Why Even Think About "Global" Presentations?

If you've ever made one, you know the answer.

We are all, naturally, "creatures of our cultures. " When it comes to communicating in global business we often find:

1. Different expectations about how information is delivered and discussed (or not).

2. Different expectations about and reactions to energy level, formality, and informality.

3. The issue of literal vs. figurative interpretation of phrases as people attempt difficult translations into their native languages.

4. A certain sensitivity on the part of the speaker:  "Am I really making myself understood?"

When I started out many years ago, the bulk of my coaching and training work was with U.S.-based companies who were doing  work internationally. I had lived and worked in Europe, Africa and the Middle East for a number of years so the engagements were a good match and rewarding. That kind of expertise has continued to keep me outside of the U.S. for 30% or so of each year.

Now, the dynamic has shifted somewhat. Organizations outside of the U.S. are finding that communicating with U.S. teams carries its own set of challenges:

    ▪    While U.S. companies genuinely promote teams and teamwork, there is still an underlying element of individuality that is not present in many other cultures. This can become confusing during the decision and discussion phases of a presentation or meeting.

    ▪    There is a much higher tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity amongst Americans. While planning and procedures are valued, "options and alternatives" are seen as good things.  Other cultures can experience such uncertainty differently and  choose to avoid it. Rules, structure, and hierarchy are seen as valuable ways to reduce the discomfort that comes from ambiguity.

    ▪    Acceptance of power and hierarchy. Presenting one's ideas and arguing one's  point regardless of organizational title  is usually a valued sign of assertiveness in American companies.  However, earlier this year  I received a mobile call from a client who was cooling her heels outside of the office of a CEO in Portugal. It seems that she was two levels below him in her organization and he was unwilling to see her alone even though the meeting had been arranged. The solution? We got a friendly local CEO known to us to physically intervene, make the proper introduction, hang around the proper amount of time, and then ride off into the sunset when he sensed all was well.

The world is, indeed, getting smaller. And from my experience, most people want to reach out and help their global colleagues. Often they don't know how because they don't know why a certain dynamic is in play.

Learning about these kinds of connections--and becoming comfortable with them--is, and will be, a highly-valued attribute within successful global companies.

Comments

[Kim-free ads]

I found your site very interesting and informative. I also believe that open communication is very much lacking in a lot companies today.This is important in order for a global company to succeed.

[Wally Bock]

Those are good points, Steve, but I think there's more than an "underlying element of individuality" in American culture. I think it's a key driver. As such, it's a part of the reason why we tolerate high bonuses for individual performance even on teams that don't do well or in companies that lose money. I also think it's so much a part of us as Americans that we don't recognize how powerful it is or that other cultures may have different values.

[Gillian]

An interesting article and Point 1 hints at the fundamental question: "What does your audience think this meeting is for?" That then leads into the 'power question': in order to achieve the outcome desired, who should be doing the presenting for this particular group? Also, in order to achieve the best outcome, do you build the idea or hit them with it? In a truly international setting, the answers will be as varied as the groups themselves. Just my two cents.

[Ann]

It's worth checking Geert Hofstede's list of Cultural Dimensions (http://www.geert-hofstede.com/) when communication is aimed at a specific audience (rather than at many different cultures). I study in the Netherlands but have a lot of Germany classmates and have found this information useful when interacting with them in projects.

For example, when you want to know if it's considered acceptable to voice your opinion to a superior, you could examine the power distance index. People in countries where the distance is low are more likely to accept or even expect this, whereas countries where the distance is high are less likely to consider it appropriate to question someone higher in the hierarchy.

[Wally Bock]

Ann's absolutely right about Cultural Dimensions. It's the best set of tools I've seen for understanding why people in different cultures act as they do and where potential conflicts lie in wait.

[Dan Erwin]

Steve: I'm jealous of your intercultural exposure. You beat me on the amount. Since I work nationally, I have learned to work differently in NY, Chicago, Mpls and LA. They are significantly different cultures. Take the issue of silence--after making any kind of suggestion or proposal. It means different things, depending on the geography.

Along with the tons of intercultural handbooks, I assume you're quite familiar with Kiss, Bow or Shake Hands?

www.danerwin.com

[Steve Roesler]

Gillian,

Yep, that's exactly the point; the approaches will be different. As a result, understanding what some of the preferred approaches might be and confirming or adapting to them beforehand can go a long way toward a successful meeting.

Thanks, Gillian.

[Steve Roesler]

Ann and Wally,

At the risk of creating a fanboy culture here, I'm with you on the Hofstede work. I've found none better (more accurate and useful) thus far.

[Steve Roesler]

Hi, Dan,

Yes, I am familiar with that one and it's a useful resource.

You bring up a good point and one that I've heard numerous times over the years while living and working elsewhere. Folks from other countries are quick to point out the sheer size of the U.S and, as a result, the fact that it contains a number of distinct cultures and related characteristics.

The point was driven home during a meeting in Brussels when someone stated, "The U.S. is 3,000 miles wide. If we got in our cars and drove east for 3,000 miles, we'd be in Siberia or Mongolia."

That places things in perspective.

Thanks, Dan.