Cross-Culture

How Finns and French Interact in Business

The prospect of a union between Nokia and Alcatel raises the question: How well will Finnish and French executives interact?  What will YVES MARTIN, TAUNO TAHTINEN or RITVA VAULAMO have to do to combine effectively in an international team?

Finnish team members’ characteristicts

Finland: Tauno Tahtinen and Ritva Vaulamo

Finnish males are reserved, often introvert, by nature and may seem less than cheerful when joining an international team. Tauno Tähtinen, initially unsmiling, has a firm handshake but says little after being introduced and takes stock of his companions before revealing his views. He distrusts verbosity, enjoys silences and is good at self-effacement. In due course, he will venture his opinions, but will limit his words to what he considers is necessary. Gossip and idle chat are alien to him; he has been taught not to pry or to impose his views on a listener. He has an independent streak and resists persuasion by others. One cannot twist Tauno’s arm. He dislikes the hard sell; even charisma is suspect. He never gushes and frequently appears pessimistic. When left alone, he obviously enjoys his solitude. For sociable Italians and exuberant Spaniards he is enigmatic, opaque and unfathomable.

In spite of his gruff exterior, Tauno has a heart of gold. He brings to the team not only efficiency and utter reliability, but he is essentially a very modern individual, possessing the type of perspicacity and inventiveness which enabled Finns to transform their struggling, war-battered state in 1945 into one of the most developed countries in the world. The exponential rise of Nokia from tyres and timber to leading the world’s telecommunications industry is indicative of the Finns and their characteristic business style. Tauno’s colleagues may ask themselves: how did Finland at the turn of the century become number one in global competitiveness? Why is Finland dominating the field of mobile phones? How did she become the world leader in managing water resources? Why is she designated annually (along with Japan and Korea) top in educational standards? Why are Finns regarded as the ideal peace-keepers? Why does she lead the world in environmental sustainability? Why has Finland won more Olympic medals per capita than any other nation?

Tauno probably knows the answers to many of these questions, but he is not likely to tell you. Finns are modest about their achievements and rarely mention them. They are, however, intensely proud of what they have done and have innate self-confidence (though that was not the case until the end of the 20th century). In the post-war period, they suffered from a periodic inferiority complex; it took them several decades of effort and struggle to convince themselves that they really were the best. Now they believe they are more efficient than Germans and work faster than Americans, but it rarely escapes their lips. Suffice it to say that their standards of truth, honesty and task orientation are irreproachable. Though jealous of their privacy and the right to dissent, they have a strong concept of service. Their tenacity (sisu) is legendary.

Tauno is a valuable ally to his team leader. Though decidedly reticent in discussions, he has a habit of delivering succinct summaries in the latter stages of a meeting. His colleagues notice that though he speaks little, he is worth listening to when he does. His apparent pessimism (for he often makes gloomy pronouncements) turns out to be realism. Finns regard statements as promises; Tauno is careful not to forecast anything he cannot deliver. His countrymen have retained humility in the midst of their success. Any form of boasting is taboo in Finland; adherence to facts and accuracy is mandatory. One of the great advantages of having a Finn in the team is that he is always willing to discuss worst scenarios as well as best ones. This is a valuable resource for a chairman who might feel his group is getting carried away by (American or Italian) optimism. Tauno is a good listener and hardly ever interrupts a colleague. If he disagrees, however, he will say so at the end. His directness is legendary and he is not afraid of confrontation, though he remains polite. The structure and thrust of the Finnish language does not calibrate too closely with Indo-European tongues, so that occasionally he may sound brusque (too blunt) for delicate listeners like Swedes or Japanese. Finns are in fact hardly ever impolite to the point of rudeness, but sometimes have to learn to soften their expressions as English people tend to (“That’s an original thought” = “That won’t work”).

Team managers find they can rely on Tauno’s work ethic, diligence, decisiveness and courage, fidelity, straightforwardness and dry humour. He has respect for authority; he considers status is gained through achievement. He is of course democratic and classless. As a citizen of a young, vibrant nation, he is result- and future-oriented. His twin ideals are reliability and capability.

Tauno, though reticent, has transparent goals. The team leader can motivate him by being transparent himself – open, direct and to the point. People managing Finns must remain low key at all times, display modesty and understatement. Tauno is not terribly interested in small talk; one has a cup of coffee and then starts. Importance is attached to accuracy: what is said is more important than who says it. Tauno likes clear instructions and then wants freedom to carry them out. A manager should never hover over a Finn. Finns need both physical and mental space. Give a Finn a task and he will go away and do it, preferably alone. He will bring the results to you in due course. It does, however, pay for a team leader to share his planning early on with a Finn and ask him for his ideas. If he does not, the Finn will proceed alone to an entrenched position from which it will be difficult to dislodge him later.

Tauno’s pace is steady and consistent, but not overly hurried. The day should finish with an understanding of items agreed upon. Mutual agreements must be adhered to, no debt of any kind must be left hanging. Protocol is minimal, lunches are quick. Almost any service or help can be extracted from a Finnish colleague by showing him that you are relying on him. The team leader should be willing to share Tauno’s silences, learn a few words of Finnish, know the name of the Finnish President and refrain from praising the Swedes or Russians too much.

Cultural traits attributed to Tauno Tähtinen, particularly with regard to communication, reflect attitudes of the Finnish male in social and business situations. Finnish women, such as Ritva Vaulamo, while sharing many of the same characteristics, are nevertheless much more outgoing than the men, displaying few signs of uneasiness in the presence of foreigners. The Finnish woman could be described as strong-willed, adventurous, restless, often fearless, not without charm, and decidedly in love with life. Her level of education is second to no one in the world of women, and this gives her a feeling of self-confidence, making her a force to be reckoned with in international business.

As a communicator, Ritva Vaulamo outshines Tauno. She often commands three or four languages (speaking better English than many British girls). Unlike the Finnish male, she plays her full part in a two-way conversation, not missing her ‘turn’ and shunning reflective silences so popular with Finnish men. She has many of the communicative qualities they would dearly like to have. With foreigners she does not always find the right message, but usually she finds the right response.

The number of Finnish women participating in multi-national teams is growing rapidly. (Perhaps the most famous to date has been Sari Baldauf, President of Nokia Cellular Systems). The trend for the future is quite clear. Given their ability to establish early rapport with non-Finns, Finnish women have been somewhat under-utilised. Ritva has much of the attractive, human-oriented magnetism that is required in an international group and has developed the psychological skills to enable her to interact successfully with ethnic cultures differing widely from her own.

French Team Members’ Characteristics

France: Yves Martin

Yves Martin is a Parisian, with all the clear-sightedness and quick imagination typical of the people of that city. The team leader has to keep an eye on him, for French people believe in their uniqueness (just as Japanese and Chinese do), the difference being that in the case of the French they are not shy in telling you about it. Their vivacity is such that they often see others as somewhat wooden. They accept the authority of a chairman, but are not afraid to be maverick. As they tend to clarify their own thoughts through wordiness (ruminating aloud), this can cause meetings to over-run.

While a Frenchman may not be an ideal member of any international team that wants to run smoothly and harmoniously, he nevertheless has a lot of positives to contribute.

His perceptive and quick mind will animate a team (on occasion he can set it on fire). Yves Martin is consistent – that is to say, that although he is clearly opinionated and pushes his proposals forward with vigour, he does not desert logic. Rationality – indeed Cartesian logic – is the cornerstone of French argumentation. Cartesian logic is related to Rene Descartes, French philosopher and mathematician (1596-1650).

Descartes’ methods of deduction and intuition inform modern metaphysics. The theory is to doubt all one’s impulsive ideas, but to find one indubitable truth or fact, then focus on it and proceed to build theories and propositions on it. This gives French people great confidence and momentum in pursuing an argument. Others, such as Japanese or Americans, may find fault with this approach, being guided perhaps by different cognitive processes (Asian) or simply fondness for ‘hunches’ (American). They may also judge the ‘indubitable’ truth as ‘dubious’.

Yves Martin will display considerable determination using this type of logic. Like most Frenchmen, he would rather be right than popular. It is often said that French people regard theories as more important than truth and may ignore certain facts for this reason. An official of the British Statistics Board, working on an Anglo-French team, actually quoted his French counterpart, who had been clearly shown that a certain pump had functioned perfectly for 18 months, as saying “Yes, it may work in practice, but does it work in theory?”

To be fair to Yves, he will cooperate with you readily if you defeat his logic. After that, he will be hospitable towards your suggestions and will remain your supporter and good friend forever. As long as you remain rational, of course. He is human and considerate – he just sets great store by clarity of thought and vision and always has in mind the historical perspective. He can live in the present, also be futuristic, but basically he is firmly past-oriented. The past is not dead; in fact (as Faulkner said) it is not yet even past.

French executives in teams, also at high-level international meetings (GATT, OECD, etc) not infrequently conflict with colleagues, in big and small ways. During team projects they irritate Anglo-Saxons and others by digressing from the agenda at regular intervals. They do this more than any other nationality, except perhaps Italians. Their reasoning is this: all items leading to progress on the project are inter-related: one thing affects another. If you fire M Dupont unconditionally during Item 2, you will be in desperate straits if he is the only staff member who can help you out in a vital matter which comes up in item 6.

The French have a deep-rooted distrust of the Anglo-Saxon habit of segmenting issues and finalising solutions in sequence. Discussion of the project should, in their view, be all-embracing, that is to consider actions and decisions from a lot of different viewpoints, before finalizing anything. Perhaps it is better not to decide today, but leave it till tomorrow, or even later. Anglo-Saxons habitually dislike leaving anything ‘hanging in the air’. One English chairman, working together with his loquacious and digressive French counterpart, (on a Chunnel committee I attended regularly), used to take up his pencil at 4pm every afternoon (after hours of deliberations) and say wearily, “Mr Chairman, could we please both write down any points we have agreed on?” The Englishman was not too aware that French people regard conversation as an art, and consequently have no objection to prolonging it for its own sake.
Another recurrent problem is that posed by the French sense of intellectual superiority. A Frenchman does not fully believe that a Finn, American, Swede, Slovenian or Bulgarian (among others) can ever really tell him anything he does not know. Consequently he does not listen too carefully to Americans or minor nationalities and may often adopt a condescending or patronizing tone when he addresses them. He shows a little more respect to opinions of the older, ‘established’ nations – Germany, Britain, Spain and Italy – but even with them it is a close thing.

According to modern scientists and psychologists, there exist no differences in the intellectual capacities of any human beings, whether they be Europeans, Asians, Americans, Arabs, Africans or from elsewhere. What, therefore, gives French people the belief, or inclination, to think otherwise? While most of us think we can discount the belief summarily, I see it slightly differently. We talk of the 20th century being the American century and the 19th as being the British one. If we think this way, there is no doubt that the French dominated, in the Western world at least, the 18th, 17th and 16th centuries. Does intellectual strength derive to some extent from experience? For three or four centuries the French developed expertise in a great number of fields: science, medicine, military affairs, law and civic administration, colonization, construction of infrastructure, large-scale transportation, political systems and perhaps most importantly a dominant position in the arts (painting, sculpture, music and the most extensive literature in the Western world).

With this background in the arts and sciences, not to mention their tremendous and far-reaching exposure in world affairs, is it not justifiable for a French person to assume a certain intellectual superiority towards aboriginals or Indians from the depths of the Amazonian jungle and others who have led comparatively secluded and isolated lives?

The question is: can one apply this principle also to others such as Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Albanians, Polynesians, Inuits and Navajos? And where does one draw the line? The French, who gave up any plans they might have had to conquer or dominate the world, still believe that it is their mission to civilise it. That was the avowed aim of François Malraux when he was appointed Minister of Culture by De Gaulle in 1974. The French still spend more money supporting the Instituts Français around the world than the British and Germans spend combined on the British Council and Goethe Institut.

Be all this as it may, Yves Martin is likely to be criticized by his fellow colleagues as being too verbose, too opinionated, too French-centred, anti-American or anti-Anglo-Saxon and lacking understanding of other cultures. He is also too fond of long lunches!

How to control him? A good start is for the team leader to speak good French – if he can, it will win him a lot of allegiance. He should also mention La Belle France, as well as French history, culture and brilliance at every opportunity. He should acknowledge that the French resistance to American influence is partly consistent with playing the role of Defender of European Culture. A good tactic to defend the team from French verbosity is to agree with him early on. One can always re-package later or confuse him with funny stories.

Yves will appreciate a chairman who is well dressed, tries his hand at wit and knows something about French wine and cheese. He enjoys fierce debate. The team leader should let him win; Yves is ready to compromise later if some small concessions are made. One should, however, avoid the word ‘compromise’ as French correlate it with American wheeling and dealing.

The chairman should show Yves his human side – mild emotion suits both. He should also display generosity when he can, even hubristic Frenchmen respond well to and reciprocate generosity. He should try to ignore too much body language, extroversion or cynicism, also tolerate over-inquisitiveness or finicky behaviour. Long-windedness and French interruptions may also have to be permitted. Yves means well, but is used to perorating in a French environment. Also, when negotiating a point he may only reveal his hand at a late stage. Americans see this as devious. The chairman should point out to Yves that ‘all-embracing’ solutions are often difficult and slow to achieve and that HQ has a tendency to encourage quick action. Above all, the team leader should be careful not to contradict himself, use self-deprecation as a tactic and, when he can, tell Yves something he doesn’t know!

It has been proved in the past, e.g. in the case of KONE, that French and Finnish executives can work harmoniously and profitably in combination.  However, as the two cultures are based on very diverse premises, tact, understanding and patience are persistently required.  

Linguistic characteristics affecting people management

Among the tasks of a manager are the necessities of instructing, motivating and leading his subordinates.  He may often lead by example, but as far as motivation and the issuing of directives are concerned, he will be heavily dependent on language.

Different languages are used in different ways and with a variety of effects.  Hyperbolic American and understated British English clearly inform and inspire listening staff with separate allure and driving force.  Managers of all nationalities know how to speak to best effect to their compatriots, for there are built-in characteristics in their language which facilitate the conveyance of ideas to their own kind.  They are, in fact, only vaguely aware of their dependence on these linguistic traits which make their job easier.  

With increasing globalisation, problems will arise in the following instances:

a) when a manager is involved in international team building
b) when he himself has to use a language other than his own

An example of situation (a) is when a Briton or American addresses a team containing, among others, Germans.  The occasional quipping or half-serious remarks typical of Anglo-American managers will only too often be taken literally by Germans, who may carry out “orders” which were only being casually considered.  

An example of  (b) is when a Japanese managing Anglo-Saxons hints at directives in such a courteous and half-suggestive manner that all is lost in a fog of impeccable courtesy.  

How does the particular genius of a certain language, manifested by its structure, vocabulary and tones, play its part in conveying instructions and inspiration to its listeners?  Let us examine some of the characteristics of languages which are tools of management in the industrialized world.

German

It is fitting to begin with German, for the tightly disciplined, regular native of the language heralds a facility to convey unambiguous, closely-directed instructions, which, one can suppose, would constitute good management.  Germans belong to a data-oriented, low-context culture and like receiving detailed information and instruction to guide them in the performance of tasks in which they wish to excel.  In business situations, German is not used in a humorous way, neither do its rigid case-endings and strict word order allow the speaker to think aloud very easily.  The German subordinate has not wish to hear his manager think aloud – what he wants are clear directives!

Highly-structured German, with few homonyms (in contrast to, for example, Chinese) is conducive to the issuing of clear orders.  The almost invariable use of the sie (formal) form in business fits in well with the expectancy of obedience and reinforces the hierarchical nature of the communication.  

As far as motivating subordinates is concerned, German would seem to be less flexible than, for instance, bubbly American English.  The constrictive effect of case-endings make it difficult for the German speaker to chop and change in the middle of a sentence.  He embarks on a course plotted partly by gender, partly by morphology in a strait-jacket of Teutonic word order.  He does not have the flexibility of a thinking-aloud Anglo-American brainstormer.  The verb coming at the end obliges the hearer to listen carefully to extract the full meaning.  The length and complexity of German sentences reflects the German tendency to distrust simple utterances.  Information-hungry Germans are among the best listeners in the world; their language fits the bill.

American English

An American manager need not be cautious.  In the United States, there is no phobia about the exercise of management or the drive of senior executives.  Public opinion, in general, does not exhibit and anti-business streak observable in several European societies.  In the USA, the manager, if not always a hero, is viewed in a positive and sympathetic light, as one of the figures responsible for the speedy development and commercial success of the nation.  

The language reflects this spirit – American English is quick and direct.  The frequent tendency to hyperbolize, exaggerating chances of success, overstating aims or targets, allows the American manager to ‘pump up’ his subordinate – to drive him on to longer hours and speedier results.  American salesmen do not resent this approach for they are used to the ‘hard sell’ themselves.  Tough talk, quips, wisecracks, barbed repartee – all available in good supply in American English, help them on their way.

The ubiquitous use of ‘get’ in US English facilitates clear, direct orders.  You get up early, you get going, you get there first, you get the client and you get the order, got it?  The many neologisms in American English, used liberally by the manager, permit him to appear up-to-date, with it, aphoristic, humorous and democratic.  It is oh, so state-of-the-art.

British English

In England, the language has quite different qualities and, as a management tool, is much more subtle.  The English staff member who would be put off, disturbed, by American exaggeration and tough talk, falls for a more understated, laid-back version of English which reflects (and toys with) his own characteristics.  Managers manipulate subordinates with friendly small talk, humour, reserved statement of objectives and an oh-so-casual approach to getting down to work.  You don’t arrive on the dot and work round the clock, instead you show that things flow for you.  Staff are gently massaged by off-hand references to goals, witticisms, anecdotes and even parables.  English has been practising these tricks since the days of Chaucer and Shakespeare.  An English manager may use a fable to show his wisdom.  His liberal use of sporting terms – “sticky wicket”, “even bet”, “offside” – shows his sporting nature and his solidarity with leisure-minded staff.  

The variety of types of humour available in the British Isles enables the manager to be humorous, to praise, change direction, chide, insinuate and criticize at will.  He may even level criticism at himself in this way.  Irony is a powerful weapon either way.  

Both British and American English are excellent media for brainstorming, due to the richness of vocabulary, double meanings, nuances, word-coining facilities and abundance of neologisms.  American managers and staff often use coined-yesterday business terminologies which neither fully understands, but which unite them in wonder at the spanking newness of the expression.  Brits, in contrast, shy away from neologisms, often preferring woolly, old-fashioned phrases which frequently lead to sluggish thinking.  “Muddling through” is the result – the British are famous for it (in war and business!).

A foreign executive is often at a loss in trying to follow the train of thought or interest of an English manager for many of the signals are coded.  Where a German would criticize directly, a Briton attacks in an oblique manner.  Understatement and faint irony often lead to the opposite being said of what is actually meant.  It is difficult for a foreign national to decode British ways of criticizing, praising, suggesting, condemning and abandoning.  Also, different types of humour and critique are used according to status and social class.  English managers can appear astonishingly patronising to secretaries, often taking to them like they were servants.  But no offence is intended or taken. It is a kind of theatre where everyone knows his or her part (and says the right lines).

Japanese

There is a certain similarity in the language of management in Britain and Japan, though the basic, ever-present indirectness of the Japanese style makes the British, by comparison, seem clinical thinkers!

Nevertheless, they have something in common – an aversion to “rocking the boat.”  The British manager’s understated criticisms, his humorous shafts in attack, his apparent reasonableness of expression at all times, are gambits to preserve harmony in his team.  In Japan, the drive towards harmony is so strong that it takes priority over clarity, even truth itself.

The Japanese manager does not issue orders; he only hints at what has to be done.  The language is custom-designed for this.  The structure, which normally stacks up a line of subordinate clauses before the main one, invariably lists the justifications for the directive before it reaches its listeners.  

“Quick, tidy up the office, the President is coming!” in American English would be expressed in Japanese as, “As we shall be honoured shortly by a visit of our President, and since we would wish to show him how tidy our office is…”
The actual order is never given – there is no need.  The staff are already tidying up.  

Japanese has its built-in mechanisms creating a strong impact on the listener.  The general mandatory politeness creates a climate where staff appear to be quietly consulted in the most courteous manner.  This very courtesy encourages their support and compliance.   In fact, they have no choice, as the hierarchy of communication is already settled by the status of the manager, based on the quality of his university degree.  In-built mechanisms of honorifics reinforce, however, the hierarchical situation.  The different set of expressions (again, mandatory) used in formulating the subordinate’s response to the manager’s remarks, close the circle of suggestion, absorption, compliance.  A German friend of mine – a scientist – was disturbed when, on suggesting various hypothetical experiments to a Japanese co-worker, the Japanese brought him the results every Friday!  I had to point out to my German friend that if one begins a sentence with, “If only we tried this…,” it corresponds to an order in Japan!

Other characteristics of the Japanese language, which serve managers in instructing and motivating staff are the Passive Voice, used for extra politeness, the impersonal verb, which avoids casting direct blame, the use of silence or a special intake of breath on certain issues which indicate clearly to the subordinates what the manager’s opinion is.  Reported speech is not popular in Japan, for one subscribes to the myth that all one-to-one conversations are delivered in confidence.  It is interesting to note, however, that the language does not possess a reported-speech mechanism (this may be one of the rare examples where linguistic structure reflects social preference).

French

French managers inhabit quite a different world, are clinically direct in their approach and see no advantage in ambiguity or ambivalence.  A British manager, perhaps uncertain or uncommitted on some aspect of policy himself, may take the easy way out and “waffle” at the critical moment.  His staff may, in fact, like this, since they do not feel too regimented and relish the options open to them (they might be able to show their originality).  The French manager, though roundabout and wordy in is exposé, steers his staff along his selected avenue in the end.  

The French language, like many daughters of Latin, is clinical, clear, unambiguous.  It is a crisp, incisive tongue, a kind of verbal dance or gymnastics of the mouth which presses home its points in an undisguised logical urgency.  

The French education system, from childhood, places a premium on articulateness and eloquence of expression.  Unlike Japanese, Finnish and sometimes British children, the French child is rarely discouraged from being talkative.  In the French culture, loquacity is equated with intelligence.  Silence does not have a particularly golden sheen.  Lycée, university and École Normale Supérieure education reinforce the emphasis on good speaking, purity of grammar and mastery of the French idiom.  The French language, unquestionably, is the chief weapon wielded by the manager in directing, motivating and dominating staff members.  Less articulate Frenchmen will show no resentment.  Masterful use of language and logic implies, in their understanding, masterful management.

Other languages

Other languages such as Russian, Spanish, Arabic and Swedish, to take a few, are management tools in their respective areas and each one possesses linguistic characteristics which intertwine with management goals.  In the Gulf States, for example, a good manager is a good Muslim.  The language used will make frequent references to Allah and align itself with the precepts and style of the Koran.  A didactic management style is the result.  The inherent rhetorical qualities of the Arabic language lend themselves to the reinforcement of the sincerity of the speaker.  A raised voice is a sign not of anger, but of genuine feeling and exhortation.  

Swedish, as a language of management, leans heavily on the “Du” (informal) form and dry, courteous expressions which clearly stratify the manager at the same level as his colleagues or, at the very worst, as a primus inter pares.  I recently heard a television journalist in his mid-twenties address the Prime Minister as “Du” on TV.  I thought it rather presumptuous, but it made a point about interpersonal communication in modern Sweden.  

To take a rather different example, Spanish, used as a language of management, comes from a much more vertical angle.  The Spanish manager is usually happy to use the “tu” form to subordinates, but the declaimed nature of his delivery, with typical Spanish fire and emphasis, make his pronouncement and opinions virtually irreversible.  Spanish, with its wealth of diminutive endings, its rich vocabulary and multiple choice options on most nouns, is extremely suitable for expressing emotion, endearments, nuances and intimacies.  The Spanish manager’s discourse leans on emotive content.  He cajoles, he persuades, he woos.  He wants you to know how he feels.  The language exudes sensuousness, ecstasy, excitement, warmth, ardour and sympathy.  The senior executive has a wonderful tool for demonstrating his own human force.

Correlation of linguistic structure and cultural type

The assertion that linguistic categories are directly expressive of overt cultural outlines, supported by Whorf but resisted by his contemporary, Edward Sapir, is by no means proven at the present time.  Holden points out that linguistics and management hardly intersect as intellectual disciplines.  Yet we can see that cultural traits, such as American directness or Japanese avoidance of confrontation, have had some influence on the fundamental structure of language (or was it the other way round?).  A Spanish manager would find Swedish, even if he spoke it well, a difficult medium in which to motivate his colleagues.  The Swede, “managing” in Spanish, would find many features of the language superfluous to his purposes.  

We have seen how the French manager dominates by language, the Japanese by status, the Spaniard by human force, the Swede by self-effacement, the German by imposing procedures and regulations, the Briton by careful control of self and expression, often flavoured by humour or subtlety.  In each case, the managers know the linguistic ropes, as they deal with their own nationalities.  When it comes to leading and inspiring international teams, modification is obviously required, for the different “receiving apparatus” of others.  Yet most communicators lack the insight to construct a message that neutralizes the influence of the language being used.  

Team builders, when addressing partners, must be aware that language, besides being an excellent symbolic system of reference (Germans use this strength), also possesses submerged, quasi-mathematical patterns which have a tremendous intuitive vitality.  This vibrates on a different wavelength from language to language.  It is beyond the abilities of international managers to capitalize on the variety of effects described, even in this short paper.  Not only would a great talent for languages be required, but an intimate knowledge of the cultural make-up of team members would be essential.

The best we can hope for is that builders of international teams will develop a general orientation regarding the relation of the management concept in a particular culture to the way it is expressed in the language.  Outpouring of clinical, logical French will rivet the attention of staff members on their charismatic leader.  Japanese listeners, suspicious of verbal skills, prefer a loose structure of argument to pure reason; the Japanese manager, suggesting and illustrating rather than ordering, exploits the clever impersonality and detachment of the Japanese language to satisfy this preference.  He, among all managers, appears to have the lightest touch; in reality, the hierarchical structure of Japanese companies and the lifetime employment pattern leave staff with little alternative to ready compliance and obedience. 

The Quiet Colossus

The first decade of the 21st century heralded an era of challenge among the actual and wannabe superpowers girdling the globe – a contest of increasing intensity as the second decade gets under way.

The United States, China, the Russian Federation and the European Union vie for influence in their respective hemispheres.  What is generally referred to as the West hung on to more than 50 per cent of world production (GDP) until 2013, when a tipping point was reached and the newly-formed BRICS union claimed that the four major members – Brazil, Russia, India and China (with South Africa tagging along) – accounted for 51-52 per cent.

Apart from the resolute pursuit of more control of the world’s financial institutions (IMF, World Bank etc.) by the ‘emerging superpowers,’ a regrettable aspect of the Zeitgeist has been the persistent friction between them and the West (and also between each other) due to a variety of causes since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  In Asia, China, Russia and India have traditionally been uneasy bedfellows – the great length of joint frontiers and competing cultural and philosophical persuasions engendering periodic disputes – but the dominant feature of conflict since 2000 has been the sharpening rivalry between Russia and the United States.

One might ask oneself why this antagonism should be so renewable, for it is easy to see how cooperation between these two nations would lead to mutual benefit.  Their peoples are not so unalike as they first may seem.  Both are mainly of European ancestry, frontier pioneers, mission-imbued, pragmatic, technically skilled, future-oriented and post-monarchical.  When they meet as persons, as colleagues, as fellow-scientists, as astronauts, they find each other blunt, friendly, congenial, even jolly.

Unfortunately, a Cold War mentality has lingered both in Moscow and Washington.  It is first one thing and then another:  NATO expansion; the war in Iraq; ‘colour’ revolutions in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan; differing views about Iran, Libya and Syria; the Edward Snowden affair; now Ukraine and Crimea.  Angela Stent, in her recent book, “The Limits of Partnership: US-Russian relations in the 21st century,” points out that what Russians crave most is not complete agreement on important issues, but respect from representatives of other nations in conformity with Russia’s land area, economic assets and, above all, her rich and resplendent historical record.  While ancient European nations such as France, Spain and Sweden (formerly superpowers in their own right) recognize such sensitivity, the young, pragmatic American republic is less delicate in her foreign relations, especially with authoritarian regimes.

The future alignment of powers is by no means certain or settled for the coming decades.  The somewhat astonishing growth of the BRICS countries in the 1990s has fostered no little self-confidence and something approaching unity in their stance vis-à-vis the West, but China has never promoted an enduring alliance with any other country during her long history.  Eventual Russo-Chinese rivalry along the Sino-Siberian border is highly probable; Russian economic clout is precariously perched on a wobbly platform of oil-and-gas supply.  India, with her Western connections, is hardly the most reliable partner in growth as she grapples with near-insoluble problems of societal and physical infrastructure while Brazil, already struggling, seems out on a limb geographically and a somewhat incongruous partner for her Eastern hemisphere associates.

Shifts in alliances or economic unions could be multiple, even kaleidoscopic, in the long run.  Humans have a poor record in forecasting even cataclysmic political, military and economic swings and developments.  The Russian Revolution, the First World War and the Depression played havoc with the map of Europe.  The attack on Pearl Harbour, the economic ‘miracles’ of defeated Germany and Japan and the collapse of the Soviet Union were unforeseen, as were the 9/11 shock, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring and the massive ubiquitous investment of Chinese capital in the United States, Africa and elsewhere.

A world population of 7 billion people unleashes unimaginably powerful currents of growth, development, alliances and face-offs.  Globalists speculate on the growing influence of emerging mini-giants such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Mexico, all with burgeoning 100 million-plus populations.  Also discussed has been a ‘second division’ of promising ‘emergers’ such as South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Turkey and post-mullah Iran.

With so many contenders for pre-eminence, substantial power and influence can only be guaranteed if groupings are sufficiently large to resist domination by a true superpower such as China or the US.  Assuming the BRICS will eventually disband, which are the likely ‘super-blocs’?  Four seem inevitable:

    •    China (1.3 billion inhabitants)
    •    India (1.3 billion inhabitants)
    •    EU (500 million inhabitants)
    •    NAFTA (400 million inhabitants)

Who else is there? Japan and Australia would remain close to the US.  The Transatlantic Trade and Development Partnership is likely to be cloned by a Transpacific one which would attract Japan, Australia, S. Korea, the Philippines and possibly other states in S.E. Asia.

Russia will need to join somebody, building on her own Eurasian Customs Union.  For Russia, the EU is a more likely partner than China, India and the US.  Proximity favours Africa leaning towards some attachment with the EU, though China and India put out feelers there where they can.  With all these considerations in mind, what kind of balance emerges between East and West?  Have we forgotten anybody?  Japan, for instance, would add substantial weight to East or West, depending on her affinity with Asia or the US.  Japan’s economy, albeit stagnating around $6,000 billion, is greater than the whole of Latin America’s though her population is 20% and land area 5%.  Japan’s current relations with China suggest that she would favour a Transpacific trading pact before an Asian one.

Canada

Maps of the world are usually printed on a flat surface using various kinds of projections based on land surveys, aerial photographs and other sources.  If we open up such a map where Russia and Canada were coloured in a similar manner, we should see that, together with Greenland, they occupy 20% of the earth’s land surface.  Russia’s land area (17 million sq km) appears to dwarf that of her arch-rival the United States (9.373 million sq km) but if we join the US to Canada, the North American territory grows to 19,344,000 sq km and, with Greenland, to 22 million sq km.

On the surface at least, we see an approximate parity of land area between East and West – Russian and American spheres of interest.  Taking Canada into account, how significant is this?  Much of Canada’s northern territory and certainly Greenland have temperatures below freezing point for large parts of the year but have summer – April to September – relatively free from ice and snow.  The same applies to Russian Siberia.  Many people live in Arctic lands and have long exploited the minerals abundant in the area.  Russia’s economy has benefited hugely from oil deposits, gas and a variety of minerals in Siberia.  Canada, with a lower profile, is the world’s leading producer of uranium, potash and zinc ore.  She is 3rd in aluminium, 5th in nickel and in the top ten producers of lead, tin, copper and cobalt ore.  Other resources include gold, silver and precious stones.  Of great significance to Canada’s future include her developing into a major producer of oil, natural gas and shale gas, as well as having 7% of the world’s fresh water.  Her sources of hydro-electricity are limitless.  Canada is the 6th largest producer of world energy.  She ranks 7th in wheat harvests.

Abundance of commodities and vast natural resources are not the only considerations that qualify Canada for quasi-superpower status.  She has a multi-faceted robustness ingeniously disguised by the unpretentious, almost homely role she plays in world affairs.  She is not big just in area: her GDP is bigger than that of the whole of South and Central America (excluding Brazil) and equals that of mighty Russia!  Her GDP per capita stands at over $50,000, exceeding that of the United States and any other major power! (USA $48,312, Japan $45,903, Germany $44,021, France $42,319, UK $39,974, Italy $36,130)

When it comes down to business, her all-round ratings are formidable.  Third in the world in listed domestic companies, she has the 5th largest stockmarket capitalisation, ranks 9th in industrial output (actually 15th in car production!), is the world’s 10th biggest exporter and trader of goods, has the world’s 5th longest road and rail networks (passenger and freight) and is 5th in global competitiveness.

While Canada has the 5th best business environment on the planet, her standards of quality of modern life are equally impressive.  Canadians have more computers per capita than any other nationality (130 per 100 people), are 13th in patent registrations, 7th in world peace, 8th lowest in corruption, 3rd in gender equality and 3rd in giving to others!

Canada, multilingual and multicultural, with favourable demographics and substantial economic freedom, is destined to exercise far greater influence amid the great powers than she hitherto has chosen to do: laid back and universally popular (who hates Canadians?), protected on either side by two great oceans and with access to a slowly-warming third, and with a friendly neighbour to the south, Canada can choose her friends and partners with little fear of being rebuffed.

No two countries in the Arctic region share so much in common as Canada and Russia.  A map of the Arctic Ocean with the North Pole at its centre shows that the ocean is virtually closed by the coastal areas of Russia, Canada and Greenland.  By far the largest Arctic nations, Canada and Russia – neighbours across the North Pole – bear a shared responsibility for the state of affairs in the region and must see each other as strategic partners.  Dr. Natalia Loukacheva, Fellow of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, points out that both countries share a common legal framework for the management of the Arctic waterways and sees transportation, both maritime and aeronautic, as being an obvious area of bilateral cooperation.  For instance, Canada could join Russia’s effort to modernise the Northern Sea Route by offering aid and working to develop the Northwest Passage.

Russia has exploited the Arctic for centuries.  About one-fifth of the Russian landmass lies above the Arctic Circle.  Two million of her people live there.  Cooperation with Western nations, though rare, is not new.  Russians and Norwegians share Spitsbergen and the two nations have managed fisheries in the Barents Sea.  In 1997, Russia ratified the United Nations Law of the Sea.  She also planted a Russian flag on the sea-bed under the North Pole in 2007.  When the US and Canada complained, Russian minister Sergei Lavrov dismissed the event as only symbolic and confirmed that Arctic issues should be tackled solely on the basis of International Law.  In 2008, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Norway and the United States met in Ilulissat, Greenland to hold the Arctic Ocean Conference which stated in the Ilulissat Declaration that any demarcation issues in the Arctic should be resolved on a bilateral basis between contesting parties.  An example of such bilateral agreement was reached between Russia and Norway in 2010.

The warming of the Arctic Ocean and the subsequent opening up of a myriad of opportunities for oil and gas exploration and exploitation has transformed the Arctic area from being a remote, largely inaccessible, frozen wilderness into a likely rapidly-developing resource bonanza for Canada, Russia, Greenland and the United States.  The rapidly-receding ice in the Arctic Ocean exposes the prospect of early negotiations between Russia and Canada, the major stakeholders, with regard to agreeing the bilateral delineation of the continental shelf.  If the question of overlapping entitlements on the shelf can be resolved amicably, though it may take several months or even years, then many other possible disputes may well disappear.  One of the keys to reaching a successful resolution is the well-known Canadian skill-set in reasoned negotiating.  This has long been observable in international business teams as well as in the realms of politics and diplomacy.  There are not the same bones of contention between Canada and Russia as there are between Russia and the United States.  Canada and Russia have many commonalities that are reflected in their Arctic identity, Arctic expertise in technologies and challenges in survival in the hostile north.

While Russia has clearly manifested her intense interest in her two main aims in Arctic development – oil and gas exploration and northern transportation routes – Canada’s stake is also huge.  Her experience in different parts of the country (Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador, Mackenzie Delta and the Far North) has given her unrivalled expertise in petroleum and gas exploration.  Canadians have drilled some of the world’s deepest offshore wells (Annapolis G24 gas well (20,000 ft); they also built the world’s largest oil platform (Hibernia GBS) and have developed extremely specialized drilling systems in the Beaufort Sea.  For millions of years, sediments have been pouring out of the mouth of the Mackenzie River, creating tremendous banks of sand and shale – laminates of sedimentary rock warped into promising geological structures.  As early as 1977, its established gas reserves were 200 billion cubic metres.  According to a US Geological Survey, there are 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas north of the Arctic Circle, as well as over 90 billion barrels of oil.  Estimates of oil and gas reserves continue to increase as more exploration is initiated.

Extraction of Arctic oil and gas, in improving, though still hostile, environmental conditions, will only be maximised if wide-ranging cooperation takes place between Russia and Canada in assuring the navigation, communication and safety of the Arctic transportation system.  This includes both maritime and aeronautic collaboration.  Some initial steps taken in this area are the Churchill-Murmansk Northern Sea bridge and discussions between Winnipeg and Krasnoyarsk on the Northern Air-bridge.  One can envisage the Arctic as being a forum for international cooperation rather than conflict.

Against this background, tractable, deferential yet stoic Canada will have the opportunity not only to substantially enrich her economy, but also her destiny as an Arctic power, using her non-belligerent equable nature to placate her Arctic neighbours.  If hurdles that might impede Canadian-Russian rapprochement can be removed in the near future, there is a good chance that the joint Russo-Canadian collaboration in the Arctic Ocean might usher in an era of sensible amity and concurrence that other oceans and other powers have failed to achieve.

[Statistics from Economist Pocket World 2014]

Blossoming Russia

From the 20-25 January 2013 I visited the city of St. Petersburg, giving lectures in two prominent academic institutions – the University of Humanities and Social Sciences and the European University at St. Petersburg. During and after my stay, I was left with the following impressions:

St. Petersburg is one of Europe’s most beautiful cities, either under its mantle of white, crispy snow in February, or even more so in the soft late evening glow of June – a period known as the “White Nights”, when inhabitants stay out sunbathing on the tidy, sloping banks of the Neva river until almost midnight. 

Both Peter the Great and Catherine the Great laid out their city with detailed care and great taste. They employed Italian and other European architects from the top drawer and created an urban wonderland of matchless allure. This city competes confidently with Paris, Versailles and Rome in its bold geometric layout, its imposing white façades and its attractive clear-cut canals (second only to Venice). The subtle sprinkling of Russian churches, especially the Church of Spilled Blood, remind one that one stands on Russian soil, so easy to forget in this celebration of Italianate splendour. 

The city’s amenities match its beauty. Few galleries or museums offer as much as the Hermitage, few theatres compare with the Mariinsky Ballet. My hotel – the Ambassador – left nothing to be desired in terms of room quality and services. 

If I seem to enthuse over the physical aspects of the visit, I would not like it to relegate to second rank my impressions of my hosts and of other personal encounters during my stay. I had visited the city in the Soviet time and, though I was charmed unequivocally by the town then, I was struck by the transformation of Leningrad of the 1980s into 21^st century St. Petersburg. My chief host, Professor Alexander Zapesotsky, the President of Humanities, is arguably Russia’s leading interculturalist – a devoted disciple of the legendary Likachev. He invited me to speak on “Cross-cultural competence is the basis for success in international business.” The audience consisted of 80 graduates and post-graduate students as well as professors. As my remarks were extended over a 2-day period, it was more of a seminar than a lecture, involving healthy participation by those present. My second workshop, a 4-5 hour session with a similar audience in the European University, evoked another keen participatory response. Oleg Kharkhordin, Rector, and Kirill Bykov, Director for GR, were affable hosts.

In both universities I was impressed by audience quality, in marked contrast to those I had addressed in earlier times in Moscow. Soviet-epoch audiences listened dutifully, but their reactions were restrained, smiles guarded, feedback almost non-existent. The audiences I now addressed in St Petersburg were warm, sympathetic listeners, showing keen interest in other cultures. The age group was about 22-50; they all evinced willingness to ask questions. Their responses indicated that they were knowledgeable, though many of them had not crossed national borders. Their questioning was open and without any evident bias.

Russia, with its vast land expanses, shares frontiers with many nations. Consequently Russians all around the perimeter are familiar with the habits of a considerable number of other peoples and consequently inherit a certain amount of intercultural insight.

Russia is in fact one of the most multi-cultural countries in the world (alongside Canada and the United States) therefore cross-cultural discussions are of great interest and very meaningful for Russians.

The more I interacted with them, the more I realised that they possess the totality of what I would consider essentially European characteristics – generosity, courtesy, compassion, love of learning, sense of humour, eloquence, etc. They also possess a few sterling Asian traits such as adaptability, self-sacrifice and stoicism in adversity. In summary, I sensed strongly their breadth of vision – a quality that must serve them well in the future.

What is their future? What indeed is Russian cultural identity? From what I have seen of Russians over the last couple of years, I am optimistic for them. On top of the wealth of qualities that I have outlined above (and which must imply capacity for leadership in both European and Eurasian contexts), the country is reputed for its rich and comprehensive artistic history (literature, music, ballet, opera, theatre, painting, architecture) as well as its advances in the fields of science and space technology. The nation’s extensive assets in oil, gas and minerals should provide a steady improvement in standards of education and living in general. Russians have already begun to travel abroad in large numbers, thereby broadening their knowledge and worldview from year to year. It would be a mistake to underestimate or discount Russian influence in the coming decade.

by Richard D. Lewis 

Monochromatic and Polychromatic Cultures

There are several hundred well-documented cultures in the world, most of them belonging to major nation-states – France, Germany, Russia, Japan, etc. Thus we refer to French culture, Italian culture, Chinese culture and so on. We may also talk about cultures with a wider, non-national basis, such as Amazonian Indian, Sub-Saharan, Muslim, Confucian, Pacific-island, etc. However, as major decisions on how people are expected to comport themselves are made at national level, in accordance with historical custom or, indeed, law, it is nation-state cultures which attract most attention, study and comparison.

All cultures differ at national level, though many of them display remarkable similarities to others.  Examples  are German and Dutch, Italian and Spanish, Finnish and Estonian. Cultural experts such as Edward Hall, Hofstede and Trompenaars have gone to great lengths to classify or categorize national cultures, not least in order to facilitate the study of them. It is difficult, probably impossible, for a student of culture to enter convincingly into a hundred or more mindsets. 

Edward Hall was an early ‘categorizer’ and in his books promoted a significant classification by dividing humans into two main groups – monochronic and polychronic. Hofstede and other culturalists used these terms frequently and they were certainly well-established by the 1970s. Germans typified the monochronic  group – people who did one thing at a time, usually well, and in a planned order.  Italians were classically polychronic, often attempting many tasks simultaneously, displaying more spontaneity, though less process, than their Teutonic neighbours.

Though a follower of Hall, my own research and experience led me to believe that categorisation of cultures needed to be at least tripartite, as there was clearly a large group of people who fitted neither into the monochronic nor polychronic classifications. These were Asians, to whom I had been extensively exposed during my years in Japan and in neighbouring countries. This group – less decisive than monochronic people, but more focussed than polychronics – rarely initiate action, but prefer first to hear the other side’s position and then react to it at their own tempo. 

In the Lewis Model I created three categories: linear-active, multi-active and reactive. The first two match Hall’s monochronic and polychronic. I felt the terms linear-active and multi-active afforded a fuller description of the two types, not being linked only to time. Asians I classified as reactive. This model has in the last 20 years been adopted by a large number of universities and commercial enterprises around the world and has been used extensively by the World Bank for training and team building since 2004. It was also accepted as a paper in the International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management in 2009 – “Use of the Lewis Model to analyse multicultural teams and improve performance by the World Bank: a case study.” 

Linear-active (monochronic) and multi-active (polychronic) cultures are diametrically opposed in nearly all that matters – punctuality v unpunctuality, calm v emotion, logic v intuition, facts v feelings, scientific v flexible truth, loquacity v taciturnity, restrained v unrestrained body language.  Almost all areas of activity clash with or irritate exponents of the other category. In global business, these differences are frequently sources of profound misunderstanding and there is little doubt that linear-active ‘powers’ (albeit with 50% of global GDP) often lose customers among the 5 billion multi-actives and reactives who are the major markets of the future.

Linear-active sense of superiority

Linear-active behaviour is an Anglo-Germanic phenomenon originating in north-western Europe and rolling out through colonisation to North America, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Among non-Germanic peoples, only Finns have joined this category and even they are partly reactive. Two continents – North America (minus Mexico) and Australasia – are completely linear-active. The strikingly different destinies of North and South America (the latter colonized by multi-active Spaniards and Portuguese) are an indication of the yawning behavioural gap between the two categories. How history would have been different if Columbus had continued on a north-westerly course to Florida or if the Pilgrim Fathers had been blown off course (like Cabral) and settled North-eastern Brazil!

It is important to note that, through a quirk of fate or historical accident, the Anglo-Germanic bloc from the 18^th century onwards began to regard itself as superior in efficiency, both in commerce and ability to rule, than other cultural categories. This conviction of superiority, with its accompanying drive, may have had its roots in cold climate competence and energy, Protestant reforming zeal or German thoroughness. It certainly blossomed subsequent to the English Industrial Revolution, the rapid development of British and American manufacturing (fuelled by abundance of coal) and the continuous existence of democratic institutions in the Anglo and Nordic communities. However this may be, the linear-active “powers” leading up to and after the two world wars, emerged with de facto world leadership based on military might and, even more significantly, over 50% of global GDP.

This sense of pre-eminence, particularly in the English-speaking world, but also shared in no small measure by Germans, Dutch, Swiss and Nordics, has not yet subsided. The BRIC quartet are showing rapid gains in manufacturing, technology, financial muscle, access to commodities, and market share (China the star performer), but Western complacency has not yet been eroded. There is still a lingering notion among the linear-active countries that our systems of governance, our concepts of justice, our attitude to human rights, our intellectually vibrant societies, our cocktail of work and leisure, our right to lead and instruct others, our business methods and our ability to maintain our levels of production and high living standards are viable in the future. We may be right about everything but the last two or three. We are content with our way of life and world view. We feel we have got it right, the others not yet.

Cultural seduction

It is worthy of note that members of linear-active or monochronic cultures, though often complacently retaining a sense of playing leading roles in world affairs, are periodically seduced by multi-active or polychronic cultures. We live and work in our own countries with their comforting assets – democratic society, reliable institutions, sturdy housing and sanitation, punctual transport, steady jobs, pensions, health schemes, insurance, regular electricity and so on. Yet we look to other, shakier countries for pleasure, excitement, romance. We admire the efficiency of Germany, the tidiness of the Netherlands, the safety of Scandinavia, the probity of the United Kingdom, but we succumb to the allure of colourful Spain or Mexico, exuberant Brazil, the beaches of Portugal, the Argentinian pampas.

Do we go for our holidays in Birmingham, Sunderland, Dortmund, Eindhoven or Antwerp – or, perhaps Venice, Rome, Marbella, Macchu Pichu, Montenegro, Santorini, Rio de Janeiro or the Maldives? Do we prefer a foreign posting in Warsaw or Lisbon? Retirement in Oslo or the Dordogne? It is not the polychronic nature of these locations that attracts us (often that is seen as a drawback or irritation). A better description would be polychromatic. Germany, Holland, the UK and Northern France are not only monochronic, but they are monochromatic. The terms ‘monochromatic’ and ‘polychromatic’ have to do with colour but not just the colour absorbed by our retinas or the constituents into which light can be separated as in a spectrum or rainbow. In this sense, Mexico, India and Greece are colourful countries, but other cultures are polychromatic for different reasons. In the case of the South of France, the Canary Islands and Costa Rica the allure is primarily climatological. We are drawn to other cultures by their sound (Spanish flamenco, Argentinian tango, African drums). We love Italy for many reasons; food is not the least of them.  Breathtaking scenery in Switzerland and South America leaves us enthralled; in Paris, Granada and Accra we are wooed by the architecture (Tour Eiffel, Alhambra, Taj Mahal). Quaint customs and folkloric traditions attract us (carnival in Rio, Spanish bull fights, Japan’s matsuri, cherry blossoms in Kyoto, fishermen’s coloured boats in Nazare).  Some countries attract us by their very light – Greece for painters, Venice with its translucence and iridescence, a dappled city, tremulous and flickering, where sunlight shimmers gently beneath the bridges.

To summarize, most linear-active (monochronic) people live in cold, grey climates (except Australia) for most of the year, work hard at material pursuits and inhabit what we might term monochromatic cultures. As a release, they are periodically tempted to transfer to polychromatic cultures, seduced by better climates, tastier food, exciting sounds and movement, light, colour and texture, exquisite architecture, spectacular scenery and sensual environments. 

The major linear-active (most monochronic) cultures of the world are: USA, Germany, UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, the Baltic States, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Northern France and North Russia. Of these cultures only the United States and Switzerland could be called polychromatic.

The major multi-active (polychronic) cultures are: Spain, Italy, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, India, Egypt, Nigeria, Senegal, Portugal, Peru, Indonesia, Romania and Dalmatia (Croatia, Montenegro). For a variety of reasons, they all qualify as polychromatic cultures. To these could be added a large number of smaller countries and locations such as Guatemala, Bolivia, Panama, Tahiti, Maldives, Costa Rica, etc.

The seduction of members of the monochromatic cultures by polychromatic locations is borne out by tourism statistics. In these statistics the preponderance of the United States, in both attracting visitors and ‘escaping’ themselves is evident, on account of their size and opulence.  With the Americans, the top ten tourist spenders per capita (‘escapers’) are: Germans, Britons, French, Canadians, Swedes, Norwegians, Russians, Dutch and Koreans. The top ten countries in tourist receipts per capita (2011) were: France, Spain, Italy, Thailand, Greece, UK, USA, Mexico, Switzerland and Malaysia (all polychromatic cultures except UK).

These figures vary little from year to year. France, Spain, Italy and the United States are easy winners, annually, though China attracts more visitors on a steady basis. The UK attracts many tourists on account of its strategic location between the US and Europe (also Scotland – in a way polychromatic – must take credit). The USA, though essentially monochronic in structure and inclination is irresistibly polychromatic with its staggering scenery, traditions of entertainment and variety of climate.

Is the (annual) exodus one-way? Are polychromatic cultures seduced by monochromatic environments? The answer is largely negative. Multi-actives flock to the US or the UK for purposes of immigration, education or work experience. Apart from the immigrants, they usually return home to what they consider more congenial environments. The great majority of French people visit England once or twice. Britons head to France (often on the way to Italy or Spain) regularly.

If linear-active cultures are principally monochromatic and multi-active cultures polychromatic, where do reactive cultures fit in? Interestingly, the East Asian cultures, as well as partly-reactive ones such as Canada, Finland and Turkey, seem to merit a separate chromatic classification. I am tempted to call them pastel-shade cultures. Canada is the United States in pastel shades. China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos and the Philippines certainly attract seekers of leisure, but are less vividly colourful than Mexico or Brazil, less persistently seductive than France, Spain and Italy. Grim industrial areas in China, Japan and Korea lessen their allure. Only Burma and Cambodia among reactive cultures are thrillingly polychromatic.

Just as all cultures are innately hybrid – Indonesia, the US and Russia are good examples – the chromatic appeal of some countries varies greatly according to area or district (Kyoto v. Kawasaki, Rio de Janeiro v. São Paulo, Lille v. St. Tropez, Milan v. Capri). Even Venice has its Marghera. It may also vary according to the individual. The temples of Angkor Wat and Mandalay attract a different type of human than do the beaches of southern Spain. A third type revels in polychromatic Antarctica!

by Richard D. Lewis

Civil War in Spain? Catalunya pulls back from the brink

On 11 September 2012 over a million people took to the streets of Barcelona in a huge demonstration in favour of independence from Spain.

Just two weeks later, building on the impetus for self-government, the Catalan President Artur Mas brought forward regional elections by two years, pledging to hold an early referendum on Catalunya's political status and possible independence.

Shortly after in October, in the Basque Country, two separatist parties dominated the elections to the Basque Parliament by winning two thirds of the seats.

Facing the constitutional crisis of a possible breakaway of two of its Regional Autonomies, Spain waited with apprehension. The sabre-rattling ripostes and political condemnation were not long in coming:

• Ex-Army officer, Colonel Alaman publicly calls for military intervention in Catalunya;
• In a counter demonstration against independence for Barcelona, right arms are seen raised in the classic Fascist salute;
• In late November in the editorial of the official Army Magazine 'Ejercito', General Pontifas Deus denounces President Mas for his 'more than outrageous plans for self-government';
• In Brussels, Spain's Partido Popular Minister of Defence denies any knowledge of any 'Movement' in the Military, or any use of the Military as a mouthpiece for others;
• There are calls for the arrest of President Mas, possibly for treason.

With hindsight perhaps there was an over-reaction to the crisis. But for the Right and many traditionalists in the country, the unity of Spain is sacrosanct. Even today.

This concept of a united Spain has long been a challenge for Catalans, especially those whose language and family roots are Catalan. They have an intense sense of pride in their Catalanism, which combines within it an almost spiritual love of their language and culture and historical identity, within Spain but not necessarily of it. Catalans feel different, and in their history there is much to confirm this.

Having been settled firstly by the Greeks, Catalunya became the most completely romanized region of Iberia and had the least contact - at most 80 years - with the Moors during the seven centuries of Moorish occupation of the majority of the peninsula. From the 12th to the 14th centuries, Catalans, in a sophisticated confederacy with the Aragonese, dominated large parts of the Mediterranean, ruling Sardinia, Corsica and most of present-day Greece, and controlling the gold trade with Sudan.

But one of the most surprising aspects of this empire was the political and administrative structure that supported it. From the early 13th century Catalunya had a three-chamber form of parliament, the Corts, which passed all legislation and the Generalitat, which organised tax raising and expenditure. It was a very good time to be Catalan. When Queen Isabella in the beginning of the 16th century banned the Catalans from trading with the New World of the Americas, domination by Spain or the Central Government was to become their destiny for the next five centuries.

Every country has an event or events in its past which by repetition over the years form an emotive part of their historical identity and the date is familiar to all. For the English, 1066, the Battle of Hastings and the start of the Norman Conquest is the one we remember. For the Catalans it is 11 September 1741, during the War of Spanish Succession. After a year's siege Barcelona was finally captured by the French and Spanish armies who raised a third of the city to the ground. The 11 September is now the National Day of Catalunya and was also the date of Barcelona's latest demonstration for Independence from Spain.

But is it possible that what might most colour Catalunya's view of their relationship with Madrid are events in the 20th century, still within living memory of older citizens? In 1939, the final defeat of the Republican Government by Franco's Nationalist troops took place in Barcelona. It was effectively the end of the Civil War. The campaign against the Catalan language culture and people unleashed on Franco's victory was devastating. Any public use of the language was banned and any books in Catalan including priceless and irreplaceable private collections were destroyed. Street and town names were given Spanish names. Catalan went underground.

This discrimination damaged the language but what caused far more linguistic damage longterm were the 'tidal waves' of Spanish-speaking immigrants, mainly from Andalucia and mostly semi-literate: a quarter of a million in the forties, half a million in the fifties, and almost a million in the sixties. Absorption into the local population as had happened with previous immigrants was almost impossible as the new immigrants often lived in their own 'barrios' speaking Spanish which was also the language used in education. Spanish increasingly became the language of preference for domestic use, even in Catalan homes. Figures for 1975 show that Catalan was spoken in only 39% of homes in Barcelona.

So do these figures have any relevance in 2012? To some extent certainly. Girona's mayor, Carles Puigdemont identifies the original source of the desire for separatism: "We have our own language, our own culture, it's in our DNA." he might have been heartened to see flags of Andalucia among the Catalan pro-separatist flags fluttering from the balconies. Other pro-separatist politicians, seeing the huge increase in the movement of workers following the EU open border policy, must be asking themselves how this is affecting voting patterns. Without the DNA will those recent citizens be ready to take the risk of supporting Independence?

Carme Chacon, a Catalan, a dynamic politician and former Defence Minister in Zapatero's Socialist Government, sees it from a broader perspective. She favours the concept of smaller states within a Federal Europe, "different but united."  She sees herself as one of the many Catalans who have roots in other regions of Spain. Her father came to the north from Andalucia and her grandfather was an anarchist from Aragon. She declares "I am a Catalan, a Spaniard and a European. And I do not want anyone to oblige me to choose."

If her views are shared by many in Catalunya, could it be that Catalanism or cultural identity is not what has provoked this present independista crisis?  It is certainly underpinning it, but as Bill Clinton said, in another place and at another time, "It's the Economy, stupid."

It is difficult to believe, on the face of it, that this could be the case with Catalunya. Its reputation as the powerhouse of Spain for its industrial and commercial success, are supported by the statistics. It provides 20% of Spain's GDP, 25% of Spain's tax revenue, 35% of Spain's exports including 45% of high-tech exports, and 25% of Spain's tax revenue (2009 figures). In spite of this, Catalunya is €42 billion in debt. And the root cause of this situation lies in Catalunya's political State of Autonomy and its fiscal relationship with Madrid.

For Spain, though composed politically of regions with autonomy, has a centralised tax collection system. It was formulated in 1978 in the difficult days of Spain's fledgling democracy which followed 40 years of repressive dictatorship under General Franco, after the Civil War in the late 1930s.  Only the Basque Country and Navarre were allowed to raise their own taxes, a traditional right with its roots in the fueros of medieval times.

Put rather simplistically, Madrid levies the taxes and returns to each autonomy a percentage in services and investment. The difference between these two sums is the fiscal deficit. In the case of Catalunya, Madrid raises 95% of the taxes, and Catalunya raises 5% to cover its Social Services, including Healthcare and Education.  Figures from the Generalitat show that between 1986 and 2009 the fiscal deficit ran on average at 8% of GDP per annum and in that last year Catalunya contributed €16.4 billion (8.4% of GDP) more in taxes than it received from Madrid in state services and investment. Alternatively one could say that amongst the autonomies, Catalunya was the third highest contributor of taxes to central government, but was eleventh highest in what it received back from Madrid.

To put into perspective the damage this causes to the Catalan economy, the Cercle Catala de Negocis has cited a telling analogy: Japan's Tsunami Disaster caused an estimated loss of 3.6% - 5.7% of its GDP.

The strain that the increase in the fiscal deficit has placed on relations between Madrid and Catalunya was exacerbated by the sense of anger and betrayal felt by the Catalans over the fate of their new Statute of Autonomy of 2006. After four years of negotiations, this had been approved by the Catalan Parliament in September 2005, by the Spanish Congress in March 2006 and ratified in Catalunya by a majority vote in a referendum. It gave Catalunya extensions of rights in the Judicial system, Catalan language status, immigration controls, taxes and access to loans, and the right for Catalunya to be referred to as a nation.

The frustration felt then when an appeal to the Spanish Constitutional Court was filed by the conservative Partido Popular party was as nothing compared to the severe shock delivered by the Court's ruling in 2010 when the appeal was upheld. Fourteen articles of the Statute had been abolished and twenty-six were to be seriously amended: these changes struck at the very structure of civil, political and judicial administration in Catalunya. And as for the Autonomy's right to Nation status? It was deemed unconstitutional.  For Catalans, this was insult added to injury.

Of course many in Central Government and in the rest of Spain have a different perspective on the Catalan position. Barcelona is seen as an avant-garde, vibrant city rich in Art and Culture with a thriving port. As an autonomy, it is able to take advantage, as a gateway to Europe, of its geographical location on Spain's north-east Mediterranean coast, sharing a border with France. It is famous for its tourism, but respected and somewhat envied for its highly successful commercial and industrial sectors especially textiles, biotechnology - and wine production.  Whereas other Spanish autonomies with much lower GDPs, perhaps traditionally more rural and sometimes disastrously less well developed, have not only seen their budgets shredded, social programmes slashed, mounting redundancies in local government and private sectors, and rocketing unemployment especially among the young, all causing real poverty. Many therefore are tempted to see Catalans as 'spoilt children' trying to hold onto their 'goodies', exploiting their role as perennial victims of the wicked Central Government. Madrid seems to see its present fiscal policy towards Catalunya, however contentious, as trying to maintain the 1978 concept of regional autonomies, offering them 'cafe para todos'. This tends to be seen then (amongst other less altruistic motives) as an opportunity for radical wealth redistribution in favour of poorer regions of Spain, especially in the light of the euro crisis and diminishing EU funding.

But the Catalans are also suffering.  With their lack of fiscal control, faltering GDP and high tax rates, including the highest income tax rate of 56%, they share increasingly with other autonomies and European countries many of the problems referred to above.

So was the constitutional crisis all media hype?

The regional elections on 25 November took place with no military coup, but also without the President Artur Mas winning the outright majority he needed for his party, the CiU, to call for a referendum. Even worse, voters' support for the CiU dropped 8%, and their representation in the 135-seat parliament dropped from 62 seats to 50. They are still the largest party, but only in coalition can they function.

An anti-climax perhaps? Not necessarily if one examines the voting pattern. Naturally enough the Partido Popular leader Mariano Rajoy with schadenfreude was predictably scathing in his judgement of the Catalan President - perhaps he wished to divert attention from two very unpalatable facts.  Firstly that just under two thirds (87) of parliamentary seats are now held between four parties who either support at least a referendum on independence or those who openly campaigned on a more radical independista policy, such as Oriol Junqueras. He is leader of the party Esquerra Republicana Catalunya (ERC) which doubled their seats at the elections to become the second largest party. The high turnout of voters, 68%, more than two thirds of eligible voters, confirms the strength of the wish for constitutional change, which many political commentators feel Madrid should not ignore.

However, instead of compromise, Madrid appears to favour the policy of attack being the best form of defence.  The Minister for Education, José Ignacio Wert, is advocating much of Michael Gove's proposals for English education: league tables, privatisation, etc. But what has caused enormous offence to Catalunya is his attack on bilingual education policy, downgrading the status and use of Catalan to a specialist subject, and conversely defining Spanish as the main language of education.

Opposition is widespread and strong: 71% against in a December poll, but the most scathing appraisal is the article by internationally renowned Fernando Vallespin (Professor of Political Science and Administration and Director of Political Theory at Madrid's Universidad Autonoma) in El Pais on 7 December 2012. He says:

"Faced with the state of the current situation in Catalunya, what could be more rash than to aggravate them on the question they are most sensitive about, the defence of their language...What it shows is that (Madrid) has not bothered to find out absolutely anything about what is happening there, nor has it understood the basic message coming from the ballot box."

[Spanish original: "Ante la situación que estamos viviendo en Cataluña, ¿cabe algo más imprudente que tocarles en el punto más sensible, la defensa de su lengua?...Significa no haberse enterado de nada de cuanto está ocurriendo allí, ni haber entendido el mensaje fundamental emanado de las urnas."]

He also urges that party politics should be put aside…this circumstance demands a renewal of the constitutional agreement, seeking those outside politics who are capable of generating the maximum possible consensus. He concludes with these words:

"The Government is far too arrogant and doctrinaire and it lacks the will and ability to encourage efforts to be made towards a grand State plan. It has chosen the opposite option and we shall all pay the price."

[Spanish original: "Al Gobierno le sobra soberbia y doctrinarismo y le faltan la voluntad y la capacidad para adicionar fuerzas en torno a un gran proyecto de Estado. Ha elegido la opción contraria y lo pagaremos todos."]

He is the expert, but will they listen to him.

So will Catalunya pull back from the brink? Perhaps if Malta and Estonia can pull off being small independent countries in the EU, this ancient Catalan region will be encouraged to take that leap to escape their present near-impossible relationship with Madrid and Spain.

But Brussels has just confirmed that Scotland's exit from the United Kingdom would mean also giving up its EU membership. To renegotiate entry could be long and costly. Catalans have a reputation for being financially canny and having great common sense - an honourable compromise may yet be reached. For the whole is often worth more than the sum of its parts. Good Luck, Spain.

by Sheila Profit

Going for Gold – reasons for the UK to celebrate!

Expect the worst, hope for the best – while I would not go as far as calling this a national motto in the UK, nevertheless it accurately reflects a trait which seems to run deep in the national psyche. This almost cheery pessimism may help to explain many of the mysteries observed by overseas visitors. Why do British people not object to paying up to twice the European average for train tickets when they often end up sitting on the (not terribly clean) floor? Why is it that when the same road is dug up five times in a month by different utility companies, we respond with a shrug? Why do we not seem outraged or even particularly surprised when our airports grind to a halt after two inches of snow when other European cities seem to operate without trouble under two feet (or should that be 0.6m)?

And yet, ironically, in this country where strangers rarely speak to each other, it is when things go wrong that we begin to communicate. How many conversations have sprung up between strangers about the absence of summer or the lateness of a train or bus (I expect it is “leaves on the line” we say with wry humour, referring to a standard excuse used by train operators to explain delays, rivaled only in its ridiculousness by “the wrong kind of snow”)?

It is not that we don’t have high standards or hopes – it is more that we are resigned to the fact that they will rarely be met, and in the unlikely event that they are, we enjoy being pleasantly surprised.

So the prospect of London hosting the Olympics and Paralympic Games in 2012 was greeted by many Brits with cynical (sometimes verging on gleeful) predictions of shambolic organisation, security risks and traffic chaos. Rumours circulated that the opening ceremony would consist of “a bit of grass, a few sheep and some country dancing”; in stark contrast, it was feared, to the stunningly choreographed spectacle presented to the world by Beijing in 2008.

Even presidential hopeful Mitt Romney felt emboldened to question whether London would be able to run the Olympics smoothly, during his first foreign tour in July. His publically expressed doubts triggered a phenomenon not uncommon among the British – we tend to be modest and self-deprecating until challenged, at which point we may quickly rally around and counter-attack. David Cameron was quick to point out that the 2012 Olympics would be taking place in a busy city and not  “in the middle of nowhere” – widely seen as a reference to the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City, which Romney organised. It could be said that the tide of public opinion towards the Olympics began to turn at that moment.

Of course there were still doubters and causes for concern in the run up to the great event. Mere weeks before the Games began, it emerged that G4S – the official security provider – had failed to recruit enough staff, leaving a shortfall which meant having to draft in 18,000 military personnel at very short notice. Special lanes reserved for members of the ‘Olympic Family’ (dubbed ‘Zil lanes’ after the former Soviet Union habit of reserving lanes for senior officials) were also the fuel for much criticism. However, when it came down to it, Brits were confronted with facilities that were completed on time and on budget. Recently, the government has announced that in fact the cost of hosting the Games was £377m under budget.

Not only that, but it transpired that the startlingly original Opening Ceremony ‘Isles of Wonder’, designed by film director Danny Boyle, managed to pull off that most elusive of ambitions – appealing to almost all sections of the diverse population that makes up the UK. With its seamless juxtaposition of high-brow and low-brow, vivid story-telling and inspiring music, it provided a dramatic showcase for many British achievements, including the Industrial Revolution and the much-maligned but secretly treasured NHS. The event, which became the most-viewed Olympic opening ceremony in both the UK and the US, included moments of quirky hilarity, as Mr Bean joined the London Symphony Orchestra in a rendition of Chariots of Fire and an unforgettable cameo appearance by the Queen herself, escorted to the venue by our very own James Bond (aka Daniel Craig), before apparently parachuting out of a helicopter into the stadium.

It is reported that, when asked for permission to use her image in the film, Her Majesty not only said that she would like to play the part herself, but questioned whether the type of helicopter the director planned to use would actually be able to fly under Tower Bridge. Whether you support the Royal Family or not, it is hard to avoid a frisson of pride at being reigned by a monarch, who was not only ‘game’ enough to star in such a film but was also able to offer expert advice on helicopters.

The other notable feature of the Opening Ceremony was the way in which it involved young people, from dancers and choirs to the seven promising young athletes who were given the role of lighting the spectacular Olympic cauldron, created by the coming together of 204 individual copper ‘petals’ (one to represent each of the competing nations).

And then suddenly, it felt as if the whole country was united behind this noble sporting endeavour; those who had decried the waste of public money at a time of economic crisis were scrambling on the internet to find tickets for any event they could get their hands on.

As if this wasn’t enough, we were then treated to outstanding performances by Team GB athletes – among them Jessica Ennis, Bradley Wiggins, Sir Chris Hoy, Laura Trott, Ben Ainslie, Andy Murray and Mo Farah. And the medals kept coming, leading to a final tally of 65 medals, with the UK finishing in third place after the US and China – and of these a staggering 29 were gold.

Winning all these medals felt like a bonus, and it reminded us that we are – and always have been – a nation passionate about sport. As IOC President Jacques Rogge said in his speech at the opening ceremony, “In a sense, the Olympic Games are coming home tonight. This great sports-loving country is widely recognized as the birthplace of modern sport. It was here that the concepts of sportsmanship and fair play were first codified into clear rules and regulations.”

Other British traditions in evidence during the games included support for the underdog, as witnessed by the crowd of 20,000 cheering on Djibo Issaka from land-locked Niger who had only taken up rowing three months earlier; even the announcer cried, “You can do it!” as he crossed the finishing line a full minute and 40 seconds behind the winner.

Our ‘volunteer spirit’ was also strikingly demonstrated by the army of 70,000 Olympic and Paralympic Games Makers – unpaid helpers who made an invaluable contribution to the success of the event. Easily distinguishable in deep purple uniforms, they always seemed to be on hand to guide people, answer questions and even give first aid.

The Paralympics were as high profile and well-attended as the Olympics, another achievement for a country that is sometimes attacked for being overly ‘politically correct’ but that has slowly and patiently introduced policies to combat discrimination in many different areas to the point where we take the expectation of equality for granted in most aspects of life.

So in the end, we not only “muddled through” but really did “carry it off quite well.” Far from being crowded and chaotic, some parts of London were virtually empty, the public transport system worked flawlessly and in spite of that complete strangers could be seen speaking to each other – there was nothing to moan about, they were simply caught up in the sheer exhilaration of our golden summer.

London 2012 showed that the British people, when they put their mind to something, can still deliver. It was our moment in the sunshine, a chance for us to rediscover a pride and patriotism that is not about power, elitism and empire but energy, innovation and diversity.

by Caroline Lewis

Caroline Lewis is a Trainer and Coach in Cross Culture at Richard Lewis Communications. Email [email protected]

Is there such a thing as the French Dream?

When my British friends and family tell me “you’re practically French now,” I have to say, I am still a little surprised. It’s true that I think that having lived in France for most of my adult life after spending my childhood and student years in the UK, I don’t consider myself as either British or French. I’m certainly more European than anything and my culture is a real mixture of Anglo thinking and Mediterranean living.

It’s true that as I go about my daily life in France I have the impression that my “Englishness” goes practically unnoticed. I am able to blend into the physical Mediterranean landscape and on a good day my Anglo lilt is often mistaken for some other accent whose origins are anywhere north of Provence.

I have embraced French life and culture as though it was my life’s vocation and I remember dreaming about life in France since I was a teenager. But as I move towards the half-way mark (i.e. more of my life spent away from the UK than in it), I ask myself whether the French dream has – and does – live up to expectations.

Along with the lifestyle, climate and culture, France has a good economic flag to fly and I can quote any number of projects and achievements that makes me delighted to live in the country. I still marvel with admiration every time I step on the TGV in Aix en Provence to arrive only 3 hours later in the capital.  

And then there’s the people themselves. When I hear the French talking about the French, they often mention how much they complain. “It’s an essential part of our culture,” one of my friends tells me. And it is true that the appointment of a new government, a new football manager or a new boss is often an open invitation to criticism.  I revel in the passionate discussions I hear (and participate in) at dinner tables and admire how the French are fervent debaters in whatever is the subject of the moment.

Yet, does all this discussion exist just for discussion’s sake or is it part and parcel of their natural resistance to change? Keeping what you have is a very strong French value and I have witnessed many battles on this subject fought and lost over the years. But having an opinion and expressing it is as important a part of French culture as is resisting whatever law, rule or idea is put down in front of them. So when you combine these three aspects of the culture, you get what some people perceive as “French arrogance”. I see it more as a way of being heard, included and participating in the change process without feeling that they have been subjected to it. It doesn’t mean that things don’t change, they just take a whole lot more time to do so than many other cultures are used to.

And change is definitely on France’s agenda. The recent electoral swing to the left has generated new hope for many, in spite of many of the unpopular changes and reforms that Hollande and his government are about to put into place.

Irrespective of their political beliefs, most of my entourage is relieved to see the back of Sarkozyism and as one person put it, unlike Sarkozy, Hollande actually went to political school so he knows how to govern. This is one of the first cultural gulfs I had to deal with when arriving in France that bounces back at me time and time again. In other words, if you went to the right school, you’re fit for the job. You can have all the potential in the world, but if you don’t have the qualifications, your skills and experience are worth little unless you are given the opportunity to prove otherwise.

And in the employment context I think this still rings very true today. An American friend of mine went for an interview recently at a recruitment agency. When asked what kind of job she would like to apply for, given her experience in a number of senior positions spanning over a 20 year career in France, she explained that there are any number of positions she could fill. Launching into a justification of the unstable job market today the recruiter explained: “employers are taking fewer and fewer risks and are therefore clinging more and more onto the qualifications of their potential employees as a reliable form of employability. And because of this you don’t really fit into any one particular position.”

Contrary to many of my French counterparts, as I was growing up, I was encouraged to seek out 3 or 4 different careers throughout my lifetime and challenge and variety is still something I cherish today. With my go-out-and-get-it attitude, at 16 I began my retail Saturday job career. But today’s young French have not been brought up in the same way. Work experience from an early age is a rarity, but becoming a necessity. The degree in the pocket is not enough to secure the long term employment that their parents or grandparents were guaranteed.

Many are seeking opportunities overseas as one alternative. In France, instead of falling into jobs that are the perfect match for their qualifications, many youngsters are obliged to work for virtually (and sometimes) nothing to gain the experience and improve their chances of being a better candidate than the other thousands applying for the same job. And that’s if the job hasn’t already been ear-marked for someone who knows someone who knows someone…

This may seem a pretty gloomy outlook, but France is still advocating the merits of its education system as the key to employment success. Last week Le Monde was still encouraging the diploma route by headlining articles such as “a degree is still the best employment guarantee” (Le Monde 05 July 2012) and  “job opportunities are more and more rare without qualifications” (Le Monde 14-16 July 2012). But this clearly isn’t enough for young people seeking jobs in France today.

It is not as simple as saying it’s all about where you went to school or who you know, but this is definitely a factor that is still influencing the French job market today. Over the years I have learned the art of successful networking in France and most of my work today is based on referrals. You may argue that this is the case in many countries, but the “who-you-know” aspect is still very prevalent.

When a friend of mine explained to me recently that she has bid for 5 big tenders this year and won none of them, she later discovered that the work had been allocated before the bid was published. I can’t help asking myself in France today where the emphasis lies between striving for excellent results and building excellent relationships.

Living in the South of France, the latter is so often the most natural option. Some of my most successful business meetings have taken place in sites of natural beauty, or whilst sharing some gastronomic moment with a client. This aspect of French culture lends itself so well to relationship building and it’s no surprise that it has been one of the more popular ways of enticing inward investment over the years. But for how long can it ride on its epicurean lifestyle, sublime climate and exquisite scenery?

I am actively involved in the Mediterranean Anglo-American Business Network where for the past 5 years we have been holding monthly networking events in English. We attract many French native speakers who like the refreshing alternative to doing business. And we are successful because we have taken the best of all of our cultures.  We have combined the qualities of the French culture (relationship building, good food, drink, climate, etc…) and put them into an Anglo business context (sociable, casual, no-fuss straight-talking) to produce what seems to be an attractive way for the French to do business.

The success of our events brings me back to the question of the French dream. I think that it is still worth pursuing, albeit a little bit differently. Living and working in France has brought me so many challenges on a practical level, especially running my own business. But in spite of the difficulties many of us are facing today in France, “enjoying life” still holds very strongly as a French value. It hasn’t hindered but helped my business. It has helped me live my dream on both a personal level and professional level and I have learned so much from both the culture and its people. It’s what brought me here all those years ago, and, if change is on the agenda for France, it’s one thing the French should never change.

by Rebecca Penna

 

Having spent the first twenty years of her life in the UK, Rebecca has gone on to spend the majority of her career in France where she settled in the early 1990s after graduating from Sussex University.

With an Anglo-European upbringing she has accumulated many years of personal and professional intercultural experience, particularly in service related industries and always in multicultural environments. She has also used this experience elsewhere in the retail and tourist industries both in the UK and in France. 

Rebecca spent over ten years working for the British Embassy and UK Trade & Investment (the UK's international trade department), combining diplomacy and international business, two very distinct environments relevant to her work today. She occupied a number of Consular and Commercial positions to later become Vice-Consul (Commercial). 

In 2007 she decided to create her own company and naturally moved into the field of cultural diversity where today she enjoys designing and delivering tailor-made training programmes and events (in French and English) in cross-cultural communication, managing diverse teams and working effectively across cultures.

See www.refervescence.com

Panama – a Country in Transition

Whoever has been fortunate enough to transit the Panama Canal by ship, has been part of a unique experience. In less than 10 hours you have crossed the American continent from coast to coast. And you have witnessed an engineering feat that counts as one the Wonders of the World. Many cruise ships enter the Panama Canal only to turn around halfway and go back the same way. Just to give their passengers the excitement of going through the locks and to be able to say: I have been into the Panama Canal. Most people know that the canal is situated somewhere in Central America. And that it literally splits the Americas in half. But as for the rest of Panama, its inhabitants and its culture, this is a black hole for most of the world.

Even for me, a Dutchman born in Colombia, married to a Colombian woman and with a profound interest for the Latin American region, Panama was quite unknown to me. I knew about the Panama Canal and knew where to find it on the globe, but that was about it. Until I was sent to Panama to lead an HR project in Latin America. I had visited Colombia many times over the past decades which made me realize why my youth in Colombia was such a happy one. I had fallen in love with the country, its people and the warm and human culture. Somehow I expected Panama to be about the same, perhaps with a more ‘costeña’ (coastal) touch. How wrong I was.

In the late 19th century Panama was a province of Colombia. In that era the United States realized that a canal through Central America would save their Navy a lot of time to get from the East Coast to the West Coast and vice versa. They examined the possibilities of digging a canal through Nicaragua or Panama. In 1902 they chose for the Panama option and started negotiations with Colombia to obtain a concession to construct the canal, since Panama was a province of Colombia at that time. Colombia was unwilling to cooperate and the US turned to support a slumbering uprising that was taking place in Panama. Since the jungle between Colombia and Panama (The Darien) is impassable for vehicles, Colombia was forced to send its troops by ship to Panama to suppress the uprising. But the US had sent gunboats to Panama to prevent the Colombian troops getting there, a perfect example of ‘gunboat policy’. Once Panama gained its independence, in 1903, the United States quickly expanded its influence over the new Panamanian government and obtained a concession to build the Panama Canal and subsequently an eternal lease to operate it.

After World War II, U.S. control of the canal and the Canal Zone surrounding it became controversial. Many Panamanians felt that the Canal Zone rightfully belonged to Panama; student protests were met by the fencing-in of the Canal zone and an increased military presence. Unrest culminated in riots in 1964, when approximately 20 Panamanians and 4 U.S. soldiers were killed. A decade later, negotiations toward a settlement began and resulted in the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. This started the process of granting the Panamanians free control of the canal and in 1999 the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) assumed command of the waterway.

The Panama Canal is nowadays one of the main sources of income for Panama. It generates an estimated revenue of $2 billion per year. The Panamanian economy is among the fastest growing and best managed in Latin America. Because of its key geographic location, the economy is mainly based on a well-developed service sector heavily weighted towards banking, commerce, tourism, and trade. In 2011 Panama had an unemployment rate of 2.7%. The handover of the Canal and military installations by the United States has also given rise to large construction projects. The skyline of Panama City has changed considerably over the past decade and rivals that of Miami. The city is bursting with big and luxurious shopping malls and new ones are opened every year.

Because of its unique geographic location and the booming economy, many international organizations have opened, and are still opening, offices in Panama. Also the expansion of the canal, a $5 billion project over the next 5 years, is attracting an international workforce. Panama is known to be one of the safest countries in the region and has a wide variety of excellent international schools. Besides the international organizations, a lot of individuals are drawn to Panama too in search of a better future. Not only people from Latin American countries such as Colombia, Venezuela, Costa Rica and Nicaragua, but also many Chinese, Indians, Arabs and, recently, Spaniards have come to Panama to try their luck . All these expats and immigrants are dealing with the challenge of living and working together with the Panamanians.

Why is living in Panama a challenge for foreigners? One of the reasons is that the nature of the Panamanians is a complex one. The Panamanian people stem from a mix of native Indians, conquistadores, blacks, Chinese, French, Americans, Arabs, Jews and a variety of other (mostly European) nationalities. Despite its strategic geographical location and natural wealth, Panama has never been a rich country until the beginning of this millennium. It has frequently suffered from incompetent and sometimes corrupt governments, military coups and indignation over the fact that the Americans had lured the country into a treaty over the Canal that was extremely unfavourable and unfair towards Panama. This makes the Panamanians still resent American exploitation and power, and have developed a strong national and personal honour. It is quite typical for Panamanians to say one thing and do another. They will change their course of action according to changing circumstances. All these things make it difficult for foreigners to adapt to living in Panama.

But now that there is money, economic growth and a lot of foreigners coming to Panama, Panamanians realize that they as well have to start dealing with these new circumstances. That is, if they want to move forwards and keep developing as they have been doing over the last decade. Because they still display features that are hard to deal with for Anglo-Saxons, Northern Europeans and some Asians, such as poor finishing power, reliance on paternalism, low productivity, weakness on accountability, poor sense of time, schedules, agenda and a flexible attitude to truth. On the other hand there are many positive aspects of dealing with Panamanians: they are loyal (if properly motivated), they cultivate relationships and believe in the value of friendship, they desire to please others, obey rules (if monitored) and defend your interests once you have gained their loyalty.

Managers in Panama often struggle to create successful multicultural teams. There is a lot of complaining about the poor Panamanian work ethics (in the eyes of the foreigners) as well as about the unwillingness or inability of foreigners to adapt to living and working in Panama (in the eye of the Panamanians). To overcome these differences, there are 5 simple rules of building winning multicultural teams:

1. Understand very clearly who you are
2. State objectives and roles very clearly
3. Define them in a way which means something to everyone
4. Use diversity as an asset
5. Have fun!

Often I see foreign management struggling to get to grips with Panamanian employees, because they expect them to be something that is not entirely clear to them. These (international) companies fail to make clear who they are, what they stand for and what their core values are. Once they have done this, they should state clearly what their objectives and roles are. Panamanian culture is typically high context. If you are not very clear about what you mean, Panamanians will give your words a meaning that goes with their context, not necessarily yours. And be sure to define your roles and objectives in a way that means something to them. Typical British understatement or coded speech, for instance, is not understood by Panamanians. And since international companies operating in Panama have to deal with Panamanian customers, suppliers and authorities (sometimes more frequently than they would wish), why not have Panamanian employees whose loyalty you have gained to deal with their fellow countrymen? These employees can provide the necessary leverage the country needs to transit from a quite passive attitude and inward perspective, to a more pro-active and international orientation. At the same time especially western foreigners have to let go of some of their typical linear-active way of thinking and acting and give in to a more multi-active attitude, where family, relationships and feelings are more important, and time and agendas not as much.

Mahatma Gandhi said: “No culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive”. If Panama wants to reach its full potential given by its strategic geographical location, its economic outlook and multicultural diversity, it will have to strive for inclusiveness, open up to international influences and start building a 'canal' to connect the best of both worlds.

by Maarten Stal

 

Maarten Stal is a Dutchman living in Panama where he owner of People in Companies, specialized in HR Management and Cross Cultural Communication. He is licensed partner of Richard Lewis Communications Ltd. for the Central American and Caribbean region. Born in Colombia as child of expats, he always had a profound interest in diverse cultures. After spending his military service as a naval officer and graduating from law school in Amsterdam, Maarten went for half a year to Colombia to go back to his roots. There he met his Colombian wife. Back in The Netherlands he held several HR positions in a variety of Dutch and international companies. In 2011 he was sent by an international company with his family to Panama as HR Manager to lead a project to analyse and improve HR in the Latin American region. After the project was finished, Maarten decided to stay in Panama where he saw many opportunities for International HR Management and Cross Cultural Communication. Currently he is working with World Vision International, a relief, development and advocacy organization dedicated to working with children, as HR Consultant on a variety of restructuring projects throughout Latin America.

 

The shifting social dynamics in modern India

It is an accepted fact that cultures are not stagnant - they are constantly evolving; however the normal pace of change is usually extremely slow. When I look back over three generations, I see a difference in my grandmother’s life, my mother’s life and my own. I see changes at many levels – social norms, accepted ways of thought, communication and behaviour, and the role of family and community. However these changes have slowly been woven into the fabric of Indian society, gradually being absorbed as the new norms, without shaking the core.

When I look forward and see the current scenario and compare my son’s generation with the past, the changes that have taken place seem to have manifested themselves at a much accelerated pace and caused tears in the very fabric of Indian culture. They seem to be impacting the very basis of individual identity and the pillars of Indian society. It makes me wonder – what could be the cause of these major shifts at deeper social levels? Is it the impact of globalization? And if so, how much do external events affect the pace of change? Is it one major factor or is it the synchronization of multiple factors that causes this acceleration?

I am going to focus on the phenomenon of the outsourcing industry and the growth of call centres in India to understand if they have been factors in the rapid change, especially because this sector taps into the Indian youth as its main resource and thus is a big influencer. The call centre jobs require the young Indian service providers to assume a ‘Western Identity’. They take on a western name, learn and adopt a western accent, learn about western cultures to help them deal with western clients – in short they live fake western lives while physically being a part of the Indian reality. What are the impacts of this duality – how do they deal with it? Their experience in this role is accompanied by financial freedom – they earn salaries and bonuses at levels never seen before by their parents’ generation. Does this new wealth affect behaviour and roles, expectations and hierarchy within the family and society in general? If so, how does the impact manifest itself?

Some of the changes I am referring to are very overt and obvious and others are insidious. There seem to be many layers within Indian society and the gap between the generations appears to be magnified. There seems to be a diffusion of social boundaries.

Many Indians, whether they admit it or not, covet the Western way of life. However in the past it was only a select few who actually managed to realize their aspirations to study / travel / live abroad. For the majority, it was just a dream. Traditional Indian society has always been restrictive in many senses. Social mobility was restricted. Family, gender, caste, and hierarchy defined one’s place in the social order, determined how others viewed you, related to and behaved towards you and what is expected of you. It also defined what options were open to you in terms of what you could accomplish and who you could become in life. It favoured the privileged and those in the upper classes in society. So dreams of going abroad seemed the only way to break the social shackles.

The offshore industry shook all that up. It levelled the playing fields in some ways. It opened new doors, offered new opportunities and financial freedom, which brought in its wake many other changes. The social fabric of Indian society is undergoing dramatic changes. The changes are redefining the concept of identity among younger Indians and reshaping the role of family and the Indian values of interdependence, modesty, family honour, social hierarchy and so on.

Many of the changes are positive – young Indians are confident, ambitious and ready to take on the world. Unlike their parents, they want to take charge of their life and ‘make’ things happen. They wish to be masters of their own destiny. Young women are seeing a world of opportunities opening up for them like never before. Financial independence is allowing this generation to make choices that were not possible before - for example, they can now buy their own homes and move out of parental homes, spend on material goods and lifestyles without feeling guilty. Consumerism has hit a new high. Money and earning power is the new social currency. They are becoming more self-oriented and individualistic. They are now exposed to members of the other sex on a regular basis and making choices of life-partners from a wider pool of people, beyond the old lines of hierarchy. And more importantly, social mobility is now possible due to all the above. The restrictions of family, religion, gender, and so on are no longer inhibitors. India’s traditional caste system mapped out life-paths for most people. Most Indians walk around with an inbuilt radar scanning for clues to place people who they meet into their mental maps and hierarchy. Their behaviour and interactions with others would be based on their readings of the other. Today, these things do not seem to matter as much.

None of this is bad, except when you put it into perspective of what this means in the Indian context and how it plays out. Below are a few examples.

The Indian identity of self has traditionally been defined by a sense of belonging to a group - of family, caste or community, religion, region and language. Indians did not think of themselves as ‘me, an individual’. There was always a context in which they are a part, and that context was always a group. The family has always been one of the most important pillars in Indian society. Unlike the western cultures, the concept of family in India has always meant the extended family, the entire network of people who are related to each other by blood or by marriage. This extended family maintains and defines social boundaries, norms and culturally prescribed behaviours. Relationships and social responsibilities within those extended networks are given prime importance. Individualism, independence and autonomy, which are considered virtues and values to be aimed for in the West, are frowned upon in India. Independent behaviour has always been considered ‘selfish’ and ‘bad’.

An outcome of the family networks was the tradition of arranged marriages, which worked in the interest of the family as a unit. Spouses for children came from a background and culture that were aligned to one’s own. This helped adjustment and nurtured the interdependence that is a keystone of Indian families. Divorces were extremely rare and parents and children were taken care of. This has changed dramatically. There are many ‘love marriages’ between young people who work together and unfortunately, the rate of divorce is extremely high too. The glue of common backgrounds, which helped pull individuals together by creating the magic ingredient of ‘adjustment’ to each other and the family seems to be missing. Many relationships seem to be breaking up on flimsy grounds, too – disagreements about the brand of car to be purchased, or destination for a holiday, can trigger a divorce. The facts that bring the couple together – physical proximity and easy access to each other, seem to not be deep enough to hold them together. And the social stigma that used to come with a break-up doesn’t seem to matter. All this impacts the value of extended families too. The cohesive nature of the family seems to be fraying. Indian culture has always been relationship-oriented; that too seems to be changing. Loyalties and unconditional caring for members in one’s ingroup seem to have become diluted.

Hierarchy has always been an inescapable fact of Indian society – within the family and in society. Everything and everyone is sized up and ranked in relation to everything and everyone else. Roles, responsibilities and expectations depended upon where one stood in the hierarchy. Parents were awarded respect, and sons and daughters each had their role cut out for them. Sons provided for parents once they started earning, daughters were married off when and to whom the parents chose. Girls today are choosing careers over marriage, preferring to marry much later than before and to find their own life partners. They may choose to move out of their parental home or may stay at home and financially support the family. These things change the socio-dynamics within the family unit. Yes, the additional and generous income is usually welcome, but the accompanying change in values, expectations, attitude and behaviour causes a lot of tension and strife in most homes.

Controlling and withholding finances was one way parents were able to ‘control’ their children in the past, to make them conform to values and behaviours which were considered socially acceptable. Family honour was placed at a premium and protecting it was the responsibility of all family members. This honour was very closely linked to acceptable behaviours. The financial independence of children today seems to have reduced the ability of parents to curb and control the behaviour of their children.

There also seems to be a difference in the pace of change between young men and women. The women seem to have become more empowered, independent and vocal than the men. They are unwilling to be passive players in their own lives. I recently met a young professional woman in Hyderabad and asked her what it was like to be a woman in modern India, and she answered, “The men are not ready for us. They like girlfriends who are westernized but want wives who are traditional like their mothers.” I do believe the women have moved ahead in bigger strides, but that was mainly because for decades they were relegated to secondary status.

Changes at other levels which stand out are the adoption of Western behaviours such as smoking, drinking alcohol, ‘baring of skin’, getting tattoos and piercings – all of which are considered ‘cool’ by this younger generation as they try to live their western identities. I believe these are linked to all the changes which are happening at a deeper level and connected to and fueled by growing financial independence. Family honour and taboos cannot matter if the family bonds are unravelling.

Western countries have developed social and legal systems geared towards an individualist society and all that comes with it. Indian society is in a state of transition and we do not have those safeguards and safety nets in place yet. I wonder how long it will take to acknowledge these deep social changes and recognize the impact they will have in the long term.

It would be interesting to see whether similar social changes are visible in other countries where the call centre industry has flourished.

Anita Punamiya

CompreCultures Ltd.

www.comprecultures.com