Page 291 - Handbooks of Applied Linguistics Communication Competence Language and Communication Problems Practical Solutions

Differences and difficulties in intercultural management interaction 269

stress and less anxiety, emotions are suppressed and people are comfortable
with ambiguity and chaos. High UAI cultures, on the other hand, are ones, ac-
cording to Hofstede (2001: 161), “in which the uncertainty inherent in life is felt
as a continuous threat that must be fought”, there is higher stress and anxiety,
emotions are not suppressed and there is a need for clarity and structure. Hof-
stede (2001: 146) regards technology, law and religion as the key domains
which provide cultures with ways to cope with the uncertainty of life in societies
at large.
For management situations in low UAI cultures, Hofstede (2001: 165–170)
states that ambiguity in structures and procedures is tolerated, and precision and
punctuality have to be learned. In the workplace, there is a belief in common
sense and people with generalist knowledge, and the power of managers tends
to depend on their position and the relationships they have with the people they
work with.
This picture contrasts with high UAI cultures (Hofstede 2001: 165–170) in
which highly formalized conceptions of management prevail and precision and
punctuality come naturally. In the workplace, there is a belief in people with
specialist knowledge and expertise, and the power of managers derives from an
ability to control uncertainties. As the parallel domains to technology, law and
religion in society at large, Hofstede (2001: 147) regards technology, rules and
rituals as the domains which provide organizations and therefore managers with
tools to cope with the uncertainty of life in organizations. Not only rules for be-
haviour contained, for example, in contracts and in company handbooks laying
down procedures, but also formal structure, plans and reporting systems are
likely to be salient features of management in higher uncertainty avoidance cul-
tures such as Germany.
The difficulties in Anglo-German interaction predicted by these differences
are borne out by experience. British managers often describe the rule-oriented
behaviour of their German colleagues as being rigid, hierarchical and uncre-
ative. When British managers fail to work in accordance with the given struc-
tures and do not keep to the plan agreed, German managers frequently experi-
ence their British colleagues as unpredictable, unreliable and even chaotic.
‘Managing by muddling through’ is one of the kinder epithets German man-
agers sometimes use to describe British management practice.

2.1. Question 1
Question 1a. Are the differences reported in the classical contrastive studies
(Hofstede, Trompenaars and Hall) noticed as differences by managers in their
intercultural interactions?
Question 1b. What differences are reported by managers but not described by
the classical studies?