»stereotypes«

As mentioned before the official language at Volkswagen and Panopa is German. Nevertheless Panopa's website is in German, English and Polish which Dr. Hucht simply explains as a matter of good education. Panopa after all is a Polish company with Polish employees and Polish clients and communication foremost has to work for them.
At the same time, it was easy for Panopa to conduct their business in Poland since everything was communicated in German. Volkswagen simply enforces German in their factories on the managerial level. Evidently, this can be considered arrogant. And Dr. Hucht admits as well that it allowed the German staff in Poland to become quite lazy. Considering to send expatriates to Italy or Spain, for example, the need to learn the language is accepted without doubt. But calling employees to learn Polish would just be another counter-argument for a mission in Eastern Europe. To learn Polish does not attract a lot of Germans, different to learning Italian or Spanish for example. Polish has no use outside of Poland and Poland does not seem very exquisite to Germans. Italy on the contrary has a flair of culture and suits perfect for vacations.

[quotation follow-up]
("Die Mitarbeiter selber und die Kunden aus Polen, die sollen ja das verstehen, das da steht. Ich finde, das ist auch einfach eine Frage der guten Erziehung, wenn ich in einem Land tätig bin, dass ich mich zumindest bemühe, die Sprache dort zu beherrschen. Und auch als Unternehmen so auftrete, dass ich mich dann so präsentiere, dass ich diese Sprache beherrsche. Was es uns da sicherlich etwas leichter macht und auf der anderen Seite, wenn man es jetzt negativ sehen will, uns vielleicht auch faul werden lässt in der Beziehung, ist die Tatsache, dass die Projektkommunikation offiziell in Deutsch läuft. Zumindest auf der Managementebene, Geschäftsführung, Werksleitung, VW und die ein, zwei Ebenen darunter, da ist die Kommunikation auf Deutsch. Weil eben VW sagt: 'Da, wo wir ein Werk haben, wird Deutsch kommuniziert.' Das ist dann so, wenn man so will, die Arroganz, die sich jetzt das Unternehmen eben leistet. Uns kommt es entgegen, weil wenn wir dahin kommen und die Leute mit denen wir zu tun haben sprechen alle Deutsch. Und wenn es in die Werkerebene geht, dann ist zur Not ein Dolmetscher dabei. Das macht natürlich auch irgendwo faul." Dr. Hucht, 2nd 09.05 min.)

("Wenn ich normalerweise sag, ich geh irgendwohin, würde ich eigentlich damit verbinden: 'Du musst die Sprache lernen.'" Dr. Hucht, 2nd 11.29 min.)

("Wenn ich mir jetzt vorstelle, ich würde jetzt beruflich mich dazu entscheiden, in ein Land zu gehen dessen Sprache ich nicht beherrsche, würde ich mich normalerweise dran machen und die Sprache lernen. Und da kommt vielleicht auch so ein Punkt hinzu, wo Polen und auch Polnisch in den Augen von Deutschen einen anderen Stellenwert hat als z.B. Italien, Spanien, England mal sowieso - ich sag mal, Englisch sprechen die Meisten, wenn sie die Ausbildung hinter sich haben, zumindest ein bißchen. Aber wo ich auch schon Diskussion im Unternehmen mitgekriegt hab, 'also, wenn ich nach Polen muss, das ist ja wenig lukrativ' a) das Land und auch die Sprache, da kann ich international nichts mit anfangen. Das sieht bei Spanisch dann schon wieder anders aus. Wenn die Möglichkeit besteht, ich sag mal, einen Job in Italien oder Spanien anzunehmen, trifft man viel eher auf leuchtende Augen als wenn's darum geht, wer geht nach Polen." Dr. Hucht, 2nd 10.05 min.)

("'Kein Thema. Italienisch? Ja, klar, gerne.' Das ist dann auch irgendwie westlich. [...] Das hat dann irgendwie noch was von Kultur. Ich kann jetzt Italienisch - toll. Aber Polnisch hat da überhaupt keinen Stellenwert. [...] Und jemanden zu ködern - 'Da lernst du eine andere Kultur kennen und lernst ne andere Sprache.' - da muss das ja nicht Polnisch sein. Wenn schon, dann was, womit ich was anfangen kann: Urlaub mal - schick." Dr. Hucht, 2nd 12.07 min.)

("Zumal Polnisch sehr sehr schwer zu lernen ist. Ich hab's nicht geschafft." Vieth, 2nd 10.58 min.)

In general Mr. Vieth and Dr. Hucht see the Polish to be quite like the Germans - in terms of values and principles. Compared to the experience he gained in Shangai, Dr. Hucht says that it is fairly easy to get acquainted to the Polish. Even though the language is quite different and the way of living, the similarities still out-rule the differences. They both emphasize that people's behavior is directly connected to one's own behavior. If you treat people fairly they will much likely return that. As long as you do not present yourself has the smart-ass German, who knows everything better and tries to mission-ate everybody, you will not have any problems being German.

[following up just quotes in German:]
("Ansonsten ist das eigentlich wie überall. Behandeln Sie Ihr Gegenüber als Mensch, dann gibt es keine Probleme." Vieth, 2nd 05.50 min.)
("Das ist so wie überall. So wie Sie es in den Wald hinein rufen, schallt es letztendlich wieder hinaus." Vieth, 2nd 07.52 min.)

("Die Polen, in meinen Augen, denken eher wie wir Deutschen." Vieth, 28.53 min.)
("Ich glaube schon, dass es ein Riesenunterschied ist, wenn ich hier in den Nachbarstaaten unterwegs bin, wo sicherlich die Sprache ne andere ist und auch in Details sicherlich bestimmte Gepflogenheiten anders sind, aber man doch immer noch mehr oder weniger in dem gleichen Kulturkreis sich bewegt; das Wertebild so in etwas das Gleiche ist." Dr. Hucht, 2nd 06.12 min.)

("Wenn ich da die Wahl hätte, würd ich jetzt nach Polen oder soll ich nach China gehen, würd's mir nicht allzu schwer fallen. Da [Shangai] hatte ich wirklich das Gefühl, hier bist du vollkommen fremd. Und in Polen.... klar, ich versteh die Sprache nicht, aber das wär ja auch noch ein Thema das zu lernen, ich kann nicht lesen, was da irgendwo steht, aber wenn man mit den Leuten ins Gespräch kommt, wenn die Englisch oder Deutsch sprechen, versteht man sich doch eigentlich relativ schnell." Dr. Hucht, 2nd 06.55 min.)

("Wenn man da nicht auftritt wie der schlaue Deutsche, der jetzt alle missionieren will oder zeigen, wie es richtig geht, dann kommt man mit den Leuten auch gut klar. Die Erfahrungen, die ich da bisher gemacht habe, waren auch durchweg positiv. Ich hatte auch nie das Gefühl, auch wenn ich da abends mal weg war oder auch im Hotel oder bei den Mitarbeitern, da irgendwie geringschätzig behandelt zu werden oder ein Problem damit zu haben, dass ich jetzt deutsch bin." Dr. Hucht, 2nd 07.22 min.)

Beyond Sophisticated Stereotyping - Cultural Sensemaking in Context
by Joyce S. Osland and Allan Bird

[p.58]
Osland and Bird criticize that cross-cultural training as well as research in this field only move between bipolar cultural dimensions - describing one culture as more individualistic than another, or less easy with uncertainty, ... Thus they pretty much explain why I did not bother too much about the dimensions as introduced by Hofstede. This is not to neglect the importance of this method to compare and describe cultures - the dimensions are fundamental when learning about cultures. Nevertheless it has its shortcomings.

[p.59]
Osland and Bird argue that describing a culture based on dimensions allows a better cultural understanding but at the same time creates stereotypes of entire cultures. They call it sophisticated stereotyping. This is to be differentiated from low-level stereotypes which are "often based on lack of personal contact and an irrational dislike of people who are different from oneself". Sophisticated stereotyping is based on theoretical concepts and therefore lacks the negative attributions normally associated with stereotypes. This often results in not recognizing them in their limiting character. Based on Adler (1997) they introduce the idea of "helpful stereotypes". As such they should be

• consciously hold
• rather descriptive than evaluative
• accurate in their description of a behavioral norm
• modifiable according to further observation and experience.

[p.60]
Osland and Bird see cultural learning analogous to putting a puzzle together. While the picture on the box works like a guide it does not really say anything about the single pieces. Only by putting more pieces together the overall picture becomes clearer. "Similarly, as one acquires more and varied experiences in the new culture, one can develop an appreciation for how certain attitudes and behaviors fit the puzzle and create an internal logic of the new culture." Sophisticated stereotypes in a way prevents to see the huge variety of shapes and suggests that putting them together is rather easy while actually it can never be achieved to create a wholly picture this way.

[p.61]
While general characterizations can only reflect attitudes and sort them in comparison to other cultures, they completely neglect context. Osland and Bird later [p.65] give an example of Americans who are generally defined to show a high tolerance of uncertainty but when it comes to business contracts for example they cannot bare any uncertainty at all only believing in the written and signed word.
The authors call these incidents contradicting the overall picture paradoxes. They warn that ignoring the context limits cultural understanding and "prevents rather than opens up opportunities for learning and exploration". This goes in line with Hofstede who was aware of the fact that his system of cultural dimension was only an abstraction and had warned to not overly use it.

[p.62]
As an alternative or addition Osland and Bird introduce several sources of paradoxes of which I only summarize a few.

1. First of all it is a matter of statistics. Of 100 people filling in a questionnaire 63 might anticipate new things easily which would give the overall impression of a society with a rather low uncertainty avoidance. Nevertheless there are still 37 people who would rather reject new things. Scales can only show tendencies.
2. This makes obvious, too, that within cultures there are a lot of unresolved cultural issues which from the inside as well as from the outside are perceived as paradoxes.
3. Paradoxes also appear in the context of role differences. While the people of a culture could, for example, believe in egalitarianism in general, CEOs could be allowed autocratic behavior. This would also be an example of a high power distance in an overall low power distance culture.
4. Other paradoxes come about because it is difficult to differentiate real from epoused values. People simply do not live up to their own ideals. While in many cultures equality is much anticipated, everybody works hard to gain power and influence for him/herself.
5. [p.63] Just as with values according to rules, context might judge certain values over others. Lies, for example, are normally unacceptable a lot of incidents allow so-called white lies.

Osland and Bird come up with a model of sense-making trying to allow a diagnosis of perceived paradoxes.
They ask to first index the context based on observation. The second step is to make attributions. Thirdly, possible schemas are to be conducted. These schemas reveal cultural values and history. This process reveals that the behavior perceived as paradoxon is merely a re-arranging of values.

[p.64]

This is the schema as introduced and underneath how I tried to employ the model. (you understand why I don't like abstractions - I can never make them fit)

Osland and Bird gave an example of a charity organization calling for money in the States. While the Americans are considered a rather individualstic society in regards of cultural dimension, they spend quite a lot of money and time on charity. A paradoxon? Yes! Indeed! At several levels! First of all it does not match the perception based on the dimensional model. Then .... and that's the point where I get confused.
The other part that bugs me about the model is the fact that they start confusing history and value. The actually put "individualism" as a cultural history but I don't quite agree with that, so there goes another question mark...

[p.65]
So, while I have quite some problems with the abstraction of a model I still like what came out of it: It reflects pretty well the idea of culture as defined by Geerts (1973). "[He] maintains that 'culture is best seen not as complexes of concrete behavior patterns - customs, usages, traditions, habit clusters - [...] but as a set of control mechanisms - plans, recipes, rules, instructions (what computer engineers call 'programs') - for the governing of behavior.'"

As Osland and Bird acknowledge the importance of factual and conceptual knowledge in facing different cultures, they also call for attributional knowledge.
[p.66]
Factual knowledge would describe knowledge such as that Japanese often work in small group. Conceptual knowledge would back this up with the information that Japanese live in an communal society. But this would not explain non-communal activities or when or when not communal activities will take place. This latter, attributional knowledge can be gained by personal experience, by learning vicariously (= nachempfinden) from other people's experience as condensed in cultural assimilators or by cultural mentoring carried through by people of the host culture or long-term expatriates, who would both function as live cultural assimilators.

Osland and Bird claim that "learning another culture occurs in a dialectic fashion -thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." While the thesis is made on base of sophisticated stereotypes, critical incidents revealing paradoxes provoke an antithesis while synthesis is achieved by understanding which values are regarded more important in which context.

[p.67]
Consequently, they see cross-cultural training moving along the following steps:

1. Recognizing the complexity of one's own culture.
   This includes tracing the internal cultural logic back to its socioeconomic, political and historical roots. It also calls for analyzing in-culture paradoxes/variations in behavior based on regional, organizational or individual differences. Looking on different values (as for example friendliness) it would be necessary to ask questions such as: "Are all people friendly? Are they always friendly? In which incidents are they not friendly anymore? How come?"
2. Studying cultural dimensions as a basic tool.
   This means to learn about typical incidents and behaviors and trace them back to cultural values. Characterization along bipolar dimensions allows to compare two cultures; thus to distinct between cultures and to gain conceptual knowledge.
3. Acquiring skills in cultural observation and behavioral flexibility.
   This asks to look on incidents perceived as paradoxes. Questioning sophisticated stereotypes practices observational and interpretive skills. This can be achieved by role-playing or by working with videos.
4. Studying or experiencing one culture in-depth.
   This means to gain attributional knowledge form cultural mentors. Additionally, extensive research is to be made. Further knowledge is gained by actual cultural immersion.
5. Learning context-appropriate behavior. (actually fits to point 4)
   This calls to actively ask the how's and why's. "How do managers encourage their staff?", "Why does that work for them?"

Osland and Bird conclude calling expatriates to not give up their stereotypes but to hold them consciously in order to modify and change them when necessary. They suggest to find a cultural mentor and to learn cultural schemas. In combination with examining paradoxes this will lead to a deeper understanding of the underlying values and thus promote cultural understanding.

published in: D.C.Thomas: Readings and Cases in International Management; Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003.

Altogether, my interview partner summarizes, are German companies appreciated for their accuracy and precision in planning and construction. They often believe that only a German company will put the project through in the limited time given. He claimed that in some towns even some streets are named after his company. This appraisal keeps them from delegating expatriates among subsidiaries. A client assigns a German company because he expects German experts.

At the same time Germans are seen to be smart asses that know everything better and know how to do everything better. They live on their procedures and check-lists and they cannot talk about anything else than business. They are the small talk losers because after two minutes they get serious and talk business again.



And of course you are invited to comment on other things typical for Germans, especially regarding the work aspect...