Power distance, engineering teams, and leadership (part 2)
Closing the gap of emotional distance between you and your team, and making a difference between success and failure.
This is a post from a book I wrote about a decade ago. I’m releasing a few excerpts here, and hope you find them interesting. Part one introduced “power distance” and how it impacts multinational team management.
Power distance and the workplace
Management theories rarely recognize the implications of power distance in the workplace or account for how particular practices are perceived in a given culture. Most theories were developed in America and consequently have a strong bias toward a low power distance. Many of the assumptions, conditions, and ideals that these management theories strive for fly in the face of what makes high power distance cultures work.
This disparity shows up all the time across multinational teams. Usually, problems are attributed to “bad communication,” or perhaps poor team skills. More often than not, this is misplaced.
Consider the impact when it comes to 360 degree feedback programs, as pointed out by Trompenaars:
Cultures vary greatly in their willingness to lavish praise on fellow members, in making their criticisms known to strangers, in writing these down as opposed to first verbalizing them to the person, in being as outspoken as most questionnaires force them to be, and in answering to stark alternatives instead of soft gradations. There may be taboos against committing criticism to paper. In much of East Asia, for example, criticism is reserved for special face-to-face encounters.1
He goes on to describe a multinational US investment bank adopting 360 degree feedback. They had offices across America, Europe, and the Netherlands. It was immediately apparent that there was a problem, because American managers rated everyone much higher than any other group. It wasn’t an issue of prejudice, but of Americans being more lavish in their appraisals than others. The cumulative effect of this was to make the American division look much better than everyone else.
In contrast, the German business unit tended to offer low feedback scores, probably because of a culture that stresses being objective and dispassionate. The feeling is that one’s track record will speak for itself, and there is no need to express unnecessary praise when the facts are there for anyone to review.
If you’re leading an international team, it’s crucial to understanding these fundamental differences between low- and high-power distance cultures, and understanding both were we fit into the cultural spectrum and where our partner’s culture fits.
Implications for the global professional
While we can learn a great deal from the theory of cultural science, you can’t use it to predict how one individual is going to behave. The only real method for understanding behavior at that depth is experience.
In the rest of this post, we’ll look at some of the challenges you might experience in a multicultural setting. These few, different examples are just that: A small number of situations, based on the real world situations that I’ve experienced. Trying to enumerate all the possible experiences, all the potential surprises you may encounter is like trying to firmly count the clouds in the sky.
Managing a Team
Different behaviors regarding power distance lead to some of the most debilitating effects in day-to-day business. Most often, the problems are misinterpreted as poor communication between subordinates and superiors. It tends to lead to deeper, more organizationally damaging problems when a Western boss attempts to work with an Asian team or subordinate (although Westerners also have significant problems integrating into an Asian organization).
Here are a few of the statements that I’ve heard regarding issues with power distance, from a Western perspective:
“Our team lead in India never presents us with solutions. He only does what we tell him, even when it’s wrong.”
“We keep setting clear goals, but the team always misses each one, and never tells us there’s a problem.”
“We never hear about problems until after something blows up.”
These statements make it sound like the Asian team is non-communicative, or possibly unmotivated. Keeping in mind power distance and what that means for someone wishing to approach a superior is hard, but essential.
The Asian perspective reflects a very different point of view. Consider these statements that were made about the same situation, but by Asian team members:
“The project director keeps talking about strategic ideas. It’s interesting but it only distracts me from my assignments.”
“It seems like our manager in America is very inflexible. We try to describe how difficult the goals are, but nobody does anything about it.”
“We already let them know there were resource problems.”
There is a delicacy present in the East that the Western supervisor appears to miss. In each case, the subordinate provided subtle, respectful, and culturally relevant signals that something is amiss. The Western approach is much more blunt, however: The expectation is that an employee will clearly state something cannot be accomplished, or raise a serious problem early and clearly.
Here’s what went wrong:
The team lead used silence (a lack of response) to indicate it was not within the scope of his role to contribute to strategic planning. Often, Asian schooling focuses on technical education and memorization; strategic thinking is not taught as widely as it is in the West.
Being too blunt may convey disrespect or disloyalty. The team more subtly described problems it foresaw, giving the supervisor the opportunity to solve the problem for the team. I once heard an Indian vendor tell his American boss that, “There will be some difficulty coming.” We had to rephrase this in terms that his American boss could understand: “It’s impossible.”
Similarly, the Asian partner advised they lacked the resources to meet expectations. But the Western response simply reinforced previous objectives. The Asian partner did not want to appear disrespectful by pushing the matter; the boss had been informed, and would make the right decision.
Employee Reviews
Many cultures, especially those valuing individualism, also value direct, frank communication. Others view the same as abrupt, rude, unsubtle, and aggressive.
The typical American employee performance review involves an annual appraisal of performance. It’s usually very direct, often levying critical assessment of the employee’s shortcomings, and providing specific objectives the employee must meet in order to improve. Different techniques go about it in many different ways, but in many cultures the entire approach is offensive.
Iraqis, Maylasians, and Chinese would find this kind of assessment wholly unsuitable. Much more subtle suggestions for improvement are anticipated, and the employee is expected to be perceptive enough to understand them, and improve if they are ready to change. This subtlety and nuance is not only a tribute to the employee’s perceptiveness, but also offers a framework in which the employee can save face for the team (keep in mind that any critique of an individual is, in many cultures, a direct critique on the entire group).
This is important if power distance between superior and subordinate is large. What a Westerner might look at as a “dressing down” (or a reprimand), Asians may consider so shameful, the only possible response is jumping ship and finding a new job. Hofstede writes, “Such societies have more subtle, indirect ways of supplying feedback — for example, by the withdrawal of a normal favor or verbally via an intermediary.” He adds, “For the same reason, training methods based on honest and direct sharing of feelings about other people, which have periodically been fashionable in the United States with labels such as ‘sensitivity training,’ ‘encounter groups,’ or ‘transactional analysis,’ are unfit for use in collectivist cultures.”2
What happens when an assessor applies his or her own cultural perceptions to an individual being interviewed? For example, a direct cultural bias implies the assessor is looking for strong performance, including demonstrating one’s own performance. On the other hand, a candidate coming from a collectivist culture will not be willing to put themselves on exhibit — and, even if they try, they will likely fail to impress. Their culture has strong bonds, so everyone knows everyone else on a much more intimate level.
There is no need to “show off,” and doing so is considered immature or egotistical. It’s also possible that a senior person in the same culture would view the assessor as a subordinate, in which case the assessor should have done his homework: If the assessor fails in his job, that’s too bad for the assessor.
Teaching and mentoring
Business people intending to engage their International partner in learning exercises need to be particularly careful. Most learning techniques applied in the West are dramatically different from those in the East.
In large power distance situations, the instructional environment is an extension of the parent-child inequality. Teachers are afforded great respect, or even fear (especially elder instructors). The education process itself will be strongly centered on the instructor, whose responsibility it is to outline the learning path for the class.
Order is important, with the instructor initiating all communication, and the students focused entirely on learning what it presented. One very important aspect of this environment: Students never speak up unless directly addressed in a one-on-one style, and never contradict or criticize the instructor. This method of learning means that critical thinking and open debate is rare or unheard of. The quality of learning is perceived to rest with the teacher, not with the student.
In contrast, low power distance cultures find the teacher and student treated as relative equals (with younger teachers being more equal, and often treated as friends of the students). Student participation is expected and in fact drives the learning. Many activities are interactive and critical, with students encouraged to interrupt with questions, challenges or disagreement. Sometimes this becomes an opportunities to create learning exercises for the whole class. Effective learning relies on two-way communication between teacher and student, and the quality of learning is largely dependent on the excellence of the students.
When the children of Vietnamese refugees entered the United States and started attending schools around the country in 1976, the U. S. Office of Education issued an instruction to teachers titled, “On Teaching the Vietnamese:”
Student participation was discouraged in Vietnamese schools by liberal doses of corporal punishment, and students were conditioned to sit rigidly and to speak only when spoken to. This background… makes speaking freely in class hard for a Vietnamese. Therefore, don’t mistake shyness for apathy.
Regarding this instruction, Hofstede illustrated the difference in Eastern versus Western perspectives:
To most western European and North American readers, this instruction looks OK at first. However, it becomes more problematic when we delve for all the clues about U.S. Culture that the quote supplies, all of which reflect sources of bias. In fact, the U.S. Office of Education ascribes to the Vietnamese all the motivations of young Americans — such as a supposed desire to participate — and explains their submission by corporal punishment, rather than, for example, respect. At a doctoral seminar Geert taught in Sweden, one of the participants opened the eyes of the others by reversing the statement — supposing American students would have to attend Vietnamese schools:
“Students’ proper respect for teachers was discouraged by a loose order and students were conditioned to behave disorderly and to chat all the time. This background makes proper and respectful behavior in class hard for an American student. Therefore, don’t mistake rudeness for lack of reverence.”3
Talking To Each Other
People working with Americans, in particular, are frequently startled by how direct and informal their American colleagues are. This is particularly true of Asian cultures, although most European cultures are more formal in professional settings too.
According to Stewart-Allen, “Informality of address really moved into the workplace [in America] in the 1960s and has advanced ever since, especially as organizations have downsized or ‘flattened.’ Most companies encourage the use of first names to foster a sense of connection, teamwork and corporate spirit. Jack Welch, former Chairman of [General Electric], is referred to by millions of Americans as Jack which is the title of his biography. We talk about Michael (Jordan) and Madonna as though we see them daily.”4
Business people that are used to informality (including some Latin American cultures as well as American culture) are well advised to become familiar with the formality of address expected in their partner’s culture.
Here’s an example from Venezuela: An American company sent an executive to Venezuela to meet with their potential partner and negotiate a contract and pricing. The executive had experience in Mexico and Bolivia, and a good understanding of both casual and formal Spanish. He described how the meeting had started out as a formal presentation, then dropped to a casual, informal level. By his account, the presentation went well, and both he and the partner’s were, “friendly, and very informal, we had a good time.” Soon after, the Venezuelan firm sent word that it had no interest in the contract and would not do business with the firm.
Had the executive done his research, he may have discovered that the Venezuelan culture is more formal in its business dealings. His behavior reflected poorly on the company, and cast doubts about its maturity and the sincerity of the business offer.
Meeting in the middle
For Westerners working with Eastern partners, remember that power distance will likely affect how you communicate — you may feel like you’re missing part of the conversation. Some of the tips we offer our clients to keep them focused include:
If you are asking, “Why do we keep making the same decision?” Or, perhaps, “Why are they asking this question again?” Remember power distance and authority vary greatly from one culture to another. Make sure you are talking with someone that actually has the power to make a decision — and don’t assume that an individual will push the decision “up” the chain of command. Some cultures are strongly top-down. Revisiting an issue may be a way of saying, “You need to find someone else for this.”
Make sure that decisions are made at the right level. Just because you talk about something with your partner, don’t assume that person has the authority, or even the role, to make a decision.
If you are in a management role, don’t expect employees of your partner’s firm to disagree with you or offer their own opinion. “Over confirmation” is a possible sign that something isn’t right. This is one reason that India has a reputation for superb execution of detailed tasks, but a poor reputation when it comes to autonomy and independent thinking.
Slow down communication. Your partner may need more time to socialize a problem and come up with a solution. Employees will act to inform the boss, a decision will be handed down, and they will circle back with you.
Don’t interrupt silence. Silence is a form of communication, and many Eastern cultures will use that silence. Pushing forward with an agenda too quickly will just rush your partner.
For the Easterner just beginning to work with the West, here are a few tips to keep in mind:
Westerner’s will value you “at your word,” which means it’s important to do exactly what you say you will do. Remember that you are empowered to make decisions, but that also means you must actually do what you say. They probably won’t pick up on subtle cues, so be sure to say exactly what you mean. If you commit, even loosely, or communicate “yes,” it means you be held accountable.
Remember that most Western cultures tend to be strongly agenda driven. It’s best to prepare for meetings ahead of time, and don’t expect to socialize or build relationships during meetings. This is usually done outside of the meeting.
If you feel rushed or out of time, it’s acceptable to ask for more time. Tell your partner you are still discussing the topic and require more time to reach a decision. It’s very important to actually send this message, however. Silence is usually interpreted as being late or irresponsible.
You are expected to question what you and your team are doing. Your Western boss will value opinions, especially if you catch a problem or mistake before it turns into a bigger one. While executing on a task is important, it’s more important to clearly communicate problems before it’s too late to do anything.
I hope you found this excerpt interesting. Let me know, and I’ll work on pulling a few more together.
Fons Trompenaars & Charles Hampden-Turner, Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 9781260468656.
Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Revised and expanded 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill USA, 2010. ISBN 978-0-07-166418-9.
Cultures and Organizations [above].
Allyson Stewart-Allen, Lanie Denslow, Working with Americans: How to Build Profitable Business Relationships, Routledge. 2020. ISBN 9781032176673.