Asian, but not all the same

On a deep level, human beings are all the same. We are affected by similar psychological drivers, such as threat or jealousy, but the way we deem it appropriate to express these emotions varies from culture to culture.

When it comes to business, this can lead to a number of problems within the workplace. Particularly in the Asia-Pacific — where multicultural workforces are ever-growing — these differences are especially acute and present, a huge challenge for managers who lead intra-Asian teams.

The world is globalising but there is no such thing as a “global person”: Every one of us carries an element of cultural perception linked to the culture or countries we were raised in. While you may be the head of a multinational organisation, as an individual you still hail from some place and are likely to hold deep-rooted cultural views.

The same applies to your workforce. In a 2010 survey that investigated the challenges of working in cross-border virtual teams, 63 per cent of respondents at multinational companies said that nearly half of their teams were located outside their home country.

And nowhere in the world are the challenges of this more prominent than in Singapore, where myriad cultures collide in organisations across the city.

CHINESE VS JAPANESE CULTURE

The biggest mistake a manager can make about his or her teams in different parts of Asia is assuming that they are culturally similar.

Most challenges for cross-cultural teams emerge when managers assume that the cultures within a particular region will respond to the same management techniques. This could not be further from the truth.

It may seem, on the surface, that many Asian nations share cultural similarities but if, as a leader, you think “we are all Asian, there are no differences”, then you will face some serious problems.

China and Japan provide a key example of cultures within the Asia-Pacific that, outwardly, are often perceived as similar but, in reality, are extremely different.

Both nationalities place an importance on relationship-built trust and are often uncomfortable voicing individual opinions in brainstorms and engaging in open confrontation (although this tendency is considerably stronger in Japan than in China), yet each nation has a very different attitude towards decision making.

The Japanese are much less inclined to take decisions quickly without extensive discussion; and decisions are often made through lengthy group-consensus building.

Conversely, the Chinese are much more comfortable taking risks, preferring quick decision-making to group consensus.

In a team, this can create a lot of frustration. Japanese people are accused of being slow, while the Chinese are accused of taking action without adequate forethought.

THAI VS SINGAPOREAN

Many MNCs with offices in Singapore rely on and are, in fact, often required to have a diverse environment. And they seek to bridge cultural gaps by hiring talent from different countries. But this can create problems for operating both internally and externally.

Suddenly, in order to ensure team collaboration, managers must negotiate how the various cultures within their teams perceive each other.

At INSEAD (http://executive.education.insead.edu/), I teach executives to use the “eight scales of cultural relativity”, which consists of eight elements that my research has found to have the strongest impact on cross-cultural or multicultural business.

Cultures and countries are placed on this sliding scale based on how their actions are perceived by others. By referring to this scale, executives can develop an understanding that enables them to adopt flexible techniques when managing a cross-cultural team.

The business relationship between Thais and Singaporeans is another good example of problems that could occur within intra-Asia multinational teams. In business, Thais consider confrontation to be rude, aggressive and disrespectful. Open disagreement is avoided — even asking another’s individual point of view in front of a group can feel confrontational to some.

In contrast, Singaporeans are much more likely to express various differing viewpoints openly. In Singapore, debate is much more likely to be both accepted and even appreciated as a way to stimulate new thinking.

Managers leading a team in which both of these cultures are present must be aware of these sometimes subtle communication differences, and be adequately equipped with the tools and techniques needed to mitigate potential problems.

TWO BASIC TIPS

Unprecedented economic growth in Asia will drive more and more businesses to expand across the region. The trade and investment opportunities that exist are staggering, and effective management of teams will be paramount to success and investment in the region.

In the cross-cultural management programmes at INSEAD, executives are equipped with ways to deal with the many cultural nuances within the region with the following points serving as a good foundation for intra-Asian leadership.

Do your preparation

In many Asian cultures, the default purpose of a meeting is to put a formal stamp on a decision that has been made before the meeting in informal pre-meetings. In Japanese this is called “nemawashi”.

The tendency rings true to various degrees in China, Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand. If you lead a team with members from one of these countries, try making phone calls before the formal meeting to confirm the situation.

Change your language

For example, if you are trying to encourage debate, try phrases like “I do not quite understand your point” and “please explain more why you think that”, and to refrain from saying “I disagree with that” which could shut down the conversation completely.

It is difficult for us, as human beings, to trust people whose behaviours we do not understand. Yet the more we understand, the more successful we will be and the most effective international leaders have mastered this.

Erin Meyer (http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/faculty/profiles/emeyer/) is INSEAD Professor of Organisational Behaviour and Director of Executive Education programme Managing Global Virtual Teams.