S p r i n gS p r i n gS p r i n gS p r i n gS p r i n g22222 0 00 00 00 00 0 33333

E dE dE dE dE d i i i i i ttttt iiiii ooooo nnnnn

Integrating Culture and Management in Global Organizations

INSIDE

American English:This InternationalBusiness LanguagePrevails

Volume 4, Number 1

Book Reviews

A quarterly publicationproduced by the Intercultural

Management Quarterly and theIntercultural Management

Institute,School of International Service

at American University

Announcing IMISummer SkillsInstitutes

Global Positioning: Negotiating in the Post-Global Worldby Dean Foster

Just a few years ago, it seemed as if profes-sionals in the cross-cultural advisement field wereraising their glasses in celebration. After yearsof spreading the gospel, the word was out andaccepted: working, studying or just plain travel-ing beyond one’s borders required an expecta-tion for and an understanding of behaviors thatwould be different from those encountered athome. In short, culture mattered. And in justabout every area of human activity, if it crossedcultures, it seemed that cultural differences hadto be factored into the equation as a new and vi-tal consideration for success. This, of course,included the process of negotiating: no longercould we seek objective truths about good andbad negotiating in a cultural vacuum, for oncewe negotiated across cultures, cultural differenceswould certainly affect those truths.

Recognizingthe different ways that culturesnegotiated became an important global skill.

In just a few short years, however, glo-balization has so challenged the relevanceof culture that its role is again being ques-tioned, albeit for new and different reasons.If we are all speaking English, more or less,does culture matter? If we are all doing busi-ness by a global set of rules, more or less,does culture matter? If global corporate cul-ture is in fact more powerful than local na-tional culture, does culture matter? Predict-ably, the old questions regarding cross-cul-tural negotiations have also re-surfaced. Docultural differences really matter whenregotiating in a world already so globallyinterconnected? Do cultural differences re-ally affect the processes of negotiations? Has

Negotiating Nuances in Emerging Global Markets:Lessons From the Middle Eastby Jean AbiNader

� Continued on page 4

� Continued on page 8

3

6

7

10

Standardized mechanisms for business trans-actions (e.g., financial documents, customs, pro-cedures, harmonized standards, and similar in-struments) have not eliminated cultural differ-ences that can impact business decisions and re-lationships. Problems continue to be encounteredwhere there are differing assumptions about le-gal terms and issues that lead to competing orconflicting interpretations of the deal. The wide-spread use of English is only one key in facilitat-ing business agreements. Companies doing busi-ness across cultural borders should avoid mak-ing assumptions based on a shared language. Itin fact may sharpen differences that exist, thusjeopardizing the results.

It is strategically important to determineif it is possible to build effective global busi-ness communications strategies and com-pany policies that do not have to continu-ally adapt to local circumstances. The shortanswer is-yes, it is possible; and no, it’s arecipe for failure.

Some recent experiencs in the MiddleEast region, from North Africa to the Gulf,illustrate the problem. There has been a sig-nificant increase in the region in the use ofstandardized practices reflecting increaseparticipation in the global economy. En-glish-speaking locals can be found fromYemen and Qatar to Algeria and Morocco

Product Review:CultureGrams

2

We are pleased to bring you this special issue of the Intercultural Man-agement Quarterly, released in conjunction with the Intercultural Manage-ment Institute’s Spring 2003 Conference “Negotiating Across Cultures: AForum for Business, Education and Training Professionals.” As currentworld events highlight the tremendous value of effective intercultural com-munication and the continuing need for culturally adept negotiators, IMQstrives to capture the most up-to-date and relevant thought on the pressingissues of the field.

This edition of IMQ provides some opposing viewpoints and uniqueinsights on the issues facing global negotiators today. Marvin Epstein’sarticle “American English: This International Business Language Prevails” casts American English as the “best possiblemedium” for international business communications. From a linguistic standpoint, American English provids vocabularyand gramatical constructs that facilitate business communications, particularly in terms of modern technology and com-merce. The relatively low-context nature of the language also answers the “pragmatic imperative to overcome indigenouscultural barriers.” Epstein finally cites the United States’ dominant presence in world affairs as a contributing rationale forthe use of American English as a standard in international business.

In something of a counterpoint, Jean AbiNader challenges the notion of standardized mechanisms for business transac-tions in his article “Negotiating Nuances in Emerging Global Markets.” Through the context of the Middle East, AbiNaderstresses the importance for negotiators to explore cultural bases for decision-making and communications. In negotiations,he says, there is no substitute for genuine cultural awareness and empathy.

In a continuing tradition of excellence, IMQ brings together the worlds of research and practice in a thorough anduseful resource for intercultural specialists. We know you will find this issue a vital component of your work, and wecontinue to welcome your input and article submissions.

Sincerely,Kimball BrownManaging Editor

IMQ Update

The Intercultural Management Quarterly is a student-run, founded, and managed publication. It was established by the International Communication StudentForum at the School of International Service at American University. It combines new and original research being conducted in the field of interculturalmanagement with the applied perspectives of industry experts. The IMQ integrates the experience of students from various areas of concentration at AmericanUniversity. Due to this interdisciplinary approach, the IMQ is a unique knowledge source for professionals.If you are interested in sponsoring an issue of IMQ or contributing an article, please contact the Managing Editor at imqeditor@american.edu.

Editor’s Welcome

email the Managing Editor:

imqeditor@american.edu

To subscribe orto submit articles to the

Intercultural ManagementQuarterly

Intercultural Management QuarterlySchool of International Service

Phone: (202) 885-1846Fax: (202) 885-1331

E-mail: imqeditor@american.edu

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

W A S H I N G T O N , D C

4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20016-8177

Executive Director • Dr. Gary R. WeaverManaging Editor • Kimball Brown

Publication Manager • Heidi Ashton

Contributing WritersJean AbiNaderBarbara BelzerKimball Brown

Marvin M. EpsteinDean Foster

Editorial Review BoardDaniel Yu, Kimball Brown, Dr. Gary R. Weaver,

Heidi Ashton, Terra Gargano, Leeanne Dunsmore

IMQ STAFF

© 2003 Intercultural Management Quarterly

IMQ CONTACT

ReproductionNo part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in

any form or by any means, without permission.

Subscriptions/Submissions:E-mail: imqeditor@american.edu

3

One of the continuing subtexts inthe debate about globalization is thecontroversy over the appropriate lan-guage for international business, par-ticularly in contract negotiations. Oneschool advocates deference to the lan-guage of the host country in all aspectsof commercial intercourse. The corol-lary of this contention is the presump-tion that while contracts and correspon-dence will be ultimately translated intothe language of the guest contry, thattranslation will not bear legal equiva-lency. Another cadre calls for the si-multaneous generation of bilingual (oreven trilingual) texts, and would accordlegal status to all languages, notwith-standing the absence of directly trans-latable verbiage in one or another of thelanguages. (Example: Mandarin Chi-nese has no words equivalent to any ofthe vocabulary used in the technologyof automated production or the jargonof international marketing.)

A reality of the contemporary busi-ness world, however, undercuts allmonolingual, bilingual, or multilingualpreferences. That reality is AmericanEnglish. American English is not justthe prevailing language for internationalbusiness; it is the best possible mediumfor that universe.

The facts rationalizing this realityare three:1. American English has the riches vo-cabulary of any known language, withabout 500,000 standard words inWebster’s Unabridged Dictionary andapproximately 250,000 scientific andtechnical words.2. American English is currently the pre-eminent language of practice in science,technology, and commerce. No otherlanguage- perhaps not even Common-wealth English- introduces and employson a consistent basis all the requisiteterms for both theoretical and applied

American English: This International BusinessLanguage PrevailsBy Marvin M. Epstein

knowledge.3. American English uniquely fills thevoid of deficiency created by the lan-guages of the most important countriescompeting in the international arena.Such languages as Chinese, Japanese,Korean, Russian, and Arabic lack thelinguistic constructs fundamental totransnational or multinational trade andcommerce. Because international busi-ness by necessity and circumstance isas much dependent on delicate nuanceas it is on concrete clarity, it requiresboth connotation and precision in itsverbal and textual exchanges.

Indeed, the issue of language mayhave ceased to be a primary concern ofthe major multinational corporations to-day. Most senior executives educatedand experienced in the internationalarena share a common appreciation forand a working understanding of Ameri-can English. Companies like IBM,Royal Dutch Shell, and Phillips havelong mandated English not only for for-eign subsidiaries and markets, but alsofor internal communications and evenconversation.

The pragmatic imperative to over-come indigenous cultural barriers hasalso imposed the common use of Ameri-can English in international business. Acase in point is Japan, where traditionhas eschewed written contracts. Forcenturies, the conventions of Japanesebusiness stipulated a kind of ambigu-ous “gentleman’s agreement” betweenprincipals, sealed by nothing more thana respectful bow. The only written docu-ments, if any were required, were pre-pared after the fact by functionaries,mainly to define any necessary specifi-cations and/or procedures. Such a loose,informal, and unspecific arrangementcould not begin to accommodate the le-gal exigencies of the post-industrialbusiness world. This milieu typically

involves the participation of multiple na-tions, multiple companies and multiplemarketplaces, all affected by and con-tributing to the complex social, politi-cal and economic environment in whichcontemporary international businessoperates.

Finally, there are pronounced andpowerful geopolitical, geosocial andgeoeconomic forces that animate andadvance American English as the lin-gua franca of international business.These forces origniate in and are gener-ated by the unprecedented position ofthe United States, the world’s only ac-tual and acknowledged megapower.Among America’s commanding influ-ences are those derived from the follow-ing facts:1. The U.S. dollar is the denominatorof most exchanges in international fi-nancial transactions.2. U.S. corporations dominate andlargely control many if not most of theprincipal segments of the internationalmarketplace, either directly or throughsubsidiaries. (Think Boeing, CNN,Coca-Cola, Disney, Exxon Mobil, TheGap, General Electric, IBM, LeviStrauss, Merck, McDonald’s, andMicrosoft. Consider also the unique roleplayed by the principal U.S. money cen-ter banks.)3. The United States likely constitutesthe largest and most lucrative singlemarket for all of the world’s goods andservices. Money and profit talk loudlyand coherently when applied to the pro-duction and consumption of globalproducts and commodities.

Ultimately, the question of languagein the global business community ismoot. American English is, and will forthe foreseeable future continue to be, thesole language for transnational, multi-national, and international business.

4

the mantra of multiculturalism recededto just a dull background drone in theface of what really goes on at the glo-bal negotiating table?

From Newton to EinsteinLet’s get in a time machine and

travel not too far back to a world wherethe concept of investigating “negotia-tions” was a new idea. This was aworld premised on enlightened scien-tific rationalism where we could hopeto investigate a concern like negotiat-ing, and expect our efforts to yieldcertain principles, methods or lawsabout what works and what doesn’twhen human beings negotiate. Sig-nificant scientific research, in fact, didproduce some very valuable prin-ciples, laws and methods, in regard toeffective and ineffective negotiating,and something of a science of negoti-ating came into being. However, inmany ways, this research mirrored itstime, with the end-product being “uni-versals” about negotiating which weretrue only to a point, that point beingthe “real world” of multiculturalism.

Suddenly, these “truths” aboutnegotiating, when applied cross-cul-turally, had to be adjusted, for whatmay have been true in the culture inwhich they were researched, was nolonger the case when moved abroad.The pre-global world of categories,principles and laws unaffected by cul-tural differences now had to become,in the multicultural global world, morelike guiding frameworks or perspec-tives from which to look at negotiat-ing, but which needed to be bent,changed, re-defined, from time to timeand place to place, depending upon theactual people involved. The scientificinvestigation of negotiating movedfrom an attempt to discover a perfectmechanistic set of truths to acceptingthe messy notion of cultural relativ-ism. In short, it moved from a pre-

global Newtonian world to a globalEinsteinian world where culture madeall the former rules relative.

The Original Ten CommandmentsSo what were those seminal sci-

entific negotiating truths? And howdid we have to adjust them accordingto cultural requirements? For starters,we learned that there were essentialelements to the process of negotiating.All negotiations, for example, in-volved considering the following ele-ments:Values: these are non-negotiable be-liefs, often used as justifications forone’s position, and they must be un-derstood, respected, and deflected, inorder to focus on the priority needs atthe table.Positions: these are typically the statedobjectives of one side; they may ormay not reflect priority interests.Underlying priority needs: these areoften the true requirements that oneside has, but may or may not be putforward clearly or immediately.A requirement for re-framing:almostall negotiations must be re-framedaway from values and positions tounderlying priority needs, in order forsuccess to be perceived by both sides.A search for alternative solutions: thisis the creative problem-solving pro-cess that is the hallmark of a success-ful negotiation.

Additionally, most all negotiationsapparently move through severalstages, beginning with:Ritual-sharing: a period of relation-ship-building, where substantive is-sues are typically not brought forward.Positioning: typically that time in anegotiation where positions are re-vealed and challenged.Problem solving: typically the end ofthe negotiation where objections topositions and values are overcome anda search for the satisfaction of prior-

ity needs occurs.And finally, all negotiations gen-

erally occur within a climate that iseither collaborative (win-win) or com-petitive (win-lose).

Skilled negotiators master a set ofbehaviors that allows them to manageall of these elements to their advan-tage, while novice negotiators, orthose unaware of these issues, tend tobe less successful at the negotiatingtable.

Enter the Cultural AnthropologistsWhat were the cultural consider-

ations that had to be factored into thenegotiations equation once the scien-tific research met the global world?Essentially, that values were often cul-turally based, that culture affected thedegree to which negotiators would putforward positions or reveal underly-ing needs, that certain cultures weremore or less pre-disposed or not tosearch for alternative solutions, andthat the speed and degree to whichnegotiations moved through their par-ticular stages was also highly depen-dent upon culture. Perhaps most im-portantly, we learned that cultureplayed a significant role in determin-ing whether or not the negotiationwould proceed in a collaborative orcompetitive climate, and whether theexpected outcome would be win/winor win/lose. These differences werethe result of the influence of culturalvalues, categorized by cultural anthro-pologists as follows:Status/hiearchy v. egality orientation:the degree to which a culture sawgreater value in organization and struc-ture or efficiency and access.Individualistic v. other-dependent ori-entation: the degree to which a cul-ture saw greater value in independentaction or group consensus.Relationship v. rule orientation: thedegree to which a culture saw greatervalue in personal relationships or theuniversal application of rules.

Global Positioning... � Continued from page 1

5

Monochronic v. polychronic time ori-entation: the degree to which a cul-ture saw greater value in organizingand compartmentalizing time and ac-tivity or not.Risk-comfort vs. risk-avoidant orien-tation: the degree to which a culturesaw greater value in taking risk ormoving cautiously.Past vs. future orientation: the degreeto which a culture would emphasizepast accomplishments or future pos-sibilities.High vs. low context orientation: thedegree to which a culture saw greatervalue in communicating implicitly orexplicitly.Process vs. results orientation: the de-gree to which a culture emphasizeddetail and process or end result.Formal vs. informal orientation: thedegree to which a culture valued pro-tocols and formalities or not.

At the negotiating table, thismeant that we saw culture’s influenceon the negotiation process specificallyin a number of areas:The basic concept of the negotiation:Win/lose or win/win? Collaborative orCompetitive? This set the tone andaffects the climate, and the degree towich the climate can be changed.The selection of the negotiators:Based on what criteria? Status? Gen-der or age? Rank? Family associa-tion? Or competency, previous expe-rience or qualifications?The importance of protocol: What tra-ditions and customs do we need tofollow? How do we greet each other?Where do we sit? Do we negotiateover meals?The style of communications: Is non-verbal important? How do we con-firm understanding? How do we com-municate disagreement?Risk-taking propensity: Who can saywhat and to whom and when? Howmuch information needs to be sharedand with whom before progress ismade?

Decision making: Is decision-makingdone by a group or by an individual?Do we need total consensus? Major-ity? Who makes the decision, an in-dividual, or several people? Are allthe decision-makers at the table?The final nature of the agreement: Isit a legal tome? A short memorandumof understanding? Or is it a hand-shake?

Of Icebergs and Solar WindsBut the time machine does not

stop here. If the global world addedthe factor of cultural relativism to thepre-global world’s analysis of the pro-cess of negotiation, what happens tothe equation when we enter the post-global world of today? Today, in ad-dition to considering culture, we mustadd a third factor to the equation, thatbeing the forces of globalization,which powerfully affect our behav-iors, including those at the negotiationtable. Today, these profound, univer-sal forces of globalization affect notonly the traditional elements of nego-tiating, but the degree and ways inwhich cultures also affect the process.In this new post-global world, we mustunderstand not only the Newtonianmechanics of negotiation, and theEinsteinian relativity of cultures, butthe environment of quantum forces inwhich this is occuring.

Admittedly, the equation is gettingcomplex, so perhaps updating someuseful models could be helpful. A tra-ditional model of culture has been tovisualize culture as an iceberg, wherethe tip of the iceberg-the small perceiv-able part-is tiny (about 10%) whencompared with the larger (about 90%)invisible part. The visible tip abovethe surface represents the visible be-haviors we demonstrate to each other,including those at the negotiationtable; the invisible bulk of the iceberg,hidden under the surface, representsthe deeper values, belief systems, tra-ditions and ultimately history, that

drive the visible behaviors we revealto each other around the elements,stages and climate of a negotiation areoften the result of deeper cultural val-ues that are hidden from view. Fairenough, as far as it goes. However, ina global world, all the icebergs float-ing around in the global sea are nowimpacted by universal forces of glo-balization, which may be representedby values, technology, mass transpor-tation, mass migration, the fall of na-tional boundaries, the establishment ofregional trade zones, the globalizationof mass culture and English, etc.When these forces impact individualcultures, when the sun shines on thevarious cultural icebergs floating intoday’s world, several phenomena oc-cur: The visible tips change first; melt-ing (or melding of cultures) at thedeeper levels takes much longer, andtraditional values stay frozen a verylong time; superficial change at thevisible level seems to be the same,while frozen values under the surfaceremain different, increasing the dispar-ity between visible behavior and un-derlying values; as icebergs melt, hid-den deeper values under the surfacerise to the surface, become exposed,and increase in their visibility; asicebers melt, the attributes of one flowinto another, albeit slowly, and in uni-dentifiable ways.

Successful negotiating in today’spost-global world requires that weunderstand the impact that these post-global phenomena have on culture,just as we have had to considerculture’s impact on the original inves-tigation in the global world. Forcesof globalization have changed the na-ture of culture’s impact on negotiationbehaviors, in identifiable ways.

Of Stereotypes and ArchetypesCulture in the pre-global world

had four defining characteristics: anyparticular culture’s attributes were

� Continued on page 10

6

As a compilation of scholarly ar-ticles encompassing the challenges fac-ing Global Nomads in today’s Ameri-can society, this book should have aprominent place in the library of any-one interested in the topic. Someonewith more than a casual interest will findinformation to enhance their knowledgeand inspire further research. Within thechapters included in this volume,Morten Ender has included some of themost prominent scholars in the field.With only a few expetions, the chaptersare well written, informative, andintriguing.

Children who grow up in organiza-tional families have characteristics thatset them apaprt from mainstream Ameri-can kids. For clarification, organiza-tional families are those for whom thereis, in effect, a larger family- the militaryservice (the United States Army, Namy,Air Force, Marines), U.S. Foreign Ser-vice, the Peace Corps, international cor-porations, and the like. The organiza-tion has an impact on the individual fam-ily unit often with expected behaviorsthat supercede and override the corefamily unit. Children of families whoare part of a larger, hierarchical organi-zation may conduct themselves differ-ently in social setting with their peers,in their interactions with adults bothwithin and outside their community,which is often carried over through ado-lescence into adulthood. Several chap-ters address various aspects of the be-havior of these children with their ex-tended community of theri organizationand their transition into adulthood.Their behavior is beyond representativeof themselves and is essentially that ofthe entire organization and, perhaps

most imprtantly, those children feel aresponsibility toward the organizationat large.

Of particular note are the chaptersoffered to us by Karen Cachevki Will-iams and LisaMarie Liebenow Mariglia,Military Brats: Issues and Associationsin Adulthood and by Morton Ender,Beyond Adolescence: The Experiencesof Adult Children of Military Parents.Both articles reflect careful, thoughtfulresearch and thorough knowledge ofculture and intercultural relations.

Williams and Mariglia write that theconduct of the child (or children) of amilitary family reflects not only on thefamily, but the service member and theservice in general. Described in thechapter is the aspect of a closed society,one that is highly associative with as-cribed roles of a patriarchal community.It is a well-written chapter reflecting acomprehensive understanding of thesocio-anthropological research ofEnward Hall and others.

Morton Ender examines the culturalseparateness adult children of militaryand other organizational families feelwhen compared to their non-deployedcounterparts. They seek each other out,as they have shared experiences thatextend beyond those of their “civilian”brothers and sisters. He concentratedon the adult children with the averageage in the study being 39, and it repre-sents the largest study of this group todate. He discusses, among other things,the apparent movement to connect withothers who have like childhood experi-ences and, in effect, legitimizing theirexperiences “growing up mobile andabroad.” Ender’s research in and of it-self aids in the legitimization of the ex-

B o o k R e v i e wMILITARY BRATS AND OTHER GLOBAL NOMADS: GROWING UP IN

ORGANIZATIONAL FAMILIES Edited by Morten G. Ender

Review by Barbara Belzer

� Continued on page 9

periences of these adult children.In addition, the chapter by Robert

S. McKelvey, Vietnamese Amerasians:In Search of Identity in Their Fathers’Land, sensitively describes those indi-viduals who may have begun life as“Children of the Dust,” but have aunique bond and community as theybecame an integral part of Americansociety. As mixed race children, theyhad no status in the societies of theirbirth. These children were ostracized,denied any status at all in society andoften left homeless and without hope.Not part of society, these children weredenied cultural connection with thehomeland of their mother, and their pa-ternity being a source of shame. Theywere, in effect, no more that “Childrenof the Dust.” These individuals’ uniquestatus given to them in 1994 with theAmerasian Homecoming Act (PL 100-202), raised them from outcast status inthe country of their birth but it by nomeans erased the difficulty experiencedin their early years. It is noted inMcKelvey’s article that further researchis most definitely warranted. The chil-dren fathered by American servicemenin Asia have faced significant problemsin their maternal cultures. Those whocame to the U.S. faced even more com-plex difficulties as their fathers havegone on, in a large part, with their liveshaving little or no thoughts for the off-spring they left behind. Further studycan bring better understanding of thechallenges facing thses children.

In most of the remaining chapters,the overriding sense that the identityformation occurs without thought orfanfare among mainstream Americanyouth is of utmost importance to those

7

Even with a broad knowledge ofall the modern culture-related con-cepts (i.e. hi/low context, individual-ism/collectivism, time-orientation,etc.), a wise interculturalist knows theimportance of learning specific cus-toms and practices of a foreign cul-ture, especially when interacting withthat culture for the first time. Pub-lished by Axiom Press, CultureGramsprovide a concise introduction to sev-eral aspects of a culture, with infor-mation ranging from history andeconomy to religion and language toeating habits and family lifestyles.Developed almost thirty years ago asa tool for educators and missionaries,CultureGrams continue to be a valu-able resource for those about to beimmersed in a foreign culture. Theyare common fare among soldiers, For-eign Service officers and Peace Corpsvolunteers, as well as educational in-stitutions and international firms andorganizations.

Among the virtues ofCultureGrams are their uniformity andconcision. Each four-page countryprofile is packed with information infive general categories: background,

PRODUCT REVIEW:CULTUREGRAMS (AXIOM PRESS, BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY)Review by Kimball Brown

Interested in contributing to IMQ? Have researchor experience to share? Please contact us!

Intercultural Management QuarterlyAmerican University

4400 Massachusetts Ave., NWWashington, D.C. 20016-8177

Phone: 202-885-1846Fax: 202-885-1331

Email: imqeditor@american.edu

people, customs and courtesies,lifestyles, and society. Each also con-tains maps, development data, coun-try contact information, and a “at-a-glance” update of events and trendsthat are not necessarily commonknowledge, but add insight to the cul-ture and lifestyle. CultureGramsaren’t your run-of-the-mill anecdotal

“dos and don’ts” travel guides. Theinformation is relevant and up-to-date,composed by natives and experts, andrevised annually. The digital version,available on CD-Rom or online, ex-pands on the print version, offeringsound clips, additional graphics andinformation and a collection of inter-national recipes.

These virtues, however, also posesome limitations to CultureGrams.Being only four pages long, they can-not provide a truly in-depth look atculture. And while not weighed downwith technical cross-cultural jargon,they do not utilize many of the cul-ture-related concepts that have be-come standard in the field. Knowl-edge about “internal” culture must beinterpreted from information on themore visible cultural characteristicsand behaviors. Another limitation isCultureGrams’ categorization bycountry, which often restricts theamount of culture-specific informa-tion presented on individualcultures within a multi-culture coun-try.

Still, CultureGrams do provide anexcellent introduction to the customs,traditions, and lifestyles of a culture.And though they are by no means asubstitute for actual cross-culturaltraining, they are a valuable resourcefor the educator, student, traveler, orinterculturalist.

Information and product demoavailable at: www.culturegrams.com

8

to represent most US companies. De-spite this trend, there are still cultur-ally determined hurdles that charac-terize “business as usual.” Informalsurveys of business publications andtravelers in other emerging marketsindicate that this is also the case inmuch of Latin America, Africa, andAsia.

On the surface, people are learn-ing what Americans want and adapt-ing their behaviors to the immediatesituation, i.e., contractual agreements,control of time, limited social inter-actions, and the preeminence of tech-nology. As more and more “business”people now “wear” the same types ofbehaviors, American goods and ser-vices have become less distinctive andface the onslaught of global competi-tiveness. In pursuing their businessobjectives, therefore, U.S. companiesneed to examine their assumptionsabout dealing in international marketsand build on their competitive advan-tages. This includes checking somecherished notions, such as:

“People who talk my talk, walk mywalk.” If they speak English, thenthey should understand how to act inways Americans can understand andtrust.

“Price still drives a deal.” If it’sa level playing field, then costs, notrelationships, drive results.

“Coping with individuals as dis-tinctive personalities is the key to suc-cess. Culture manifests itself ingroups. Groups don’t sign contracts,individuals do.”

Cultural conflict is often observedin business negotiations. In competi-tive situations, the best and worst be-haviors often emerge. Arab expectAmerican behaviors to range frompatronizing and rude to acquiescentand docile during negotiations.Americans dealing with Arab antici-

pate behaviors ranging from sullen andconniving to clever and gregarious.After more than three decades of busi-ness transactions, Arabs and Ameri-can have, to a degree, learned whatworks with the other, from drinkingcoffee, making small talk, adding con-tingencies, and gestures of friendship,to being on time, respecting perfor-mance markers, and making decisionsin “this lifetime.”

What has changed in the last gen-eration is that both parties use tacticsthat reassure the other party that theseare serious discussions leading to ne-gotiations. Tactics reflect the here andnow, what is needed to get the desiredresults. If the Arab or American wantsto make a deal and accept the param-eters that frame the possible solutions,then a deal will happen. If, for somereason, either party vacillates or isunsure, then a series of non-compli-ant cultural behaviors dominate anddivert the negotiations. What is hardto determine, from either perspective,is when the obstacles are a tactic orthe result or a decision or indecisionnot to proceed.

Trying to balance the need for re-sults with the necessity of buildingrelationships for long-term business isoften when conflicts occur. Ameri-cans, in a hurry, want a quick decisionfrom the other party and assurancesthat all conditions will be satisfacto-rily met. The Arabs, if they also wanta decision, will evaluate the usual dealcomponents (price, quality, service,delivery, payment terms) in a largercontext that includes risk, timeliness,and collateral benefits. Most West-erners need to spend more time rec-ognizing how these cultural variablesmake or break the deal. This will onlyhappen if they spend the time to thinkS.M.A.R.T.

Anyone, Arab or American, can

benefit from thinking S.M.A.R.T., i.e.,understanding local cultural condi-tions that come into play during ne-gotiations, particularly contentiousones.

S is for Society. Knowing howthe system works and what matters tothe people you’re dealing with re-quires more homework when youcross cultural boundaries. Generally,the other party knows more about theAmericans than we know about them-a mixed blessing since their stereo-types may be no more useful than ours.

M is for Market. How theeconomy functions and how you canprotect your company is critical infor-mation. Keeping up with changes maybe the difference beween makingmoney and being taken advantage of.

A is for Action Orientation. Howothers make decisions is importantintelligence. Ask around, visit the U.S.Embassy; talk with those who havebeen successful before; then havesomeone as you reality check. Obvi-ously, decisions are being made con-stantly. Learn how to get the answersyou want.

R is for Rules of the Game. Themost dynamic area in emerging mar-kets is the growth of regulations gov-erning transactions. Behind these re-gimes are local practices that still func-tion. Gathering good data will ensurethat you’re fully protected and up-to-date.

T is for The Wish List. Simplystated, the key is to present how theproduct, service, or proposed relation-ship meets their goals- the basics ofany sales approach. Too often thesales approach is “explaining what’s

Negotiating Nuances... � Continued from page 1

� Continued on page 9

9

in their interests” without really un-derstanding their perceptions of thedeal. We end up sounding patroniz-ing and glib, at best.

For those who are uncomfortablewith ambiguity, here are some usefulparameters for building effective com-munications strategies across cultures,subject to kismet oand other reason-able caveats.1. Gatekeepers, e.g., office directors,play a critical role in managing trafficfor their managers; don’t expect spe-cial treatment because of your nation-ality, religion, affiliations, or otherconsiderations. Show gatekeepers thecourtesy required to get your item onthe agenda and the time needed topresent it thoroughly.2. Don’t take language skills forgranted. Speaking English does notmean confidence in technical or spe-cialized terms. Simplify texts andcontracts, and be comfortable withsmall talk.3. Despite what you hear, try to con-trol your public consumption or useof alcoholic beverages, even where it’slegal.4. Non-verbal behaviors still havesome importance but they don’t expectyou to know the subtler eye, hand, andbody gestures. Some Americans tendto over-react about non-verbals, whichmay be better than being an oaf.Watch excessive hand gestures suchas pointing in someone’s face; avoidthe soles of your feet in someone’s lineof vision; and be gracious about peoplesharing your personal space.5. Learn how religious or culturalpractices affect business transactions,e.g., work hours, prayer times, mod-est dress, conversations with the op-posite sex, acceptable humor, gift-giv-ing, and use of certain expressions.6. Remember there are different so-cial rules for you and for the Arabs.You are the foreigners, the one who isdifferent, not the Arabs.7. Learn some Arabic: greetings, formsof address, how to bargain; it’s not too

� Continued from page 6

Military Brats andOther Global Nomads

difficult.8. Learn how to manage conflicts byusing intermediaries and respectedleaders.

9. Do not personalize conflicts withthe “system” such as lousy drivers,work not done on time, missed ap-pointments, pushing in lines, or otherannoyances. Everybody has the sameproblems; it’s not just you.

Does the observance of theseguidlines guarantee success? No, butit will certainly make it easier for youto feel comfortable doing you job, andthat level of confidence and the righttools are the best road to travel.

Jean AbiNader is Managing Director ofIdeaCom.Inc, (www.ideacomusa.com).based in Washington, D.C. He has morethan 30 years of intercultural businesstraining and coaching experience for U.S.and international clients. Mr. AbiNaderis an adjunct professor at GeorgetownUniversity where he teaches a graduatecourse in International Marketing issues.

individuals who grow up outside theirpassport “home” in a community thatgives them their uniqueness. Of thesechapters, especially noteworthy arethose of Kathleen A. Finn Jordan, Iden-tity Formation and the Adulty ThirdCulture Kid and Ann Baker Cottrell,Education and Occupational Choices ofAmerican Adulty Third Culture Kids.These authors stress the developmentalprocess of identity formation and theaffect it has on the adult lives of the chil-dren of organizational families. the re-search contained within these chapterssuccinctly summarizes the challengeswithout diminishing the experiences ofadult third cultured kids.

This volume was likely a signifi-cant challenge to bring together. It isdifficult to write on this topic in a man-ner that is both engaging and representssound research methods. Research inthe social sciences is always difficultyto quantify- to present in such a way thatthose who are schooled in the hard sci-ences can appreciate. Morton Enderwas able to gather, for the most part,authors who presented their informationin a way that is both interesting and canprovide a fellow researcher with enoughinformation to include in further study.

VISIT THE INTERCULVISIT THE INTERCULVISIT THE INTERCULVISIT THE INTERCULVISIT THE INTERCULTURAL MANATURAL MANATURAL MANATURAL MANATURAL MANAGEMENT QGEMENT QGEMENT QGEMENT QGEMENT QUARUARUARUARUARTERLTERLTERLTERLTERLYYYYYWEBSITE:WEBSITE:WEBSITE:WEBSITE:WEBSITE:

wwwwwwwwwwwwwww.imquarterly.imquarterly.imquarterly.imquarterly.imquarterly.or.or.or.or.orggggg

The IMQ website features:

current issue with expanded versions of articlesinformation about the contributors

archive of previous issuessubmission information

contact information

10

Announcing the Intercultural Management InstituteSummer 2003 Skills Institutes

To be held on the campus of American University in the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C.

Multicultural TeambuildingJuly 19-20, Lance DescourouezThis institute will explore effective communication skills andproblem-solving techniques to utilize when working withteams whose members are from more than one culturalbackground. Interpersonal and organizational approacheswill be examined to help participants create tools for recog-nizing the strengths of and developing cohesion amongmulticultural teams and individual team members, whileacknowledging the contexts in which teams often function.

For more information or to register, contact Heidi Ashton atimi@american.edu or 202-885-6439.

Registration forms and additional information available atwww.imi.american.edu

Global Positioning... � Continued from page 5

easily stereotyped; these attributeswere bound to the cultures in whichthey originated; these attributes weredescreet and independent of the out-side world; and these attributes wereused to define what made its peopledifferent from others.

The post-global world has turnedthese four defining characteristics ofculture on their head: any particularculture’s attributes are archetypal, notsteoreotypical (that is, they representhuman behaviors that are possible any-where); these attributes are indepen-dent of the cultures in which theyoriginated (that is, they can easily befound in many different cultures);these attributes are wholly dependentupon the outside world for their na-

ture and their survival; and these at-tributes become a primary way to bindpeople of different cultures together.

Globalization, therefore, has notmade cultural difference irrelevant, ordiminished its impact or importance,but it has changed how cultural dif-ferences need to be considered.Rather than reducing or minimizingtheir relevance, globalization, as wesaw in the iceberg, in fact, raises deepcultural differences to a level of aware-ness, while making it appear as if simi-larities are developing at a superficiallevel. The disparity between appar-ent homogenization on the surface andsevere differences rising from belowcan result in situations of extreme cul-ture clash and dislocation.

Toward a More Complex EquationAt the negotiating table, the

skilled post-global negotiator needs tomanage this quantum environmentwhere cultural attributes may be ris-ing and falling at the same time, invarious degrees, depending upon thecultures represented at the table.Skilled post-global negotiators mustalso be able to re-frame cultural dif-ferences into behavioral options thatthe other side may not have previouslyknown, but which can satisfy theirpriority needs in new and differentways. Most importantly, skilled post-global negotiators have to master allthree factors in the post-global nego-tiation equation, in order to be success-ful in this quantum, post-global world.

Multicultural ManagementJuly 25-26, Dr. Gary Weaver and Dr. Geert HofstedeThis institute will explore the topic of multicultural manage-ment through interactive methods, while helping participantsto develop the cultural awareness and tools to assume lead-ership roles in diverse settings. The institute will deal with aselection of new applications for Hofstede’s five-dimensionalmodel of national cultures, including culture and personal-ity, the structure of languages, consumer behavior, entre-preneurship, business goals, corporate governance, cross-border ventures, economic development, perceivedcorruptin, and gender, sex, and religiosity.