Cross-Cultural Inequality in IS: A Preliminary Exploration of Scandinavia and France

Elisabeth Rossen, MBA (IMD)

Visiting Electronic Scholar/PhD Candidate Department of Informatics

University of Oslo Elisabr@ifi.uio.no

Abstract

This essay broadly addresses the issue of how differences in two national cultures, French and Scandinavian, shape the way multinational businesses in those cultures use Information Systems, in particularly collaborative technologies. The thesis of this paper is that differences in low-high context, monochronic/polychronic (Hall, 1990) and power-distance (Hofstede, 1980; 1991) constructs shape the use of IS in France and Scandinavia. Drawing upon a historical anecdote of cross cultural royalty, previously presented by Gerte Hofstede in Software of the Mind, fundamental dynamics of hierarchy and inherent levels of equality versus inequality are illuminated from the perspective of the early governance of Scandinavia by a French king. Readers are asked to reflect upon the fundamental differences in cross cultural parameters as they manifest themselves both in the respective societies’ early perceptions of royalty and in the respective countries’ overall use of information systems in the 21st century. In particular, participants in the Cross Cultural workshop at ICIS 2003 are invited to discuss their thoughts about what these differences in cross cultural inequality mean, in terms of design and managerial implications of IS for geographically distributed collaboration in contemporary multinationals. 1. Prologue “In a peaceful revolution--the last revolution in Swedish history--the nobles of Sweden in 1809 deposed King Gustav IV whom they considered incompetent and surprisingly invited Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, a French general who served under their enemy Napoleon, to become King of Sweden. Bernadotte accepted and he became King Charles XIV; his descendants occupy the Swedish throne to this day. When the new King was installed, he addressed the Swedish Parliament in their language. His broken Swedish amused the Swedes, and they roared with laughter. The Frenchman who had become King was so upset that he never tried to speak Swedish again. In this incident, Bernadotte was a victim of culture shock: never in his French upbringing and military career had he experienced subordinates who laughed at the mistakes of their superior. Historians tell us he had more problems adapting to the egalitarian Swedish and Norwegian mentality (he later became the King of Norway as well) and to his subordinates’ constitutional rights. He was a good learner, however, (except for language), and he ruled the country as a highly respected constitutional monarch until 1844. One of the aspects in which Sweden differs from France is the way its society handles inequality.” Gerte Hofstede in Software of the Mind, 1991, p.23.

2

Keywords: France, Scandinavia, Cross Cultural, Power-Distance, Context,

Collaborative Technologies, Information Systems

2. Background As the story by Hofstede (1991, p. 23) related in the prologue of this paper implies,

issues concerning cross cultural differences have been evident for centuries. Moreover,

concepts related to power and relationships to authority have also been discussed in

classical literature such as Shakespeare for many years. Recent books in the management

literature (Whitney and Packer, 2000) have applied Shakespeare’s writing about power

and hierarchy to organizational dynamics in contemporary organizations. Many of the

most well known studies concerning cultural perceptions of power and equality draw

upon Hofstede’s seminal work (1980).

To a greater extent, the cross cultural context of this paper focuses on constructs

introduced by Hall (1969) in his study of proxemics, i.e. time and space as they relate to

the global balance of cross cultural IS equality issues. However, in this essay, Hofstede’s

definition of culture and his power distance index (PDI) are used as lenses for

interpreting the cross cultural data explored in this paper. Power distance is an important

dimension of the cross cultural context. As indicated in Hofstede’s story in the prologue

on page one, power distance shapes the degree of equality or inequality in a specific

context. Low power distance tends to be representative of a democratic situation,

whereas high power distance is reflective of hierarchy and a high degree of control.

3

Hofstede defines national culture as “a set of likely reactions of citizens with

common mental programming” (1991, p.112). When we compare and contrast

Scandinavia and France, their respective rankings on the power distance index (PDI) are

discussed. Internet consumption figures can be used as one reference point in examining

inequalities in IS in an industrialized country. The underlying question of strong interest

to IS cross cultural researchers which is examined in this essay is what inherent to the

national cultures can be identified that drives the inequalities of IS in these cultures? In

particular, this paper specifically examines the use of enterprise-wide collaborative

technology such as Interwise and Centra.

3. Organization

The organization of this paper follows. The abstract and background are

presented prior to this organizational section. Immediately following this section is the

statement of purpose, which ends with a list of questions to prepare the reader to discuss

this essay in the Cross Cultural Workshop at ICIS 2003. Next, a brief description of the

two national cultures, Scandinavian and French, which are the focal point of this essay, is

presented. Following this, the three major cross cultural constructs are each discussed in

a separate section, first in general and then in terms of the two cultures addressed. First,

high-low context is discussed. Second, the notion of monochronic versus polychronic

time orientation is addressed. Then power-distance is discussed. Then follows a

discussion comparing and contrasting the three constructs in terms of information

systems and equality issues in the two cultures. In the implications and future research

section which concludes this paper, developmental suggestions are provided for this

4

nascent field of research, integrating information systems and international business. The

appendix includes a graph showing Internet usage among European nations.

4. Statement of Purpose

There is a gap in the literature for adequate understanding of cultural issues in

contemporary multinationals. In order for progressive 21st century organizations to

optimally manage the high level of geographically distributed work and learning

environments representative of the landscape, this gap must be addressed. This paper is

an essay to stimulate debate among researchers and practioners in both information

systems and international business. However, it has foremost been specially prepared to

present and stimulate discussion at the Cross Cultural workshop at ICIS 2003. During

the interactive presentation of this paper at the Cross Cultural Workshop at ICIS,

participants will discuss the fundamental differences in cross cultural parameters between

Scandinavia and France, in the respective countries’ overall use of information systems in

the 21st century and, in particular, advanced collaborative technology in virtual

workspaces such as the Interwise platform. Participants in the workshop are requested to

discuss their thoughts about what these differences in cross cultural inequality mean, in

terms of design and managerial implications of IS for geographically distributed

collaboration in contemporary multinationals. Moreover, the participants in the

workshop are welcome to contribute to the early stages of development of a collaborative

model of cross cultural IS equalization in global business. To stimulate this discussion,

the following questions are provided to encourage debate about both the important

components of the cross cultural equalization model in IS, and how to achieve them in a

culture with impediments towards IS equality in collaborative technology interactions:

5

Note: the questions below provide a framework for reading this essay in

preparation for a discussion of it at the Cross Cultural Workshop at ICIS, 2003. 4.1 How is status/equality perceived in Scandinavian culture? How is status/equality perceived in French culture?

4.2 How does the overall degree of status/equality inherent to a specific culture affect the use of advanced collaborative technology overall by that nationality? 4.3 How does risk taking behavior (i.e. low uncertainty avoidance) affect inequality

in IS?

4.4 Is uncertainty avoidance a dimension that should be considered in a serious discussion of cross cultural inequality in IS? Why?

4.5 What implications does a preference for a work style of explicit and direct

interactions have for Scandinavians in managing and designing advanced collaborative technologies?

4.6 What implications does a preference for F2F interactions have for managing and

designing advanced collaborative technology platforms for French users? 4.7 Is the “privileged democracy” phenomenon of middle management working with

information systems inherently Scandinavian, or can it exist in other cultures with less emphasis on participatory design and management?

4.8 How can we as cross cultural IS researchers better understand and contribute

insights into managing two or more national cultures coexisting in a multinational?

4.9 How can designers and managers of collaborative learning and/or collaborative work projects in multinationals possibly work with us as cross cultural IS researchers in improving the usability of software like Interwise or Centra throughout multinationals? 5. The two cross cultural contexts that are the object of this essay, Scandinavia and

France, are discussed below. While the author has conducted empirical investigations of

collaborative technologies in both of those geographic areas (Rossen, 1993; Rossen,

6

2003), the discussion that follows is based upon “documented observation” (Castells,

2001). Thus, the author is laying the foundation for further research and analysis in an

interactive and dynamic process with organizations such as industry-academic

collaboration (Mathiassen, 2002).

5.1 Introducing Scandinavia

Scandinavia has among the highest literacy rates in the world and, according to

some rankings, is top in information literacy in the world. This corresponds to a high

level of competency in information technology (Scandinavia HighTech, 2003). The

Scandinavians represent five nationalities—Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish and

Icelandic. A sense of equality, self-sufficiency, and focused concentration are qualities

uniting the natives of the five Scandinavian countries. For purposes of international

statistical reporting, the Scandinavia countries are frequently aggregated.

In terms of an IT culture, Scandinavia shares certain common characteristics

among the respective countries, including high usage of Internet and web-based

information systems. By 1998, Scandinavia had surpassed the US and France in the

percent of computers connected to the Internet (Catinat, 1999, in Sherif, p.4). Based

upon a globalization index developed by A.T. Kearney in 2001 ranking the top 50

industrialized countries, Scandinavia countries (grouped together) are ranked as the third

highest in globalization. Only the United States and Canada have higher rankings on the

Kearney globalization index than Scandinavia.

5.2 Introducing the French The French literacy rate is among the highest or perhaps even the highest in the

world, according to some rankings. The French take tremendous pride in their culture

7

and in their language, which is an extension of French culture. Not only do they restrict

the amount of English language content in written text, but they also use their own

alternative to the Internet for online services, the Minitel. The French as a nation have

been online on low-tech terminals over France Telecom lines since introducing the

Minitel in 1983. Thus the French have been online longer than most of the rest of the

world, including the Scandinavian countries and the United States. Internet usage in

France is among the lowest in the industrialized world. In fact, France has been ranked

among the lowest of all the European countries in terms of Internet usage, as is shown in

the graph in the appendix on page 23. However, France is within the same range of

Internet usage as other Mediterranean countries. The French have been criticized for

relying excessively on the low-tech Minitel system rather than joining the rest of the

industrialized world in heavy use of the Internet. Nevertheless, France is ranked as the

fourth highest industrialized country in a special issue on France in the Academy of

Management (November, 2002). French technology is considered leading edge in a

number of domains including high speed trains, satellites and aviation. Moreover, France

is the home of one of the top IS management firms in the world, Cap Gemini.

6. The Cross Cultural Dimensions

Three cross cultural dimensions are discussed in this paper: context,

monochromic versus polychromic orientation towards time (Hall, 1969; 1983; 1990), and

power distance (Hofstede, 1980; 1991).

8

6.1 Low Context vs. High Context

Context (Hall, 1969; 1983; 1990) refers to an inherent preference for a specific

mix of verbal versus non-verbal forms of communication. The degree of context is

determined to an extent by the degree of sensory data that is either processed or screened

out. Low context is characterized by an appreciation for exactly detailed verbal and

written information. Scandinavian countries are all classified as low context; people tend

to be explicit in both spoken and written communication. By contrast, in a high context

culture like France, body language may take precedence over the written and even the

spoken word. Not only do the French tend to be indirect in their speech, but they tend to

depend upon “sensual data” (Merriam, 2002) drawing from smell and touch, as well as

sight and sound, to communicate and understand each other. In a recent participant in an

empirical study (Rossen, pending) an international executive from a high context

country, working in a low context country, made the following comment about face-to-

face communication versus computer mediated communication: “We are still animals

and we have to ‘smell’ the person we relate to know what type they are: trustful, fearful,

motivated, depressive…”

Sherif (2000) in his AT&T report on diversity, culture and project

management, describes how meetings in organizations are affected by context.

Specifically, “in low-context cultures meetings take place in a linear fashion with a

specific agenda to achieve results that can be reported. There is little room for ‘open

space’ and for discussion outside the subject of the meeting” (p.3). This organized type

of meeting is representative of Scandinavian meetings. A Scandinavian mechanical

engineer reports about his collaborative design project with colleagues in England: “The

9

tool is absolutely indispensable when you work with designers somewhere else. I have

been to England once since the beginning of August – usually one or two of us would

have gone once or twice. You can also add the fact that our project is further ahead than

we normally would have been. With the use of virtual meetings we can go through seven-

eight elements in a couple of hours – normally we would have spent a whole day,

including the travelling.” While the structured and organized type of interaction

mentioned by the Scandinavian mechanical engineer demonstrates attention to the task at

hand or a monochromic orientation (Hall, 1983; 1990), the French affinity for open-

ended and unstructured discussions illustrates the polarity of this dimension of culture,

which Hall refers to as polychronic time (1983; 1990).

6.2 Monochronic vs. Polychronic

As a group, Scandinavians’ perception of time is monochronic (Hall, 1969;

1983; 1990). That means that in general Scandinavians function best and exhibit a

preference for concentrating on one task or activity at hand with relentless attention.

Moreover, it means that in general there is a sharp division between workday and

personal time, and that the Scandinavian workday rarely extends into the evening or

weekends. By contrast, the French place less emphasis on completing an agenda within a

scheduled meeting, and important decisions are generally made in the hallway or coffee

bar. What this means is that the French business person prefers multi-tasking and a much

less structured approach to meeting style. For example, the French are known for what

they refer to as System “D,” where with sufficient finagling there is way to resolve

almost anything outside the confines of a linear approach. However, this would never

appear on a meeting agenda.

10

6.3 Power-Distance

Hofstede’s power-distance index measures the degree of inequality in a society

(1980; 1991). Power-distance can be defined as “the extent to which the less powerful

members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power

is distributed unequally” (1991, p.28). Power-distance can also be classified as a

management style or status level, with a high PDI, power distance index, referring to a

highly authoritative management style, and low PDI referring to a participative

management style. Among Hofstede’s five constructs of national culture (1980; 1991),

power distance is the one most relevant to a discussion of the inequality of IS in a cross

cultural setting. Hofstede, in regard to power-distance, studied how executives respond

to “the basic question of how to handle the fact that people are unequal” (p. 24).

Hofstede asserts that his “PDI scores inform us about dependence relationships in a

(given) country, and that in high power-distance countries there is dependence of

subordinates on bosses, whereas in low power-distance countries there is a preference for

consultation and there is an interdependent relationship between bosses and subordinates”

(p.27). An example that Hofstede provides is that, in a low power-distance culture,

subordinates tend to easily approach their bosses and feel comfortable in contradicting

them, as portrayed in the Swedes’ laughter towards their new king, Bernadotte, in the

prologue. Although Sweden is the example presented in the prologue, Hofstede classifies

all the Scandinavian countries as being low power-distant, with their respective power

distance indexes being: Denmark, with the lowest at 18, followed by Sweden and

Norway with the same score, 31, and Finland only slightly ahead at 33. By contrast,

France has a PDI of 68. Ranking the countries concerned in order from high to low,

11

France ranks between 15 and 16, while Finland ranks 46; Sweden and Norway tie rank

between 47 and 48, and Denmark ranks 51. The two empirical studies upon which this

paper is based both occurred in Denmark.

As Hofstede’s account in the prologue illustrates, there are major differences in

the way the Scandinavians and the French perceive and handle discontinuities in power.

Hofstede has measured these differences in his seminal study of cross culture (1980). The

power-distance index of Scandinavian countries is low, while the French PDI is high. A

high PDI like that of France indicates that “management information may be precisely

that, information only available to management” (Davison and Jordan, 1996). At least

one study (Huberman, Loch, and Onculer, 2003) has equated the intensity of the motive

for “status” with power-distance. Access to information in a high PDI country like

France comes with the increased power of the manager, whereas regions like

Scandinavia, where the power-distance index is low, are “friendly, cooperative and

egalitarian” (Jordan, 1994). Relative to the discussion of collaborative technologies,

limited work has been done investigating the power-distance relationship and

implementation of group support systems or GSS (Davison and Jordan, 1996; DeSanctis

and Poole, 1994). It was found that: “the spirit of GSS is that it promotes the democratic

diffusion of information and decentralization of decision making” (Davison and Jordan,

1996, p.7). This “spirit” seems to correspond well to the nature of Scandinavian

information systems and the cultural context in which they operate. However, the

cultural context of French organizations seems to be the antithesis of the “spirit essential

for democratic diffusion of information and decentralization of decision making.” In a

country like France with high power distance, “the boss is powerful and cannot be

12

contradicted.” GSS may be seen as unacceptable, “‘insubordinate’ and possibly

threatening” (Davison and Jordan, 1996, p.7), whereas in Scandinavian countries with

low power distance, “the chances of successful GSS information will be improved”

(p.12).

7. Discussion

“Designing human-computer experience isn’t about building a better desktop.

It’s about creating imaginary worlds that have a special relationship to reality—worlds

in which we can extend, amplify, and enrich our own capacities to think, feel and act.”

(Laurel, 1991)

In international business, what do cross cultural dimensions mean in terms of

both how collaborative technologies are used and perceived in multinationals, and what

design features are important to different cultures? Specifically, in the context of this

essay, what are the implications of Scandinavian and French culture for using advanced

collaborative technologies?

“ICTs, information communication technologies, are regarded and studied as

vehicles of globalization, in the sense that they are key for the communication of ideas,

and are instruments for extending the scope of control of organizations around the globe”

(Castells, 1996, in Barrett, Jarvenppa, Silva and Walsham, 2003, p.10). Paradoxically,

while one discussion theme in IS is that information communication technologies support

the development of democratic working conditions, the controlling nature of

implementing and managing these technologies seems to directly contradict an

environment of equality. The high power-distance index (Hofstede, 1980; 1991) and the

related need for the French to be authoritarian may account for their limited use of the

13

Internet and lack of ranking among the top industrialized countries in globalization.

Among all the industrialized countries, France is one of the lowest Internet users per

capita. Moreover, the French (high context/polychronic) preference for face-to-face

discussions as well as indirect and non-written communication impedes France’s

globalization potential and constrains its Internet use.

By contrast, the low power-distance/monochronic Scandinavian countries are

considered among the most egalitarian in the world, as per Hofstede’s example. The

Scandinavians’ pre-disposition for decentralization of authority, information sharing and

welcoming participation in organizational decision making leads them to be more open to

globalization than the French, and toward reliance upon a non-Scandinavian on-line

system that enables them to globalize, the Internet. In addition, the low context nature of

Scandinavian cultures lends itself to working effectively in both synchronous and

asynchronous virtual workspaces where an agenda is followed.

Scandinavians’ pre-disposition to value consensus and respect the opinion and

views of all organizational members in decision making seems to have implications for

using IS. As Davison and Jordan suggest, “when information is freely available,

authority that stems from sole (or restricted) possession of information is reduced” (1996,

p.5). Information tends to be shared and freely available in the organizations studied in

the author’s research on advanced collaborative technologies (Rossen, 2003).

Specifically, this was supported by case research in Scandinavia on the Interwise

collaborative technology platform. Both in studying an ACT platform in a Scandinavian

multinational manufacturer, and through studying work habits in the IS intensive

environment of a Scandinavian ERP firm, the researcher observed effective use of

14

collaboration technologies at all levels of the organization. Scandinavian culture appears

to support the use of collaborative technologies.

The French IS landscape is in many ways paradoxical. France is known for its

ubiquitous social and industrial hierarchical structure. Nonetheless, France is renowned

for outstanding technological successes which have been dependent upon the successful

orchestration of “public and the private sectors, universities, public and private

laboratories, large corporation, small and medium firms and also the micro-enterprises

which play an essential role in the new information technologies” (Deneire and Segulla,

2002). The development of Minitel and TGV are examples of collaborative and

successful high-level, large-scale infrastructure projects in France. In industry today,

another illustration of successful high-level collaboration is exhibited in the services

provided to top management throughout the world by Paris headquartered Cap Gemini,

one of the top IS management firms in the world. These three cases demonstrate the

complexities of innovation managed by the French. Despite a high level of power

distance across the French culture, within the elite corps of management in France there

is a closed and intimate social network that collaborates gracefully.

There is a “business elite” in France which governs the orchestration of these

high-level collaborative technological infrastructure projects. A “given” in French

culture is that a management role is accompanied by entitlement (to leadership and to

membership in elite social networks). While becoming a manager in France is generally

dependent upon the appropriate education in a grande ecole, there is a clear-cut

separation in France between the “business elite,” or le cadre, and the employees. Even

two different forms of the word “you” are used in communicating between the two levels,

15

tu and us. This traditional French management model identifies the manager as the

authoritative leader and the ultimate decision-maker. According to an interview in 2002

with the Secretary of State for Industry in France, “paternalistic relations are central to

French leadership since it (French leadership) is often based on personal relationships”

(Deneire & Segulla, p.27). However, this comes with a tremendous responsibility never

to fail. “In France someone who fails tends to be marked for life” (Deneire & Segulla,

p.28).

While entitlement comes with a management position in France, this notion

related to failure being fatal goes across all levels. This serves as a disincentive to

working on collaborative technology platforms which archive all information and can be

disseminated on an ongoing basis. One wrong word online can be perceived as the

equivalent of suicide for a French worker. Taking management risk decisions at a high

level in France is accompanied by special privileges; however there is no similar

incentive for French workers, just potential humiliation. By respecting the natural flow

of the high context environment, little is put into writing or permanently recorded. This

is the anthesis of the nature of computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW).

The preceding statements illustrate both the high context and the high level of

power-distance in French organizations. This is in direct contrast to the Scandinavian

“participatory management” model, as shown in the 2002 vision statement of the

multinational Scandinavian manufacturing firm previously studied by the researcher:

“Our vision is for SI to become a worldwide learning environment where managers,

employees, and business partners can easily learn what they need, when they need it, and

apply their competencies for their own and SI’s benefits.” While the phenomenon of

16

middle management introducing a large-scale international collaborative technology

system has been studied and found to support collaborative work and learning, this

appears to be limited to the SI case (Rossen, 2003). Differences among international

cultural dimensions lead the researcher to question whether this phenomenon of

“privileged democracy” of middle management working with information systems in

multinationals is inherently Scandinavian, or if it can exist in other cultures with less

emphasis on participatory design and management.

8. Moving Beyond the Essay, Inequality in IS

The objective of this essay ultimately is to develop an action research

pedagogical model of effective electronic collaboration that can be refined in iterations of

use and reflection. It will be tailored to the needs of specific corporations challenged in

finding strategies to overcome cross cultural obstacles, in geographically distributed

environments spanning numerous countries and time zones. This responds to Tan’s 2003

call to action for IS researchers to address this time-sensitive gap in contemporary

literature. This model is based upon Hall’s constructs of context and monochromic versus

polychromic time orientation, as well as Hofstede’s construct of power distance (and

possibly uncertainty avoidance).

While critics of applying Hofstede’s cross cultural dimensions to IS research

(Walsham and Sahay, 2002; Sahay, 2003) continue to flourish, Hofstede’s dimensions are

useful as guideposts rather than as absolute criteria seeking validation. Guideposts are

useful for conducting exploratory research so that it does not have “scientifically valid”

as an objective. This is consistent with the author’s future research to stimulate outcomes

that result in “actionable knowledge” in multinational corporations striving to excel in

17

integrating continuous learning objectives with IT infrastructures. Management action

science (Gummesson, 2002) and other forms of practioner research collaboration, such as

industry-academic collaboration (Mathiassen, 2002), enable us as IS researchers to

contribute to developing practioners’ ability to understand and learn how to manage

cultural dimensions with insight. As a consequence, multinationals can flourish in their

effective use of contemporary information systems, including state of the art advanced

collaborative technology platforms.

As information systems researchers, we are accustomed to interacting with

colleagues who share a high level of experience and finesse in communicating

electronically. However, it is a rare one of us who does not still experience moments of

sheer frustration and lost time while trying to collaborate with practioners in industries

that have been late adopters of technology, and/or colleagues from countries where face-

to-face communication is more important than it is to our culture and, specifically, to us.

As a society striving to overcome the digital divide globally, we are unlikely to see an

end to these moments in the near future. What have we learned as IS researchers that we

can share with these colleagues who are emerging or late adopters of collaborative

technologies, in order to help them integrate into the competitive and fast-paced

marketplace of the 21st century? How can we transmit this knowledge to practioners in a

way that they can use and remember?

18

8.1 Towards a Pedagogical Model

In moving towards a pedagogical model of computer-mediated collaboration for

multinationals that are late adopters of IT enterprise-wide systems, I suggest that there are

three levels of engagement in cross cultural computer-mediated interactions as displayed

on the graphic on the next page, Figure 1. The levels include:

1. E-Engaged, which is a high functioning level of computer-mediated

interaction, one that supports successful outcomes measurable by those instruments

corporations traditionally use to measure productivity, e.g. increased revenues, customer

satisfaction, positive performance reviews

2. Neutral, a functioning level of computer mediated interaction that maintains

the status quo, in terms of traditional measurable outcomes of productivity in

corporations

3. Disengaged, which is a low functioning level, one that erodes measurable

outcomes of productivity in corporations by contributing to lower revenues, problems

with employee morale, customer dissatisfaction reports, etc.

19

FIGURE 1: Emerging Pedagogical Model

E-engaged refers to a state where the user focuses relentless concentration on the

task at hand and communicates in a manner that supports the objectives of the computer-

mediated collaboration. This emerging pedagogical model needs to be grounded in

research , as described in the following section.

8.2 Future research

E-

Engaged

Neutrally engaged –has the potential to become E- Engaged with

compensatory adaptation Training in E-Engagement Communication and cross

culture skills

Disengaged—Has the potential to become neutral or even E-Engaged with Intensive training in E-engagement communication and cross

culture skills

20

Future research will concentrate on developing the initial pedagogical model

presented above into a comprehensive action research study for late adopters of

enterprise-wide collaborative technologies such as Interwise and Centra. Effective

lessons learned will be drawn from the successful results achieved in the two

Scandinavian multinationals studied using Interwise, and cross cultural insights will be

used to develop a workable model for France and other Mediterranean countries with

high context requirements. Greater use of phone conferencing for discussion, and video

conferencing for the simple dissemination of information, are directions to be explored in

advancing the receptivity to and effectiveness of using enterprise-wide collaborative

technologies in high context countries such as France.

A specific research direction is the further analysis of the documented

observations that provided the underpinning of this paper and its presentation as case

research. By specifically addressing the cross cultural dimension of “context” in the

shared electronic space of contemporary global business, further research by the author

explores the driving forces shaping the demand for the use of collaborative technologies

in global business and the role of face-to-face communication in different cultures and

organizations. This research also illustrates specific tasks and practices that have

overcome cross cultural obstacles enough to support the beneficial use of collaborative

technologies in business. A draft of that paper will be distributed to the workshop

participants in Seattle on December 13, 2003. In conjunction with this essay, it will be

the basis for stimulating a discussion about future research directions towards developing

a pedagogical universal usability model of collaborative technologies in 21st century

global businesses.

21

References

Barrett, M., Jarvenpaa, S., Silva, L., Walsham, G. (2003). ICTs, Globalization and Local Diversity. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 11: 27. Davison, R. and Jordan, E. (1996). Cultural Factors in the Adoption and the Use of GSS. Proceedings of the 2nd International Office of the Future Conference (IFIP 8.4). Tucson, Arizona. Deneire, M. and Segulla, M. (2002). Mr. Christian Pierret, Secretary of State for Industry (1997-2002), on French Perspectives on Organizational Leadership and Management. Academy of Management Executive. 16: 4, 25-36. DeSanctis, G.L. and Poole, M.S. (1994). Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory. Organizational Science. 5, 2, 121-147. Hall, E. T. (1969). The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday. Hall, E.T. (1983). The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time. New York: Doubleday. Hall, E.T. and Hall, M.R. (1990). Understanding Cultural Differences. New York: Intercultural Press, Inc. Hofstede, Gerte (1980). Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work- Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, Gerte (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw

Hill: Berkshire, England.

Huberman, B., Loch, C., and Onculer, A. (2003). Status as a Valued Resource. Social Psychology Quarterly.

Jordan, E. (1994). National and Organizational Culture: Their Use in Information System Design. Working Paper WP94/08, Department of Information Systems, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Merriam, Sharan and Associates. (2002). Qualitative Research in Practice. New York:

22

John Wiley.

Rossen, E. (1993). Minitel Case. (in Stanley Poliwoda, International Marketing.) London: Butterworth-Heineman.

Rossen, E. (2003). Case Analysis of Advanced Collaborative Technology: Pros and Cons of Global Shared Electronic Space in a 21st Century Multinational. Proceedings of Information Technology in Business Conference, St. Petersburg, Russia, October 2003. 27-42.

Schramm-Nielsen, J. (2001). Cultural Dimensions of Decision Making: Denmark and France Compared. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 16, 6: 404-423.

Sherif, M. H. (2000). Diversity, Culture and Technical Project Management. AT&T. (working paper). Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing Social Context Cues: Electronic Mail in Organizational Communication, Management Science, 32, 11: 1492-1512. Whitney, J.O. and Packer, T. (2000). Power Plays: Shakespeare’s Lessons in Leadership and Management. New York: Simon & Schuster.

23

Appendix

While the cases of France and Scandinavia were used to portray the two

polarities of the equality vs. inequality in IS, there are other countries that are also

extremes in the cross cultural dimensions discussed in this essay. Some basic statistical

information is provided in the appendices to provide the reader with a sense of

comparison of other countries and where they are ranked in terms of Internet usage and

orientation towards time and space in IT-enabled interactions. Low context vs. high

context is representative of the spectrum of a culture’s natural propensity to be explicit

and direct in written and oral communication, versus a propensity to place much more

emphasis on the need for face-to-face communication, and the interpretation of the

unspoken word through body language and social cues.

The following information is direct from the November 2003 Internet page of

HighTech Scandinavia. It shows their most recent figures on Internet penetration vs.

wireless penetration in Europe by country. (Note, all Scandinavian countries are listed

above all other European countries in Internet use.) Moreover, France is rated as one of

the lowest Internet users along with Greece, Spain and Portugal. The other

Mediterranean countries in Europe share with France both high power distance index and

low Internet usage.

24

HIGHTECH Scandinavia was started in 1998. A major feature of this project was the

HIGHTECH Scandinavia session during Internet World 1999 in New York, co-sponsored

by Invest in Denmark, Invest in Sweden Agency, Finland Trade Center and the

Norwegian Trade Council. It featured eight top Internet CEOs from the Scandinavian

region.

Note: According to the HighTech Scandinavia 2003 webpage as displayed above,

Sweden has overtaken the United States to become the world's number one information

economy, according to the 2000 IDC/World Times Information Society Index.

Following is a ranking of country scores in the context of the top ranking of countries in

25

the world information economy. Information on how the rankings were constructed is

not available. However, the rankings of the top five countries follow:

1. Sweden 5062

2. US 5041

3. Finland 4577

4. Norway 4481

5. Denmark 4336

Thus, four of the top five Internet users in the world are listed as Scandinavian countries.