intercultural communication in saudi organizations as perceived by american managers

8/13/2019 Intercultural communication in Saudi organizations as perceived by American managers

1/20

Internotronol J ournal of Intercultural Relatrons, Vol. 14, pp. 40-424, 1990 0147-1767/W 3 00 + .WPrmted in the USA. All rights reserved. CopyrIght 0 1990 Pergamon Press plc

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS ASPERCEIVED BY AMERICAN MANAGERS IN SAUDI

ARABIA AND FRENCH MANAGERS IN THE U S

OZZIE DEANSchool of Psychology and Human Behavior, National Universityand

GARY E. POPPGraduate School of Business and Management,United States International UniversityABSTRACT This study investigated agreement between American managers inSaudi Arabia and French managers in the US. regarding their subjective evaiua-tion of the importance of I6 personal abilities for Intercultural CommunicationEffectiveness ICE). Of these abilities, respondents were asked to select the 5abilities that greatly facilitate intercultural functioning. Demographic data werecollected, as weN as respondents satisfaction with stay in the host culture anddegree of intercultural effectiveness. Both groups reported the ability to workwith other people and to deal with unfamiliar situations, communication misun-derstandings, and changes in life styles greatly facilitate functioning in a foreignculture. They disagreed on the importance of seven other ICE abilities. Resultssupport both a culture-general and a culture-specific interpretation of ICE. Impli-cations of the results for ICE and cross-cultural management were discussed.

INTRODUCTIONThe increasing globalization of business produces a need for managers

to learn to function effectively in another culture. For this reason, anincreasing number of multinational companies are training their person-nel in intercultural communications. In a foreign environment, Knowinghow to listen, how to interrupt, how to praise, and how to scold, are moreimportant to a foreign manager than learning the language (Berger,1987). When managers fail to adjust to life in another culture, compul-sive behavior of one kind or another is often the result: overworking,overeating, overcleaning, overdrinking or smoking, overmedication, over-exercise, overthinking, or oversexing (Ratiu, 1988, p. 23). In overseasliving, managers often need the acquisition of both effectiveness skills(which empower the expatriate to translate his managerial and technicalRequests for reprints should be addressed to Drs. Gary E. Popp & Ozzie Dean, GraduateSchool of Business and Management, U.S. International University, 10455 Pomerado Rd.,San Diego, CA 92131.

405


2/20

406 0. Dean and G. E. Popp

competence successfully) and coping skills (which enable a person tobecome reasonably comfortable, or at least to survive, in a foreign envi-ronment (Copeland, 1985). Interestingly, in a study of Canadian techni-cal advisors abroad, Kealey (1989) reported that people who were mosttechnically competent tend to be the least interculturally effective andtend to experience more culture shock. This reinforces the notion that, interms of adjusting successfully to life in another culture, communicationeffectiveness is as important as technical effectiveness. One calls for theability to get a job done, the other calls for the abilities to relateeffectively to people of other cultures and become interpersonally andinterculturally effective. As Harris and Moran (1983, p. 52) put it Inter-est in getting things done is not enough. Every human endeavor whichinvolves getting things done calls for attention to both the work thatneeds to be done and peoples needs in the transaction. The latter is asimportant as the former because in transferring skills and knowledge topersons in another culture, there is the requirement of getting the jobdone. However, this requires the ability to get it done in such a way thatpeople feel a part of the completed project and have benefitted frombeing involved. Too much concern for getting the job done and neglect ofpeople maintenance can lead to failure in transferring skills (1983, p.52). Global managers today need to learn and practice the coping andeffectiveness skills their assignments require (Murray & Murray, 1986).

Managers also need to learn flexibility and sincerity in interculturalcontacts because flexibility is possibly the most important of the precau-tions necessary to minimize mistakes and misunderstandings in intercul-tural relationships. A flexible manager avoids jumping to the usualattributions about people of other cultures when in presence of astrange behavior he doesnt understand (Knotts, 1987). Sincerity alsocontributes to cross-cultural understanding because a sincere attitudeconveys acceptance and empathy which will be received in a trusting,positive manner (Knotts, 1989, pp. 32-33). For enhancing success andminimizing failure living in another culture, the literature on interculturalcommunication effectiveness suggests that sojourners need to beequipped with a number of personality characteristics and behaviorskills, Reviewing this literature with these occupations (Peace Corps, mili-tary, technical assistance workers, or overseas businessmen) Kealey andRuben (1983, pp. 155-175) reported that the same traits are shared by allsojourners. They are empathy, flexibility, tolerance, interest in local cul-ture and people, sociability, kindness, patience, intellectual curiosity, andopenmindedness (Kealey & Ruben, p. 165). Given that these groups havevery different occupations and living and working conditions, researcherssuch as Gudykunst, Wiseman, and Hammer (1977), Miller (1972), andRuben and Kealey (1979) have arrived at a high degree of consensusregarding what factors are related to ICE.


3/20

Intercultural Communication Effectiveness 407

According to Kleinjans (1972), the effective intercultural communica-tor:

(1) sees people first, representative of cultures second,(2) knows people are basically good,(3) knows the value of other cultures, and(4) has inner security and is able to feel comfortable being different

from other people.Bochners (1973) conception of the effective cross-cultural communica-

tor rested on the notion of mediating man. According to Bochner, someattributes of the mediating man are a belief in the common unity ofmankind, cultural relativism of values, cognitive flexibility, membershipin international and trans-national social networks, and supra-nationalreference groups (p. 35). Gudykunst, Wiseman, and Hammer (1977,p. 415) hypothesized a general cross-cultural attitude accounting forcross-cultural effectiveness. This attitude includes 7 factors:

(1) open-mindedness toward new ideas and experiences,(2) the ability to empathize with others,(3) accuracy in perceiving differences and similarities between the so-

journers own culture and the host culture,(4) nonjudgmental attitudes,(5) ability to be astute noncritical observers of their own and other

peoples behaviors,(6) the ability to establish meaningful relationships with people in the

host culture, and(7) minimal ethnocentrism.

Ruben (1985, p. 339) reviewed the literature on communication compe-tence in the U.S. and identified seven behaviors to account significantlyfor ICE:

(1) display of respect (conveyed through eye contact, body posture,voice tone and pitch),

(2) interaction posture (the ability to respond to others in a descrip-tive, non-evaluative and non-judgmental way),(3) orientation to knowledge (recognizing that ones knowledge, per-ception and beliefs are valid only for oneself and not for everyoneelse),

(4) empathy,(5) interaction management,(6) tolerance for ambiguity, and(7) self-oriented role behavior (ones capacity to be flexible and toadopt different roles for the sake of greater group cohesion and


4/20


group communication, for example, initiating of ideas, seekingclarifications, and gatekeeping).

One approach to ICE attempted to specify the most important abilitiesfor ICE using American students who had sojourned in other cultures forthree months (Hammer, Gudykunst, & Wiseman, 1978). Three importantdimension/abilities were identified:

(1) the ability to deal with psychological stress,(2) the ability to communicate effectively, and(3) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships.

When the Hammer et al. study (1978) was replicated with Japanesesubjects touring the U.S.A., Abe and Wiseman (1983) reported five di-mension/abilities accounting for ICE:

(1) the ability to communicate interpersonally,(2) the ability to adjust to different cultures,(3) the ability to adjust to different societal systems,(4) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships, and(5) the ability to understand others.

Using larger samples of American students who have sojournedabroad, Hammer (1987) confirmed the existence of these dimensions.

The purpose of the present study was to find out if American andFrench managers agree on the importance of 16 personal abilities sug-gested by a review of the literature as being important for interculturalcommunication effectiveness.

METHODS

SubjectsThe data were collected from 61 American managers in Saudi Arabia

and 31 French managers in the U.S. representing, respectively, 17 Ameri-can companies operating in Saudi Arabia and 16 French companies in theU.S. (Dean, 1986). The managers represented various industries. For theAmericans they were: construction & engineering (81%), oil industry(9%), and banking (8%). For the French they were: banking (29%), hotelmanagement (45 %), and manufacturing (25 %). Sixty-four percent of theAmerican and 55% of the French were middle managers (e.g., sales man-ager) while 36% and 45% of the American and French managers wereupper-level middle managers (e.g., vice president of sales and marketing,product development manager, etc.). Furthermore, equal numbers ofFrench and American managers had equal numbers of employees work-ing under them in their respective host countries. The average age was


5/20


46.5 years for Americans and 40.8 years for French. Selection was basedon a single criterion: The manager must have lived or has been living inthe host culture for at least 6 months. Mean length of stay in the hostculture was 4.2 years for Americans and 4.6 years for French. About 51%of American managers and 72.4% of French managers lived three ormore years in the host country. Forty-seven percent of American manag-ers were living in Saudi Arabia when the research was conducted. Theremaining 53% (32 managers) had to recall past overseas experience inrating their perception of ICE. Of these, 50% left the host country lessthan a year ago, 41% left the country three years ago, and 9% left thecountry over three years ago. All of the French managers were living inthe host country at the time the research was conducted.Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of 16 abilities suggested by the review ofthe literature (Hammer et al., 1978) as being important in facilitatingfunctioning in another culture. The 5point scale for each of these ratingsranged from Important (+2) to Unimportant (-2). Subjects wereasked

(1) to indicate how important each ability was in facilitating theireffective functioning in the host culture.

(2) to select the 5 most important abilities for ICE,(3) How do (did) you perceive your overall ability to function in the

host culture?, and(4) Were you satisfied with your stay in the host culture?

Dat a Analysis1. For all questions, descriptive statistics (means, percentages, andstandard deviations) were applied to discover (a) how American and

French managers rated the importance of each ability, (b) Which fiveabilities collected the highest ratings, (c) how satisfied they were withtheir stay in the host culture, and (d) how they rated their overall degreeof intercultural effectiveness. A tallying procedure was also used to revealthe most and least important abilities for each group based on whichabilities collected a rating of +2 (important) and which abilities collecteda rating of -2 (unimportant).

2. ANOVA was then used for a comparison of the abilities selected bythe American managers with the abilities selected by the French manag-ers. Two types of analyses were undertaken. First, subjects were com-pared at the single ability level (each ability taken separately). Second,they were compared at the dimensional ability level (2 to 5 abilities taken


6/20

410 0 Dean and G E Popp

together as a factor because of their similarities in the Abe and Wiseman(1983) study. There is a total of 5 factors (Table 1). The ability to dealwith Educational Systems is common to Factor I and IV, and the abilityto deal with Changes in Life Styles is common to Factor II and III. Theyare common because in the Abe and Wisemans (1983) study the abilitiesto deal with Educational Systems and Changes in Life Styles were foundto correlate highly with these Factors.

RESULTS

Satisfaction With Stay in the Host CultureThe majority of American (66%) and French managers (84%) per-

ceived themselves as being highly satisfied with their sojourn in the hostculture. When asked How do (did) you perceive your overall ability tofunction in the host country? 53 % of the American managers rated theiroverall ability to function in the Arabian culture as high. French man-agers (48%) rated their ability to function in the U.S. culture as high.

Descriptive Statistics for Abilities ItemsTable 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and the F ratios for

ratings of the importance of 16 abilities for ICE. The 5 abilities ratedmost important for ICE by American managers were (in descending or-der of importance, mean scores) the abilities to work with other people(1.80), to deal with unfamiliar situations (1.75), stress (1.70), communi-cation misunderstanding (1.65), and changes in life styles (1.60). The 5abilities rated least important for ICE included (in descending order ofimportance): to empathize with another person (.91), to maintain inter-personal relationships with others (.90), to deal with the pressure toconform (.81), different political systems (.77), and social alienation(.73).

For French managers the 5 most important abilities for ICE were theabilities to deal with unfamiliar situations (1.58), to deal with changes inlife styles (1.41), to enter meaningful dialogue with others (1.41), to workwith other people (1.38), and communication misunderstandings (1.32).For French managers, the 5 least important abilities for ICE included theabilities to empathize with another person (.73), to maintain interper-sonal relationships with others and to deal with the pressure to conform(.61 each), different educational systems (.45), to deal with social aliena-tion (. 16), and to deal with different political systems (- .64).


7/20


TABLEA Comparison With Abe and Wisemans Factors

Abe and Wiseman(1983) factors

Abrlityitems

Dean* (1988) ICE culture-general or

P culture-specific?7 Unforseen pbs 9.91 < ,002 Specific8 Dialogue 3.95 < .04

Factor I 9 Comm.misunder. 4.82 < .03To communicate 11 Commsystems NSinterpersonally 12 Educa.systems NS

Factor IITo adjust todifferentcultures

1 Stress2 Unfam. situat.3 Life styles4 Pressure to Conf

15.18 < .0002NSNSNS

Specific

Factor III 3 Life styles NS GeneralDifferent 5 Social alrena. 5.69 < .Olsocietal systems 6 Political sit. 40.34 < .oooo

Factor IVTo establishInterpersonalrelationshrps

12 Educa.systems13 Interp.relati.lO Dev. interprsl

NSNSNS

General

Factor VTo understandothers

14 Underst. feel.15 Empathize16 Work

NSNS8.66 < .004

General

NS = not significant.12 is common to Factors I and IV.

3 is common to Factors II and Ill.*a.k.a. Azzedine Mezbache.

Compari sons of M anagers Perceptions at t he Singl e Abil i t y LevelAmerican managers differed significantly from French managers on

the ratings of the importance of seven abilities for ICE. These abilitiesincluded the abilities to deal with stress (I? < .OOO),social alienation(p < .Ol), different political systems p < .OOOO), nforeseen problemsp c .002), to enter meaningful dialogue with others p < .04), commu-nication misunderstandings p < .03), and to work with other peoplep < .004). Ranking the importance of the 5 most important abilities for

ICE, both groups agreed on the ranking of only one item; the ability todeal with communication misunderstanding, which was given the fifthranking. They disagreed on the ranking of the remaining 15 abilities.Of the significant abilities for ICE, only two abilities (i.e., to deal withdifferent political systems and unforeseen problems) were rated on the


8/20


TABLE 2Percentages, Means, and Standard Deviations of the Samples

Relative to Ratings of the Importance of 16 Abilities for ICE

Abilityitems

Americann = 61

Mean SD

Frenchn = 31

Mean SD F16. To work effectively with other peo-

ple2. Unfamiliar with situations1. To deal with stress9. Communication misunderstand-

mgs

1.801.751.70

3. Changes in life styles7. To deal with unforseen problems

14. To accurately understand the feel-ings of others

8. To enter meaningful dialogue withothers

.91 8.66

.84 1.691.12 15.16*

1.65 .94 4.821.60 .72 1.791 44 1.27 9.911.24 - .64 .Ol1.06 .72 3.95*1.00 .97 .241 .oo .90 .261 00 .99 1.88

.91 .78 1.17

.90 1.14 1.81

.81 .95 .92

.77 .98 40.34*

.73 1.18 5.69*< .05.

**p < ,001.Note: Amencan managers self-perceived abilities for ICE are listed for most importantto least Important (1 through 16, means considered). The numbering (1 through 16)indicates the order in which the abilities appeared in the instrument.

10. To develop satisfying interpersonalrelationships with others

11. Different communication systems12. Different educational systems15. To empathize with another person13. To maintain Interpersonal relatlon-

ships with others4. The pressure to conform6. Different political systems5 To deal with social alienation

.44 1.38

.43 1 58

.49 1.12

.51 1.32

.58 1.41

.75 .76

.92 1.26

.84 1.41

.84 1.09

.82 .901.08 .45

.74 .73

.85 .611.02 .611 02 - .641.04 .16

extreme ends of the scale (from a high of 1.44 to a low of - .64). Oneability (to deal with social alienation; U.S. mean = .73, French mean -.16) was rated on the middle lower end of the scale. The remaining 4abilities were rated on the high end of the scale with American managerstending to rate these abilities more importantly than French managers.

M ajor Rat i ng D i fferencesA comparison of the groups means on each ability reveals that large

differences exist on three abilities.


9/20


1. Ability to Deal with Different Political Systems. (U.S. mean =.73, French mean = -.64, p < .OOOO)as one of the least importantabilities for ICE for both groups. Regarding this ability, French managersdiffered substantially from their American counterparts. French re-sponses were significantly lower (12.9% rated this item somewhat impor-tant as opposed to 41% for American managers); 22.9% of Frenchmanagers gave this item a rating of unimportant, as opposed to 4.9percent for American managers).2. Ability To Deal With Stress. American responses were significantlyhigher (71.7% rated this item important): French managers (43.3 per-cent) did not list this ability among the 5 most important abilities forICE, while American managers gave it a ranking of three.3. Ability To Enter Meaningful Dialogue With Others. French re-sponses were significantly higher (54.8% rated this item important)versus Americans (33.3%). American managers did not list this abilityamong the 5 most important abilities for ICE, while French managersgave it a ranking of four.Comparisons of M anagers Perceptions at the Dimensional AbilityLevel

At the factorial or dimensional level, the abilities items in this studywere divided among the five dimensions or factors established by Abeand Wiseman (1983). These five factors are listed in Table 1, with thenumbering assigned in the present study to the abilities correlating witheach respective factor in the Abe and Wiseman study.Factor I. Ability to Communicate Interpersonally 5 Abilities)

Five abilities had high loadings on this factor in the Abe and Wisemanstudy (1983). In the current study the loadings were 7, 8, 9, l 1 and

12. There were significant differences between the samples relative toFactor I because, as Table 1 shows, three of these abilities ( 7, 8, and 9)had high enough F ratios to make this factor significant. Based on thisfinding, it can be said that Factor I, Ability to Communicate Interper-sonally, is culture-specific which means that at the dimensional level,French and American managers differed significantly in their subjectiveevaluation of the importance of this dimension/ability for ICE.Factor II. Ability to Adjust to Different Cultures 4 Abilities)

In this study these abilities were l, 2, 3, and 4, of which 3 abilitiesdid not reach significance. However, there were significant differences


10/20


between the samples relative to Factor II because, as shown in Table 1, theAbility To Deal With Stress has a high enough F ratio (p < .OOOl) tomake this factor significant. Based on this finding, it can be said thatFactor II, Ability to Adjust to Different Cultures, is culture-specific. Thismeans that at the dimensional level, the two groups differed significantlyin their subjective evaluation of the importance of this factor for ICE.Factor III. Ability to Deal With Different Societal Systems 3Abilities)

In this study these abilities were 3, 5, and 6. Although abilities 5and 6 had high F ratios, the application of ANOVA shows that there wereno significant differences between the samples relative to Factor III.Based on this finding, it can be said that Factor III, Ability to Deal WithDifferent Societal Systems, is culture-general, suggesting that, at the di-mensional level, the two groups had similar subjective evaluations of theimportance of this factor for ICE.

Factor IV Ability To Establish Interpersonal Relationships 3Abilities)In this study these abilities were 12, 13, and lo. There were no

significant differences between the samples relative to Factor IV because,as indicated in Table 1, abilities 12, 13, and lO did not reach signifi-cance. It can then be concluded that Factor IV is culture-general.Factor K Ability To Understand Others 3 Abilities)

In the present study these abilities were 14, 15, and 16. There wereno significant differences between the samples relative to Factor V be-cause, as indicated in Table 1, ability 16, although significant, did nothave a high enough F ratio to make this factor significant. These resultssuggest that Factor V is culture-general.

SUMM RYAt the factorial level, American and French managers differed signifi-

cantly in their subjective evaluation of the importance of Factor I (Abilityto Communicate Interpersonally) and Factor II (Ability to Adjust toDifferent Cultures). However, they did not differ significantly in theirsubjective evaluation of Factor III (Ability To Deal With Different Soci-etal Systems), Factor IV (Ability To Establish Interpersonal Relation-ships), or Factor V (Ability to Understand Others).


11/20


DISCUSSIONThe purpose of the present study was to find out if American andFrench managers agree on the importance of 16 personal abilities sug-gested by a review of the literature as being important for intercultural

communication effectiveness. The similarities and differences betweenAmerican and French managers perceptions of ICE can be discussed interms of both the nature and the number of dimensions found in thepresent study.

This study has provided evidence for both the culture-general and theculture-specific interpretations of ICE. There is evidence for a culture-general interpretation of ICE because both nationality groups reported(at the single ability level) that the abilities to deal with unfamiliar situa-tions, to work with other people, to deal with changes in life styles, andto deal with communication misunderstandings were primary in facilitat-ing intercultural communication effectiveness. There is evidence for aculture-specific interpretation of ICE because American and Frenchmanagers differed in their views on the number and the nature of theabilities that facilitate intercultural communication effectiveness. For ex-.ample, some abilities obtained a different ranking by the groups becausethey were judged either less important or more important (e.g., abilitiesto deal with stress and with different political systems).

At the factorial (dimensional) level as well, there were significant dif-ferences between the two groups. American and French managers werefound to differ significantly in their subjective evaluation of the impor-tance of a number of abilities (Table 1) included in Factor I (Ability toCommunicate Interpersonally) and Factor II (the Ability to Adjust toDifferent Cultures). The 5 abilities in Factor I have in common that theyall relate to communicating effectively with others in the host culture. Forthis reason, saying that Factor I is culture-specific means that Americanand French managers were using different and culture-specific communi-cation styles to adjust to their respective host cultures. This is probablytrue particularly when it comes to the ability to deal with unforeseenproblems, to enter meaningful dialogue with others, and to deal withcommunication misunderstandings which were found to be significantlydifferent. Regarding the ability to deal with unforeseen problems, Ameri-can managers gave it more importance than the French did (a rank of 6versus a rank of 8) probably because American managers felt that toadjust successfully to life in Saudi Arabia, you need to be able to dealwith the unknown, the unfamiliar, and all kinds of unexpected situationsbecause the Saudi culture is extremely different from the U.S. culture.This ability did not weigh as heavily with the French. One possible expla-nation may be that perhaps because French managers were more or less


12/20


familiar with the U.S. culture and did not have to fear as many unexpect-ed cross-cultural situations as the Americans did in Saudi Arabia. Re-garding the ability to enter meaningful dialogue with others, which wasranked 8th by the Americans and 4th by the French, it is culture-specificprobably because to Americans entering a meaningful dialogue with thenationals is not as important as entering a dialogue within a work con-text. To the French, entering a meaningful dialogue with the nationalsprobably meant going beyond dialogue in a work context to getting toknow the people they meet in the host culture on a more personal basis.Concerning the ability to deal with communication misunderstandings,Americans felt it was more important (rank of 4) than the French did(rank of 5). American managers believed this ability to be essential foradjustment to life in the Saudi culture, possibly because Saudi culturecontrasts so much with the U.S. culture, and communication misunder-standings could be expected. A possible reason why this might be is thatAmericans have a long history of dealing with foreigners immigrating tothe U.S. This experience may result in believing that effective interculturalcommunication is necessary in order to get anything done. Over 32% ofthe French spoke English (as opposed to 8.2% for their American coun-terparts who spoke Arabic); this could explain why the French gave theability to deal with communication misunderstandings less weight thantheir American counterparts.

Regarding Factor II (Ability To Adjust to Different Cultures) whichincluded the abilities to deal with stress, unfamiliar situations, life styles,and pressure to conform, American managers differed significantly fromtheir French counterparts regarding the abilities to deal with stress only.This ability was ranked 3rd by U.S. respondents, 6th by the French, andcollected the second highest F ratio. It was, therefore, concluded that thisfactor is culture-specific. One possible meaning might be that in adjust-ing to life in Saudi Arabia, American managers may tend to believe thatthe ability to handle stress is primary. Again Americans were living in ahost culture that was much different from their own. In a country whereU.S. respondents probably do not speak the language or understand thereligions and customs, a manager would be confronted with considerablestress and constant adjustments. French subjects could perceive less stressin the U.S., which in many ways is similar to France.The authors of the present study are inclined to conclude that someabilities were culture-specific and others culture-general. Explanationsfor this tentative conclusion follow.

Ability to work with other people. This ability was rated the highest byAmerican managers (1.80) and the third highest by French managers(1.38). This result supports similar results found in previous studies ofICE, for example, Hammer et al. (1978) and Abe and Wiseman (1983).This ability is probably culture-general, not culture-specific. This sug-


13/20


gests that American students, Japanese tourists, and American or Frenchmanagers must be able to work effectively with other people in a specificculture in order to become interculturally effective. All studies, includingthe present one, compared groups means and single abilities, notdimensions.

The abilities to develop satisfying relationships with others (ranked,respectively, 9 and 7 by American and French managers), to maintaininterpersonal relationships with others (ranked, respectively, 15, and 11by American and French managers) were among the least importantabilities for ICE but were more important for American than for Frenchmanagers.One possible explanation for this finding may be that since Americanstend to be achievement oriented, when relating to others they tend tofocus more on getting things done than developing interpersonal relation-ships. This achievement orientation might make the nature of societalcontacts in the American culture based more upon the shared achieve-ment of mutual objectives, rather than the Japanese, for example, wheresocial contacts are based more on relationships (Abe & Wiseman, 1983,p. 55).

Interest only in getting things done is not enough. Every humanendeavor that involves getting things done calls for attention both to thework that needs to be done and to peoples needs in the transaction(Harris & Moran, 1983).

The ability to deal with stress. American managers rated this ability thethird most important ability for ICE, while French managers did not listthis ability among their five most important abilities. The samples dif-fered significantly p < .OOOl) on the rating of its importance for ICE.This result was consistent with Hammer and colleagues (1978) findingthat for American students intercultural communication effectiveness re-quired primarily the ability to deal with stress. Japanese subjects (Abe &Wiseman, 1983) did not rate this ability highly enough to correlate withany of the five dimensions established by the authors. To summarize,since American students (Hammer et al., 1978) and American managers(the present study) found this ability important for ICE, and since Japa-nese tourists (Abe & Wiseman, 1983) and French managers (the presentstudy) did not find this ability to be important for ICE, it can be conclud-ed that, at least with these samples, the ability to deal effectively withstress is culture-specific, meaning that people from different cultures willlikely vary in their subjective evaluation of this particular ability forICE.

In addition to environmental factor (i.e., life in a foreign environment)there may be another reason why the American group thought the abilityto deal with stress to be more important than the French did. In theAmerican culture children are taught from a young age to rely on them-


14/20

418 0. Dean and G. E. Poppselves and value individualism more than groups. When an Americanmanager is living abroad he may find it hard to rely on others for helpand support with the psychological problems encountered during theprocess of adjustment. Such an individual may carry all the burden of theday to day stress by himself rather than talking things over with friends orcolleagues in the immediate environment. Abe and Wiseman (1983)pointed out that for the Japanese intercultural stress results from a fear ofnot conforming to the social norms of the host culture, while for Ameri-cans, stress results from the Americans need to solve or improve a prob-lematic situation in the host culture. While the Japanese tend to seek theirpsychological security in conformity, Americans . . . brought up on in-dividualism . . . seem to take it for granted that they are different fromother cultures. Therefore they seem to spend more energy on fightingback the uncomfortable feeling of violating the host culture social norms.They may feel more psychological stress this way and might have thoughtthe ability to handle stress very important (Abe & Wiseman, 1983, p.65). Commenting on the importance of the ability to deal with stress forsuccessful cross-cultural adjustment by American managers abroad, Kep-ler, Gaither, and Gaither (1983, p. 119) warned that the normal crises oflife are doubly charged in an overseas situation and that often manyAmerican expatriates abroad tend to use the fight-or-flight response toreact to these crises in a foreign environment. They either fight by facingup to emotional anxiety, frustration, and pressures or flee these situationsby returning home to familiar surroundings. Kepler, Gaither, and Gaither(1983, p. 125) suggested that the American expatriate manager makes aneffort to know the nationals as part of a program to cope with the stressof living in a foreign culture. Kepler acknowledged that the ability to getto know the nationals is important for ICE and mentioned that this hasleft many Americans with a feeling of failure that they have not been ableto establish close and meaningful ties. He added that many times whenAmericans show interest in and concern for the nationals through sports,church, or volunteer activities they were able to cross the barriers betweenthemselves and the nationals.French managers did not list the ability to deal with stress among their5 most important abilities for ICE. This finding does not mean that toFrench managers the ability to deal with stress is not important for ICE.It may only mean that to French managers the ability to deal with stress isnot as important as for American managers. There may be several rea-sons for this result. First, French managers may have been more willing totalk things over with their fellow countrypersons, thus diffusing the stressof adjusting to life in the U.S. Second, due to the fact that 32% of theFrench managers spoke English while only 8.2% of the American manag-ers spoke Arabic, the former had a better language preparation than their


15/20


American counterparts. This language competency may have made iteasier for French managers to get to know and interact with the hostcountry nationals. Being aware of how Americans communicate proba-bly helped French managers decrease their level of intercultural stress.

Concerning the ability to deal with different political systems, Frenchmanagers consistently felt this ability to be unimportant for effectivefunctioning in another culture. None of the French managers gave thisability a rating of important. In the present study, French managershad the lowest mean (- .64) on this ability while American managers hada mean of .77. When only these samples are compared, American man-agers still see this ability as more important than French managers, butboth nationality groups rated it among the least important abilities forICE. This is consistent with previous research, probably because toAmerican students, Japanese tourists, and American and French manag-ers, knowledge of political systems and conditions in a foreign countrydoes not appear to be a prerequisite for intercultural effectiveness. Thisability is probably culture-general rather than culture-specific. In all stud-ies including the present one, single abilities, not dimensions, and groupmeans (when available) were compared.

But why, unlike American managers, did French managers consistentlyfeel the ability to deal with political systems to be unimportant for effec-tive functioning in another culture? There may be several reasons for thisresult. First, being idealistic (Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite is the Frenchmotto printed on the French franc). French managers may be skeptical ofpolitical systems and probably believe that to adjust effectively to life inanother culture whats important are people-to-people relationships andnot the overall political situation in a country. Second, French managersmay have thought this ability unimportant because while living in theU.S., there is little to worry about political conditions since the U.S. ismore politically stable than most countries. Third, it could be that Frenchmanagers did not feel that the U.S. political system was very differentfrom the French political system, they felt comfortable living under ademocratic system, and therefore the ability to deal with different politi-cal systems was not important.

The difference in number of abilities reported as important for ICEmay be methodological in its basis: for ratings of personal abilities forICE, all French managers were asked to recall immediate experiencebased on current cultural participation in the U.S. culture. Unlike Frenchmanagers, only 47% of the American managers were asked to recallimmediate experience based on current participation in the Saudi culture.The remaining 53% had to recall past experience in rating their percep-tion of ICE because they responded months, or in some cases, years afterthey had lived in the host culture.


16/20


Li mit ati ons of the st udy. This study didnt assess how accurate manag-ers recall of past cultural adjustment was. Also, whether differencesbetween the groups may be due to industry differences rather than cultur-al differences is not known. However, in adjusting to life in anotherculture, industry differences may have only a minor role to play becauseoften adjustment problems and the severity of culture shock depend moreon ones ability to adjust to life in another culture than ones technicalskills. Interactional skills are more important when it comes to effectiveintercultural adjustment. After all, how many people on overseas assign-ment are sent back home because of inadequate technical competence?Very few. Often, variables dealing with the adjustment process per se(i.e., personality, psychological, and environmental factors, etc.) andother sociopsychological factors of a relational nature cause failureoverseas. Tung (1987) surveyed 80 multinationals about the most impor-tant factors accounting for overseas failure. Of the 7 important factorsfor failure overseas, lack of technical competence ranked 6th. Accordingto Tung, primary factors for overseas failure in order of importance were

(1) the spouse cant adjust to a different culture,(2) the manager cant adjust to a different culture,(3) other family related problems,(4) the managers personality or emotional immaturity, and(5) the manager cant cope with work overseas.

Tungs findings seem to suggest that in intercultural adjustment onespersonality and flexibility are more important factors than the type ofwork one does in the host country. For example, its one thing to teachsomeone how to use a tractor. Its another to try to get along with thatperson with a minimum of cross-cultural misunderstandings. Illman(1980) reported that most failures overseas tend to be the result of aninability to adjust to the foreign way of life rather than a matter oftechnical competence. Illman described four typical causes of failure inoverseas assignments:

(1) the personality that the manager projects to the world around him(e.g., coldness, mistrust, or personal insecurity),

(2) intolerance, which can lead to disaster when the American manag-er doesnt accept foreign habits, attitudes, and behaviors,

(3) the inability to adjust to a number of things, including the cli-mate, shopping, bargaining habits, and the host language, and

(4) a lack of appreciation for cultural differences, which Illman at-tributed to a lack of preparation for overseas assignment.

One trait that particularly irritates nationals, Illman reported is ademeanor of superiority. It makes little difference where the managersmight be . . . Europe, Asia, the Orient or the Middle East. . . . Any


17/20

I ntercultural Communication Ef fectiveness 421

denigrating comparisons of life there with life in the U.S., are certain tocreate antipathy and conflict (Illman, p. 15). How much real interac-tion managers had with their respective host nationals as well as whetherthose who were bilingual adjusted better than those who were monolin-gual, are also not known. In terms of interaction with the host, Frenchmanagers probably had more contact with Americans in the U.S. thanAmerican managers had with the Saudis. American managers may havehad little contact with the locals because many companies in Saudi Ara-bia have their own compounds where they create a little America anddo not interact very much with the local people. In terms of the relation-ship between speaking the local language and effective intercultural ad-justment, one cant deny that speaking the local language can facilitateintercultural adjustment, but linguistic competence is not always synony-mous with intercultural competence. There is more to cultural adjust-ment than just speaking the host language.Implications for Cross-cultural Training

This study suggests some important implications in the area of inter-cultural communication effectiveness and cross-cultural training pro-grams by multinational firms for future deployment of American manag-ers to Saudi Arabia and French managers to the U.S.A. First, the studysuggested the existence of culture-general and culture-specific abilities forICE. The study illustrates as well the difficulties that can be encounteredin investigating the nature of intercultural communication effectivenessas well (i.e., imprecise terminology, varying methodologies, and unrelia-ble instrumentation). Second, in designing cross-cultural training pro-grams for their managers, multinational companies should give moreconsideration to the following variables.

When training American managers to be interculturally effective in theArabian culture and French managers to be interculturally effective in theU.S. culture, special attention should be paid to four primary culture-general abilities found to facilitate a managers effective functioning in aforeign culture. They are the abilities to work effectively with other peo-ple, to deal with unfamiliar situations, and to expect communicationmisunderstandings and to deal with changes in life styles. For multina-tional firms selection purposes, a managers performance, personality,and life style in the home country should be interpreted in light of theseabilities.

When training American managers for assignment to Saudi Arabia,greater consideration should be given to the ability to deal with stress,which was found to be especially important to American managers. Across-cultural training program for American managers should teach par-ticipants to diffuse the anger and frustration stemming from stressful


18/20


intercultural encounters by talking things over with colleagues and signif-icant others in their immediate environment. Managers should be taughtthat the key to successful cross-cultural adjustment is not to try to solveor ameliorate a problematic situation in the host culture but to go withthe flow.

In future research, larger samples should be used. For cross-culturalresearch, Brislin, Lonner, and Thorndicke (1973) recommended the useof a sample with a number of subjects equal to the square of the variablesin the study plus 50. A minimum sample should include as many subjectsas variables. How perceptions of intercultural effectiveness vary betweenmale and female managers should also be examined. Future studiesshould explore whether there are differences in perceptions of ICE whenthe host cultures for American and French managers are switched (i.e.,American managers working in France and French managers working inSaudi Arabia). The purpose of such an investigation would be to discoverwhether switching the host cultures will lead to a change in perceptions ofICE with the same nationality groups. Future study of multiculturalsamples would compare groups from a variety of cultures to determinewhether the perception of cross-cultural effectiveness is culture-specificor culture-general. Methodological considerations require that futurestudies compare managers who are living in the host country at the timeof the investigation so that all subjects in the samples are recalling imme-diate instead of remote cross-cultural experience. Frequency of interac-tion with the host nationals should also be taken into consideration be-cause in the case of American personnel in Saudi Arabia, for example,often Americans interact very little with the local people. The ability toenter meaningful dialogue with other people was found to be especiallyimportant to French managers. Future researchers could investigatewhether there is a cultural basis for French managers singling out such anability. Other studies are needed to clarify whether the abilities for effec-tive functioning in another culture are shaped by ones culture or by onestiredispositions, character, and traits? Can polarities like these be used atall to describe such ability? Should ICE be viewed in such a context at all?Further research is needed to provide a better explanation of these cul-ture-specific and sojourner-specific abilities.

REFEREN ESABE, H., & WISEMAN, R. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimen-

sions of intercultural effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-tions, 1, 53-N.

BERGER, M. (1987). Building bridges over the cultural rivers. InternationalManagement, 42 (July/August), 61-72.

BOCHNER, S. (1973). The mediating man and cultural diversity. Topics in Cul-ture Learning, 1, 23-37.


19/20


BRISLIN, R., LONNER, W., & THORNDICKE, R. (1973). Cross-cultural re-search methods. New York: Wiley.

COPELAND, L. (1985, July). Cross-cultural training: The competitive edge.Training, p. 49-53.DEAN, 0. (a.k.a. AZZEDINE MEZBACHE). (1986). American and French

managers self-perceived abilities for effective functioning in another culture: Acomparative study. Unpublished Dissertation. U.S. International University,San Diego, CA.

GUDYKUNST, W., WISEMAN, R., & HAMMER, M. (1977). Determinants ofa sojourners attitudinal satisfaction: A path model. In B. Brislin (Ed.), Com-munication Yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ:

HAMMER, M., GUDYKUNST, W., & WISEMAN, R. (1978). Dimensions ofintercultural effectiveness: An exploration study. International Journal of In-tercultural Relations, 2, 382-393.

HAMMER, M. (1987). Behavioral dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: Areplication and extension. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11,65-68.

HARRIS, P., & MORAN, M. (1983). Managing cultural differences (3rd ed.).Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.

ILLMAN, P. (1980). Developing overseas managers and managers overseas.American Management Association.KEALEY, D. (1989). A study of cross-cultural effectiveness: Theoretical issues,practical applications. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13,387-428.

KEALEY, D., & RUBEN, B. D. (1983). Cross-cultural personnel selection: Crite-ria, issues and methods. In D. Landis & R. Brislin (Eds.). Handbook of Znter-cultural Training (Vol. 1). New York: Pergamon Press.

KEPLER, J., GAITHER, O., & GAITHER, M. (1983). Americans abroad:A handbook for living and working overseas. New York: Praeger Publica-tions.KLEINJANS, E. (1972). Opening remarks on a Conference on World Communi-cation held at the East West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.

KNOTTS, R. (1989). Cross-cultural management: Transformations and adapta-tions. Business Horizons, 32 l), 29-33.

MILLER, E. L. (1982). The overseas assignment: How managers determine whois to be selected. Michigan Business Review, 24 3), 12-19.

MURRAY, F., & MURRAY, A. (1986, Winter). Global managers for globalbusinesses. Sloan Management Review, pp. 75-80.

RATIU, I. (1988). New age shock. International Management, 48 (July, August),22-24.RUBEN, B. (1985). Human communication and cross-cultural effectiveness. In

L. Savomar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader. Bel-mont, CA: Wadsworth.

RUBEN, B., & KEALEY, D. (1979). Behavioral assessment of communicationcompetency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations, 3, 15-47.

TUNG, R. (1987). Expatriate assignments: Enhancing success and minimizingfailure. Academy of Management Executive, l(2).


20/20


ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONSLe but de cette Etude &it de comparer 61 managers (gestionaires)Am&icains vivant en Arabie Skudite avec 31 managers Franpis

vivant aux Etats-Unis sur 16 abilitb de lCfficacitC interculturelle. Ona demand6 aux managers 1) d%valuer leur degrb de satisfaction dansle pays hote, 2) de classer ces 16 abilitb suivant leur importance dansla simplification de l%fficacite interculturelle et 3) de choisir parmi les16 abilitb, 10s cinq, qui, a leur avis, facilitent le plus la vie dans unpays &ranger.

Des managers Ankicains aussi bien que les managers Fran@avaient identifie 4 abilites qui, a leur avis, facilitent le plus lefficaciteinterculturelle. Ces abilitb sont: 1) la capacitb de travailler Bfficace-ment avec les autres, 2) la capacitk de se dkbrouiller darts dessituations non-familieres, 3) la capacitC linguistique et 4) la capacitbde sadapter fl un style de vie diffkent. Les 2 groups, par contre, ontdiff&k sur limportance attach& ii 7 abilitb pour ICfficacit6 intercult-urelle. Les rbultats de cette dtude indiquent que quelques unes de cesabilitb sont communes aux 2 cultures alors que dautres sontspkifiques & une culture don&e. Les implications de cette dtude pourIefficacitb interculturelle et la gesttion interculturelle sont analyskes.(author-supplied abstract).

Este estudio examinb que habilidades personales son necesariaspara una efectiva comunicacidn entre culturas. Utilizando administra-dores Americanos que trabajan en Arabia Saudidita y administradoresFranceses que trabajan en Estados Unidos, el estudio bus& descubrirlas similitudes y diferencias en la percepci6n de la efectividad en lacomunicaci6n intercultural (ECI). Los sujetos fueron preguntados 1)Su grad0 de satisfaccidn al permanecer en una cultura extraiia, 2) elgrado de importancia de cada una de las 16 habilidades para EC1 alfacilitar su proprio funclonamiento intercultural, y 3) seleccionar las 5mas importantes entre las 16 habilidades.Ambos grupos sintieron que las habilidades para trabajar con otragente, negociar en situaciones no familiares, comunicar misinterpretaci-ones y cambios en estilos de vida, fuertemente facilitan operar en unacultura foranea. Estuvieron en desacuerdo con respect0 a la importan-cia de 7 habilidades pensadas coma facilitantes de ECI. A la luz deestos resultados, el estudio provey6 evidencia para interpretacicin deEC1 tanto en una cultura-general coma en una cultura-especifica.(author-supplied abstract).

intercultural communication in saudi organizations as perceived by american managers

Documents