Culture-specificity versus pan-culturalism
Global managers interviewed for this book are united in
their opinion that the communication mode that works for them is neither
culturespecific nor pan-cultural. In other words, they do not believe that a
single, universal approach to communication, irrespective of culture, is
appropriate. On the other hand, they do not believe it is necessary to go
completely native, and adopt the entire gamut of communication mannerisms of
another culture. What is recommended is an appropriate blend of both approaches.
In some situations, it may be necessary to adopt the host culture's norms of
communication more vigorously than in others, especially when interacting with
persons typical of that culture. For instance, adopting local ways of
communicating in public places may be required in Arab countries, especially in
the case of different gender interactions.
At the same time, the communication patterns of other people are
not set against the scale of a global manager's own cultural background. This
type of an approach has been termed ethnorelativism by Buoyant (1991). Ethnorelativism
maintains that 'cultures can only be understood relative to one another; there
is no absolute standard of rightness or goodness that can be applied to cultural
behaviour; cultural difference is neither good or bad; it is just
different'.
Additionally, global managers may like to become attuned to
experiencing more than one culture simultaneously. This is possible because in
any country there can be more than one ethnic group. Also, even in a foreign
country, a multinational corporation may have expatriate groups from third and
fourth countries. In any event, a global manager assigned to a new country would
have to adjust to a new corporate culture, as well as to life in a new national
culture. Thus, global managers need to be sensitive and pick up cues suggesting
cultural differences, be they ethnic, corporate or functional.