necessary to “spend 10 minutes on waiting for

the tea to cool”. He is primarily concerned with solving the task (giving feedback to his

20 Examples given by other respondents point in the same direction.

48

employee) quickly and efficiently, and then move on to the next task, which again reflects the

individualist values of the Danish managers (as explained earlier).

As it was shown in this chapter, the Danish inclination to be very direct and frank in work-

related issues, even when disagreements, conflicts or professional criticism are involved, has

the effect that they will often make colleagues or business partners from a more indirect

collectivist country (Romania) feel like they are loosing face or they will at least be perceived

as impolite21. This does not imply that the Danish managers did not take into account the

effects of having an open disagreement or conflict with the Romanians, but in individualist

cultures, this does not justify changing the facts (Hofstede, 2001:229).

3.1.3 Hierarchical communication

In hierarchical relations the attitude towards, and perception of authority is an additional

factor that influences communication. The empirical data indicate that the hierarchical

distance accentuates the Romanians’ indirectness in communication, avoidance of

disagreements and even putting forth ideas that are not in line with those of the manager.

The Danish managers emphasized the importance of consultation with their employees in the

decision making process. They perceived as particularly important to receive ideas,

suggestions and feedback from their employees in order to be able to make informed

decisions, and the open and unrestricted flow of information and ideas from the lower levels

of the hierarchy was seen as critical.

“… they tend to give up from the beginning. In the beginning we didn’t work in a team like I wanted us to work in a team, because we were not discussing things too much. When I was saying ‘this is my opinion’ then most people agree to that opinion. Funny enough! Because I could say that the worst is when people are doing that. Ok, speak up! Tell us what you mean, give us your solutions to what could benefit here.” (Danish respondent)

The Romanians were therefore, quite reluctant to openly make suggestions and share their

ideas with the Danish managers. Other examples point in the same direction. But why? The

answer may be in the deep respect for and fear of authority that Romanians have. One could

21 This point has also been emphasized by Askegaard, Gertsen and Madsen (1995:12) in their review of Danish cultural barriers, where they quote the viewpoints of Djursaa (1988) and Gertsen (1990).

49

not suggest a better solution than the one proposed by the manager. Expressing such opinions

or suggestions would be equivalent to contradicting the boss, which should be avoided. There

are two interrelated explanations behind this attitude. Firstly, during the communist times,

expressing disagreement or even making suggestions that were not in line with the centralized

party directives was severely punished. Secondly, this attitude can be attributed to a

considerable gap between hierarchical levels, which can be explained by a large power

distance in the Romanian society. The Danish managers, coming from a small power distance

country, welcome ideas from the lower ranks, even when they contradict their own, because

such ideas can improve the final solution to the task that has to be achieved or enlarge the

platform for making decisions. Thus, the difference in power distance between the two

countries explains why communication between employees and the manager can become even

more difficult and opaque.

In one rather extreme example, a Romanian manager said that their company had acquired a

factory formerly managed and owned by an authoritarian Romanian director. As a direct

consequence, the employees working at the factory, including the department managers were

guided by the principle that “silence is gold”. Therefore, the new Danish manager could not

receive any feedback about problems or people at the factory and the upward hierarchical

communication was completely blocked.

The empirical data also indicate that the Danish managers and Romanian

managers/employees rely on very different information channels. Some of the Danish and

Romanian respondents indicated that Romanian managers, usually carefully guarded most of

the sensitive information and consequently made most decisions; the downward flow of

information through the hierarchy was on need to know basis, having the effect that

employees will officially hold only information relevant to their narrow area of competence

and they will often not understand the “big picture”. The upward flow of information along

the hierarchy is also constrained by the fear of expressing disagreement with the boss and

openly communicating opinions (as shown before). So how does information flow in such a

structure? The empirical data and our own experiences suggest that the formal, hierarchical

channels are, to a certain extent, replaced by the informal networks of contacts and friends

(characteristic for high-context communication cultures), as the main carrier of information

through the system (see also chapter 3.4 Separation of private and professional lives). Formal

briefings are often much drier than the morning coffee and after-lunch cigarette chitchat,

50

where information flows freely through informal networks. After all, if you are good friends

with someone higher up in the hierarchy, the fear of expressing an open opinion or to share

sensitive information is replaced by the obligation to share information and knowledge. A

combination of large power distance and indirect high-context communication can explain

why the Romanians relied on informal information channels rather than formal hierarchical

channels.

To the contrary, since they did not develop complex information networks similar to the

Romanians (cf. chapter 3.4 Separation of private and professional lives), the Danish managers

could only rely on the hierarchical or task-related channels to receive (upward

communication) or spread (downward communication) information or feedback. As discussed

before, this can be attributed to the low-context communication style of the Danish managers.

In addition, it was also shown that because of the small power distance the Danish managers

were open and eager to receive ideas and opinions contradicting their own, from their

employees and constantly encouraged them to speak freely. At the same time, some of the

respondents (remarked the Danish managers’ constant concern to inform their employees

about what is going on in the company, or even entrusting them with confidential information.

Such an attitude was motivated by their deep belief that every employee can and should

contribute to the company growth in a creative, unrestricted way and this can only be

achieved, if they have the information to understand the big picture.

The fact that the Danish managers mainly relied on formal hierarchical information channels

in a country where the flow of information through informal networks is preferred is an

additional explanation, as to why they often received little or incomplete information, which

limited their platform for making decisions or solving problems, which they often did not

even know that had existed.

3.1.4 Conclusion and recommendations

The empirical data clearly indicate that the difference in communication styles generated

problems in the work interactions. In communication, the Danes tend to be very direct, while

the Romanians tend to be rather indirect. The Danes have often been frustrated by the

Romanians’ indirect communication style, which they regarded as a time consuming and

unclear way of conveying information and an inefficient way of handling disagreements and

51

conflicts. For the Danes the primary focus was to transmit information in a direct, clear, and

concise manner, and to efficiently solve the tasks and avoid unnecessary tensions or

unproductive behavior by openly discussing disagreements or conflicts. Discussing

disagreements was also seen by the Danes as a way to maintain good relations free of buried

tensions. The Romanians, on the other hand, have been troubled by the Danes’ frankness that

often hurt their feelings or put them in embarrassing situations, even though the Danish

managers did not intend this. For the Romanians the primary focus in the work environment

was on relationships, in the sense that maintaining superficial harmony and protecting one’s

face was important for them.

These differences are traced back to the different orientations of the two countries along

several interrelated dimensions. The elements of individualism in the Danish society also

associated with the tendency towards low-context communication and a specific

compartimentalization of life areas explains the Danes’ preference for a direct communication

style, focus on the efficient handling of tasks and their open approach to confrontations of

opinions. The elements of collectivism in the Romanian society associated with

characteristics of a high-context and diffuse culture underlines the Romanians’ indirect

communication style and their concern with maintaining superficial harmony in relations at

work, as well as protecting face. Finally, we have argued that the large difference in power

distance accentuates the direct-indirect communication gap and restricts hierarchical

communication.

In terms of recommendations, it would probably be rather difficult for the Danish managers to

adopt or even fully understand the indirect communication style of the Romanians. Within the

company, it would be more realistic to encourage the Romanian employees to become more

open and direct and the empirical data indicate that this would be possible in time (cf.

footnote 19). However, in their interactions with business partners or authorities, the Danish

managers should try to mask their directness, which could offend or seem impolite to the

former. Taking along a Romanian employee at meetings with business partners or authorities

may be a good way to minimize this problem and to be able to fully capture the implications

of the message transmitted by the other side.

Besides, the Danish managers should also be more sensitive to the concern for face and

apparently harmonious relations characteristic for the Romanians. Unfortunately, all the

52

Danish managers that we interviewed were quite determined to stick to their very direct style,

which was regarded as more efficient, and they constantly tried to impose it on their

employees. Therefore, the Romanian employees should also accept that open, but polite and

constructive disagreements could benefit the company and reduce hidden tensions, but this

may only be possible by a gradual learning-by-doing process with the Danish manager

assuming an active role in carefully encouraging open disagreements. Professional criticism

can clearly not be eliminated in spite of how the Romanians perceive it, because it has a

critical appraisal function in the companies managed by the Danes. Thus, the Romanian

employees should try to understand that such criticism is not meant personally. Romanians

also criticize each other, but they do it subtler than the Danes. The Danish managers would

achieve better results if they avoid handling such situations in public and take a longer route

before getting to the point, also stressing the Romanians’ positive contributions.

Finally, the Danish managers should recognize that most of the information in companies

with Romanian employees and managers flows through informal networks. Using these

sources may be more difficult for the Danish managers, but learning the Romanian language

would certainly help. In addition, they may also try to obtain additional information through

one or two Romanian managers, who are closer to them, but also connected to the rest of the

organization through an informal network of contacts. At the same time, the Romanian

employees should also be taught by the Danish managers (by personal example), that it is

acceptable and useful to challenge the boss’s opinions or openly express ideas.

3.2 Perception of time

The way the Danish managers and the Romanians perceive and manage their time is an

important factor that influences their work relations. The interviews that we carried out

indicate that there is a significant difference between the two groups in their perception of

time and that this difference is a source of constant tensions. In short, the Danes displayed a

disciplined, strict approach to time, which was carefully planned, while the Romanians had a

more relaxed attitude to time. For Romanians the use and management of time in the sense of

a strict discipline was not a major concern. The empirical data suggest a strong clash between

the two perspectives in the work relations of Danes with Romanians, both inside and outside

the boundaries of the company.

53

In this chapter we shall present and discuss the differences between the Danish managers and

Romanians in relation to their perception of time and their manifestations in the work

relations, as they resulted from the empirical data. Important differences were identified in

how the work was allocated and planned in relation to time and how time was valued (3.2.1),

as well as how deadlines and punctuality were perceived and observed (3.2.2) by people from

the two groups. In turn, the different time systems in the two cultures influenced the length of

work hours (3.2.3). Finally, differences were also detected in the time horizon characteristic

for the two cultures (3.2.4).

3.2.1 Compartmentalization, planning and the value of time

All the Danish managers we interviewed expressed a preference for a strong discipline

regarding time and emphasized the importance of a precisely organized work schedule (in

terms of time). This attitude may be motivated by the value they ascribe to time, which can be

inferred from the phrase “time is money” and from the concern for using time efficiently,

pointed out by all the Danish managers.

An indication of the different time perception is how the Danes (as opposed to the

Romanians) allocate and approach work-related tasks in terms of time. The following

example illustrates this point:

“In the beginning the problem was that we didn’t finalize, we didn’t finalize on the jobs correctly. From the start, then you make it and then you finalize. […] Finish and then you get to the next job. If you have a chaotic style … then you have maybe 100 jobs going on. You have too many footballs, like we call it in Denmark, you have too many balls in the air.” (Danish respondent)

The above example underlines two aspects. Firstly, a job should be started, carried through

and finalized before moving on to the next task and secondly, having “ too many balls in the

air” is seen as chaotic, because it does not allow focusing attention on one task at a time in

order to finalize “correctly”. This is an indication that the Danes approach work-related tasks

sequentially (one after another) and therefore time is compartmentalized in segments allocated

to each task. Another Danish manager described the Danes’ style (in contrast to the

Romanians) as a “more formal work discipline”. The sequential approach to tasks can be

attributed to a monochronic time perception, because in monochronic cultures time is

54

perceived as linear and divided into segments, which makes it possible for a person to

concentrate on one thing at a time (Hall and Hall, 1990:13).

On the contrary, Romanians do not handle one task and then move to the next one. They often

have many things going on at the same time, which explains why they are used to have “many

balls in the air”. “We are used to ‘it can also be done tomorrow’ ”, said a Romanian

respondent. Both examples suggest that for the Romanians it is not necessary to finalize one

task before moving to the next one. It could be often the case that the Romanians start

working on a task and suddenly move to something else that appears as more important at the

time. The Romanians’ way of handling work-related tasks can be explained by a polychronic

time perception, because polychronic people are involved in many things at once rather than

focusing on one thing at a time (Hall and Hall, 1990:13). Based on the above-mentioned

characteristics, we can describe the Romanians’ focus of attention (in terms of allocating

time) as divergent, rather then convergent, which seems to characterize the Danes.

The Danes’ convergent attention is also reflected in the fact that they prioritize their

objectives and focus their efforts accordingly. Once the prioritization of objectives has been

set, it is followed accurately. As mentioned above, the Romanians’ attention is much more

divergent, which is reflected in a low concern for prioritization. One Romanian manager told

us how his Danish manager had constantly pressed them to prioritize objectives and stay

focused on the main tasks without deviating attention to secondary jobs, while he also

mentioned that in Romania “there are sometimes too many objectives in sight without

necessarily having a hierarchy of priorities”. These opposing perspectives suggest that on the

one hand the Danes regard time as a precious resource that should be used carefully, thus the

need to prioritize. In monochronic cultures, time is perceived as almost tangible and it is used

as a classification system for setting priorities (Hall and Hall, 1990:13-14). On the other hand,

the Romanians do not ascribe a similar value to time, and therefore time is experienced as

much less tangible and it is not used as a system for setting priorities, which is characteristic

for polychronic time systems (Hall and Hall, 1990:14).

In keeping with the careful compartmentalization of time and a sequential approach to tasks,

the Danish managers carefully planned their work in advance, in terms of allocating time.

Here is how one of the Romanians describes the Danes’ concern with planning:

55

“Very precise planning, with charts, days, precisely defined tasks. The whole job was broken down into tasks. For each task they defined a time frame. This was at the beginning. I don’t know how to say, … it still amuses me, because it is unachievable.” (Romanian respondent)

As this example illustrates, planning, delimiting and scheduling tasks and then strictly

adhering to them characterize the Danes’ work style. On the other hand, this careful

scheduling and compartmentalization of time is often unconceivable to Romanians, because

something more important might come up and spoil the nicely laid out plan. For the Danes,

plans and schedules seem to be almost sacred and they have a hard time deviating from them,

while for the Romanians they seem to be merely an orientative notion. Therefore, the

Romanians did not place much emphasis on time management in order to respect the tight

scheduling required by the Danish managers. This different way of structuring, planning time

and scheduling tasks, can also be explained by the contrast between monochronic and

polychronic time, because in the former case, people tend to carefully schedule time and

adhere rigorously to plans, while in the latter one, plans can often be changed easily (Hall and

Hall, 1990:12-15).

Strongly believing in the higher value of their way of organizing time, the Danish managers

have tried to implement a tighter time discipline and teach the Romanians to eliminate

unproductive time by promoting a better time management, introducing strict schedules,

planning time and management-by-objectives (MBO). In other words, they attempted to

impose their time system and values on their Romanian employees (“It’s not me who should

understand, it was them who had to change”, said one Danish manager). These initiatives

have often been met with resistance and frustration by the Romanian employees. The

following example suggests that the Romanians do not ascribe the same importance to

carefully planning their time; the process itself is regarded as an unnecessary burden and a

waste of time:

“Planning is in my opinion necessary and this I have asked the people. Not so hard any more, but in a long period I asked them every Friday to give me the program for the next week, to force them to make the program for the next week. And this was not used. […] They make a lot of noise. They also didn’t do it and then I had to, of course, take a serious meeting and say ‘Even if you don’t like it, it is a part of your job’ ‘Yes, but I don’t have time!’ ‘It is not true! Friday night at 3 o’clock, I don’t care you don’t have the time.’ ” (Danish respondent)

56

Paradoxically, planning is not a new concept for the Romanians, because the communist

regime strongly emphasized long-term planning. At the annual Communist Party Congress

the Secretary General used to present 5 or 10-year plans for all the areas that fell under the

management of the government. However, these plans only reflected the iron hand of a small

group of people who held the power. Obviously, they never managed to change the values of

in the society. They did influence the behavior of the Romanians in the sense that after the fall

of the communism in 1989, planning was discarded all together, because it was perceived as

reflecting the communist values. One of the Romanian respondents said, “The word

‘planning’, its necessity was denigrated at the beginning of the ‘90s – ‘Planning again? It’s

not necessary!’ ”. The strict planning was regarded as the communist substitute for the open

market and free initiative.

Working with tight time schedules was for the Danish managers often ineffective for

organizing even their own time and they soon realized that they could not adhere to carefully

laid out schedules. Here is how one Danish manager describes his experience:

“I have not yet learned to discuss my time. I like to know what to do from 8 to 10 and then at 10 to go to a meeting, but people come in my office and I also can see that they think that I’m very impolite if I have something with me, if I go, and I want to treat people in a polite way. But I think I have that problem, I think it is very difficult to plan time and often I wait until evening when everybody goes home, then I can sit at my computer and do what I sometimes was supposed to do during the day.” (Danish respondent)

The Danish manager was obviously annoyed by these interruptions that broke his normal

chain of actions, and sometimes making it impossible to adhere to the pre-established work

schedule, and concentrate on one thing at a time, which is an attitude characteristic for a

monochronic culture (Hall and Hall, 1990:14). However, the Romanians thought it was “very

impolite” when the Danish manager did not stop whatever he was doing and give them his

attention. Unlike Danes, Romanians seem to be used to interrupt their work frequently to talk

to a colleague or a friend, thus emphasizing a greater involvement with people over observing

schedules. Their attitude can be explained by a polychronic perception of time, because in

polychronic cultures observing relationships with people and completing human transactions

takes precedence over schedules (ibid) and working with frequent interruptions is acceptable,

because people are used to doing several things at a time (ibid).

57

Another example that points in the same direction refers to mobile phones. The Romanians

rarely turn off their mobile phones even during meetings, because someone important may not

be able to reach them. The Danish managers said they were extremely irritated by the constant

interruptions of the mobile phones ringing in the middle of the meetings. We have also

noticed this different attitude during the interviews. When interviewing the Romanians the

discussion was frequently interrupted by people coming in and out of the office and the

Romanian respondents always answered their calls without apologizing for the interruption.

Often it was a customer calling, or a friend who had some car trouble on the road. On the

other hand, without exception, the Danish managers did not take any phone calls during the

interviews and they concentrated their attention exclusively on the discussion.

3.2.2 Deadlines and punctuality

Time commitments in the form of deadlines and punctuality is a sensible area in the work

relations between the Danes and the Romanians, because the importance placed in the two

countries on holding time commitments is entirely different.

Due to their preference for planning and careful scheduling of the tasks, the Danish managers

preferred to set deadlines for almost every work-related task. Both Danish and Romanian

respondents emphasized that the Danes perceived respecting the deadlines as being extremely

important once they had been set (often expressed by such phrases as “deadlines are very

close to be carved in stone”). Here is how one of the Danish managers

described his experience:

“I would say, you never hear a Romanian say ‘No, this I cannot do in this time. I need more time’ and so on. They just say ‘yes’ and in their opinion means that they will try to do it, where we expect from the Danish side, if they say ‘yes’ to an agreement, ‘we’ll do this work until that moment, on to that day’, they will do it. And this in Romania means that you don’t hear them say ‘no’. They just say ‘yes’ and they will try to do their best.” (Danish respondent)

As the above example also indicates, the Danes took time commitments (in the form of

deadlines) very seriously and when a deadline has been agreed to, they expect the other party

to respect it. This can be explained by a monochronic time perception, because monochronic

cultures are dominated by the iron hand of time and monochronic people take time

commitments seriously (Hall and Hall, 1990:14-15). This does not imply that the Danish

58

managers were totally inflexible when it comes to deadlines, because they did accept breaking

deadlines, but only when there was a good justification for the delay and when the Romanians

gave a warning that they would not be able to finish before the respective deadline.

On the contrary, the Romanians perceived deadlines in terms of broad guidelines – “they will

try to do it”. A promise meant that they would actually do their best to keep it; it was not

regarded as a firm commitment. This attitude is almost word-by-word what Hall and Hall

(1990:15) describe as being characteristic for polychronic cultures – “polychronic people

consider time commitments an objective to be achieved, if possible”. For the Romanians “it is

a pure habit to postpone deadlines” remarked a Romanian respondent; missing deadlines “it’s

in their blood”, said a Danish respondent. These arguments converge to the conclusion that

the Romanians have a much more relaxed attitude towards deadlines (in contrast to the

Danes). Since they do not give much importance to deadlines, the Romanians do not consider

breaking them a tragedy. Because time is a flexible notion for them, they will often believe

until the last minute, that it is still possible to meet the deadline and they will rarely give a

warning before the deadline expires.

The above quote also points to another aspect – that the Romanians rarely said “No, this I

cannot do in this time” when the Danish manager asked them to finish a task by a certain

date. There could be several interrelated explanations behind this attitude. Firstly, it may be

more difficult for polychronic people to accurately estimate the time required to perform a

certain task, because they are used to work with frequent interruptions or handle several tasks

simultaneously, they do not regard time as a resource to be spent efficiently and at the same

time the deadline is not perceived as a firm commitment. Secondly, since the manager who is

in a position of power has set the deadline, a large power distance in Romania may explain

why the employees take the deadline as given, without challenging the boss’s position.

Moreover, saying no could mean confrontation, which should be avoided (cf. chapter 3.1

Communication styles). On the other hand, saying yes does not necessarily mean a firm

commitment, but rather a polite way to handle the situation. Such an attitude may be a

manifestation of collectivism in the Romanian society, because the intense social interactions

characteristic for collectivist societies, require a concern for maintaining harmonious relations

(Hofstede, 2001:228).

59

In addition, one of the Romanian managers pointed out that Romanians think that business

partners could interpret taking too many precautions regarding timeliness in a written

commitment as not being serious or trustworthy. In other words, it means that the relationship

is not important or flexible enough to accommodate contingencies, which can be explained by

a particularistic way of judging business relations. Trompenaars (1993:40) argues that in

particularist cultures the importance given to the relationship reflects a preference for mutual

accommodation and that sometimes people expect contracts to be qualified, where

circumstances have changed.

The following example given by a Romanian manager, points to a slightly different

perspective of these differences:

“It depends what you understand by efficiency. If by efficiency you mean that you have to finish the task by 5 o’clock sharp, without taking into consideration a lot of alternatives, which, if you were left to do your job as a Romanian, you would normally consider, you would think about them, you would carry them through, then, yes, we are inefficient. If by efficiency you understand that it is a person who finishes the job, as far as quality is concerned, as well as he/she thinks it should be done, even if he/she goes over the deadline, then I would say that we are efficient.” (Romanian respondent)

It seems that for the Romanians it is more important to do the job well, by considering all

possible alternatives, than to do it in time. Since the Romanians were not so much concerned

with time, it is for them more important to consider all alternatives in order to minimize the

risk of a bad decision or to reach the best solution, even if it means missing the deadline. That

does not imply that the Danish managers were not concerned with the quality of the work, but

they constantly felt the pressure of time. For the Danes, efficiency means that things should be

done as well as one can within a certain time frame. To use a metaphor inspired by one of the

Danish respondents that points in the same direction, for the Danes the way from A to B is a

straight line, while for Romanians it will often be a zigzag. The zigzag approach may take

more time than the straight line, but it may also lead to more creative solutions, which are

better adapted to the uncertainties of the Romanian business environment and the meanders of

personal relationships.

The Romanians’ perception of time is one factor that influences how accurately deadlines are

held. Another, is the business environment, which is still in a transition stage. The market in

most sectors and the infrastructure is not as developed as in Denmark and it will take years

60

until all the pieces are in place. This situation also generates delays; it will often take more

time to find the right supplier or to make a bank transaction, things which are common sense

in Denmark, where many pathways are already clear and time efficient. Therefore, even if the

Danish managers set deadlines, if they do not take into consideration the business conditions

in Romania, those deadlines would be broken, no matter how accurately they manage to teach

their time values to the Romanian employees.

Even when the Danish managers working in Romania understood the Romanians’ different

perception of time, they still had problems reporting back to headquarters. Two Danish

respondents said that they had a very hard time explaining the constant delays to the top

management in Denmark, because the latter simply did not understand or accept that

schedules had to be constantly changed and deadlines postponed. In these cases the Danish

managers were caught between the rock and the hard place, between the Danish and

Romanian cultures – they could not change overnight their employees and even less their

Romanian business partners and they could not make the top management in Denmark

understand the differences between the two cultures, since the latter had little or no contact

with the Romanian culture. Such situations emphasize the necessity of understanding cultural

differences not only by the Danish managers working in Romania, but also by those to whom

they report at headquarters overseas.

The second aspect regarding time commitments that we shall discuss here is punctuality vis-

à-vis meetings, appointments and work hours. Here is how one of the Danish managers

described his experience:

“This is the only subject that I have not been able to change […] In the beginning it was very annoying for me, very annoying. When I say 8.30 it is 8.30. It’s not 9 o’clock or 9:30. And I did a lot to improve this. And also when I have meetings … And, oh my God, I did so many things, but it doesn’t work. This is how it is in Romania! […] If we go outside our company and I have a meeting in town at 2 o’clock I am always there at 2 o’clock. But sometimes you have to wait for half an hour.” (Danish respondent)

As the above example also highlights, the Danes place great emphasis on punctuality.

However, sometimes they were the only ones present at the agreed time and had to wait for a

considerable amount of time for the Romanians to show up. The Danish manger, was

obviously upset by such situations, which he was not used to in his home culture and he was

also unable to change them in spite of his efforts. “In Romania 5 minutes means half an

61

hour”, said a Romanian respondent. This was a frequent remark during the interviews and,

even though it may seem exaggerated, it is accurate in reflecting the significant difference

between the importance Danes and Romanians place on punctuality. This suggests that what

the Danes may perceive as being late does not have the same significance for the Romanians.

The Danes’ emphasis on punctuality is an attitude characteristic for monochronic cultures,

because it reinforces the clear compartmentalization of time and helps people adhere to their

preset schedules. On the other hand, the Romanians’ attitude is typical for polychronic

cultures, where promptness is not a major concern. Hall and Hall refer to situations such as

those described above as insults of time (Hall and Hall, 1990:21). In monochronic cultures

keeping others waiting can be a deliberate putdown, while no such message is intended in

polychronic cultures (ibid).

Moreover, the Romanians do not often understand or take seriously the importance Danes

place on punctuality, even when they are aware of it.

“We had one girl in the company. She was everyday meeting at work at 08.32, 08.33 and I know it’s only 2 or 3 minutes, but we are putting a lot of weight on that punctuality, also in our work with our customers. […] And we are having, we give … it’s only in two cases we’ve done that … one warning, two warnings, three warnings and then it’s out of the company. It’s logical that if you don’t have any respect in that direction, then it was out of the company.” (Danish respondent)

Obviously, the Romanian employee in this case did not believe that such serious

consequences could arise from being just a few minutes late. This points to the fact that for

the Danes being late is a matter of principle, it does not matter how late you are. If the

principle says that everyone must be on time, then the consequences of breaking that principle

apply regardless of the situation or person. On the other hand, for Romanians, being late is

more a question of degree and it depends on the circumstances. Being a few minutes late

means nothing, it cannot have serious consequences, even if they may accept that being one

hour late is worse.

We mentioned before that inside the companies the Danish managers have constantly tried to

impose the rules of their time system to the Romanian employees. However, outside the

company, in relation with business partners or authorities they could have little influence.

Based on the empirical data we have identified two response mechanisms the Danish

managers used to cope with the different time system in Romania, outside the company. Some

tried to compartmentalize time in larger segments, i.e. allow more time for having meetings

62

or setting a fake deadline earlier than the real deadline. They did not give up time scheduling

all together, but instead, they tried to do it in a more flexible manner. Others simply refused to

deal with business partners that did not respect their time commitments or did not observe

punctuality.

Clearly, the impact of the difference in the time perception of the Danes and Romanians on

their work relation is significant. In short, the Romanians perceived the Danes’ time discipline

as “rigid”, “tough”, “more punctual”, “rigorous”, “very strict”, “well-organized”, “extreme

time management”, “crazy about timeliness”, “military style”, “strange to insist on

timeliness”. On the other hand, the Danish managers perceived the Romanians’ attitude to

time as “relaxed”, “don’t worry about time”, “a little bit ‘mañana’ “, “unstructured”, “less

structured in the way they spend their time”, “poor time management”, “take it more as it

comes and goes”, “not in a hurry to do anything”, “more flexible”, “chaotic”, “not serious”,

and “impolite” [about the mobile phones]. These phrases add to the arguments presented

before in this chapter in showing how significant the difference in the perception of time is,

but they also suggest that there is a big step from observing different behaviors to

understanding them and finally accepting the differences and trying to work with them.

Referring to the tensions between monochronic and polychronic time, Hall and Hall (1990:22)

say “It is hard not to respond emotionally when the rules of you own time system are violated.

Nor was an intellectual understanding much help at first”.

3.2.3 Work hours

Both Danish and Romanian respondents have indicated that the Romanians often work very

long hours. That means that they often work a few hours overtime a day and sometimes even

during the weekends. What is important about this issue is that the perception of long work

hours is very different between the Danish managers and the Romanian employees.

The Danes are very much concerned about how time is spent at work. The following quote

reflects the view generally shared by the Danish managers:

“I don’t want to hear any complaints that they are working late, because there is no reason for them working late, if they would manage their time.” (Danish respondent)

63

The Danish manager believes that the workload required from the employees could be

handled within the normal work schedule, if their time would be carefully managed. It is clear

that the Danish manager interprets the situation by his own time frame. The careful allocation

and efficient use of time, by concentrating on the job, which is characteristic for the

monochronic time perception (Hall and Hall, 1990:15), makes it possible for the Danes to

minimize overtime.

However, the Romanian employees constantly leave the office late in the evening. The

empirical data, as well as our own observations, suggest several reasons behind this situation.

Firstly, Romanians devote a great deal of time to socializing and maintaining relations with

colleagues and business partners.

“… at some point the issue of work efficiency was raised and he [the Danish manager] gave an example that during work hours we go to a colleague to ask for something, but we also find something else to talk about – what we saw in a magazine, what happened yesterday in the tram, etc. - while he explained that [in Denmark] everybody comes to work in the morning, does the work, they don’t talk among themselves and at 5 or 6 o’clock when the program is over they leave […]. I think he found it a little strange that we are closer, that we joke and talk about something else.” (Romanian respondent)

In Romania it is a strongly established tradition to have a cup of coffee and talk to your

colleagues about private issues in the morning and such conversations could be repeated

several times a day. Maintaining close personal relationships at work and knowing a lot about

each other’s background and private life is common in Romania and it is a way of staying

informed about what is going on around you (see chapter 3.4 Separation of private and

professional lives). This strong involvement with people is characteristic for polychronic,

high-context cultures (Hall and Hall, 1990:14-15), where it is important to allocate a good

deal of your time to socialize with people. However, as the above quote also suggests the

Danish managers believed that socialization during work hours was often a waste of time and

should be minimized.

Secondly, because of the specific conditions of the business environment in Romania

(discussed earlier in section 3.2.2. Deadlines and punctuality) and the fact that the company

operates in a polychronic environment, many delays are caused by factors outside the

company. Thirdly, Romanians might also be motivated to work overtime, because of the fear

64

of being dismissed (“It doesn’t have to do with efficiency, as much as it has to do with fear”,

Romanian respondent).

A final aspect refers to the fact that the Romanian employees explicitly pointed out to the

Danish managers, that they had been working overtime expecting to be noticed and expecting

recognition (“People want to tell me how hard they are working. I don’t care. I just want the

work to get done. If you can do it in 4 hours, good! If they need 12 hours to do it, too bad for

them.”, said a Danish manager). Such an attitude is characteristic for the Romanian work

environment, which is extremely competitive, reflecting the more masculine values in society.

However, at the end of the day, what the Romanians often try to communicate by working

overtime is partially misinterpreted by the Danish managers, who perceive it as inefficient

time management.

3.2.4 Time horizon

One last difference in relation to the perception of time that we identified based on the

empirical data refers to the time horizon. The Danes accused that in Romania “people live

now, in the immediate future”. Here is what one of the Danish managers explains:

“That they were not thinking at the big picture, that they were not thinking so much about the future. They were thinking about right here, right now. That frustrated me a lot. They were very money focused. […] … immediate money. ‘What do I get out of this business right here, right now?’ [Did you try to change that?] I couldn’t. It is still that they focus on the survival here, now. They don’t know what it is going to happen tomorrow.” (Danish respondent)

As this example suggests, the Romanians seem to be focused on a much shorter time horizon

(“right here”, “right now” or immediate future) than the Danes. Various situations extracted

from the empirical data (both from Danish and Romanian respondents) point in the same

direction: (1) employees preference for immediate salary, rather than career opportunities; (2)

business partners focus on immediate high profits; in some cases they would rather lose a

customer than lower their profit margin and develop a long term cooperation with a customer;

(3) focus on immediate cash flow, rather than investments that would insure future higher

revenues; (4) management focused on solving immediate problems and losing sight of the

long term perspective.

65

The very short-term focus of the Romanians’ efforts reflected by the above situations is

characteristic for a short-term orientation, where people expect quick results (Hofstede,

2001:360). On the other hand, the Danes’ concern with tomorrow reflected the importance

ascribed to future objectives (e.g. career planning or investments). The Danes’ thinking in

terms of medium-term results and growth can be explained by the medium-term orientation

(Denmark scores 46, rank 10 of 34 on Hofstede’s long/short term orientation dimension)

(Hofstede, 2001:500). It was therefore important for the Danes to keep in mind the big

picture, which represents a vision that extends beyond the immediate future. However, given

their own cultural background (short-term focus) it was difficult for the Romanians to think in

terms of the Danes’ big picture.

The object of the short-term focus of the Romanians is often material success (immediate

money, salary, profits, cash flows), which is a characteristic of masculine cultures (Hofstede,

1991/1994:96). In addition, the Romanians’ materialism could also be explained by the long

depravation during the communist regime22 and the unstable economic situation.

The short-term focus of the Romanians could affect the Danish companies in Romania in two

ways. First, it may be difficult to motivate employees based on career development plans,

since what applicants for jobs often look at, as the main criterion, was the salary offered for

that position. Second, in relation to points (2) and (3) above the Danish companies could be

affected in terms of slower growth than initially forecast.

3.2.5 Conclusion and recommendations

The empirical data clearly indicate that there is a significant differences between the Danes’

and the Romanians’ perception of time. The Danes’ perception of time tends to be linear and

they compartmentalize time and sequence tasks, in the sense that they focus on one thing at a

time. Time is seen as a scarce resource that should be used efficiently, thus requiring careful

scheduling of activities and planning of time. On the other hand, the Romanians tend to have

a much less structured and disciplined approach to time. They are used to handle several tasks

at the same time and careful planning of time is regarded as an unnecessary burden, because

22 For a good exploration of the reasons behind the Romanians’ materialism we recommend the reader to refer to Belk (1997)

66

plans are expected to be changed often and easily. Likewise, the two groups also differ on the

importance given to deadlines and punctuality (firm commitments – Danes vs. broad

guidelines - Romanians). The overall consequence of these differences was that it was

difficult, if not often impossible, for the Danish managers to stick to schedules and to predict

outcomes in terms of time. In terms of work hours, the Romanian employees often worked

extra hours, but the Danish managers usually blamed this on the Romanians being inefficient,

instead of understanding the real reasons pertaining to cultural factors, as well as the business

environment. These differences can mainly be explained in terms of monochronic versus

polychronic perception of time. The significant differences and the tensions and

misunderstandings they generated reflect the incompatibility of the two time systems, which

has also been underlined by Hall and Hall (1990).

Finally, the empirical data also revealed a difference in the time horizon of the two groups,

the Romanians being focused on immediate results, while the Danish managers emphasized

the need to consider medium-term results and future growth. This difference was explained by

a very short-term orientation in Romania and a medium-term orientation in Denmark.

In terms of recommendations, we recognize that it would be impossible for either side to fully

adopt a different time system. In at least one area, keeping deadlines, the Danish managers

seemed to be totally unwilling to compromise. Since they are in a position of power, they also

have the means to impose strict deadlines for their subordinates, but the Danish managers

should exercise their prerogatives with care, and understand that significant changes are not

possible over the night. Therefore, when setting deadlines, the Danish managers should allow

more flexibility and consider beforehand the implications of a deadline being missed in order

to avoid unpleasant and costly surprises. Setting deadlines earlier than it is actually necessary

could also afford protection and give the Romanian employees time to adapt. On the other

hand, the Romanian employees should also try to be more precise in keeping deadlines and

when they are not able to do so, they should always inform the manager in advance, instead of

coming up with excuses after the deadline has lapsed.

In relation with business partners and authorities, the Danish managers will have to accept to

a larger extent the Romanians’ different perception of time. Therefore, it is recommendable to

schedule larger time frames, for example concerning meetings, and understand that when the

Romanians are late, this is usually not intended as an insult. The same principle should be

67

applied regarding contractual relations, because in spite of their efforts, the Danish managers

may often be forced to adjust time schedules or plans that have already been reported to the

headquarters in Denmark.

In relation with the very short-term focus of the Romanians, inside the company, material

incentives would probably be more successful than career advancement opportunities in the

short run and the Danish managers should recognize this. However, introducing career

development plans in combination with material incentives is likely to give better results in

the long run, firstly, because it may prevent the Romanians from leaving the company for a

better paid job (though with less perspective) and secondly, in time it is likely that the

Romanians will also recognize the benefits of career development plans (if they do not have

to worry about money in the short run). As to the external environment of the firm, the Danish

managers should calculate beforehand for slower growth, in spite of apparently encouraging

market potential.

68

3.3 Perception of rank and status symbols

The empirical data indicate that the Danes and Romanians differ considerably in their

perception of, and importance given to rank and status symbols. Behind the notions of rank

and status symbols is the idea of inequality among people. Inequality exists in all societies

and occurs in various areas: a) physical and mental characteristics; b) social status and

prestige; c) wealth; d) power; e) laws, rights and rules (Hofstede, 2001:60).

Within the context of the present study, the notions of rank and status symbols are relevant

mainly in relation to the inequalities in power that exist in organizational hierarchies, but also

to differences in education. The perception and importance given to rank differences and

status symbols influences interpersonal behavior among people within organizations and it

also has an impact on relationships with people from outside the company. The essence of the

difference between the Danes and Romanians, as it results from the empirical data in the

present study, is that the Romanians give great importance to both rank and status symbols,

while the Danes make a point of paying as little attention as possible to rank and status

symbols. Naturally, this different emphasis generates conflictual signals, when representatives

of the two groups work together. The first section of this chapter (3.3.1) focuses attention on

the perception and implications of rank differences within organizations, while the second

section (3.3.2) refers to the perception and importance of status symbols.

3.3.1 Rank

In the Romanian society people’s ranks within organizations are important and are also

strictly observed. They determine to a great extent interpersonal behavior within

organizations, but the effects also extend outside the organizational boundaries. Here is how a

Danish manager describes his experience:

“They [the Romanians] have too much respect even for us as management […] In the beginning it was Mr. [Director] and Mr. that and Mr. that, and almost standing up when they are picking up the phone. It’s also nice and I like good manners, but when we are working together we are working as the … when we are having a task we are working at the same level.” (Danish respondent)

69

Other Danish managers, also remarked an excessive respect shown by their Romanian

employees. Excessive respect (subordinates “almost standing up when they are picking up the

phone”) and a rigid language style, in particular forms of address, are perceived as

burdensome. As the above example shows, the Dane prefers to adopt a more relaxed

interpersonal code in relationships between manager and subordinates. As another Danish

manager put it, “I’m used to always to talk…, people call me [by my first name] and I call my

employees by their first name”. The reason why the Danes prefer a more relaxed interpersonal

code in hierarchical relations is that when they are working together with their subordinates,

despite existing hierarchical differences, they are working on the same level, as a team.

Therefore, de-emphasizing hierarchical rank differences and adopting a more relaxed

interpersonal code would have the effect of minimizing the distance between him as a

manager and the rest of the employees23. It follows that the Danes are not as focused on their

rank as the Romanian subordinates would expect them to be. This attitude, common for all the

other Danish managers in our study reflects strong egalitarian and anti-authoritarian values.

With reference to Hofstede’s dimensions, the Danes attitude reflects values characteristic for

small power distance. In small power distance countries, inequalities between people should

be minimized and hierarchical relations are perceived in terms of inequality of roles,

established for convenience – “I don’t care so much about my status as a GM [general

manager], I just care about getting the job done and somebody has to be overall responsible

and it happens to be me”, said another Danish manager. Obviously, the Danish manager

makes a point of giving little importance to his rank, while he emphasizes his functional role.

If we talk about the language style, in particular the rigid forms of address, they are not

confined to the organizational hierarchy. At societal level, in Romania there are a number of

unwritten rules, that define how people are supposed to interact with each other and deviation

from these rules could be interpreted as disrespectful, inappropriate or provocative. What one

immediately notices is that even in social interactions, Romanians address each other by their

surname preceded by “Mr.”, “Ms.” or “Mrs.”. This is less common in Denmark, where people

quickly switch to address by first names after contact has been established and “Hr.”, “Frk.”

or “Fr.” are seldom used. This is an indication that in Romania a more rigid interpersonal

code regulates interpersonal interactions, while in Denmark a more relaxed interpersonal code

is preferred. Some authors have labeled this informality (Askegaard, Gertsen and Madsen,

23 Pointing in the same direction the Danish manager later said “I don’t want to be put on a pedestal, I want to be more down to them”

70

1995:10-11; Fivelsdal and Schramm-Nielsen, 1993:29-30), which corresponds to a relaxed

interpersonal code, in contrast with formality (Askegaard, Gertsen and Madsen, 1995:11),

which corresponds to a more rigid interpersonal code24.

Now returning to the perception of one’s rank, here is the opinion of a Romanian respondent:

“Outside the office you definitely represent [the Company] and then you automatically respect a certain position and you are formal, but you are formal, because it is polite, it is Romanian to do so. [The Danish manager] is polite regarding the person and less polite regarding the position. He has no respect for the position and he is trying to teach us do the same. There were situations when we had to call an under-vice-president in [the Company] and he picks up the phone and makes the call without any problem. There were situations, when we went to him and asked him to make that call for us, because we didn’t have the status to make that call and he said ‘Why not? You work in [the Company], he works in [the Company]. Pick up the phone and solve the problem!’ “ (Romanian respondent)

The comment of the Romanian respondent confirms the earlier observations of the Danish

managers, that Romanians do have great respect for the position, and it underlines the fact that

for the Danes, inequalities of positions are not the basis for showing respect for another

person. In addition, it points to the fact that using a more formal language style is regarded as

a sign of politeness and that respect based on differences of rank also extends outside the

organizational hierarchy.

The Romanian respondent in the above example thought that she did not have a position high

enough to even engage herself in communication with the under-vice-president of the mother

company, even though the work situation required it. In Romania hierarchical differences are

24 The terms formality and informality bear resemblance with the concept of formalization from the organizational theory. According to Burton and Obel (1998:299) “formalization represents rules in an organization”. So, at an organizational level formalization refers to the degree to which jobs are standardized. A high degree of formalization is materialized in explicit job descriptions, a great number of organizational rules and clearly defined procedures that regulate work processes. At an individual level, high formalization means that the job’s incumbent has little discretion over what should be done, when and how. When formalization is low, job behaviors are relatively unprogrammed and consequently, employees have a great degree of freedom to exercise discretion in their work. The concept of formalization from the organizational theory refers, at the individual level, to behavior on the job. On the other hand, formality/informality in interpersonal behavior or the preference for a rigid/relaxed interpersonal code refers to behavior in interpersonal interection. At a societal level, it refers to rules, rituals and other social conventions that indicate what is appropriate/inappropriate, polite/impolite in interpersonal relations (rules that regulate interpersonal behavior). A higher degree of formality or a more rigid interpersonal code means greater preference for, and adherence to such rules, which limits the individual’s freedom to exercise discretion in interpersonal behavior. Informality or a more relaxed interpersonal code means that the individuals are less dependent on rules that guide interpersonal behavior and therefore, there are fewer standards and low priority for strict compliance with existing ones. In terms of Hofstede’s models, a more rigid interpersonal code can be explained by strong uncertainty avoidance (stronger dependence on rules in interpersonal behavior), while a relaxed interpersonal code reflects weak uncertainty avoidance (less dependence on such rules).

71

often so extreme that subordinates feel overwhelmed, intimidated when they have to talk to

someone with a higher rank25. In another example, a Romanian employee seemed to “excuse

himself that he is alive” when entering the Danish manager’s office. That person’s rank

inspires not only respect, but also fear, because of the discretionary power that he/she

possesses; therefore, such encounters should be avoided or handled with care and

consideration for the other part’s rank. It follows that the Romanians pay much more attention

to rank, than the Danes do and that people’s ranks influence their interpersonal behavior. The

form of address, a humble demeanor or simply avoiding contact with a person with a higher

rank is a direct reflection of how hierarchical inequalities are perceived by Romanians. People

accept and strictly observe these inequalities, which can be explained by a large power

distance, and the rigid interpersonal code reinforces this attitude. Thus, the difference in

power distance between the two countries explains the fact that in Romania hierarchical

inequalities are accepted and even emphasized by certain types of behavior in interpersonal

relationships, while the Danes try to minimize or hide such inequalities. As compared to the

Romanians, the Danes are much less focused on their rank, as well as that of people with

whom they interact.

Another aspect that underlines the different perception of, and importance given to rank by

the Danes and Romanians refers to what kind of work is appropriate for a manager. Both

Danish and Romanian respondents pointed out that the Danish managers do not stand back

from doing any kind of work, when the situation requires it. They have little consideration for

unwritten conventions dictating what kind of work is suitable for a manager, but in Romania

their behavior has a different interpretation. Here is how one Danish manager described his

experience:

“… if there is a problem, I’m used to take the tools, do the things, mount them and so on. And he told me several times ‘You cannot do that, you cannot do that, because you lose your position. Tell the workers to do the things, but don’t take the things in your hands and do them.’ […] But after that the leadership [of the client company] put me down to the level of [simple worker] or something like that. It was very difficult for them to accept that I have a higher level. […] I never respect this. This is a serious problem still, if I do something I hate if people take the things out of my hands. But in the factories they are ashamed, if I start to do something and they try to take it and to do the things. This is very … this is different. I mean this you don’t meet in Scandinavia.” (Danish respondent)

25 Another Romanian respondent plainly stated that “Romanians are sometimes overwhelmed by the position of another person”.

72

In the above example, the Danish manager obviously does not think there is anything wrong if

he does manual work. But in Romania, as a direct consequence of the perceived large

difference of position between workers and managers there is a strict delimitation between

what a manager and a worker are supposed to do and both categories expect and observe these

unwritten conventions. Manual work is inconsistent with the high rank of the manager, who is

only supposed to give orders to the workers. Or, as one of the Romanian respondents put it:

“as an engineer or an economist I cannot start cleaning the floor or dusting or washing

dishes”, suggesting that manual work is likewise unsuitable for a person with higher

education and that differences in education are also emphasized and carefully observed. The

manager in the above example loses the respect of his clients, if he does manual work, his

status would be unclear, because the notion of respect is based on the inequality of positions.

Hofstede argues that in large power distance countries manual work has much lower status

than office work (Hofstede, 1994:34). On the contrary, in a small power distance county,

getting down to the level of the employees is likely to increase their respect for the manager,

because it is a way of minimizing inequalities among people and this seems to be the case in

Denmark.

Our own observations made during the interviews also support these findings. For example,

most of the Danish managers personally served us with refreshments during the interviews,

which suggests that they did not find such behavior unworthy for a manager. On the contrary,

some of the Romanian managers allowed employees with lower positions to come in and

serve the refreshments.

3.3.2 Status symbols

The Danes and the Romanians likewise differ in their perception of, and importance given to

status symbols. Here is an example given by a Romanian respondent:

“I don’t know if they [the Danes] necessarily care about their looks and they cannot understand how Romanians, as soon as they have a little money, try to buy cars and mobile phones. They [the Danes] are very relaxed. They have this view that as long as they are pleased and the business is running well, why must other people see it? ‘What if I feel comfortable even though I don’t wear a suit or I don’t have a company name-board as big as the house, for everybody to see it, or I don’t know which car?’ “ (Romanian respondent)

73

Mobile phones and cars are just two of the visible signs of material success that the

Romanians display as symbols of their wealth. Such symbols give more status to people that

possesses them and therefore, most Romanians “as soon as they have a little money, try to buy

cars and mobile phones”. This indicates not only that material success is important for

Romanians, but also that symbols which underline material success are displayed with pride

for everybody to see. As one Danish respondent put it “you have all the values or the things

that people can see. They have the mobile phone, suddenly they don’t have the old-fashioned

suitcase one, but they have the small fancy one. It’s a good thing; they could walk around

smiling all the day about that.” The Romanians’ attitude indicates a tendency to show off and

it reflects strong masculine values. On the other hand, as proved by the example above, for the

Danes it is more important to feel comfortable, to have a good life and be pleased. It is not

important for other people to see their material success; they do not show off by displaying

visible signs of their wealth, which points to their modesty and reflects their feminine values.

In addition, the above example also points to the Danes’ relaxed attitude in the way they dress

– it is better to feel comfortable than to wear a suit. We could also notice the Danes’ dress

code during the interviews, when many welcomed us wearing a T-shirt and jeans or even

shorts. This points again to the Danes’ relaxed interpersonal code and social conventions. Our

observations are also confirmed by other authors, who mention the Danes’ relaxed dress code

and interpret it as an expression of the Danes’ informality (Djursaa, 1988, Gertsen, 1990,

Schramm-Nielsen, 1991 - quoted in Askegaard, Gertsen and Madsen, 1995:11; Fivelsdal and

Schramm-Nielsen, 1993:30).

Moreover, in Romania, status symbols are an important element that underlines rank

differences among people within the organizational hierarchy. One example refers to offices.

The Danish managers tried to implement open office spaces in the companies they run in

Romania:

“When we are building an office, nobody is having separate offices. We are one open landscape office. That was difficult to some people, who we also hired to be a manager, but at the same time he was sitting just next to his people. He or she was suddenly put on the ground, but still being the manager. So what we are trying to build up is the natural respect towards the manager, because he or she should be able to manage.” (Danish respondent)

However, as this example indicates, Romanian managers believe they are not supposed to sit

together with the employees. They are surrounded by a number of formal barriers, such as a

74

separate closed office, which they perceive as being the prerogative of their position. In

Romania, managers are entitled to certain privileges, certain symbols of their position and one

of these privileges is having a private office. Thus, a separate office is a symbol of the

manager’s power. Therefore, it was difficult for some of the Romanian managers in the above

example to be “put on the ground”, to be stripped of the symbols that underline their power26.

This attitude reveals the tendency to emphasize the inequality of positions specific for large

power distance societies. As we argued earlier, in large power distance societies, including

Romania, the inequality in the organization imposes the respect of the lower-downs for the

higher-ups. In contrast, the above example suggests that the Danish manager believes such

respect for the manager should be built on his knowledge and skills, that people should

respect the person for his/her competence, for the way he/she performs his/her functional role,

not for the position. Therefore, the Danes did not seek for such status symbols that underline

their power.

From the Danish perspective, the preference for open office spaces or at least open doors also

suggests that the manager should be approachable, not isolated in an ivory tower (as

Romanian managers often are). Breaking down or minimizing such barriers between

managers and employees could have a positive effect on communication, as stated by several

respondents, and consequently on the speed of the decision making process.

One final status symbol that we shall discuss here refers to titles that have particular

importance in the Romanian work and business environment, which does not seem to be the

case in Denmark. The following quote synthesizes the perception of the Danish managers

about titles:

“…tiles [in Romania] are very important. If you don’t have the title of manager then you are nothing. For me, titles don’t really mean much. Once you are happy with what you do, people won’t respect you for your title, people will respect you for the job or the service you provide.” (Danish respondent)

Obviously, the Danish manager does not give much importance to titles, because status and

the notion of respect are connected to what one does for the company, not the title he or she

holds. The perception of the Danish managers about titles is strictly functional, which is

characteristic for achievement-oriented cultures. Trompenaars suggests that in achievement-

oriented cultures, people make use of titles only when it is relevant to the competence they 26 It is easy to speculate that the Romanian managers were probably thinking - How am I ever going to impose my authority if I have to sit together with these people?

75

bring to the task (Trompenaars, 1993:105). To the contrary, in Romania the title defines who

you are – “if you don’t have the title of manager then you are nothing”. One’s value and

status seems to be defined by the title that person holds.

Moreover, the title is a reflection of the authority people carry in Romania, and perhaps more

importantly, authority is often not accepted, if you do not have the right title – “Here in

Romania, your personality is not enough in order to have power. […] In that moment you feel

that you don’t have a title, to say ‘I am not nobody! I am this and that … so I have the power. ’

” (Romanian respondent). Clearly, if one does not have the appropriate title his/her authority

may not be taken seriously. Here is a short story from another Romanian respondent:

“The Dane was not initially sent as a manager, but his job was to make things running. And the guy [the Romanian manager] from the polishing team said at some point ‘Why is he [the Dane] telling me what to do?’. After that, the owner from Denmark sent a piece of paper [to the Dane working in Romania] saying ‘Write whatever you like. You are whatever kind of manager, you want over there.’ It was clear that he [the Dane] was, but he was not perceived as such from the beginning.” (Romanian respondent)

As this example reveals, the Dane who was the manager in effect could not make his

employees take his decisions seriously, because his competence and prerogatives were not

backed up by the appropriate title (at least in the Romanian perception). As a mere

representative of the Danish mother company without an appropriate title he had no status and

authority in the eyes of the Romanians. It was therefore necessary to formalize the title

through a piece of paper from the Danish mother company in order for his authority to be

accepted. Such situations represent in fact clashes between achievement and ascription. In the

former case, a title is relevant only to the extent that it clarifies your competence, while in the

latter the extensive use of titles is necessary in order to clarify one’s status (Trompenaars,

1993:105-106), which would make one’s authority in the organization accepted and respected.

Since in Romanian companies most decisions are concentrated in the hands of the top

management (cf. chapter 3.9 Responsibility), it becomes critical to have the right title in order

to be able to function effectively and to do business. Similar situations also occur when

interacting with people from outside the company. Access to information and how high in the

hierarchy you can establish contact, in order to negotiate a business deal are strictly

conditioned by one’s title in Romania.

76

Finally, the same difference in value orientations (ascription versus achievement) explains

why the Romanians believe that it is very important for their career advancement to have the

right titles, while the Danes are manly interested in one’s competence. Such elements as

previous education or the titles of previously held positions ascribe the value and status by

which a candidate will be judged. In Romania, having the improper title on a previous job

could severely affect your chances of getting a better job in another company. This

characteristic has been remarked by several Romanian respondents, who also underlined that

their Danish managers gave more importance to one’s competence and simply did not care

about the titles. Valuing competence and what one actually proved to be able to do is

characteristic for an achievement value orientation. If we look at this characteristic of the

Romanian culture from a different perspective, the emphasis that Romanians put on the titles

written in their workbooks and CVs can also be explained by the assertiveness expected and

even required from job candidates in masculine societies.

The Romanians’ perception of titles as an important status symbol has led to the paradoxical

situation where frequently people “have very nice titles and no weight behind [them]” (Danish

respondent) or what a Romanian respondent called “directorat“27. So, titles can also be

misleading in the sense that sometimes they do not reflect either competence or authority. In

their research, Su and Richelieu (1999:138) have also observed this phenomenon. They call it

false representation, which is often used by means of grand-sounding titles on business cards

(ibid). They found that in general, Romanian managers regarded false representation as

unethical28. However, the ethical perspective represents what is desirable in a culture and this

can be very different from the actual behavior, i.e. what happens in practice (what is desired)

(Hofstede, 1994:9-10).

3.3.3 Conclusion and recommendations

The empirical data highlight that there is a significant difference between the perception of,

and importance given to rank and status symbols by the Danes and the Romanians. The

arguments and examples discussed in the first section of this chapter point to the fact that in

27 In translation from Romanian “directorat” refers to a proliferation of jobs with the title of director.28 Bear in mind that in their research Su and Richelieu surveyed only Western manages. Therefore, the conception of the Romanian managers about what is ethical/unethical is based exclusively on the perception/opinions of the Western managers.

77

Romania the emphasis on rank and a more rigid interpersonal code reinforces and highlights

inequalities among people within the organizational hierarchy, but the effects are also

undergone in work relations with people from outside the company. On the contrary, the

empirical data suggest that the Danes pay less attention to ranks and they adopt a more

relaxed interpersonal code, as a way of minimizing these differences. This observation is

consistent with the findings of Fivelsdal and Schramm-Nielsen, who argue that at

organizational level, the egalitarian and anti-authoritarian attitude of the Danes could explain

their informal behavior, which is the norm in personal interaction both within and between the

levels of the hierarchy (Fivelsdal and Schramm-Nielsen, 1993:29-30). Likewise, the notion of

respect was based on one’s rank, in the view of the Romanians. The difference between the

emphasis on inequalities of positions, which are both expected and desired by the Romanians,

and the Danes’ tendency to minimize or disguise these inequalities was explained by a large

difference in power distance in the two countries (Romania=large; Denmark=small).

The Romanian managers’ focus on symbols that underline their power (having a separate

closed office) versus the Danes’ preference for discarding such symbols of power and

emphasizing their functional roles was also explained by a large difference in power distance.

Besides, the empirical data revealed that the Romanians give great importance to showing off

their material success by displaying symbols of their wealth (mobile phones, cars, large

company name-boards, dress code) for everybody to see, which gave them more status, while

the Danish managers were more modest in the sense that they did not show off their material

success by deliberately displaying visible signs of their wealth. This difference can be

attributed to a difference in the degree of masculinity in the two societies.

The arguments presented in section 3.3.2 underline the different perception of, and

importance given to titles in the two cultures and they can be summarized in the following

dichotomy: titles as an expression of competence and proven performance (Danes) versus

titles as an expression of one’s position, status or power (Romanians), which can be explained

by a different value orientation (achievement versus ascription).

In terms of recommendations, we suggest that the Danish managers should pay more attention

to their position and behave accordingly. There is no doubt that they are determined to impose

their style in this respect, but first, this will only be possible inside the companies they run,

78

and second, it must be a gradual process. Otherwise, they risk losing the respect of their

Romanian subordinates. It is likely that in time a combination of behaviors characteristic to

the two value systems will prevail, whereby respect will be based both on rank and

competence. In chapter 3.1 Communication styles we showed that the large power distance in

Romania makes hierarchical communication difficult. However, by gradually reducing the

elements that underline inequality of power in the organization, the employees could be more

willing to approach the manager; as shown in section 3.3.2 in the case of the open office

spaces, the empirical data indicate that such an approach is beneficial for hierarchical

communication.

However, in relation to business partners, the Danish managers must emphasize their position

and behave like kings, because this will ensure the respect of their business partners. They

should also show respect for the position of their counterparts and adopt a more rigid

interpersonal code in such encounters, because otherwise their attitude may be interpreted as

impolite, disrespectful or provocative. Undoubtedly, this will not be easy, but the Danish

managers can rely on the experience and advice from their Romanian subordinates.

We also suggest that the Danish managers should award their subordinates, things that will

emphasize their material success (mobile phones, company cars) and thus capitalize on the

Romanians’ tendency to show off for two reasons – first, this would be an important

motivational factor, and second, it will give the Romanian employees more status in the eyes

of their business partners. However, Romanian subordinates, must understand that such status

symbols are not automatically prerogatives of their position and that they must work hard to

deserve them, and here the Danish managers can play an important role.

The Danish managers should pay particular attention to the meaning of titles, both their own

and their employees’, because based on these titles and their position they will be judged and

respected when establishing business contacts. On the other hand, they should also be careful

or rely on the experience of their Romanian employees, when dealing with business partners

about whom they do not have sufficient background information, because titles could also be

deceiving and overstate the authority or competence of the other party.

79

3.4 Separation of private and professional lives

Based on the empirical data, we found out that the way people organize the different areas of

their life can have a significant impact on the work relationships, if there are systematic

differences between the two groups. The Danes seem to have a preference to maintain a

certain distance from the Romanians they work with, and to keep their private life separate

from the work relations. The Romanians, on the contrary, systematically develop relationships

with colleagues and clients and it is often difficult to distinguish private from professional

aspects of their life, as well as private from professional relationships. Their private and

professional lives influence each other to a significant extent.

This difference between how the Danes and the Romanians perceive and organize their

private and professional lives, as well as the implications of these different approaches will be

explored in this chapter. First, the separation of private and professional lives is discussed as it

is manifested inside the company (3.4.1) and then the discussion focuses on relations with

business partners (3.4.2).

3.4.1 Private and professional life in the company

The frequent and more intense interactions among people within an organization raise the

question whether work relations develop into more personal relationships and at the same

time, whether professional and personal relationships overlap and influence each other. Here

is the comment of one of the Romanian respondents about her Danish boss that reflects the

general difference between the two groups:

“What impressed me negatively at him […] is the fact that he does not get close to people in his personal life. We don’t know what he does, how he spends his free time, what drinks he prefers or where he lives. With me he talked a little more and I understood that for him it is very important to differentiate between the time spent at work, the time allocated to the business, and the time given to his family.” (Romanian respondent)

In another example, a Danish manager who, as an exception, became friends with one of his

Romanian employees, was very irritated when during a private dinner, the wife of his

employee started discussing the latter’s salary. As the Dane said, “there was the limit for me”.

80

He perceived the intrusion of their private relationship in business matters as unacceptable

and immediately terminated that relationship.

These two examples are quite different, in the sense that the first Danish manager did not

accept to share details of his personal life with his employees, while the second did become

friends with one of the Romanians that worked for him. Nevertheless, both examples point in

the same direction – that the Danes make a clear distinction between their private and

professional lives. The first Danish manager completely segregated his personal life space

from his professional life. In the second example, the two life spaces overlapped only to the

extent that the Dane became friends with one of his employees, but he still perceived the

personal and the professional relationships, as completely separated and he did not allow any

interference. The two life spaces in which the Dane met his Romanian employee (work and

private life) were considered apart from each other, specific cases. The clear segregation of

the work relationship from their private life spaces preferred by the Danish managers is

characteristic to specific cultures, because in such cultures people engage others in specific

areas of life and single levels of personality (Trompenaars, 1993:73).

On the other hand, the Romanian in the first example was disappointed that the Danish

manager did not open his private life space to his employees, while the Romanian in the

second example thought it was perfectly normal to discuss an issue related to the professional

relation in a setting belonging to a private life space. The Romanians’ attitude, in contrast

with the Danes’, could be explained by a diffuse orientation, because in diffuse cultures

people engage each other in multiple areas of their lives and at several levels of personality

(ibid). That is why the Romanian employee in the first example thought it was normal for her

boss to share details of his private life. In addition, in diffuse cultures, every life space tends

to permeate all others (ibid), which explains why the Romanian wife in the second example

started a discussion on a work-related matter in a private space meeting.

All work relations that occurred within the company’s boundaries between the Danes and

Romanians were from different hierarchical positions (Danish manager – Romanian

subordinate). Examples given by two other Danish managers provide additional explanations,

as to why the Danes preferred to keep their private life clearly separated from their work

relations and not be involved on a personal level with their Romanian employees.

81

“I have very good colleagues, but I don’t have any friends, I am the manager. […] It’s necessary to keep a professional distance between the manager of an office and his colleagues. You don’t have to be better, but it has to be a certain professional distance, you have to be respected as a manager and you cannot be that, if you are drinking buddies at the same time.” (Danish respondent)

As it results from the above quote, the Danish manager avoided making friends with his

employees, because he thought it was necessary to keep a certain professional distance, which

was meant to insure the respect of his employees. It seems that simply being the manager

would not automatically insure such respect. This attitude, whereby respect for a manager is

not based on his/her hierarchical position is a characteristic of the Danes (cf. chapter 3.3

Perception of rank and status symbols). The explanation behind this attitude is in the small

power distance in Denmark, which implies that hierarchy reflects inequality of roles,

established for convenience (Hofstede, 1994:37). Therefore, it seemed necessary for the

Danish manager to distance himself off professionally (by not becoming friends with

subordinates), instead of seeking respect based on his formal position.

The second example points to a slightly different perspective:

“I have also noticed that in the office people make friends and start spending time together, going on holiday together, which for me, in the way I am, it’s no, no. I don’t mix things at all. This makes me a little bit uncomfortable, because when you have to make certain decisions you start being not sure whether objectivity is kept and whether favors are given […] It doesn’t change a lot, it just gives me an uneasy feeling sometimes, it’s getting too friendly for my liking. I like things to be very objective.” (Danish respondent)

For the Danish manager it was important to keep objectivity in relation with his employees.

Establishing a closer personal relationship with subordinates would negatively affect

objectivity and could raise suspicions of favoritism. Therefore, he did not “mix” private and

professional relations, which indicates a clear separation of the two life spaces. The main

reason for this is the necessity of being objective, which means applying the rules equally to

all employees. Treating everybody equally in the sense that everybody falling under the same

rule should be treated the same is characteristic for universalist cultures (Trompenaars,

1993:31). This also implies that no special favors should be granted to employees based on

the nature of the relationship and especially from a management position objectivity becomes

a critical aspect.

82

On the other hand, in Romania it is rather common for managers and employees to become

friends and for employees to invite managers for private visits – “It is very common for them

to say ‘O.K., let’s go home and eat with my family in the evening.’ That isn’t something I’m

used to, in Denmark at least.” (Danish respondent). However, as one Romanian manager

admitted, such friendships did raise speculations and envy from those who were not part of

the club:

“When you as a manager start choosing your friends from you subordinates you have already started having a problem with the others. They will start accusing you of favoritism and a lot of other things.” (Romanian respondent)

The fact that managers and employees often become friends suggests that a mixture of private

and professional aspects characterizes the relationship between Romanian managers and

employees. This mixture characterizes diffuse cultures, because in diffuse cultures private and

business issues interpenetrate (Trompenaars, 1993:90). The private and professional areas of

life are not as sharply separated as in specific cultures, where private and business agendas are

kept separate from each other (ibid). As the above example suggests, the group membership is

also an important issue. Those who are not friends with the manager, “ the others” feel that

those who have a personal relationship with the boss could be favored in various areas, such

as promotion, salary or compensation package, training, professional criticism, dismissal

(indicated by a Romanian respondent). This could be explained by a high degree of

collectivism in Romania, because in collectivist cultures the group membership is important

and hiring and promotion decisions do take employees’ in-group into account (Hofstede,

1994:67). The juxtaposition of the characteristics of collectivism and a particularistic way of

handling relationships with the unclear separation of private and professional relationships

makes it often impossible to distinguish between obligations arising from the personal

friendship, from those characteristic for the professional relationship.

The fact that Romanian managers choose friends among their employees may seem

inconsistent with the Romanians’ strong rank consciousness and the emphasis on a rigid

interpersonal code as a mechanism that underlines inequalities (discussed in chapter 3.3

Perception of rank and status symbols). But it is not necessarily so, because the personal

relations established between managers and some subordinates serves the purpose of releasing

some of the tensions caused by excessively formal hierarchical relations. However, this is

only the privilege of the few employees that are accepted into the club.

83

If we move away from a strictly hierarchical manager-subordinate relation and we look at

relations between co-workers from a broader perspective, there are three additional elements

that underline the differences between the Danes and Romanians, regarding how far personal

and professional relations overlap and influence each other.

1. The first element refers to the social life in the office, which is an important feature of the

work environment in Romanian companies. In Romania, “we come in the morning and we

have a cup of coffee and some small talk; we talk about what we did the day before”, “we talk

about what our child did the evening before”, “you find out or you discuss family problems or

things about the society that have nothing to do with your job”, or people ask “How is your

wife and child? Where did you go over the weekend?”. Here is how one of the Romanian

respondents described the situation in the company where she works:

“He [the Danish manager] moved the smoking place from the office to the kitchen. Automatically, the social life in the office moved into the kitchen. That is the place where we start the day with a cup of coffee, a cigarette and a lot of stories. During the day, if you want to chat, it is again the place where you go to smoke and get information about this and that. If you are in the office, you are separated from everybody else, but in the kitchen is the social place. This bothers him. [Did he try to change this in any way?] No. He didn’t do more than to say ‘I don’t like it.’ And I don’t think he will succeed.” (Romanian respondent)

The Romanians spend a considerable amount of time talking to their colleagues over a cup of

coffee or during a cigarette break and they often share private aspects of their lives during

such discussions. It is easy to notice that the kitchen is often full of people in a Romanian

company and the topics of discussions can be anything from corporate strategy issues to what

they are planning to cook for dinner. In general terms, the Romanians’ emphasis on

socialization at work can be explained by a more diffuse life style, where aspects of personal

life mix up with aspects of their professional life.

Several additional perspectives underline the Romanians’ preference for socialization at work.

Firstly, numerous in-groups appear within the company, where one’s relationships with some

of his/her colleagues are perceived as family like; the work place contains a maze of personal

relationships that overlap with work relations. The Romanians “have a more family way of

talking to each other within the company” and for them “it is more important to have good

relations; the human side prevails as compared to the Danes”. The emphasis on family-like

relationships within the company, and the tendency towards intense socialization as a way of

84

maintaining close personal relationships and harmony, is an element of collectivism in the

Romanian society. In this context, socialization is also linked to the necessity of building trust

among colleagues, as pointed out by two respondents, in a society characterized by a low

level of interpersonal trust (see chapter 3.5 Trust). On the contrary, the more individualist

Danes do not see close personal relationships as a necessary precondition for good work

relations (e.g. “I have very good colleagues, but I don’t have any friends”). They do not have

to be friends in order to be good colleagues.

Secondly, as the above example indicates, by socialization the Romanians “get information”.

Thus, socialization performs an important communication function and the extensive personal

networks established and developed in the work environment become an important carrier of

information. This is characteristic to high-context communication cultures, where people

know a lot about each other’s background and most of the information is latent in their long-

standing relationships. On the other hand, coming from a low-context culture, the Danes

perceived socialization and small talk during work hours as a waste of time, as indicated by

several Danish and Romanian respondents. This is also linked to the Danes’ strict time

discipline characteristic for monochronic cultures (cf. chapter 3.2 Perception of time), which

makes them perceive socialization at work as a waste of time. This view is not shared by the

Romanians who emphasize completing human transactions over a strict time discipline (cf.

chapter 3.2 Perception of time).

Finally, when the Danish managers accepted to socialize with their Romanian employees,

they confined such socialization to situations outside the office and working hours. They

understood the benefits of socialization and building closer ties among employees, but they

still did not accept a relaxed attitude in the sense of wasting precious time at work, and they

emphasized the separation of the professional life space (during work hours) and private life

space (off-work hours).

2. The second element that reveals the difference between the Danes and the Romanians

regarding how far personal and professional relations between co-workers overlap and

influence each other, refers to ritual obligations connected to major events of one’s personal

life. In one example, the Romanian employees were offended that the Danish manager did not

invite them to his wedding and he did not even share any details of the wedding. In another

company, a Romanian manager was the one who actually organized the weddings for the

85

employees. In another example, a Romanian employee was “shocked” by the reaction of the

Danish managers to the death of one of her colleague’s mother. According to the Romanian

respondent, the Danes’ reaction was very distant – “For them it is ‘His mother died, that’s

that. Everybody dies. Let’s get back to work.’ It shocked us…” (Romanian respondent). The

cultural theory indicates that in a collectivist society, ritual obligations to the family like

“baptism, marriages, and, especially funerals are extremely important and should not be

missed” (Hofstede, 1994:59). The difference in the degree of collectivism in the two countries

can explain why in Romania employees are strongly involved in each other’s lives, while this

was not the case for the Danes. It appears that in Romania and not only the biological family,

but also co-workers become involved in the major events of one’s personal life.

The last example (the death of employee’s mother) is also connected to the contrast between

the general attitudes about the influence that personal problems may have on one’s

professional activity, as pointed out by the Danish manager - “in Romania it’s natural that

your personal aspects, your personal things are very strongly involved in the way you are in

your work. But in Denmark there is no influence. […] This is again a very big difference.”

Clearly, the Danish manager did not accept that personal problems influenced work in the

company and he sharply separated the two areas of life.

3. The third element that differentiates Danes and Romanians in their perception of the

separation of their private and professional lives refers to after-work hours and vacations:

“When I go on vacation I keep my mobile phone on, in case something happens. If something needs to be done, I will come to the office unless I am out of town. When they [the Danish managers] go on vacation, they turn off their mobile phone and it’s impossible to contact them. If something urgent happens, there is nothing you can do.” (Romanian respondent)

A similar attitude was displayed by the Danes working at the companies’ headquarters in

Denmark, who were impossible to be contacted outside the strict work hours or during

vacations. Obviously, it was difficult for the Romanians to understand how the Danes could

just leave and not care about what happens outside the strict work schedule. Such situations

reflect the same contrast as many of the other examples given in this chapter, between the

diffuse separation of private and work life characteristic for the Romanians and the sharp

delimitation of the two life spaces preferred by the Danes. We had the opportunity to notice

this attitude of the Romanians independently, during the interviews. In one case, we were

86

supposed to interview a Romanian employee who was on vacation. The Danish manager

called and apologizing for disturbing him on vacation, he asked the Romanian if he would be

willing to meet us. The Romanian, accepted without hesitation and shortly after, he met us at

the company office, without showing any sign of regret. We should point out that the call of

the Danish manager was just an enquiry, not an order. However, it is likely that the Romanian

employee did perceive it as an order, in which case it becomes apparent that the Romanian

considered that the manager also had authority over his private time.

We should also point out in this context that several respondents emphasized the importance

that the private life outside the office had for the Danish managers. This can be attributed to

the feminine orientation of the Danish society, because in feminine cultures, spending quality

time outside the office with one’s family or friends is perceived as very important (Hofstede,

1994:96).

The different cultural values of the Danes and Romanians, which underline the difference in

the extent to which private and professional relations overlap in the two cultures led to some

tensions. In general, the Danes were perceived by their Romanian employees as “more

closed”, “not involved personally [in their work]”, “tough”, “somewhat lacking sensitivity”,

“distant”, “cold”, “very cold”, “cannot be warm”, “reserved”, “unfriendly”, “not close to

people”, “somewhat arrogant”. To use a metaphor suggested by one of the Danish managers,

the Romanians put their heart into the company, while the Danes think they should put in their

brain.

3.4.2 Private and professional relations with business partners

In the Romanian business environment the diffuse lifestyle extends also outside the

boundaries of the company. Therefore, the difference in how the Danes and Romanians

organize their private and professional life spaces becomes critical in relations with business

partners. The basic idea is that it is quite common for Romanians to socialize extensively with

business partners, including competitors, with whom they often become friends. The output of

the business relationship depends on the quality and depth of the personal relationship. Here

are two brief examples given by a Danish and a Romanian respondent:

87

“Maybe it was a mistake for me in the beginning that I go right to the issue and when you meet new people you are used to talk about your countries and all these superficial things, small talk. This we can do for a while, but then you have to focus on what we are going to do in Romania. We have to do this and you have to keep this line straightforward, there are no escape roads. […] I did this in the beginning, I talked about Denmark and all our kings and Romanians loved to hear this. And they talk, and they talk, and they talk and then after hours of talk, we had dinners and wine, I came to so many diners you cannot imagine, it was awful, and they talk, and they talk…” (Danish respondent)

“The biggest challenge [for the Dane] would be patience and willingness to understand, not to judge, to understand before you judge. I am saying patience, because I think he is coming from a country where things happen extremely fast, decisions are made extremely fast, clean and based on facts and he is coming to a country, where decisions are made the day after tomorrow if we have the time, unless we think about it after we have been to a restaurant and we have become friends.” (Romanian respondent)

As these examples show, the approach of the Danes and Romanians in relations with business

partners is very different. The Danes prefer to “focus”, to “keep [the] line straightforward”, to

make decisions “fast, clean and based on facts”. In other words, they prefer to concentrate on

the hard, specific issues of the deal during a business meeting. Conveying information about

the product is preferred to the irrelevancies of the private context. For this reason two other

Danish managers perceived Romanian businessmen as not being serious (“Probably

Romanians don’t take business as seriously as we do.”; “They don’t seem to be serious in

relation to the work part which is in a meeting.”). It seems that for the Danes, being serious

means focusing on the objective aspects of the deal, going straight to the point and sticking to

the facts. The approach of the Danes is characteristic for specific cultures, where people

prefer to go straight to the point and focus on the neutral, objective aspects of a business deal

(Trompenaars, 1993:81).

On the contrary, as the above examples indicate, in Romania, establishing a private space

relationship is often the necessary precondition to do business. Business meetings often imply

having several meals together and are full of stories or details about each other’s personal

history, which is necessary for effective communication in high-context cultures, that rely

heavily on tacit understanding; business partners “become friends” and establish trust before

getting down to business. The Romanians’ approach is characteristic for diffuse cultures,

because in such cultures people prefer to get to know their business partners diffusely and get

88

to the specifics of the deal only later, when a personal relationship of trust has been

established (Trompenaars, 1993:81)

Trompenaars argues that “specificity and diffuseness are about strategies for getting to know

other people” (ibid). He describes these different approaches in terms of getting straight to the

point vs. circling round (ibid). He continues by suggesting that both approaches claim to save

time. In the diffuse approach, even though establishing the private relationship may require a

considerable amount of time, it performs an essential probing function in order to detect a

potentially dishonest partner, thus saving time and trouble that might arise in the future. In the

specific approach people do not waste time on irrelevancies with people who are not fully

committed to the specifics of the deal. (Trompenaars, 1993:81-82)

3.4.3 Conclusion and recommendations

The empirical data indicate that there is a significant difference in the way Danes and

Romanians organize the private and professional areas of their life. The Danes

compartmentalize their life in clearly separated spaces that underline the separation between

what is private and what is professional. As managers and as Danes, they thought it was

inappropriate and they felt uncomfortable to share the details of their private life or to

establish close relationships with co-workers or business partners and they did not accept their

employees’ private lives to influence their work. On the contrary, the Romanians highly

valued relationships with colleagues and business partners in which the private and

professional aspects of their lives interpenetrated and influenced each other. This is explained

by a difference between the two countries on several related dimensions: individualism-

collectivism, specific-diffuse and universalism-particularism.

The clash between the different value orientations is a source of misunderstandings and

tensions, as illustrated by the concrete manifestations discussed in this chapter. By completely

sealing off their private life, the Danish managers risk to become alienated from their

Romanian employees, and treat their relations to them with superficiality. A sharp separation

of their private and professional lives will also impede the development of strong

relationships with business partners, which are critical in the Romanian business environment

(see chapter 3.6 Personal connections (Relaţii)). In other words, they risk underestimating

89

the benefits of the diffuse separation of private life and work that can improve the team spirit

and level of trust in the company and can secure long term relations with business partners

based on mutual understanding and loyalty. When establishing contact with business partners,

it is also critical that the Danish managers accept an initial courting/circling round period, in

which they are expected to share details of their private lives. Even if contact is established by

Romanian employees, the Danish managers must also be armed with patience and be aware

that closing a deal will usually take longer than in Denmark, since the precondition is to

establish a private space relationship. While the approach preferred by the Danish managers

may work well in Denmark, it could often cause them losing valuable business opportunities

in Romania, if they are not prepared to accept the unclear demarcation line between private

and business aspects and their implications in relations to their partners. The Danes should

carefully cultivate both an interest and patience for extended discussions of family and other

non-business matters both with their employees and business partners, because this will

facilitate the support of both and will also help them develop a better grasp of the context of

these relationships, which as shown before (chapter 3.1 Communication styles) plays a major

role in communication in Romania.

On the other hand, the Romanians, particularly those that hold managerial positions, should

maintain a careful balance between the need for objectivity and the implications of close

personal relationships and avoid suspicions of favoritism, which would make them appear

untrustworthy to the Danish managers. Romanian employees must also understand that the

Danish managers will not accept extensive socialization during work hours, which they

perceive as a waste of time, because in specific, individualist, monochronic societies, the

focus during work hours is strictly on the task and there is less concern about private relations,

which are part of a different realm. Therefore, Romanian employees should try to limit

socialization during work hours to such time intervals, as lunch breaks.

90

3.5 Trust

Another area where we have identified systematic differences refers to the level of

interpersonal trust in the Danish and Romanian societies, which was reflected by the

perceptions of the Danish managers and their Romanian employees. By trust, we refer to “the

extent to which one is willing to ascribe good intentions to and confidence in the words and

actions of other people” (Tayeb, 1988:47 based on Cook and Wall, 1980). This definition

suggests that there are two aspects to be considered in connection with this concept – trust in

people’s abilities and trust in their intentions. The essence of the discussion in this chapter is

that the Danes are characterized by a higher level of interpersonal trust than the Romanians

and this difference influences the perception of the representatives of the two groups of such

aspects, as contracts, commitments, one’s given word and delegation/control.

First, we shall discuss the basic attitudes about trust in the two cultures (3.5.1), followed by a

discussion of their implications in two areas: (1) contractual relations (and more generally,

commitments or one’s given word) (3.5.2), which are relevant in work relations with others

outside the company, and (2) delegation and control (3.5.3), which is reflected in work

relations within the organizational hierarchy.

3.5.1 The basic attitudes about trust in the Danish and Romanian cultures

The basic attitudes about trust in the two cultures differ considerably. The empirical data

indicate that in Denmark the basic attitude is that people can generally be trusted. On the

contrary, in Romania the basic attitude is that people cannot be trusted and that they have a

general tendency to cheat. Here is an example from one of the Danish respondents:

“If you look at a simple thing as the customs rule, the rule here is that people probably try to cheat, so they are checking every single container and they find maybe one out of a million, where there is a problem. In all other countries in Europe, they check randomly 1-2 percent, maybe 3 percent of the containers. People are not cheating, why the hell should they be cheating? In most Danish countries, you don’t even have the customs checking anything any more. The thing at the starting point is that people are probably cheating. That is a little strange to me and negative to me. I would say this negative underlined atmosphere on many things, instead of a positive and optimistic attitude.” (Danish respondent)

91

As this example shows, the basic assumption in Romania is that people are usually cheating,

which also implies a negative approach to relationships between people or institutions, or as

one of the Romanian respondents put it “there is a certain suspicion or a higher level of

distrust vis-à-vis the negative side of an agreement”. This attitude is the basis for a low level

of interpersonal trust. In Romania, this basic attitude that people are not trustworthy has

become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why should one be honest, when he/she is a priori

suspected of cheating? Furthermore, the high level of corruption in the administration,

government and the political spectrum in general (cf. chapter 3.7 Bribery (Şpagă)), as well as

the constant failure of the country’s leadership to keep the promises made before elections,

only add to this self-fulfilling prophecy. Another important institutional factor that must not

be ignored is the communist legacy. Before 1989, tens of thousands of people were

informants for the famous secret police (in Romanian - Securitate). Anyone from priests to

teachers and family members could have been an informant and this resulted in the people

being very suspicious about everyone around them. We do not want to imply that institutional

factors are the only cause behind the low level of interpersonal trust in the Romanian society,

but they reinforce the cultural tendency.

What the Danish manager refers to as “a positive and optimistic attitude” suggests that in the

Danish society the basic assumption is that people should be, in general, trusted. Indeed, other

Danish respondents have plainly stated that in Denmark the basic attitude is to trust people in

general – “as a basis, I would trust anybody. And then I would be surprised, if I got

disappointed. ”; “[in Denmark] we trust people.”; “in Denmark we usually trust each

other…”. This attitude is an indication of a higher level of interpersonal trust in the Danish

society.

The Danes’ general trust in people has also been remarked by the Romanians, who perceive it

as exaggerated and they think it is unacceptable to take honesty for granted, as shown in the

following example:

“Probably in Denmark this honesty is taken to extreme. There, I think you could say anything and anybody would believe you; nobody thinks that you could be lying. Anything I would say to [the Danish manager], he believes me. Sometimes I trick him and he says ‘Didn’t you tell me that …?’ [R:] ‘I was joking!’ [D:]‘Well, if you told me I believed you.’ [R:] ‘Oh my God, look into my eyes when I tell you something, don’t just believe anything!’ “. (Romanian respondent)

92

The empirical data suggest that the Danes trust people in general and moreover, they have

confidence in what they are told by their collaborators, which makes it very easy for the

Romanians to take advantage of them. In addition to the above example, other Romanians

perceived the Danes’ willingness to trust people as “soft”, “stupidity”, “innocence”, “very

credulous”, “placing exaggerated confidence in somebody”. Evidently, the Romanians’

perception of the Danes’ willingness to trust people is overstated. If it were so, trust in

interpersonal relations would be absolute, which is not the case in any society. At the same

time we are not implying that all Romanians cannot be trusted under any circumstances. If

this were the case, it would simply be impossible to run a company or any kind of business in

Romania. Nevertheless, the Danes have a higher propensity to trust other people than

Romanians, which implies a higher level of interpersonal trust in the Danish society. We view

this difference in relative terms, not absolute extreme orientations.

The Danes’ tendency to trust people more than Romanians has to do, as the Romanian

respondent in the above example remarked, with the fact that “nobody thinks that you could

be lying”. In the same direction points the viewpoint of Fivelsdal and Schramm-Nielsen

(1993:29), who refer to the Danish basic attitude that “lying is unacceptable”. The Danish

norm that lying and dishonest behavior are unacceptable is connected to the universalist

obligation to adhere to standards agreed to by the culture. It means that lying or dishonest

behavior based on the nature of the relationship is not justified, because the universalist norm

is to treat everybody alike (Trompenaars, 1993:31).

As one of the Danish respondents stated, in Romania “you have to have a long-lasting

relationship with them before they open up. And also that you have to prove yourself, which I

think it is very important towards them [the Romanians]. That you are a good business

partner, that you are a person they trust.” Clearly, the Romanians’ perception of trust and

honesty is linked to the predilection to establish particularist relationships. It is necessary to

prove one’s abilities (of a good business partner) and intentions (that he/she is a trustworthy

person). Trust and honesty are not absolute; they depend on the relationship between the two

parties. In particularist cultures, the focus is on the exceptional nature of the present

circumstances, i.e. the nature of the relationship with the other person (Trompenaars,

1993:31), which may justify lying or dishonest behavior depending on the relationship. The

basic assumption is that strangers cannot be trusted and trust is built gradually, as the

relationship develops. Therefore, the need for personalized control that reinforces the need for

93

particularist relations between people. The emphasis on particularist relations in Romania

does not imply the existence of absolute trust within such relationships, but they are likely to

increase the level of interpersonal trust between the two parties.

To a certain extent this phenomenon is characteristic for more collectivist societies. The

association between collectivism and a low level of interpersonal trust has to do with the

strong divide between in-groups and out-groups in collectivist cultures. Because in collectivist

cultures the individual’s obligations are mainly connected to the in-group, so is trust and

honesty. It follows that it is less reprehensible to be dishonest with people whom one does not

trust and from whom one does not expect honesty in return (people perceived as out-group),

which partially explains the low level of interpersonal trust in Romania. The confinement of

trust and honesty to one’s in-group explains what one of the Romanian employees said - “I

don’t think that Romanians don’t trust other people. On the contrary, they [the Danish

managers] were bothered by the fact that in Romania business is made between friends and

acquaintances.” The Romanians prefer to do business with friends and acquaintances,

because the closer ties are safeguards against dishonesty. Friends and acquaintances are part

of one’s in-group and therefore tied with reciprocal obligations of honesty and trust. This is

less important in more individualist cultures, where in-groups are not emphasized and

according to the universalist norm, the tendency is to treat everybody the same, which

explains why the Danes notion of trust is not attached to particular relations.

Generally speaking, (dis)trusting people may also be connected with uncertainty avoidance.

Statistically, Hofstede (2001:159) has demonstrated this link. Conceptually, trusting others

entails some tolerance for ambiguity and potential loss of control, and this is more easily

found in weaker uncertainty avoidance societies (ibid). Therefore, the Danes tendency to

generally trust people versus the Romanians tendency to distrust other people may also be

explained by the difference in uncertainty avoidance between the two countries.

When close ties do not exist between two parties, there is a tendency towards excessive

written documentation to justify everything, which points in the same direction – low

interpersonal trust. From a Danish perspective, this phenomenon was perceived as excessively

burdensome:

“They send an internal memo in a small office, instead of talking, because they have a chronic need to document everything, so that nobody can ever say ‘You never did

94

this’. Everybody wants to make sure that the paper work is correct and we are actually spending more time on administrating, than dealing with the problem at hand. Administration is good, but is not to kill you.” (Danish respondent)

The alleged “chronic need to document everything” is also confirmed by the remarks of other

respondents. The Romanians feel a strong need to cover their back. Verbal communication is

often not enough, because in the end, it is one’s word against the other’s, and since lying, or

simply ignoring or forgetting what is said is common, the Romanians often prefer to have a

written justification for everything. It does not mean that written documents are taken as a

guarantee that the other party will do as promised, but it seems to be a way of trying to control

the situation, to cover one’s back against potentially unknown risks. In this context, the

tendency to write excessive documentation seems to serve as an uncertainty-avoiding ritual.

3.5.2 Contractual relations

The level of interpersonal trust, as well as the perception of the notion of trust becomes a key

factor in relations with business partners. Romanian respondents noticed that when the Danes

gave their word, that promise was treated as sacred, i.e. it was never broken, and naturally

they expected the same from their Romanian business partners. The following example given

by a Romanian manager illustrates this point:

“[The Danish manager] went several times with the contract to the representative of the other firm to sign it. They kept meeting and talking and he [the Romanian] didn’t sign and it was a big contract, which we have included in our external reports as closed; we said that everything was OK and we finally found out that the deal was later closed with one of our competitors. [The Danish manager] was under the impression that everything was OK, that there was no problem if [the Romanian] said he would sign the deal. Probably he [the Danish manager] thought it was a piece of cake as long as the other person gave his/her word; they agreed to all the details, they met several times, the signature was probably nothing. But the other person thought differently, and because he didn’t sign, he thought he could do anything else, no matter what he agreed with [the Danish manager]; [the Danish manager] was put in a very bad situation and he had to explain [to his superiors] why we lost the contract.” (Romanian respondent)

Obviously, the Danish manager in this example thought that the given word was as good as

the signed contract, which was in fact a mistake. As this example, as well as data from other

interviews reveal, in Romania the given word does not necessarily mean a firm commitment.

It must be reinforced by a signed contract. Probably, the Romanian business partner did not

95

even expect his word to be taken so seriously. In Romania, a promise, a gentlemen’s

agreement can easily be overlooked. If the two parties have a long standing personal

relationship that allowed the development of trust, it is less likely that the given word would

be broken, because the particularized relation is the mechanism that often reinforces the

promise in particularist cultures (Trompenaars, 1993:40).

On the other hand, the promise, even if it is reinforced by a signed contract does not imply

that the Romanians regard the specifics of the deal as definitive. The Danish managers in the

following example were surprised, when their Romanian partner tried to renegotiate the deal

after the contract had been signed and when the Danes did not accept this, he simply broke the

contract:

“We worked with him for more that half a year, maybe close to one year […] But he, anyway, continuously postponed, renegotiated. We were so far that we had a signed contract and then he broke the contract in the end. Obviously, for him it is only paper. And then I’m sure and I know for sure, that he felt [it was] his right to renegotiate again and we said ‘OK, goodbye my friend!’ We just walked out.” (Danish respondent)

This is just one of several examples, and it shows that the Danes and Romanians have a very

different perception of what a signed contract means. For the Danes, the contract is a final and

firm commitment and they expect it to be respected accordingly, as one of the Romanian

respondents put it, “We respect it [the contract] and he [the Danish manager] wants it to be

respected by the other parties as well, and when something is wrong he does not understand

why: ‘If we have a contract, why shouldn’t we follow it?’ ”. On the other hand, for the

Romanians a written contract seems to be more fluid. The remark of the Danish manager that

it means “only paper” suggests that for the Romanians the relationship between the two

parties and the fact that this relationship evolves is more important than the written contract

that can easily be discarded or renegotiated.

These different perceptions can be explained by different value orientations: universalism

versus particularism. The Danes’ viewpoint reflects a universalist orientation. Trompenaars

indicates that universalists see the contract as definite (Trompenaars, 1993:40). On the

contrary, for particularists, the contract is only a rough guideline or approximation (ibid). The

Romanian in the above example felt it was his right to renegotiate, given by the long

relationship (almost 1 year) he had with the Dane. Such particularist relations create mutual

obligations and both parties are expected to be flexible and accommodate the changes of the

96

relationship over time. The Danes in de above example did not accept to renegotiate, because

they no longer trusted the Romanian, who broke the contract. This attitude, again, reflects a

universalist judgment, whereby a trustworthy person is the one who honors his/her word or

contract. On the contrary, in particularist thinking, a trustworthy person is the one who honors

changing mutuality, so the contract can easily be modified or abandoned. (Trompenaars,

1993:45) Obviously, such different perceptions of what is expected from a trusted person can

easily break down (contractual) relations. As the result of their bad experiences, two of the

Danish managers claimed that they came to a point, when they trusted nobody in Romania.

Our findings about the attitudes of the Romanians based on the empirical data are confirmed

by the results of Su and Richelieu (1999). They indicate the Romanian managers considered

that not respecting contract liabilities or a person’s word is unethical, but they continue by

stating that such behavior appeared legitimate (Su and Richelieu, 1999:138). This contrast

reflects the gap that often appears between what Hofstede calls the desirable (ethical) and

desired (legitimate) (Hofstede, 1994:9-10). Su and Richelieu (1999:139) also point out that

the tendency to expect accommodation of changing mutualities in a contractual relationship

appeared ethical to the Romanian managers. The authors call it playing on ambiguity and they

say that when the situation appeared unfavorable to them, the Romanian managers would

even try to break the deal, if they are unable to change the conditions (ibid), which confirms

our findings.

3.5.3 Trust, delegation and control

In chapter 3.9 Responsibility we shall discuss the issue of delegation and control at length,

which we explain, among other factors, from the power distance perspective. The concept of

trust in interpersonal relations in society, in general, and within the company, in particular,

points yet, to another perspective, equally meaningful.

The empirical data suggest that in general, the Danish managers trust their Romanian

employees’ abilities and judgment in performing the tasks, and their intentions, which

determined them to delegate a great deal of the tasks to their Romanian employees. Here is

the view of one of the Romanian respondents:

97

“He [the Danish manager] offered more freedom to make decisions, which was perceived as trust. It was perceived in a pleasant way. The previous manager [not Danish] had all decision power, he wanted to know everything that was going on.” (Romanian respondent)

As the respondent points out, the freedom of making decisions, or in short, delegation, does

imply trust, both in people’s abilities and their intentions. Consequently, the level of personal

control of subordinates was also lower. Therefore, seen from the trust perspective the Danes’

preference for delegation and little personal control is to a certain extent based on a higher

level of interpersonal trust.

This conclusion is also confirmed by the findings of Fivelsdal and Schram-Nielsen (1993:29),

who argue that faith in the individuals’ judgment is the fundament for imposing little or no

personal control of subordinates (Fivelsdal and Schramm-Nielsen, 1993:29). On the other

hand, erroneous actions are often explained away as mistakes based on the assumption that, if

a person makes a mistake, it is because he/she has misunderstood (ibid), not because he/she

tried to cheat.

Unfortunately, for the Danish managers, the Romanians did not always live up to their

expectations. There was a constant need to push and control the employees in order to achieve

a good finalization of the tasks (see chapter 3.9 Responsibility), so the higher level of trust and

more delegation did create problems to a certain extent for the Danish managers.

The Danes constantly tried to raise the level of interpersonal trust in their companies, mainly

by personal example and delegation. However, in spite of their efforts, the Romanian

employees and managers indicated that the Danes’ attitude and efforts to change them by

personal example did not succeed and they still believed that trusting people in general was

not a very good idea. Here is how a Romanian manager explains:

“From the beginning [the Danish manager] delegated responsibility very easily and he trusted everybody equally, which I would have never done, if I were the manager of a company. I didn’t do this with the people from my own department, to trust them completely and equally and only when they failed my trust to … [impose control]. Even now, trained by [the Danish manager] I still wouldn’t do it. Maybe, because I know very well how Romanians are and I know they would take advantage of everything. For the Romanians it has been a challenge to be entrusted like this.” (Romanian respondent)

98

Instead of trusting her subordinates, the Romanian manager preferred to be more suspicious

and cautious, as a safeguard. Consequently, because she did not trust her subordinates the

Romanian manager still delegated little decision and imposed personal control. This

discrepancy between the Danish and Romanian managers may lead to paradoxical situations –

the Danish top managers trust their Romanian managers and delegate decision, but this

attitude does not spread further down the hierarchy. Consequently, it is likely that the general

level of interpersonal trust in the companies remains low.

Some of the Danish managers understood that completely trusting their employees, in the

sense that they would expect them to do what they are entrusted to do, could have serious

consequences in Romania. To use their exact words, they realized that “trust is good, control

is better” to emphasize the need to use personal control, particularly in the sense of following

up on the tasks that have been previously delegated to their Romanian employees (see also

chapter 3.9 Responsibility).

3.5.4 Conclusion and recommendations

The empirical data indicate a substantial difference in the basic attitudes about trust in the two

countries. The Romanians’ tendency to establish particularist relations and the emphasis on

in-groups membership characteristic for collectivist cultures, as well as the tendency to cover

one’s back by excessive use of written documentation are safeguards against dishonest

behavior and reinforce a low level of interpersonal trust in Romania. It also seems that the

cultural tendency towards negative interpersonal relations among Romanians, leading to

suspicion and the necessity to be cautious, has been aggravated by the communist legacy and

the current political situation. The basic assumption is that people should not be trusted. On

the other hand, the empirical data indicate that the Danes’ basic attitude is that people can

generally be trusted, an attitude which is reinforced by the universalist values in the Danish

society.

The difference in the degree of collectivism in the two countries can explain a difference in

the scope of the notion of trust. Thus, in Romania trust and loyalty tend to be confined to in-

groups, while in Denmark they do not seem be tied to particular relationships. Also, the

99

difference in uncertainty avoidance between the two societies may explain the difference in

the level of interpersonal trust.

These differences can lead to dangerous pit-falls for the Danish managers working in

Romania. In business relations, one’s given word does not mean much, unless it is reinforced

by a long standing relationship of trust or a written contract, which makes Romanians appear

untrustworthy to the Danes that place great emphasis on keeping one’s contractual obligations

or word (universalist thinking). Even when a thorough contract has been drawn up, the Danes

should be prepared to be flexible and to acknowledge the changing mutualities in the

relationship, which means that the Romanians may require frequent modifications of the

contract. The willingness to accommodate changes and mutual obligations when a close

relationship has been established between the two parties is an attitude that will make the

Danes appear trustworthy to their Romanian business partners (particularist thinking). In

keeping with the Romanians’ tendency to establish particularist relations, the Danes should

not ignore the importance of building up and nurturing close relationships with their business

partners, because this is often the only guarantee of an honest business relationship. In doing

so, understanding the strong divide between in-group and out-group and its link with trust

becomes critical for the Danish managers working in Romania.

Finally, within the company, the Romanians should be more open to trust each other and

make a conscious effort to live up to the promises they make, because otherwise the Danes’

efforts to establish a decentralized, delegative work environment, with little personal control

would be sabotaged. However, the Danish managers must also understand that trusting their

employees’ abilities and intentions to the same degree as they do in Denmark may not work

as easily in Romania, because in spite of their personal example, it is difficult to change the

low level of interpersonal trust that pervades the Romanian society and is obviously reflected

within the company, as well. As a general recommendation that applies both to the internal

and external environment of the company, the Danish managers should be more cautious,

instead of simply trusting people until they are proven to be wrong, because unconditional

trust can have disastrous consequences, even losing their company.

100

3.6 Personal connections (Relaţii)

A key concept in the Romanian society with deep implications for the business environment

is relaţii. A rough translation of the term relaţii into English would be personal connections,

but as we shall discuss in this chapter relaţii has a wider meaning. Despite this difference, in

the following discussion the two terms will be used synonymously for practical reasons. The

empirical data indicate that on the whole, the Danish managers ascribed little importance to

developing such connections, when doing business in Romania. On the other hand, the

Romanians devoted great attention to the importance of connections in the Romanian business

environment and they built and maintained extensive networks of such personal connections.

The consequences of not paying enough attention to this particular aspect of the Romanian

business environment can be quite severe. It is important to mention that the effects of

personal connections appear mainly in the firm’s external relations with authorities and

business partners.

We shall start by discussing the different perceptions of the Danish managers and their

Romanian employees, in relation to the concept of relaţii and the various aspects of the

underlying cultural values that can partially explain these different perceptions (3.6.1).

Afterwards, we shall explore the implications of (not) having the right connections for

companies operating in Romania, that point directly to the importance of connections in the

Romanian business environment (3.6.2).

3.6.1 The different perception of personal connections in the Danish and

Romanian cultures

It is a fact of life in Romania that everybody carefully cultivates large networks of personal

connections. By network, we understand a dyadic relationship between two entities (could be

people or organizations) that is not confined to a group, but it is in principle boundless, and

the number of potential relationships grows exponentially with the number of actors (based on

Worm, 1997:123). In the present case, the relationships that form the network refer to

personal connections, therefore we are dealing with networks of personal connections.

Personal connections exist not only in Romania, but also in Denmark, but the major

101

difference is the extent to which they are used, as well as the perception of personal

connections in the two societies. As one of the Danish managers explained – “In every

country, even in Denmark, we are used to have connections and it’s a good thing, but the way

that I experienced it in Romania, that’s totally different from what I have seen before.” In

other words, there are certain culture specific aspects that individualize the Romanian relaţii.

The different perceptions of the personal connections in the two societies are reflected both in

the way they are used, the extent to which they are used and in the conscious effort made for

developing such connections.

One of the Danish managers said:

“Connections, the thing about things being built not on a kind of a transparent legal framework and rules, no matter who you are. Romania is much less transparent. It depends on whom you talk to. If you talk to the right person you can get resolved, if you talk to the wrong person you don’t get resolved and the solution might be different anyway. This is a big difference. This leads directly to corruption.” (Danish respondent)

The Dane’s preference for a transparent legal framework and rules that should equally apply

to everybody, reflects the existence of universalist values in the Danish culture. In universalist

cultures, people have an obligation to adhere to standards or rules universally agreed to, and

all people falling under the same rule should receive similar treatment (Trompenaars,

1993:31). Some Danish managers emphasized that in Denmark you would just go to the

source or pick up a phone book instead of using personal connections to solve things.

The remark of another Danish manager reflects the Danes’ much narrower perception of

personal connections, when such connections are used, because as mentioned earlier personal

connections also exist in Denmark:

“I explained to them that we can play that game only within certain boundaries. We are not going to play the game of connections outside of a very clean and white, transparent ... We will not try to get into something that become more complicated and blow up in our face over time.” (Danish respondent)

As this example indicates, the Danish manager emphasizes the need for having a transparent

relation when connections were used. In this context, transparency, which seems to define the

boundaries of personal connections for the Danes, has a triple meaning. Firstly, it means that

personal connections should not be used for bending or bypassing the rules in the system.

Secondly, personal connections should be simple and clear, not heavily burdened by

102

reciprocal obligations. Thirdly, it refers to the fact that personal connections should not

incorporate any form of corruption29, they have to be honest, clean, white. However, in

Romania, personal connections are not synonymous with corruption, even though the two can

sometimes overlap. The Danes’ perception of personal connections is influenced by the

precedence that rules take over relationships in universalist countries, thus giving less

importance to the latter. It follows that the Danes’ view of personal connections is much

narrower by comparison with the Romanians’ one.

On the other hand, transparency is exactly what does not characterize what relaţii mean in

Romania. Going back to what we mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, the word

relaţii has a complex meaning and can only roughly be translated into English as personal

connections. The approximation of the translation is only the tip of the iceberg indicating the

culture specific characteristics of the Romanian concept of relaţii30. The empirical data and

our own Romanian background suggest that relaţii has a wider meaning in Romania. If we are

to define the concept of relaţii it should be said that they involve an ongoing, complex

relationship of reciprocal obligations. They involve particular treatment based on the

relationship to a much greater extent than in the more universalist Danish culture. Relaţii can

serve different functions,31 such as obtaining information, securing business clients, applying

pressure or bypassing the excessively bureaucratic system, and they do involve making

special favors to a large extent.

In Romanian, the concept of relaţii has two meanings. Firstly, it means personal relationship,

which is often based on family ties or a mutual feeling of friendship and the desire to help

each other based on that special bond. The second meaning of relaţii is pile, which is a jargon

term that has no correspondent in English, but it refers to a pragmatic relationship established

for mutual exploitation. In practice, the distinction is often subtle and the demarcation line is

blurred. A relationship started on exclusively pragmatic bases often evolves to a personal

relation of friendship. In Romania relaţii pervade all aspects of social, economic and political

life, as indicated by both Romanian and Danish respondents: relaţii “are a way of life in

Romania. Modus Vivendi!”, “without them you cannot do much”, “I have learnt that the most

important thing in Romania is to focus on personal and trust-based operations”, “To do 29 The issue of corruption will be treated in detail in chapter 3.7 Bribery (Şpagă).30 Another similar example could be the Danish word hygge, which is translated into the English coziness, but the English term is far from conveying the full meaning of hygge.31 These functions have been identified based on the empirical data and they are discussed in detail, in section 3.6.2 of this chapter.

103

business in Romania you have to know people and that’s it!”, “You can simply not maneuver,

without having this kind of relationships or find the right person”, “you simply have to be able

to find some good connections to be able to make business here”, “customers, authorities,

everything depends on connections”. The overall concept that underlines relaţii is the

emphasis on particular relationships. This characteristic can be explained by a particularist

value orientation, because relaţii do involve particularist judgments and treatment based on

the existence of particularist relationships.

As the above quotes indicate, it is a fact of life in Romania that everybody carefully cultivates

large networks of personal connections. Granovetter (1992, cit. in Worm, 1997:124) refers to

networks as weak ties and suggests that the strength of a network relies on a combination of

time, emotional intensity, intimacy and reciprocal services. Each of these elements is

discussed in relation to the views of the Danish managers and Romanians.

Here is how one of the Danish managers explained his concern about investing time in

personal connections:

“It takes too much of my time, of any businessman in Romania to deal with these things and very often with no result; you try to deal with it, but you don’t actually solve the problem. Sometimes you manage to solve the problem, but the bottom line is that you spend a lot of time on this, rather than spend your time on how to beat your competition or improving your product, whatever.” (Danish respondent)

The emphasis on the efficient use of time and prioritization of objectives, characteristic for the

Danish managers, is typical for monochronic cultures (as discussed in chapter 3.2 Perception

of time). Obviously, the Danish manager is not willing to spend too much time on developing

connections, especially because they do not always lead to quick results. Establishing and

nurturing such relations is critical in Romania and it requires a considerable amount of time.

Personal relationships (friendships) take time to establish and develop and in the case of pile

there is an initial period of courting necessary to get to know each other and establish a

minimal level of trust (as another Danish respondent put it – “You have to have a long-lasting

relationship with them before they open up. […] you have to prove yourself, which I think that

is very important, towards them. That you are a good business partner, that you are a person

they trust. It takes time. They don’t open immediately.”); otherwise suspicions may be raised.

As this example illustrates, personal connections in Romania are often based on a long

history. This is characteristic for polychronic cultures, because in such cultures people are

104

accustomed to build life-long relationships, as opposed to monochronic cultures (Denmark),

where people are used to short-term relationships (Hall and Hall, 1990:15), which will seldom

pay-off in Romania. Investing a lot of time is the first element that gives strength to a network

of connections in Romania.

In relation to the second and third elements that give strength to a network, i.e. emotional

intensity and intimacy, there is again a significant difference between the Danes and the

Romanians. To exemplify, here is what two of the Danish respondents remarked:

“I am from Denmark, we are a little bit more cold in Denmark […] So I don’t think we use network quite the same way in Denmark. […] I also think I would like to be part, but not so much, if you know… I would like to have a little distance and I am not sure that is a good decision.” (Danish respondent)

“Here in Romania if we get close to people, then all of a sudden we are almost family and we are friends. I’m afraid of this, not to get too close to me, because I can’t handle this.” (Danish respondent)

As these examples indicate, and as we demonstrated in chapter 3.4 Separation of private and

professional lives, the Danes were less willing to establish close bonds with business partners

and to share details of their private life, because of their preference to clearly separate their

business from their professional life. They are more “cold” and prefer “not to get too close”.

A similar characteristic of the Danes was emphasized by Askegaard, Gertsen and Madsen

(1995:11) who label it as the Danes’ social introversion, i.e. being relatively poor at

establishing social contacts with other people. As both Danish managers above remarked, the

opposite was the case for the Romanians, who often developed closer relations with

colleagues, business partners or officials. Particularly, relaţii in the sense of personal

relations, which are based on family ties or a mutual feeling of friendship imply considerable

emotional intensity and intimacy. This also has to do with the tendency to establish strong

bonds within in-groups, which is emphasized in more collectivist cultures, but less important

in more individualist ones.

Finally, reciprocating services is the defining feature of relaţii in Romania (cf. definition -

ongoing, complex relationship of reciprocal obligations). As discussed in the beginning of this

section, the preference of the Danes for transparent personal connections implied that they

should not be heavily burdened by reciprocal obligations. Obviously, the Danes tried to avoid

105

establishing close connections or going too far in playing the connections game, because they

were afraid it would “blow up in [their] faces over time”.

The differences between the Danes and Romanians on all four elements (time, emotional

intensity, intimacy and reciprocal services) indicate that the networks of personal connections

are stronger in Romania than in Denmark, which may explain why the Romanians gave more

importance to building relaţii than the Danish managers. Two more elements add to this

discrepancy. First, during the communist regime in Romania, knowing the right people was

often the only way to procure many of the necessary food items or home appliances, because

especially during the 1980s most shops were literally empty. Secondly, the Romanians do not

view relaţii as a violation of social norms of justice or fair treatment (it is “Modus Vivendi”,

Romanian respondent). On the other hand, the Danes’ preference for “a transparent legal

framework and rules, no matter who you are” instead of relying on personal connections, add

a negative connotation to relaţii, furthered by the fact that Danes “are maybe better at hiding

it [connections]” (Danish respondent), which implies a conscious effort to mask personal

connections whenever they are used.

Although all the Danish respondents were aware of the importance of relaţii in Romania

(whether they disregarded it or not), because of the significant differences in the perception of

personal connections, it is still difficult for a Dane to fully comprehend the concept and how it

functions in the Romanian society:

“I’ve been introduced to the Mayor and I talk much with the Mayor also on the phone and I think a lot of people read it that this must perhaps help me solve…, perhaps they think I have more influence than I really have. I’m just the director of a little company. […] I do not think I have these connections, but I think they think that I have these connections. But I discuss music and opera with the Mayor and so on. This sometimes surprises me and I am not sure what you are supposed to do in Romanian way.” (Danish respondent)

In Romania having a personal relationship with a powerful person means that you can rely on

the influence of your powerful friend in every aspect of your life. Since his relationship with

the mayor was mainly personal (discussing music and opera), the Danish manager in this

example did not realize that this relationship would have any influence on his relation with

other business partners or officials, even though the latter, who were Romanians, did perceive

it as such. He did not understand how he could actually use this relationship in his everyday

business. Making powerful friends and using a personal relationship in your dealings with

106

authorities or business partners is part of the Romanian system of relaţii. This can also be

explained by a diffuse life style, where private and professional aspects of one’s life are

closely connected and interpenetrate each other (cf. chapter 3.4 Separation of private and

professional lives).

Because the Danes had a different perception of personal connections, they did not fully

understand how relaţii work in Romania and they only agreed to a limited use of such

connections, they either let their Romanian employees take care of the personal connections

or they hired an outside agent or consultant who had a large network of business or political

connections. This was how far the Danes adapted to this aspect of the Romanian society and

they rarely got personally involved in developing their own personal connections, even after

having spent several years in Romania.

3.6.2 The importance of personal connections in Romania

The importance of personal connections in Romania is reflected by the four main functions

they perform: (1) sources of information; (2) securing business clients; (3) bypassing the rigid

bureaucracy; (4) applying pressure on business partners or officials. All these functions are

widely spread in the Romanian business environment and they were identified based on the

empirical data. It is possible that personal connections perform other roles in the Romanian

society, but they are likely to be less important in the business environment.

3.6.2.1 Personal connections as sources of information

Romanians use their networks of personal connections as an important source of information.

Through these networks, they stay informed about what is going on around them, but they

also use it to get access to privileged information about competitors, clients or potential

political decisions that might affect their business. Such extensive information networks

among colleagues, clients, competitors, family or friends are elements of high-context

communication cultures (Hall and Hall, 1990:6). However, to a certain extent this is also a

disadvantage:

“In some ways we had to suffer because of this. Let’s say that there are leaks of information through connections, which either affected us because the leaks were

107

from our company or information reaches the other [competitors] quicker than we find out through the official channels.” (Romanian respondent)

Because Romanians sometimes feel more loyal to people with whom they have a personal

relationship than to the company, they would feel it is their obligation to reveal privileged

information to a friend, even when it will negatively affect the company, he or she works for.

This attitude also reflects a particularist judgment that focuses on the exceptional nature of the

relationship that takes precedence over the rules of confidentiality, characteristic for

particularist cultures (Trompenaars, 1993:39).

On the other hand, as we showed before in this chapter the Danes lack extensive, well-

developed networks that they can use as a rich source of information, which is characteristic

for low-context communication cultures (Hall and Hall, 1990:8). As an exception, two of the

Danish managers did use networks of personal connections mainly as sources of information,

which can be regarded as a form of adaptation to the Romanian society:

“…we have a terrible lot of contacts and we also phone them in some matters and tell them how life is at the other end of the line and ask them about that and they tell us about what they experienced. […] Maybe it’s a totally different business. I would say it’s mostly to get information and we are not a typical example of people working with pressure via network.” (Danish respondent)

3.6.2.2 Securing business clients

Personal connections are often relied upon when closing a contract in Romania. In other

words, people prefer to do business with people they know and trust. If they ignore the

importance of establishing and nurturing a close personal relationship with their clients, the

Danish managers could experience serious problems. Here is how a Danish manager describes

his experience:

“[We] make an offer to a client and another company made it also. We know we have the best offer, but somebody else has the best connections. Then we will lose and be irritated, but we won’t be able to do anything until that connection disappears. You cannot break a connection like that. […] Connections sounds like a ‘mafia’ word, but it’s just a matter of knowing somebody.” (Danish respondent)

As this example shows, the Romanians prefer to do business with people with whom they

have a personal connection, giving second priority to the actual object of the deal. The best

offer is simply not more important than a personal connection. This may seem irrational to the

Danish managers, when they know that they have the best offer, but both Danish and

108

Romanian respondents have recognized the importance of knowing people in order to do

business in Romania (as discussed earlier in section 3.6.1). The precedence that the personal

connection often takes over the object of the deal could be attributed to a diffuse value

orientation, because in diffuse cultures establishing a close personal relation is often the

precondition for closing a business deal (Trompenaars, 1993:80-81).

3.6.2.3 Bypassing the rigid bureaucracy

Both the Danish and Romanian respondents accused the excessively bureaucratic style of the

Romanian authorities, indicating that it was often very difficult and time consuming to solve

problems. In this context having the right connections could help you solve things much

easier and faster:

“[The Dane] is very determined to obtain his green card for Romania alone and he has been trying to get it for 3 weeks now, even though one of my colleagues could obtain it in a few hours, because he knows the boss and could go there with the papers and get the green card immediately.” (Romanian respondent)

Therefore, having the right connections, knowing the right officials can be a big advantage

and often the only way to get things done. It reflects the precedence that particularized

relations take over rules, in some cases even interpreting the legislation more favorably (e.g.

B2), which is characteristic for particularist cultures. Besides, knowing the right people is

often the only way to reach the decision makers at the top of the hierarchy. This situation

occurs because there are always “filters” at the lower levels that can block or facilitate access.

3.6.2.4 Applying pressure

The fourth function, applying pressure, refers to situations when Romanian companies use

their networks of personal connections to circle in and force a decision on another company

based exclusively on connections and often avoiding a direct confrontation with the ones on

whom pressure is applied. The following situation is relatively common in the Romanian

business environment:

“I think it starts even before I think it has started. […] I started to be pressed all around. Almost everywhere I go I heard about this [company] and that he did not have enough [money]. And I think that he has put a lot of this … started his network a little to press me. And I feel that when I’m sitting and having a conversation with a Romanian in the evening and we drink and it also comes there.” (Danish respondent)

109

The Romanian business partner in this example relied on his network of personal connections

to pressure the Danish manager to pay more money. The latter was obviously surprised by

this mechanism and he felt pressured from all sides. This also denotes that in Denmark,

personal connections are not used to pressure business partners or at least not to the same

extent as in Romania. Incidentally, the Danish manager in the above example is the same

person who mentioned earlier that he had a personal relationship with the mayor. Because of

his different cultural background, it was obviously difficult for the Dane to fully comprehend

the Romanian system of relaţii and therefore, he did not realize that he could use the influence

of his powerful friend to diffuse the situation and counter the attack of the Romanian business

partner.

One Romanian respondent told us that all their business partners were imposed by the

Romanian public utility company the Danish firm was working for, without any regard for the

lack of ability of some of those business partners to perform the jobs. Such situations remind

of the communist period, when all aspects of economic life were controlled by political

decision, but they are still a fact of life in Romania. In many instances the influence of the

totalitarian government has been replaced by vast informal networks of personal connections,

linking people from the different spheres of the political and economic spectrum. All these

examples point to the strength and importance of the networks of relaţii.

3.6.3 Conclusion and recommendations

The empirical data suggest that the Danish managers and their Romanian employees have a

different perception of relaţii and they ascribe different value to building networks of personal

connections. We have shown that in Romania such networks are very strong as a function of

four elements (time, emotional intensity, intimacy and reciprocal services), complemented by

the importance they had for basic survival needs, during the communist regime and the fact

that personal connections are not perceived negatively in the Romanian society. Every aspect

of the social, politic and economic life is pervaded by relaţii that are used for solving any kind

of problem. The extent of this phenomenon could be explained by particularism, which

emphasizes the preference to establish particularized relations, but also by a diffuse life style

that strengthens the relations through a mix of private and professional aspects. In addition,

personalized relations are also a way of establishing trust in a society characterized by a low

110

level of interpersonal trust (cf. chapter 3.5 Trust). On the other hand, a more universalist

orientation in Denmark renders less important the extensive establishment of personal

connections; the sharp line drawn between work and private life reinforces the weakness of

personal connections by comparison with the Romanian society.

The four important functions performed by personal connections (sources of information,

securing business clients, bypassing the rigid bureaucracy, applying pressure), indicate that

exploiting them will be beneficial for the company and, on the other hand, ignoring their

importance could have serious negative effects. Therefore, the Danish managers should

recognize the importance of establishing personal connections and must learn to build their

own networks. This should be possible since networks also exist in Denmark, but they must

understand and accept the cultural specific elements that characterize the Romanian networks

of relaţii. In addition, Romanians are often eager to have foreign friends, which should

facilitate the Danes’ efforts to establish personal connections.

For several reasons, it is more difficult in practice to create connections with the Romanians

than one would immediately anticipate. Firstly, there is a language barrier, particularly in

relations with older Romanians, who often do not speak English. Clearly, communication is a

crucial aspect in establishing and building personal connections. Secondly, the Danes must

learn to adopt a more diffuse life style; socialization and even discussing private matters is

essential for establishing a close relation based on trust. Thirdly, many Romanians view

foreigners in general, as being wealthy and a potential source of easy money. Many

disappointing experiences led some of the Danish managers to perceive personal connections

in Romania, very negatively. One Danish manager described this type of Romanians as

“sharks”. Therefore, personal connections should be handled with care and cautiousness and

clearly not all of them will go in the right direction.

Finally, the Danish managers should be armed with patience, when playing the connections

game. As shown in this chapter, such relationships rarely lead to quick results. They pay-off

in time and they do require a considerable amount of time and effort to build and maintain.

However, given the particular characteristics of the Romanian culture and business

environment, combining a professional work style with a well-developed network of personal

connections could be a key element for success. Alternatively, the Danish managers can also

111

rely on the personal connections of their Romanian employees, but getting personally

involved and learning from the experience of the latter could only be a plus.

112

3.7 Bribery (Şpagǎ)

Corruption is one of the well-known plagues that have unfortunately become a custom in

Romania. There are a number of institutional factors, such as the overwhelming bureaucracy,

that underline this phenomenon. In addition, cultural factors have also contributed to this

widespread phenomenon. In our study, these cultural factors have been reflected by the

different perception that the Danish managers and the Romanian employees have about

bribery. These different perceptions influence the degree to which bribery is accepted and

expected to be used in order to influence the behavior of an official or business partner. The

word bribe can be translated into the Romanian mită. However, in everyday conversation the

most commonly used is the jargon term şpagă.

There are two distinct forms of bribery that demarcate how far the Danes and the Romanians

were willing to play the bribery game. The first refers to financial incentives, or in other

words, black money (3.7.1). The second form refers to gifts that have small monetary value

and which are common practice in most transactions (3.7.2). This separation will guide the

following discussion, about how Romanians and Danes perceive black money and gifts in

their relations with business partners and authorities. This issue is focused on the external

environment of the firm, because it has little relevance for the work relations inside the

company.

3.7.1 Corruption and black money

On the whole, the Danish and Romanian respondents had a very different perception about

bribery (both black money and gifts). All Danish managers believed it was both unethical and

illegal to pay şpagă and some respondents, indicated that this phenomenon is very rare in

Denmark and heavily punished by the law. Bribery is also illegal in Romania, but the major

difference is that in Romania bribery is to a certain extent socially accepted, as some of the

respondents have indicated – “is not something you are ashamed about. Talking about mită or

anything like that is very normal”, “general acceptance of corruption”, “obviously there is a

solution, and in Romania everybody knows the solution, it is called bacşiş, şpagă”. Moreover,

şpagă is a frequently used word in everyday conversation. Even in banal situations, like going

113

to the doctor for a routine check, it is unconceivable not to pay something privately or bring a

gift.

The following example focuses the attention on the issue of paying black money and reflects

the major difference in how bribery is perceived by the Danes and Romanians:

“The customs is one of them, police is another one, where if you get position in one of these parts of the Romanian authorities, you get access to huge earnings without right. And it’s a very, very … we say ‘without right’, because the Romanians they think ‘Oh, it’s nice. I got a job and this is money in my pocket’. And he thinks that he has the right. There is really a big difference in understanding. We think he should be there to serve the clients, he thinks he should be there to rob them. And they do it without any hesitation, they do it. They [the customs] take hostages, they take our trucks as hostages.” (Danish respondent)

The Danish manager in the above example could not understand why it is necessary to pay

black money, when the other person has already been paid to do a job. On the other hand,

many Romanians in a position of power tend to believe that it is their own given right to

require a bribe, if they are to do their job correctly. In addition to the above example, public

officials in Romania used their position of power to create various barriers or to grant special

favors, trying to obtain black money in such situations as: (1) cause delays or reject the

necessary approvals for companies or even delay answers to various queries; (2) interpret

regulations in a manner unfavorable to the companies or even making reference to imaginary

rules or changes in regulations; (3) turn a blind eye when the company or the individual has

broken the law; (4) disclose privileged information. Such instances, when a public official

uses his/her position of power to gain illicit income, are a direct reflection of the large gap

between authorities and the citizen in Romania, which can be attributed to a larger power

distance in the Romanian society. Such behavior on the behalf of the authorities is also

possible because scandals of corruption rarely have any consequences on one’s career32,

which can again be explained by a larger power distance. On the other hand, a smaller power

distance in Denmark can explain the low level of corruption, because scandals of corruption

usually put an end to one’s career and are heavily punished by law (as shown earlier in this

section). In addition, as we showed in chapter 3.3 Perception of rank and status symbols, in

the more masculine Romanian society, people have a tendency to show-off. Since Romania is

a relatively poor country, public officials have modest income. As Hofstede (2001:322) points

32 The validity of this argument increases as one goes higher in the hierarchy of public or political authority. This is common knowledge in Romania and it is an ever-present argument in debates about corruption.

114

out, the desire to show off can easily lead to corrupt practices among power holders in poor

countries.

However, in Romania accepting or soliciting bribe is not limited to public officials, but it also

extends to managers of companies. Here is how one of the Danish managers described his

experience:

“It’s this bribery, everybody expecting to give them something. Sometimes we had negotiations with a motel director for selling two hundred [of our products]. I had the feeling that he didn’t care about the price on the [products], he cared about money under the table - ‘Will you give me some money under the table? Then I will buy your products.’ “ (Danish respondent)

Another Danish respondent said that “in many situations it was necessary to discuss a

commission”. The Danish manager in the above example could simply not understand how a

Romanian manager can ask for black money, even when the company he runs will have to

pay a higher price. From the point of view of the company, there is obviously no rational

economic basis for such a decision. As in the case of authorities, Romanian managers who

request a commission in order to accept a deal are in a position of power (they are the ones

taking the final decision), which they use to gain illicit income, even though they do so to the

detriment of the organizations they run.

The following example shows how determined the Danish managers were in not paying black

money, even if paying could make things easier for their companies:

“The Romanians get irritated that [the Danish manager] is so lay and if he would let us talk with whom we should and give a sponsorship where we know it can be done, we would have huge savings. And [the Danish manager] knows this, and we made the calculations for him and we told him and he agreed and said ‘I cannot believe we can save so much!’, [R:] ‘Then let’s do it!’, [D:] ‘No!’. His own principles I doubt he will ever break.” (Romanian respondent)

When we refer specifically to financial incentives, all the Danish managers were strongly

against paying black money to solve a problem in relation to authorities or to close a contract

with a business partner; as another Danish manager put it, “the Danish attitude is ‘We don’t

pay!’ and we don’t pay”. As these examples indicate, this also reflects their universalist

values, because the Danes were not willing to abdicate from the standards of their society,

regardless of the situation, i.e. even when their company was at a loss. Consequently, the

Romanian employees were irritated that they could not solve the problem in the local way.

115

Paradoxically, two of the Danish managers have specifically stated that the Danish law does

not prohibit a Danish company from paying black money in overseas operations, because

such amounts can be tax deductible as consultancy fees without any documentation. This

derogation was labeled the “doblet moralsk”, the double moral standard. It appears as a

compromise between the universal standards that apply in Denmark, namely that bribery is

morally reprehensible and illegal, and a pragmatic attitude of the Danish authorities that

recognize the necessity to adapt and work in foreign business environments where bribery is

extensively used. Indeed, while the majority of the Danes denied ever paying black money,

others said that they only did at in the beginning of their operations in Romania, but no more.

However, in two of these cases the Romanian employees admitted that they had no choice but

to pay black money in certain situations. This suggests two possibilities – either the Danish

managers were ashamed or afraid to admit it, or they turned a blind eye on how their

Romanian employees were handling relations with authorities. We should also mention that

evidence from the empirical data indicates that the Danish managers preferred to let their

Romanian employees deal with authorities, particularly when there were sensitive issues

involved.

As an alternative mechanism used to avoid the necessity to use financial incentives, some of

the Danish managers relied on connections:

“And we have been quite big in Romania now on the [market], but we weren’t big at that time. We were maybe quite arrogant not to pay anything. But it showed back on ourselves so we could see the slow speed. And then I could talk about all the connections, connections that I’m not calling bribing connections, but real connections that … in the company when we grow bigger and he knows that guy and he knows that guy. Suddenly everything was running and it was without paying anything.” (Danish respondent)

The use of financial incentives is a potential risk for all companies in Romania. The Danish

managers from larger companies, with a high profile and solid market share (as in the above

example), were in the position to develop stronger political connections or useful contacts

(without paying black money) to deal with the bureaucracy, or simply made use of their name

to get things done. However, this may be more difficult for smaller companies. Other Danish

managers chose to rely on the legal system, by threatening officials to take them to court, but

this alternative proved to be more difficult. This shows that the Danish managers made a

116

conscious effort to find alternative mechanisms to deal with authorities and avoid paying

black money. Here is an example given by one of the Romanian employees:

“He [the Danish manager] never used şpagă, even though many times we were initially refused if we used the legal channels; we went higher and higher ‘Why? Why? Why? Based on which law are we refused?’ We went with the law in one hand ‘Come and check if we are lying. If we are serious people and we told the truth, why don’t you give us the approval, because the law says that you must give us the approval’.“ (Romanian respondent)

As this example suggests, the Danish manager did not just accept the refuse of the public

officials, when he knew he had the right to obtain the approval. Instead of paying black

money to try to persuade the public officials to grant the approval, he preferred to challenge

their decision. Such an attitude can be explained by weak uncertainty avoidance, because in

weak uncertainty avoidance societies, people are more competent towards the authorities

(Hofstede, 2001:180) and therefore more likely to challenge decisions made by authorities.

The weak uncertainty avoidance also explains the Danes perception that bribery is very rare in

Denmark, because if citizens are competent towards the authorities and challenge their

decisions, it is less likely that public officials will engage in corrupt practices.

3.7.2 Gifts

The second form of bribery refers to gifts or small attentions that have little value in monetary

terms. As the examples below indicate, gifts are an important part of the business practice in

Romania:

“…when you go to the authorities you have some chocolate, some flowers, something like that. And when I arrived in Romania I was not used to that at all. You almost go to jail in Denmark for bribing people, right?” (Danish respondent)

“For example we need very many approvals from the health authority, environment protection, work protection, etc., which require many documents, taxes, etc., and where in general, again, we have to give gifts.” (Romanian respondent)

Clearly, the Danish manager in the above example perceived gifts, even if they have

insignificant value, as a bribe and he could not understand, at least at the beginning, why it

was necessary to give such gifts every time they had to deal with an official. In addition, other

respondents emphasized that in Denmark, it is not allowed to give gifts to public officials.

Gifts do amount to bribery to the extent that they are used to influence the behavior of an

117

official. In general, gifts as bribery perform a similar function as black money. Gifts in the

sense of bribery can be used to determine an official to handle your case quicker, to close

their eyes when the company has broken some regulation, or simply to avoid a hostile

treatment from an official (e.g. to be denied an approval, even when your documentation is in

order). When public servants use their position of power to get gifts before they will do their

job correctly, which is in principle illegal, it is a matter of being corrupt.

The empirical data indicate that the Romanian employees have tried to explain to the Danish

managers that it was necessary to give gifts in order to solve problems, that it has became

customary in Romania, in spite of the fact that they could be interpreted as bribe. Even though

the Danish managers perceived the necessity of giving gifts negatively and they associated

gifts with bribery, they adopted a more flexible attitude than in the case of black money:

“Today [the Romanian manager] is in Bucharest to this Ministry. Before, we went there yesterday and we brought a bottle of Garonne and a pack of coffee, because we need this. It’s in the customs and we pay daily and we need it in the production. Today we can go and take this approval. If we didn’t give them this, I am not sure that they would even look at the paper today. That’s so wrong and it hurts me somewhere inside. They are kings here.” (Danish respondent)

As the above example also illustrates, the majority of the Danish managers accepted to give

gifts in order to solve the problems quicker in relation to authorities, even though they did it

half-hearted. In contrast to their attitude towards financial incentives, they adopted a more

pragmatic approach to gifts. On the whole, giving gifts was as far as the Danish managers

were willing to play the bribery game, the compromise they were willing to make. The Danes’

pragmatism moderates in this case their unwillingness to abdicate from the universal principle

that bribery is reprehensible and should not be used under any circumstances. However,

unlike in the case of black money, where the Danes that adopted a pragmatic attitude and paid

in order to get things done were the exceptions, in the case of gifts the majority of the Danish

managers adopted a pragmatic attitude.

The Danes’ acceptance to give small attentions can also be explained by the fact that gifts are

somewhat in a gray area, i.e. they do not amount to bribery as much as financial incentives.

In Romania gifts are often offered as a sign of gratitude. Moreover, it is a common ritual in

Romania to bring flowers to women and this is not necessarily linked to a special relationship

or event. One of the Danish respondents, pointed out that he was not sure whether giving

flowers to a lady he did not even know was to get first in the row (bribery) or to make her

118

remember him (courtesy). This ritual is often just a sign of courtesy and it will usually draw

the woman’s special attention, which can be particularly useful when dealing with women in

public offices. Therefore, in Romania gifts are also part of numerous rituals, which should not

be ignored and that are delimited from bribe. Hofstede (2001:113) also suggests that in many

societies, gifts have an important ritual function and that the demarcation line between gift

giving and bribing is diffuse. In the Romanian society, it is impossible to make a

generalization in either way, because gifts are used both as bribe and as signs of gratitude or

consideration, or to maintain a personal connection with somebody.

As a closing statement and a general comment regarding the level of corruption in Romania

and Denmark, we should mention that the cultural aspects discussed in this chapter are not the

only factors behind the different propensity to engage in corrupt practices in the two

countries. An important factor is also the overwhelming bureaucracy in Romania (discussed

also in chapter 3.6 Personal connections (Relaţii)) and perhaps more importantly, this is

coupled with the considerable income difference, between the two countries, or more

generally, the difference in national wealth33. Therefore, the poor material conditions in

Romania may easily foster corruption, i.e. public officials that have low salaries seek for

additional income sources in the form of bribes, while the much higher level of wealth in

Denmark may have the opposite effect.

As we have shown in this chapter, both the Danish and Romanian respondents perceived the

Romanians, as being more corrupt than the Danes. The perceptions of the respondents suggest

that the general level of corruption in Romania is considerably higher than in Denmark, which

is “one of the most uncorrupted societies in the world”. The perceptions of the Danish and

Romanian respondents are consistent with the general perception of the level of corruption in

the two countries measured by Transparency International, a non-governmental organization

that issues a yearly Corruption Perception Index (CPI). According to Transparency

International (2001), in 2001 Denmark was perceived as the second most uncorrupted country

in the world (Denmark: score=9.5, rank 2 of 9134), while Romania was seen as much more

corrupted (Romania: score=2.8, rank 69 of 91). Hofstede has also linked the CPI with his data

from the IBM survey. He found that CPI correlated primarily with wealth (Hofstede, 33 GNI per capita Denmark = 32,280 USD; GNI per capita Romania = 1,670 USD, in 2000 (World Bank, 2002a). GNI (gross national income) is formerly known as GNP (gross national product) and it reflects a change in terminology adopted by the World Bank (World Bank, 2002b).34 The higher the score, the “cleaner” the country; “1” means totally corrupt, “10” means totally clean (Transparency International, 2001)

119

2001:112). After the influence of wealth (GNP per capita) had been accounted for, the CPI

scores still correlated negatively with power distance (Hofstede, 2001:113), with uncertainty

avoidance only in wealthy countries (Hofstede, 2001:173) and with masculinity only in poor

countries (Hofstede, 2001:322)

3.7.3 Conclusion and recommendations

In this chapter we have shown that the Danish managers and their Romanian employees have

a different perception about bribery and corruption. First, the perceived level of corruption in

the two countries was very different. In Romania, corruption was very high, being influenced

by difficult material conditions in the country, and a combination of large power distance

(power holders use their position to gain illicit income) and masculine values (need to show

off). On the other hand, the very low perceived level of corruption in the Danish society can

be attributed to higher wealth, as well as a combination of small power distance (scandals of

corruption bring an end to one’s career) and weak uncertainty avoidance (competence towards

authorities) in the Danish society. In the way they dealt with the corruption in Romania, the

Danish managers showed a strong tendency to stick to their principles (not giving bribes). On

the other hand, the Romanians thought it was necessary to give financial incentives to solve

problems, which made bribe somewhat justified. In relation to gifts giving, the Danish

managers took a more flexible and pragmatic approach, in the sense that they accepted giving

gifts in order to solve problems.

Since the Danish managers have to work within a system pervaded by corruption, some form

of adaptation is necessary to avoid serious consequences. We are strongly suggesting that they

do not pay bribes in the sense of financial incentives for two reasons. Firstly, it is still illegal

in Romania and secondly, paying bribes is a self-perpetuating mechanism. Once you paid,

you will likely have to pay every time. You get hooked and this dependency may bring the

amounts of money up every time. The empirical data suggest that the Romanians are used to

solve apparently impossible problems by using their connections (cf. chapter 3.6 Personal

connections (Relaţii)). Developing a strong network of connections with officials or

politicians and a reputation for being clean, no matter what the consequences are, could be

alternative mechanisms to bypass the bribery, and to keep the opportunists away. However, as

120

we indicated in chapter 3.6 Personal connections (Relaţii), this requires the Danish managers

to adopt a more diffuse life style and to accept more socialization with useful contacts.

Giving gifts is also fairly safe and can be used in many circumstances. If giving either gifts or

financial incentives is a must, it is probably better to let the Romanian employees handle the

situation, because receiving a bribe from other Romanians may be easier than from foreigners,

and in addition, the Romanian employees may be more accustomed with the ritual of giving a

bribe (how to approach the other party, what to say and exactly how to give the bribe).

121

3.8 Know-all attitude

The know-all attitude refers to an attitude of superiority displayed by the Danish managers in

relation to their Romanian employees35. The Danes’ attitude, especially if it is misunderstood

by the Romanians can be a source of tensions that could lead to unproductive behavior.

Therefore, we believe that it is important to discuss the Danes’ know-all attitude for two

reasons – firstly, as a word of warning, and secondly, to try and find out how this attitude can

be used in a constructive way, that would benefit both the Danish managers and their

Romanian employees. In the following discussion we focus on both the Romanians’ and the

Danes’ perception of the know-all attitude and we try to delimit the cultural and non-cultural

aspects underlining this attitude, as well as, possible factors that influence its impact on the

work relations. The Danes’ know-all attitude is discussed here as it is manifested in work

relations inside the company. We are aware of the fact that the Danes’ know-all attitude may

also be manifested in the firm’s external relations, but there is no conclusive empirical

evidence in this respect.

3.8.1 The Danes’ know-all attitude and how it is seen by the Romanians

The attitude of superiority showed by the Danish managers in relation to their Romanian

employees was mainly revealed on professional matters. Seen from the Danish side, this

attitude was reflected in various situations, when the Danes had or at least thought they had

better knowledge, technology or simply a more efficient and practical solution for solving a

certain task. Here are two examples:

“They are not managing, because they don’t know how. If you talk economy and if you put on the figures, we talk money, every day is a lot of money. They cannot make a proper calculation. […] In the beginning I had to teach them what do they expect it would cost us to run the office, salaries, secretary, computers. For me it is very simple because I’m used to work on this. But it was very hard for the Romanians. And then in the beginning, they looked at me like I was some alien.” (Danish respondent)

“This, I try to keep my mouth shut sometimes, but I think about it, ‘no we don’t do it in this way in Denmark and it is the wrong way to do it, we don’t do it in this way in Denmark’ and this, that always Denmark, Denmark, Denmark. They have been embarrassed of that. […] I think this is all the time that I try to keep the Danish flag high. [What do you mean by that?] I try to improve the project all the time by using

35 The term know-all attitude is borrowed form Askegaard, Gertsen and Madsen (1995), because it resembles in many ways the Danes’ attitude of superiority that was identified based on the empirical data in the present study.

122

new technology, if it is possible and the way of thinking and so on. Just because people want to do it in this way, I’m not always satisfied. I try to push them a little bit all the time to go for new technology. And I can understand why they don’t move so fast, because they are used, they are confident with this kind of way to do their work …” (Danish respondent)

Both Danish managers in the above examples were very confident about the superiority of the

Danish methods, i.e. their rational and disciplined work style by using budgets and careful

cost calculations, as well as their technology. From an economic point of view their methods

were more efficient and were aimed at increasing productivity. In the same direction points

the remark of a Romanian respondent who noted that he was “surprised by [the Dane’s]

rigorous style and the fact that they wanted very, very much to impose their work style and the

quality of their work, as it is done in their country.” This attitude is connected to what

Fivelsdal and Schram-Nielsen (1993:32) label the Danes’ emphasis on professional accuracy,

which may signal a feeling of superiority (Askegaard, Gertsen and Madsen, 1995:13) in

relation with people from other countries.

What is perhaps more important is that the two Danish managers in the above examples had a

better practical solution, which unfortunately the Romanians did not have and they tried to

help the Romanians out of such situations by teaching them how to make cost calculations

and by bringing new technology. The Danes attitude reflects high femininity, because it

shows concern for the Romanians, whom they perceive as being weaker or more unfortunate,

in the sense that they do not have the knowledge or the technology to achieve a higher level of

productivity.

Here is the remark of a Romanian respondent:

“He has this attitude that he knows everything, but when you come up with arguments he accepts them. […] His first attitude is that he knows everything […] And then I find out that it was different, even though he said it in a manner that he was 100 percent sure. [How did you feel when confronted with this attitude?] A little offended, because I have colleagues that have been working here for several years and they have experience [in the trade]. And probably by telling them to do things in a certain way, since they already have their own experience, of course many have said ‘Does he really think he knows everything?’ ” (Romanian respondent)

This example points in the same direction as the previous two cases, but it also shows that the

Dane’s attitude that “he knows everything” is not displayed in a forceful way. He does not use

123

his position of power to impose his way of doing things onto his employees, because he

accepts counter-arguments. Besides the concern for helping unfortunate others (high

femininity), the attitude of the Danish manager also reflects willingness to accept opinions

from subordinates, even when they differ, which can be explained by small power distance.

On the other hand, as these examples show, the Romanians were “embarrassed” or

“offended” by the Danes attitude of superiority. However, this last example also offers the

first hint on how these situations can be diffused, when the Danes are wrong or when their

solutions cannot be implemented in Romania – bringing up solid arguments.

The combination of femininity, i.e. soft, benevolent, “motherly” caring, and small power

distance, i.e. the right to express one’s opinion, is the explanation behind the Dutch Uncle

syndrome (Hofstede in oral communication, cit. in Askegaard, Gertsen and Madsen,

1995:13). The Dutch Uncle attitude is characteristic of a “benevolent but supposedly wiser

person, who in an authoritarian but gentle way, correct[s] others ‘for the sake of their own

best’ “ (ibid). It follows that the know-all attitude of the Danish managers in the present study

resembles Hofstede’s Dutch Uncle syndrome.

Another aspect that reinforces the Romanians’ perception of the Danes’ attitude, is the latter’s

strong belief in the positive or superior connotation attached to everything that is Danish. This

is suggested by the Danes’ tendency to make frequent comparisons to how things are done in

Denmark, in the sense that they are usually better, a tendency that was remarked by both

Danish and Romanian respondents. These frequent comparisons to the home country, also

signal a feeling of national pride (“I try to keep the Danish flag high”, said one Danish

manager), more often associated with weak uncertainty avoidance countries (Hofstede,

2001:175,180). The reaction of one of the Romanian employees shows how these

comparisons to Denmark can be seen from the Romanian side:

“In principle, the biggest challenge has been to prove that we are not stupid. They finally understood, mainly [the Danish Director] how much their attitude hurts us. […] [The Danish Construction Manager] for example, starts every, almost every sentence with ‘In Denmark it is better. The glasses are nicer, the coffee is better and cheaper, the cups are nicer.’ Everything, absolutely everything is better in Denmark. I became super-nationalistic since I have been working here. I give you my word. It’s incredible. […] They are very proud of their country. And they don’t realize that they hurt us deeply with things like these. Instead of trying to understand that the economic climate here is ... Instead of first seeing who we are and how we live and why we are like this, they started accusing us directly...” (Romanian respondent)

124

As the above example shows, the Danes’ know-all attitude, particularly frequent comparisons

with Denmark, may lead to extremely tensioned relations. This example is an exception (but

not an overstatement, because the situation has been confirmed independently by the two

Danish managers in the same company), therefore we cannot generalize it, but it should serve

as a warning.

While there is in general a lot of truth in these comparisons, mainly due to the large gap in the

development of the two countries (as the Romanian respondent in the above example also

points out), it is important that the Danish managers also recognize that, particularly due to

this gap, many of their solutions will not just as easily work in Romania. The stable

development in the Danish economy, led to many processes becoming streamlined, while this

is not the case in Romania, where the whole society, not just the economy, has been in

transition for the last 12 years.

These differences in the business environment and the two countries’ general level of

development underline a non-cultural difference, at least from an economic point of view.

Another non-cultural factor that may emphasize the know-all attitude is that all the Danes in

our study are in top management positions in the companies they run in Romania and it is

normal for a manager to make suggestions about how he or she believes things should be

done. At the same time, the Danish managers had significant experience and know-how and,

as expatriate managers, it was part of their job to transfer some of their knowledge to the

Romanian employees. Finally, it may be a human tendency, regardless of the country of

origin, to compare back to the home country, when one is uprooted from his own environment

and has to function in a new one.

The Danes’ know-all attitude that does leave the impression that they feel superior has been

revealed by numerous examples form the empirical data. Here are several brief examples of

how the Danes were characterized, which strengthen the arguments outlined before and

indicate the latent tensions that the Danes’ attitude caused – “an attitude that he knows

everything”, “stubborn”, “they think they know everything”, “they are very proud of their

country”, “a conqueror’s mentality”, “arrogant and he thinks he is the center of the world”,

“…very difficult to change his mind. He is very confident in what he knows […] Many times

this confidence can be interpreted as arrogance.”.

125

The impact of the Danes’ know-all attitude on the work relations may also be influenced by

several characteristics of the Romanians. Firstly, some Romanian respondents indicated that

they were aware of their professional inferiority and they were very willing to learn from the

Danish managers, which is likely to make the Danes’ attitude more easily accepted. Secondly,

several of the Danish managers said that they were sure that the Romanians were irritated by

their superior attitude, but they never expressed their dissatisfaction openly. This is in line

with what we argued in chapter 3.1 Communication styles, that Romanians would rather avoid

open confrontation with the boss (collectivism and large power distance in Romania). These

factors have the effect of hiding the tensions that may arise from the Danes’ attitude.

Some of the Danish managers were aware of their attitude and they had a genuine and

conscious intention to control it, but in spite of their efforts, they were still perceived by the

Romanians as behaving superiorly. Here is how a Danish manager explained and criticized

their attitude:

“Probably my biggest challenge has nothing to do with being in Romania, but with accepting the fact that this is not Denmark. I think it’s the mentality thing. A lot of Western countries believe that they are the best, whatever they do, and Danes are very good at believing that although we are a Mickey Mouse nation and probably rationalizing the fact that we may be very good, but we are not the best and we can even borrow something from other people.” (Danish respondent)

3.8.2 Conclusion and recommendations

The empirical data suggest that the Romanian respondents perceived the Danes as displaying

an attitude of superiority, attitude that was acknowledged by the Danes. This know-all attitude

can be explained by a series of cultural and non-cultural factors. In the former category falls a

combination of high femininity, small power distance and the Danes’ emphasis on

professional accuracy. The Romanians’ perception of the Danes’ know-all attitude is also

reinforced by a strong sense of national pride characteristic for the latter. Among the non-

cultural factors were the considerable difference in the level of development of the two

countries and the nature of the Danes job in Romania (expatriate managers). The Danes’

strong belief in the superiority of their own solutions generated tensions, because sometimes

the Romanians felt offended. However, there are also factors that reduce or camouflage the

impact of the Danes attitude on the work relations – Romanians’ willingness to learn from the

Danish managers and their preference to avoid open disagreement or conflict with the boss.

126

We believe that the Danes’ know-all mentality can also be used in a constructive way. Firstly,

this can be achieved if the Danish managers try to understand, not just observe the

environment in which they are doing business and the Romanian society in general, which

may reduce their tendency to show a superior attitude and make them more realistic, as to

what can actually be implemented in Romania. Secondly, it may be useful to minimize

comparisons to Denmark, unless they make a certain point easily observable by the

Romanians, which may avoid unnecessary hurt feelings. Thirdly, presenting certain methods

or values as company policy (it may work best in large companies), rather than from a

personal or national point of view, could make such suggestions more easily accepted by the

Romanians.

127

3.9 Responsibility

Another major area where we have identified differences in the work-related values of the

Danes and Romanians refers to responsibility. Responsibility in the work context refers to the

power and duty to take decisions, as well as to accountability for one’s actions. The empirical

data suggest that there is a major difference between the Danes and Romanians in their

attitudes towards responsibility, in the way they perceive the delegation of responsibility and

in the way responsibility is accepted or sought. The essence of this difference is that Danes

prefer a broad delegation of responsibility to the employees and taking responsibility is

regarded as essential for mobilizing the full resources of the company and at the same time

taking responsibility is welcomed by those entrusted with it. On the other hand, Romanian

managers are reluctant to delegate responsibilities to the lower ranks of the hierarchy, and

people are often unwilling to accept responsibility and try to avoid it.

In this chapter, we shall discuss this different perception of responsibility and how it is

reflected by the different work-related values of the two groups. Firstly, (3.9.1) we shall

discuss responsibility as power and obligation to take decisions (e.g. who is responsible for

taking decisions, what kind of decisions does the top management take and why). Then

(3.9.2) we shall refer to responsibility in the sense of accountability for one’s actions (e.g.

how mistakes on the job are perceived and judged in the two societies). Finally, we shall

touch the issue of motivation and some of the differences between the two groups in this

respect (3.9.3). It should also be mentioned that the differences in this area are confined to

work relations within the organizational boundaries

3.9.1 Responsibility as decision making

From the decision perspective, responsibility has to do first, with who has the right to take

decisions and who is expected to take decisions. The Danes expressed a deep belief in a non-

authoritarian management style and taking decisions was not seen as the exclusive prerogative

of the management. Here is how one of the Danish managers expressed his view:

“Maybe I sometimes apply a style that is more participative and maybe they sometimes feel uncomfortable about this, because I am expecting them to take more responsibility than they are used to. I delegate a lot. I expect a lot of initiative. I only see myself as a coach. I am only there to help. I am not there to make the decisions; I

128

want to make as few decisions as possible. I’d rather let them make all the decisions, just inform me about the decisions they made and maybe we can discus sometimes directions - we should do it this way or that way. But that’s what I would like to do and I think this is a big change for most people.” (Danish respondent)

The Danish manager in the above example emphasizes a participative management style, he

expects people to take responsibility, he delegates a lot and he wants to take as few decisions

as possible. Numerous other examples from the interviews point in the same direction – the

Danish managers’ preference for delegation. One of the Romanian respondents remarked,

“They [the Danish managers] encourage decision taking at lower levels”, while a Danish

manager talked about “empowering employees”. This denotes a non-authoritarian attitude of

the Danish managers and consequently, all people in the company were expected to take

responsibility, i.e. take decisions in their own areas. Because of their preference for delegation

all the Danish managers we interviewed did not see themselves as the only ones responsible

for taking decisions. In other words, the employees were expected to work independently

without referring to the manager for all decisions. This also implies that the Danish managers

were confident in the capacity of the individual to take independent decisions36. As a direct

manifestation of their non-authoritarian style, before taking a decision the Danes often

consulted their employees.

Another Danish manager says:

“…that they are probably not used to take decisions, thereby also responsibilities to the same extent, as we are trying to do. I think most Romanians, the traditional companies, the state owned companies have a complete different management style than we are trying to introduce, where we find many companies with, let’s say, one God and one decision maker only, if not the board and we are doing it completely differently, we want people to take responsibility, we want them to take decisions, not just at the management level, but all the way down.” (Danish manager)

In Romania a more authoritarian top-down management style is prevalent, with “one God and

one decision maker only” or as one of the Romanian respondents put it “with this

authoritarian attitude, with your hand raised and your fist on the table”. The manager is not

only entitled, but also expected to take all decisions. Therefore, as the above example also

suggests, Romanian subordinates are not used to take responsibility, in the sense that they

avoid taking decisions and taking action without receiving an order from the manager. To the

36 Fivelsdal and Schramm-Nielsen (1993:29) point in the same direction when they argue that the Danes’ anti-authoritarian attitude has to do with the widespread belief in the ability of the individuals to make independent assessments of situations and phenomena, which is expected from people at all levels of the hierarchy.

129

surprise of the Danish managers who required them to work more independently, Romanian

employees expected to be told what to do – “I was used to be told ‘Do that, do that, do that…’

”. These characteristics introduce a picture, which is very different from the management style

preferred by the Danes. It boils down to the Romanians’ deep belief in authority. The

authoritarian management style, with centralized decision structures where employees expect

to be told what to do, to be given orders and rarely take decisions can be explained by a large

power distance (Hofstede, 1994:37).

If we look at the decision making process from a slightly different perspective, the analysis of

the empirical data brings up another question equally meaningful - what kind of decisions

does the top management take? The Danish respondents in top management positions prefer

to focus their energy on strategic issues, on giving general directions. They see their role in

terms of delegating the goals to be achieved or broader tasks/jobs that have to be done,

without giving very specific details or instructions about how a job should be carried through

(e.g. “He [the Danish manager] puts the situation in your lap and he says ‘Analyze it and see

what you have to do to solve it’ and in that moment, he threw the dead cat in your lap, he

made you assume responsibility” – Romanian respondent). So, the Danes are more interested

in the final result, not on how to get there and consequently the operational decision is left to

the Romanians.

The Romanian managers or employees are expected to be responsible for their own areas and

choose the way to reach those goals, as one of the Danish managers put it “I say to you ‘It’s

your responsibility. You figure out how to do it. If you want me as a coach to help you I’m

there.’ […] I don’t impose a solution […] That is why I’ve met difficulties, because this is

unusual. People refuse to take responsibility”. The Dane’s approach is “unusual” for the

Romanians. They prefer to be given precise instructions on how to carry out a task or how to

reach a certain goal (e.g. “you have to be pretty precise when you structure a task. Otherwise,

you cannot expect what has been carried out afterwards”; “Would you not tell them in detail

what to do?”). The above arguments emphasize the Romanians’ need for clarity and structure

when they are given a task. The Danes’ preference for setting strategic goals or delegating

broader tasks and giving their employees the freedom of choosing how they want to approach

them, can have a negative perception in the eyes of the Romanians:

“So, in real terms, 85-90% of the work in this office is done by the Romanians. Their management is limited to some daily or weekly directions, some general ideas about

130

what should be done. Other than that, it is only us who are working.” (Romanian respondent)

In other words, the Romanian’s interpretation is that, if the manager is not involved in the

details of the daily operations, he must not be working very hard. Consequently, the

Romanians have to take over the operational decisions, which they clearly perceive as part of

the responsibilities of the top manager.

This contrast could be explained by a significant difference in uncertainty avoidance. The

Danish top managers’ preference to focus on strategic issues, and consequently give general

directions, delegate goals or broader tasks rather than concentrating on daily operations can be

associated with weak uncertainty avoidance, because such issues are by definition

unstructured and demand a greater tolerance for ambiguity than operational problems

(Hofstede, 1994:122). To the contrary, the Romanian subordinates’ preference to be given

precise, detailed instructions on how to do a job, instead of assuming responsibility and

working independently, which emphasizes a greater need for clarity and lower tolerance for

ambiguity, can be explained by strong uncertainty avoidance (ibid). It indicates low tolerance

for the ambiguity entailed by situations when they have to independently find the appropriate

course of action.

So what happens when Romanian subordinates come across an unfamiliar job that deviates

from known patterns? As the following example points out, the chain of actions surrounding a

task is broken:

“… I would like to hear once a Romanian coming and say I have an idea. I hear often the phrase ‘we have a problem’ but I don’t hear the following phrase ‘…and I have an idea on how to solve it’. Very good at identifying problems, but there is nothing in terms of identifying the solutions or maybe the possibility in the problem. So, not very solution-oriented.” (Danish respondent)

As this quote, as well as other examples suggest, Romanian subordinates focus on what they

perceive as a problem, when they encounter a job that breaks known patterns, rather than

searching for a solution. In other words, they are less-solution oriented than the Danish

managers. Identifying the problem is separated from searching for the solution, which the

Romanians do not necessarily see as being their responsibility.

131

But why does this happen? The empirical data suggest that the reason can be found in the fact

that the Danes and Romanians have a different perception of such ambiguous situations that

deviate from known patterns of action. The Danes regard them as tasks to be solved, things to

manage or challenges, while Romanians see them as problems – “And I also told them that we

don’t have problems, that we have tasks, we look for solutions, instead of seeing this wall, this

black wall in front of you that is blocking your mind”. The term task has a positive

connotation, in the sense that it indicates the goal to be achieved, it is something impersonal

and it is regarded as a challenge. The task encompasses both the identification of the problem

and finding the solution. On the other hand, problem has a negative connotation. The term

problem implies an overestimation of the negative side of the task to be solved. The problem

becomes something personal, to be worried about or unpleasant to handle.

Seen from the Romanian perspective, a problem represents an unfamiliar, uncertain situation

and, as the previous quote suggests, it creates some sense of anxiety, it creates a “black wall

[…] that is blocking your mind”, dissociating the problem from its solution. The Romanians’

attitude indicates a low tolerance for the ambiguity posed by unfamiliar jobs and can be

explained by strong uncertainty avoidance. On the other hand, the Danes’ attitude who regard

an unfamiliar job as a task to be solved/managed, as a challenge and they focus on finding a

solution, indicate a more optimistic attitude and higher tolerance for ambiguous, uncertain

situations, which can be explained by weaker uncertainty avoidance. Therefore, the difference

between the two countries on the uncertainty avoidance dimension is behind the different

attitudes that the Danes and Romanians have in the face of unfamiliar jobs that deviate from

known patterns.

In this context it is easy to imagine the tensions arising between the two perspectives. On the

one hand, the Danish managers constantly pushed their Romanians subordinates to take

responsibility and search for solutions to a given task/problem, and they emphasized initiative

and creativity. On the other hand, the Romanian subordinates expected the manager to give

solutions, to have all the answers, they avoided taking initiative and were more comfortable

with the familiar routines.

The clash between the Danes’ preference for delegation of responsibility and the Romanians

preference for a more authoritarian management style can have serious consequences, in the

sense that often jobs are not finalized:

132

“They [the Danes] are trying to organize the work, but organization is not always everything, because they, as I said before, are making a big mistake here. The fact that you have organized doesn’t mean that you solved the problem. […] If you don’t ask yourself whether those who are supposed to do the job actually do it… And then they have … organization is good, but afterwards following up on the execution … For them, problems such as the fact that those responsible for the job will not actually do what they are supposed to, do not exist. ‘He has to do it!’ Well, obviously not everybody does.” (Romanian respondent)

By organization, the Romanian respondent in the above example refers to delegation of

responsibility for doing a job. As this example, as well as others indicate, the Danish

managers delegate the responsibility for doing a job and they exert little or no personal control

on their Romanian subordinates37. But in Romania, delegating responsibility does not

automatically mean that the job will be carried through, because, as we have argued before in

this chapter, the Romanians do not feel responsible for independently carrying the task

through and the manager is ultimately seen as having the responsibility for giving orders and

precise, detailed instructions on how to do the job. Therefore, it requires “following up on the

execution”, or as other Romanian and Danish respondents remarked it is necessary to

constantly push and control Romanian subordinates in order to finalize a job. In other words,

with Romanian subordinates, the manager should exert considerable personal control.

Pushing, constantly reminding people what they have to do and controlling that the job is

actually being done, seems to be essential, when managing Romanians. This constant need for

control reflects the relationship of dependence that Romanian subordinates have with their

managers and can be explained by a large power distance.

So, what often happens is that the Danish managers delegate tasks, they impose little or no

personal control and the jobs are poorly finalized. This means a low quality of the final result,

or that the Romanians simply stopped working on the task, waiting for the manager to

intervene – as one of the Danish managers put it “if you do not follow up, things just slip

away”. The last case is related to the fact that carrying the task through and finalizing, usually

requires taking final decisions about the alternative solutions. Once a decision has been made

the individual is accountable for that decision and, as the empirical data indicate, the

Romanian subordinates often avoid taking the final decision and assuming responsibility for

it. Therefore, they will postpone taking the final decision or they will wait for the manager to

37 This finding is also confirmed by Fivelsdal and Schramm-Nielsen (1993:29) who note that in the Danish context, managers impose little or no personal control of subordinates because they are supposed to be responsible for their sphere of work.

133

take that decision and assume responsibility for it. In section 3.9.2 of this chapter we shall

discuss additional elements that explain why this happens.

As a general comment, we should mention that the Romanians’ reluctance to take

responsibility for taking decisions and working independently could also be traced back to the

communist regime. In the extremely centralized and authoritarian structures characteristic for

the communist period, most Romanians were simple executants, as one of the Romanian

respondents put it “we, as a people, have waited almost 50 years to be given orders. Maybe

we don’t event want very much to take responsibility”. Individual thinking and initiative were

strongly discouraged under the threat of severe punishment and nobody, except for those at

the top of the hierarchy, was allowed to take decisions. The orders came from the top and

everybody else was expected to carry them out mindlessly. Therefore, after the fall of the

communist regime, the Romanians were not used to take responsibility to take decisions and

the sentiment of fear still persists. In this context, the communist regime represents the

extreme manifestation of large power distance and the 52 years of dictatorship have strongly

influenced the cultural values in the Romanian society. The fact that these traits are still found

in the Romanian society 12 years after the fall of the communism, is an indication of the

endurance of the deeply rooted cultural values.

3.9.2 Responsibility as accountability

Accountability for one’s actions is an integral part of doing a job. Therefore, it is part of

taking responsibility. It means that taking responsibility has risks attached to it. The risk in

assuming responsibility refers to making mistakes, when doing a job or simply not knowing

how to do the job. In their work life, when they do a job, when they carry out a task that has

been assigned to them, people make mistakes and this is a universal problem. However, the

way mistakes are perceived and judged may differ from culture to culture, and may influence

the way people accept responsibility. In this respect, the empirical data from the present study

indicate that there is a clear difference between the Danes and Romanians.

Here is how one of the Danish managers expressed his view:

“… perhaps they are afraid of making mistakes and they have a problem, if they make mistakes. In my opinion, you have more problems if you make mistakes and not do anything to solve it, just hide it. Because I think that people make mistakes,

134

but this is life. This is not a problem. The problem is if you do nothing about it.” (Danish respondent)

This example, as well as other remarks made by both Danish and Romanian respondents

indicate, that the Danes perceive mistakes when doing a job, as a normal part of life and work

(e.g.: you do not make mistakes only if you do not work). Frequent remarks, such as: “we all

make mistakes”, “no one is without mistakes. […] I also do mistakes and I expect their

forgiveness for that mistakes.”, “everyone makes mistakes”, “[the Danes] said that everybody

makes mistakes” suggest that from the Danish perspective, mistakes are generally accepted

and tolerated for managers and subordinates alike. When a mistake occurs, the responsible

person is expected to correct it, to redo the job and move on. The prospect of making a

mistake generates uncertainty about the outcome of one’s actions. The fact that the Danes

accept and tolerate mistakes as a normal part of life, regardless of the hierarchy, denote a

higher tolerance for uncertainty and can be explained by weaker uncertainty avoidance.

However, in Romania job related mistakes are not just as easily accepted, they are tolerated to

a much lower degree than in the case of the Danes. Romanians are afraid of making mistakes,

“they have a problem if they make mistakes”, and they will try to avoid making a mistake,

even if that means not taking action - “in Romania is better to do nothing than [to] do a

mistake”. Here is how a Romanian manager explains the Romanians’ fear of making

mistakes, of taking the wrong decision:

“What the Romanians are missing, and I have tried to explain that to [the Danish manager] and he understood, is taking the risk for taking a decision. Most of us do not take this risk. We prefer to waste 10 minutes and talk to [the Danish manager], to have his OK, even if it is just verbal and then we can work at full speed until the end. The fact that we talk to him, those 5 minutes, and we tell him what it’s all about, gives us a feeling of confidence.” (Romanian respondent)

As this Romanian respondent points out, Romanians do not want to take the risk of making a

mistake, in this case taking a bad decision. The prospect of making a mistake creates anxiety

about the outcome of their actions; taking decisions that are not based on known routines

implies taking unfamiliar risks. From this perspective, the Romanians’ perception of mistakes

as sources of anxiety to be avoided, can be explained by strong uncertainty avoidance.

Moreover, a mistake means failure, implying that the Romanians’ fear of making mistakes

also means fear of failure, which can also be explained by strong uncertainty avoidance (cf.

Hofstede, 2001:165,169).

135

Therefore, the Romanians want to make sure that they do not make a mistake and that the

manager approves the details of the decision before taking further action. The Romanians’

need to check with the manager or simply inform the manager before taking action, which has

also been noted by several other respondents, eliminates the anxiety and gives a “ feeling of

confidence”. In the end, if something goes wrong, they cannot be held responsible, so they

feel much more comfortable, if they share the responsibility for the decision with the

manager. However, for the Danish managers, who (as discussed earlier) prefer to delegate,

this means an unnecessary waste of time and, as some have accused, what we can label an

information overload – the manager simply does not have the capacity to be involved in all

the details of his/her subordinates’ work. In addition, the fact that Romanians often seek for

validation from the manager before they take action can also cause significant delays in the

decision making process (e.g.: “they say ‘I want you to take a look at that before I go and do

it’ and then I will be provocative and say ‘Do you realise that we lost 5 days because I was

travelling, when you could have started already and done something, just because you are

afraid of making that step? It’s your responsibility. You could just do it.’ ” – Danish

respondent).

If we refer strictly to a hierarchical boss-subordinate relation, the empirical data reveal

another major difference in how Danish and Romanian managers perceive and judge mistakes

and the consequences that making a mistake on a job has for a Romanian subordinate. On the

one hand, Romanian subordinates expect to be punished, even get fired for making a mistake.

This indicates that Romanian managers often use their discretionary power to impose

penalties, to punish their employees, when they make mistakes. If something goes wrong

there must be a scape goat and this kind of negative motivation or “management by fear”, as

one Danish manager labeled it, makes the Romanian manager appear as an authoritarian, bad

boss.

On the other hand, as both Romanian and Danish respondents indicated, the Danish managers

never used their position of power to punish their employees for making a mistake and they

would not even consider this alternative. One Danish manager said that “you have to give

room for making mistakes, that’s how we develop people, that’s how we develop ourselves”,

thus emphasizing that subordinates should have the chance to learn from their mistakes and

develop. Indeed, several other respondents indicated that the Danish managers see mistakes as

136

a normal part of the learning process, which is in sharp contrast with Romanian bosses, who

see mistakes as grounds for punishment. Thus, without exercising their power explicitly to

punish employees, when they do something wrong, the Danish managers showed a non-

authoritarian attitude and encouraged learning from mistakes as a way to develop their

personnel. That does not mean that the Danish managers accept learning from mistakes as a

never-ending excuse for poor performance, because some of them also emphasized that it is

acceptable to make mistakes, as long as people do not do the same mistake twice. The

contrast between Romanian and Danish bosses, boils down to the difference between an

authoritarian manager, the despot, who punishes mistakes and a tolerant, non-authoritarian

manager, the teacher/coach, who encourages learning under responsibility, which can be

explained by a significant difference in power distance (large for Romania and small for

Denmark).

Given the differences in the way mistakes are perceived and judged in the two countries, it

becomes now clearer why Romanian subordinates are so reluctant to take responsibility. Since

for Romanians mistakes create anxiety to be avoided, and at the same time they expect to be

punished if they made a mistake they prefer to avoid getting involved or they try to validate

their game plan with the manager before taking action. Thus, the responsibility is sent

upwards, back to the manager. When this is not possible and they do make a mistake, the

Romanians often try to hide it or come up with excuses.

3.9.3 Responsibility and motivation

As we argued before, Danes are not quick to blame people for their mistakes, but the reverse

of the coin is also true - that they are also less eager to praise one’s merits. However,

Romanians do expect to be praised for their merits:

“…at a certain point, beside money, which is something relative anyway, and I don’t know if they always reflect your effort, the fact that your merits are recognized influences you in a different way. […] He [the Danish manager] doesn’t do this. […] I noticed that he has faith in me, but I never really felt appreciation or to tell me ‘Look, this is an outstanding achievement!’. He always says ‘I know you can handle it’ he always has faith in me, but he doesn’t go one step further. Or to appreciate me in front of my superiors as I would probably deserve, and the same goes for my colleagues. He doesn’t do this. When he goes to a meeting abroad I know managers who say ‘My people are a super team and they do this and that’. And I go and look at the numbers to see what production those people who say they are a ‘super team’

137

had, and I see they are much behind us. He doesn’t go to say ‘We are a small team which makes a super profit, even though the Romanian market is not very good in our field’. He doesn’t preset us in this way abroad. It is a matter of motivation.” (Romanian respondent)

For the Romanians, a tap on the shoulder or a word of appreciation are signs of recognition

for one’s good performance. And, as the above example suggests, getting explicit recognition

from the boss for a job well-done is an important motivational factor for Romanians. This can

be explained by high masculinity, because ascribing high importance to recognition is

associated with the masculine pole of Hofstede’s masculinity-femininity dimension

(Hofstede, 1994:81). On the other hand, the above example, as well as others, indicate that the

Danish managers did not openly praise their Romanian employees’ merits. Awarding

recognition means to be singled out; for the person who is praised it means ego boosting and

searching for recognition suggests a tendency to show-off. For the Danish managers the fact

that they avoid praising their employees’ merits implies exactly the opposite – the need for

equality and modesty38. In Denmark, the expression of the Danes’ modesty is found in Jante

Law (Janteloven), an unwritten social code published by the Danish-Norwegian author Aksel

Sandemose39. The Danes’ need for modesty is characteristic for feminine societies, where

both men and women are supposed to be modest (Hofstede, 1994:82-83) and assertiveness

and attempts at excelling are ridiculed (Hofstede, 1998:84-85).

The Danish managers could easily motivate their Romanian employees by acknowledging

their merits, but instead, their need for modesty is projected onto their employees. Modesty is

incompatible with praising one’s merits. The Romanians have never heard of the Jante Law,

and they may not even be aware of the value Danes put on modesty, so when the Danish

managers do not acknowledge their merits they may be hurt and feel that their efforts are not

appreciated. Instead of motivating by recognition, some of the Danish managers suggested

that they see giving responsibility to their employees as a motivational factor. If the employee

is given responsibility, he/she will know that his/her work is appreciated, without having to be

praised openly. In addition, as the four Danish managers referred to above emphasized,

38 Our findings are also supported by Gertsen (1987:6), who comments that in Denmark “people are more modest and less eager to praise or blame others”.39 It’s translation into English, quoted from Hofstede (1998:84) runs as follows: “You should not believe that / you are anything / you are just much as us / you are wiser than us / you are better than us / you know more than we do / you are more than we are / or that you are good at anything / You should not laugh at us / You should not think / that anybody likes you / or that you can teach us anything.” (Sandemose, 1938)

138

having responsibility makes your work more interesting and stimulating, which for the Danes

seems to be more important than the security of routine work.

3.9.4 Conclusion and recommendations

The empirical data suggest that there is a major difference in how the Danes and Romanians

deal with responsibility. A summary of the factors that influence the different perceptions of

responsibility is presented schematically in Figure 3 below).

Firstly, Romanians are used to and prefer a top-down authoritarian management style, where

the manager takes most decisions and give orders (tells employees what to do). The Danes

strongly believe in a non-authoritarian style, where delegation, the empowering of employees

and assuming responsibility are essential. This difference can be understood in terms of a

difference in the degree of power distance (Denmark=small; Romania=large). In the case of

Romania, this can also be traced back to the extreme form of the communist structures.

Furthermore, the Danish managers preferred to concentrate their efforts on strategic issues

and delegate operational decision to the Romanian subordinates, while the latter preferred to

be given precise and detailed instructions on how to do the job. The Danes were much more

solution-oriented than the Romanians, because they perceived an unfamiliar job that deviates

from known patterns as a task (positive attitude; tolerance for ambiguous, unfamiliar work

139

Figure 3. The Danes’ and Romanians’ perception of responsibility

140

High

mascu

linity

employees expect recognition for

good performance (m

otivational factor)

Communist influenceemployees simple executants

Large power distancemanager tells employees what to do (orders)manager takes/validates all decisionsemployees only do what they are toldmanager as despot - uses his/her power to punish employees for mistakes => employees hide mistakes or come up with excuses to avoid punishment

Strong uncertainty avoidanceemployees prefer to be given precise, detailed instructions on how to do the jobunfamiliar job seen as a pro-blem, creates anxiety and the manager should find solutionmanager expected to have all the answersmistakes create anxiety to be avoided

Romanians

RESPONSIBILITY

The manager should have all responsibilityEmployees reluctant to take responsibility

The manager does not bear all responsibilityEach employee is responsible for his/her area

Danes

Weak uncertainty avoidancemanager concerned with strategic issues; delegates goals, broad jobs/tasksunfamiliar job seen as a task, solution orientedmanager encourages innovations and creative thinkingmistakes tolerated as a normal part of life – just redo the job

Small power distancemanager delegates responsibility to all employees; decision power spread throughout the companymanager takes few decisionsmanager consults employeesmanager as teacher/coach - does not use his/ her power to punish employees for mistakes => encourage learning from mistakes

Fem

inin

ity (Jante L

aw)

managers rarely praise em

ployees’ achievem

entsm

odesty is valued

situations), while the Romanians saw it as a problem (negative attitude; low tolerance for

ambiguous, unfamiliar work situations). These different attitudes are explained by the

different orientation of the two societies on the uncertainty avoidance dimension

(Denmark=weak; Romania=strong).

Making mistakes on the job was also perceived and judged very differently by the two groups.

For the Romanians the prospect of making mistakes generates anxiety to be avoided. On the

contrary, the Danes are tolerant with mistakes, which are seen as a normal part of life, as long

as mistakes are corrected. Romanian managers use their discretionary power to punish

subordinates when mistakes occur, while Danish managers do not use their power to punish

subordinates for making mistakes; instead, they emphasized the role of mistakes in the

learning process and personal development. This role difference between Romanian and

Danish managers was labeled despot versus teacher/coach. The difference in how mistakes

were perceived and judged in the two societies was explained by a difference in uncertainty

avoidance (Denmark=weak; Romania=strong) and power distance (Denmark=large;

Romania=small).

Romanians expected to be openly praised and receive recognition for good performance,

which was perceived as an important motivational factor and indicates strong masculine

values in the Romanian society. The Danish managers valued modesty and rarely praised their

employees’ achievements, which is a manifestation of the Danish feminine values. Instead of

recognition, responsibility was seen as an important motivational factor.

It is the combination of the influences of the position of the two countries on the three

dimensions (uncertainty avoidance, power distance and masculinity) that leads to such

different perceptions of responsibility. The consequences, as perceived by the Danish

managers, are information overload and unjustified waste of time caused by unnecessary

involvement in too many decisions, considerable delays in the decision-making process, and

poor finalization. On the other hand, many Romanians feel confused and uncomfortable,

when given responsibility, which they try to avoid as much as possible.

It is clear that the delegation of responsibility, where every employee is responsible for his/her

area is the defining feature of the Danes’ management style and the focus of their efforts

inside the organization is to establish and strengthen this style. However, the significant

141

differences between the values held by the two groups is a serious obstacle and any process of

adaptation will take time. The Danish managers must understand that delegating tasks and

imposing little control, as they would normally do in Denmark, may not work as easily in

Romania and will result in the poor finalization of the tasks. Therefore, they must learn to be

more authoritarian and keep a balance between delegating and giving orders (over time, this

balance can shift towards the former). This should be possible since, in general, managers

from small power distance cultures seem to be able to adapt to larger power distance countries

by adopting a more authoritarian style (Hofstede, 2001:442). Displaying a non-authoritarian

attitude from the beginning could be interpreted by the Romanians, as a sign of weakness and

could diminish their authority, because the norm in the Romanian culture is that bosses are

supposed to be authoritarian.

This also means that the Danes should be prepared to get more involved in operational

decisions and give Romanians more precise instructions, when they delegate a task, without

regarding it as a waste of time. In addition, by giving Romanians more precise instructions

and only gradually pushing them towards working more independently, the Danes will help

decreasing the Romanians’ stress level, which is likely to be high due to their low tolerance

for uncertainty.

Romanians must also understand that delegation of responsibility is central to the Danes’

management style and therefore they will have to accept that they are individually responsible

for taking decisions in their areas. They should recognize that the Danes do not perceive

making mistakes as a tragedy, as long as people learn, and they do not impose punishments

for mistakes on the job. Such an understanding is likely to help them deal with anxiety caused

by the prospect of making mistakes and could make them accept responsibility more easily.

Working independently will also attract the appreciation of the Danish managers. Here, the

latter can play a crucial role by openly expressing appreciation, showing recognition for a job

well-done. This is likely to motivate Romanians into taking more responsibility, if they see

that their efforts are openly praised and their egos boosted. However, they should also

understand that the value Danes place on modesty could result in situations where their merits

are not acknowledged just as loudly as a Romanian manager would do, and when they receive

more responsibility this should not be interpreted as a burden, but as a sign of recognition

from the Danish manager.

142

3.10 Conclusion

In part 3 of this paper we have addressed the primary (research), and partly the secondary

(application) problems of the study. The analysis of the empirical data revealed the cultural

differences that influence work relations between the expatriated Danish managers working in

Romania and the Romanian nationals and we discussed how these cultural differences

influence work relations. The findings are briefly summarized in Table 2 below. In response

to these differences, recommendations for adjustment were included in the conclusion of each

chapter.

As we discussed in the previous chapters, the Danes have constantly tried to impose their own

behavior and attitudes, their work style on their Romanian employees, whether they did it

deliberately or not. As expatriate managers, they had the power and, to a certain extent also

the duty to do so. However, their task can be particularly problematic in several ways. Firstly,

the cultural gap between the two groups is significant (in contrast, the task of a Danish

manager working elsewhere in Scandinavia may be less difficult).

Secondly, their Romanian employees naturally face a conflict between the values of the

Danish managers and their own values. No matter how accurately the Danes manage to

“teach” their work style and behaviors to the Romanian employees, the latter still experience

the value conflict. The Danish managers also face a problem. While inside the organization

they have both authority and frequent face-to-face interactions with their employees, which

means they can exert more influence, in the firm’s external relations, which is conditioned by

the Romanian culture, they have little influence.

We believe that the Danish managers should approach these differences with care and

consideration for the Romanian values, and this attitude is particularly important when

interacting with people from outside the company, in the sense that the Danish managers will

have to adapt their behavior to a much greater degree in relations with the firm’s external

environment. If the Danish expatriates reject the host culture, they are destined to experience

continuous frustration and negative feelings, because to a certain extent they are forced to

conduct business according to local usage and conditions. Below is the view of one of the

Danish managers, which we believe that expresses the correct approach and therefore is

143

Table 2. Summary of the differences that make a difference

DANES ROMANIANSDirect communication style

Low-context communication, individualism, specific, in hierarchical communication small power distance

Indirect communication styleHigh-context communication, collectivism, diffuse, in

hierarchical communication large power distance

Disciplined, strict approach to timeTime commitments taken very seriously

Monochronic time

Medium time horizon, efforts focused on development and future results

Medium-term orientation

Relaxed attitude to timeTime commitments are broad guidelines to be kept

if possiblePolychronic time

Short time horizon, efforts focused on immediate material success

Short-term orientation, masculinityLess focused on rank and status symbols

Small power distanceModest, do not show-off material success

FemininityTitles express competence and proven performance

Achievement

Focused on rank and status symbolsLarge power distance

Show-off material successMasculinity

Titles clarify position, status or powerAscription

Clear separation of private and professional life spaces

Individualism, specific, universalism

Unclear separation of private and professional life spaces

Collectivism, diffuse, particularismHigh level of interpersonal trust

A trustworthy person keeps his/her word and contractual commitments

Week uncertainty avoidance, universalism, individualism

DelegationBased on a high level of interpersonal trust

Low level of interpersonal trustA trustworthy person accommodates changes and

mutual obligations despite contractual commitments

Strong uncertainty avoidance, particularism, collectivism

Personal controlBased on a low level of interpersonal trust

Personal connections less importantWeak networks of personal connections

Universalism, specific

Personal connections important and carefully built and maintained

Strong networks of personal connections used as sources of information, to secure business clients, to bypass the rigid bureaucracy, to apply pressure on

business partners or officialsParticularism, diffuse

Low corruption; bribery not acceptedSmall power distance, weak uncertainty avoidance

High corruption; bribery accepted and extensively used

Large power distance, masculinityKnow-all attitude

Small power distance, femininity-

The manager does not have all responsibilityEach employee is responsible for his/her area

Small power distance, weak uncertainty avoidanceManagers rarely praise employees’ achievements;

modesty is valuedFemininity

The manager should have all responsibilityEmployees reluctant to take responsibility

Large power distance, strong uncertainty avoidanceEmployees expect recognition for good

performanceMasculinity

strongly recommended. Even though the example refers to a particular cultural difference, the

attitude it reflects should be seen from a more general perspective.

“I personally think that titles are a waste of time in most instances, respect based upon your marriage, based upon the title you have. Having said that, I have to accept that I am in a society where titles are very important, status symbols, mobile phones, company cars, things like that are very important. I have to adapt there. I

144

can change, but I cannot change Romania. That is important in a society. It may not be important within our company, but if it’s important for the company with whom we are dealing, that the people we are sending out have a nice title, I can only teach something in our company, I cannot teach our clients so I have to follow the trend there.” (Danish respondent)

Thirdly, and perhaps most important, as shown in the previous chapters, the Danish managers

want to teach the Romanians their work style, but they are unable to look at things from a

different perspective. They judge everyday situations through the eyes of their own culture.

The Romanians are not safe from such criticism, which equally applies to them. They have

constantly tried to socialize the Danish managers to the Romanian practices. However useful

this may be for the Danish managers, Romanians also take a unilateral view and judge the

Danes by the Romanian standards. Moreover, as shown before, Romanians expect the Danes

to make efforts to understand the Romanian conditions, without trying to understand

themselves the Danish conditions. All these arguments point in one direction – both groups

are culturally blind; they judge the members of the other group through their own frame of

values.

Beside the numerous misunderstandings that have been emphasized throughout the previous

chapters, the cultural blindness of the two groups was the cause of tensions, which indicates

that in the intercultural work interactions, the clash of the two different value systems is a

stressful experience. The frustrations of the Danish managers, or more generally speaking,

their acculturative stress, was also mirrored by similar psychological reactions from the

Romanian employees. As long as both the Danish managers and their Romanian employees

lack a strong understanding of their own cultural background, as well as of that of the

opposing group, the intercultural work interactions can be potentially harmful for both sides.

Both the Danes and the Romanians are likely to experience frustration and tensions as long as

they continue thinking in terms of us versus them. The cultural blindness of the

representatives of both groups may be costly both at an individual level, in terms of higher

stress, and at organizational level, in terms of lower performance. This emphasizes the need

for understanding the two cultural backgrounds by the Danes and Romanians, as a

precondition for improved intercultural contact. This issue is addressed in the next part of the

paper.

145

4. Training the Danish managers and Romanian employees to

respond the cultural challenges

In the previous chapters we have shown that there are significant cultural differences between

the Danes and Romanians and that these lead to misunderstandings, frustration, tensions. In

this chapter, we address the secondary problem of the study (application) by presenting a

model for an intercultural training program, which is proposed in addition to the practical

recommendations made in the previous chapters.

This is motivated by the fact that making recommendations may not be enough, in the sense

that they may have a limited effect as long as the people involved (both Danes and

Romanians) do not understand the underlying reasons behind the different behaviors they

observe or behind the practical recommendations we made. This view does not minimize or

exclude the need for adaptation addressed by the recommendations, but it emphasizes the

need for understanding in intercultural work interactions. Understanding the cultural

differences also means that people will have a better chance to avoid imposing their own

frame of values on the others and to make correct judgments about each other or avoid

ethnocentric interpretations.

Two further aspects underline why it is important that such understanding is achieved both by

the Danish managers and their Romanian employees. Firstly, the Danish managers are in an

expatriation situation, whereby they have to live and work in a different culture than their own

(in Romania and with Romanians) so they should understand the culture in which they

operate if they are to adapt to a certain extent to the local ways. Secondly, the empirical data

indicates that the Danish managers are not willing to give up their principles all together and

their mission as expatriate managers is to teach their Romanian subordinates a certain work

style and management practices, which, as we have shown part 3, reflect the Danish values.

Therefore, the Romanians must also understand the cultural background of the Danish

managers and to a certain extent adapt to some of their work and management practices. So,

both the Danes and Romanians have to adapt, which may be easier if they first understand the

differences between the two cultures.

146

If we view the intercultural work relations from the perspective of the expatriation situation,

the success of the Danish expatriates’ assignments depends not only on the expatriates

themselves, but also on the local employees (Romanians) with whom they have to work.

Therefore, the model for the intercultural training program is addressed to both the Danes and

the Romanians.

The training program that we propose is based on the implications of the research in this

study, which we articulate with a theoretical model of critical variables in an intercultural

training program and with Hofstede’s theory of cultural differences. The implications of the

research in this study and the subsequent analysis represents the base on which we construct

the training program in several ways. Firstly, identifying the differences in interpersonal

behavior between the Danes and the Romanians and explaining them based on the theory on

cultural differences suggested that this methodology could be used in practice. Secondly, the

empirical data provides a rich source of examples that can be used in constructing exercises to

be used in the training program. Thirdly, the results of the research part in this study imply the

need and urgency for such training.

The model presented in this chapter is not a fully developed intercultural training program,

because the present study is not based on a single case analysis. For a training program to be

effective and fully developed it requires tailoring it to a specific situation, level of knowledge

of the participants and previous experience in interacting with the “others”, areas where

training is necessary, or any other elements that define the specific needs of the trainees. In

the literature this process of assessing the specific needs of the target group is labeled needs

assessment (Gudykunst, Guzley, Hammer, 1996:76; Brislin and Yoshida, 1994:13-23). We

propose a structure and general guidelines that can be adapted to the needs of specific

situations.

The general model that we present in Table 3 below is an adaptation of the model proposed by

Paige and Martin (1996). The strength of Paige and Martin’s model is that it presents a set of

critical variables that should be taken into consideration in intercultural training programs in

response to a number of ethical issues identified by the authors. The argument for including

the ethics perspective in designing and conducting an intercultural training program is “based

on the belief that intercultural training is an inherently transformative form of education, for

learners and trainers alike” (Paige and Martin, 1996:35). Paige and Martin’s model is useful

147

in our context, in the sense that it indicates what we should systematically look at when

talking about an intercultural training program, and consequently, the variables provide the

frame of discussion in the following sections. However, we must emphasize that the “shape”

Paige and Martin’s variables take in the training program proposed in this chapter is largely

determined by the results of our empirical research and subsequent analysis (cf. Part 3

Analysis of the empirical data).

Table 3. The critical variables of the intercultural training program

Goals and objectives

&

Training content

Types of training activities

Risk elements of the training activities

Behavioral requirements of the training activities

Learners’ characteristics

In relation with the first variable, goals and objectives, we distinguish between the two and

define a broader objective for the training program, which is further divided into more

specific goals about what the training program is intended to achieve. The goals are then

integrated with the specific content of the program. We then propose a set of training

activities that should be used to reach the goals and convey the proposed content of the

training, and we give concrete examples of exercises. In addition, we briefly refer to the risk

elements and behavioral requirements of the training activities that provide guidance for

sequencing the training activities in a way that promotes effective learning. The discussion of

the learners’ characteristics is partly based on Hofstede’s research applied to learning

situations, from which we derive a set of recommendations related to the application into

practice of the training model. The interplay of these variables determines the structure and

sequencing of the training activities, which is presented in the end of the chapter.

Two of the variables included in Paige and Martin’s model, namely trainer characteristics and

social-psychological learning environments, are omitted from our discussion, because they

depend on specific situations (who is the trainer and how he or she should construct the

learning environment). For the same reason, two other elements usually included in the design

148

of intercultural training programs, evaluation and timing of the training activities,40 also fall

outside the scope of our discussion, but they should be taken into consideration when

applying the model into practice.

In the following sections we discuss each of the variables summed up in Table 3 (above) in

more detail.

4.1 Objective, goals and content of the training program

In this section, we define the objective and goals, and relate them to the actual content of the

training program.

The objective of the present training model is to help the Danes and Romanians improve their

work interactions by understanding that the differences they observe in their everyday

interactions originate in the different cultural backgrounds of the two groups.

Paige and Martin (1996:51), as well as other authors (e.g. Gudykunst, Guzley and Hammer,

1996:65) emphasize the need to distinguish between cognitive, affective and behavioral goals.

This distinction is useful for articulating the goals with the content and specific types of

training activities used to attain those goals. The focus of this training model on

understanding, emphasizes the importance of the cognitive goals and to a lesser extent of

affective goals. Developing specific skills/behaviors to be used in the interactions (behavioral

training) is not within the scope of the model, but depending on the needs of specific cases,

behavioral training can be integrated with the structure we propose.

The goals of the present training program related to the training content are formulated:

1. Cognitive goal: increase the trainees’ awareness of the impact of culture on people’s

values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. This goal can be achieved by introducing the trainees

to the concepts of culture, ethnocentrism, cultural relativism and emphasizing that one’s own

culture becomes evident in interactions with others from a different cultural background.

40 Evaluation and timing of the training activities are two elements not included by Paige and Martin in their model of the critical variables in intercultural training, which is one of the limitations of their model.

149

2. Cognitive goal: increase the trainees’ knowledge and understanding of the cultural

differences by underlining the reasons for the differences they face in their work relations. In

order to achieve this goal we propose to teach the trainees a set of dimensions of national

cultures that can be used as a base to explain their own values, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, as

well as those of the members of the other cultural group. Hofstede’s dimensions and their

characteristics should be used as the main framework. Other dimensions derived from the

literature, such as Trompenaars’s universalism-particularism, specific-diffuse and

achievement-ascription, or Hall’s high-low context communication styles can be presented in

association with Hofstede’s dimensions, not separately, since the many overlaps/associations

of these dimensions with Hofstede’s model could confuse the trainees. In addition, Hall’s

monochronic versus polychronic time can be presented to the trainees separately from

Hofstede’s dimensions if the time given to the training program allows it.

Presenting these theories and concepts to the trainees is motivated by several reasons. Firstly,

as we have shown in Part 3 Analysis of the empirical data, these theories can be used to

explain the cultural based differences in interpersonal behavior that arise in the work

interactions between the Danish managers and Romanians. Secondly, it is a way of teaching

the trainees how to learn, by providing them a tool that can be used as a frame of reference for

many of the situations they confront in their daily work interactions. Therefore, their

knowledge will not be limited to a number of specific examples presented during the training

program. Thirdly, intercultural encounters are stressful because people often do not know why

others behave differently. If they understand some of the underlying reasons, such as large

versus small power distance in boss-subordinate interactions, they will experience less stress

(Brislin and Yoshida, 1994:126-127). Fourthly, if people understand the cultural based

reasons behind behaviors, they could make less negative attributions about people with a

different cultural background. (ibid). Finally, if people understand the underlying cultural

reasons, they can use relatively neutral terms (individualism-collectivism, large-small power

distance, a.s.o.) and they will more likely have productive discussions about these differences

(ibid), with a diminished emotional content.

3. Cognitive/affective goal: teach the trainees how to apply the tools they have acquired (the

concepts of cultural differences) to everyday situations. This goal also touches on the

affective side of the training, because by reference to everyday situations in which the trainees

are involved, they will also learn how to deal with their feelings and emotions arising from

150

interpreting the others’ behaviors through their own frame of meaning. This goal can be

achieved through a number of practical exercises that allows the trainees to meaningfully

relate the theoretical concepts to everyday life experiences.

4.2 Types of training activities

In this section we present a set of different training activities that can be used during the

training program. However, the focus is on the practical exercises, which are proposed and

that are based on information derived from the empirical data.

We propose to use the following combination of training activities for several reasons. Firstly,

they each address different training goals. For example, the lectures are used in relation with

the first two training goals, while the critical incidents and role-plays refer to the third goal.

Secondly, some trainees may be more responsive to some types of training activities than to

others (Paige and Martin, 1996:52), and by using a variety of methods a larger spectrum of

preferences can be covered. Thirdly, the alternation of different training activities could make

the learning environment more interesting and challenging, while using only one method

could become monotonous.

1. Lectures in the form of presentations given by the trainer are used for conveying the

theoretical content in relation with the first two goals of the training program (as discussed

above).

2. Discussions. Open or sub-group discussions can be encouraged after the trainer has

presented a theoretical concept in order to give the trainees the opportunity to ask questions

and clarify the concepts. Discussions should also follow the practical exercises,

individual/group assignment, critical incidents and role-plays (discussed below).

3. Individual or group problem solving. We propose three types of assignments. The

purpose of the first two exercises is to make the trainees reflect on their own culture, as well

as on the target culture in terms of the theoretical concepts that have been presented and link

them to concrete real-life manifestations. In doing so, the trainees will make the first step in

151

learning how to apply the theoretical model. The first two exercises should be used after the

trainer presents each of the dimensions.

Exercise type 1 (example for Danish trainees):

The trainer asks the Danish participants to identify and write down five examples that reflect

elements of individualism in Denmark. After ten minutes, the trainer collects the papers form

the trainees and writes the examples on the board. This can be followed by a group discussion

meant to clarify the trainees’ choices of examples and give the opportunity to the trainer to

explain where the examples are not correct.

Exercise type 2 (example for Danish trainees):

The same type of exercise as above can be repeated with the difference that the Danish

trainees are asked to give examples from the Romanian society. In doing so, the participants

will begin to understand not only the characteristics of their own culture, but also the

differences between the Denmark and Romania through the dimensions.

This sequence of exercises can be used in a similar way for the Romanian trainees. After

completing this sequence for all the four dimensions the trainer should position the Denmark

and Romania on the four dimensions in order to give trainees a measure of the differences.

A third type of exercise can be used after the trainees have been familiarized with all the

dimensions. The purpose of the following exercise is to teach the trainees how to use the

dimensions in interpreting the characteristics of the two societies.

Exercise type 3:

The trainer presents characteristics of the two groups and asks the trainees to explain them in

terms of Hofstede’s model. Below are a few examples, but similar ones can be built to cover

all the issues discussed in Part 3 Analysis of the empirical data.

1. Why is it that Danish managers expect their subordinates to make decisions and ask for

their opinions much more than Romanian managers?

152

2. Why do Romanian employees expect their bosses to openly praise them when they have

done a good job? Why do the Danish managers often avoid doing the same?

3. How do you explain that by comparison with the Danish managers the Romanian

managers give so much attention to elements that underline their position (e.g. separate

office)?

4. How do you explain that in Romania it is so important to know people in order to do

business?

5. Why do Romanian employees agree verbally with their boss even when they have a

different opinion? How do you explain that the Danish managers expect their employees

to openly express their opinion even when it contradicts their own?

6. Why is it that Romanians in general avoid confronting other people in open verbal

disagreements?

7. How do you explain the Danes preference to continuously encourage new and innovative

solutions of approaching a job?

8. Why do Romanians expect their colleagues to take part in major events of their private life

(e.g. marriage, christening of their children, funerals)?

9. Why do Romanians feel the need to show their material success for everybody to see,

while the Danes try to avoid doing the same?

10. Why do the Danish managers prefer to focus their efforts on strategic decisions and

delegate broad goals, while the Romanian subordinates prefer to be given precise and

detailed instructions on how to carry out the jobs?

3. Critical incidents. According to Brislin and Yoshida (1994:120), critical incidents are

short stories involving interaction of people from different cultures and they have characters

with names, a plot line and an ending that involves a problem and/or misunderstanding. In the

case of our training model the critical incidents that we propose are culture-specific, because

they refer to situations involving interactions among people from the two target cultures. We

propose to use critical incidents as group assignments, where the trainees are asked to

interpret the story using the dimensions of culture. The empirical data collected through the

interviews represent a rich source of concrete examples that can be used to build critical

incidents. Below we give only two examples. Each of the stories is followed by a short

explanation using the relevant dimension.

153

Critical incident 1 - Getting Down to Business

Jan Hansen and Erik Rasmussen have just established a small company selling farming

equipment in Romania. After several months of conducting market research, Erik Rasmussen

arranges a meeting with Bogdan Ionescu the general director of a state owned farm, their

first potential client. After several hours of driving from Bucharest to the North of the country

where the farm is located, Mr. Rasmussen is welcomed by the farm’s technical director.

Anxious to discuss his business proposal Mr. Rasmussen is quite surprised when the technical

director shows him to the farm’s guesthouse and tells him about the dinner arrangements he

has made for the evening. The technical director also informs Mr. Rasmussen that a meeting

has been arranged with Mr. Ionescu for the next day around noon. The following day Mr.

Ionescu takes the Danish sales manger for a tour of the farm, but he seems to ask a lot of

questions about his family, how they started up the company and about Denmark. They meet

again in the evening for dinner, but Mr. Rasmussen finds it very difficult to keep the

discussion focused on business matters, while the Romanian director insists that he should

relax and enjoy their hospitality, and that they should get to know each other better. During

the next few days they meet several times, but although Mr. Ionescu says he is very interested

in the offer of tractors, Mr. Rassmussen becomes increasingly annoyed at the incredible

amount of time they spend discussing irrelevancies that had little to do with the business deal.

Finally, Mr. Ionescu suggests that they meet again in a couple of weeks to discuss the details

of the deal and perhaps to close the contract. Mr. Rassmussen drives back to Bucharest being

very skeptical about the chances of closing a deal despite of what Mr. Ionescu has said, and

feels that he more or less wasted several days without reaching any conclusion.

The explanation behind this story can be found in the individualist-collectivist divide. In

collectivist societies getting to know each other and establishing a relationship of trust is often

the precondition for doing business (Hofstede, 1994:67). Mr. Ionescu wanted to spend a

sufficient amount of time talking about matters that had little to do with business in order to

get to know each other better and allow a relationship to be established before getting down to

business (relationship oriented). On the other had, Mr. Rasmussen, coming from a more

individualist society, was more concerned with presenting his offer and negotiating the deal

(task oriented), and he did not realize the importance of establishing a relationship before

getting down to business.

154

Critical incident 2 - Where is my office?

Until recently Mr. Mihai Preda has been a commercial manager in an old and well

established Romanian company. Because of his outstanding performance he caught the

attention of Mr. Martin Nielsen, the general manager of the Romanian subsidiary of a large

Danish company, which has been present on the Romanian market for several years. The

Danish manager proposed Mr. Preda to join their company as a marketing manager and

after a series of meetings and discussions he finally accepted to quit his job in the Romanian

company. During his first day on the new job, Mr. Preda was introduced to the team of eight

people he was going to coordinate and to the management team of the company. After these

introductions, Mr. Preda asked his new assistant to show him to his office, but much to his

surprise he found his office to be merely a desk in a landscape style office, where everybody

else in his department were sitting together. The surprises continued when during the

following days he noticed that everyone in the company had the same type of mobile phone

and that he drove the same kind of car as the sales representatives, the only difference being

that he could also use the company car privately. But most of all, he was troubled by the fact

that his desk was next to his subordinates’, because he was used to having a separate big

office and he had never before seen a manager sitting together with his employees. He felt

somehow put down to the same level as his subordinates. After several days he decided to

approach Mr. Nielsen and ask if he could have his own office. When Mr. Nielsen replied that

he could not see why it was so important to have a separate office and that a manager should

be in close contact with his subordinates, Mr. Preda became even more confused and he felt

rather sure that it would be very uncomfortable to work in such a company.

The explanation behind this incident lays in the difference in power distance between the

Danish and the Romanian societies. In large power distance societies visible signs of status (in

this case mainly having a separate office) add to the authority of the bosses and such

privileges or status symbols are both expected and desired (Hofstede, 1994:36-37). Mr. Preda

felt that it was his right as a manager to have a separate office and he was uncomfortable not

being able to distance himself from his subordinates in that way. On the contrary, the Danish

manager, coming from a small power distance society, obviously did not perceive as

important all the elements that emphasized the inequality of positions between a manager and

his/her subordinates.

155

5. Role plays. This type of training activity is often used to give the trainees the opportunity

to practice certain skills or behaviors (Brislin and Yoshida, 1994). However, we propose to

use role plays in order to help the trainees better understand the perspective of the other

group, not to practice a specific behavior.

A mixed group of Danes and Romanians is necessary for the exercise we propose. Through

this exercise the Danish and Romanian trainees will have to be “in each other’s shoes”, i.e. to

act as members of the opposite group. The trainer introduces the following situation:

The general manager (Ole Isaksen) and the sales manager (Flemming Nørgaard) of the

Romanian subsidiary of a Danish company specialized in navigation instruments established

contact with Constanţa Shipyard, which is the largest shipbuilding company in Romania.

They have also arranged to meet with a delegation of the Romanian company at its

headquarters in Constanţa in order to discuss a possible collaboration between the two

companies. The Romanian delegation consists of the general director (Aurel Stoian), the

commercial director (Cristina Marin) and the technical director (Ştefan Popescu). The

Danish managers arrive at Constanţa Shipyard and are welcomed by Mr. Stoian’s assistant,

who shows them to the conference room.

The trainer assigns two Romanian trainees to play the role of the Danish managers and three

Danes to act as the Romanian directors. The trainees are instructed to design and enact a role-

play simulating the meeting that takes place at Constanţa Shipyard’s head quarters. The

Romanian trainees should adopt a behavior characteristic of a small power distance,

individualist, feminine and weak uncertainty avoidance society, while the Danish trainees

should assume a behavior characteristic of a large power distance, collectivist, masculine and

strong uncertainty avoidance society.

The role-play should be followed by a discussion in which the audience (the rest of the group)

criticizes the performance of the “actors” (Did they adopt a behavior that reflects the

characteristics of the society they represent in the role-play? What mistakes did they make?

Did any misunderstandings occur during the role-play due to the cultural differences the

trainees were supposed to enact?), and make suggestions for what the “actors” could have

done differently.

156

4.3 Risk elements of the training activities

Paige and Martin (1996:52) suggest that different types of training activities pose different

levels of risk and that these risks should not be ignored, because they can inhibit rather than

promote learning. According to this principle, the training activities that focus on affective

learning are more risky than those aimed at cognitive learning, because they touch on one’s

emotions and consequently, might be more stressful. In sequencing the training activities that

we proposed above we recognize and observe this principle in order to avoid adverse

reactions (e.g. withdrawal) from the trainees and to allow them to progress smoothly through

the training activities.

In addition, it is also evident that it would be ineffective to use critical incidents or role-plays

before the trainees have been familiarized with the theoretical concepts that they will have to

use in such exercises.

4.4 Behavioral requirements of the training activities

The different training activities can also be characterized by the behavioral requirements they

impose on the trainees (Paige and Martin, 1996:52-53). It is perhaps better to beginning the

training with activities that require less involvement from the trainees and pose lower risks

(e.g. of failure, self-disclosure, embarrassment), activities that are more familiar to the

learners (ibid). In the case of the training model that we propose these risks, as well as the

involvement and unfamiliarity with the training activity increase from lectures to discussion,

individual/group problem solving, critical incidents and role pays. Therefore, in sequencing

the training activities we recognize the importance of progressing from passive, low risk and

familiar activities towards active, high risk and unfamiliar training activities. However, we do

alternate the lectures with discussions and individual/group problem solving, because if we

order the training activities exclusively on the basis risks and behavioral requirements,

without regard to the their purpose, the effectiveness of the training program is likely to

decrease.

157

4.5 Learners’ characteristics

Paige and Martin (1996:52) indicate that “observable learning outcomes are, in part, a

function of the characteristics of the learners”, thus emphasizing that careful consideration

should be given to such elements as background characteristics (e.g. prior cross-cultural

experience), learning styles, level of cultural self-awareness, the learners sense of ethnic or

cultural identity, learners’ familiarity with certain types of activities and learners’ familiarity

with each other. Here we consider two of these elements (prior experience and learning

styles), where we can draw more general conclusions, but when adapting the training model

that we propose to specific companies or situations, all the elements proposed by Paige and

Martin (1996:52) should be carefully assessed on case-specific basis.

1. Prior cross-cultural experience could include previous encounters with people from other

cultures in such situations as contacts with foreigners living or working in one’s own culture,

or studying or working in a foreign country. The Romanian participants can be assumed to

have a lower level of prior cross-cultural experience than the Danish managers, since very few

Romanians had contact with foreigners or spent time abroad before 1989. In most cases the

Romanians’ experience is likely to be limited to their relation with the Danish managers.

In relation to this particular aspect, the level of prior specific cross-cultural experience could

be determined by how long a trainee has been working with Danes/Romanians. This allows

their categorization as experienced and inexperienced trainees. A new Danish manager or

Romanian employee will be inexperienced, by comparison with those that have been working

in the company with Danes/Romanians for several years. This categorization implies that

inexperienced participants will need more training (both as time and depth) than experienced

participants. It also has an impact on the kind of exercises that can be used during the training

– for instance, exercise type 2 (described in section 4.2 Types of training activities) where the

trainees are asked to give/imagine and discuss examples of different behaviors they have

observed at individuals from the other group, cannot be used when training inexperienced

participants, but it can be an effective and stimulating training tool for experienced trainees.

In addition, the role-play that we proposed may also be more effective with experienced

participants, who can draw on their previous experiences of working with Danes/Romanians,

when designing and enacting the role-play.

158

2. Learning style and classroom interactions. Hofstede (1986) suggests that culture

influences learning styles, as well as student-teacher and student-student interactions. He lists

a number of characteristics applied to learning situations that represent the opposed poles on

four of his dimensions (individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and

masculinity). The relevance of Hofstede’s research (conducted in work settings) to

educational settings is “based on the assumption that role patterns and value systems in a

society are carried forward from the school to the job and back” (Hofstede, 1986:306). Even

though these characteristics describe the extreme poles of the four dimensions, they are still

useful in practice and offer guidance, if they are applied with due moderation and according

to the positioning of the particular country on those dimensions.

We extend Hofstede’s characteristics to the present training model, because training is also a

learning situation, involving trainer-trainee and trainee-trainee interactions. Based on the

positioning on all four dimensions Denmark and Romania we use the differences in learning

styles and classroom interactions identified by Hofstede (1986) to make our own

recommendations that should be taken into consideration when applying the training model

into practice. In taking this approach we emphasize that the training program must be

culturally adapted to the different characteristics of the two groups. Our goal is not to review

all the characteristics identified by Hofstede, but only to make recommendations based on

those that are relevant for the training program we propose. Some of the recommendations

made below are also based on the results of our own research (cf. Part 3 Analysis of the

empirical data). We discuss each of the four dimensions first for learning situations involving

Romanians and then for Danes.

Learning situations involving Romanians:

Collectivism. Because people in collectivist societies will only speak up in small groups

(Hofstede, 1986:312), we recommend that whenever practical exercises are used (e.g. critical

incidents, group problem solving) the group is divided in smaller subgroups of 3-4 people.

We also advise letting the participants choose group membership, so that they feel

comfortable working with, and speaking up in front of people with whom they have some

kind of affiliation. Hofstede also suggests that in collectivist societies neither the teacher, not

the students should be made to lose face (ibid). Therefore, the trainer should be careful in

pointing out the mistakes when trainees give a wrong answer (e.g. instead of saying “Your

159

answer is not correct.” it is better to say “Could you think of any other alternatives that could

perhaps answer the question?”). Open and direct criticism may cause the trainees to feel

offended and consequently avoid answering any further questions. Since in collectivist

societies acquisition of diplomas is highly prized (ibid), we suggest that whenever possible

the trainer should award course certificates to the Romanian participants.

Large power distance. Whenever possible, we recommend using an older trainer,

because in large power distance countries older teachers are more respected than younger

ones (Hofstede, 1986:313). From our research resulted that Romanian subordinates are

reluctant to express ideas contradicting their boss’s opinions. Since this may sabotage the

purpose of group-work (facilitating discussion and input from all group members) we

recommend that when using this type of activities it is better to avoid placing subordinates in

the same group with their manager. Because of the perceived distance between teacher and

student and the fact that usually the former is expected to initiate communication, students

will often speak only when personally called upon by the teacher (ibid), which can make open

discussion more difficult. Therefore, the trainer should be aware of this difficulty and assume

a more active role in encouraging discussions.

Strong uncertainty avoidance. According to Hofstede (1986:314), in strong uncertainty

avoidance societies students feel more comfortable in structured learning situations.

Therefore, we recommend that at least in the beginning of the training, greater emphasis is

placed on lecture style activities (more structured) than on discussions or practical exercises

(less structured). However, exclusive reliance on lectures will not allow the trainees to

develop skills in applying the theoretical knowledge. Thus, whenever practical exercises are

used in addition to the lectures, the trainer should give the Romanian trainees precise and

clear instructions about what is expected of them and how the assignment should be carried

out. We also advise the trainer that whenever confronted with a question where he or she does

not know the answer to avoid the phrase “I do not know”, because in strong uncertainty

avoidance societies the teachers are expected to have all the answers (ibid).

Masculinity. We advise the trainer to openly praise or reward (give small prizes to)

students or groups that perform well on the different assignments, because recognition of

good results is an important motivational factor for the Romanians (cf. chapter 3.9

Responsibility). In more masculine societies, students usually compete with each other

160

(Hofstede, 1986:315). Therefore, the trainer should use this competitive spirit among

participants or groups, as a way to encourage a more lively discussion and active participation

of the trainees.

Learning situations involving Danes:

Individualism. In individualist societies students are more willing to speak up freely in

class in response to a general invitation from the teacher (Hofstede, 1986:312). Therefore, the

trainer should emphasize those training activities that promote open expression of individual

opinions, such as discussions and practical exercises. Moreover, in more individualist

societies face-consciousness is weaker (ibid) and the trainer should not be “too careful” in

pointing out a wrong answer, because the message may not get across.

Small power distance. We suggest that younger trainers are used, because in small power

distance societies younger teachers are preferred to older teachers (Hofstede, 1986:313). The

trainer should also get down to the level of the trainees and expect them to speak up

spontaneously and to contradict or criticize the trainer, which is common for the students in

small power distance societies (ibid). The trainer could use the trainees’ openness and

emphasize/stimulate lively discussions, exercises and other activities that encourage the

participants to take initiative.

Weak uncertainly avoidance. Hofstede (1986:314) indicates that in weak uncertainty

avoidance societies students usually feel comfortable in less structured learning situations.

Therefore, we suggest placing less emphasis on lectures and focusing more on the less

structured practical assignments. The trainer should give the Danish trainees more freedom in

approaching the exercises, and at the same time should encourage the students to come up

with creative solutions. In doing so, we recommend the trainer to be more flexible about the

rules of the different training activities and be willing to accept deviations from the pre-

established patterns when this can lead to better results. However, such an approach may

require a great deal of skill and experience on the behalf of the trainer. Finally, we suggest

that the trainer should be completely candid when confronted with questions for which he/she

does not know the answer, because in weak uncertainty avoidance societies the teachers are

allowed to say “I do not know” (ibid).

161

Femininity. In feminine societies students try to behave modestly (Hofstede, 1986:315).

Therefore, we suggest that the trainer avoids openly praising the Danish trainees, because it

might make them feel uncomfortable. The trainer should also try to be friendly with the

participants, because students in feminine societies admire such behavior in teachers (ibid).

Because “cross-cultural learning situations are fundamentally problematic” (Hofstede,

1986:303), it may be risky to use Romanian teachers to train the Danish managers and vice-

versa. Whether this can be avoided or not, the trainer should have strong knowledge of both

cultures and should be aware of his/her own cultural background and the way it may influence

the learning situations. Applying some of the above recommendations is largely the task of

the individual trainers, which further underlines the importance of the trainer’s understanding

of the impact of culture on the learning environment.

In addition, because of the differences in learning styles and classroom interaction patterns

between the two cultures, it may be more effective to train the Danish managers and

Romanian employees separately (avoid mixed groups), at least in the initial stage of the

training program. As awareness, knowledge and skills develop during the training program,

an experienced trainer may attempt to organize more advanced training activities (such as

role-plays) that involve participants from both groups.

4.6 The structure of the training program

The juxtaposition of the variables that we discussed in the previous sections lead to the

structure of the training program and sequencing of the training activities presented in Table 4

below.

This structure articulates the goals of the training program with the actual content and the

different types of training activities suitable for conveying the content and addressing the

goals. The sequencing of the training activities is based both on the internal logic of the

program and on the behavioral requirements, familiarity and risk levels of the training

activities, with a view to promote learning and minimize the negative reactions from trainees

during the training (e.g. inhibition, avoidance, withdrawal, hostility). Finally, the difference in

learning styles and patterns of classroom interactions between the Danes and the Romanians

suggests that the two groups should be trained separately, until the level of awareness,

162

Table 4. A proposed structure for the training program and sequencing of activities

Goal / culture learning emphasis

Content Type of training activity Behavioral requirements of training activity

Familiarity and risk level associated with

training activity

Group type

Increase awareness (cognitive)

Theoretical (concept of culture, ethnocentrism cultural relativism; culture becomes evident in intercultural interactions)

Lecture Passive

Low risk of failure, self-disclosure, embarrassment; familiar activity for most trainees

Separately Danes/ Romanians

Discussion ActiveLow risk; familiar activity for most trainees

Separately Danes/ Romanians

Increase knowledge and understanding (cognitive)

Theoretical (e.g. individualism-collectivism)

Lecture1 PassiveLow risk; familiar activity for most trainees

Separately Danes/ Romanians

Learn how to use the theory (cognitive)

Practical (apply the theoretical concepts)

Individual/group problem solving (exercise types 1 & 2)1

Passive (reflection) active (discussion)

Medium risk; familiar activity for some trainees

Separately Danes/ Romanians

Individual/group problem solving (exercise type 3)

Passive (reflection) active (discussion)

Medium risk; familiar activity for some trainees

Separately Danes/ Romanians

Learn how to use the theory (cognitive /affective)

Critical incidentsPassive (reflection) active (discussion)

Medium risk; unfamiliar activity for many trainees

Separately Danes/ Romanians

Role play (designed and enacted by trainees on a given topic)

Active (both role play and following discussion)

High risk; unfamiliar activity for many trainees

Mixed Danes and Romanians

Source: The structure of the training program presented in this table is an adaptation of Paige and Martin’s model (1996).Notes: 1. The sequence of lecture and individual/group problem solving is repeated for each of the dimensions of culture included in the training (the minimum represents Hofstede’s four dimensions: individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity).

163

knowledge and understanding have reached a level where the trainer could attempt using

exercises (role-play) that require a mixed group.

The structure and sequencing of the training activities presented above is only a model that we

could construct based on a theoretical model of the critical variables in intercultural training

programs and the general implications of our research. When applied in practice, the model

can be adapted to suit specific cases. Certain training activities can be emphasized, while

others could be given less attention, or eliminated from the program and yet, other types of

activities can be added. For example, if the program addresses experienced participants, those

may already be aware of the impact of culture (first goal) and therefore the part on

understanding cultural differences (second and third goals) could be emphasized. For

inexperienced participants, some exercises would not be suitable (asking trainees to give

examples from what they observed at the members of the other group), while other types of

activities could be added (e.g. general information about the social, economic, politic

environment of Denmark/Romania).

4.7 Conclusion

In this chapter we have addressed the secondary problem of the study (application) by

proposing a model of a training program intended to help the Danish managers and their

Romanian employees understand the cultural differences between the two groups and by

providing them with a tool they could use for interpreting the different behaviors they observe

in their work interactions. In this way both the Danes and Romanians have a better chance to

avoid imposing their own frame of meaning on the others and to change ethnocentric

interpretations into meaningful and correct judgments about each other. Increased awareness,

knowledge and understanding could reduce misunderstandings, frustration, misinterpretations

and tension in general that were accused by the respondents during the interviews.

In taking this approach we have shown how the theory on cultural differences can be used in

practice to prepare people from different cultures to better understand the differences that

arise in their work interactions. The scope of this chapter was only to present a model of a

training program. The elements of the training program that were discussed, as well as the

general guidelines that were given and the examples, make it possible to adapt and expand the

model to a fully developed training program.

164

5. Final comments

Romania is one of the largest countries in Eastern Europe and its relatively large market and

expanding economy draw increased interest from Western companies. The enlargement of the

European Union, where Romania is expected to become a member in 2007, will further

increase cross-border economic cooperation. In this context, although the number of Danish

expatriates in Romania is relatively modest, as compared to other Western nations and

currently many of the Danish companies established in Romania are small, the growing

interest of large Danish companies41 in the Romanian market is expected to increase the

expatriate Danish population in Romania.

In this study we have demonstrated that there are numerous and significant differences

between the Danes’ and Romanians’ behaviors, attitudes and values that can largely be

explained by culture general dimensions, which represent a powerful explanatory framework.

However, it becomes evident from this study that culture general dimensions are not enough

to describe the two cultures, because they are insufficient to gain detailed insight into the

particular aspects of the studied cultures. Moreover, particular elements of the studied cultures

reflected a combination of different value orientations. Therefore, specific descriptions of the

two cultures are necessary in conjunction with culture general dimensions.

5.1 An overall picture of the differences that make a difference

A global view of the differences outlined in this study reveals interesting and powerful

internal connections between the various aspects of the two cultures.

Perhaps the most important characteristic of the Romanian culture is the emphasis on

personalization and the divide between in-group and out-group. A strong distinction between

a positive attitude towards people with whom one shares some kind of personal affiliation and

negative attitude towards those who are perceived as outsiders is a crucial element in the way

Romanians perceive and organize relationships with people around them. What Romanians 41 Several notable examples are Mærsk, Danfoss, Novo Nordisk. Currently Mærsk is firmly established and it is leader on the Romanian shipping market. The other two companies have limited operations in Romania at present, but as the business interest in these subsidiaries will increase, more active Danish involvement in the management of these units can be expected.

165

generally do is that they attempt to build particularistic, trust-based relationships with people

from their environment in a society that is pervaded by a low level of interpersonal trust. Such

relationships create security and underline the distinction between insiders and outsiders and

point directly to the necessity to develop and maintain large networks of personal connections

based on particularistic, trust-based relationships. The diffuse separation of private and

professional aspects of one’s life enhances this mechanism and facilitates the establishment of

close relationships based on personal affiliation with colleagues and business partners.

Being polychronic, the Romanians are used to doing several things at a time and they

emphasize completing human transactions, even if this means missing deadlines and

appointments, or breaking work schedules. In this context, the intense social interactions

accentuate the need for maintaining superficial harmony and protecting face, in order to avoid

damaging relationships. Consequently, indirectness in communication is preferred. Indirect

communication is also possible, because close relationships breed mutual understanding and

the sharing of a common background.

The attitude towards other people of the more individualist Danes is not based on the

distinction between in-group and out-group. They tend to judge other people by universal

standards to whatever extent possible, regardless of their affiliation or group membership.

Their notion of trust is very different from the Romanians’ one, and it is based on rules (do

not lie, do not cheat) that apply equally to everybody, not on particular relationships, and

therefore a trustworthy person is one who keeps commitments. The tendency to sharply

separate private life and work discourages the establishment of close relationships based on

personal affiliation with colleagues and business partners and the careful building and

maintaining of networks of personal connections is both more difficult and given less

importance. The Danes do not find it necessary to spend time to get to know their business

partners, both because time is very carefully used (like a scarce resource) and because their

focus is on the job that has to be done. The emphasis on the task and the perception of work

relationships in terms of roles, rather than based on personal affiliation emphasizes direct

communication. Speaking one’s mind is a virtue and maintaining superficial harmony is less

important.

166

The above characteristics of the two cultures point to the fact that these differences can best

be understood by the discrepancy in the importance given in a work setting to relationships

over tasks and vice versa, which stresses the individualism-collectivism divide.

In hierarchical relations, Romanian subordinates tend to depend to a great extent on their

managers. The Romanians’ perception of responsibility is closely connected to this aspect of

the Romanian culture. Managers hold all the power, which they use to make or validate all

decisions, or to punish employees for making mistakes. The perception of the manager as a

despot, coupled with the general indirectness in communication characteristic for the

Romanians, obstructs hierarchical communication. Inequalities of positions are further

emphasized by the rank consciousness and strict observance of positions characteristic for the

Romanians. In relation with authorities, the large gap between authorities and the citizen

fosters corrupt practices among power holders.

In contrast, the Danes emphasize non-authoritarian and egalitarian values. In boss-subordinate

relations, the Danes expect to share the power, and such relationships are based on

interdependence. Thus, the manager’s role is to delegate and each employee is responsible for

his/her area. In effect, as well as in appearance, inequalities of positions are disguised through

a conscious effort to minimize or eliminate any elements of status that might emphasize such

inequalities. In the society, the power gap between authorities and the citizen is small, which

discourages corruption and naturally this influences the attitude of the Danish managers

working in Romania, who find corrupt practices unacceptable. The contrast between these

elements of the two cultures can be understood by the difference in the degree to which the

unequal distribution of power is accepted in the society (power distance).

The Romanians perception of responsibility is also strongly connected to the employees’ need

for clarity, when they have to do a job, or their preference to be given precise instructions on

how to carry out a task, plus the fact that mistakes on the job create anxiety to be avoided. On

the other hand, the Danes feel much more comfortable in situations that involve a lower

degree of structure and demand higher tolerance for ambiguity, such as the top management

focus on strategic issues and preference for delegating broad goals, which often involve an

unclear relationship between means and ends. The above contrasts can be understood in terms

of the degree to which the Danes and Romanians feel threatened by uncertain or unknown

situations (uncertainty avoidance).

167

In the workplace, the Romanians value assertiveness and open recognition for a job well-

done, as an important motivational factor, while the Danes emphasize modesty and try to

avoid standing out. Related values are also to be found outside the workplace. Romanians

emphasize material success and ego-boosting by showing-off various signs of wealth for

everybody to see. Among power holders, these tendencies coupled with small income easily

foster corrupt practices. In contrast, the Danes do not emphasize their material success to the

same degree, mainly by displaying modesty and not showing-off their wealth. The disparity

between these tendencies is best understood in terms of a difference in the degree of

masculinity characteristic for the two countries.

There is no evidence to indicate that even after prolonged contact, the values of the Danes and

Romanians working together have changed to any degree. As shown before in the study,

there is some evidence of behavioral changes – for example, of Romanians becoming more

direct and outspoken in communication with the Danes, or Danish managers who accept to

socialize with their employees, Danes who understand that they cannot trust people in

Romania in the same way they would do in Denmark. However, these are only superficial

behavioral changes imposed by the necessities of the intercultural contact. They do not reflect

changes in the values of Danes or the Romanians, which becomes apparent from the fact that,

for example, Romanians’ behavior reverses back to their old ways, as soon as the Danish

managers temporary live the company42.

5.2 Preparation for the intercultural contact

The results of the research in this study underlined the need to better prepare both the Danes

and Romanians for the intercultural interaction. To this end, a dual approach was taken.

Firstly, a model for an intercultural training program was proposed with the aim of helping

the actors become aware of and understand the underlying cultural differences behind the

patterns of behavior that they observe in daily interactions. Secondly, more specific

recommendations for intercultural adjustment were also provided aiming at guiding

adaptation and specifying conditions for more constructive interactions.

42 Our own experiences of working in Western companies established in Romania also support these findings.

168

It should be emphasized here that ideally, understanding should precede adaptation based on

the specific recommendations, because the latter may have a limited effect as long as the

actors do not understand the underlying reasons behind the different behaviors and attitudes

they observe or behind the recommendations.

The training approach emphasizes understanding, which facilitates both correct attributions

and judging situations in neutral terms, which is likely to reduce tensions and ethnocentric

behavior, and at the same time better understanding also increases predictability. This means

that better understanding increases the chances for predicting each other’s behaviors, which in

turn makes it possible to a priori consider the counterpart’s reaction. Naturally, this is not a

guaranteed recipe for success, but it is likely to increase the chances to avoid problems.

The recommendations (especially when coupled with understanding) help the actors build a

repertoire of behaviors, which they can use according to the situation. Frequent contact inside

the company will facilitate adaptation. However, the firm’s external relationships will have to

be conducted according to local customs to a larger extent.

In the short and medium run, these tools will foster superficial changes in behavior. However,

in the long run, if and when the management of the companies is turned over to Romanians

and the intercultural contact decreases in intensity, old habits are likely to reverse, because, as

mentioned before, there is no evidence that values are likely to change.

We should also emphasize that when applying in practice these tools, considerable care

should be exercised, in the sense that the actors should be made aware of the fact that to a

certain extent, these tools provide stereotyped pictures, and that there are many Romanians

and Danes that deviate from the outlined patterns. These tools should be taken as a frame of

reference, not as unbreakable rules, because their size does not fit all, and individual judgment

is necessary in each specific interaction.

In terms of overall suggestions for preparation for the intercultural contact, the findings in this

study seem to point to an obvious conclusion – that good communication and positive feelings

between the Danes and the Romanians are essential for building constructive work relations.

As mentioned before, the Romanians’ positive attitudes towards people who are perceived as

in-group and negative attitudes towards outsiders, indicate that the Danes would have a better

169

chance of success, if they are perceived as in-group members. This would require the Danish

managers to acquire more particularist behavior and appearances. Developing personalized,

trust-based relationships with the Romanians is probably the only way in which the Danish

managers can ensure the Romanians’ cooperation, loyalty and trust. This will obviously be

difficult for the Danes to accept and achieve, but both the training and the specific

recommendations can improve the chances for success. In addition, spending time and

making friends with Romanians with whom they do not necessarily have a work relationship,

would help the Danes get socialized to the Romanian way of handling relationships.

5.3 Limitations of the study

Generally speaking, studies that focus on cultural differences bear the risk of creating

stereotyped pictures and such claims could perhaps also be made in relation to the present

study. It should be emphasized that the aim was to pinpoint and contrast overall

characteristics of the two groups, not specific viewpoints of either Danes or Romanians. There

is no question that there are many Romanians and Danes that do not fit the cultural profiles

outlined in this study, but these do not represent how the Danes and Romanians perceive

themselves, as well as each other in general. It should also be emphasized that we constantly

tried to include observations and perceptions of both sides of their own behavior and attitudes,

as well as of the opposite group, and to provide a fair representation of both groups. This

approach also addresses limitations of previous research (see section 2.5 Previous literature)

that often builds on unilateral perceptions of only one of the groups involved in the

intercultural contact.

Another limitation seems to be that the present study contrasts two viewpoints at the expense

of commonalities between the two groups. This is in part due to the study design, but also

because in intercultural interaction situations, differences are the main concern since they are

the cause of misunderstandings and tensions. It is an inherent attribute of the research strategy

in the field of intercultural interactions, which also applies to the present project. The analysis

in this study focused on differences bears the risk of creating the impression of exaggerated

differences to the detriment of similarities, thus emphasizing the negative side of the

intercultural work relations between the Danes and the Romanians. The defense of this

approach relies on the need to shed light on the differences that are important in Danish-

170

Romanian intercultural work relations, as a precondition to get the two sides to learn about

and understand the cultural differences. The ultimate goal of this approach would be to

promote both further research in the field of Danish-Romanian intercultural work relations

(scientific perspective) and to improve the intercultural contact between the actual actors

(practical perspective). We have tried to reduce this weakness (focus on differences and the

negative side of the intercultural contact) by providing both recommendations and a model for

an intercultural training program that could be used to create conditions for more constructive

and effective work relations.

A third limitation of the study would be that the applicability of both recommendations and

the model for the intercultural training program has not been tested on a real life case.

Unfortunately, this has not been possible for two reasons. Firstly, the practical application of

these tools would require further adaptation to case-specific conditions. Secondly, the

application of these tools into practice would require an evaluation of their effects in the long

run, which falls outside the timeframe for the development of the present study43.

A fourth limitation is the lack of systematic focus on specific managerial and organizational

elements (e.g. organizational structure and design, managerial functions, human resource

policies, a.s.o.). This is mainly due to the large variation in the sample of companies (e.g. in

terms of size, industry, development stage). The systematic study of the impact of culture on

managerial and organizational processes would require controlling for numerous other factors,

which fall outside the scope of the present study.

5.4 Future research

This study opens the way for further research in the Danish-Romanian cooperation seen from

the cultural perspective. The growing Danish-Romanian economic relations call for

appropriate attention and, in addition, the results of such research may also prove useful in

other settings. As a closing statement, we would like to suggest only a few possible lines of

research, which can build on the results of the present study.

43 This can be done in practice by comparing two cases that share similar conditions except for the fact that only in one of the two cases intercultural training and recommendations for adjustment are provided. The evaluation should be carried out several months after the training and recommendations have been provided in order to examine the viability and persistence of the learning effects.

171

First of all, a quantitative study of a larger scale based on the categories outlined in this study

would be useful in several ways. It would be interesting to measure the effect and importance

of the different cultural traits in the Danish-Romanian intercultural work situations. It would

also be useful to systematically study the persistence of differences in behavior and attitudes

between the two groups in their interaction over time. Such an approach could shed more light

on the areas and extent to which the representatives of the two groups could and should adapt

their behaviors. Extending the sample of respondents to general cooperation that may or may

not involve an expatriation situation could also be useful in differentiating between the two

situations, in order to allow the Danish companies that have an interest in Romania, to tailor

their adaptation strategies more accurately.

Another line of research would be to study more specifically the impact of the cultural clash

on organizational performance (e.g. in terms of financial results). Such a study would have to

consider, beside culture, the impact of many other factors, such as, general economic

conditions and industry specific conditions. Despite methodological difficulties that may

arise, such research would be extremely useful in outlining the potential competitive

advantages or disadvantages that cultural characteristics may foster or inhibit. For example,

one could speculate that a Danish-Romanian joint venture established in Romania could

benefit from combining the Romanian particular way of handling relations with the Danish

emphasis on delegation and responsibility. Such a company would be more flexible,

responsive to the business environment and reliable, while at the same time would secure

long-lasting relationships and customer loyalty, and have better access to hidden information.

While there may be a lot of truth in such speculations, which are partly supported by the

empirical evidence in this study, it is yet to be established more precisely, which mixed

solutions create competitive advantage, and which are sources of competitive disadvantage.

Last but not least, it may also be useful to study similarities between the two cultures. Cultural

similarities known and acknowledged by the two groups could provide a strong base in the

initial stages of the cooperation and in conjunction with the cultural differences, they create a

complete picture of the influence of culture on the intercultural work interactions.

Hopefully, the present study helped to shed light on the cultural differences that condition the

patterns of interaction between expatriated Danish managers and Romanian nationals in work

settings, and in doing so, it has provided a base for future research and for the preparation of

the actors involved in the intercultural cooperation.

172

Appendix – Interview questions

First interview – questions for Danish respondents

1. What is your position in the company and, in short, which are your main responsibilities in the company?

2. How long have you been working for this company?

3. How long have you been working with Romanians?

4. How long have you been leaving/traveling in Romania?

5. In your work, how much/often do you interact/communicate with Romanians?

6. What surprised you the most when you started working with Romanians?

7. Working with Romanians, what other important differences did you notice?

8. In your opinion, what do you think surprised the Romanians the most when they started working with Danes?

9. How do you think the Romanians perceived your work/management style?

10. What difficulties did you experience using your Danish working style in Romania?

11. How did you perceive the Romanians’ work / management style?

12. What particularities of the Romanian work style or business style in general, including your relations with authorities, was the most disturbing and difficult to cope or accept?

13. Are there any particular tasks that you would prefer to delegate to your subordinates because you believe that as Romanians they can better deal with them or simply because you dislike or feel uncomfortable doing them?

14. What kind of situations did you notice that made the Romanians feel uncomfortable, irritated, frustrated?

15. What kind of situations made you feel uncomfortable, irritated, frustrated?

16. What kind of situations led to misunderstandings or misinterpretations?

17. What kind of situations generated conflicts, even just superficial ones?

18. Did you try to implement management or work principles that you believe that are different from how things are usually done in Romania? What difficulties did you encounter?

173

19. How do you imagine that people work in a typical Romanian company as compared with a typical Danish company?

20. In the end, what was/is your biggest challenge in working with Romanians and what do you believe that was the biggest challenge for them in working with Danes?

First interview – Questions for Romanian respondents

1. Care este pozitia pe care o ocupati si pe scurt, care sunt responsabilitatile Dvs. principale in cadrul firmei?

2. De cat timp lucrati in aceasta firma?

3. De cat timp lucrati cu danezi?

4. In cadrul relatiilor de munca cam cat de des interactionati/comunicati cu danezi?

5. Ce v-a surprins cel mai puternic cand ati inceput sa lucrati cu danezi?

6. Lucrand cu danezi, ce alte diferente importante ati observat intre danezi si romani in felul de a fii si stilul lor de lucru?

7. Ce credeti ca l-a surprins cel mai puternic pe managerul danez cand a inceput sa lucreze cu romani?

8. Cum credeti ca au perceput danezii stilul de muna / management al romanilor?

9. Ce dificultati ati remarcat ca au intampinat danezii incercand sa se adapteze la stilul de lucru din Romania?

10. Cum ati perceput Dvs. stilul de munca / management al danezilor?

11. Ce particularitate a stilului de munca sau de afaceri in general, inclusiv relatiile cu autoritatile credeti ca a fost cel mai greu acceptata de danezi sau la care le-a fost cel mai greu sa se adapteze?

12. Exista sarcini/responsabilitati pe care ati remarcat ca danezii prefera sa vi le insarcineze Dvs. considerand ca Dvs. ca roman va puteti descurca mai bine sau pur si simplu pentru ca ei se simt jenati, incomod?

13. Ce dificultati ati intampinat Dvs. incercand sa va adaptati la stilul de lucru al danezilor?

14. In ce fel de situatii ati remarcat ca danezii cu care lucrati s-au simtit iritati, deranjati, nemultumiti?

15. Ce fel de situatii v-au deranjat, iritat, nemultumit pe Dvs.?

16. Cam ce fel de situatii condus la neintelegeri sau interpretari gresite de ambele parti?

174

17. Ce gen de situatii au creat conflicte, fie ele si doar de suprafata?

18. Ce principii de management noi / diferite fata de ceea ce erati Dvs. obisnuiti au incercat sa

implementeze danezii? Au existat dificultati in implementarea / acceptarea lor?

19. Cum va imaginati Dvs. ca se lucreaza in companiile din Danemarca, spre deosebire de cele din Romania?

20. In incheiere, care considerati Dvs. ca a fost cea mai mare provocare in a lucra cu danezi si care credeti ca a fost cea mai mare provocare pentru ei?

175

References

Askegaard, S., Gertsen, M. C. and Madsen, T. K. (1995): Danish Cultural Barriers and their Importance to Firms. Working Paper in Marketing no.3. Odense: Odense University.

Beaverstock, J.V. (2000): “The Expatriation Business and the Business of Expatriation”. Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network, Research Bulletin 42, URL: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb42.html Quoted: 25-008-2002.

Belk, R. W. (1997): “Romanian Consumer Desires and Feelings of Deservingness”. In Stan L. (Ed.) (1997): Romania in Transition. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company.

Brislin, R. W. and Yoshinda, T. (1994): Intercultural Communication Training: An Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Burton, R. M. and Obel B. (1998): Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design. Developing Theory for Application. Second Edition. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Caudron, S. (1991): “Training Ensures Success Overseas”. Personnel Journal, December, 27-30.

Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania (July 2001): Listing of companies with minimum 50 percent Danish capital. Bucharest.

Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980): “New Work Attitude Measures of Trust, Organizational Commitment and Personal Need Non-Fulfillment”. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 36-52.

Denzin, N. K. (1970): The Research Act. Chicago: Aldine.

Djursaa, M. (1988): Med britiske briller. Danmarks image I Storbritannien. København: Teknisk Forlag.

Fivelsdal, E. and Schramm-Nielsen, I. (1993): “Egalitarianism at Work: Management in Denmark”. In Hickson, D.J. (Ed.) (1993): Management in Western Europe. Society, Culture and Organizations in Twelve Nations. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Foris, T. and Foris, A. (1996): “O abordare comparativǎ a culturii şi managementului românesc cu ajutorul modelului lui Geert Hofstede”. Unpublished paper presented at Sesiunea de comunicǎri ştiinţifice FIMAN – 1996.

Gertsen, M. (1987): Denmark: cultural aspects to be considered by international managers. Working Paper 1/1987). Copenhagen: Copenhagen School of Economics and Business Administration.

Gertsen, M. C. (1990): Fjernt fra Danmark. København: Handelshøjskolens Forlag.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967): The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

176

Granovetter, M. (1992): “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness”. In Granovetter M. and Swedberg, R. (Eds.) (1992): The Sociology of Economic Life. Boulder: Westview Press.

Gudykunst, W. B., Guzley, R. M. and Hammer, M. R. (1996): “Designing Intercultural Training”. In Landis D. and Bhagat R. S. (Eds.) (1996): Handbook of Intercultural Training. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hall, E. T. (1959): The Silent Language. Reprinted 1980. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Hall, E. T. (1966): The Hidden Dimension. New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Hall, E. T. (1976): Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Hall, E. T. and Hall, M. R. (1990): Understanding Cultural Differences. Yarmouth, MA: Intercultural Press.

Harrison, K. J. (1994): “Developing Successful Expatriate Managers: A Framework for the Structural Design and Strategic Alignment of Cross-Cultural Training Programs”. Human Resource Planning, 17, 3, 17-35.

Harzing, A. W. K. (1995): “The persistent myth of high expatriate failure rates”, The International Journal of Human resource Management, 6, May, 457-475.

Ho, D. Y. F. (1976): “On the concept of face”. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867-884.

Hofstede, G. (1980): Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1986): “Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning”. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320.

Hofstede, G. (1994): Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: HarperCollinsBusiness.

Hofstede, G. (2001): Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. et all (1998): Masculinity and femininity. The Taboo Dimension of National Cultures. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Hoftede, G., Kolman, L., Nicolescu, O., and Pajumaa, I. (1996): “Characteristics of the ideal job among students in eight countries”. In Grad, H., Blanco, A. and Georgas, J. (Eds.): Key Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology, p.199-216. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

177

Katz, J.P. and Seifer, D. M. (1996): “It’s a Different World Out There: Planning for Expatriate Success Through Selection, Pre-Departure Training and On-Site Socialization”. Human Resource Planning, 19, 2, 32-47.

Kroeber, A.L. and Kluckhohn, C. (1952): “Culture – A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions”. Papers of Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University.

Landris, D., and Bhagat, R.S., (Eds.) (1996): Handbook of Intercultural Training. Second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lindkvist, Lars, 1988: A Passionate Search for Nordic Management. Copenhagen: Handelshøjskole.

Madsen, T.K. (1990): Cultural Biases of Danish Salespeople Acting in Foreign Cultures. The impact on Export Performance. Working Paper from Department of Marketing, Odense University, series A: Marketing, No.1

Maxwell, J. A. (1996): Qualitative Research Design. An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994): Qualitative Data Analysis. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Paige, R. M. and Martin, J. N. (1996): “Ethics in Intercultural Training”. In Landis D. and Bhagat R. S. (Eds.) (1996): Handbook of Intercultural Training. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Patton, M. Q. (1990): Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Second Edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Rahim, A. (1983): “A Model for Developing Key Expatriate Executives”. Personnel Journal, 62, 4, 312-317.

Romanian Embassy in Denmark (2001): Romania General Survey. URL: http://www.romanianembassy.dk/romania/general.html Quoted:05-12-2001.

Sanchez, J.I., Spector, P.E. and Cooper, C.L. (2000): “Adapting to a boundaryless world: A developmental expatriate model”. The Academy of Management Executive, 14, 2, 96-106.

Sandemose, A. (1938): En flygtling krydser sit spor [A fugitive crosses his own track]. Copenhagen: Gyldendals Bogklub. (Danish translation; original work published in Norwegian, 1933)

Schramm-Nielsen, J. (1991): Dansk-fransk samarbejde i erhvervsvirksomheder – en comparative undersogelse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, København: Københavns Handelshøjskole.

178

Seidman, I.E. (1991): Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schein, E. H. (1985): Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Su, Z. and Richelieu, A. (1999): “Western Managers Working in Romania: Perception and Attitude Regarding Business Ethics”. Journal of Business Ethics, 20, 133-146

Søndergaard, M. (1990): På sporet af den nationale kulturs konsekvenser. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Aarhus: The Aarhus School of Business.

Søndergaard, M. (1994): “Hofstede’s Consequences: A Study of Reviews, Citations and Replications”. Organization Studies, 15/3, 447-456.

Tayeb, M. H. (1988): Organizations and National Culture. London: Sage Publications.

Transparency International (2001): The Corruption Perceptions Index 2001. URL: www.transparency.org/cpi/2001/cpi2001.html Quoted: 25-04-2002.

Triandis, H. C. (1994): Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Trompenaars, F. (1993): Riding the Waves of Culture. Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Tung, R. L. (1988): The New Expatriates: Managing Human Resources Abroad. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing.

World Bank, (2002a): GNI per capita 2000, Atlas method and PPP. URL: http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GNPPC.pdf Quoted: 18-08-2002.

World Bank, (2002b): Change in terminology. URL: http://www.worldbank.org/data/changinterm.html Quoted: 18-08-2002.

Worm, V. (1997): Vikings and Mandarins. Sino-Scandinavian Business Cooperation in Cross-Cultural Settings. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

179