Culture Matters

Decision-Making in
Global Virtual Teams
Culture Matters
Decision-Making in
Global Virtual Teams

Norhayati Zakaria
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

© 2017 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed on acid-free paper

Version Date: 20160830

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4822-4016-0 (Hardback)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts
have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume
responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers
have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to
copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has
not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmit-
ted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.
com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and
registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC,
a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Norhayati Zakaria, 1969- author.

Title: Culture matters : decision-making in global virtual teams / Norhayati
Zakaria.
Description: Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press, 2017.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016025946 | ISBN 9781482240160 (hardback : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Virtual work teams. | Decision making--Cross-cultural
studies. | Intercultural communication. | Management--Cross-cultural
studies.
Classification: LCC HD66 .N665 2017 | DDC 658.4/022--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016025946

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
Contents

Foreword .............................................................................. ix
Preface................................................................................xiii
Acknowledgments ............................................................ xix
About the Author .............................................................. xxi

SECTION I GLOBAL VIRTUAL TEAM

1 Anywhere, Anytime, and with Anyone—
Virtual Workplace ....................................................3
Introduction......................................................................... 3
References ........................................................................... 8
2 What Is a Global Virtual Team? .............................11
Introduction........................................................................11
References ..........................................................................16
3 Characteristics and Elements of Global Virtual
Teams.....................................................................19
Introduction........................................................................19
Culturally Distinctive, Culturally Synergistic .....................21
Working Together, Working at a Distance ........................22
Technology Dependent, Technology Savvy......................22
Different Times, Different Urgency ...................................23
References ..........................................................................26

v
vi ◾ Contents

SECTION II CULTURE AND ITS MEANING

4 Overview of Culture and Cultural Values ..............29
Introduction........................................................................29
Cultural Characteristics ......................................................33
Artifacts, Products, and Symbols ...................................33
Norms and Values ..........................................................34
Basic Assumptions .........................................................34
References ..........................................................................35

5 Edward Hall: High-Context versus Low-Context

Intercultural Communication ................................37
Introduction........................................................................37
References ..........................................................................43

6 Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner:

Seven Cultural Dimensions: A Mirror Image
of Problem-Solving in the Workplace ....................45
Introduction........................................................................45
People Orientation (P) .......................................................49
Environment Orientation (E) .............................................51
Time Orientation (T)..........................................................53
Conclusion..........................................................................55
References ..........................................................................56

SECTION III DISTRIBUTED DECISION-MAKING

PROCESSES AND ACTIVITIES
7 Overview of Distributed Decision-Making
Process...................................................................59
Introduction........................................................................59
Theoretical Models of Decision-Making Process ..............65
Active Months of Participation...........................................71
Distribution of Active Participants.....................................73
Distribution of Less Active Participants............................ 77
References ..........................................................................81
 Contents ◾ vii

8 Problem Identification ...........................................83

Civil Society’s Contributions in the Decision-Making
Processes ............................................................................83
Problem Identification Process ..........................................91
Problem Identification Behaviors ......................................97
Reference ..........................................................................103
9 Proposal Making..................................................105
Introduction......................................................................105
Proposal-Making Behaviors .............................................108
References ........................................................................121
10 Solution................................................................123
Introduction......................................................................123
Solution Behaviors ...........................................................127
References ........................................................................ 131

SECTION IV CULTURAL INFLUENCES ON

DISTRIBUTED DECISION MAKING
11 Online Communicative Behaviors Based
on Cultural Variations..........................................135
Introduction......................................................................135
High-Context Cultural Orientation .................................. 141
Low-Context Cultural Orientation ...................................142
Reference ..........................................................................143
12 Intercultural Communication Styles.................... 145
Introduction...................................................................... 145
Intercultural Communication Style: Indirect
versus Direct ....................................................................146
Intercultural Communication Style: Ambiguous
versus Detailed................................................................. 150
References ........................................................................ 155
13 Cultural Values .................................................... 157
Introduction...................................................................... 157
Individualism versus Collectivism ................................... 158
viii ◾ Contents

Task Oriented versus Relationship Oriented...................163

References ........................................................................ 170

SECTION V STRATEGIES AND COMPETENCIES

FOR MANAGING GLOBAL VIRTUAL TEAMS
14 What Global Leaders Should Know
about Managing “Working Together
at a Distance”....................................................... 173
Introduction...................................................................... 173
Cultural Adjustments........................................................177
Are You Experiencing Virtual Cultural Shock? ...............181
References ........................................................................183
15 Why GVT Leaders Need Intercultural
Competencies .......................................................185
Intercultural Competency Is Indispensable to Global
Virtual Teams ...................................................................185
What Is Intercultural Competency? .................................186
CAB Intercultural Competency Framework ....................189
Cognitive Aspect .......................................................... 192
Affective Aspect ...........................................................194
Behavioral Aspect ........................................................195
References ........................................................................199
16 How to Manage GVTs—Dos and Don’ts
for Culture and Decision Making
for Global Leaders ...............................................201
Introduction......................................................................201
Managing Distributed Decision Making in a GVT .........202
The Dos and Don’ts of Cultural Orientation for GVT
Leaders .............................................................................204
In a Nutshell..................................................................... 211
References ........................................................................ 214
17 Culture Counts! “It Is Not What You Said,
But How You Said It!”.......................................... 215

Index ..........................................................................221
Foreword

Virtual Harmony amid Cultural Dissonance

The meaning and means to work together have forever
changed with the advent of the Internet. Teamwork and col-
laboration no longer require geographic proximity or even the
same time zone. New technologies enable us to reach across
the global divide and work together virtually without being
hampered by distance or space—it is a great new world of
work—or is it?
Are global virtual teams (GVTs, in short) the perfect tool for
this perfect new technologically enhanced global workplace,
or are there still challenges that teams must face even when
the global divide is broached?
What hampers, hinders, or facilitates GVT success are
the key questions that Dr. Norhayati Zakaria, an expert in
the study of GVTs, continues to address in her writings and
research since she first delved into this new world of inquiry
nearly 20 years ago. A keen observer of the advantages
and challenges this new connectivity brings to the global
workplace, Dr. Zakaria brings to the fore the importance
of culture and cultural influences on all aspects of GVT
interactions.
In Culture Matters: Decision-Making in Global Virtual
Teams, Dr. Zakaria provides a clear, articulate examination

ix
x ◾ Foreword

of the significance of cultural influences on team decision-

making processes and team determination outcomes.
By addressing how the distinct cultural norms held by
individual team members influence communication protocols,
the perceptions of task and relationship importance, and the
concepts of time, which, in turn, impact team relations, cohe-
sion, and efficacy, Dr. Zakaria amply demonstrates the need
for managers to gain cross-cultural competencies and effective
strategies in order to manage productive GVTs.
Culture Matters offers managers, students, and scholars
alike a highly readable and accessible narrative that effectu-
ally explains why GVTs pose a variety of new managerial
and organizational challenges while likewise providing orga-
nizations with a tremendous new and potentially rewarding
team structure when managed well, as Dr. Zakaria so clearly
states.
Dr. Zakaria’s book is exceptional in that it bridges the gap
between scholars and practitioners by providing a thorough
comprehensive analysis of why culture matters for GVTs and
synthesizing the challenges of managing effective GVTs, as
well as providing practical strategies (dos and don’ts) on how
to manage GVTs. In this context, Dr. Zakaria points out that
technological tools alone are insufficient, and it is imperative
to better understand how technology and cultural influences
interact and shape globally distributed collaboration in order
to lead successful GVTs.
Culture Matters is a book that addresses what culture is
and why it matters in a world of globally distributed entities
endeavoring to be productive and responsive to internal and
external exigencies. Dr. Zakaria has succeeded admirably in
presenting a framework for understanding why cross-cultural
differences within a team impact the GVT performance and
 Foreword ◾ xi

providing worthwhile recommendations for GVT management

and performance enhancement.

Andrea Amelinckx, J.D.

Director, International Management Program
Faculty of Management
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada
Preface

Culture is communication and communication is

culture.
Edward T. Hall
1976, p. 191

Culture? Yes…Culture!
I am and have always been passionate about culture. At the
same time, my mind is stimulated and provoked with end-
less curiosity about the meaning of culture and its impact on
human behavior in life, as well as in the workplace. I believe
that one’s behavior at work is rooted in one’s cultural values.
On the other hand, workplace practices, rituals, and routines
can further shape one’s own cultural values. More than a
decade ago, I began to craft my research on culturally ori-
ented organizational behaviors, also known as cross-cultural
management. Unsurprisingly, then, when I embarked on my
PhD journey in 2001 in the School of Information Studies at
Syracuse University, I chose to study culture. That was all I
wanted to do, and that was exactly what I ended up doing.
From day one, I told my peers and my professors that I would
study culture. Some gave me a strange look; some gave me an
approving look. Some said, “It’s too early to think of a topic,”
while some said, “That’s good, you’re already clear about what

xiii
xiv ◾ Preface

you want to do.” Despite such conflicting remarks, I continued

to craft my research topic, finding ways to verify that such
study is needed and worth it, adamant to stamp my PhD topic
with the word culture.
It is challenging to study culture, since the concept itself
has been defined by scholars in more than 160 ways. The key
question often pointed out to me during intellectual discourse
was “How do you measure culture, or how do you explain
and describe such an intricate concept?”
Certainly, culture oftentimes carries intangible mean-
ings that are abstract and difficult to comprehend or analyze.
Culture is an abstract concept with many varied defini-
tions (Ferraro 2003; Schneider & Barsoux 1997; Kroeber &
Kluckhohn 1952). In this book, I define culture as a pattern
of behaviors that are shared by a group of people (i.e., from
a shared national identity, ethnicity, or race) that rests on
basic assumptions. The basic assumption used in this study is
drawn from Hall’s (1976) cultural dimension called context. In
terms of cultural communication, context has two poles, high
context (HC) and low context (LC), to distinguish between
context-oriented and content-oriented communication. HC
people emphasize the nonverbal aspects of communication
(body language, tone of voice, situation, etc.), whereas LC
people emphasize the verbal aspects of communication (words
alone, written, or spoken).
Examining the impact of culture on behavior has provoked
me to consider many questions, such as what, why, who, when,
and how a person thinks, feels, and behaves due to the effects
of culture. It has inspired me to discover the cognitive elements
of a human brain and then explore the emotional state of a
person’s feelings in order to justify why a certain action or
behavior is fully demonstrated or implied. Thus, the challenge
is how to capture all these questions and how to explore them
on such a variable dimension. My curious mind then went
further: why does culture influence our behavior in the work-
place? Does culture matter differently in different management
 Preface ◾ xv

roles, in particular, for processes such as decision making? In

what ways does culture influence the decision-making process
when it takes place in a distributed form, such as GVTs?
I began my research journey by exploring culture using a
unique research context: the virtual workspace. I had three
reasons for doing so. First, one consequence of globalization
has been a high mobility of employees, which has changed
the landscape and structure of the workplace. Globalization
liberates people to move across borders wherever and when-
ever they desire in order to be employed. Similar patterns can
be observed in the movement of goods and services that are
free to be transported, exported, and imported worldwide.
Second, with the widespread availability of new and more
advanced technological and social media tools, the work set-
ting has been transformed into a different structure and has
taken different forms for both work and play. Third, the dis-
tributed work setting resulting from this, also known as the
virtual workspace, allows people to be collocated with other
team members without the need to travel and to work together
despite barriers of geographical space, different time zones,
and diverse cultural values. The common mantra of GVTs is
anywhere, anytime, and with anyone.
However, as might be expected with such an innovative
work structure, many challenges arise, and many questions are
left unanswered. One of these questions is “How do you man-
age far-flung human resources when they are collaborating
and working at a distance?”
The structure of this book is divided into five sections, com-
prising 17 chapters. The introduction explains the motivation
for writing the book and outlines its structure. In Section I,
I present the phenomenon of anywhere, anytime, and with
anyone to highlight the prevalence of the virtual workplace
in contemporary multinational or international organizations
and discuss the research background, which has its roots in
one subgroup as the GVTs of Civil Society during the World
Summit on the Information Society.
xvi ◾ Preface

In Section II, I define the concept of culture by providing an

overview in understanding between three different levels of
human mental programming that clearly denote culture as a
group phenomenon, not specific to an individual or encom-
passing the universal human needs. I further explain the
distinctive characteristics of culture through an onion model,
which has three different layers—(1) artifacts and symbols,
(2) norms and values, and (3) basic assumptions and behaviors.
It is important to clearly understand the concept with its many
layers as it helps us to understand the multifaceted behaviors
of people at the workplace, particularly during the decision-
making process. Under this section, the book also provides two
distinctive theoretical lenses to ground the understanding of
cultural impacts on the distributed decision-making process—
Edward Hall’s (1976) high context versus low context and Fons
Trompenaars’s (1993) seven dimensions.
Section III discusses the decision-making process by inte-
grating two perspectives. First, I looked at Kingdon’s decision-
making model, which highlights the political decision process.
Second, I applied Adler’s (1997) decision-making model to
further explain the cultural influence on such process. As
a result, I presented an empirical model of a distributed
decision-making process that integrates both Kingdon’s and
Adler’s model, which is unique to the environment of GVTs.
Based on the findings, the study concludes that the distributed
decisions made by the team members are based on a cyclical
model that is more iterative and dynamic as compared to a
sequential process that is suggested by Kingdon.
Section IV further refines the understanding on the dis-
tributed decision-making process by considering specific
cultural elements. Adler’s model suggests that every aspect of
the decision-making process is much attuned to the cultural
values that belong either in a society or in a group. Therefore,
under this section, I present several chapters that illustrate the
impacts of cultural values on decision making such as indi-
vidualism versus communitarianism and task oriented versus
 Preface ◾ xvii

relationship oriented. Another aspect would be focused on the

intercultural communication styles that examine the impact of
directness versus indirectness and detailed versus ambiguous
on the way that people communicate in the email discussions
for proposing ideas; highlighting problems; deliberating the
ideas, problems, and issues; and then arriving at a decision.
Finally, in Section V, I provide several implications that are
critical for multinational organizations in order to achieve, as
well as sustain, high-performing GVTs. Undeniably, in the
current global work environment, many multinational corpo-
rations or international-based organizations thrive on virtual
workspace and virtual structure to capitalize their global
human resources. As the prevailing strategic plans, GVTs
assemble synergistic members across the world to collabo-
rate hand in hand to meet organizational goals. At the same
time, by utilizing GVTs, companies can reap profits from
their much-reduced costs because of the elimination of travel-
ling expenses and the cost of failure in expatriation. Thus, I
will include three chapters on the know-how or the dos and
don’ts in working in a virtual workspace, the reasons and
motivation to develop cross-cultural competencies, and ways
to strategically manage the impacts of the cultural values’
differences on the distributed decision-making process. As a
conclusion, the book offers an affirmation that culture counts
even at a distance in the globally distributed collaboration
phenomenon.

References
Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational
Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Ferraro, G.P. 2003. The Cultural Dimension of International
Business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/
Doubleday.
xviii ◾ Preface

Kroeber, A.L. & Kluckhohn, C. 1952. Culture: A critical review of con-

cepts and definitions. Retrieved October 13, 2015, available at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/230913406/Kroeber-y-Kluckhohn
-1952-Culture-a-critical-review-of-concepts-and-definitions#scribd.
Schneider, S.C. & Barsoux, J. 1997. Managing Across Cultures.
London: Prentice Hall.
Trompenaars, F. 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding
Cultural Diversity in Business. London: Economist Books.
Acknowledgments

Bismi-Allahi Ar-Rahmani, Ar-Raheem

With Allah’s willing, after many years, I have finally managed
to turn my dissertation into a book. It took me two years to
finish this challenging journey of turning my research find-
ings on global virtual teams and culture into practical implica-
tions that, I hope, will be useful to scholars and practitioners.
Neither the research nor the book-writing journey would
have been possible without the countless help, guidance,
and support of my beloved people around me: my beloved
spouse—Associate Professor Dr. Shafiz Affendi Mohd Yusof,
my parents and in-laws, family members, and colleagues. Let
me also extend my deepest appreciation to my former advisor,
Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn, who has been instrumental in mak-
ing the PhD journey less painful and more successful. He has
been extremely supportive both as a friend and as a mentor.
My deepest appreciation also goes to my committee members:
Dr. Ruth Small, who has been a source of motivation to me
and has often said, “You can do it!” with a reassuring look,
Dr. Michelle Kaarst-Brown, who has been a friend and has
offered a helping hand over many wonderful lunches, and
Dr. Carsten Osterlund, who offered a listening ear and said, “You
just have to do it.” Additionally, I owe a debt to my readers,
Dr. Milton Mueller and Dr. David Wilemon, who have diligently
read my drafts and dissertation and provided constructive com-
ments. Not forgetting, a dear friend, Dr. Emilie Gould, who has

xix
xx ◾ Acknowledgments

been my teacher and a good friend over the years, thank you for
believing in me; my editor—Michele Rothen—who has helped
me clarify what I wanted to say in a more concise manner;
my IST-Syracuse University friends, especially the Golden
Girls—our reading club, which tremendously supported me;
my research assistant—Nursakirah Ab Rahman Muton—who
turned the drafts into the right format, and my long-term vir-
tual international research partner, Andrea Amelinckx, at the
University of Lethbridge, Canada for working in sync with me
despite being thousands of miles apart.
About the Author

Dr. Norhayati Zakaria is an associate professor at the Faculty

of Business and Management at the University of Wollongong
in Dubai. Dr. Zakaria earned both her PhD degree in infor-
mation science and technology and MPhil degree in informa-
tion transfer at Syracuse University, and her MSc degree in
management at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy. Her
research expertise combines several interdisciplinary fields,
including cross-cultural management, international business,
and computer-mediated communication technology. For
more than a decade, Dr. Zakaria has established international
research collaborations with global scholars from the United
States, Japan, and Canada. As a principal investigator, she has
obtained international research grants from the Asian Office
of Aerospace Research & Development (AOARD). Since 2006,
she has been serving as a senior research faculty associate at
the Center for Research on Collaboratories and Technology
Enhanced Learning Communities (COTELCO) under American
University, where she led projects using global virtual teams.
All her research works are built on a qualitative research
method in which she believes provides illuminating results
with deep insights and rich descriptions of culturally attuned
phenomenon at workplace face-to-face or virtually. Since she

xxi
xxii ◾ About the Author

has been trained in the Western educational system, actively

engaged in international research collaborations, and has
experiences in teaching at the Middle Eastern region, she
has developed eminent cross-cultural competencies with vast
global experiences.
GLOBAL VIRTUAL I
TEAM

Indeed, we are on a different time zone!

Goodness, what time is it? As Mr. Takamura Yama looked at
the clock, he felt relieved that it is only 4 p.m. and that he
can still send a document to his team member in Delhi—
Mr. Pravant Prabu, a senior engineer in Panasonic. Yet, the
documents will not be read by their team member in Chicago
as he is fast asleep. Perhaps, Mr. David Samuel will reply
tomorrow once he reads it. But, all the team members need to
agree on the proposal and send confirmation by 10 a.m. the
next day. Mr. Takamura feels so anxious that they might not
make it to the 9 a.m. deadline since he needs to send it to his
Tokyo headquarters. As he sighed, he thought, “How could
this happen?” and instantly felt frustrated for not incorporating
the difference in time zone when planning his work.
Chapter 1

Anywhere, Anytime,
and with Anyone—
Virtual Workplace

Introduction
In a virtual workspace, people still need to make decisions
as efficiently as usual, despite the geographical distance. Most
of the time, teams are challenged with a different working
time zone. It can range from as minimal as an hour (Malaysia
versus Japan) to an extreme of 12 hours apart (Malaysia ver-
sus United States). Communication is thus heavily reliant on
technology to speed up decisions. Additionally, team members
are culturally divergent in their working practices, values, and
attitudes. Thus, the key question is, when working together,
how can team members collaborate effectively when they are
faced with different cultural values, time zones, and remote
geographical locations? Rapid globalization and the advance-
ment of information communication technology (ICT) have
resulted in a new, effective, and efficient workplace phenom-
enon. With the proliferate use of ICT, the virtual workplace
has totally changed the normal work orientation and space

3
4 ◾ Culture Matters

in multinational corporations (Gibson et al. 2014; Gilson et al.

2014). As such, the mark of the 21st century has made it pos-
sible for people to fully seize the advantage of this new form
of global collaboration as it provides opportunities for people
to work with anyone, anywhere, and any time.
ICT entails greater efforts to manage globally distributed
collaboration across the world. Globally distributed collabo-
ration often takes place through computer-mediated com-
munication (CMC) technologies, many of which rely heavily
on the Internet and complex information systems. Globally
distributed collaboration also demands managing intercul-
tural communication, defined as interaction between people
of diverse cultural backgrounds with distinct communication
patterns, preferences, and styles. On the one hand, CMC
allows people to communicate and collaborate unrestricted
by barriers of time and space. On the other hand, cultural
barriers stemming from different managerial aspects and
communication styles may adversely affect various elements
of collaboration such as negotiations, deliberation of ideas,
self-disclosure, conflict resolution, coordination, and so on
(Rusman et al. 2010; Paul et al. 2004). Potential culture-
related management problem areas include overcoming high
anxiety and the uncertainty of feelings (Germain & McGuire
2014; Hertel et al. 2005), managing conflicting and frustrat-
ing situations (Dickinson 2013; Holt & DeVore 2005), sav-
ing face in confrontational situations (Ting-Toomey 1997),
making effective group decisions (Oetzel 2005), diverse
leadership style (Hill et al. 2014; Huang et al. 2010), using
language and nonverbal communication (Lockwood 2015;
Lee 2009; Shachaf 2008), and adjusting to and acculturating
in a new environment (Lu et al. 2011; Smith & Khawaja 2011;
Haslberger 2010).
The use of CMC among people with different cultural
values can either facilitate or impede collaboration and com-
munication (Hill et al. 2014; Shen et al. 2014). Early scholars
of CMC suggested that it is ineffective in several areas (e.g.,
 Anywhere, Anytime, and with Anyone—Virtual Workplace ◾ 5

establishing online relationships, producing effective commu-

nication, and expressing oneself or receiving feedback) due to
the absence of contextual, visual, and aural cues (Magnusson
et al. 2014; Gu et al. 2011; Ramirez, Jr. et al. 2002; Wachter
1999; Daft & Lengel 1984). For example, electronic mail
(email) is referred to as a lean media because it relies purely
on textual elements. For people whose intercultural com-
munication styles rely heavily on nonverbal or paralinguistic
cues (tone of voice, facial expressions, body movements, and
gestures) to interpret the information they receive, lean media
was believed to pose a significant barrier to effective com-
munication. With the range of cultural values, managing this
new form of collaboration and communication in a distrib-
uted environment using CMC becomes more challenging and
intense. Essentially, the challenges arise because, as Hall (1976)
asserted, high-context culture prefers nonverbal cues, whereas
email lacks such key characteristic.
The unresolved question, therefore, is, how does culture
impact participation in the distributed environment, particu-
larly the decision-making process, when people use CMC
technologies to participate and collaborate? The significance of
this book lies in its exploration and description of the cul-
tural factors that influenced the participation of global virtual
teams collaborating via email, and in its investigation into
whether different cultural orientations gave rise to different
communicative behaviors, thus impacting the way or man-
ner individuals contributed to the decision-making processes.
In this regard, the book will describe cultural variations such
as intercultural communication styles, individualism versus
collectivism, and task versus relationship orientation during
the decision-making process. From Hall’s theoretical lens and
literature support, people who employ high-context cultural
communication styles have different ways of making propos-
als, deliberating on ideas, making choices, and coming up
with solutions from people who employ low-context cultural
communication styles.
6 ◾ Culture Matters

Case 1: Cultural Vignette

Working at a Distance,
Working with Culture
Adam Resnick, the regional manager at the headquar-
ters of South Western Inc. in Utah, sat in his office
contemplating one crucial question: how will he lead
a negotiation and collaboration effort involving team
members in three different parts of the world? Over
the course of a ten-week project, a team of Indian
engineers needs to collaborate with Swedish engi-
neers to develop microcomputer products and then
communicate with a Malaysian marketing manager
on the exporting of the products to Southeast Asia.
Adam is perplexed. “How is this possible when they
will have no opportunities to meet and have no his-
tory of working together?,” he wonders.
As an American, Adam’s usual way of working is
to develop plans, coordinate, and implement tasks
based on structured milestones and datelines. The
moment he learned he would need to complete
the task within ten weeks, he was full of plans and
ideas on how to coordinate the tasks according to
weekly goals and develop a strategy to execute it.
With all his planning documents ready, he is ready
to make the team effort a success, so he sends out
an introductory email to his colleagues in India,
Sweden, and Malaysia. In the message, he intro-
duces himself, informs them about the task at hand,
and elaborates on his plans to carry out the project
successfully. At the end of the email, he says, “I will
oversee the project and ensure that all the tasks will
be carried out efficiently and as planned.”
Prakash and Ainuddin, the Indian engineers on
the team, are taken by surprise when they receive
the long email full of instructions and guidelines
Anywhere, Anytime, and with Anyone—Virtual Workplace ◾ 7

from their project manager. They had not expected

to need to get to work immediately, considering
that they still have two months to go in the project.
Although both of them are well aware that they have
a short time to complete the task, which is quite
demanding, they were expecting Adam to call or
send a short, friendly email to get the project rolling.
They were hoping that the email would give them
information about him, his position, and his role in
the project. As Ainuddin comments to his colleague,
“I got an email that tells me to stay focused—it is
almost like the task is already being executed, and
no joke!” On the other hand, Carlsten, the Swedish
architect, is extremely happy to see such care-
ful plans laid out. He is motivated to give his best
efforts to get the project completed on time.
As the project moves into its third week, confu-
sion arises, and there are many instances of mis-
communication. Ainuddin is frustrated because he
does not understand what is going on, but he is
hesitant to ask questions because he does not want
to expose his lack of knowledge. At the same time,
Adam is annoyed that Prakash is relenting over the
impressive developments, but he does not see any
tasks being completed as expected. All the dead-
lines he has set have been missed. Although he sent
out many reminders and was adamant about getting
everyone on the same page, he received no replies.
After a couple of days, Ainuddin might briefly men-
tion his progress (and Prakash’s responses were
always positive), but nothing has been delivered.
And yet Carlsten seems to have no trouble adher-
ing to the deadlines. As the end of the project
approaches, Adam starts to wonder, “Which is the
real challenge in managing global virtual teams?
Working at a distance? Or working with their cul-
tural differences?”
8 ◾ Culture Matters

References
Daft, R.L. & Lengel, R.H. 1984. Information richness: A new
approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. In
L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational
Behavior, 6 (pp. 191–233). Homewood, IL: JAI Press.
Dickinson, J.B. 2013. An examination of multi-dimensional chan-
nel conflict: A proposed experimental approach. Journal of
Behavioral Studies in Business. Retrieved January 27, 2016,
available at http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/121244.pdf.
Germain, M.I. & McGuire, D. 2014. The role of swift trust in vir-
tual teams and implications for human resource development.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(3), 356–370.
Gibson, C.B., Huang, L., Kirkman, B.L. & Shapiro, D.L. 2014. Where
global and virtual meet: The value of examining the intersec-
tion of these elements in twenty-first-century teams. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 1(1), 217–244.
Gilson, L.L., Maynard, M.T., Young, N.C.J., Vartiainen, M. &
Hakonen, M. 2014. Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10
themes, and 10 opportunities. Journal of Management, 41(5),
1313–1337.
Gu, R., Higa, K. & Moodie, D.R. 2011. A study on communication
media selection: Comparing the effectiveness of the media
richness, social influence, and media fitness. Journal of Service
Science Management, 4(3), 291–299.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/
Doubleday.
Haslberger, A. 2010. Gender differences and expatriate adjust-
ment. European Journal of International Management, 4(10),
163–183.
Hertel, G., Geister, S. & Konradt, U. 2005. Managing virtual teams:
A review of current empirical research. Human Resource
Management Review, 15(1), 69–95.
Hill, N.S., Lorinkova, N. & Karaca, A. 2014. A critical review and
meta-analysis of leadership behaviors and virtual teams perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 12990–12990.
Holt, J.L. & DeVore, C.J. 2005. Culture, gender, organizational role,
and styles of conflict resolution: A meta-analysis. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(1), 165–196.
 Anywhere, Anytime, and with Anyone—Virtual Workplace ◾ 9

Huang, R., Kahai, S. & Jestice, R. 2010. The contingent effects of

leadership on team collaboration in virtual teams. Computers
in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1098–1110.
Lee, M.R. 2009. E-ethical leadership for virtual project teams.
International Journal of Project Management, 27(5), 456–463.
Lockwood, J. 2015. Virtual team management: What’s caus-
ing communication breakdown? Language & Intercultural
Communication, 15(1), 125–140.
Lu, Y., Samaratunge, R. & Hartel, C. 2011. Acculturation strategies
among professional Chinese immigrants in the Australian work-
place. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49(1), 71–87.
Magnusson, P., Schuster, A. & Taras, V. 2014. A process-based
explanation of the psychic distance paradox: Evidence from
global virtual teams. Management International Review, 54(3),
283–306.
Oetzel, J.G. 2005. Effective intercultural workgroup communi-
cation theory. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing About
Intercultural Communication (pp. 351–372). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., Samarah, I. & Mykytyn, P.P. 2004. Impact
of heterogeneity and collaborative conflict management style
on the performance of synchronous global virtual teams.
Information & Management, 41(3), 303–321.
Ramirez, Jr., A., Walther, J.B., Burgoon, J.K. & Sunnafrank, M. 2002.
Information seeking strategies, uncertainty, and computer-
mediated communication: Toward a conceptual model. Human
Communication Research, 28, 213–228.
Rusman, E., van Bruggen, J. Sloep, P. & Koper, R. 2010. Fostering
trust in virtual project teams: Towards a design framework
grounded in a Trustworthiness Antecedents (TWAN) schema.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(11),
834–850.
Shachaf, P. 2008. Cultural diversity and information and com-
munication technology impacts on global virtual teams:
An exploratory study. Information & Management, 45(2),
131–142.
Shen, Z., Lyytinen, K. & Yoo, Y. 2014. Time and information tech-
nology in teams: A review of empirical research and future
research directions. Forthcoming in European Journal of
Information Systems, 24(5), 492–518.
10 ◾ Culture Matters

Smith, R.A. & Khawaja, N.G. 2011. A review of the acculturation

experiences of international students. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 35, 699–713.
Ting-Toomey, S. 1997. Intercultural conflict competence. In W.
Cupach & D. Canary (Eds.), Competence in Interpersonal
Conflict (pp. 120–147). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wachter, R.M. 1999. The effect of gender and communication mode
on conflict resolution. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(1),
763–782.
Chapter 2

What Is a Global
Virtual Team?

Introduction
In the management field, a team is defined as a small col-
lection of people at work who engage in interpersonal inter-
actions to achieve established goals (Piccoli et al. 2004).
According to Johnson and Johnson (1997), they define a team
as two or more individuals with the following elements and
characteristics: (a) members are interdependent and strive to
achieve mutual goals; (b) they need to communicate in order
to achieve the stated and agreed goals; (c) members are cog-
nizant of the members’ contributions—who is contributing
and who is not; (d) members are assigned with specific tasks,
roles, and responsibilities; (e) and the life span of membership
is limited because members are usually assembled on an
ad-hoc basis.
Teams are an important means of engaging an organization’s
creative and problem-solving capabilities. For an organization to
be competitive and resourceful, they need teams that can create
synergies among coworkers. Eliciting ideas from several minds
often leads to more creative solutions than one person working

11
12 ◾ Culture Matters

on a task alone. As the saying goes, “Alone we can do so little,

together we can do so much!” (Helen Keller, American political
activist). Kenneth Blanchard supported this idea in his well-
known book The One Minute Manager (1982), in which he says,
“None of us is as smart as all of us.”
The development of computer-mediated communication
(CMC) technology and its introduction into multinational cor-
porations (MNCs) have given rise to a different form of team-
work called global virtual teams (GVTs). To fully exploit this
novel work structure, MNCs also need to develop new prac-
tices, procedures, standards, and tasks for teams that depend
on CMC technologies for their daily work routines. This phe-
nomenon is known as the digital-wave workspace and is
becoming prevalent in MNCs.
According to Jarvenpaa and Leidner (1999), GVTs have
three characteristics: (1) they are culturally diverse, (2) they are
geographically dispersed, and (3) team members use elec-
tronic technology (e.g., email) to communicate. Jarvenpaa and
Leidner (1999) define GVTs as an ad-hoc or temporary team in
which team members do not have a shared history of work-
ing together as a group and are unlikely to do so again in the
future. Yusof and Zakaria (2012) further suggest that GVTs can
be defined as teams that (1) are noncollocated and thus can
work across different organizational boundaries, functional-
ities, and/or geographical locations; (2) use information com-
munication technology (asynchronous and/or synchronous) to
collaborate and communicate for work purposes; (3) experi-
ence time zone differences; (4) work on tasks or projects that
allow temporally flexible schedules; and (5) have team mem-
bers from diverse cultural backgrounds.
For all of these reasons, GVTs can present complex and
varied challenges. For example, imagine working with strang-
ers, without any knowledge of their past performance by
which to judge their reliability and trustworthiness. Imagine
engaging with team members for extended work hours
or even during normally off-work hours due to being in
 What Is a Global Virtual Team? ◾ 13

different time zones. Imagine dealing with diverse com-

munication styles, decision-making patterns, negotiation
approaches, and leadership traits because team members
come from different cultural backgrounds. Imagine trying
to defuse a conflict when collaboration and competition are
interpreted differently because of culturally rooted values,
attitudes, and perceptions.
In order for MNCs to have high-performing GVTs, they
must rely heavily on CMC, since geographical distance is no
longer a barrier to virtual cross-border collaboration. However,
coping with cultural diversity in a work setting requires dif-
ferent skills—for example, building trust is an essential ele-
ment in team effectiveness (Zakaria & Yusof 2015; Klitmoller &
Lauring 2013), but cultural diversity can either promote or
hinder the formation of swift trust in a virtual work environ-
ment (Branzei et al. 2007). In addition, it is important to note
that the extent of virtualness varies (Solomon 2012; Kirkman
et al. 2004; Zigurs 2003) and depends largely on the need and
nature of the collaborative work being undertaken.
The degree of virtualness has two elements: (1) level of
communication and (2) time spent working apart (Griffith &
Neale 2001). As shown in Figure 2.1, pure virtual teams (upper
right) never meet face to face regardless of the communica-
tion tools that are used. At the other extreme (lower left) are
traditional or face-to-face teams that do not use any CMC tools
at all. Given the current state of technology and globalization,
both extremes are nearly nonexistent (Griffith et al. 2003). The
hybrid environment or hybrid collaboration is most common,
where communication takes place face to face, as well as vir-
tually (Nunamaker et al. 1998; Warkentin et al. 1997).
These several definitions of GVTs suggest that team mem-
bers differ not only in the degree of virtuality (as shown by
their use of information and communication technologies as
their primary means of communication) but also in terms
of their national and cultural backgrounds. Consequently,
I define GVTs as separated by time and space but, more
14 ◾ Culture Matters

High
(Email, Wikipedia,
Web conferencing Pure
Weblogs, etc.) virtual

Level of Hybrid
sophistication of
communication

None Traditional

(Face-to-face 0% 100%
meetings, etc.)
Time spent working apart

Figure 2.1 Dimensions of virtualness. (Adapted from Griffith, T.L. &

Neale, M.A., Informational processing in traditional, hybrid, and virtual
teams: From nascent knowledge to transactive memory, in B.M. Staw &
R.I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual
Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, 23 (pp. 379–421), 2001.)

importantly, as differing in national, cultural, and linguistic

attributes and work structure.

Case 2: Cultural Vignette

You Speak Differently! Diverse
Communication Styles
After working with her virtual team for almost
ten days, Ms. Kim Hue, a promising young archi-
tect from Vietnam, is feeling upset and stressed.
This makes her contemplate whether or not her
energy and effort have been a waste of time.
When a colleague asks her, “What has happened
to you? I no longer hear about your enthusiasm
and optimism about the eight-week project, are
you doing OK?” Kim starts to express her frus-
tration. “It was fantastic in the beginning since
all five of my team members from Sweden, the
 What Is a Global Virtual Team? ◾ 15

U.S. and Germany was so cooperative. Moreover,

considering I am only a junior executive among
them, I can tell that they appreciate and respect
my ideas as they often support and encourage
me to share ideas. I was highly motivated to
contribute—to the extent that I said ‘Yes’ when-
ever they wanted to have meetings late at night
or even at two or three in the morning for me,
due to the time difference. But yesterday my team
leader, Mr. Grisham Anthony, the Swedish guy,
sent me a long and harsh email about the prob-
lems we encountered. I was shocked and don’t
know what to do. He confronted me directly
about the issues and he did it in a public space
(using email). I am ashamed and embarrassed.”
Kim values her privacy and normally employs a
subtle or indirect way of addressing a problem.
She always tries to avoid confrontation out of a
desire to save face by not embarrassing people
publicly. What her leader did is unacceptable and
upsetting to her, so much so that she says to her
boss, Mr. Duong Hou, “If things don’t seem to
work out, I will quit this project.” Duong listens
carefully to her account of what has happened,
then says to her, “Kim, the way Westerners speak
is direct and straightforward. That is just the way
they communicate. It isn’t mean to be aggressive
or rude. You and I, on the other hand, tend to
keep to ourselves. My advice is to ignore it, and
continue to work as diligently as you have. After
all, I chose you since you are the best we have!”
With that reassurance, Kim sighs to herself, “Well
this is a real challenge for me since I cannot see
their facial expressions or hear their tone of voice
via email. But perhaps it is just part and parcel of
teamwork!”
16 ◾ Culture Matters

References
Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I. & Camp, I.I. 2007. Culture-contingent signs
of trust in emergent relationships. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 104, 61–82.
Griffith, T.L. & Neale, M.A. 2001. Informational processing in tradi-
tional, hybrid, and virtual teams: From nascent knowledge to
transactive memory. In B.M. Staw & R.I. Sutton (Eds.), Research
in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical
Essays and Critical Reviews, 23 (pp. 379–421).
Griffith, T.L., Sawyer, J.E. & Neale, M.A. 2003. Virtualness and
knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organiza-
tions, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly,
27(2), 265–287.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. & Leidner, D.E. 1999. Communication and trust in
global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, F.P. 1997. Joining Together: Group Theory
and Group Skills, 6th ed. London: Allyn and Bacon.
Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P.E. & Gibson, C.B. 2004. The
impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance:
The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of
Management Journal, 47(2), 175–192.
Klitmoller, A. & Lauring, J. 2013. When global virtual teams share
knowledge: Media richness, cultural difference and language
commonality. Journal of World Business, 48(3), 398–406.
Nunamaker, J.F., Briggs, Jr., R.O., Mittleman, D.D. & Balthazard, P.B.
1998. Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems
research: A discussion of lab and field findings. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 13(3), 163–207.
Piccoli, G., Powell, A. & Ives, B. 2004. Virtual teams: Team control
structure, work processes, and team effectiveness. Information
Technology and People, 17, 359–379.
Solomon, C. 2012. The challenges of working in virtual teams:
Virtual Teams Survey Report—2012. RW Culture Wizard.
Retrieved January 27, 2016, available at http://rw-3.com/2012
VirtualTeamsSurveyReport.pdf.
Warkentin, M.E., Sayeed, L. & Hightower, R. 1997. Virtual teams
versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a Web-based
conference system. Decision Sciences, 28(4), 975–996.
 What Is a Global Virtual Team? ◾ 17

Yusof, S.A.M. & Zakaria, N. 2012. Exploring the state of discipline

on the formation of swift trust within global virtual teams.
Proceedings of 45th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (pp. 475–482). Maui, Hawaii. January 4–7,
2012.
Zakaria, N. & Yusof, S.A.M. 2015. Can we count on you at a dis-
tance? The impact of culture on formation of swift trust within
global virtual teams. In J.L. Wildman & R.L. Griffith (Eds.),
Leading Global Teams (pp. 253–268). New York: Springer.
Zigurs, I. 2003. Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportu-
nity? Organizational Dynamics, 31, 339–351.
Chapter 3

Characteristics and
Elements of Global
Virtual Teams

Introduction
Decades ago, teams relied on videoconferencing for meet-
ings; nowadays, new collaborative communication technolo-
gies such as Trello, Skype, Google+, Zoom, and others have
transformed the way people work at a distance. Moreover,
the spread of social network tools like Facebook, WhatsApp,
Twitter, and MySpace has made it much easier for teams to
develop a relationship despite the lack of opportunities to
meet physically. Thus, the effective management of globally
distributed teams includes managing their virtual collabora-
tion; this has become even more crucial as multinational
corporations (MNCs) increase their reliance on the ability to
transcend barriers of culture, distance, and time. In such a
situation, culture does matter in the form of intercultural com-
munication styles and the cultural values to which team mem-
bers subscribe.

19
20 ◾ Culture Matters

In global virtual teams (GVTs), although barriers such as

time and space are reduced, communication barriers can be
greater because of cultural differences. Not only are people
geographically dispersed; they are also functionally diverse
and bring in various areas of expertise, unique knowledge,
and specialized skills (Morley et al. 2015). For example, a team
composed of people from Malaysia, Canada, the United States,
Britain, Germany, Japan, and France is more socially, cultur-
ally, and linguistically complex than a team composed of peo-
ple from New York, Nebraska, Massachusetts, and California.
The larger the cultural distance between GVT members, the
greater the challenge of working together. Even for members
that come from nearby geographical regions, for Eastern coun-
tries, the Japanese style of working is different from that of
people from Thailand. The German negotiating style is differ-
ent from the British. Hence, it is both demanding and complex
to manage at a cultural level, but it is a necessity when GVT
members may come from opposite ends of the world.
Given the two dimensions of time and space, stud-
ies in computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) have
developed a matrix illustrating the possible combinations
(see Figure 3.1) and the possible working methods (Kirkman
& Mathieu 2005; Johansen 1988). The two time dimensions
are (1) synchronous—real-time communication that occurs at
the same time and (2) asynchronous—communication occurs
at different times (for example, I email you a question, and,
a few hours later, you reply). The two place dimensions are
(1) same—people meet in the same room, face to face and
(2) different—people meet virtually while geographically dis-
tributed in multiple locations.
People in GVTs normally work autonomously and have
inner-directed motivations. Yet they are also interdependent,
need trust and commitment from others in the group, and
share power and leadership based on individual members’
technical and knowledge expertise. Members are bound by a
common purpose, cooperative goals, and concrete measures
 Characteristics and Elements of Global Virtual Teams ◾ 21

Place Same place one Different place

meeting site multiple meeting sites
Time
Face-to-face interactions Remote interactions
• Electronic meeting rooms • Shared-view desktop
• Group decision support conferencing systems
system • Desktop conferencing with
collaborative editors
Same time • Video conferencing
synchronous • Media spaces

Communication and
On-going tasks
coordination
• Team rooms • Bulletin boards
• Group displays • Structured messaging systems
Different time • Shift work groupware • Workflow management
asynchronous • Project management • Cooperative hypertext and
organizational memory

Figure 3.1 The time and space dimension for CSCW. (Adapted from
Johansen R., Groupware: Computer Support for Business Teams, New
York, The Free Press, 1988.)

of project effectiveness and the need to manage and coordi-

nate their collaboration. These joint concerns become the basis
for developing communication processes and norms, common
rules for interacting, and a distinctive manner of thinking and
behaving. The characteristics of a GVT can be divided into
four aspects, each of which needs to be considered by MNCs
when they embark on using this novel work structure.

Culturally Distinctive, Culturally Synergistic

GVTs are composed of culturally heterogeneous members.
MNCs can no longer expect that their teams will contain
only people of the same cultural orientations. Many local or
regional companies, in an effort to cut their operating costs,
initially introduced virtual teams to bring together people from
different branches of the same organization. For example, mar-
keting teams from different cities could communicate without
22 ◾ Culture Matters

the need to travel for a face-to-face meeting. For MNCs, it

is a different case. Their teams are normally composed of
members from all across their international operations. Thus,
managing an MNC team’s cultural complexity is very different
from managing a team that is composed of members who are
culturally homogeneous. The distinctive characteristics of the
GVT depend largely on their mind-sets, emotions, and actions,
which are all manifested in their cultural values and their
cultural roots. However, the more distinctive are their cultures,
the more synergy the members bring to the teamwork.

Working Together, Working at a Distance

GVT members will be working together apart in a geographi-
cally disperse environment. They will have few or no opportu-
nities to meet their colleagues who may be thousands of miles
away. They will rely heavily on computer-mediated communi-
cation (CMC) technologies, as well as social network systems.
The biggest challenge of working in this environment is that
members will need to learn to understand each other without
any historical experience of each other’s capability or past
performance. Working together not only brings huge benefits
such as the generation of ideas, the creation of innovative
strategies, and strong collaboration, but it also builds skills
in working together at a distance. Such work arrangements,
without people meeting face to face, are no longer impossible.
GVTs are a powerful strategy for recruiting the best human
capital and leveraging their highest potential.

Technology Dependent, Technology Savvy

GVT members will rely heavily on CMC for their collabora-
tion. Companies must therefore train their employees to be
competent in using such technologies and to feel comfortable
 Characteristics and Elements of Global Virtual Teams ◾ 23

operating in a virtual environment. Technology continues to

advance rapidly and exponentially, and GVT members need
to keep abreast of new developments. Not only do they need
to be competent culturally; they also need to be proficient
technologically. It may be challenging to determine which and
what types of software and technological applications to use.
Team members can identify their preferences, but cultural
values will influence such preferences. For example, Easterners
who value nonverbal cues in their communication may prefer
to use videoconferencing or Skype because, that way, they can
see their colleagues’ facial expressions when communicating.
On the other hand, for Westerners, visual aspects of com-
munication are secondary; they prefer to evaluate the explicit
content of what other members communicate. They rely heav-
ily on the textual content of conversations, rather than using
emoticons (e.g., smiley faces), to convey their feelings or to
infer the feelings of others.

Different Times, Different Urgency

Members will be operating in different time zones. This means
that they need to align schedules in two or more countries
when they plan their meetings. For example, when mem-
bers from Singapore and America are working together, they
need to accommodate the fact that they are 12 hours apart.
The time dimension also has an underlying cultural aspect in
that people view flexibility versus urgency differently. How
and what people perceive about time, such as the degree of
urgency to complete a task within a deadline, may vary based
on culture. For example, some team members might need
hours of deliberation and to weigh their options before final-
izing a decision due to their habit of working in a hierarchical
system, whereas, in other cultures, people can quickly make
decisions because they feel empowered to do so, and they are
held accountable for the decisions.
24 ◾ Culture Matters

In conclusion, it is time for MNCs to engage in expert

change management, strategic planning, global human
resources management, and technology management in order
to deploy GVTs in the most efficient and effective manner.
Not only do these teams need to be trained in using various
forms of collaborative technological tools; they also need to
be prepared to cope with cultural diversity. On the one hand,
technological tools can make high-performing teams more
efficient and effective. On the other hand, it is more important
to ensure that members are well coordinated in their assigned
tasks, as well as compatible in their working styles, so that
the challenges of working together at a distance can be mini-
mized. In short, GVT collaboration not only requires people to
work together but also demands the management of the par-
ticipants’ interdependent relationships as they work on com-
mon tasks, thus contributing toward common goals.

Case 3: Cultural Vignette

The Virtual Workplace: Working
with Strangers in Cyberspace
In his inaugural meeting as a newly appointed
CEO of Hewlett-Packard Tokyo, Mr. Bryan John
announced that all managerial level executives
would participate in global virtual teams effective
next quarter—that is, next month. “We need to
find ways to reduce our large operating costs,” he
explained. “One major expense is overseas assign-
ments, which has both tangible costs such as travel
and sending executives abroad as expatriates, and
intangible costs such as the difficulty of adjusting
to new cultures. Global virtual teams will enable
us to work together at a distance, without leaving
our home offices. With the sophisticated technol-
ogy available today, I am confident that everyone
 Characteristics and Elements of Global Virtual Teams ◾ 25

is capable of working in this innovative teamwork

structure.” Following his announcement, he heard
nothing: no cheers, no applause, and no salutes.
Instead, he saw anxious, solemn, and grim faces
across the room. There were a few minutes of total
silence. He noticed some managers staring blankly
at their colleagues, while others looked down with
unhappy faces. Bryan was puzzled and surprised at
receiving such a response. He had thought people
would be delighted upon receiving such news, that
they would be happy they would not need to go
to the United States given the long and tiring hours
of travel, and not forgetting the potentially pain-
ful adjustment period. In the corner, Mr. Namura
Misoto tried to envision such a work platform and
make sense of his manager’s decision. Many ques-
tions rushed to his mind. He became anxious at
the idea of facing such a drastic change. The good
part, he thought, was that he wouldn’t have to think
about relocating. His unpleasant experience years
ago as an expatriate in New York still haunted him.
However, a lot of questions troubled his mind.
“What is virtual teamwork? With whom will I
work with—will they be strangers? How can I trust
them? How will I communicate with them?” He
thought about the normal greeting customs: bowing
to a colleague when they met, offering courteous
conversation, and only gradually engaging in discus-
sion of work. Such customs were so ingrained in
him that he feared it would be difficult to establish
rapport with new team members if he could not
observe their gestures, hear their tone of voice, and
come to understand their way of working. He was
also well aware of the direct style Americans were
known for, and it intimidated him. In the virtual
workspace, how could he deal with working with
strangers in the absence of the many nonverbal
26 ◾ Culture Matters

cues he was accustomed to rely on? He felt that

the change toward a global virtual team’s structure
was coming too soon; they needed a longer time to
adjust. Silently, he opposed the decision. “I know
my people, I know the Japanese way of working!
We need cultural and technological training, so
they will feel competent and confident. Technology
is certainly prevalent in our workplace, but dealing
with human behavior, especially when combined
with cultural intricacies, is a serious challenge. Time
is essential.”

References
Johansen, R. 1988. Groupware: Computer Support for Business
Teams. New York: The Free Press.
Kirkman, B.L. & Mathieu, J.E. 2005. The dimensions and anteced-
ents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31(5), 700–718.
Morley, S., Cormican, K. & Folan, P. 2015. An analysis of virtual
team characteristics: A model for virtual project manag-
ers. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 10(1),
188–203.
CULTURE AND II
ITS MEANING

No argument, just keep it to oneself!

Promptly at 9 p.m., GMT Chief Financial Officer Mr. Andrew
Tan began the virtual meeting. “Please explain to me what
went wrong,” he said. Mr. Chen offered a long explanation of
what transpired between him and the supplier. Impatiently,
Andrew said, “Our policy clearly states that all payments to
suppliers need to be settled within no more than two weeks.
We are dealing with an international supplier; you need to
incorporate into your schedule the processing time for pay-
ment to be cleared.” Indira Gomez and Peter Hosie, the mar-
keting managers at the Australian branch, expressed their
frustrations about the halted plans to launch their new prod-
uct promotion in Vietnam that month. Other team members
mentioned the repercussions of the delayed payment and
bombarded Chen’s finance team with questions. Overwhelmed
and uncomfortable with confrontation, Chen decided to keep
it simple and said, “I will make sure it gets settled ASAP,” as
he thinks to himself, “Whatever the problems are, there is no
point in saying it outright. I don’t want and I don’t need to get
into an argument.”
Chapter 4

Overview of Culture
and Cultural Values

Introduction
Edward Hall (1976), the founder of intercultural communica-
tion, asserted that “culture is communication and communi-
cation is culture” (p. 191). He emphasized that the types of
information exchanged and shared, the reason a communi-
cation takes place, the way a person communicates, and to
whom a person responds—all of these factors are rooted in
the cultural values that a person subscribes to. What is mean-
ingful to a person is based on how he or she perceives his or
her world through the cultural lens that he or she holds and
the cultural environment in which he or she lives.
Culture is an intricate concept with over 160 different defi-
nitions (Ferraro 2003; Schneider & Barsoux 1997; Kroeber &
Kluckhohn 1952). One of the earliest and most widely cited
definitions is “that complex whole which includes knowledge,
belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and
habits acquired by a man as a member of society” (Tylor 1871,
p. 1). Ferraro (2001) defines culture as “everything that people
have, think, and do as a member of their society” (p. 19).

29
30 ◾ Culture Matters

In a similar vein, Hofstede (1980) sees culture as software of

the mind or mental programming, analogous to the way that
computers are programmed, composed of patterns of think-
ing, feeling, and acting. He sees culture as one of three layers
of human mental programming, with specific components that
differentiate it from the other two (see Figure 4.1).
The foundation layer is human nature, which Hofstede (1980)
views as “what all human beings, from the Russian professor
to the Australian aborigine, have in common: it represents the
universal level in one’s mental software. It is inherited with one’s
genes” (p. 5). Hooker (2003) places needs like food, shelter, and
nurturing in this core set of commonalities that all human beings
share. How one meets these needs, however, is derived from the
other two layers. For example, all human beings need food; the
difference lies in what people eat in different countries.
The second layer is culture. Culture is an intermediate layer
between human nature and personality; it is cultivated, shared,
and group based. Human beings learn from their experience
and their surroundings; this, in turn, shapes their behaviors,
attitudes, and values. All aspects of culture can be learned,
taught, or observed from one’s family, peers, or environment.

Specific to the Learned and

individual inherited
Personality

Specific to the
Learned
group or category Culture

Universal Human nature Inherited

Figure 4.1 Three levels of human mental programming. (Hofstede, G.,

Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1991.)
 Overview of Culture and Cultural Values ◾ 31

Culture can be studied from many perspectives (Karahanna

et al. 2005; Kaarst-Brown & Evaristo 2002):

1. National—based on a person’s country of origin.

2. Ethnic—based on shared background or descent; for
example, Malaysia has three major ethnic groups:
(1) Malay, (2) Chinese, and (3) Indian.
3. Religious—based on a shared set of spiritual beliefs,
which may cross ethnic and national boundaries; for
example, American or Arab Muslims and Chinese or
Japanese Buddhists.
4. Gender—based on identification as female or male.
5. Generational—based on membership in an age cohort;
for example, distinguishing grandparents from parents
from children or elders from youngsters.
6. Social—based on educational background or professional
status.
7. Corporate or organizational—based on work-related
values arising from the way that people are socialized or
oriented to the organization in which they work.
8. Technological—based on a shared technology, which
can shape one’s way of thinking, feeling, and acting;
for example, norms inherent in technology usage or
adoption.

Note that these different kinds of culture may overlap with,

align with, or conflict with one another. For example, national
culture may align with religious culture, corporate culture may
conflict with gender culture, or technological culture may con-
flict with generational culture. A person may belong to many
different types of culture over time, or to more than one at a
time, depending on the situation.
The top layer of our programming is personality, which is
unique to each individual human being. Personality is partly
inherited, partly learned, and partly accumulated over the
course of a person’s life. In contrast to culture, personality is
32 ◾ Culture Matters

acquired over time, as well as inherited. Culture does influ-

ence a person’s personality, since acquired over time equates to
time spent immersed in a culture. Yet Hooker (2003) empha-
sizes that within a single culture, a wide range of personalities
exists. It is thus misleading to use national character to stereo-
type all members of a country. For example, it is true to some
extent that the Japanese emphasize politeness and tend to be
reserved and introverted in nature, whereas Americans are
often direct in their statements and possess extroverted person-
alities. However, there are also Japanese who are outspoken or
rude and Americans who are shy or courteous.
In support of Hofstede’s view of culture, Hall (1976) pro-
vides a more comprehensive analysis of the way culture
touches our daily life:

Culture is man’s medium; there is not one aspect of

human life that is not touched and altered by culture.
This means personality, how people express them-
selves (including shows of emotion), the way they
think, how they move, how problems are solved,
how their cities are planned and laid out, how trans-
portation systems function and are organized, as well
as how economic and government systems are put
together and function (pp. 16–17).

Despite the many variations of culture, anthropologists

agree that culture has three distinct characteristics (Hall 1976):

1. Culture is learned, not innate. People learn how to

behave, feel, or think according to what they experience
in their social environment because culture is not derived
from genetic characteristics.
2. Culture is an interrelated complex whole. Cultures are
logical systems and provide coherent parts to a society.
3. Culture is shared by a group or category and is not specific
to an individual; rather, it is a collective concept.
 Overview of Culture and Cultural Values ◾ 33

Artifacts and
symbols
~ Implicit ~

Norms and
values
~ Implicit ~

Basic
assumptions
and
behaviors
~ Explicit ~

Figure 4.2 The onion model: Manifestations of culture at differ-

ent levels. (Adapted from Hofstede G., Cultures and Organizations:
Software of the Mind, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991; Schein E.H.,
Organizational Culture and Leadership, 1st ed., San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1985; Trompenaars F., Riding the Waves of Culture—
Understanding Diversity in Global Business, Chicago: Irwin, 1994.)

Cultural Characteristics
Hofstede (1980) and Trompenaars (1994) suggested an onion
model (see Figure 4.2) to describe the different layers of cul-
ture, with the degree of complexity increasing as one moves
from the outer layers to the core. In the outermost layer is
what people have or own, manifested as artifacts or material
objects. In the middle layer is what a person thinks, reflected
in their beliefs, attitudes, and values. Finally, in the innermost
layer or core is what people do, determined or at least colored
by their normative patterns of behaviors and assumptions.

Artifacts, Products, and Symbols

At the outermost layer of the onion are artifacts, products, or
symbols, visible as gestures, words, images, or objects. People
34 ◾ Culture Matters

within the same culture share a common set of these sym-

bols. One example is jargon (specialized words or language
used by certain groups of people to describe their work). For
example, medical doctors use different terms from the average
person to explain a flu, while lawyers have ways of explaining
a contractual agreement that laymen may not fully understand.
This outermost layer is explicit, superficial, changeable, easily
copied, or modified by other groups and consists of behaviors
that are easily recognized or observed.

Norms and Values

According to Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988, p. 61), norms
are “prescriptive principles to which members of a culture
subscribe.” The underlying hypothesis of cultural value studies
is that people from different cultures differ normatively in their
value orientations, which ultimately results in differences in the
overt behaviors that are exhibited by many of the people much
of the time. Hofstede (1991) defines values as “a broad tendency
to prefer certain states of affairs over others” (p. 8). Schwartz’s
(1992) definition is more elaborate, stating that values are “desir-
able states, objects, goals, or behaviors, transcending specific
situations and applied as normative standards to judge and to
choose among alternative modes of behavior” (p. 2). In support
of this latter definition, Scarborough (1998) asserts that values
are, in large part, culturally derived and, as a result, cultural
values drive a person’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors.

Basic Assumptions
Basic assumptions are the implicit or hidden aspects of cul-
ture that spring from needs at the core of human existence
(Trompenaars 1994). Basic assumptions are the behavioral
rules that regulate actions and guide people to workable ways
of managing their relationships with the environment (external
adaptation), as well as with other people (internal integration)
 Overview of Culture and Cultural Values ◾ 35

(Schneider & Barsoux 1997). At this core layer, behaviors often

have unconscious motivations because basic assumptions are
not articulated and are taken for granted. Several scholars
have identified specific dimensions within this layer of cul-
ture: (a) Hall (1959, 1976) concerning time, space, and con-
text; (b) Hofstede (1980) concerning work-related values;
and (c) Trompenaars (1994) concerning business values.
(See Chapter 6 for a more detailed discussion of these.)
Hofstede’s work on basic assumptions has enhanced our
understanding of the complexities of culture, a vital perspec-
tive for organizations or people who need to work together to
find solutions to shared problems.

References
Ferraro, G.P. 2003. The Cultural Dimension of International
Business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gudykunst, W.B. & Ting-Toomey, S. 1988. Culture and
Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Hall, E.T. 1959. Silent Language. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/
Doubleday.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/
Doubleday.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Hofstede, G. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hooker, J. 2003. Working Across Cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford
Business Books.
Kaarst-Brown, M. & Evaristo, J.R. 2002. International cultures and
insights into global electronic commerce. In P. Palvia, S. Palvia
& E. Roche (Eds.), Global Information Technology and
Electronic Commerce, 4th ed. (pp. 255–276). Marietta, GA: Ivey
League Publishing.
Karahanna, E., Evaristo, J.R. & Strite, M. 2005. Levels of culture and
individual behavior: An integrative perspective. Journal of
Global Information Management, 13(2), 1–20.
36 ◾ Culture Matters

Kroeber, A.L. & Kluckhohn, C. 1952. Culture: A Critical Review

of Concepts and Definitions. Papers, 47 (1). Cambridge, MA:
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.
Scarborough, J. 1998. The Origins of Cultural Differences and Their
Impacts on Management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Schein, E.H. 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 1st ed.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, S.C. & Barsoux, J. 1997. Managing Across Cultures.
London: Prentice Hall.
Schwartz, S.H. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of
values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25,
pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.
Trompenaars, F. 1994. Riding the Waves of Culture—Understanding
Diversity in Global Business. Chicago: Irwin.
Tylor, E. 1871. Origins of Culture. New York: Harper & Row.
Chapter 5

Edward Hall:
High-Context versus
Low-Context Intercultural
Communication

Introduction
As an anthropologist, Edward T. Hall (1976) examined the
factors that influence intercultural understanding and thus
enhance or impede communication between individuals from
different cultural backgrounds. His work led him to formulate
a cultural dimension called context. Context explains the way
people evaluate and interpret the meaning of information that
they receive. Hall stipulates that context comprises a system
of meaning for information. It provides a model that enables
people to comprehend communication forms ranging from the
purely nonverbal (such as hand gestures, body language, facial
expressions, and tone of voice) to the purely verbal (such as
written text or spoken words).
Context is a continuous spectrum that reflects how much
reliance a culture places on nonverbal cues in order to

37
38 ◾ Culture Matters

communicate: the heavier the reliance, the higher the context.

Although context is a continuum, Hall focused on the two
poles: (1) high context and (2) low context. Using context as
a dichotomous variable highlights the differences in a more
distinctive manner. Hall argues that, although people may use
both high- and low-context communication, only one style is
predominant at any given moment (Gudykunst et al. 1996).
Aside from context, Hall described several other dimen-
sions that vary across cultures, for example, the meaning
and importance of time and space. He focused on these two
dimensions in his first book, Silent Language (1959), in which
he observed variations between cultures not only in lan-
guage but also in a communication phenomenon that goes
beyond the use of language. This language of behavior, which
he called silent language, constitutes elaborate prescriptions
regarding how people handle time; spatial relationships; atti-
tudes toward play, work, and learning; and more. Hall asserted
that people frequently consider “time as an element of culture
which communicates as powerfully as language” (p. 128),
metaphorically known as time talks. The dimension of space,
on the other hand, refers to the notion of a physical boundary
that separates every living thing from its external environment,
or, as he put it, space speaks.
In his later book, Beyond Culture (1976), Hall introduced
the context dimension, another aspect of silent language. In
this book, Hall focuses only on context, as it is the dimen-
sion with the strongest connection to communication. Context
refers to the situational and informational aspects of message
sharing; as Hall points out, the ability to glean shared mean-
ings from nonverbal or paralinguistic cues affects communi-
cation between people from different cultural backgrounds.
Language and the silent language are both critical in establish-
ing common ground (Clark 1996). Obviously, then, commu-
nication challenges are amplified when people from different
cultural values attempt to comprehend each other’s indicators,
 Edward Hall: Intercultural Communication ◾ 39

signals, and nonverbal or verbal cues (Cassell & Tversky 2005;

Pekerti & Thomas 2003).
According to Clark (1996), people establish common ground
when they do something together, as a joint activity. When
two people carry on a conversation, for example, several joint
activities take place as they coordinate, manage, and syn-
chronize their efforts to establish a mutual understanding, or
common ground. Language is one of the many means that
are used to establish common ground. This can be language
in its most basic form, i.e., face to face (spoken), or in vari-
ous kinds of written settings. The setting in which language
is exchanged is known as the medium. In Clark’s study, the
medium is electronic and textual or written. Another impor-
tant communicative element is scene, the place or situation in
which the language is used.
Despite the fact that language is one of the most common
bases for establishing common ground, it also can be a barrier
in situations that rely on computer-mediated communication
(CMC), such as email lists or blogs, since the vast majority of
CMC is in English (Uljin et al. 2000; Cairncross 1997). Although
English is known and used in the international business arena
and is spoken with some degree of skill by many, it is not
the first language for millions of people across the world. In
addition, the slang terms used in one English-language culture
may have obscure, opposite, or alternate meanings in another
English-language environment. Interestingly, Ayyash-Abdo
(2001) observed that the use of English might alter one’s cul-
tural orientation. Other studies have found that, when people
use English in CMC, native and non-native English speakers
exhibit differences in their discourse preferences and formats
based on their cultural values (Uljin et al. 2000). Thus, par-
ticipants collaborating via CMC need to be cognizant of and
sensitive to English-language variations in style, format, tone,
salutations, and closings, as these cues may affect the accuracy
of their communication (Bloch & Starks 1999).
40 ◾ Culture Matters

Milward (2000) further supports the theory that, although

language matters, context can sometimes be more influen-
tial. Context influences what is being said, as well as when,
where, to whom, and how. Thus, in Hall’s framework, context
refers to how much (and what kind of) information is required
for the receipt and understanding of a message in a given
communication situation. Victor (1992) discusses a behavior
called contexting, which illustrates “the way in which one
communicates and especially the circumstances surrounding
that communication” (p. 137). Message senders need to take
the culturally normative communication context into account
when they formulate a message, and, to varying degrees, mes-
sage receivers must also interpret the message using unique
cues that are obtained from the communication context
(Zakaria et al. 2003).
As Peter Ehrenhaus says,

[M]embers of cultures where high-context messages

predominate are sensitive to situational features and
explanations, and tend to attribute others’ behavior to
the context, situation, or other factors external to the
individual. Members of cultures in which low-context
messages predominate, in contrast, are sensitive to
dispositional characteristics and tend to attribute oth-
ers’ behavior to characteristics internal to the individ-
ual (e.g., personality). Individuals use the information
that they believe is important when interacting with
members of other cultures. (Triandis 1994, p. 127)

Hall’s contextual dimension helps predict how high-context

individuals will internalize the meaning of information based
on nonverbal elements—they rely more on the context and
less on the content. Low-context individuals, on the other
hand, are concerned with the content of the information,
such as the explicit words and the message itself, and put
less emphasis on the context. Simply put, Hall’s contextual
Table 5.1 Summary of High- and Low-Context Cultures
Component High Context Low Context
Cultural Requires an adequate understanding of Requires little knowledge of culture to get
understanding a particular culture in order to function along, and culture does not play an
well within the society. important role in forming individual identity.
Cultural assumptions Assumes a rich common culture, and Does not assume a common culture. A
the identity of individual members is member of another society can function well
defined in terms of that culture. by simply adhering to minimal legal
restrictions.
Nature of information Information is implicit and requires little Information is made explicit in each
background or explanations since interaction, where everything is spelled out
people are assumed to have prior clearly.
knowledge.
Information cues Important information is transmitted Important information is transmitted through
through nonverbal and contextual explicit verbal messages.
cues.
Speech and style of Speech and communication are Speech and communication are direct and
communication indirect, and ambiguous language is straight to the point; people value verbal and
common; people tend to avoid saying eloquent speech and tend to express
no directly. opinions and intentions freely and directly
persuade others to accept their viewpoints.
Edward Hall: Intercultural Communication ◾ 41

(Continued)
Table 5.1 (Continued) Summary of High- and Low-Context Cultures
42 ◾

Component High Context Low Context

Background Have a wide network of sources and Verbalize more background information and
knowledge stay well informed on many subjects. tend not to be well informed on subjects
outside of their own specialties or interests.
Culture Matters

Cultural Prioritize the establishment of Prioritize accomplishment of objectives and

action–orientation relationships over the achievement of goals over relationships. The emphasis is on
goals. The emphasis is on relationship; the goal; task oriented.
relationship oriented.
Cultural Feelings and thoughts not openly Feelings and thoughts often explicitly
expressiveness expressed. Often, messages must be expressed, verbally or in written. People
read between the lines. value being true to their feelings.
Cultural distinctions All aspects of an individual’s life Personal, work, and other relationships are
between working permeate and connect to everything highly compartmentalized, with little
and personal else in his or her life. overlap.
relationships
Background People are homogeneous, with People have independent experiences,
experiences extensive shared experiences, information, and networks, which may vary
information, and networks. drastically.
Source: Zakaria, N. et al., Information Technology & People, 16, 49–75, 2003.
 Edward Hall: Intercultural Communication ◾ 43

dimension reflects the ways in which individuals perceive,

exchange, use, and communicate information. All cultures,
whether high or low context, have their own unique identity,
language, nonverbal communication cues, material culture,
history, and social structures. In essence, Hall views culture as
a system for creating, sending, storing, and processing infor-
mation (Hall & Hall 1990), and his work is summarized in
Table 5.1.

References
Ayyash-Abdo, H. 2001. Individualism and collectivism: The case of
Lebanon. Social Behaviors and Personality, 29(5), 503–518.
Bloch, B. & Starks, D. 1999. The many facets of English: Intra-
language variation and its implications for international busi-
ness. Corporate Communications, 4, 80–88.
Cairncross, F. 1997. The Death of Distance: How the Communications
Revolution Will Change Our Lives. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Cassell, J. & Tversky, D. 2005. The language of online intercul-
tural community formation. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 10(2), article 2. Retrieved August 23, 2005,
available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue2/cassell
.html.
Clark, H.H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Hall, E.T. 1959. Silent Language. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/
Doubleday.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/
Doubleday.
Hall, E.T. & Hall, M.R. 1990. Understanding Cultural Differences:
Germans, French and Americans. Boston: Intercultural Press,
Inc.
Gudykunst, W.B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim,
K. & Heyman, S. 1996. The influence of cultural individualism-
collectivism, self-construal, and individual values on communi-
cation styles across cultures. Human Communication Research,
22(4), 510–543.
44 ◾ Culture Matters

Milward, S. 2000. The relationship among Internet exposure, com-

municator context and rurality. American Communication
Journal, 3(3). Retrieved September 20, 2005, available at http://
www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol3/Iss3/rogue4/milward.
Pekerti, A.A. & Thomas, D.C. 2003. Communication in intercul-
tural interaction: An empirical investigation of idiocentric and
sociocentric communication styles. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 34(2), 139–154.
Uljin, J., O’Hair, D., Weggeman, M., Ledlow, G. & Hall, H.T. 2000.
Innovation, corporate strategy, and cultural context: What is
the mission for international business communication? The
Journal of Business Communication, 37, 293–316.
Triandis, H.C. 1994. Culture and Social Behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Victor, D.A. 1992. International Business Communication. New
York: HarperCollins.
Zakaria, N., Stanton, J.M. & Sarkar-Barney, S.T.M. 2003. Designing
and implementing culturally-sensitive IT applications: The
interaction of culture values and privacy issues in the Middle
East. Information Technology & People, 16, 49–75.
Chapter 6

Fons Trompenaars
and Charles Hampden-
Turner: Seven Cultural
Dimensions: A Mirror
Image of Problem-
Solving in the Workplace

Introduction
In the late 1980s, Fons Trompenaars emerged as a respected
theorist who contributed complementary cultural dimensions
to the field of cross-cultural management. Together with
Charles Hampden-Turner, he established a consultation firm
called the Centre for International Business Studies, and,
since then, they have worked with numerous leading multi-
national corporations (MNCs) including British Petroleum,
Philips, IBM, Heineken, AMD, Mars, Motorola, General Motors,
Merrill Lynch, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, ABN AMRO, ING,
PepsiCo, and Honeywell. They have also conducted more
45
46 ◾ Culture Matters

than a thousand cross-cultural training programs in 20 coun-

tries. In late 1990s, due to his wide-ranging consultation work,
Trompenaars was ranked as one of the top management
consultants, among other gurus like Tom Peters, Edward de
Bono, Michael Porter, and Peter Drucker. He developed his
understanding of cultural influences on organizations based
on his years of consultation and practice rather than on
scholarly work, contrary to other cross-cultural theorists like
Hofstede, Hall, Kluckhorn, and Strodtbeck. Between 2011 and
2013, he became one of the top 20 most influential thinkers
in human resources management and enlightened scholars on
many aspects of culture and its influence in the workplace.
His inquisitive mind explored how people’s approaches to
solving problems at work are shaped and influenced by their
own cultural values and why people from different cultures
see the world differently, rooted in a dynamic cultural values
orientation.
Trompenaars (1994) recognized that people act in response
to the way that they naturally see and perceive the world.
How one sees the world defines how one’s problem-solving
mind develops. Our perceptions can sometimes result in a
dilemma when we are confronted with choices or a range of
paths to take when solving a problem. Oftentimes, managers
faced with this dilemma are challenged to function at a higher
level of cognitive and emotional competency. Trompenaars
poses thought-provoking questions and seeks answers in dif-
ferent ways, supporting his work with wide-ranging justifica-
tions. He found many of the answers through the MNCs that
he had worked with over the years. Some of his explanations
are built upon the work of previous cross-cultural theorists,
but his approach to and views about culture differ slightly
from those of other theorists because the organizations he
had worked with are highly diverse, both in the field of busi-
ness and in size. Whereas Hofstede’s research was based on
a survey sent to only one organization (IBM employees), and
Hall interviewed people during his involvement with a single
 Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner ◾ 47

organization (the Foreign Service Institute), Trompenaars’

research was based on his consultation work with many differ-
ent organizations.
What concerns Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner is that
it takes time for people from different cultures to uncover the
similarities and dissimilarities in values, practices, and atti-
tudes. People may also find it difficult to tolerate and accept
these dissimilarities because cultural values operate at the
group/societal level rather than at the individual level—i.e.,
the level of a single person’s personality (refer to the triangle
cultural model in Chapter 4). On the one hand, such group-
based values may change over time as they are fluid, not rigid.
On the other hand, culture is sustainable in a society over
a prolonged period of time due to the inherited values and
customary practices and therefore may take time to change.
In organizations, people who work together may, over time,
develop common routines, procedures, and practices for car-
rying out a task, which are influenced by the cultural values
belonging to the society. For example, in the early 1980s, a
manager at the headquarters of an MNC might send a fax to
a subordinate in another department. Fax was an accepted
communication mode. Although this was a common practice,
in certain cultures, including many Asian ones, faxes are not
well accepted (Chen 2006). In a collectivistic society, people
still prefer to pick up the phone to communicate because the
nonverbal cues present in one’s voice are more meaningful
than purely textual communication, which strips out these
nonverbal cues.
When information technology was introduced into the
workplace, the fax machine was replaced by email for urgent
exchanges or for messages to be delivered to a branch across
the country. Again, some cultures resisted email as a commu-
nication mode due to the absence of nonverbal cues (Sproull &
Kiesler 1996). Nowadays, more and more organizations and
people are shifting to different communication platforms.
People are more comfortable with social network sites such as
48 ◾ Culture Matters

Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and other newly emergent com-

munication and collaboration tools and platforms, which make
sending emails seem antiquated. As time goes by, technology
becomes more and more sophisticated, making cross-cultural
communication around the globe faster and cheaper. People
respond to these new tools with innovation, developing more
efficient ways of doing things. Past practices become obsolete
resulting in changes to a society’s culture, and thus new cultures
evolve in organizations. However, there are certain aspects of
the workplace that are difficult to change—for example, shifting
the organizational structure from a tall and hierarchical system
to a flatter, more empowerment-based system. In certain cul-
tures, it can take much longer to shift from a bureaucratic sys-
tem to an empowered system, depending on how swiftly those
involved in decision making are willing to accept and adapt.
In essence, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner see work-
place dilemmas and problems as a mirror image of individual
behaviors. Why so? Their views were based on one clear idea,
“Culture is the way in which a group of people solves prob-
lems and reconciles dilemmas” (Trompenaars & Hampden-
Turner 1998, p. 6). The symbol of a mirror refers to the idea
that every single problem that is rooted at the cultural level is
actually a reflection of oneself against others. Each society has
its own world view, its own ideas about how things are to be
done, while others may have a completely opposite outlook.
Thus, a society needs to explore and be aware of other world
views so that it can evaluate culture-related circumstances and
situations realistically.
Human behaviors in the workplace can be analyzed based
on three orientations, abbreviated as PET: (1) people—the
relationship of people to people, (2) environment—the rela-
tionship of people to the control of the internal and external
environment, and (3) time—the relationship of people to time.
These three orientations are derived from two things: first,
how human beings deal with each other and why they behave
in a certain way, and, second, how such behaviors are linked
 Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner ◾ 49

to people’s cultural values. Using this cultural framework,

there are two ways to understand the influence of culture on
decision making in global virtual teams (GVTs): first, how an
individual can get to know himself or herself at a deeper level
and find ways to relate to others, and, second, how managers
can better understand others when managing a multicultural
team. Within the PET cultural framework, Trompenaars identi-
fied seven dimensions, each of which represents a two-sided
problem-solving characteristic: (1) universalism versus particu-
larism, (2) individualism versus communitarianism, (3) neutral
versus emotional, (4) specific versus diffuse, (5) achievement
versus ascription, (6) internal versus external control, and
(7) sequential versus synchronic. The following paragraphs
describe these seven dimensions and demonstrates how the
three orientations can be applied as a theoretical lens, spe-
cifically in the context of GVTs and how culture affects the
decision-making process.

People Orientation (P)

People find it challenging to understand and fully accept cul-
tural differences unless they are sufficiently culturally aware
and educated to be able to celebrate the similarities that they
share as human beings. Trompenaars identified five work ori-
entations, defined as how people deal with others in a work
environment, which any manager should clearly understand.
First, the manager must balance abiding by rules with
maintaining relationships. Universalism holds that rules and
procedures are there to be followed and that things are to be
done accordingly to policy—this is associated with task orien-
tation. Particularism emphasizes the need for building rapport
and close connections with others and a sensitivity to how
and why individuals can be affected differently by the same
rules—this is associated with relationship orientation. This bal-
ancing act is complex because it creates a dilemma regarding
50 ◾ Culture Matters

whether a workplace issue can be solved through policies and

guidelines or whether it requires strong bonding and relation-
ships that are established over time.
Second, the manager must be aware of individualistic ver-
sus collectivistic values as practiced in the workplace, whether
his or her people are doing things based on a self-driven goal,
in which I and myself are the drivers, or a group-driven goal,
which prioritizes we and ourselves and promotes collective
efforts. In some cultures, the word we illustrates the impor-
tance of working together and cherishes and inculcates team
spirit. However, an individualistic culture prioritizes I and self-
rewarding accomplishments; to meet this need for self-control
and independence requires managers to foster an environment
of empowerment. Individualistic versus collectivistic values
may also affect how people view the decision-making process.
In a team context, team members from individualistic cultures
may use a self-opinionated voice when engaging in discus-
sions, thereby promoting a healthy exchange of ideas and
creating synergy; they do not see this as threatening in a team
brainstorming session. By contrast, individuals from a collec-
tivistic culture may be hesitant to voice their feelings for fear
that it will create animosity in others. They may prefer to keep
their feelings to themselves until they are required to voice an
opinion—which they then do in a safe and nonconfrontational
manner, since what matters most to this culture is the display
of a collective mind within the team, without bold displays of
contradictory opinions.
Third, managers need to understand how people display
their emotions, whether they favor a nondisclosing, noncon-
frontational manner—a neutral way of expressing feelings—or
whether they tend to be expressive and emotional, openly
speaking of their anger, excitement, or joy. This dimension is
an important aspect of culture because people communicate
their feelings in two ways: (1) verbal and (2) nonverbal. In a
culture that is neutral in nature, people are more comfortable
displaying their emotions through nonverbal means, such as
 Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner ◾ 51

facial expressions, hand gestures, body movements, the use

of silence, and so on. However, in cultures that are expres-
sive, people will normally employ clear and explicit verbal and
written methods to communicate their opinions, though they
may use nonverbal cues to support their arguments. They will
state their emotions without reservation.
Fourth, managers need to understand how people define
the boundary between their personal and working lives. The
specific versus diffuse dimension addresses this question. On
the specific end of the spectrum, people make a clear divi-
sion between work and play; in such a culture, people main-
tain a logical separation between work inside the office and
fun outside the office. In other words, the work boundary is
not blurred by their private lives. For a culture that is diffuse,
on the other hand, work and play can overlap. This overlap
occurs due to the strong relationships that people in such cul-
tures strive to develop, protect, and maintain over time.
The fifth and last dimension is achievement versus ascrip-
tion, the question of who did what versus who knows whom.
We often think that status in the workplace should be based
purely on individual accomplishments, i.e., what one can offer
and what one can contribute. At the end of the day, what
counts most are objective outcomes and deliverables that are
shown in the form of productivity. Cultures with this mind-set
are known as achievement cultures. By contrast, in an ascrip-
tion culture, people are evaluated based on who they are and
whom they are affiliated with. Status is based on unwritten
rules, and the real goal may not be measurable achievements
but rather how one can influence others. Managers need to
learn how their people perceive and award status.

Environment Orientation (E)

PET’s environment orientation refers to the locus of control,
either internal or external. The key questions are how people
52 ◾ Culture Matters

control their environment and whether people believe that a

problem originates from an external versus an internal source.
Do we control our environment, or are we controlled by it?
Do we control nature or let it take its course? In an organiza-
tional context, the answers to these questions are crucial when
people need to make decisions, whether major or minor.
Managers may face a situation in which decisions are out-
side their control due to a bureaucratic system in which power
is concentrated at the top management level, moves down to
the middle level, and then finally to lower management. Such
multilayered formality is often found in Asian countries. These
cultures have an external locus of control in that team mem-
bers are not empowered to make individual decisions. Instead,
decisions are made either by a collective voice based on con-
sensus or, if a single voice, that of the person with the highest
authority in the company. In a culture based on an internal
locus of control, by contrast, each person can act individu-
ally; he or she is given responsibility and empowered to make
decisions. For managers, the environment orientation is sig-
nificant in understanding the degree of power that people feel
that they have in the decision-making process, as well as what
drives or motivates them.
For example, consider the internal control dimension.
Trompenaars explains that people with an internal locus
are naturally self-driven and believe that they own all their
decisions—that is, that they will be held accountable for their
actions and outcomes. On the other hand, those with an exter-
nal locus of control feel that things ought to remain in com-
pliance with the current environment and that they have no
real power to change how things are done; they rely on their
superiors to make the best decisions or depend on a group
of people coming to an agreement together. External-locus
people feel that decisions do not rest in their own hands but
in those of others—either in a collective effort by the team or
in a superior power, i.e., their boss—whereas internal-locus
people believe that achievement is obtained through self-effort
 Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner ◾ 53

and that one can freely plan, organize, and execute different
outcomes with little or no reference to others.

Time Orientation (T)

What is the nature of time, and how do people perceive and
manage time in the workplace? According to Ferraro (2010),
“in some respects, time speaks more plainly than words, for
time conveys powerful messages about how people relate to
the world and each other” (p. 125). Trompenaars draws a clear
distinction between cultures with a sequential time dimension
versus those with a synchronic time dimension, by asking the
question, “Do people do things one at a time (sequentially) or
several things at once (synchronically)?” Applied to the work
context, this dichotomy describes whether team members
stick to the agenda during meetings and carry out tasks in a
sequential and systematic manner, or juggle many things at
one time, wherein all tasks are woven into subtasks. In the
former case, team members may be inflexible and unwilling
to adjust schedules; in the latter case, they may lose track of
time, wander off topic, be less punctual when attending meet-
ings, or miss assigned due dates.
Managers need a good understanding of their team mem-
bers’ time orientation because different people have different
senses of time and different approaches to time management.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) looked at time
management as a set of activities that are planned, organized,
and implemented based on either sequentially or synchronic-
ally oriented decisions. They asserted that “time can be legiti-
mately conceived of as a line of sequential events passing us
at regular intervals. It can also be conceived of as cyclical and
repetitive, compressing past, present and future by what these
have in common: seasons and rhythms” (p. 126). Time is not
only defined physically, according to the numbers on a clock,
but also has a deeper level. Time can refer to the physical
54 ◾ Culture Matters

aspect of how a person values the ticking of a clock, and, of

course, when people talk about deadlines, the only kind of
time that matters is clock time, first in the form of minutes and
hours and then extended to days, weeks, months, and even
years. Yet time can also be interpreted from a psychologi-
cal standpoint in terms of the sense of urgency that a person
feels regarding tasks to be completed—either a precise and
punctual time or a loose reckoning, as suggested by Ferraro
and Brody (2012). Several other theorists have explored time-
distinctive values, including Edward Hall’s (1976) monochronic
(M-time) versus polychronic (P-time), and Walker and Walker’s
(1995) concept of single focus versus multifocus.
All these theorists share the same underlying goal, which
is to understand how people perceive time and how they
manage time at work. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner
(1998) took their work a step further, exploring how man-
agers can better understand the relationship between time
orientation and human relations. People with a synchronic
time orientation appreciate relationships with other people,
and such ties are considered valuable; past, present, and
future are interrelated to the extent that a historical relation-
ship is seen as important for both current conditions and
future projects since it creates strong bonds of warmth. In
synchronic time orientation, a relationship takes precedence
over a task, even though relationships need to be developed,
and that process is time consuming. Since they feel that time
can wait, they value taking things slowly and see no need
to rush in delivering a task; as a result, tasks may be put off.
For example,

[Imagine that] A person is attending to his new cus-

tomer at a counter. Then, a phone rings, he picks
up the phone, and, with pleasure, he welcomes the
customer on the other line because she is his favor-
ite and regular customer. Due to his long-established
 Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner ◾ 55

relationship with the old customer, he needs to

spend time to entertain her. Thus, the new customer
needs to wait. Then, his clerk comes to his desk to
ask him to sign a document, and, again, he has to
stop talking to his old customer while signing the
document, and the new customer has to wait further.

On the other end of the spectrum, sequential time orienta-

tion views relationships as instrumental and maintains a clear
boundary between ties and tasks; this separation between
time intervals underlines the separation between means and
ends. Interpersonal relationships are formed with a clear
objective in mind to achieve a desired outcome. Yet relation-
ships cannot be sacrificed to accomplish a goal. Normally,
task completion for a team is not dependent on the degree
or strength of the relationships among its members. Each task
has its own process, and the process follows a systematic path
from point A to point B. Each task has a timeline and spe-
cific objectives. Task takes priority over relationships. Time
is money, and, therefore, time is a tangible commodity that
needs to be used to the optimum and maximum. Tasks are
assigned, and people are expected to meet deadlines, establish
milestones, and organize schedules in line with the project
objectives.

Conclusion
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998) successfully applied
their theoretical lens to offer enlightening and insightful sug-
gestions as to how managers at MNCs can prepare themselves
to deal with problems in the workplace arising from cultural
differences. What is important to recognize is that work-related
problems are rooted in our cultural values, and our ways of
thinking and feeling, which are manifested in our behaviors.
56 ◾ Culture Matters

References
Chen, G.M. 2006. Asian communication studies: What and where to
now. The Review of Communication, 6(4), 295–311.
Ferraro, G. & Brody, E.K. 2012. Cultural Dimension of Global
Business. New York: Routledge.
Ferraro, G.P. 2010. The Cultural Dimension of International
Business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/
Doubleday.
Sproull, L.S. & Kiesler, S. 1986. Reducing social context cues:
Electronic mail in organizational communication, management.
Science, 32, 1492–1512.
Trompenaars, F. 1994. Riding the Waves of Culture—Understanding
Diversity in Global Business. Chicago: McGraw-Hill.
Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. 1998. Riding the Waves
of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Walker, B.T.D. & Walker, T. 1995. Doing Business Internationally:
The Guide to Cross-Cultural Success. New York: Irwin.
DISTRIBUTED III
DECISION-
MAKING
PROCESSES
AND ACTIVITIES

What can I do, it is the bureaucracy!

Henry Butler, the marketing manager at Sime Tyres in London,
waited and waited for a decision. He looked at the calendar.
He was frustrated because they were behind the deadline
for almost one week now. He should receive the final say
from the team in Thailand and then communicate it to their
Swiss team. The meeting will be held in Geneva, and it is just
around the corner. Without waiting any further, he decided to
send a quick email—“Prawan, what is your decision? Who will
be the speaker and how many participants?” The Swiss team
member, Anthony Marcus, as the project manager of Alphard
Consulting Inc., was shocked that the awaited decision has
not been made by Prawan because he needs to organize and
coordinate the event with Henry. He was also getting anxious
58 ◾ DISTRIBUTED DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

about it and thus decided to respond to the email, which

said “…we are running short of time, we need to finalize the
number of people to attend the meeting. It is only three weeks
away. Please get back to us promptly.” Henry and Anthony
are still waiting despite the two emails that were sent. Time
is ticking, yet decisions were not made. In his bewilderment,
Anthony wonders, “…hmmm, how do I push the team to
make decisions urgently?” While on the other corner of the
world, Henry sighed and said to himself, “If only they are in
my office, I will surely knock on their doors. Unfortunately,
they are thousands of miles away!”
Chapter 7

Overview of Distributed
Decision-Making Process

Introduction
Who makes the decision? What kinds of decisions do people
make at the workplace, and for what reasons are they carried
out, and when are they needed? If at all, can one transfer or
empower the responsibility of making decisions to others? To
answer these questions, let me first define what decision mak-
ing is. According to Saaty (2012), making decisions in orga-
nizations undergoes a multifaceted process based on many
intricate and challenging issues, despite the fact that people
need to make decisions at all times and at all levels. He fur-
ther suggests that decision making is a complex world, and it
is governed by two dimensions, which are the human behav-
ioral and thought process. The human behaviors are driven
by the instinct–drive theory, which describes how a person
is subjected to one’s own instinct when making decisions. As
such, factors like sentiment, value, ambition, attitude, taste and
preferences, and inclination are seen as more desirable com-
pared to logic reasoning and logic thinking. Saaty (2012) also
further integrates the theory of learning to understand how a

59
60 ◾ Culture Matters

person makes a decision. He defined learning as “…the ability

to recognize a specific act in the light of previous experience.
It is an iterative, or repeated, process of adding knowledge
that elaborates on or expands existing knowledge” (p. 9).
With both theories at hand, it is interesting to explore whether
or not such intuitive and learning behaviors of people at the
workplace provide an understanding on how the different
work structures, such as the virtual work environment, play
out when it comes to the decision-making process.
Essentially, given the heightened level of globalization
and the ubiquitous use of computer-mediated technologies
in organizations at present, people are confronted with new
ways of making decisions at a virtual workplace. Thus, with
this entire complex distributed decision-making process, it
is essential to understand that the decision-making process
is still the root of management roles in any organizations. In
a globalized world, the reality of workplace presents each
employee at multiple layers of management with varied types
of decisions for diverse reasons at a different time zone with
different practices as well. In fact, in all organizations, all
layers of management are involved in decision making—
i.e., one way or another—whether or not it is for a simple or
challenging task at the workplace. For example, on a daily
and routine basis, no organization can operate without mak-
ing decisions—either small or big ones. The only difference
that sets apart one layer of management from the others is
the degree of decisions to be made, by whom, and by when.
Likewise, on a long-term and competitive basis, no organiza-
tion can excel without making timely and accurate decisions
within a strategic time frame. If organizations regard time as
money, then decisions are costly. High-performing organiza-
tions depend on efficient decisions and effective action plans.
The phrase money talks becomes the main agenda for any
organization to incorporate its strategic plan of maximizing
profits and minimizing costs. The goal of making profit is the
bottom line for all organizations.
 Overview of Distributed Decision-Making Process ◾ 61

Many organizations consider the decision-making process

as the heart of organizational process, culture, and structure;
thus, for the distributed decision-making process to be effec-
tive, organizations need to consider such process as both a
science and art in itself. Moreover, for global virtual teams
(GVTs), given the complexities of distance and time zone,
decisions need to carefully incorporate the scientific process
because, in every step of a decision, people need to explore
situations and problems, then identify the choices when they
need to solve a problem, consequently think carefully about
the problems and the choices at hand, deliberate the ideas
among people, and finally arrive at a solution by taking appro-
priate actions. It is in a scientific manner because it follows
a systematic way of doing things—involving one process to
another, which has a beginning and an end. This process
itself can be time consuming because the members are from
different geographical locations with different time zones. Yet,
GVTs are also confronted with many challenges in arriving to
a decision, as well as realizing an action due to cultural dif-
ferences such as in communication styles, work practices, and
procedures. This is where the aesthetic or creativity element
comes into the picture. The art of decision making entails a
manager to solve a problem and find a solution through an
innovative way by taking the cultural elements into perspec-
tive. It may result in diverse ways of solving a problem to
reach efficient and effective decisions. People, organization
system and structures, work policies and procedures, and
technology are some of the key aspects that need to be put in
place at the organizational level. Yet many of the organizations
failed to take into consideration the magnitude and impact of
the virtual-space factors when they manage their GVTs due to
members coming from different organizations. They failed to
incorporate both the scientific and innovative manner of man-
aging the distributed decision-making process.
Therefore, this study focused on email participation and
did not consider other computer-mediated communication
62 ◾ Culture Matters

(CMC) tools such as blogs or Wiki Webs, or Web conferencing,

or face-to-face meetings. Effective participation in the World
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was measured by
the substantive contributions that were made by Civil Society
participants during the four stages of the decision-making pro-
cess: (1) problem recognition/agenda setting, (2) information
search, (3) specification of alternatives, and (4) choice. I inves-
tigated the communicative behaviors from two distinct cultural
orientations, high context and low context, since an individual
may contribute in the four stages differently depending on
whether he or she uses high-context versus low-context cul-
tural communication styles and the cultural values that one is
ascribed to.
The first stage in decision making is problem recognition
(Adler 1997). It was crucial for participants to correctly identify
and recognize the problems that they wanted to solve or bring
to attention in the WSIS. This is the initial step in the decision-
making process. In public policy-making processes, Kingdon
(1995) termed this stage as agenda setting. The second stage
is a response to problems and issues, which Adler termed
as information search. At this stage, once people identify the
problems, as well as begin to look for ways to solve them, they
would provide many responses as a way to search for infor-
mation that helps them make a decision on the most viable
solution for the problem encountered (Adler 1997). The third
stage is specification of alternatives in which people choose
from a range of options (Kingdon 1995). In this stage, it cen-
ters on the ability of a Civil Society participant to make a
proposal by giving or generating ideas, and presenting a posi-
tion on the problems identified, or putting across self-interest
issues. The final stage is called choice where a solution (one
or many or even a nonsolution) is arrived at either by consen-
sus or by authoritative action. It is noteworthy that success in
one of these stages is not an indication of success in others.
In addition, the stages do not necessarily occur in a linear
fashion. The stages are iterative and interdependent and may
 Overview of Distributed Decision-Making Process ◾ 63

occur several times before a solution is reached and/or agreed

upon by participants. Likewise, some stages can be left out.
The most effective process is that participants reach a solution
that addresses the problem and that arises from the proposals
made and the responses generated.
In phase one of the WSIS in Geneva, the outcome was to
generate two documents—(1) Declaration of Principles and
(2) Plan of Action. However, this study did not look at the
impact of culture on the WSIS outcome but rather focused on
the process—the effect of culture on the dynamics of Civil
Society participants’ cultural communicative behaviors using
email (as pointed out in the circle area of Figure 7.1). The
decision-making processes are only based among and within
Civil Society participants and not on the overall WSIS pro-
cesses that include the other two multistakeholders—(1) gov-
ernments and (2) private sectors.
Initially, this study identified four stages based on Kingdon’s
(1995) and Adler’s (1997) models. In a virtual work structure,

Individuals’ Grand Tour Research Question: Is there evidence

of an influence of high-context and low-context
contributions cultural communication styles on WSIS Civil
Society decision-making processes in globally
distributed collaboration using email?

HIGH LOW
CONTEXT CONTEXT EMAIL OUTCOME
Problem recognition/agenda setting
Decision making

Information search CIVIL

SOCIETY
Specification of alternatives Contributions to
decision-making
processes
Choice

Cultural
orientations

Figure 7.1 Conceptual framework of globally distributed collabora-

tion of Civil Society in WSIS using email.
64 ◾ Culture Matters

the decision-making process will be amplified by several more

factors. Distance, space, technology, and culture will pose
challenges for managers to make decisions. Thus, by analyz-
ing the data empirically, the stages of decision-making process
were reduced to only three. The stage called responses and
deliberation was integrated with the other three main stages
because it was observed that participants continuously pro-
vided responses that became a cyclical feedback that fed into
the three key stages. Thus, the stage called responses and
deliberation was no longer considered one stage by itself.
In this study, I defined effective participation based on two
criteria: (1) quantity—number of emails and frequency and
(2) quality—substance of emails.

◾ Problem identification
This concerns messages in which participants identified
a problem(s) or an issue(s). Some of the issues were in
a form of question, while some were in a form of state-
ment. This activity is crucial as it sets the initial tone for
member participation; a well-stated problem is more eas-
ily solved than a poorly identified one.
◾ Proposal making
This concerns how people generated ideas, as shown
by how they present an idea or how they make sugges-
tions to participants. From this behavior, I further looked
for shared patterns of behavior among high- and low-
context cultural orientations. For example, high-context
people sent messages that were lengthy and ambiguous
when they were proposing something, whereas low-
context people sent messages that were terse, succinct,
and directly to the point.
◾ Solution
This concerns the manner in which a solution or deci-
sion is reached for each of the proposals made, again
from a cultural standpoint. Each solution was consid-
ered a decision point. For this analysis, I looked only at
 Overview of Distributed Decision-Making Process ◾ 65

proposals that had a decision. If the proposal did not

have a decision point, I regarded it as an instance without
a decision or solution.

Theoretical Models of Decision-Making Process

In exploring the impact of culture on decision-making pro-
cesses, I used a combination of two theoretical frameworks:
(1) cultural contingencies of decision making (Adler 1997)
and (2) public policy-making processes (Kingdon 1995). Adler
proposes five sequential steps in decision making that have
cultural consequences: (1) problem recognition, (2) informa-
tion search, (3) construction of alternatives, (4) choice, and
(5) implementation. Kingdon’s (1995) model identifies four steps:
(1) agenda setting, (2) specification of alternatives, (3) choice
among specified alternatives, and (4) implementation.
This framework is useful in understanding the policy-
making processes in WSIS Geneva, beginning from the time
that the listserv members identify a problem or an issue to
the time that they reach a solution. Although Adler’s model
has five stages, and Kingdon’s model has four, both describe
a similar sequence of actions. Adler underlines decision-
making processes as a crucial managerial task that is culturally
bound (see Figure 7.2), whereas Kingdon’s model explicates
the policy-making processes. It is useful to note that in Adler’s
model, steps 2 and 3 can be collapsed to correspond with
Kingdon’s step 2, thus enabling me to use both models. For
the purposes of this study, I chose to model out the decision-
making processes based on the synthesis of Adler’s first four
stages and Kingdon’s first three stages and the final stage—
implementation—is omitted (see Figures 7.1 and 7.2).
Based on Figure 7.2, the first step is problem recognition/
agenda setting. Adler introduced the stage called problem
recognition in which members identify and define the prob-
lem that they are facing and recognize the severity of the
66 ◾ Culture Matters

Model 1 Model 2

5 Steps of Cultural Contingency 4 Steps of Public

Decision-Making Processes Policy-Making Processess
(Adler 1997) (Kingdon 1995)

Problem recognition Agenda setting

Information search
Alternatives
Construction of
alternatives
Choice among
specified alternatives
Choice

Implementation Implementation

Figure 7.2 Sequential models of decision-making processes. (Adapted

from Kingdon, J.W., Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, New
York, Addison-Wesley Longman, 1995; Adler, N.J., International
Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 3rd. ed., Cincinnati, OH,
South-Western, 1997.)

problem. According to Adler (1997), it is imperative to recog-

nize “when is a problem a problem” (p. 168). At this stage,
problem recognition is contingent upon culture in the sense
that some cultures take longer to acknowledge or express
problems, whereas other cultures immediately address con-
cerns, issues, or problems at hand. Kingdon’s corresponding
stage is agenda setting in which his concept of agenda alludes
to the subject(s) being announced before a meeting begins.
He defines agenda as “…coherent sets of proposals, each
related to the others and forming the series of enactments its
proponents would prefer” (1995, p. 3). He also suggests that
agenda can mean the list of subjects or problems that need to
be taken seriously at any given time. In this respect, the word
agenda implies a sense of urgency.
The second step is to search for information once prob-
lems were identified. Adler posits that there are two forms of
 Overview of Distributed Decision-Making Process ◾ 67

thinking when it comes to information gathering—(1) using

logical order or (2) using intuition. Those people who use
logical thinking gather information based on facts. On the
contrary, people who use intuition or affective thinking gather
ideas and possibilities based on relationship. Kingdon did not
have a specific stage that is dedicated for information search,
but his second step, called alternatives, does include this
process.
The third step is to specify or construct the alternatives
from which a choice is to be made. In this step, serious con-
sideration is given to all potential alternatives. Adler suggests
that once people have gathered sufficient and relevant infor-
mation, they will begin to construct ideas or make proposals
in order to address the problems identified. This process is
shaped by the participants’ cultural backgrounds since it raises
questions such as whether the alternatives are composed of
predominantly new ideas or ideas that are rooted in the past
and whether it favors ideas that demand large or moderate
(or no) amounts of change. Once ideas are presented, people
respond by challenging or supporting the ideas, which may
result in alternatives being modified or removed from con-
sideration. Kingdon (1995) argued that at this stage, “…the
process of specifying alternatives narrows the set of conceiv-
able alternatives to the set that is seriously considered” (p. 4).
During this crucial stage, experts brainstorm to generate as
many solutions as possible, while the preceding agenda-setting
stage is normally taken up by a leader.
The fourth step is concerned with making an authoritative
choice among the specified alternatives. In this stage, Adler
suggests making a decision from the range of presented and
debated options. For Adler, several questions can be investi-
gated here, such as who makes the decision, how fast deci-
sions are made, at what level decisions are made, how much
risk is involved, in what order people discuss alternatives, and
when people select particular alternatives. As in all the steps,
these questions also have cultural variations. This corresponds
68 ◾ Culture Matters

to Kingdon’s (1995) third step in which he asserted that the

most important thing is to understand how and why agenda
items were selected for discussion in the first place, a ques-
tion of “how they came to be issues” rather than “how issues
are authoritatively decided by president, Congress, or other
decision makers” (p. 2). This requires searching out for the
underlying reasons why certain agenda items got picked over
others; this is not an easy task since, as Kingdon (1995) puts it,
“when a subject gets hot for a time, it is not always easy even
in retrospect to discern why” (p. 2).
The final step in both Kingdon’s and Adler’s model is
implementation, which provides closure to the actions that
were taken in steps 1 through 4. This study did not analyze
the implementation step since the focus of the study was
process, not product. In the first phase of WSIS (Geneva), the
final decisions were made by the government, so no decisions
made among and within Civil Society members in the listserv
were final or binding. Until the government made its decision,
no implementation could take place; thus, this stage was not
applicable in the context of Civil Society participation in the
WSIS Geneva process.
In order to provide a general understanding of WSIS and the
magnitude of the activities that took place in the period of 33
months, I will first describe the activities that took place in the
Civil Society plenary listserv during the WSIS (see the “Active
Months of Participation” section). Subsequently, in the said sec-
tion, I will only focus on the WSIS Civil Society decision-making
processes during WSIS Geneva and then compare the empirical
model with the adapted models of Kingdon and Adler.
The WSIS listserv generated a total of 8,335 email messages
from March 2003 to December 2005 (see Figure 7.3). This
massive amount of email messages points out the significance
of distributed collaborations among and within Civil Society
participants in the WSIS process. On a broader perspective,
participation was not constant during that period; there were
months that generated heavy email traffic, whereas there
 Overview of Distributed Decision-Making Process ◾ 69

800

700
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Number of messages posted

600

500 Quarterly
2005
400

300
2003
200

100 2004
0
Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2003 1 14 20 29 266 68 304 276 468 390
2004 121 283 235 135 74 327 148 61 239 243 118 144
2005 423 481 285 257 123 184 157 208 728 609 620 296

Figure 7.3 Email participation of Civil Society in WSIS Geneva and

Tunis.

were months that generated less traffic. For example, during

WSIS Geneva, November (n = 468) and December (n = 390)
generated the heaviest traffic because the summit took place
in December 2003, so the collaborative efforts were gearing
up for the summit event. Similarly, in WSIS Tunis, the few
months before and during the summit in 2005, September
(n = 728), October (n = 609), and November (n = 620), showed
a higher number of messages compared to any other preced-
ing months. The face-to-face preparatory conferences and
regional meetings also corresponded with and contributed to
an increase in email discussions (see Figure 7.3).
On the overall situational analysis of email use (see Figure
7.3) from 2003 to 2005, the last four months of the year (n =
4,435) showed a heavy traffic of messages. For example,
September (n = 1,271), October (n = 1,128), November (n =
1,206), and December (n = 830) all generated large numbers of
email messages. These months accounted for 53% of the total
messages. Some months were obviously less active such as
from March to May (n = 1,144), which accounted for only 14%
of the total messages. Looking at the quarterly trend for the
period between 2003 and 2005 (see Figure 7.4), it is evident
70 ◾ Culture Matters

4th quarter 1st quarter

38% 22%

2nd quarter
14%

3rd quarter
26%

Figure 7.4 The proportion of email messages per quarterly period of

2003–2005.

that the WSIS process generated more collaborative activities

during the third and fourth quarter of the year, respectively,
38% and 26%, which means that 64% of the collaborative
efforts were inclined toward the last six months of the year.
This time of the year also corresponded with the face-to-face
meetings preceding PrepCom 3 and the summit events.
As Figure 7.5 shows, there was a regular increase in the
number of email messages throughout WSIS Geneva and
Tunis. In 2003, the archival messages totaled 1,836, which

4,371
(52%)

4,500
4,000
3,500 2,128
1,836 (26%)
3,000
(22%)
Number of email 2,500
messages 2,000
1,500
1,000
14% 51%
500
0
2003 2004 2005
Years (WSIS 1 and 2)

Figure 7.5 Civil Society email participation in WSIS process

(2003–2005).
 Overview of Distributed Decision-Making Process ◾ 71

represented 22% of the total messages. In 2004, the total mes-

sages increased to 2,128, a minimal increase of only 14%,
which represented 26% of total messages. In 2005, the number
of messages was 4,371, an increase of 51%, which was almost
twice the number of messages than the previous year. This
2005 total accounted for 52% of the bulk of the email traffic
over the three-year period. With the increase in email messages
from one year to another, it is evident that Civil Society used
email as the primary tool not only for communication but also
for collaboration, enabling them to effectively participate and
contribute to the decision-making process in the WSIS.

Active Months of Participation

As shown in Figure 7.6b, the empirical findings of the study
only focused on Civil Society participation in the virtual ple-
nary listservs in WSIS Geneva. WSIS Geneva had a total of
1,836 messages with 223 Civil Society participants participating
in the email listserv from April to December 2003. Figure 7.6a

Civil Society email participation in WSIS Geneva

300
250
200
150
Reply 100
50
46% 0
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec

Sent
54% Sent 11 38 18 13 25 22

Reply 14 31 12 14 20 16
(a) (b)

Figure 7.6 (a) Proportion of sent and reply messages (July–December

2003). (b) Active months of participation.
72 ◾ Culture Matters

shows that there were few email messages from April to June
2003—a total of 63 messages, representing only 4% of the
total messages. These months were slow since those were the
months when the email listserv was just set up by Civil Society
plenary. Officially, the listserv was created in April 2003,
although the preparatory meetings for both WSIS events took
place much earlier via physical or face-to-face meetings (see
Figure 7.3). The few emails were not substantial in content; in
fact, most of the email was an auto-reply message in April and
May. In June, there were a small number of discussions cen-
tered on the preparation for the meeting in Paris, the structure
of Civil Society, and the issue of translation.
Therefore, the analysis was conducted on data from a six-
month period (July to December 2003) because these were
the most active months in terms of observable online com-
municative and collaborative behaviors. As seen in Figure 7.6b,
Civil Society participants posted 1,760 email messages with
222* participants from July to December 2003. On average,
eight messages were posted by each member over the six-
month period or 1.33 messages each month. The maximum
number of messages posted was 121, posted by a focal mem-
ber who moderated and organized the plenary listserv.
It was not until July that substantial discussions began both
in the content and number of emails posted because the par-
ticipants were preparing and setting the agenda for the many
ongoing face-to-face meetings such as the Paris Intersessional
Meeting in mid-July and PrepCom 3 that took place in
September, November, and December. Most importantly,
these are the last six months in which Civil Society had the
opportunity to make a strong contribution to the outcome of
WSIS Geneva by influencing the content of the Declaration of
Principles and Plan of Action. Figure 7.3 shows the high traf-
fic of messages during the three months (July, September, and

* Only one participant did not continue to participate in the listserv from July
onward.
 Overview of Distributed Decision-Making Process ◾ 73

November) surrounding the important events outside the email

discussions as mentioned earlier in this section. The increment
observed in those three months represented almost 50% of the
total email messages, which indicated the importance of those
three months.
Figure 7.6a shows an analysis of the CMC participation
in terms of the messages sent and messages replied by Civil
Society participants. The analysis shows that the messages
posted outnumber the replied messages, 54% to 46%. However,
there were not many differences between the two activities
(n = 144), which accounted for only 8% of the total messages.

Distribution of Active Participants

Based on the average number of emails, the findings showed
that 57 Civil Society participants were active participants in
the WSIS Geneva process (see Table 7.1). As mentioned in
the “Active Months of Participation” section, on average, each
participant posted eight messages during the six-month period.
Active participants, for this analysis, are defined as those that
generated above the average number of emails (n = 8). Hence,
for the six-month period, only 25% of the total membership
(n = 222) were considered active participants out of the total
number of participants in the plenary listserv. The active
participants generated a total of 1,351 messages. Although the
percentage of active participants was low, they generated 77%
of the total volume of emails posted (n = 1,760). Each active

Table 7.1 Overall Patterns of Civil Society Participation:

July–December 2003
Activities Total
Total email messages sent by all participants 1,760 mails
Total number of participants during six months 222 participants
Average message sent per participant 7.93 = 8 mails
74 ◾ Culture Matters

Table 7.2 Overview of Active Participation: July–December 2003

Activities Total
Total number of active participants 57 participants
Total email messages sent by active participants 1,351 mails
Average message sent per active participant 24 mails
Average message sent per month by all active 225 mails
participants

member sent out an average of 24 messages during the six-

month period, and active participants generated an average of
224 mails per month (see Table 7.2).
As shown in Table 7.3, there were three key people who
sent the highest number of emails—Kathryn Betty* (n = 121),
Rolf Bauer (n = 77), and Rince Plum (n = 61). It was not sur-
prising that Kathryn Betty was the most active participant
because she was the listserv moderator, and the other two
participants were also moderators for other listservs.
In a more detailed analysis, Figure 7.7 shows that the dis-
tribution of active participants fell into three groups. The first
cluster of participants contained the three key people who
were mentioned earlier in this section. These three made up
only 5% of the total participants. Kathryn contributed 121 mes-
sages, an average of 20 messages each month, while Rolf con-
tributed 77 messages, an average of 13 messages each month,
and Rince contributed 61 messages, an average of 10 messages
each month. The differences in number of messages sent were
significant: between Kathryn and Rolf, a difference of 50 emails,
while between Rolf and Rince, a difference of 15 emails.
The second cluster contained 18% of participants (n = 10),
who posted from 28 to 57 messages; the difference in number

* Please note that in order to protect the confidentiality of the participating Civil
Society, all the names used in this study are fictitious names. Although the
data were taken from a public email archival, an initiative was taken to create
pseudo-names for all of the participants.
 Overview of Distributed Decision-Making Process ◾ 75

Table 7.3 Distribution of Active Participation from Civil Society

Participants: July–December 2003
Pseudo-Names No. of Mails No. of Participants
Kathryn Betty 121 1
Rolf Bauer 77 1
Rince Plum 61 1
Amanda Diego 54 1
Mariette Michel 53 1
Ruben Gerald 51 1
Blanche Baldemar 50 1
Jaquelin Floss 47 1
Benjamin Ines 42 1
Allan Patrick 41 1
Sandra Burkasa 39 1
Vince Markow 37 1
Fedrick Marlin 30 1
Adrian Alfonso 27 1
Percy Fernand 26 1
Edul Zaki 25 1
Gerard Grosvenor 24 1
Samuel Charles, Renee 23 2
Blusky
James Grutan 21 1
Wutz Kaiser 22 1
Alim Baruki, Njemile 20 4
Negas, Steven Osborne,
Venda Busara
Rick Weissmen 19 1
(Continued)
76 ◾ Culture Matters

Table 7.3 (Continued) Distribution of Active Participation from

Civil Society Participants: July–December 2003
Pseudo-Names No. of Mails No. of Participants
Emilio Marco, Verner 17 2
Vinson
Kim Soon 16 1
Anita Johnson, Timothy 14 3
Rhodes, Yihong Chang
Jihong Mun, Patrick 13 6
Adler, Morty Bijou,
Albert Jonathan, Ellen
Carlson, David Betrand
Vesa Parnella, Raymond 12 4
Jacob, Jimmy Punnel,
Denise Merraga
Melanie Milagros 11 1
Butler Parnell, Charlie 10 7
Nahum, Daniella Freud,
Dawana Franks, Hokaido
Kanagam, Tina Numen,
Rudelle Franzisca
Nadim Salman, Crsytal 9 3
Shaw, Rolan Kiefer
Emma Joshua, Isuzuki 8 4
Akito, Stanford James,
Tamara Antonia
Total 1,351 57

of emails sent by each of them was not significant, a differ-

ence of only one or two emails. The last cluster showed the
largest proportion of the participants, 77%.
Participants in this cluster sent 27 or fewer messages, an
average of only 4.5 messages each month.
 Overview of Distributed Decision-Making Process ◾ 77

128
n = 121 messages
108 5% of participants 1
Number of emails posted
(July−December 2003)

sent messages from

88 n = 61 to n = 121

68
n = 77 messages
2
18% of participants
48
n = 61 messages sent messages from
n = 28 to n = 57
28
3
77% of participants
8 sent messages from
n = 8 to n = 27

Figure 7.7 Distribution of active Civil Society members in virtual

plenary listserv.

Distribution of Less Active Participants

There were 165 participants that were considered as less
active participants. They sent less than the average number of
emails, a range from one to seven emails. The total number of
emails contributed by them (n = 409) accounted for only 23%
of the total emails posted in the listserv. In spite of the low
number of emails sent, 80 of them did actually contribute to
the decision-making process ranging from 1 to 5 messages and
a total of 187 messages. Again, this number is still lower than
the representation of the total participants who participated in
the virtual plenary listserv during WSIS Geneva.
During the WSIS, Civil Society participants made numerous
and wide-ranging decisions either individually or collectively
during their face-to-face meetings. This study’s findings sug-
gest that a similar process took place in the globally distrib-
uted environment that is particularly focused on the WSIS
Geneva. The following empirical model of decision-making
process is a revised version of the initial framework (see
Figure 7.1). As illustrated in Figure 7.8, the decision-making
model was adapted from Adler (1997) and Kingdon (1995).
The model clearly depicts the activities that took place over
78 ◾ Culture Matters

the six-month period in the virtual Civil Society plenary list-

serv. The study was initially set to understand a four-stage
decision-making model (see Figure 7.1). However, based on
the empirical data, the findings indicated a more complicated
model in which the process that the Civil Society participants
were engaged in was reduced to only three main stages. Each
of the stages used a different name from the adapted mod-
els to reflect the exact activities that took place, which are
(1) problem identification, (2) proposal making, and (3) solu-
tion. This dynamic process was supported by a fourth stage
called responses and deliberation. This stage underpinned the
other three activities because every response received was
fed into the decision-making process until a viable solution
was achieved. Although Adler and Kingdon had a sequential
model, I found that Civil Society participants were engaged in
a more dynamic and iterative process in which the responses
and deliberation occurred continuously.
In the first stage, one or more participants would state a
problem, followed by other participants responding to the
problem by proposing solutions. Most of the time, participants

Feeding into Responses and

the process deliberation

1 2 3

Problem Proposal Solution/

identification making nonsolution

Alternative solutions

Responses and Feeding into

deliberation the process

Counter proposals

Figure 7.8 Empirical model of globally distributed Civil Society

decision-making processes during WSIS Geneva.
 Overview of Distributed Decision-Making Process ◾ 79

came up with many ideas and suggestions on how to solve the

problems faced or how to improve a draft document. At other
times, participants simply acknowledged problems without
offering any ideas or solutions—for example, “I do experience
the same problem” or “I agree with your sentiment.” Under
rare circumstances, a problem was immediately resolved
because a leader took independent or unilateral actions with-
out going through the proposal stage.
For the second stage, once proposals were made by the
participants, the proposals received reactions or feedback
from other participants; sometimes, this generated more ideas
and alternative solutions. If people were supportive of the
proposed language in the draft document, then they would
endorse the draft document. But, if some participants did
not agree with the suggested proposals, then counterpropos-
als would be presented in a search for more viable solutions.
This stage was often a long process as participants took the
time to really look at the document and then provide thought-
ful suggestions on how to improve it. Sometimes, however,
the process was shortened because the document needed to
be finalized within time constraints. In this iterative process,
the multitude of responses received eventually led to the best
solution that participants could offer.
For the third stage, solution took one of two forms. When
participants faced a problem, the solution took the form of
actions to remedy the situations or issues faced. For example,
participants requested and received answers that clarified their
concerns, or action was taken by the authoritative people
(like the bureau or secretariat) to provide facilities needed.
Sometimes, alternative solutions were proposed when par-
ticipants were not satisfied with the offered solution. If there
is an agenda to be met, like providing comments to a draft
document or selecting or nominating speakers, then a differ-
ent set of solutions is achieved. For such agenda-driven issues,
the solution came in the form of endorsements. The more
and the faster endorsements were received, the easier for the
80 ◾ Culture Matters

Civil Society to reach consensus. For example, in the case of a

speaker’s selection, participants went through many cycles of
nomination and counternomination; the solution was achieved
when the name of the speaker was finalized. In some cases,
despite the participants’ best efforts, proposals were made,
and suggestions were given, but no solution was achieved; the
decision-making process failed.
The decision-making process that Civil Society participants
engage in via globally distributed collaboration occurs at
the individual level—between and among participating Civil
Society participants. Thus, the first assumption was to examine
the decision-making process based not on the cognitive level
but rather on the interaction level. Another important assump-
tion was that the process is mediated by the use of CMC (in
this case, by email). The last assumption was that decision
making is based on consensus and not unanimity. Consensus
means that only the participants engaged or involved in the
process need to agree to the propositions, whereas unanimity
means all the Civil Society participants must agree regardless
whether or not they are involved in the process. This was hard
to achieve via the email participation of Civil Society in the
WSIS. For a consensus, the involved participants must come
forward and endorse the proposals being made.
In essence, I would like to make the distinction between
those two concepts clearly because, in the context of Civil
Society participation on the WSIS email lists, people volun-
tarily work on a draft of proposal documents and proposi-
tions, which may lead to various decision points during the
interim face-to-face meetings leading up to the WSIS event.
After proposals were made, participants were free to react to
the propositions. Solutions and decisions were made when
consensus was reached. (Only the people who had read and
participated in the process needed to endorse or agree to it.)
Decisions were not based on unanimity wherein all the par-
ticipants registered on the email list would have been required
to endorse the proposals, nor did the process include all the
 Overview of Distributed Decision-Making Process ◾ 81

Civil Society organizations in the WSIS. The email list was

used to get as much agreement as possible so that actions can
be taken or draft documents can be shaped, but was not pre-
sumed or required to result in unanimity.

References
Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational
Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Kingdon, J.W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New
York: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Saaty, T.L. 2012. Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic
Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. Pittsburgh,
PA: RWS Publication.
Chapter 8

Problem Identification

Civil Society’s Contributions

in the Decision-Making Processes
In this section, the following analysis looks at the proportion
of messages in each of the three distinct stages of the decision-
making processes (see Figure 8.1) and Civil Society global
virtual team (GVT) members’ contributions in the process. In
the “Problem Identification Process” section, I will describe the
way Civil Society engaged in the problem identification pro-
cesses and how high-context members differ from low-context
members in the manner that they identify and understand
problems, as well as the techniques that they apply when
dealing with problems that were encountered during their
discussions.
Problem identification (n = 479) accounted for 44%, pro-
posal making (n = 497) accounted for 45%, and solution (n =
119) accounted for only 11% of all total decision-making activi-
ties. Together, problem identification and proposal-making
activities made up 89% of the activities. This high proportion
strongly suggests that Civil Society participants were commit-
ted in identifying issues that arose specifically within their
collaboration, as well as sharing their proposals, ideas, and

83
84 ◾ Culture Matters

479 497
Solution, 11%
500 Problem identification, 44%
400
300
119
200
Proposal making, 45%
100
0
Problem Proposal Solution
identification making

Figure 8.1 Distribution and proportion of the decision-making activi-

ties in WSIS Geneva.

suggestions arising from their expertise in order to influ-

ence the language of the two key documents (Declaration of
Principles and Plan of Action), which were the outcome of
WSIS Geneva.
In addition, the findings showed a total of 1,095 mes-
sages related to decision-making activities, or 62% of the total
messages (N = 1,760) in the six-month period. Out of the 57
participants identified as active Civil Society participants (see
Table 8.3), almost all of them (96%, n = 55) contributed to the
decision-making activities. Specifically, contributions made by
active participants accounted for 83% (n = 908) of the decision-
making messages, while many fewer contributions were made
by less active participants, representing a mere 17% (n = 187)
of the messages.
Further analysis of decision-making messages indicated
that not all the messages posted by the active participants
were related to the decision-making process. As illustrated in
Table 8.1, active participants contributed a total of 1,351 mes-
sages to the listserv. About 67% of their messages were related
to decision, while only a small portion (33%) was contributed to
the nonrelated decision-making activities. The following result
showed the breakdown of two categories of participants that
contributed to two categories of activities—(1) decision- and
 Problem Identification ◾ 85

Table 8.1 Distribution of Messages for Decision and Non-

Decision-Making Activities between Active and Less Active
Participants
Active Less Active
Participants/Activities Participants Participants Total
Decision-making 908 mails 187 mails 1,095 mails
Non-decision-making 443 mails 222 mails 665 mails
Total 1,351 mails 409 mails 1,760 mails

(2) non-decision-related activities based on the number of

emails contributed. The result showed that, in general, active
participants contributed far many more than less active partici-
pants. By looking at the total number of emails each group con-
tributed, it is also apparent that active participants generated far
more decision-making and non-decision-making messages than
the less active participants, a difference of almost 70%.
The subsequent findings further detailed the degree of
effectiveness of active participants based on several analyses.
The analysis was made based on 55 active participants (see
Table 8.2). Two of the active participants did not contribute to
the decision-making process. About 58% of the active partici-
pants (n = 35) participated in all three stages of the decision-
making process. And two participants, Wutz Kaiser and James
Grutan, contributed 100% of their messages to the three stages
of the decision-making process. In terms of the ranking based
on the number of messages devoted to decision making,
Kathryn Betty was still ranked as the highest contributor to
the process, and she participated in all the activities, especially
in the solution stage.
Not all participants (n = 20) contributed their efforts in all
three stages. Participants who engaged in only two stages are
shown in Table 8.3. Note that even though these participants
did not engage in all three phases of the decision-making
process, particularly the solution stage, the majority of them
contributed actively to the first two stages. In fact, for three of
Table 8.2 Ranking and Distribution of Active Participants for All Decision-Making Stages
86 ◾

Stages of Decision Making

% of Messages Related
Total Mails Problem Proposal Solution to Decision Making
Kathryn Betty 81 35 24 22 67%
Mariette Michel 49 28 18 3 92%
Rolf Bauer 41 19 20 2 53%
Culture Matters

Rince Plum 39 18 13 8 64%

Blanche Baldemar 39 20 16 3 78%
Vince Markow 34 17 13 4 92%
Sandra Burkasa 34 18 25 3 87%
Jaquelin Floss 34 14 17 3 72%
Allan Patrick 33 13 18 2 80%
Amanda Diego 31 13 17 1 57%
Fedrick Marlin 26 10 14 2 87%
Wutz Kaiser 22 9 11 2 100%
Percy Fernand 21 8 11 2 81%
(Continued)
Table 8.2 (Continued) Ranking and Distribution of Active Participants for All Decision-Making Stages
Stages of Decision Making
% of Messages Related
Total Mails Problem Proposal Solution to Decision Making
James Grutan 21 9 9 3 100%
Adrian Alfonso 21 6 11 4 78%
Benjamin Ines 20 8 8 4 48%
Ruben Gerald 19 5 12 2 37%
Alim Baruki 18 11 6 1 90%
Renee Blusky 16 1 8 7 70%
Samuel Charles 14 7 5 2 61%
Morty Bijou 12 4 7 1 92%
Butler Parnell 9 6 2 1 90%
Albert Jonathan 9 3 5 1 69%
Vesa Parnella 8 4 2 2 67%
David Betrand 8 4 3 1 62%
Stanford Barnes 7 2 3 2 88%
Problem Identification ◾

(Continued)
87
 88
◾

Table 8.2 (Continued) Ranking and Distribution of Active Participants for All Decision-Making Stages
Stages of Decision Making
% of Messages Related
Total Mails Problem Proposal Solution to Decision Making
Culture Matters

Kim Soon 7 3 2 2 44%

Isuzuki Akito 7 2 4 1 88%
Hokaido Kanagama 7 4 2 1 70%
Daniella Freud 7 2 3 2 70%
Patrick Adler 6 2 3 1 46%
Edul Zaki 6 1 4 1 24%
Emma Joshua 5 1 3 1 63%
Crystal Shaw 4 1 2 1 44%
Charlie Nahum 3 1 1 1 30%
Table 8.3 Ranking and Distribution of Participants Who Participated in Two Decision-Making Stages
Stages of Decision Making
% of Messages Related
Total Mails Problem Proposal Solution to Decision Making
Steven Osborne 20 8 12 100%

Gerard Grosvenor 20 10 10 83%

Rick Weissmen 16 5 11 84%

Yihong Chang 14 9 5 100%

Venda Busara 13 7 6 65%

Ellen Carlson 12 4 8 92%

Anita Johnson 11 4 7 79%

Raymond Jacob 10 4 6 83%

Rolan Kiefer 9 5 4 100%

Nadim Salman 8 3 5 89%

Njemile Negash 7 5 2 35%

Tina Numen 6 5 1 60%

Problem Identification ◾

(Continued)
89
 90
◾

Table 8.3 (Continued) Ranking and Distribution of Participants Who Participated in Two Decision-Making
Stages
Stages of Decision Making
% of Messages Related
Culture Matters

Total Mails Problem Proposal Solution to Decision Making

Verner Vinson 5 1 4 29%

Timothy Rhodes 5 4 1 36%

Emilio Marco 5 3 2 29%

Denise Merraga 5 4 9 75%

Rudelle Franziska 3 1 2 30%

Melanie Milagros 2 2 18%

Jimmy Punnel 2 2 17%

Tamara Antonia 1 1 13%

 Problem Identification ◾ 91

the participants—(1) Steven, (2) Yihong, and (3) Rolan—100%

of their messages concerned some phase of decision making,
either actively addressing problems or making proposals, as
well as responding to them.

Problem Identification Process

According to Adler (1997), the process of decision making
begins with problem recognition, which I refer to as prob-
lem identification. The findings showed that there were two
types of situations that took place during this early stage
of decision making: (1) Civil Society participants discussed
their problems and concerns, and (2) Civil Society partici-
pants discussed an agenda that was clearly identified—
for example, based on a list of problems or topics to be
addressed. After a problem was brought up by a member,
other participants began to respond to it by either provid-
ing their ideas and opinions or making suggestions. Some
responses were simply feedback or comments about the
problem identified, but some were more concrete sugges-
tions on how to solve the problems. It is important to note
that at this stage, Civil Society participants only responded
to the problems that were identified by others. If a prob-
lem was not clearly raised or mentioned in the email, then
the issue could not be discussed. Thus, this initial stage is
critical because unless and until people identify the prob-
lems, a solution could not be achieved. The findings also
showed that agenda-driven discussions seemed to make the
decision-making process within and among the Civil Society
participants go in a more directed manner and got discussed
more often.
As Figure 8.2 shows, problem identification instances were
highest in November (n = 143) and December (n = 103). This
pattern is consistent with the overall pattern of Civil Society
participation in WSIS Geneva. Overall, the central topic of
92 ◾ Culture Matters

Dec 103
Months of participation

143
Nov

Oct 89

Sept 43

Aug 14

July 87

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Number of email messages

Figure 8.2 Problem identification activities in WSIS Geneva.

discussion throughout the six months was the language of the

two primary documents—Declaration of Principles and Plan
of Action. However, there was also a distinct agenda in some
of the months. For example, in July (n = 87), participants were
concerned about the setup of the infrastructure such as the avail-
ability of computers, Internet, and wireless connections; working
space and room; and the structure and mechanism of the Civil
Society. In November, participants were more concerned about
the nomination of the speakers, as well as the time slot, and, in
December, they focused on finalizing the language of the docu-
ment, as well as selecting their speaker, in order to be fully pre-
pared for the summit that took place in mid-December 2003.
The problems that Civil Society participants identified in
WSIS Geneva include the following:

◾ Infrastructure—technology issues on connectivity, wireless,

and logistics such as meeting room and working space
◾ Language—the problem of using English in email, trans-
lations, and the use of other non-English language such
as using Spanish, French, or any other United Nations
(UN) languages
◾ Structure—the mechanism, organization, and coordina-
tion for civil society
 Problem Identification ◾ 93

◾ Resources—giving out badges or limited passes for

entrance to PrepComs’ meetings and the WSIS
◾ Coordination—problems in coordinating the efforts
within civil society in terms of sending the comments of
the document, and deadlines to submit comments
◾ Procedures—formatting issues on sending drafts, where
and how to send documents

Table 8.4 provides more detailed examples of problem iden-

tification statements based on the WSIS emails.
Additionally, Civil Society participants were engaged in the
agenda-driven discussions in respect of (1) the language of the
two drafted documents and (2) the nomination of speakers—
a participant who is chosen by consensus to represent Civil
Society participants in the summit. The main goal was to
influence these two documents. The findings indicated that a
member in a leadership role often took up the task of agenda
setting, and this role is based on his or her own initiative. The
leader would set a certain agenda and request attention and/
or action from the Civil Society participants. For example,
Benjamin clearly set an agenda by asking for comments for a
draft document as follows:

All*,
Attached is the latest draft of the Civil Society priori-
ties document for Paris. Please send comments by
Friday to [email protected].
We must produce the final document by the
weekend.

BI

* Please note that any typographical error or grammatical structures existed in

the messages will not be corrected because the excerpts were taken directly
from the data set. However, the only exception is that when messages include
organizational names or any other important events in which all of that specific
information will be removed or left blank in the messages as quoted in this study.
94 ◾ Culture Matters

Table 8.4 Examples of Problem Identification Statements

Types of
Problems Quotations from Email Messages
a. Infrastructure • “Many thanks for this. Will there be
computers in the drafting room? And will
there be any Internet access other than the
Internet cafe (which presumably will be
much in demand)?”
• “Can Civil Society representatives who are
also accredited under a govt. delegation
enter the room? If so, might they be able to
relay us the news using Wireless?”
b. Language • “Saras and Anita echo your concerns and
also raise the issue of Portuguese-speaking
participants?”
• “The Content & Themes group needs help
to produce translations prior to the meeting.
CT has one member working on the French
version, but could use assistance. We have
not yet identified people for other
languages.”
c. Structure and • “I am sorry but I do not see why we need to
Mechanism discuss the structure of CS again, coming
of CS back to issues that have previously already
been clarified. I do fully agree with you that
transparency is very important, but I believe
the current system, where the CS Contents
and Themes Group, as well as the CS Bureau
report back to the CS Plenary works just
fine.”
• “Certainly, issues such as Jeffrey Gerber’s
comments on the Plenary, if he is to chair
the Bureau, need clarification and
agreement—they cannot be ignored. And
this is a non-contentious way of doing that
which all sides the integrity of their views.”
(Continued)
 Problem Identification ◾ 95

Table 8.4 (Continued) Examples of Problem Identification

Statements
Types of
Problems Quotations from Email Messages
d. Resources • “I’ve followed the exchanges regarding the
issue of passes for the summit. They express
the latest scandal regarding the process.”
• “What are these photo badges? Does that
mean that they will take a photo during
registration or is that a new kind of badge
that we should ask for? Also, should all the
accredited organization contact ict4d? What
for, another kind of badge?”
e. Coordination • “We discussed the need to work
immediately on coordination and logistics
plan for PrepCom III. Lisa Larry has asked
that we submit at least a rough outline of
our logistical needs this week. Rolf Bauer
has drafted a document outlining these
needs, based on discussions at the end of
PrepCom II and as a result of our
experiences during the Intersessional.”
• “This is good strategic document that I think
gets us closer to the kind of coordinated
functioning that Civil Society should aim
towards. However, in terms of what is
possible to get together between now and
September, I think your overall scheme is
ambitious. Let me suggest something
perhaps more achievable.”
(Continued)
96 ◾ Culture Matters

Table 8.4 (Continued) Examples of Problem Identification

Statements
Types of
Problems Quotations from Email Messages
f. Procedures • “I think there should be joint discussions on
this and other questions of common
concern, so I am circulating to these lists
(there are no contentious personal views,
I hope). It concerns guidelines for the
allocation of speaker slots at the PrepComs
etc.”
• “We have put the CS priorities document
online at http://www.worldsummit2003.de
/download_en/WSIS-CS-CT-Paris-071203.rtf.
We also have produced an overview with all
practical infos on the Paris meeting, including
a timetable with the (so far) announced CS
activities. I will be in Paris from tomorrow
evening and report for our web site on a
daily basis. Check http://www.worldsummit
2003.org for more updates and news in the
next days.”

The data also showed that in certain situations, people

responded to the agenda at different times. Some agenda
generated many responses, whereas others did not even get a
response; this seemed to depend on the nature of the agenda
and whether it caught the participants’ attention. For the three
months that generated the highest number of instances, the
participants responded more vigorously because there was a
deadline in the agenda (for example, language for the drafted
documents or problems regarding the infrastructure).
Adler (1997) suggests that once people recognize a prob-
lem, the next stage is information search, a question of how
people find and gather information to solve the problem.
In WSIS Geneva, this stage was obvious during the iterative
response to and deliberation on the problem or agenda, so, in
this study, the information search stage is actually embedded
 Problem Identification ◾ 97

in the response and deliberation stage. Therefore, I did not

explicitly differentiate the information search stage in the
empirical model.

Problem Identification Behaviors

The key question here is to understand the manner in which
people express the concerns, issues, or problems that they
faced in the WSIS Geneva. High-context participants presented
their problems without using the word problem explicitly in
their email. Neither did they use words like concerns or issues.
Instead, they used ambiguous phrases like “I am afraid that…”
or “perhaps it would be…” Another approach was either using
polite gestures in the message like “thank you for the great
work…” or apologizing, such as “I am sorry for not describing
the whole scene…” Only then would they be comfortable in
presenting the problems.
Even then, they still stated the essence of their concerns indi-
rectly. For example, high-context participants usually provided
lengthy messages about a problem. Sometimes, the problems or
concerns were so deeply buried in the anecdotal stories that the
substance of the problem was lost. Because the problem was
blurred and not concisely stated, it was not taken seriously by
the participants. For example, in Yihong Chang’s email, although
his initial tone was direct, the words “I attach the outcome…”
camouflage his real intention, which was to voice his concerns.
Before expressing that concern, he offered an apology (“I am
sorry”) and then proceeded with his concerns followed by a
series of questions before he asserted his views. The following is
a short excerpt of Yihong’s email from a longer version:

Here, I attach the outcome of the ad-hoc working

group of Internet Governance.

Bracket part has not yet reached to an agreement.

98 ◾ Culture Matters

I was told that the key conflicting part was num-

ber 4. (a) was proposed by the U.S. (b) was proposed
by Brazil and China. And some countries made com-
ments to delete the phrase of “under the UN frame-
work,” so the remaining phrase is (c). Canada proposed
(e) and EU and some other countries amended that
proposal by deleting the phrase of “mutually agreed.”
I am sorry. This explanation was not given by
official briefing.
Still, I have not heard any notification from that
working group.
I should have tried to collect information what has
been done behind the curtain. In this case, Internet
or some ICTs are not helpful at all.
Could you solve this puzzle? What could be final
consensus? In my view, the final consensus, if it
could be, would be reached to coming December
Summit. Quite frankly, I could not guess the possible
compromise of these conflicting views. Anyhow,
I am thinking the riddle of power balance and
reason/understanding. My internal question is if we
are going towards information and communication
society or is it really progress of human beings?

Yihong Chang

In essence, high-context participants were not comfortable

expressing their concerns forthrightly, which made their emails
longer than those of low-context participants. The participants
had to read such email closely in order to understand the
main concerns. Sometimes, a message contained many con-
cerns, and, as a consequence, the messages failed to address
the main, urgent problems that required actions or solutions.
This is a different strategy from that used by low-context
participants, who are more likely to jump into the matter immedi-
ately with a short question. Low-context people usually expressed
 Problem Identification ◾ 99

their concerns straight to the point and used succinct wording.

They sent messages with questions that pertained only to the
concerns that they had or the problems that they encountered.
Hence, low-context participants generally sent short messages
like “Is there any wireless connection?” or “Will it be possible to
connect our computers there?” Sometimes, the message included
an explicit request regarding issues that concerned the plenary
listserv participants such as the following from Denise Merraga:

I think that this issue is raging on and on. I know

that people need to have the opportunity to choose
and express opinions. I think that there also comes a
time when the additions have to stop and we have to
look at the list we have and choose.
Please let’s get to that point soon.

Denise

The brevity, relevance, and preciseness of such a commu-

nication style did capture the attention of other participants,
as evidenced by the fact that the message received responses
and solutions. For example, in regard to the wireless problem,
Kathryn and Renee immediately took actions and solved the
problem. Another example is that of Emilio, “Hello there, I
cannot access the link you had provided…” Kathryn jumped
straight away into the discussion and offered help on what to
do. This is a classic example of a low-context person’s task-
oriented way to solve the problem.
There were variations in the manner in which low-context
people responded to a problem that arose or a concern that
was expressed by the participants. For example, one member
raised her concerns about the process and deadlines for regis-
tration. Benjamin responded,

I think the deadline was only for the fellowships.

I do not think that the travel information is necessary
100 ◾ Culture Matters

to complete the registration. I am a focal point and

have successfully registered someone without that
information. It may also be possible to go back and
update the information. I am not sure though.

And Michael answered,

My reading of the WSIS website instructions is that

while the organizations registering persons must
have met the now-past deadline for accreditation,
accredited organizations can even register persons
at the desk on opening day. There are instructions
there for both pre-registration and on-site registration.

Although the low-context people were precise in the man-

ner that they posted problems or expressed their concerns,
some of the responses were so terse as to seem hostile and
blunt. For example, Samuel further responded in a harsh
manner to Michael and Benjamin with an opening statement,
such as

Not my understanding. December 3rd is the final

date for accredited organizations to add people to
their list of delegates.

Another succinct proposal arose when Civil Society par-

ticipants discussed the issue of creating the North American/
European caucus. Some participants voiced their disagreement,
and some seemed to be in favor of it. However, when Ruben’s
message (as follows) was sent, it almost sounded like a solu-
tion, although it was a proposal made in response to the issue.
His message was crystal clear and sharp so that it is much
easier to notice the priority and urgency of the message. The
tone of the message sounded more like a command, yet there
is also a hint of persuasion when he used the words “I would
suggest…” He also used a semicolon after addressing Amanda,
 Problem Identification ◾ 101

like “Amanda” is the topic or subject matter rather than refer-

ring to Amanda as a person:

Amanda:

there already is a north-america/european cacus

group and mailing list for it. though it was late in
forming, it was involved in many activities at pc3.
I would suggest joining that group.

Ruben

Not only were low-context participants precise in their email,

but they also did not waste a lot of time communicating what
they intended to get across to others. Their responses to prob-
lems can be simply providing people with the URL link when
they requested information or quoted a specific text from other
messages in order to reiterate a point or to clarify an issue that
was brought up. For example, many of James Grutan’s responses
to problems were as terse as this sentence, “The Secretariat just
sent the tentative agenda. See below,” followed by the messages
that he pasted into the text. Even though his email may be long,
actually, the rest of the message was a pasted one.
Most of the high- and low-context people demonstrated
consistent behavior throughout the six months. But some
of them switched. Fredrick typically portrayed high-context
behaviors, with an indirect manner of presenting his ideas and
expressing his opinions. But, occasionally, his style reversed
when he became more frustrated with the process. For, exam-
ple, the following messages showed a more assertive style
when he responded to Jenny’s and Mariette’s proposal:

Dear Jenny & Mariette,

about what ? about what kind of message ? if the CS
speaker just speaks about generalities that are our
least common divisor, officials in the UN assembly
102 ◾ Culture Matters

would certainly welcome it and felt relieved. Is this

what the CS really wants ?
This is going to disappoint many persons in the
whole world and specifically in emergent countries.

It is not required that the speaker be part of the

“system,” be a former minister or some VIP, what is
important is the content of the message and from
that it should be determined what is the best speaker
to deliver it and NOT the reverse way around.
and doesn’t put them off. for sure; some people
will be upset, so what ? it simply means that some-
thing important is dealt with.
I am not sure RS is the best choice for this task.
You are perfectly right, but it is the proposed task
which is not right in my views.

I personally suggest that this ridiculously small

amount of time: five minutes (the only ones that
would get world media coverage) must be put into
some good practical use, it may be by RS with soft-
ware patents, it may be by Mariette calling for the
liberation of some imprisoned web masters, it may
be another issue, but I suggest that we should agree
to propose Opening speaker nominations based on
the requirement of a practical impact.

Best regards
Fedrick

The impact of culture on problem identification activities

can be summarized as follows:

◾ If the problems were simple, easily fixed, and require

less demanding actions, the low-context messages with
short questions or concise statements generated more
 Problem Identification ◾ 103

responses from other participants than the ambiguous or

indirect problem statement that is given by high-context
messages.
◾ If the problems were complicated and needed more ideas
and/or consensus, high-context messages can be equally
valuable and useful as low-context detailed messages
because both types of behaviors would present persua-
sive and strong logical arguments.

Reference
Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational
Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Chapter 9

Proposal Making

Introduction
The second stage is called proposal making in which partici-
pants contributed to a wide range of ideas and made a large
number of inputs. In this stage, participants first presented
their proposals, followed by the dynamic behaviors of pro-
posing, receiving responses, criticizing, and deliberating, all
of which exemplify what Adler (1997) and Kingdon (1995)
referred to as constructing or specifying alternatives. This stage
is crucial because the numerous responses ease the process of
shaping constructive proposals in an attempt to find a solution.
At any point in time, many people presented several options
or alternatives. Then, participants discussed and deliberated
on the ideas and suggestions at length. Similar to the prob-
lem identification stage, there were also times where ideas or
proposals received no response or minimal response, whereas
others received a very contentious response or highly sup-
portive comments. Again, the responses depended largely on
the types of proposals or ideas that were generated, whether
it was acceptable or nonacceptable, or viable or nonviable, to
follow through by the participants.

105
106 ◾ Culture Matters

Dec
75
Months of participation

Nov 172

Oct 85

Sept 58

Aug 18

July 89

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Number of email messages

Figure 9.1 Proposal-making activities in WSIS Geneva.

The findings (see Figure 9.1) show that proposal-making

activities were concentrated in July (n = 89), October (n = 85),
and November (n = 172). The overall trend was similar to
problem identification activities, but, this time, in December,
the activity showed a decrease of more than 50% from the
previous month.
The proposal-making activities arose from the problems
discussed or agenda set in the plenary listserv. When the partici-
pants began to respond to the problems or agenda, they often
presented ideas in the form of a proposal. The following are the
examples of the many proposals that were made, as well as the
responses that were received, in light of the two crucial agendas:

1. Language to be included in the document

Proposal made:
Dear All,
We (—) propose to include at the end of the section:
“Literacy, Education, and Research” next statement:
[—should become “backbones” for nation-wide
promotion and distribution of science and education
 Proposal Making ◾ 107

information covering all categories of inhabitants.

Governments under must support them continuous
programs of creating and maintaining research and
education resources and services.]
Best regards,
Dr. Veache Siren
Response received:
Dear Dr Siren,
I’d just suggest that these networks also commit
themselves in the inclusion and support of DCs
Education networks (as far as there are or will be
in a foreseeble future) and Institutions such as
Universities, highschools and specially technical
(Engineer) schools.
Why not stress particularly those institutions
petraining to the ICT sector? This would be a positive
act of solidarity between the North and the South
(between “haves” and “have nots”).
Regards,
Jaquelin Floss
2. Nomination of speaker and time slot at the summit event
Overall, the responses to the proposals made by Civil
Society participants were encouraging. The responses
were given in a continuum—from a positive scale up
to a negative scale. On the extreme side of the posi-
tive scale, people were very supportive of the pro-
posal made, and they fully backed up the suggestions
and ideas that were given. For example, the following
quotation from Adam indicated a positive response for
a nominated speaker:
I strongly support the idea that the name of Mrs. Farah
would be suggested to Secretary General Kofi Annan
as well as to the president of the PrepComs and ITU
for addressing the General Assembly of the WSIS on
behalf of the CS.
108 ◾ Culture Matters

Or a response from Sandy

Thank you for your comments regarding my prior
message! I think Adrian is addressing one important
procedural issue that we should take the decision
making power to nominate for speaking slots. First,
that should be sorted out. And basically fully agree
with Alim that the nomination of Mrs. Farah for a
key speaker could have very strong message itself.
And IF we decide to use the speaking slots for our
strategy, I fully support that idea.

Proposal-Making Behaviors
High-context participants began their proposals with a formal
tone through the initial greetings and salutation, followed by a
remark, which puts the statement in a context. For example, in
responding to a drafted document, Rick Weissmen regretfully
voiced his late response, only then suggesting a few things to
be changed. It took 17 words before he stated, “I suggest…” He
also justified the need for the changes in his closing statement.

May be I just too late.

About the non-paper of the president of the
PrepCom
I suggest the following re-structuring, the articles
numbers
I refer to are the one of this text:
1. Article 2 (Our challenge...) should be in part B
and moved between 15 and 16, so become the
first of Part B.
2. Point 8 (Cultural [identity] and diversity,....) and
the articles 49, 50 and 51 have their place, even-
tually after being rewritten, in Part A between
the actual articles 5 and 6.
 Proposal Making ◾ 109

3. Point 10 (Ethical dimension.....) should also be

moved to, eventually after being rewritten, to
point A. (Our Vision...) between articles 6 and 7.
4. Article 3 is a standard expression not really
related to WSIS.
I realize by looking into more detail of the text,
that some additional redactional work remains to be
done!
Cordially, Rick Weissmen

Rick sent another email right after that, and his style was
still consistent. He maintained his subtle way of making sug-
gestions and giving justification. In fact, in this email, he
sounded more apologetic for the changes that he made and
hoped that they would be considered.

Dear all,
In a previous mail I suggested some re-arrangements
of the articles.
In the attachment I did some re-shuffling, the
changes are in red.
However, I realize now that this is not enough.
One should first work on a ‘content’ structure and
then write texts around it.
But it is perhaps too late, and the effort is
considerable.
Cordially,
Rick Weissmen

Aside from the usual pattern of expressing gratitude early

in the message, high-context participants also used an indi-
vidual voice. But the individuality was not as strongly felt
because it was made in reference to others. In that sense, it
sounded more like a collective voice; for example, “But for the
part Allan pointed out, I share the same concern” or “I share
110 ◾ Culture Matters

Vince’s opinion too.” They also often used the pronouns I and
we jointly in the same sentence (such as in the third paragraph
as follows). Although Isuzuki seemed to establish a position by
using the pronoun I, his statement was not assertive since he
cushioned his views with words of uncertainty such as “I am
afraid,” “I guess,” and “I hope…” The message from Isuzuki
illustrates typical high-context behavior with lengthy explana-
tions [emphasis added]:

Benjamin and all, I appreciate your hard work and

good result.
But for the part Allan pointed out, I share the
same concern.
I have been involved with ICANN since the very
beginning, and mostly around “At Large” issues,
and am still engaged as the interim member of the
AtLarge Advisory Committee.
I agree that the current ICANN framework is
far from the best solution and especially the civil
society/individual user participation has been not
fully accepted as we wanted to be.
Yet the current draft for Declaration and Action
Plans prepared by WISI secretariat are quite danger-
ous in that it may lead stronger government interven-
tion, or control under the “intergovernmental” body
if adopted.
So the current language of the civil society docu-
ment may further invite this government involvement
in the way, under the name of “public interest” and
all stakeholders, that further marginalize the civil
society participation, I am afraid.
That is the point Allan is trying to explain,
I guess. And I share Vince’s opinion, too.
I hope you could consider this and will delete
that para.
 Proposal Making ◾ 111

ICANN is certainly not perfect at all, but the gov-

ernment camps trying to change the current frame-
work is much much worse.
Please remember that many innovations and
freedom enjoyed around Internet have so far been
made possible thanks to no government regulation/
intervention.
IETF, ICANN, W3C et all are all part of this new
ways of managing the Net.
Even though they did not have “enough” civil
society participation, the Internet Community did
much better job than government/industry-led stan-
dardizing body such as ITU.
Isuzuki

In Violet’s message (as follows), she slowly introduced the

subject matter before she expressed her disagreement. Again,
it took almost 44 words before she apologetically expressed
her ideas and views. The tone of the message became more
intense in the third paragraph, as shown by her using capital
letters (underlining added) to make sure that people under-
stand her point. Toward the end of her message, she reiterated
the point but with reference to Wutz’s idea. This strategy soft-
ens her assertiveness because her individual voice was made
in reference to someone else’s.

Dear Steven,
CS has spent a great amount of energy discussing
and rediscussing its structure. In Paris, CS managed
to get a substantial amount of work done, and this at
all three levels: the CS Plenary, the CS Contents and
Themes Group and the CS Bureau.
I am sorry but I do not see why we need to dis-
cuss the structure of CS again, coming back to issues
that have previously already been clarified. I do
112 ◾ Culture Matters

fully agree with you that transparency is very impor-

tant, but I believe the current system, where the
CS Contents and Themes Group, as well as the CS
Bureau report back to the CS Plenary works just fine.
This is why I do NOT see the need for a new task
force.
As pointed out by Wutz, the structure is as
follows:
1. There is a “Civil Society Plenary” (CS-P), open to
everybody, which is, as the name says, the main
body of civil society, also for general decisions
making.
2. There is a “Civil Society Content and Themes
Group” (CS-CTG), which coordinates the work
of the numerous caucuses and content groups.
The CS-CTG is the main body for decisions on
content related issues (by respecting, that the
expertise and competence is in the caucuses and
content working groups).
3. There is a “Civil Society Bureau” (CS-B), which
functions as an interlinkage between CS and the
intergovernmental Bureau for procedural and
technical issues only.
Regards,
Violet

Proposal-making strategies are definitely different between

low- and high-context participants. Low-context participants
prefer to make proposals with a direct approach, such as
in Anita Johnson’s message, “Would like to suggest too that
we consider what we envision is Civil Society’s role in the
design….” Several variations of this appeared in the emails
in terms of the manner and approaches by which low-
context participants established their positions and reacted
to and deliberated on the proposals. They normally began
 Proposal Making ◾ 113

the message with a goal statement or an assertion such as

“I have some remarks on this text,” or “To have at least wireless
access is a must, so I hope that the Secretariat will organize
it. Otherwise, why bring notebooks at all? please, do some-
thing,” or “the point is here that the understanding of ICANN
has changed over the years.” They did not waste their time in
providing a context. They emphasized the articulated goals
of what they wanted to propose. Hence, their proposals and
responses were usually very specific yet concise and, at other
times, lengthy and detailed with clear purposes. For example,
Allan voiced his opinion clearly such as, “The paragraph
should be deleted. ICANN is far from perfect. Its policy mak-
ing structures are not as open as we would like…”
Additionally, there was evidence of divergent ways of
throwing questions in the email between high and low con-
text. Low-context people question with a more aggressive
tone, whereas high-context people’s questioning strategy
focuses more on seeking for approval or concealing their real
intentions. In the following excerpt from James, he responded
to a proposal by aggressively illustrating his individuality and
made clear that he was not supportive of the proposal regard-
ing “multiple root servers.”

Dear Albert,
I agree with your email below—phrases like “mul-
tiple root servers,” “strict international regulation” a
extreme for me. By now, Benjamin has sent out the
final document. Have you seen it? Will—endorse
it? This document is a recommendation to the gov-
ernments on what should be included in the Plan
of Action and Declaration. Has there been any talk
about a civil society document? You know that if
the governments cannot get their act together, civil
society could come through by producing their own
declaration and/or plan of action, which may even
have the ability to acquire individual government
114 ◾ Culture Matters

endorsements. Not sure where this idea is in the

pipeline? Perhaps talk for after Paris—PrepCom3.
James

It was evident that when low-context participants made

proposals, the suggestions were based on an individual
opinion, and they oftentimes requested that an action
be taken, which demonstrated their tendency to be task
oriented.

Hi to the C&T Group and Plenary Groups

The following are some ideas floating around the
Bureau.
I think there should be joint discussions on this
and other questions of common concern, so I am
circulating to these lists (there are no contentious
personal views, I hope). It concerns guidelines for
the allocation of speaker slots at the PrepComs
etc. There is a proposal from Vince Markow (at the
bottom), followed by a comment from James, then
myself (with comments from Vince in there).
But I also think it raises the issue of communica-
tion between the Bureau, the C&T Group and the
Plenary Group, and how we make decisions that
affect us all. And the role of the Plenary, in terms of
consulting and approving. Perhaps the C&T Groups
would have proposals to put forward? And the
Plenary?
Steven

The low-context people responded to proposals using a

straight-out approach, with much less effort on obscuring their
emotions. They would also assert their individual views—
sometimes with tactfulness, but many times with aggressive-
ness. For example, when Wutz claimed his authority, he did it
 Proposal Making ◾ 115

with a slight tone of compromise (see the underlined portion

of the message),

I (wutz) am the main responsible person for the final

language of the governance paragraph. I tried to
bring all discussed positions on a extrem complex
issue into some simple key points. This simplification
opens unfortunately the door for misinterpretation.
The points you have raised are not in contradic-
tion with the proposed language and I see no basic
problem, to harmonize the two approaches (see my
comments below).

But later, in his message, he began to apply a more aggressive

tone by using capital letters to make his point.

The proposed paragraph does NOT say that the rules

should be different from “common rule of law.” In
contrary, it says that CS should be in favour of “the
common rules of law” for the cyberspace. And even
more, in cases, where new or revised or enlarged
rules are needed (eCommerce, IPR, InfoSec/Privacy
etc.), citizens should be involved directly in the
policy development and the rule making.

Another example is a message from Vince that straightfor-

wardly asserts his individual view but is not as harshly pre-
sented (“it’s not the best but…”).

this is my personal opinion.

it’s not the best, but
a. there is no better created (and hence the govern-
ments will take immediate control)
b. if there is no ICANN, for sure the control over
domain and numbers will not by a miracle go
116 ◾ Culture Matters

to the Civil Society or the privacy groups, or the

scientists; it will go to the governments. And
there isn’t anything worse than that as of today.
Vince

A fourth example, from Rolf, is more honestly and bluntly

expressed. Some might interpret it as rude or offensive, par-
ticularly high-context participants who seldom use such
direct words as those underlined as follows. As a result, a
message like this might intimidate them into not making a
counterresponse.

Hi all,
I totally agree with Steven’s five points.
Not in the sense of “I like his ideas” but as “That’s
how it is. Period.”
Of course_there is such a thing as the CS plenary
which was accepted by a great majority as the final
decision making body of CS activities.
> I am seeking support for the above five points
from those on this list as I believe we cannot be con-
tinually reinventing the past and must move forward.
Yes to this also.
I don’t understand how these things can come
up not even a week after Paris. And I hope we can
really move forward and get rid of this discussion
soon. I’d rather discuss what we could do better
instead of clarifying what has been.
Best, Rolf

Aside from being succinct and concise when proposing

or suggesting ideas, low-context people were also capable of
sending lengthy messages that detailed their emotions (i.e.,
anger, frustrations, or disappointments) when they reacted
to the proposals that were made by others. They first stated
clearly what and how they felt and then provided the context
 Proposal Making ◾ 117

and justification for their feelings or beliefs. This contrasts with

high-context participants who first provided the context, with
their intentions buried later in the email. In essence, low-
context behavior exhibited clear goals, whereas high-context
behavior buried their goals.

Dear Mr. Verner Vinson,

I do not speak on matters of substance as the “Focal
Point” of the “Media Family.” Any suggestion that I
did so is inaccurate.
I am also chairman of the Media Caucus, made
up of the journalistic organizations attending its
meetings and open to all interested related groups
attending the Prepcoms and the intersession meeting.
Anything I might possibly have reported as being
an opinion of the Caucus would have reflected the
overwhelming opinion of those taking part in its
meetings.
That does not mean that I have given up the right
to hold and express my own views, which, I think,
are clearly understood as such, when I speak I on
my own name.
As for community media, which I highly favor, I
assume them to be as diverse and pluralistic as any
other media. I rather doubt that they could all or
mostly fit your description of their characteristics—
unless you mean to say that local media that don’t fit
that description could not, by definition, be community
media, properly so-called. If that were so, it would
raise a number of rather intriguing questions. But I
am confident in doubting that to be your meaning.
Incidentally, my first paid journalism job nearly
50 years ago was as a jack-of-all-trades at a com-
munity weekly newspaper in southern Ohio. It gave
me experience as a reporter, editorialist, classified
ad taker, proof reader, linotypist and operator of a
118 ◾ Culture Matters

mid-19th Century flatbed press. So I am an old com-

munity newspaperman myself.
In fact, our publisher/editor was a member of the
American Socialist Party and his No. 2 was a Quaker
and conscientious objector (which I also was at the
time), but the newspaper served the whole commu-
nity and did not attempt to sell an “agenda” based on
the views of the staff leaders, even if the editorials—
strictly separated from the news—did reflect their
sensitivities. The paper won numerous awards as a
model community newspaper in the Middle Western
region.
The expression “something called community
media” was simply meant to convey the idea that
there are other possible definitions of what consti-
tutes community written and broadcast press than
the cause-oriented one(s) I have encountered in the
Civil Society discussions surrounding the WSIS.
Best regards,
Rolan Kiefer

Low-context participants did not hesitate to reveal their

personal views, as well as to state with whom they disagreed.
Oftentimes, this may be interpreted as an insensitive approach,
but low-context people are expressive and true to their inten-
tions. They are willing to self-disclose what they feel rather
than hiding it, unlike high-context participants who are more
hesitant and careful with self-disclosure. For example, Verner
(as follows) states that he was not comfortable with Steven’s
proposal. The tone of the email is quite forceful. Even though
he did compliment Steven’s proposal, he directly addressed
several other people—Samuel, Wutz, and the Bureau—
without concealing his opinions about them. And he ended his
email with another forceful question. This is a very different
approach from that of a high-context member who would
respond just the opposite: providing complimentary statements
 Proposal Making ◾ 119

and/or gratitude, and only then disagreeing, and closing with

some polite gestures.

The problem with the proposal of Steven, which at

first sight I applauded because of his positive and
constructive approach, is a logical one: who decides
and with which representativity who are composing
and which competences will have this Task Force?
who will give legitimacy to its decisions?
In other words, whatever excelent proposal would
result from this Task Force, it will allways be very
relative. “Civil Society” is in the first place-still-more
a (sociological, political, ideological) concept, then
a organizative well defined structure. From this
point of view, the concept will be permanently
open to multiple interpretations, from a huge variety
of legitimate interests. That is at the same time it’s
force, because everybody has the absolute right to
participate.
I agree to maintain Wutz resume as good starting
points, because it reinforces this last idea (absolute
right to participate) and builds upon the advances
made.
I would like to ask the members of the Buro to
submit themselves to the practices constructed in this
Summit Process. Otherwise they’ll loose legitimacy.
Verner
P.D. On the Latin American List came up an interest-
ing question: who named the members of the Buro?

Another important characteristic of low-context responses

is that, although, generally, their emails are direct and concise,
they also exemplify some sense of professionalism and objec-
tivity. The characteristic quality of their responses is that the
intention and purpose of the email are clearly stated. For exam-
ple, Rolf began his email with a friendly note, briefly reflecting
120 ◾ Culture Matters

his personal view, and then straight away, in one sentence

(bolded as follows), clearly stated the goal of his response.

Hi all,
It was good to see many of you in Paris, and I think
in the end we can be quite satisfied with what we
did. Of course, as usual we could do better, espe-
cially with more coordination of our activities, a bit
more transparency and better pooling of ressources.
This is an attempt to kick off a discussion
on CS coordination at PrepCom 3, which will
also help for the same task at the summit itself.
By this I mean the “inside” activities like moni-
toring, lobbying, content and themes drafting, press
work etc. The “outside” and “half in, half out” activi-
ties like the Polymedia Lab or the World Forum on
Communication Rights are already being organized
in other spaces.
It is not about content, but about how to structure
all our work in order to be more effective and keep
everybody better informed on what is going on.
This should help us enable better and more equal
participation of the whole civil society (on location
and elsewhere), make better use of our ressources,
and in the end have a bigger impact on the summit
outcomes.
We should prepare well in advance, that is why I
suggest to start this discussion now. There are already
some deadlines, e.g. Linda from the CS secretariat at
ITU wants to have a list of what we need from them
at PrepCom3 by this week. And the impressions from
Paris are still fresh, so we can better think of what
went well and what could be improved.
*** Where to discuss this?
In order to not generate another “Spam” problem
on this plenary list, I suggest that we set up another
 Proposal Making ◾ 121

list, [email protected], and discuss the details

there. Kathryn: Can you do this? (BTW: Kathryn and
others did a great job coordinating in Paris!)
I am looking forward to see your ideas and enthu-
siasm in helping to get this going.
All the best,
Rolf

Findings showed that the proposals that received favorable

responses came from both cultural orientations. For example,
on the low-context end of the spectrum, Steven’s proposals
were often clear, direct, and detailed, and, as a result, suc-
ceeded in generating numerous positive responses. So did
Wutz, Vince, and Rolf when they stated their positions in
aggressive proposals. As long as the arguments were sensible,
valid, and logical, people seemed to react and respond posi-
tively. On the other end of the spectrum, Mariette’s lengthy
high-context messages that explained her position in a very
tactful manner also received favorable responses. Her style
was convincing as she used more persuasive tactics. On a
similar vein, Rince would often produce a friendly yet con-
vincing message when he proposed something. His name was,
in fact, mentioned and referred to many times in the listserv,
which points out how influential he is. In essence, much like
the problem identification stage, the proposal stage not only
required substantive or quality messages, but the manner in
which the message was presented also makes a difference.

References
Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational
Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Kingdon, J.W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New
York: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Chapter 10

Solution

Introduction
For Civil Society, the last stage of decision-making process that
the global virtual teams (GVTs) are involved within the WSIS
is called solution. Adler (1997) and Kingdon (1995) called this
stage choice. In Figure 10.1, the activities were concentrated
in months such as July (n = 18), November (n = 34), and
December (n = 28). These three months had 67% of solutions
generated, a total of 80, and signify fruitful and successful
efforts in arriving at a decision, as well as receiving responses
about the solution in the form of alternative solutions. In
particular, the Civil Society participants during this period
were working toward nominating speakers for the summit and
finalizing the language for the documents, decisions that all
required endorsements, and consensus.
Once most of the Civil Society participants came forward
to endorse a draft document, a consensual decision could
be reached about the language of the document. There were
several levels of consensus building. On the one hand, Civil

123
124 ◾ Culture Matters

Dec 28

34
Months of participation

Nov

Oct 18

Sept 13

Aug 8

July 18

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Figure 10.1 Solution activities in WSIS Geneva.

Society participants totally agreed with the language of the

document and thus enthusiastically endorsed the document:
a. Thanks everyone who supported construction
of this document. It is constructive, positive and
diplomatic but clear! _* endorses it! Good luck in
Paris!
b. Please include the endorsement of _ Venezuela.
Thanks.
On the other hand, some people sent an endorsement with
reservations:
a. Dear Benjamin,
I can endorse the final version (still with some
reservations) concerning the ICT Governance
para: -() on behalf of the following institutions:
◾ Global Society Dialogue
◾ Global Contract Foundation
◾ International Association for Media and
Communication Research

* In order to protect confidentiality, the names of the organizations were stripped

off from the message even though data were taken from the public archive.
 Solution ◾ 125

I am accredited under “_”. That is, when you

collect primarily “registered” observers, you can
add also “_”
Best wishes, thanks and admiration for the
work and see you Tuesday.
Wutz

At other times, people could not endorse a document

because they disagreed so strongly with the language:

a. All, Participants agreed to remove the last

paragraph of the Governance section. The latest
document is attached, without endorsements.
b. Dear Sandra and Benjamin,
_ cannot endorse the document entitled “Civil
Society Priorities Document” even under its
last issue (07.12.03) for several obvious presen-
tation and content reasons. It’s a pity for that
good and intensive job done (mainly by your-
self and Sandra I suppose), which I recognize
and therefore thank both of you. Nevertheless,
I’m sure we could reach an agreement if our
main contribution is taken in account for a
further final issue of that kind of document.
Unfortunately neither of you will attend the
Paris Meeting, and as for me, I can’t be pres-
ent at the first day. But I’ll continue as usually
my job in the CS CT working group during
the three days left in order to re-integrate into
the Action Plan these goals _ considers as its
main ones, namely for bridging the N/S com-
munication divide.

This final stage was the most challenging because con-

sensus did not often mean unanimous decisions. In fact, the
participants debated this issue in the listserv that revealed that
126 ◾ Culture Matters

there was a misconception among them on the meaning of

consensus. As one of the participants clearly stated,

First, just to say that consensus is not synonymous

with unanimity: it means that in the spirit of achiev-
ing a common position, there are no overriding objec-
tions. However, concerning your point, it has been
clear from the outset that documents produced by the
Content and Themes group express the consensus of
those who sign them and not an overall consensus of
Civil Society organizations attending the WSIS.

In other situations, Civil Society participants failed to

achieve a solution because the problem was beyond the
participants’ control or capacity to solve (for example, a prob-
lem with infrastructure). These kinds of problems had to be
taken up by a higher authority, for example, the bureau or
secretariat.
Finally, only in rare instances, the solution was achieved
without going through the typical stages because some of par-
ticipants voluntarily and unilaterally created a solution to the
problem:

Dear Friends,
As you know the WSIS intersessional is only days
away, from July 15–18 at UNESCO headquarters in
Paris, France.
This communication is to inform you that Timothy
Rhodes and Rince Plum will be working with the
Conference of NGOs in Consultative Status with _
(CONGO) during the intersessional meeting in Paris
to report and analyze the negotiations as they are
happening. News, reports, and links to relevant Civil
Society documents will be provided at: http://www
.prepcom.net/wsis. (This site will go live late tomor-
row, Tuesday, July 8, if you want a preview.)
 Solution ◾ 127

We know that many groups are not able to send

representatives to the intersessional meeting. We
are committed to providing you as much informa-
tion and news as possible on how the negotiations
are proceeding, as well as providing a website
where your views, proposals and papers can be
shared. Please send any relevant documents to us
at [email protected] or rince.plum@ngo
congo.org and we will see that they are uploaded
to the site. During the intersessional, Rince Plum
can also be reached at his French mobile number:
+36-1254-56-7342.
If you are planning on being at the Intersessional
and can volunteer to take notes for a particular ses-
sion, that would be very appreciated, particularly if
you can write in French or Spanish.
So be sure and bookmark www.prepcom.net/wsis
and check back every day!
In Peace,
Timothy Rhodes Rince Plum
[email protected] rince.plum@ngocongo
.org

The next section provides analytical descriptions of the

decision-making processes through verbatim examples from
the archival email messages.

Solution Behaviors
In this stage of the decision-making process, the findings
showed that Civil Society participants had contradicting strate-
gies for reaching consensus, finding solutions, and present-
ing their final decisions. High-context participants presented
their decisions in a courteous and appreciative manner.
They normally began their email with a friendly or formal
128 ◾ Culture Matters

acknowledgment. Then, in the first paragraph, it was a com-

mon practice for them to first provide the context in which the
decisions were made, followed by an expression of gratitude.
In the subsequent paragraph(s), the decision was presented
and followed by an apology. This strategy is common in group
decision making. As an example, the following email from
Sandra Burkasa used a collective voice when presenting the
final decision and acknowledged and thanked the collective
efforts in compiling the document.

Friends,
Under the most impossible conditions and with very
little time for consultation we have sent the follow-
ing letter and adjoined compilation text (English only,
as you can imagine) to Mr. Sukanessi. Thanks to all
who made input.
Those comments received today could only be
included if they were short and simple and not
contradictory with other proposals. I am sorry there
wasn’t time to process it all. We can continue work
on this for the November meeting.
Sandra Burkasa

Quite the opposite tone is taken by low-context participants

who commonly used direct and precise statements to inform
other participants of the decisions made—for instance, Wutz’s
endorsement, “Here I fully agree. This is a “friendly amend-
ment” and “I would fully endorse the references…”, or the
announcement from Venda Busara:

Hi Victor,
I have just received a notification that there is not
room available for the LAC caucus from 8–9 am.
They are proposing us to have a room from 9 to
10. Please, reply to the message I have sent to the
 Solution ◾ 129

LAC caucus members who will be attending the

PrepCom3 to decide collectively what to do.
Thanks!
Venda

Low-context participants would directly state their decision

first, and then provide any remaining suggestions but only if
the suggestions would not change their decision. In Sandra’s
email quoted earlier in this section, she discusses the pro-
cess that they went through in arriving at the final document,
whereas Rolf (as follows) is concerned with presenting the
final product itself. Note the different communication styles
and tone. Rolf’s intention was to explicitly announce that the
document was ready and that the participants could read it.

Hi all,
The Civil Society comments to the non-paper and
the accompanying letter from Sandra are now online
at http://www.worldsummit2003.org. There you also
find a direct link to the non-paper and a new article
on the process that has been going on in Geneva
since PrepCom3.
Direct link to the comments for you references:
<http://www.worldsummit2003.de/download_en
/comments-on-nonpaper-30-10-2003-final.rtf>
Best, Rolf

Both Venda and Rolf made a decision that is based on

self-interest and took action when it was appropriate without
further consultation from the group. The findings showed
that, in many cases, this approach or strategy was much more
effective when there was a prominent leadership role that
is played by a specific individual. For example, there was a
discussion on the problems of infrastructure such as wireless
connections, logistics, and Internet services. Renee immedi-
ately reacted to the problems that people faced by posting a
130 ◾ Culture Matters

brief and meaningful email that said, “I will further negotiate

tomorrow morning.” She then promptly followed up with a
message that outlined a solution:

Dear Sandra and all,

After some discussion and negotiations, the situation
for meeting and work rooms is as follows:
One large room (9) for CS next to the Conference
rooms, smaller rooms (14) (15) (16) in the adja-
cent building for CSB and other meetings and
(A 12, seating 12–15) for the drafting persons or
CTGroup.
Internet Cafe with 10–15 connected computers, will
also be available.
Renee

In fact, an analysis of the distribution of Renee’s participa-

tion across the stages of the decision-making process showed
that she contributed more in the proposal-making and solution
stage, rather than the problem identification stage.
Another example is Raymond’s solution to the accreditation
issue for the Civil Society organizations. He provided detailed
and clear instructions, and his communication style was direct.
He also provided details on where he got the information so
that his information was substantiated and could be indepen-
dently verified by others if they chose to do so.

Hi,
Raymond Jacob here, in Minneapolis for two weeks.
In checking on accreditation for another organiza-
tion, I went to the www.itu.int site and clicked on the
red “accreditatin” word on the right.
A page appears in the center of which are two
lines, the second of which says “list of entitites that
have requested accreditation.”
 Solution ◾ 131

Click on that and there is a list of almost 2000

organizations. I went to our organization, Intl.
Council for Caring Communities, clicked on it to
see our web site, and came up with Indo-Canadian
Chamber of Commerce, another “ICCC” as is our
organization.
I suggest that you all check if the web site that is
associated with your organization really is yours!
Raymond J.

In conclusion, the way team members negotiate a decision

to reach a solution is all dependent on the culturally laden val-
ues as rooted in the team members’ communicative behaviors.
Apparently, the high-context members seemed to have a more
courteous manner of presenting their decisions as they took
time to present their solutions. For instance, members would
provide subtle statements in the opening line of their commu-
nications, afterwards, leading members to their final decisions.
On the other hand, the low-context members prefer to state
their decisions clearly and quickly without delay, and they
state it in a straightforward fashion by being transparent about
their feelings and thoughts about such a solution. These two
strategies of reaching to a solution need to be well recognized
by GVT leaders and members because such contradictory
approaches can create miscommunication, misinterpretations,
frustrations, and conflicts if members do not handle such chal-
lenges with care and tact.

References
Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational
Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Kingdon, J.W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New
York: Addison-Wesley Longman.
CULTURAL IV
INFLUENCES ON
DISTRIBUTED
DECISION MAKING

We need a plan; so, let’s be straightforward!

Dr. Hannah Barak, a medical officer in Baghdad Hospital, was
taken aback this morning. Her colleague, Dr. David Soltes,
refused to agree with her suggestions on how to carry out
some complex procedures in an upcoming surgery. When they
spoke over Skype, he bluntly said that he would do it a cer-
tain way based on his many years of experience in Slovakia.
Hannah was not upset by his decision, but she was disturbed
by the way that he had been communicating his ideas through
virtual communication for the past few months. He was firm,
direct, and precise and allowed little or no negotiation. His
emails were short and composed largely of “what needs to
be done—plans.” Hannah, however, strongly believes that,
in every situation, matters need to be carefully discussed
and negotiated. She prefers a strategy that is based on a sort
of haggling in which the conversation is steered toward a
134 ◾ INFLUENCES ON DISTRIBUTED DECISION MAKING

win–win rather than a win–lose outcome. Using such a strat-

egy, a relationship can be developed, and, gradually, trust will
form. Dr. Soltes, on the other hand, felt that there was nothing
much to discuss. As a well-known eye specialist who would
be flown over to Baghdad next week, he is entrusted with a
crucial task. What matters to him is to thus execute that task
as efficiently as possible. His belief is that a successful comple-
tion of the task comes first, and then trust follows.
Chapter 11

Online Communicative
Behaviors Based on
Cultural Variations

Introduction
Fundamentally, people exhibit different choices, styles, and
strategies in decision making based on their culture; these
differences are particularly striking between high- and low-
context communication styles. The general difference in
decision strategy is between detailed and agreed-upon deci-
sions versus shallow information exchanges. Adler (1997) also
examined other decision-making issues, such as whether
decisions are made quickly or slowly and whether informa-
tion and alternatives are discussed sequentially or holistically.
These different approaches appear in various locations along
the high-context/low-context continuum. Therefore, the main
purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief and broad under-
standing on the following research question:

Are there discernible patterns of cultural variations

evident in the email messages that were exchanged

135
136 ◾ Culture Matters

among the Civil Society GVT members? If so, is Hall’s

high-context versus low-context dimension sufficient
to explain these variations?

Results are presented based on the cultural dimension of

context: high context and low context. For each end of the
spectrum, the findings are further analyzed based on two
variables: (1) intercultural communication style and (2) cul-
tural values, which will be presented in Chapters 12 and 13.
Specifically, for high-context participants, intercultural commu-
nication styles were analyzed based on constructs like indi-
rectness and ambiguity, while cultural values were analyzed
based on collectivism versus relationship oriented. For low-
context participants, intercultural communication styles were
analyzed based on constructs like direct and detail oriented,
while cultural values were looked at in terms of individualism
and task oriented (see Figure 11.1).
The findings from this study clearly show that there are
discernible patterns of culture based on high- and low-context

High context Low context

Context dimension

Cultural
Cultural
values
Relationship values
oriented Direct

Collectivism Detail

Ambiguous Individualism

Indirect Task oriented

Intercultural
Intercultural communication
communication style
style

Figure 11.1 Context cultural dimension.

Online Communicative Behaviors Based on Cultural Variations ◾ 137

orientation. These cultural variations were evident in the mes-

sages that were posted by Civil Society participants when they
engaged in decision-making activities. The overall propor-
tion of high- and low-context behaviors (see Figure 11.2) were
strikingly different with 68% of the instances representing
low-context behaviors (n = 2,047) and only 32% representing
high-context behaviors (n = 980).
As shown in Figure 11.3, further analysis revealed more
instances of intercultural communication styles (52% of total

2,500
2,047
(68%)
2,000
Number of instances

1,500
980
(32%)
1,000

500

0
High context Low context

Figure 11.2 Proportion of high-context versus low-context messages.

Intercultural communication style (n = 1,577)

LC 1,244
Cultural subcategories

HC 333

Cultural values (n = 1,450)

LC 803

HC 647

Figure 11.3 Cultural subcategories: intercultural communication

style versus cultural values.
138 ◾ Culture Matters

occurrences, n = 1,577) than of cultural values (48%, n = 1,450).

Analyzing across cultural categories, a significant behavioral
pattern was observed in the high- and low-context partici-
pants’ intercultural communication styles. Low-context com-
munication style accounted for 79% (n = 1,244) compared to
high context, which accounted for only 21% (n = 333). For
cultural values, there was much less variation between the
two cultural categories: low-context behaviors accounted for
55% (n = 803), while high-context behaviors accounted for
45% (n = 647).
However, the findings within each cultural category
showed more interesting divergent behavioral patterns. For
high context, the number of instances for cultural values
(n = 647) were almost double the number of instances of
intercultural communication style (n = 333), a difference of
51%. Quite the opposite is seen in the low-context orienta-
tion: the number of instances of intercultural communica-
tion style was much higher (n = 1,244) than the number of
instances of cultural values (n = 803). However, the variation
was only 35% when both subcategories were considered,
indicating a much lower variation overall for low context
than for high context. Interestingly, both cultural categories
showed a reversed pattern of cultural dominance: high con-
text had a higher correspondence with cultural values, and
low context had a higher correspondence with intercultural
communication style.
The proportion of high versus low context can be bro-
ken down into four different cultural constructs, as shown
in Table 11.1. Although the overall patterns revealed that
low-context participants generated a higher total number of
occurrences for the direct (n = 1,015), detail (n = 229), and
individualistic (n = 628) constructs, task oriented had fewer
occurrences (n = 175) than relationship oriented (n = 245), as
reflected in Table 11.1.
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 11.4, a comparison
was made across constructs; the shaded area points out
Table 11.1 Overall Distribution of High- versus Low-Context Cultural Constructs
Cultural
Subcategories High Context Instances Low Context Instances Total
Intercultural Indirect 287 (29%) Direct 1,015 (50%) 1,302
communication
Ambiguous 46 (5%) Detail oriented 229 (11%) 275
style
Collectivistic 402 (41%) Individualistic 628 (31%) 1,030
Cultural values Relationship 245 (25%) Task oriented 175 (9%) 420
oriented
Total 980 (100%) 2,047 (101%)a 3,300
a Total percentage does not equal 100% due to rounding.
Online Communicative Behaviors Based on Cultural Variations
◾
139
140 ◾ Culture Matters

High context Low context

Relationship- 58% Task oriented 42%
oriented

Collectivistic 39% Individualistic 61%

Ambiguous 17% Detail oriented 83%

Indirect 22% Direct 78%

Figure 11.4 Comparison of cultural constructs for high and low

context.

the constructs that generated a higher percentage when

compared in terms of high context versus low context.
This analysis shows that, for high context, the relationship-
oriented construct was higher, accounting for 58%, com-
pared to task oriented, which accounted for 42% of total
occurrences. The other three constructs for low context
showed higher percentages than their high-context coun-
terparts. However, what stood out in the finding is that
from the low-context constructs called detail and direct.
The detail construct was represented by 83% of total
occurrences, while only a mere 17% was represented by
the ambiguous construct from high context. Likewise, for
direct, the total occurrences for low context were signifi-
cantly higher (78%) than the construct of indirect for high
context (only 22% of total occurrences). In essence, for the
parallel comparison, the dominant construct for high con-
text is relationship oriented, while, for low context, the
dominant construct was detail and direct communication
style.
The following section expands on each of the cultural con-
text orientations by detailing which cultural construct is more
dominant.
Online Communicative Behaviors Based on Cultural Variations ◾ 141

Relationship
oriented Indirect
25% 29% Intercultural
Cultural communication
values style
66% 34%
Ambiguous
Collectivistic 5%
41%

Figure 11.5 Proportion of cultural constructs observed for high-

context orientation.

High-Context Cultural Orientation

For the high-context cultural orientation,* collectivistic fea-
tures were seen in 41% of total occurrences (see Figure 11.5).
The next most prominent cultural values, indirect and rela-
tionship oriented, were seen in 29% and 25% of occurrences,
respectively. In combination, these two constructs made up
54% of the total occurrences. Despite the low percentage of
relationship-oriented occurrences compared to the other two
high-context constructs, its occurrence was still much higher
than its opposite (task oriented). Ambiguous was the least
significant construct, appearing in only 5% of the voluminous
number of email messages.
For high-context cultural orientation, the dominant cultural
patterns exhibited were in the cultural values, which totaled
66%. On the other hand, the two types of intercultural com-
munication style (indirect and ambiguous) accounted for only
34% of the total high-context occurrences. In addition, indi-
rectness and ambiguity messages (n = 333) together accounted
for only 11% of all cultural occurrences (n = 3,027).

* The analysis was made within the high-context category, i.e., between direct and
ambiguous, or between collectivistic and relationship oriented. The comparison
made in the “Introduction” section (see Figure 11.3) was done across categories,
i.e., high versus low context, relationship oriented versus task oriented.
142 ◾ Culture Matters

Low-Context Cultural Orientation

Results showed that low-context behaviors were reflected more
in the intercultural communication style subcategory, with 60% of
total low-context occurrences, than in the cultural values subcat-
egory, with only 40% (see Figure 11.6). Notably, under the subcat-
egory of intercultural communication style, direct accounted for
82% of the combined construct, while detail accounted for only
18%. This strongly suggests that directness is the main character-
istic of low-context communications. For cultural values, individu-
alism represented 31% of total occurrences and task oriented only
9%, indicating that individualism was the next most prominent
cultural characteristic of low-context communications.
Based on the findings of GVTs in Civil Society, it could
be deduced that, with cultural knowledge, organizations can
identify how people initially learn to communicate given these
context-based considerations: what to say (choice of words), to
whom to utter such words (what the relationship is between
the sender of the message and the recipient), why use such
words (reasons and justifications for communicating), when it
is best to be said (the timing and location of communication),
and, finally, in which manner it is best said (the approaches

Task oriented
9%
Cultural
values
40%

Individualistic
31%
Direct
49%

Detail
11% Intercultural
communication
style
60%

Figure 11.6 Proportion of cultural constructs observed for low-

context orientation.
Online Communicative Behaviors Based on Cultural Variations ◾ 143

used). On the other end of the cultural spectrum, content has

a bearing on communication because words are sought after,
and not context. Such culturally attuned challenges need to be
learned and dealt with in the GVT context. Chapters 12 and 13
provide an in-depth description of the patterns of behaviors
that are exhibited in each subcategory: intercultural commu-
nication styles and cultural values. Furthermore, each of the
subcategories will be explained in terms of the cultural pat-
terns of behaviors and supported by verbatim examples from
the email messages.

Reference
Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior,
3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Chapter 12

Intercultural
Communication Styles

Introduction
Based on the concept of context, Hall explained that, in a
high-context (HC) culture, people usually establish their com-
munication styles dependent on contextual factors such as
what, why, when, who, and how to communicate with another
person. Yet, in a low-context (LC) culture, one’s communica-
tion styles are independent of contextual factors, as mentioned
earlier in this section. Instead, it is dependent on a content-
based factor in which words that are either verbally said or
written are considered significant when collaborating with
others such as in the global virtual team (GVT) work structure
(Zakaria et al. 2012). If that is the case, people and organiza-
tions need to explore the impact of culture on one’s communi-
cative behaviors.
In order to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation,
it is important to comprehend the meaning in what a person
says and how things are said—i.e., the communication style
that one uses for generating ideas, exchanging opinions, shar-
ing knowledge, and expressing ideas. In a similar vein, the

145
146 ◾ Culture Matters

way people arrive at a decision varies significantly from one

culture to another since conflict is viewed differently based on
the cultural context. Cultural differences may also impact the
decision-making process, with individuals from LC cultures
responding in a direct, confrontational way and expecting
quick answers, whereas HC participants respond in an eva-
sive and nonconfrontational manner, leading to an indirect,
less active approach to resolution. Thus, the discussions in the
following sections will detail out the distinctive differences
between HC and LC communication styles.

Intercultural Communication Style:

Indirect versus Direct
According to Hall (1976), he predicted that people from HC
cultures would generally use an indirect style of communica-
tion. People in HC cultures are also more likely to be silent
about their feelings and thoughts (Hall 1976). For HC people,
one must read between the lines in order to understand the
true meaning of a message (Deresky 2000). The concept of
saving face, examined by Ting-Toomey (1999), theorizes that
HC people are often cautious or ambiguous in their speech
out of a desire to avoid causing embarrassment or humilia-
tion to others. In this type of culture, conflicts are avoided at
any cost. Conversely, LC participants expressed their opinions
and intentions more freely and more often said exactly what
they meant and what they wanted people to understand. They
expressed themselves in a more explicit manner that supplied
all the situational elements that are needed to understand
their message (Hall 1976). In an LC culture, individuals tend to
convey important messages through the use of explicit verbal
codes.
HC people approach decision making holistically. The
process requires complete information and a discussion of all
the alternatives before making a decision (Takayama 1972).
 Intercultural Communication Styles ◾ 147

Because of this elaborative discussion, the decision-making

process is slower than for LC people. HC people tend to take
their time in thinking through a matter and only then make
a decision. They are considered be-ers, a culture that focuses
on being (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 2000), allowing
change to occur at its own slow pace. They do not rush things
and view time as generational (Adler 1997). Our study of Civil
Society list participants found an evidence of such behavior;
for example, when arriving at a decision, HC participants used
phrases like “after thinking about this…” showing that they
have given their decision some thought and that their decision
was made based on all considerations. In messages written
using an HC communication style, “…information is less con-
textual, with less detail, more general references to the over-
all situation, and often more politeness strategies” (Thomas
1998, p. 13). LC participants, on the other hand, would straight
away inform of their decision, and no indication was given of
how long they considered the matter or how they arrived at a
decision.
HC people also tend to remain silent in meetings; as a
result, they are often very good observers and listeners. LC
people, on the other hand, prefer to discuss alternatives in
a preplanned sequence and make incremental decisions for
each alternative that is discussed. They desire quick deci-
sions, so attending a meeting with LC people means jumping
into the matter right away. (Trompenaars’ metaphor for HC
is the chief listener, while, for LC, it is the dauntless decision
maker.)
Again, our Civil Society study found evidence of such
behavior; in one particular incident, an LC Civil Society mem-
ber jumped into a discussion and said, “I think that this issue
is raging on and on. I know that people need to have the
opportunity to choose and express opinions. I think that there
also comes a time when the additions have to stop and we
have to look at the list we have and choose,” and then went
on to state what they thought is needed to be done.
148 ◾ Culture Matters

LC people are apt to keep their focus on the agenda and

get frustrated if the agenda is abandoned during a meeting,
in contrast to meetings among HC people where matters may
be repeatedly revisited or remain unresolved. According to
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2000), LC people are the
do-ers, action oriented and focused on doing, who believe that
setting agendas can help them be more focused. LC people
typically have plans carefully outlined, with specific deadlines
and required progress reports. The exception to this is that,
sometimes, LC people may prefer to have shallow informa-
tion exchanges prior to a meeting so that, during the meeting,
they can focus on making decisions and can exchange ideas,
express opinions, and state their positions by presenting their
arguments.
Bresnahan et al. (2002) also noted that HC communica-
tion styles use a nonassertive approach; they place less value
on talk and emphasize more on the nonverbal aspects when
presenting their ideas. Messages are sent in a subtle manner
wherein the meanings are buried in their nonverbal cues as
they tend to rely on fewer words—making it hard to com-
prehend or interpret its meanings. On the other hand, LC
communication styles are direct and assertive as they value
straightforward talk. Following from that, Bresnahan et al.
observed that HC communication styles have two different
underlying assumptions. When a communication takes place
with the in-group* members, there is a shared understanding
among the members.
The form of a message that HC individuals send to the
in-group members is thus terse, containing restricted codes
(Gudykunst et al. 1996). Restricted code means that a message
does not contain verbose words; rather, the message is com-
posed using shortened words, phrases, and sentences (like a

* In-group is a term that is used to signify a group of people with whom a

person is familiar and has a strong relational bond. The in-group is considered
the trusted group, and its members are often spouse, family, and close friends
(Triandis 1988).
 Intercultural Communication Styles ◾ 149

secret code). The messages rely more on nonverbal elements

such as tone of the message, the nature of relationship, social
context, and the use of silence. Only the receiver or possibly
another in-group member would be successful in decoding or
interpreting the meaning of the message.
Similarly, when an HC communication takes place with
an out-group* member with whom the message sender has
no strong or prior relationship (for example, an acquaintance
or a stranger), an individual does not usually provide a lot of
personal information; his or her message is written at a super-
ficial level, again producing a short message where no details
are included. Because of this, the stranger receiving the mes-
sage may have difficulty interpreting the message. Also, open-
ness is not a key characteristic of HC communication. As such,
an HC individual rarely discloses a large amount of personal
information (Gudykunst & Kim 2002) to strangers. On the
other hand, group-based information such as group member-
ships, status, and background are likely to be disclosed in
such conversations (Gudykunst & Nishida 1986). Both assump-
tions mentioned earlier in this section explain the terse and
short messages that are used in the HC communication style,
whether written or spoken.
HC participants were not comfortable expressing their con-
cerns forthrightly, which made their emails longer than those
of LC participants. The participants had to read such email
closely in order to understand the main concerns. Sometimes,
a message contained many concerns, and, as a consequence,
the messages failed to address the main, urgent problems that
required actions or solutions.

* Out-group members, on the other hand, are people to whom a person is not
close to or known of, whom they considered as their acquaintance or total
strangers (Triandis 1988). The Japanese society often used a term called one
of us or one of them to signify the distinction between in-group and out-
group members (Ferraro 1998). This form of distinction also determines which
conversational greeting will be used.
150 ◾ Culture Matters

Intercultural Communication Style:

Ambiguous versus Detailed
In some other situations, during the WSIS participation, HC
people do produce messages that are lengthy, inexact, and
ambiguous. This is strongly evident in situations where an
individual wants to avoid telling the truth about some situa-
tion for the fear of hurting someone’s feelings, embarrassing
a person or himself or herself, or confronting a conflicting
situation (Ferraro 2003; LeBaron 2003; Ting-Toomey 1999; Hall
1976). The ambiguous style is also used to protect the feelings
of people whom an individual is in contact with, especially his
or her in-group members or the group that he or she belongs
to (Triandis 1994). In such cases, people will camouflage
their meaning or bury their true intentions in long-drawn-out
messages. HC people are also more comfortable with subtle,
uncertain, and qualifier words such as maybe, perhaps, and
probably (Okabe 1983, p. 34) embedded in the long texts to
avoid giving an assertive or forceful impression to their mes-
sage receivers. As Hall (1976) says, “…she will talk around
and around the point, in effect putting all the pieces in place
except the crucial one. Placing it properly—this keystone—is
the role of his [or her] interlocutor” (p. 98).
Under some circumstances, HC people often intend to
protect the feelings of their in-group members (Triandis 1994),
or, when they want to avoid confrontation, they will write
long messages, to the point that the messages can be incom-
prehensible to the LC audience who considers the message to
be without substance or quality. But, because of their strong
need for a harmonious environment and avoidance of conflict,
HC people can also produce extremely effective, diplomatic,
and tactful messages through their politeness strategy (Ferraro
2003; Okabe 1983).
In contrast, participants from LC cultures are more apt
to separate issues from people (“don’t take it personally”),
 Intercultural Communication Styles ◾ 151

whereas the participants from HC cultures are more likely to

blend the two and may take personal affront to a professional
disagreement. Work and personal issues are integrated, and,
thus, oftentimes, work disagreements are perceived as per-
sonal conflicts. The consequence for Civil Society participants
is that the participants from LC cultures are more apt to view
disagreements as an integral part of knowledge sharing—not
only acceptable but also even a positive activity that encour-
ages creative discourse—whereas HC participants may per-
ceive open disagreement and confrontation as highly insulting
and as causing both parties to lose face (Zakaria et al. 2004;
Ting-Toomey 1999).
For the LC communication style, they often presented
a detailed message to their members when collaborating.
A detailed message contains extensive, elaborate explana-
tions and descriptions and/or is full of instructions, proce-
dures, or steps to be taken on the subject under discussion.
Furthermore, the LC communication style—verbal or written—
relies on the heavy use of words. Hence, LC communication
is content dependent where words are the primary strategy to
effective communication (Gudykunst & Kim 2002; Hall 1976).
The conversational maxim introduced by Grice (1975) offers
four elements of social interaction:

1. Quantity maxim: The contribution should be as informa-

tive as possible.
2. Quality maxim: The contribution should be truthful.
3. Relevancy maxim: The contribution should be relevant.
4. Manner maxim: The contribution should be brief and
orderly.

These maxims are applicable to LC communication style

(LeBaron 2003; Gudykunst & Kim 2002). Supporting these
maxims, Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) identified four
distinct verbal interpersonal communication styles: (1) direct,
152 ◾ Culture Matters

(2) elaborated, (3) instrumental, and (4) personal. By integrat-

ing Grice’s four-point maxim with Gudykunst’s four verbal
styles, the key aspects of LC communication become the
following: (1) LC communication puts the emphasis on direct-
ness because LC people believe that information should be
straight to the point, and accurate, and that people should not
contribute to others more or less information than necessary,
(2) LC communication is based on sufficient evidence and facts
and is consistent with the participants’ feelings (Hall 1976),
(3) LC people only contribute information in the context of the
conversations, and (4) LC people avoid any ambiguity, exces-
siveness, and verbosity in their communication.
It is well established that LC people send a short, suc-
cinct, and terse message when they express their opinions or
state their feelings. LC people value openness. Speaking their
minds and telling the truth are some of their key communica-
tion characteristics, in unison with the quality maxim. The
terse messages are often used in situations when they want
to assert a point, without the fear of hurting the feelings of
others because they believe in truth (Gudykunst & Nishida
1986; Grice 1975). LC people value individualism and base
their behavior on true feelings (Frymier et al. 1990). They are
also more inclined to express bluntly and talk freely than HC
people. Although the truth might hurt, this strategy is useful
in being precise and accurate. Sometimes, HC audience views
this strategy as lack of tact or diplomacy; hence, the message
is interpreted as harsh, rude, or blunt (Zakaria et al. 2004).
However, in some situations, LC people do send long mes-
sages when they communicate, but they do this for different
motivations from the HC people. The purpose of sending
detailed and accurate information is to provide explanations,
support their intention or arguments, and give instructions. LC
people are often seen as providing the fine details of a subject
matter because they are task-oriented people (Triandis 1994).
They base their communication on the task first, and then the
relationship; therefore, they provide detailed instructions to
 Intercultural Communication Styles ◾ 153

explain to people how to proceed with a task. In this case,

LC people emphasize the quantity maxim, which is to be as
informative and resourceful as possible. Conversely, HC people
base their communication on relationship-oriented purposes;
hence, the long message is written for the purpose to maintain
and protect the relationship built.
The differences between the terse and lengthy messages
for HC and LC are thus rooted in the motivations of producing
such messages, as illustrated in Table 12.1.
As mentioned in the “Introduction” section and under
Chapter 5 for Hall theoretical framework, context alludes to
what, why, how, when, and to whom a message is sent. In
essence, HC communication is context dependent. The decision
on how much information is disclosed (amount of information,
short or long messages) in HC communication depends largely
on the receiver of the message (who) and the topic of the mes-
sage (what is to be disclosed and what is to be kept private
or confidential), whereas LC communication is content depen-
dent, which places strong emphasis on words, either verbal
or written. Establishing common ground between and among
Civil Society participants is challenging because it requires that
people take the differences in communication styles into consid-
eration in accordance with each member’s cultural preferences;
only then can participants successfully ground their communi-
cation and effectively engage in collaborative efforts or activities.
In conclusion, the study showed that the direct commu-
nicative behavior belonging to LC cultures had three parts:
(1) an assertive statement, followed by (2) a body of text that
explains, clarifies, or justifies the assertion, and, finally, (3) a
conclusion that wraps up one’s view. Whereas, for HC cultures,
people not only displayed politeness and tactfulness in their
messages but also sometimes apologized excessively—a key
sign of not wanting to offend other participants. Sometimes,
this causes conflict—at worst, HC cultures may view the
straightforward messages and explicit words of LC cultures as
attacking, rude, outspoken, or unacceptable.
154 ◾ Culture Matters

Table 12.1 Types of Messages Based on HC and LC Dimension:

Ambiguous vs. Detail
Length of
Written
Messages High Context Low Context
Short HC people write brief and LC people write succinct
terse messages because messages because
• They expect people to • They communicate
understand and read in a direct fashion—
their intentions, ”out in the open”—
thoughts, or feelings. so that people
• They are uncomfortable understand their
to disclose their intention explicitly.
personal information to • They are open and
strangers. frank about what
• They use short phrases they feel, even to
or sentences with strangers.
uncertain qualifier • They use strong and
words such as probably, assertive words like
maybe, and perhaps. certainly, absolutely,
and positively.
Long HC people write ambiguous LC people write detailed
messages because messages because
• They want to mask their • They write detailed
intentions and protect explanations and
oneself and others from instructions for
being hurt or complex task-related
experiencing information.
embarrassing situations. • They want to ensure
• They want to ensure people can carry out
their relationship is the task assigned—
maintained—focus on focus on task
relationship orientation. orientation.
Emphasis • Context-dependent • Content-dependent
 Intercultural Communication Styles ◾ 155

References
Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational
Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Bresnahan, M.J., Shearman, S.M., Lee, S.Y., Ohashi R. & Mosher, D.
2002. Personal and cultural differences in responding to criti-
cism in three countries. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,
5(2), 93–105.
Deresky, H. 2000. International Management: Managing Across
Borders and Cultures, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Ferraro, G.P. 2003. The Cultural Dimension of International
Business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Frymier, A.B., Klopf, D.W. & Ishii, S. 1990. Japanese and Americans
compared on the affect orientation construct. Psychological
Reports, 66, 985–986.
Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan
(Eds.), Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Gudykunst, W.B. & Kim, Y.Y. 2002. Communicating with Strangers:
An Approach to Intercultural Communication, 4th ed. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Gudykunst, W.B. & Nishida, T. 1986. Attributional confidence
in low- and high-context cultures. Human Communication
Research, 12, 525–549.
Gudykunst, W.B. & Ting-Toomey, S. 1988. Culture and
Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Gudykunst, W.B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim,
K. & Heyman, S. 1996. The influence of cultural individualism-
collectivism, self-construal, and individual values on communi-
cation styles across cultures. Human Communication Research,
22(4), 510–543.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/
Doubleday.
LeBaron, M.L. 2003. Bridging Cultural Conflicts: New Approaches for
a Changing World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Okabe, R. 1983. Cultural assumptions of East and West: Japan
and the U.S. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural
Communication Theory (pp. 28–40). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
156 ◾ Culture Matters

Takayama, S. 1972. Group decision making in Japanese manage-

ment. International Studies of Management and Organization,
2(2), 183–186.
Thomas, J. 1998. Contexting Koreans: Does the high/low model
work? Business Communication Quarterly, 61(4), 9–22.
Ting-Toomey, S. 1999. Communicating Across Cultures. New York:
Guilford.
Triandis, H.C. 1994. Culture and Social Behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Triandis, H.C. 1988. Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptu-
alization of basic concept in cross-cultural psychology. In G.
Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Studies of Personality,
Attitudes, and Cognition (pp. 60–95). London: Macmillan.
Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. 2000. Building Cross-
Cultural Competence: How to Create Wealth from Conflicting
Values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Zakaria, N., Cogburn, D.L., Khadapkar, P.S. & Lois, C. 2012.
Examining cultural effects on distributed decision-making
processes using keyword analysis and data mining techniques.
International Journal of Business and System Research, 6(3),
313–335.
Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A. & Wilemon, D. 2004. Working together
apart? Building a knowledge sharing culture for global virtual
teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 15–29.
Chapter 13

Cultural Values

Introduction
In the distributed decision-making process, evidently, cul-
tural values play a crucial role in varied forms and manners
for global virtual team (GVT) participants. For example, two
extremes exist in how different cultures make decisions: (1) a
belief that people can make decisions based on one best way
or (2) a belief that the best way varies and is based on situa-
tion. In the latter case, the best way depends on the “values,
beliefs, and behavioral patterns of the people involved” (Adler
1997, p. 168). Hall (1976) supports this perspective in his
argument concerning context and content. People who place
greater emphasis on context make decisions based on affective
goals and situation (e.g., where, when, why, and with whom
they are dealing) called relationship orientation, whereas
people who place priority on content depend on instrumental
purposes or pragmatic goals called task orientation (Zakaria
et al. 2003). For this second type of people, decisions are less
dependent on situation; rather, they rely more on facts and fig-
ures. Therefore, this chapter discusses two aspects of cultural
values that are inherent in explaining the decision-making
behaviors of GVTs given their cultures: (1) individualistic

157
158 ◾ Culture Matters

versus collectivistic and (2) task oriented versus relationship

oriented.

Individualism versus Collectivism

In terms of cultural values, the individualism of low-context
participants favors accountability, self-opinion, and self-interest.
These qualities were given a priority over group-based inter-
ests, in contrast with high-context participants. For example,
Wutz took the initiative to ensure that Civil Society partici-
pants perfectly understood his position:

Hi Marion,
I (wutz) am the main responsible person for the
final language of the governance paragraph. I tried
to bring all discussed positions on extreme complex
issue into some simple key points. This simplification
opens unfortunately the door for misinterpretation.
The points you have raised are not in contradiction
with the proposed language and I see no basic prob-
lem, to harmonize the two approaches.
(see my comments below)….

Individualism was also evident when people agreed to take

up a task with statements like the following: “I would like to
volunteer to assume this role. Please put me down. I would
be happy to work on it with someone else” or “I would like
to invite you to…,” or “I had sent a program and registration
form to the plenary. It sits there for approval.” All these state-
ments highlight the act of self and are not in reference to other
people or other parties, nor do they allude to collective initia-
tives or projects; rather, they focus on a single person.
Aside from the tone of the message being individualistic,
the messages exhibit a high usage of singular pronouns such
 Cultural Values ◾ 159

as I, my, and your, as illustrated in this example (emphasis

added):

I like what you have outlined in this email below.

I think these are three concrete steps that will help
to bring Civil Society together for probably the most
important Prepcom of the WSIS process.
I particular like point No. 01 below. I think that
CS needs to be more active and engaging substan-
tively on the two main documents of the Summit
(Declaration and Plan of Action), especially due to
the fact that the purpose of Prepcom 3 is to complete
these documents for the Summit in December.
My comment is that perhaps we can have a one-
two page document ready before Prepcom 3 for all
of civil society and especially the newcomers (pos-
sibly could be distributed at the orientation session
sponsored by CONGO). It would include a list of
“past caucuses”, possible “new caucuses”, how to
schedule meeting space, etc.

For cultural values such as collectivism, results showed

that high-context participants emphasized the collective voice
rather than the individual voice. This was demonstrated by the
substantial use of plural pronouns such as we, our, and us. For
example, in the following message, the writer used the collec-
tive voice throughout.

Thanks to everyone who has sent in comments on

the document. We will do our best to incorporate
the suggested modifications. except, perhaps, any are
likely to be particularly polemical or that would con-
siderably lengthen the document. We will consider
what to do with the proposal on work/employment
(sent in Spanish). In effect this is an important issue
160 ◾ Culture Matters

and maybe we should give it the space even if it

means lengthening the document.
With respect to any other issues that are missing
and would require more lengthy development, we
should remember that there will also be space to
address more specific issues in greater detail in spe-
cific documents.
We would have liked to get the document out
earlier for comment but as much of the caucus input
only came in this week it was not possible. So those
who have made suggestions for modifications, it
would help us if you could send us specific and con-
cise language today. We want to finalize the docu-
ment by tomorrow to give time to those who prefer
to see the final version before endorsing it.
We cannot, of course, expect a consensus docu-
ment to be perfect for everyone; that is part of the
compromise that consensus implies.

Collectivism was also demonstrated by the fact that the

interest of the group was much more dominant than self-
interest. Many of the messages focused on collective opinions
or efforts. For example, this message projects a strongly uni-
fied voice from the Civil Society organization as they contest
the suggestions that were made by others:

We find the suggestions for regimentation in civil

society input to plenary, through the CSB, quite
disturbing, especially given the attention that went in
to organizing the time slots during the recent Paris
meeting. Also disturbing is the undertone of the
suggestions by the CSB co-chair, which we interpret
as an intent to restrict freedom of expression and
an introduction of censorship that is at odds with
core CS values. We strongly oppose the attempt to
use disagreements in a few caucuses as a pretext for
 Cultural Values ◾ 161

questioning the legitimacy of the CS plenary as a

whole, and attempting to usurp the responsibility for
content-related issues and concentrating this within
the CSB.

Similarly, this excerpt demonstrates the collective efforts

that were made by the World Forum on Community
Networking:

For our first issue, we have selected about ten civil

society lists, followed their discussions and prepared
summaries that have been translated in order to post
them on our site. This way, we hope to facilitate
exchanges between lists working in French, English
and Spanish and to allow a greater number of people
and organizations to be part of the discussions.

Collectivistic participants would often weave together

serious matters and peripheral issues in their messages.
Sometimes, the message digressed into anecdotal stories, for
example, “We were saddened to hear about the disastrous
earthquake in Iran and the many people who have died. If
there is any way that I can help with regard to mental health
information and services in the wake of disaster, please let me
know.” Collectivistic messages were sometimes related to the
main point, other times totally unrelated. Some high-context
participants sent messages asking after the well-being of spe-
cific participants or sent helpful messages to provide people
with extra information without even being asked. This behav-
ior suggests that collectivistic participants adopted affective or
expressive goals, whereas individualistic participants favored
instrumental or pragmatic goals.
The findings of our Civil Society study support those of
Mills and Clark (1982) who made the distinction between
communal and exchange relationships. They contend that
individualistic participants often try to maintain a balance
162 ◾ Culture Matters

between profit and loss in a relationship. Conversely, collec-

tivistic individuals look for the loyalty that is associated with
established relationships and put the needs of others first.
Their distinctive characteristics are well defined in Hofstede’s
(1980) work in which collectivism signifies a focus on tight or
strong ties, a close-knit bond not only between participants of
nuclear families but also among extended families. The envi-
ronment in which collectivist people live is most often group
or community based. As a result, according to Hofstede (1997),
collectivistic people “grow up and learn to think of themselves
as part of the ‘we’ group, a relationship which is not voluntary
but given by nature” (p. 50). For such people, the notion of
group is the accepted and unquestioned way of life.
It is useful to note that collectivistic people make a clear
distinction between in-group and out-group (Tayeb 2003;
Triandis 2002). This distinction is referred to as we (in-group)
versus they (out-group) and becomes a primary source of
identity and basis for loyalty. This distinction also serves as a
boundary that regulates behavior; it acts as a control mech-
anism by which individuals determine what, how, why, and to
whom information should or will be disclosed (Petronio 2000).
This boundary effect was evident in our study when collec-
tivistic participants expressed concerns and issues, offered
proposals, or presented their ideas. They seemed to disclose
a great deal of information (i.e., sent lengthy messages) to
the list members because they were considered the in-group,
a cohesive unit formed as they collaborated and worked
together toward common goals. Although we were unable to
compare this behavior with their behavior outside the list envi-
ronment, the long messages demonstrated that high-context
participants were willing to disclose their ideas in a generously
detailed manner.
The findings also showed that individuals often addressed
other participants explicitly, by name, at the beginning of
their message—very few of them did not mention a name.
Messages sometimes included a formal and polite salutation,
 Cultural Values ◾ 163

but it was personalized by the use of the recipient’s name.

This behavior is another sign of relationship orientation. The
sending of ambiguous messages with restricted codes also
suggests that they viewed other listserv participants as we,
since their vagueness indicates that they assumed that the
recipient would know exactly what the message was based on
or what context was being referred to.
This assumption of common knowledge is typical of high-
context communication. As Hall (1976) demonstrated, when
high-context people communicate, they often economize on
their words because they share the same context, and thus
few words are needed. In face-to-face communication, body
language, facial expressions, and gestures serve as signals or
cues to what the message means. When high-context people
communicate in the absence of nonverbal cues, some of the
information necessary for interpretation is stripped out, mak-
ing it difficult to decode the message. In these situations, high-
context participants often develop compensatory behaviors
(Walther and Parks 2002); this study uncovered several exam-
ples such as the use of emoticons to stand in for the tone of
voice or expression. Some examples are “sounds pretty good
to me! -” or “For more efficient use of capacities and ‘diversity
in real space’, - may I suggest that …”

Task Oriented versus Relationship Oriented

With the task-oriented Civil Society decision-making behaviors,
low-context participants demonstrated high levels of concern for
task orientation; they focused on pragmatic goals, resulting in
decisions that were factually based most of the time. According
to Triandis (2002), people who are individualistic place more
emphasis on rationality and thus make decisions based on
linear thinking or logic, whereas people who are collectivistic
place more emphasis on relatedness, making decisions more on
emotional or expressive grounds. As he explains it, “rationality
164 ◾ Culture Matters

refers to the careful computation of costs and benefits of rela-

tionship” while “relatedness refers to giving priority to relation-
ships and taking into account the need of others, even when
such relationships are not advantageous to the individual” (2002,
p. 24).
The findings in our Civil Society study clearly reflect
the above arguments that were made by Triandis, Zakaria,
Stanton, and Sarkar-Barney. For example, Civil Society par-
ticipants who are individualistic usually sent emails with firm
deadlines and clear instructions, such as when and how to
send documents in order to meet a deadline. These people
were more concerned with the outcome: meeting a deadline.
The tone of the message was highly task oriented, as shown
by the fact that no other subjects were mentioned. For exam-
ple, messages like “please send the document by [date]…”
were quite common among individualistic participants in the
plenary listserv. The obvious goal of such messages is instru-
mental, and relationship is a secondary objective (if present at
all).
Based on the above findings, those GVT members who
held individualistic goals clearly reflected their behaviors
through their task-oriented messages, which emphasize what
to do and who will do it—the structures, procedures, and
guidelines. Task-oriented messages are often straightforward
and short, although they can sometimes be lengthy if they
contain instructions and procedures. The following short mes-
sage sent by Kathryn highlights the things that needed to be
accomplished:

Hi Jimmy Punnel,
We are working on a French translation—this is
all voluntary work so if you have any contacts, much
appreciated…
Kathryn

Or this similar brief message from Renee:

 Cultural Values ◾ 165

Dear Adrian,
Sorry and thanks for reminding. Program and
registration form can be downloaded from www
.ngocongo.org. Click at WSIS.
Renee

On the other hand, a task-oriented message may contain an

agenda or the context for a meeting. For example, Edul sent
this invitation out:

I’d like to invite you to the first meeting of the Multi-

stakeholders Partnerships Familly of the CSB.
The agenda of the meeting will include the family
organization, the definition of the mission and pro-
gramming of activities. Room A, ITU, September 16,
from 2 PM to 4 PM.
Please, send me an email to register (only to know
the number of interested people) and help me to
invite more organizations by announcing this invita-
tion around you.
Edul Zaki

Another example of a task-oriented message is one that

provides clear instructions about a deadline to be met. This
straightforward message from Kathryn provides relevant infor-
mation so the recipients would know exactly what to do.

Dear all
If you would like to comment on the Civil Society
Draft Response to the 19th September Declaration,
please send comments to: [email protected] (not plenary
@wsis-cs.org) by 12 pm today.
Please send **exact text** not general comments as
we won’t have time to edit/process lengthy comments.
thanks
Kathryn
166 ◾ Culture Matters

Many of the messages also illustrated the relationship-

oriented construct. It was evident from the messages that
this construct was an accurate description of the socialization
of the participants. The behaviors reflected in the messages
showed that the participants attempted to establish some kind
of rapport or build networks and associations among and
within the Civil Society participants. In the messages, partic-
ipants refer explicitly to other participants when responding to
a message, for example, “Thank you and Timothy Rhodes for
all of your hard work at completing the reports and placing
them on the Internet.” The tone was definitely formal and yet
personal. Another example of relationship-oriented behavior
was when participants wrote courteous and warm phrases in
the very first paragraph. For example, Sandra dedicated one of
her messages simply to express gratitude:

I just want to thank everyone for the comments,

expressions of appreciation and constructive criticism
that has come in on the priorities document. With
more time we could no doubt have polished the text
further, but I think we have made important progress
in including more concrete proposals in relation to
previous documents.
I also want to thank everyone who has worked
hard on getting the document out. This was a truly
collective effort and the writing was shared among a
large group of people.
Sandra

Relationship-oriented people do not plunge into the subject

matter right away, nor do they state their opinions explicitly
in the opening paragraph. They first give a salutation or a
greeting, followed by a courtesy statement. Their opinion or
purpose only comes in the second paragraph or late in the
first paragraph, as exemplified in the following illustration
 Cultural Values ◾ 167

(emphasis added in bold and characteristic features identified

in square brackets):

Dear Mr. Kiefer, [formal salutation]

Thank you for your comments [statement of courtesy]
on the document presented on behalf of the Civil
Society, endorsed, amongst others, by the organiza-
tion I represent. As you suggest, there is a lot to dis-
cuss. That’s exactly the idea of the World Summit.
As for your last observation, concerning “some-
thing called community media”, I would like to
mention [statement of opinion] that we are talk-
ing about a huge and massive global phenomenon,
that prioritizes the use of communication for social
objectives. Your insinuations in the direction of state
intervention communication (“mouthpieces for cen-
tral or local authorities”) are absolutely incorrect.
Community media seek to fortify the democratiza-
tion of communication by active participation of all
actors in society, privileging the normally absent ones
(indigenous, women, youth, poor etc.).
Comments were made by our representatives in
the Intersessional Meeting in Paris that “the media
family” made observations about the document
presented by Civil Society. As you are acting as
coordinator of this family, and being myself a mem-
ber of this ‘family’, representing the Latin American
Association of Educational Radio (ALER, with 107
members in Latin America), I would like to remem-
ber [statement of tactfulness or diplomacy] you that,
as far as I am informed, there wasn’t any kind of
consultation organized amongst the members of the
media family. I duely respect your opinion [state-
ment of tactfulness/diplomacy] as a member of Civil
Society, but would ask you to respect the diversity
168 ◾ Culture Matters

of opinions within the media family whenever you

speak publicly on behalf of it.
Kind Regards,
Verner Vinson
P.D. Could you please be so kind [pleasant clo-
sure] to inform us, the members of the Media Family,
who else are being part of this important organiza-
tional body of the WSIS process?

In the preceding case, Verner clearly expresses his dis-

agreement and disappointment with the lack of respect that
was shown to him and his group, but he presents it in a
subtle, polite, and indirect manner. The tone of the message
is delicate and diplomatic, but one can clearly understand
the underlying message. Obviously, the writer is attempting
to maintain a harmonious atmosphere for relationship’s sake,
instead of creating conflict. He also sends the message with a
gracious tone by saying “please be so kind…” In short, high-
context individuals have more procedures or stages of commu-
nicating disagreement or discussing contentious issues.
Another insight from messages such as the following is that
people not only care about the tasks to be accomplished or
deadline to be met but also the well-being of the other partici-
pants. Fostering good relationships was one of their main con-
cerns before discussing other issues. Renee’s message is a good
example of this; it is affectionate and warm, and this tone obvi-
ously indicates the importance that she places on relationships.

Dear all,
I hope you made it all safely home or are otherwise
relaxing.
A quick response to questions which came up
in the last CT-Group regarding side events during
PrepCom-3: The Secretariat told us that no official
side events/roundtables are planned, because all
time and energy will be fixed on the negotiations.
 Cultural Values ◾ 169

However, NGOs/CSOs who want to organize a lunch

time presentation/panel event can do so, but are
responsible for the organization.
CONGO will keep you up date via www.prepcom
.net/wsis where you will find also complete coverage
of the Intersessional meeting.
I would like to thank CS Bureau, CS-CT, cau-
cuses and all who worked hard to move CS presence
forward. Although CS participation is still an uphill
struggle, many governments have recognized the
value of our contributions.
A big thanks also to the Secretariat, to Louise and
her team, for all her support.
Have a nice summer!
Best
Renee

In a similar vein, some participants made many references to

others by name, which showed that there were relational bonds
among these people. Because many of the messages did not
use specific names or refer to any person explicitly, mention-
ing names suggest that the writer knows and likes/respects that
person, either from personal contact (face-to-face meetings) or
through their correspondences via the email listserv. For exam-
ple, Isuzuki explicitly thanks specific individuals in the very
first line of his message: “Akihari and all, I appreciate your hard
work and good result”, or Marta’s note to Kathryn: “Hi Kathryn!
I was reading your paper…It’s very interesting” or Rince’s posi-
tive response: “MS, Indeed, this is a very good proposal.”
As a summary, it is crucial to take into account how people
communicate their goals in the decision-making process. The
communicative behaviors are dependent on whether they are
high- or low-context members. In specific, low-context members
who subscribed to individualistic cultural values displayed task-
oriented email messages for achieving the planned outcomes
and goals. Hence, the messages are straightforward and concise.
170 ◾ Culture Matters

High-context members who are from collectivistic cultures prefer

to share messages that are highly warm in their tone. However,
the messages could also be as objective in their plans and imple-
mentation as people from an individualistic culture. In essence,
the distinctive approaches and styles of communication lie in the
manner that the messages are communicated in different cultures.

References
Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational
Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/
Doubleday.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Hofstede, G. 1997. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind, 1st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mills, J. and Clark, M.S. 1982. Exchange and communal relation-
ships. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social
Psychology (pp. 121–144). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Petronio, S. (Ed.). 2000. Balancing the Secrets of Private Disclosures.
Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publishers.
Tayeb, M. 2003. International Management: Theories and Practices.
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Triandis, H.C. 2002. Generic individualism and collectivism. In
M.J. Gannon & K.L. Newman (Eds.), The Blackwell Handbook
of Cross-Cultural Management (pp. 16–46). Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publisher.
Walther, J.B. & Parks, M.R. 2002. Cues filtered out, cues filtered
in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In
M.L. Knapp & J.A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal
Communication, 3rd ed. (pp. 529–563). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Zakaria, N., Stanton, J.M. & Sarkar-Barney, S.T.M. 2003. Designing
and implementing culturally-sensitive IT applications: The
interaction of culture values and privacy issues in the Middle
East. Information Technology & People, 16, 49–75.
STRATEGIES AND V
COMPETENCIES
FOR MANAGING
GLOBAL VIRTUAL
TEAMS

Working together at a distance.

Marion Cliff was baffled and frustrated with the way that
people were working in her virtual teams. After much con-
templation, it dawned on her that there were some important
differences between working with her teams on-site in Taiwan
and her teams in the Texas office. For instance, what about
having to wait up late or into the wee hours to have a Skype
meeting with your colleagues in another continent when you
have already devoted a good 9–10 hours at the office that day?
Working with people who miss deadlines regularly because
they perceive time as flexible and feel that timelines can be
adjusted and stretched based on their schedule? Working with
people who keep silent when things go wrong because they
feel that they should try to solve it—until it’s too late and
172 ◾ STRATEGIES FOR MANAGING GVTs

things can no longer be fixed? Many other things occurred to

her that might be equally incomprehensible to her team mem-
bers. Not only was she working with people who were at a
distance, but they were also strangers to begin with. This was
very different from working on-site at an office, where you
know everyone’s strengths, weaknesses, and personal quirks!
Chapter 14

What Global Leaders

Should Know about
Managing “Working
Together at a Distance”

Introduction
Over the past few decades, management theory has encour-
aged organizations to stride ahead, confident in the belief
that leaders can be developed and shaped into a winning
character, defying the widespread maxim that “Leaders are
born, not made!” However, with the 21st century’s impetus of
globalization, organizations have transformed the workplace
into a boundaryless, innovative, and multicultural structure.
This new phenomenon has forced organizations to create
strategies that demand global leaders who are competent in
managing virtual teams that thrive on diversity in many forms.
Appropriate cross-cultural training needs to be developed and
disseminated because the current workplace is composed not
only of teams that are made up of heterogeneous members
but also teams whose members are noncollocated and are

173
174 ◾ Culture Matters

strangers to one another. To recruit and retain talents who can

shepherd a multicultural team to success in the virtual work-
place may seem like a daunting task for a human resource
manager. Instead, it may be more useful for a firm to train
its own people as global leaders to prepare them for dealing
with cross-cultural nuances and benefit from the synergies that
are created by heterogeneous team members. In the context
of global virtual teams (GVTs), then, the challenge is what
strategies should a firm employ to nurture and develop global
leaders who are culturally sensitive and competent to build
and manage a high-performing GVT? Does it require diverse
leadership characteristics, traits, values, and expectations?
Consider the culturally rooted challenges in the global
virtual workplace that is illustrated in the scenario mentioned
earlier in this section. What are the chances that such a situ-
ation could create conflict, frustration, confusion, and mis-
understanding between multicultural, noncollocated team
members? As a consequence of these difficulties, a company
may find itself with demotivated and uncommitted employees.
The reality is that, in many typical multinational corporations
(MNCs), working at a distance is challenging and stressful, yet
it can also be rewarding and exciting if handled properly. For
instance, people no longer need to travel thousands of miles
or suffer the turmoil and uncertainty of relocation and adjust-
ment, while the company avoids the cost of cross-cultural
counseling to prepare them for the expatriation process and
the cultural shocks that they might encounter. The noncollo-
cated workspace offers an innovative work structure in which
many operating costs can be reduced or even eliminated.
Similarly, many employees may find such opportunities deeply
satisfying, since they can learn from and about diverse multi-
cultural management and leadership styles.
On the other hand, cultural diversity poses heightened dif-
ficulties, and it can be a real challenge for people who have
never had the opportunity to work in a GVT structure. Even
those who have had GVT experience may still find it difficult
 What Global Leaders Should Know about Managing ◾ 175

to accomplish their goals due to inexperience in managing

both the cultural and virtual aspects of this work structure. In
each new heterogeneous team, leaders need to find unique
ways to manage members and allow new ways of working to
emerge out of different cultural values, attitudes, and practices.
At the organizational level, the key questions for the human
resource manager include the following: How can we recruit
new talent and new executives who can fit into the GVT
structure? How can we train and develop culturally competent
global leaders who are able to deal with virtual teams that are
composed of diverse cultural backgrounds? Does an employee
have what it takes to work in a virtual work structure? How
many will be willing to put up with these new challenges
when their workload or responsibilities in their own office are
competitive and demanding? With such questions in mind,
how does the human resource manager strategically plan for
their human capital? For example, should candidates be told
in detail about the GVT structure during their interview, or
should they be allowed to independently learn about it over
time?
In previous studies, scholars in the field of international
human resource management have clearly established that
failures in expatriate international assignments may be due to
many factors: inability to adjust to the environment, the lack of
tolerance from spouse and children, homesickness, inadequate
cultural orientation and preparation from their organization,
mismatched levels of expectations regarding achievement and
goals, uncompetitive and insufficient compensation and finan-
cial packages, and many others (Harzing 1995; Mendenhall &
Wiley 1994; Bird & Dunbar 1991; Oddou 1991; Tung 1987).
Nowadays, the work landscape has changed because mul-
tinational organizations depend heavily on GVTs to exploit
the synergistic values of human capital and eclectic talents
working at a distance. The physical workplace has become a
virtual workspace offering high mobility, flexibility, and acces-
sibility. As the saying goes, “Two heads are better than one”
176 ◾ Culture Matters

(or “Alone, we can do so little; together, we can do so much”);

this suggests the potential benefits if organizations fully com-
mit to the use of such teams. On the other hand, the lack of
opportunity to meet in person may pose psychological, mana-
gerial, and behavioral challenges. Despite this drawback, one
of the key advantages of GVTs is that firms do not need to
send their executives to a foreign country, and thus people no
longer need to relocate. Firms can save the cost of expatria-
tion; managers can avoid the stress of culture shock frequently
experienced by expatriates; and international human resource
managers no longer need to help expatriate employees cope
with the multiple issues that come with living in an unfamiliar
country.
Yet I question whether the GVT structure can totally
eliminate the impact of culture shock, since these teams
will include people from different cultures. GVTs are largely
dependent on or composed of heterogeneous members. Does
this imply that GVT members will experience virtual cultural
shock? After all, culture shock can arise from various sources:
working with strangers with whom one has no shared histori-
cal background and who have diverse communication styles,
different uses and functional roles of technology, large time
differences, and many others. Obviously, GVT members do not
need to undergo the expatriation process and its associated
stresses: no relocating agenda, no fuss of travelling for long
hours on the plane, no issues of family adjustment, no orienta-
tion to a new workplace, no repatriation difficulties when they
return home, and so on. But the cultural nuances remain. GVT
members will experience culture shock but in a different man-
ner; they will still need to adjust to their colleagues’ cultural
nuances and learn to work with strangers in a virtual work
sphere.
The findings of my research on GVTs and the use of email
have several important implications for the leaders of multina-
tional and international organizations, particularly with respect
to cross-cultural collaboration in a distributed environment.
 What Global Leaders Should Know about Managing ◾ 177

The collapse of the traditional hierarchical structure and the

emergence of a more flexible, loose organizational structure
provide new opportunities for collaboration by reducing the
barriers of geographical distance and time zones. Specifically,
my work offers an increased transparency and a greater
understanding of the diverse management styles and multiplic-
ity of cultures facing MNCs, and suggests methods for building
a more effective cross-cultural training that will boost cultural
awareness and sensitivity, teaching appropriate behaviors
for overcoming cultural differences, developing intercultural
online communication competencies, and designing cultur-
ally sensitive information technology applications for effective
electronic collaborative and communication tools. All of these
practical elements serve the goal of enabling people to col-
laborate effectively at a distance using a sociotechnical infra-
structure that is compatible and congruent with their varying
cultural value orientations and ideologies.
Leaders in MNCs who will manage GVTs need to consider
several elements that are central to any discussions of cul-
ture and GVTs. These elements are based on the following
perspectives.

Cultural Adjustments
Executives sent on assignment to a foreign country by their
parent company are known as expatriates. An expatriate is a
person who lives and works in a foreign country, relocating
from his or her home country to a host country. Expatriates
will generally work in the host country for a certain number
of years and need to adjust accordingly. Such adjustment is
known as the expatriation process, whereby people learn to
behave in accordance with the host country’s norms based on
their observations of others. According to the classic model
introduced by Oberg (1960), the expatriation process has four
phases. The first is the honeymoon phase in which executives
178 ◾ Culture Matters

or managers experience a sense of euphoria when manage-

ment asks them to move to another country. Everything seems
encouraging and delightful. They are excited, anticipating that
they will get global exposure, gain knowledge and expertise,
and perhaps get promoted. During the honeymoon phase,
expatriates view travel to a new and exciting foreign land as
an excellent opportunity. They look forward to a new work-
place with challenging tasks and new people with new behav-
iors, values, and attitudes. At this stage, people usually do not
regret the decision to go far away from home. They feel fully
prepared to take on the challenges, and, when they arrive at
their new workplace, they encounter warm greetings from
their new colleagues, a pleasant boss, and a friendly work
environment conducive to success.
In Oberg’s second stage, conflicts begin to arise due to
culture shock, which is the inability to adjust and assimi-
late to the new culture in the host country. According to
Browaeys and Price (2010), the concept of culture shock
was introduced as far back as the late 1950s. Culture shock
is defined as the uncertainty and anxiety that arise when
people are confronted with a new culture and subsequently
experience feelings of loss, confusion, and social and
cultural unimportance/low status in the new workplace.
Culture shock also occurs when an executive encounters
conflicts that are rooted in clashing cultural values, norms,
and rituals. As one might expect, culture shock usually leads
to unpleasant consequences. Numerous studies have estab-
lished that many expatriates fail in their international assign-
ments (Bird & Dunbar 1991; Oddou 1991). Instead of staying
abroad for the committed number of years, they came back
much earlier than expected, sometimes within less than a
year. What happened? What are the causes? If an expatri-
ate fails to tolerate and accept the difficulties encountered
in his or her new locale, both the home country and the
host country management will be disappointed, their col-
leagues will be left with many perplexing questions, and
 What Global Leaders Should Know about Managing ◾ 179

their families will be apprehensive and disheartened. What

is the cause of this expatriation disappointment? Is it due to
the difficulty of accepting culturally related changes during
this stage?
The third phase in the expatriation process is adjustment
or stability. To reach this phase, the expatriate must fully
understand the nature and characteristics of the host culture
and accept the cultural differences. One of the defining char-
acteristics of culture is that it is learned by a society or group
of people over time rather than inherited. Culture is also
dynamic (not static) and transferable from one generation to
another. Therefore, from a cultural standpoint, the adjustment
process, as experienced by an expatriate, can have different
outcomes. According to Rice & Rogers (1980), people first go
through the process of screening cultural characteristics and
selecting which to adopt. People evaluate these new cultural
characteristics based on whether they are (1) better or more
useful, (2) consistent with existing practices, (3) easily learned,
(4) identifiable through trial and error, and (5) recognized
as beneficial by all people ascribing to that society. Second,
this cultural borrowing is a reciprocal process. People who
undergo the organizational and cultural change and the peo-
ple who are making the changes need to be equally accept-
ing. It cannot be a one-way process. Third, the transference of
culture may not be flawless; that is, newcomers to the culture
may not recreate or adopt it in its original form; they may
eliminate some things and introduce new things. Leaders may
model certain practices by making modifications to fit with the
current context and culture, both organizational and national.
Fourth, it is not easy to transfer the patterns of behaviors,
belief systems, and values (p. 179, para 2). As Ferraro (2010)
says, “[S]ome cultural practices are more easily diffused than
others” (p. 33). There is a strong interaction between organiza-
tional culture and the indigenous or local culture. In order to
understand the organizational leadership of an organization,
we need to observe both the impact of organizational culture
180 ◾ Culture Matters

on leadership practices and the influence of national cultural

values on the development of leadership behaviors.
The last phase is called adaptation. In this stage, expatri-
ates have attuned their minds, emotions, and behaviors to a
new way of doing things. Simply awareness and acceptance
are insufficient; expatriates must be able to assimilate and
acculturate to the new way of doing things in their host
country. Some people adopt a certain value because it is
similar to their own or because it lets them exercise both
their lifestyle and work values. What makes people resist
accepting new values? Some of the cultural values observed
in the new workplace may not be consistent with their own.
Other cultural values take time to change—for example,
time orientation. In some cultures, people think nothing of
coming to a meeting 15 minutes late; this lateness is part
and parcel of the way that they do things at work since, for
them, time is not money and is therefore relatively unim-
portant. This may be difficult to accept for someone from
a culture that values time and punctuality and considers
it wasteful not to meet due dates and deadlines. Similarly,
in a high power distance culture, the boss will walk into a
meeting and tell everyone what needs to be done, giving
instructions without further discussions. Their authority is
a manifestation of the bureaucratic and hierarchical orga-
nizational structures within which they function and is a
symbol of status, but it may be off-putting to someone who
is accustomed to a more collegial boss/employee relation-
ship. All these cultural values embedded in one’s thinking,
perceptions, and actions take time to change. People cannot
change overnight, even if the organization has trained them
in and exposed them to diverse cultural values. Changes in
human behavior are hard to achieve because internal change
takes longer than changes to systems, infrastructures, and
policy. Yet acculturation must take place for expatriates to
achieve a smooth adaptation.
 What Global Leaders Should Know about Managing ◾ 181

Are You Experiencing Virtual Cultural Shock?

For many decades, knowledge of the expatriation process
has allowed organizations to plan for the impact of expatriate
employees’ adjustments when they first move to a host coun-
try. A new workplace means a high probability of adjustment
failure, dependent on the cultural distance between the home
and the host country and the degree of shift from the old to
the new value orientation. Despite the reduction in culture
shock when a person no longer has to travel thousands of
miles, a new process of adjustment takes place reflecting the
impact of cultural shocks on the virtual work structure. In
the GVT context, global leaders still need to manage a simi-
lar cultural adjustment process because team members come
from many different cultural backgrounds. Global leaders need
to understand the team process: how it is formed and how
it functions. Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) teamwork model
illustrates the typical process of team development (refer to
Figure 14.1).
According to Tuckman and Jensen, in the first phase, form-
ing, members begin the process of getting to know each other.
This is an ice-breaker stage wherein members are strangers
to one another; they have little or no understanding of the

1
2
3
Forming 4
Stormin 5
g
Normin
g Perform
ing
Adjourn
ing

Figure 14.1 Stages of group development. (From Tuckman, B.W. &

Jensen, M.C., Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419–427, 1977.)
182 ◾ Culture Matters

other team members or of their past performance. At this

point, people will be in the honeymoon phase; they will be
excited and enthusiastic about meeting their GVT colleagues
for the first time and looking forward to starting the project,
although they have no grounds as yet to trust one another. In
the second stage, storming, members may experience con-
flicts or difficulties in adjusting to their tasks. This stage is
where culture shock often occurs. During this stage, the team
members undergo a negotiation process in which roles, dead-
lines, responsibilities, and tasks are spelled out, and a leader
is assigned or emerges; this process allows them to begin to
understand and trust one another. At this stage, continued
conflict or a mishandled crisis can damage this trust that is
beginning to develop.
During the next stage, known as norming, team members
develop a clearer understanding of what needs to be done;
norms, procedures, and routines are put in place; and conflicts
are resolved. The stage is also known as adjustment because,
by this time, team members have learned a little about each
other and have begun to trust one another despite their cul-
tural nuances and differences. During the next stage, perform-
ing, teams become more comfortable with one another; at this
stage, trust is fully developed, and people work as cohesively
as possible. This stage also prepares team members for adjust-
ment and, eventually, adaptation, as members become accul-
turated to the cultural diversity of others.
Global leaders need to manage cultural adjustments and
map them against the teamwork model to understand how
virtual cultural shock can be minimized or even eliminated
in order to achieve a high-performing team. Virtual cultural
shock needs to be managed the same way as the normal
version. Although the source of virtual culture shock may be
different, and its effects are less detrimental, GVT members
will still encounter such challenges because the stranger phe-
nomenon is at work. A stranger can be conceptualized when
team members are assembled to work on a project without
 What Global Leaders Should Know about Managing ◾ 183

the opportunities to meet each other either before or after

the project takes off. It is a common strategy for many MNCs
to cut the cost of travelling and expatriation, and thus, often-
times, members do engage, communicate, and collaborate
without meeting with each other face to face and have to learn
to develop trust over time. It is only when the initial crisis
of adjustment to one another has been resolved that norms
are established, team members perform optimally as trust
strengthens, the dynamics of the team evolve, and collabora-
tion becomes more solid. The successful accomplishment of
intermediate goals will further reinforce the trust that is being
built. In the last stage, adjourning, their tasks have been
accomplished, and the team members disperse, perhaps expe-
riencing a feeling of loss since they have developed relation-
ships and friendships with their colleagues.
Trust formation varies across the five stages; global leaders
need to understand the level of trust and the speed (or slow-
ness) of its growth in each of the stages. Each stage will have
different challenges that need to be managed appropriately
and in congruence with the cultural preferences and styles of
the team’s members.

References
Bird, A. & Dunbar, R. 1991. Getting the job done over there:
Improving expatriate productivity. National Productivity
Review, 10(2), 145–156.
Browaeys, M.-J. & Price, R. 2010. Understanding Cross Cultural
Management. London: Prentice Hall.
Ferraro, G.P. 2010. The Cultural Dimension of International
Business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harzing, A.W. 1995. The persistent myth of high expatriate failure
rates. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
6, 457–475.
Mendenhall, M.E. & Wiley, C. 1994. Strangers in a strange land: The
relationship between expatriate adjustment and impression
management. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(5), 605–620.
184 ◾ Culture Matters

Oberg, K. 1960. Cultural shock: Adjustment to new cultural environ-

ments. Practical Anthropology, 7, 177–182.
Oddou, G. 1991. Managing your expatriates: What the successful
firms do. Human Resource Planning, 14(4), 301–309.
Rice, R.E. & Rogers, E.M. 1980. Reinvention in the innovation
process. Knowledge Creation, Diffusion and Utilization, 1(4),
499–514.
Tuckman, B.W. & Jensen, M.C. 1977. Stages of small group develop-
ment revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419–427.
Tung, R.L. 1987. Expatriate assignments: Enhancing success and
minimising failure. Academy of Management Executive, 1(2),
117–126.
Chapter 15

Why GVT Leaders

Need Intercultural
Competencies

Intercultural Competency Is Indispensable

to Global Virtual Teams
Why does culture matter in a teamwork environment?
Specifically, in what ways does culture matter when teams
are collaborating in a virtual space—when they are work-
ing together at a distance? Hall (1976) asserted that “culture is
communication and communication is culture” (p. 65). A per-
son’s culture and communication cannot be separated, since
both are intertwined and interdependent in terms of attitudes,
values, and behaviors. The research that I have conducted
clearly demonstrates that cultural behaviors are derived from
the communication style and that the communication style is
rooted in cultural values.
Challenges arise when teams use computer-mediated tech-
nology for communicating because such platforms lack the
nonverbal cues that are essential for cultures that depend on
context for effective communication. Other cultures depend

185
186 ◾ Culture Matters

largely on text, whether written or verbal; for them, using

computer-mediated technology as a platform for collaboration
makes cultural differences less salient, thus equalizing the team
members’ ability to work together. Inevitably, a wide range
of challenges can arise that intensify the effects of culture on
global virtual teams (GVTs); such issues need to be directly
and openly addressed, hence the need for global leaders to
have strong cultural competencies. Past studies have clearly
established the contradictory effects of culture on the GVT
performance. Whereas some scholars agree that culture does
influence the way people manage and collaborate in a team
setting (Cogburn & Levinson 2003), others argue that culture
has no impact on the way that people collaborate when using
computer-mediated communication (CMC) (Shachaf 2008).
The readiness of an organization to fully employ the GVT
work structure is directly dependent on developing GVT
leaders and team members who are culturally competent. In
this chapter, I present what I call the cognition, emotion, and
behaviors (CAB) of intercultural competency. These three
aspects form the answers to crucial questions such as “Are you
aware of and knowledgeable about different cultural values?
Can you tolerate and be sensitive to the cultural nuances of
others? Can you emulate and then acculturate to new cultural
values and reshape your behaviors accordingly?” First, how-
ever, let us define the concept of intercultural competency.

What Is Intercultural Competency?

Ferraro (2010) defines culture as “everything that people have,
think and do as members of their society” (p. 20). In the
“Cultural Characteristics” section in Chapter 4, I use the onion
model (Barsoux & Schneider 1998) to illustrate the many lay-
ers of culture: artifacts, values/beliefs, and basic assumptions
and behaviors. GVT leaders need to be familiar with Ferraro’s
definition, as well as the idea of multiple layers of culture,
 Why GVT Leaders Need Intercultural Competencies ◾ 187

in order to competently manage team members with differ-

ent cultural backgrounds. Koester et al. (1993) conceptualized
intercultural competence as having three aspects: (1) culture-
general understanding, (2) culture-specific understanding,
and (3) positive regard of the other. Chen and Starosta (1997)
suggested that the process of developing intercultural commu-
nication competence also has three aspects: (1) cultural aware-
ness, (2) cultural sensitivity, and (3) cultural adroitness. These
findings suggest that leaders need to observe what people
think and do by practicing awareness, sensitivity, and specific
behavioral approaches. One way of thinking about this is the
CAB Intercultural Competency Framework, discussed in depth
as follows.
Acculturation is the process whereby people learn to
behave in a particular way based on their observations of
a cultural role model. In the context of GVTs, team mem-
bers need to fully understand the cultural differences pres-
ent within the team before acculturation can take place. Each
member of the team needs to acknowledge and recognize
how he or she works within the team environment, as well as
how and why others work the way that they do. Team mem-
bers must not only tolerate but also accept these differences
if their heterogeneous team is to be successful. An important
role of the GVT leader is to model proper behavior for their
team and help their team members become aware of their
behavioral characteristics. Acculturation is not merely about
changing one’s personality or character; rather, it means each
person adapting to and shaping the way that the team works
so that the team can blend together into a smoothly function-
ing unit. The GVT work structure also demands changes in
the way that people communicate and collaborate since it
requires the use of CMC, including social media tools such as
Facetime, Skype, WhatsApp, Twitter, Messenger, and so on.
Some might question the need for culturally competent
GVT leaders when the team members may never meet in
person, since they are collaborating at a distance. In fact,
188 ◾ Culture Matters

GVT leaders will confront many cultural idiosyncrasies,

even—sometimes, especially—in the virtual workplace. For
example, team members will likely bring to the table differ-
ent management practices, communication styles, decision-
making and negotiation styles, conflict resolution methods,
and time management ideas, among other things. Skilled GVT
leaders will be able to find the right fit and balance between
their own cultural values and the new multicultural context in
which they are now operating. Additionally, leaders will need
to encourage cultural awareness within the team using the
knowledge and information that they acquired during cross-
cultural training and instill cultural sensitivity by fostering toler-
ance and appreciation and by modeling the desired behaviors.
In other words, they need to take action in the right way.
To build high-performing GVTs, organizations must
develop cross-cultural competencies in their employees.
These cultural competencies need to align with and accom-
modate the GVT work structure. To be effective leaders, as
well as managers, employees will need to develop strong
cultural competencies, incorporating a high level of cul-
tural awareness, sensitivity, and behavior. With respect to
GVTs, team members need to develop a similar set of skills
as expatriates who travel, work, and live in another coun-
try. Unlike expatriate employees, GVT members need not
adjust to living abroad, but, in a sense, they are still working
abroad, and, as such, they will undergo the same cognitive
and emotional challenges of adjusting to people of different
cultures. The process is similar to the expatriation adjustment
process, though without all its phases. For example, working
with new colleagues who are total strangers may require a
high degree of awareness of how others think and function.
People need to be culturally savvy when working with oth-
ers who have different work styles, time management habits,
decision-making processes, negotiation skills, and so on.
These differences may be detrimental to team success if they
are not properly understood and appreciated.
 Why GVT Leaders Need Intercultural Competencies ◾ 189

CAB Intercultural Competency Framework

Cultural competency has three aspects, which, together, form
the basis for the CAB Intercultural Competency Framework
(Zakaria 2000; Chen & Starosta 1997):

1. Cognitive—cultural awareness—what is culture, and who

is affected by it? At this level, people form perceptions
about others who are different from themselves. They
begin to form perspectives about others, with or without
any background knowledge about the specific culture.
This aspect, if not modified by the other two, can lead
people to formulate stereotypes, defined as a generalized
opinion about all the members of a cultural group based
on limited knowledge. GVT members will need both gen-
eral and culture-specific training on what to do and what
not to do so as to form accurate, well-rounded perceptions.
2. Affective—cultural sensitivity—why do we need to under-
stand people who are different from us? At this level, team
members may feel threatened or uncomfortable when their
way of working is questioned by others. Those who are
ignorant of these differences, and of the stress created by
them, may unintentionally offend or hurt others.
3. Behavioral—cultural adroitness—how can we better
understand other people’s differences? What actions can
we take that are appropriate and relevant to the people
whom we are leading and managing? When ought we to
behave in accordance with a cultural condition or situa-
tion? This can be challenging for people with no experi-
ence working in an environment where different cultural
values come into contact. Team leaders without such
experience may not know what to do or how to behave
respectfully toward other cultures.

Figure 15.1 demonstrates how these three aspects feed into

one another and can be used as a basis for developing all
190 ◾ Culture Matters

Cognitive Affective
skills skills
CULTURAL
AWARENESS
With knowledge Once team members
and information are sensitive to and
about a culture, a appreciative of cultural
person will have CROSS-CULTURAL differences, they
heightened C
COMPETENCIES demonstrate
sensitivity and AD UL L
A Y appropriate behaviors
RO TU R
U I T
tolerance toward by taking effective
IT RA LT TIV
differences in NE L CU NSI actions to avoid any
cultural values, SS
SE cultural blunders and
attitudes, and misunderstandings.
beliefs.
Behavioral
skills

By modelling appropriate behaviors, other

people can learn. In turn, these individuals
can model behaviors and thus educate others.
Then new knowledge is created and cultural
awareness is increased over time, and people
become more sensitive and tolerant on
cultural diversity.

Figure 15.1 CAB Intercultural Competency Framework. (Adapted from

Zakaria, N., The possibility of water-cooler chat? Developing commu-
nities of practice for knowledge sharing within global virtual teams,
in M. Raisinghani (Ed.), Handbook of Global Information Technology,
Chapter IV (pp. 1–14), New York: Information Science Reference, 2008;
Chen, G.M. & Starosta, W.J., Human Communication, 1, 1–16, 1997.)

three types of cross-cultural competencies: behavioral, cogni-

tive, and affective (Zakaria 2008).
Some people find working with colleagues from different
cultures appealing and exciting, whereas others find it frus-
trating and challenging. The key questions are whether or
not such experiences help to develop and build cultural com-
petency, whether or not they enable participants to discover
more about themselves and their own culture, and whether or
not it helps participants to know others better.
For example, some people may express frustration with
working across time zones since it makes it difficult to interact
in real time. Team members in Asia, for example, will be 12
hours apart from their colleagues in North America. Members
 Why GVT Leaders Need Intercultural Competencies ◾ 191

from the same time zone may end up discussing team busi-
ness among themselves, leaving their colleagues from other
time zones to catch up when they awake. Or ideas may be
deliberated at different times, making it difficult to reconcile
and negotiate in real time, unless members are willing to split
the difference (some stay up late; others get up early) or delay
the decision-making process. Many people report that wait-
ing up for meetings off their accustomed time schedule makes
them exhausted and anxious. Others report feeling demoti-
vated when their colleagues are not collaborating. Team mem-
bers may fail to communicate these concerns and simply keep
their silence. With such a wide range of cultural challenges, it
is important for all team members to be aware of the nuances
of cultural values that affect the development of the trust that
is necessary for achieving a cohesive team. Some team mem-
bers will develop a high level of trust for their colleagues
based on demonstrated progress toward the set goals—for
example, if they see their colleagues working hard to meet
deadlines. This approach is known as task orientation. Others
will trust their colleagues only after developing a relationship
with them—for them, trust evolves naturally over time. This
approach is known as relationship orientation. Given these
cultural differences, GVT leaders need to carefully manage
and harmonize the first stages of forming the team. How can
the GVT leader develop a balanced strategy? For example,
he or she needs to create a warm and welcoming climate for
a group of strangers who are coming into contact with one
another for the first time. Some kind of ice-breaker activity
may speed up the rapport-building stage for those who are
relationship oriented. At the same time, for those who are task
oriented, the leader will need to incorporate the agenda and
goals of the project so that these team members feel a sense
of direction and clearly understand the goals.
Organizations, for decades, have spent time planning and
organizing various kinds of training for their executives who
will be going abroad for international assignments. The same
192 ◾ Culture Matters

type of training is necessary for those who are virtually going

abroad through a GVT. The aim of all these cross-cultural
training sessions is to increase the cultural competency of
GVT leaders and members who will be working with people
from different cultures—an experience similar to that of expa-
triates. The following subsections explore the three parts of
the CAB model in detail.

Cognitive Aspect
Understanding cultural differences usually takes place at the
cognitive or thinking level. Cultural competence begins with
knowledge about cultural diversity. Cultural values are nor-
mally learned first at the cognitive level—whether learning
about other cultural values or about one’s own cultural values.
At this initial stage, information about unfamiliar culture(s)
needs to be first acquired and then fully understood; this
may include differences surrounding the basics such as food,
climate, language, geography, time, and so on. This cog-
nitive process relies on increasing self-awareness: a good
understanding of one’s own cultural peculiarities. With this
improved understanding, a person can learn to better appreci-
ate others’ differences, as well as accurately predict the effects
of their behavior on others.
Additionally, at the cognitive level, a person needs to have
relevant information and an understanding of culture. Only
with the appropriate cultural training, the cultural knowledge
can be fully acquired. At this level, once a person obtained
concrete knowledge, it allows one to accurately interpret and
make sense of the cultural situation that is faced by them.
Also, with cultural knowledge, a person will use their intel-
lectual capability to analyze and reason out the cultural chal-
lenges faced. Solid cognitive intellectual capacity of cultural
differences will lead to cultural sensitivity.
Thus, awareness of oneself and one’s own culture is as
important as awareness of another’s. At the cognitive level,
 Why GVT Leaders Need Intercultural Competencies ◾ 193

people are expected to know two things: (1) themselves and

(2) others. Yet it is difficult for a person to learn about others if
he or she does not fully know why he himself or she herself
does things the way that he or she does. The phrase knowing
me, knowing you summarizes a balanced approach in which
people discover their own and others’ cultural values, attitudes,
and beliefs. It is human nature not to question one’s own
culturally learned behaviors—but, when one observes people
from another culture and compares what they do with what
one normally does, it opens one’s eyes. Therefore, a leader
needs to learn about the most basic layer of culture by search-
ing for information and building a knowledge base about the
new culture(s) that he or she encounters. At this level, both the
organization and the leader are responsible for obtaining as
much general and specific cultural knowledge as possible.
To have the best hope of success, an organization must
provide cross-cultural training for its employees who will be
leading GVTs, with the goal of helping managers effectively
integrate their GVT members into a cohesive whole. Leaders
need to think creatively about how to balance their team’s
diversity of cultural backgrounds. This is less challenging,
obviously, for a leader whose team members all originate from
a single country or from culturally similar countries. For exam-
ple, suppose that a leader from Thailand is asked to manage
a team that includes members from South Korea. The leader
needs to understand a single new set of cultural values (South
Korean). But suppose that a leader from America is asked
to manage a GVT that is composed of members from Spain,
Japan, and India. This leader now needs to be equipped with
an understanding of three new cultures. This is the scenario
that MNCs often face. The most important skill to develop at
this stage is a high level of cultural awareness, built on a thor-
ough knowledge of the culture(s) in question and a mind-set
that is attuned to diverse cultural values. Such leaders need to
be open minded and mentally prepared so that they can avoid
the stereotypical perceptions of members from other cultures.
194 ◾ Culture Matters

Affective Aspect
At the second level of cultural competence, a person will
develop emotional intelligence that is useful for under-
standing culture, and it involves affective skills. A person is
required to look deeper than simple cognitive knowledge or
logic. Once we accept someone’s cultural differences at the
rational and cognitive level, we can be tolerant and apprecia-
tive of their uniqueness. With concrete cultural knowledge,
at the affective level, a person is expected to develop a high
level of sensitivity when confronted with cultural frustrations.
Once a person is considerate and appreciative of cultural
differences, they will also become composed, patient, and
flexible when faced with myriad cultural complexities. It also
becomes easier for a leader to acknowledge that he or she
is different and to ensure that such differences will not be a
barrier to working together. A person will try to adjust and
take preventive measures to overcome the differences. At this
level also, a person will use their own intuition, wisdom, and
values to make sense of cultural synergies that are obtained
by working with others. In a similar vein, with a strong cog-
nitive foundation, global leaders would become fully aware
of cultural differences, which, in turn, can make them sensi-
tive to cultural nuances.
What is cultural sensitivity? Cultural sensitivity is when a
person is able to put himself or herself in another’s shoes, to
accept the differences with an open heart and without emo-
tional strain. Cultural sensitivity is difficult to achieve because
human beings often become emotional when faced with a
situation that they cannot comprehend. Instead of reasoning
things out cognitively, based on logic or knowledge, people
tend to resort to emotions. To overcome this, people must
learn to make inferences and interpret various types of com-
munication. For example, people need to be familiar with both
verbal and nonverbal communication patterns so that they
can communicate equally well with both people who depend
 Why GVT Leaders Need Intercultural Competencies ◾ 195

heavily on words and people who rely on cues such as facial

expression, body movements, gestures, personal space, and so
on. They can then be more sensitive to the body language of
others.
To take another example, a person may be aware that,
in Asian countries like Malaysia or Indonesia, people gener-
ally have a relaxed attitude toward time and are therefore
not always punctual. To an outsider, this may come across
as a lack of urgency or poor time management. Deadlines
may need to be extended. According to Trompenaars and
Hampden-Turner (1997), a culture that ascribes to a mono-
chronic time dimension, as do many Western countries (e.g.,
the United States, Germany), will adhere to time strictly. Time
is viewed as linear in which only one thing takes place at
a time. On the other hand, for people belonging to a poly-
chronic culture (e.g., Thailand, Indonesia), time is flexible, and
people can do many things at once. Imagine a GVT leader
who needs his or her team to make an important decision;
now, imagine that the team is composed of members from
both monochronic and polychronic cultures. How might a
leader with such knowledge accommodate such differences
when he or she needs every team member to make decisions
on time and punctually? The leader will need to educate his
or her team about such differences so that they can appreci-
ate the timeline of the work and acknowledge an appropriate
sensitivity to time. As stated earlier in this section, cultural
sensitivity means the ability to perceive and adapt to differ-
ent situations in order to achieve harmony and cohesiveness
among colleagues from diverse cultures.

Behavioral Aspect
By being culturally sensitive, a person will be more observant
and perceptive of one’s own actions and others’ actions. A
person will naturally adapt and mimic the behaviors of others
to obtain culturally appropriate behaviors. Hence, appropriate
196 ◾ Culture Matters

behavior occurs when people have sufficient basic and spe-

cific knowledge about a culture and have learned to be toler-
ant, responsive, and open to cultural differences. Only then
can he or she demonstrate acquired behavioral skills. Armed
with both knowledge and sensitivity, people will perform
more effectively and efficiently in the workplace and interact
cohesively in a GVT.
However, it is not easy to correctly emulate a cultural
behavior without a solid understanding of and sensitivity to
that culture. Human behaviors are complex, even more so
when rooted in different cultural values. Culture is also com-
plex, and this combination of complexities makes it exceed-
ingly difficult for change to happen at the behavioral level.
Human behaviors cannot be changed overnight. It takes time
to change attitudes, perceptions, and values. Only when a
leader keeps an open mind to see and acknowledge the dif-
ferences within his or her team and an open heart to readily
accept and appreciate those differences can the appropriate
behaviors be modeled and, ideally, emulated. At this stage,
a person may achieve acculturation, wherein he or she has
learned to accept, adapt, and then replicate what is observed.
This process is easier when the person is convinced that there
is a good reason for doing so and is the last stage of achiev-
ing cultural competency. A person can also become innovative
through re-creation by performing an action that is based on
his or her understanding and knowledge of culture. Once the
innovative actions and behaviors are acceptable to others in a
particular culture, that new knowledge is further added to the
cognitive intellect of a person.
In the GVT context, people often work with strangers in
a virtual space and cannot observe their physical behaviors.
For such behaviors to be solid, a leader needs to model the
desired behavior for his or her team members. For example,
a communication style that is direct and straightforward can
be perceived as rude and harsh by a culture that appreciates
 Why GVT Leaders Need Intercultural Competencies ◾ 197

subtlety and indirection. How can a GVT leader steer delibera-

tion, the discussion of issues, and decision making if he or she
is not sensitive to the various ways that people communicate?
How can a GVT leader avoid cultural blunders that might
harm the group relationship or negatively affect the task to be
accomplished? Leaders need to take a proactive role in model-
ing the right behaviors for their team. Once the leader shows
the correct way to behave in a culturally fraught situation, the
members can follow suit; this, in turn, promotes a sense of
bonding among the members because they can then work in a
more cohesive manner. Through the right conduct and actions,
members will gain cultural experience and can subsequently
educate others on what is appropriate and inappropriate.
Creation of new knowledge will increase as more people gain
experience working in GVTs.
A leader might have a so-called cultural blind spot, mean-
ing they do not know what a given culture considers required,
acceptable, or taboo. A cultural blind spot could indicate sim-
ple ignorance, or it may imply that the person fails to take into
account anything other than what he or she personally finds
acceptable. Such a person is referred to as ethnocentric, mean-
ing they hold the belief that their way of doing things is the
best way. GVT leaders need to model culturally appropriate
behaviors by acting in ways that are appropriate and relevant
to the team that they are managing.
In sum, these three aspects are presented as a set of
guidelines for GVT leaders to use in developing their cultural
competency (see Chapter 17). The model is not only based
on sequential stages; it also introduces a cyclical process
wherein any of the stages can take place first and be fol-
lowed by any of the others. Cultural knowledge is required
before the affective/emotional aspect can be reached, and it
presents the third stage (behavior) as result[ing] when people
have sufficient basic and specific knowledge about a culture
and have learned to be tolerant, responsive, and open to
198 ◾ Culture Matters

cultural differences. As the name CAB denotes, these rep-

resent the basic ingredients for a skillful leader of GVTs. It
is useful to note that cultural challenges can arise at any of
the stages, and different competencies may be required. An
affective issue may arise when a leader reacts emotionally
to a cultural disparity; with the right knowledge, however,
the leader can suppress his or her instinctive reaction and
instead respond with more sensitivity. The cognitive stage
may be a trigger point for someone who is ignorant of cul-
tural differences, but, when equipped with the appropriate
knowledge, the person may be more appreciative of what he
or she perceived at first as silly or ridiculous. The behavioral
stage can be puzzling or irritating when a leader observes
certain behaviors. As such, the stage can also be an initiat-
ing process when a leader observes certain behaviors that
are not the norm—but, if the leader has the requisite cultural
knowledge, he or she can recognize the roots of the behav-
ior and resolve the issue.
In addition to the CAB intercultural framework, there are
many other dimensions on which leaders can build compe-
tency. For instance, Adrian Furnham (http://adrianfurnham
.com), a renowned behavioral psychologist and professor
with experience in teaching more than 28 nationalities in the
United Kingdom, points out that “The world is getting smaller
each day and although we may be ethnically different, human
beings are quite homogenous” (Friday Magazine). He argues
that leaders can be trained and developed and that there is not
necessarily such a thing as a born leader. Cultural differences
need not be a barrier to becoming a competent global leader,
since any individual with sufficient inspiration and dedication
can choose to educate himself or herself culturally. Furnham
identifies seven dimensions that organizations can use when
developing cross-culturally competent leaders (see Table 15.1).
 Why GVT Leaders Need Intercultural Competencies ◾ 199

Table 15.1 Dimensions of Global Leadership in the Context

of GVTs
Leadership Dimension Cultural Context
Cultural immersion Ability to acculturate to a new environment
with different cultural values, beliefs, and
behaviors
Capability Possession of the necessary leadership skills,
both in qualifications and experience
Care Ability to be compassionate, to express
empathy for and care about the well-
being of those whom they lead
Connection Ability to interact effectively with a variety
of people, develop relationships, and
make connections easily
Consciousness Awareness of one’s surroundings and of the
changes in one’s environment, particularly
when dealing with cultural diversity
Context Possession of a well-defined perspective
for developing measures and strategies to
cope with a GVT’s cultural dynamics
Contrast Ability to compare cultural behaviors

References
Barsoux, J.-L. & Schneider, S.C. 1997. Managing Across Cultures.
London: Prentice Hall.
Chen, G.M. & Starosta, W.J. 1997. A review of the concept of inter-
cultural sensitivity. Human Communication, 1, 1–16.
Cogburn, D.L. & Levinson, N.S. 2003. US-Africa virtual collaboration
in globalization studies: Success factors for complex, cross-
national learning teams. International Studies Perspectives, 4,
34–51.
200 ◾ Culture Matters

Ferraro, G.P. 2010. The Cultural Dimension of International

Business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/
Doubleday.
Koester, J., Wiseman, R.L. & Sanders, J.A. 1993. Multiple perspec-
tives of intercultural communication competence. In R.L.
Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural Communication
Competence [International and Intercultural Communication
Annual], 17 (pp. 3–15). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Shachaf, P. 2008. Cultural diversity and information and communi-
cation technology impacts on global virtual teams: An explor-
atory study. Information and Management, 45(2), 131–142.
Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. 1997. Riding the Waves of
Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Zakaria, N. 2000. The effects of cross-cultural training on the accul-
turation process of the global workforce. International Journal
of Manpower, 21(6), 492–510.
Zakaria, N. 2008. The possibility of water-cooler chat? Developing
communities of practice for knowledge sharing within global
virtual teams. In M. Raisinghani (Ed.), Handbook of Global
Information Technology, Chapter IV (pp. 1–14). New York:
Information Science Reference.
Chapter 16

How to Manage
GVTs—Dos and
Don’ts for Culture
and Decision Making
for Global Leaders

Introduction
In a multinational corporate setting, a global virtual team
(GVT) leader must be culturally competent so that he or she
can maximize the synergistic value of working in a heteroge-
neous team. In addition, a GVT leader must be technologically
competent in order to fully exploit the multifunctional collab-
orative tools necessary for working virtually. In this chapter, I
provide some useful decision-making strategies for GVT man-
agers that take into account the influence of differing cultures.
I provide culturally based guidelines in terms of the dos and
don’ts for managing GVTs effectively and developing high-
performing teams.

201
202 ◾ Culture Matters

A key question that arises that global leaders in multinational

corporations need to deal with when managing GVTs is “How
do cultural values influence the decision-making process?”
Hence, in this chapter, we look at one example: a study of the
contributions of the globally distributed members of the World
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society to the
decision-making process. Based on a broad analysis of their
overall participation in the decision-making process, the study’s
findings showed significant differences between members with
high-context (HC) and low-context (LC) communicative orienta-
tions. Culture, in the form of intercultural communication styles
and cultural values, does indeed have an impact on the manner
in which members participate in the decision-making process
and the strategies that they employ (Adler 1997). This was vis-
ible in the behaviors of Civil Society participants at all stages,
from the initial expression of their concerns through the presen-
tation of their views and opinions and their responses to and
deliberations on proposals to the final stage in which the group
reached consensus or solved a problem.
Given such understanding, strategies need to be developed
in line with the vision, mission, and objective of the organi-
zations, as well as the culturally diverse backgrounds of the
members who participate in GVTs. Global leaders of GVTs
need to attune their behaviors in order to achieve a cultural fit
when confronted with several challenges of culture: national
culture, organizational culture, and teamwork culture, because
of diversity of the GVT members’ characteristics, cultural val-
ues, and teamwork dynamics.

Managing Distributed Decision

Making in a GVT
The following suggested dos and don’ts offer guidelines for the
global leaders of GVTs. They are intended to promote effec-
tive decision making when team members are collaborating
 How to Manage GVTs ◾ 203

at a distance. Since culture plays a pivotal role in shaping the

way decisions are made within a team, global leaders need
to train HC and LC members to work together efficiently and
effectively to achieve the best overall performance. Table 16.1
summarizes these guidelines, which are based on a high level
of comparison between HC and LC, to illuminate the cultural
patterns of decision making within a GVT. The next section
explores the dos and don’ts in more detail in terms of four
additional cultural dimensions: (1) collectivism versus indi-
vidualism, (2) neutral versus specific communication styles,
(3) time orientation: polychronic versus monochronic, and
(4) relationship oriented versus task oriented.

Table 16.1 Comparison of HC and LC Strategies, Approaches,

and Mannerisms Employed during Stages of the Decision-Making
Process
Cultural
Orientation
Decision-Making
Stage High Context Low Context
Problem • Seldom uses words • Jumps straight to
like problem explicitly the point
• Uses a circuitous • Clearly states the
approach when problem upfront,
expressing concerns e.g., “Is there a
or issues wireless
connection?”
Proposal • Begins proposals • Begins proposals
with a formal tone with a goal
and address, statement and
e.g., “Dear all…” assertion
• Provides context first • States points
using indirect phrases, succinctly and
then expresses views clearly
Solution • Presents decisions in • Informs others of
an appreciative and their decisions in
courteous manner a direct and
precise manner
204 ◾ Culture Matters

The Dos and Don’ts of Cultural

Orientation for GVT Leaders
So, what should you do and what should you avoid doing
when managing a GVT whose members come from diverse
cultural backgrounds? When communicating with GVT mem-
bers who are culturally disparate, consider the following
actions based on four aspects of culture.

1. Collectivistic versus individualistic

High context: HC members are accustomed to a collec-
tivistic society. They incorporate creativity and inno-
vative thinking (“Two minds are better than one”) in
order to obtain synergies from others. The more ideas
that are generated, the more dynamic the delibera-
tion processes, which, in turn, results in higher-quality
decisions. Collegiality, dynamism, and cohesiveness
are important for collectivistic members so that they
feel a strong sense of belonging among the members
in GVTs. A GVT leader must be alert and diplomatic
when managing discussions so that both types of
voices are heard. Once these expectations are clearly
established, he or she should strive to develop a per-
sonal relationship with each of the members, and he
himself or she herself must observe the milestones
that are set in order for HC members to follow his
or her lead. With both collective and hierarchical
relationships established, HC members will feel obli-
gated, as well as motivated, to perform at their best.
HC members need guidance to become goal-oriented
team players and take responsibility for the tasks that
are assigned to them; a good first step is empowering
them to make their own decisions. HC members need
to avoid staying silent during deliberation because all
parties must contribute their individual ingredients. In
 How to Manage GVTs ◾ 205

a GVT work environment, team spirit must be fos-

tered, yet individual empowerment is also necessary.
HC members may find it difficult to make decisions
without going through their accustomed process of
consensus building or referring to the big boss for
approval. GVT leaders may need to help HC individu-
als become confident in making decisions and com-
fortable with being held accountable for the decisions
made.
Low context: Team members from an individualistic cul-
ture normally ascribe to the concept of a single-person
mind when coming up with ideas or alternatives,
agendas, outcomes, and objectives when pursu-
ing a task. An individualistic team member prefers
to stand on his or her own two feet and is perfectly
willing to be held accountable for each of the deci-
sions made. GVT leaders must allow this kind of
work environment to emerge since, for those from an
individualistic culture, the process of decision mak-
ing takes a straightforward and sequential path. Ideas
are generated—as many as possible—and delibera-
tion is carried out as objectively as possible to obtain
the best possible outcome. Goal-oriented discussions
are much appreciated by such people and are valued
more than emotional or relationship-building discus-
sions. The more ideas that spring from individuals on
the team, the deeper the discussions become since all
decisions can be evaluated in terms of cost–benefit
analysis. However, HC cultures need to be educated
to be brave in giving their ideas, no matter what, so
that each individual is appreciated. LC members, by
contrast, need to sustain their individualistic selves
so that they can be creative and innovative in their
solutions while still striving to be a team player in the
GVT context.
206 ◾ Culture Matters

2. Specific versus neutral communication styles

High context: Since HC team members come from col-
lectivistic cultures, the way they communicate is
largely dependent on the person to whom they are
sending the message. They will communicate differ-
ently with those in their in-group (those with whom
they have a strong relationship, close friends, spouse,
and family members) than with those in their out-
group (e.g., strangers or casual acquaintances). HC
individuals also communicate differently based
on the message recipient’s level of authority, tend-
ing to be cautious and formal in their speech when
communicating with those above them. For this
reason, GVT leaders will need to employ a context-
dependent manner of communicating. They will
need to take time to discover the implicit and covert
messages hidden in HC team members’ statements.
HC individuals tend to employ an indirect style with
people whom they do not know in order to estab-
lish a relationship. Their speech takes a formal tone,
more cautious and polite. However, HC individuals
employ a direct communication style when they have
a strong relationship with someone, such as family
members or close friends; they use a less formal tone
and/or terse messages, as they expect the recipient
to understand what they intended to say—to read
their minds—due to their long-standing relationship.
In HC cultures, even simple nonverbal gestures such
as nodding the head can be a clear message to those
whom they are close to.
Low context: LC individuals seldom make a distinction
between the in-group and the out-group. As a result,
their communication style is quite consistent; no one
is treated differently in terms of how they are spoken
to. LC people strive to be exact, clear, and precise
 How to Manage GVTs ◾ 207

so that messages are delivered efficiently and suc-

cinctly. Messages are articulated in a way that facili-
tates comprehension of the task to be undertaken;
sometimes, such messages can be perceived by HC
members as brusque, harsh, abrupt, or tactless. GVT
leaders may need to educate HC team members
about the clarity and brevity of messages delivered
by their LC colleagues, explaining that LC people are
clear and brief not out of rudeness or insensitivity but
because they place a higher importance on the mes-
sage’s content than on its context. LC members are
goal oriented since they are individualistic in nature;
their aim is to complete the task that is assigned to
them as efficiently as possible, without regard to any
relationships with other members of the team. GVT
leaders may also need to educate LC team members
on how to express their individualistic ideas in a
more congenial manner, toning down their dominant
voice in order to be perceived properly by their HC
colleagues.
3. Time orientation: Rigid versus flexible
High context: HC individuals have a polychronic time
orientation, meaning that they view time as elas-
tic and do not perceive urgency unless specifically
directed so by a superior. At the beginning of a GVT
project, leaders need to clearly brief HC individuals
about the rules and procedures so that they under-
stand their roles and tasks. This briefing will give
HC team members a sense of responsibility and a
strong motivation to actively support the team-based
GVT work structure instead of attempting to handle
their tasks individually. Leaders must also inform HC
members of punctuality and efficiency expectations
in terms of adhering to the schedule and milestones,
including the importance of meeting deadlines. HC
208 ◾ Culture Matters

members also need to be educated about concepts

of timeliness and time discipline. Make sure that the
time taken to arrive at decisions is well managed
and controlled to avoid excessive delays in decision
making. Since HC members are used to receiving
ideas and instructions in a top–down manner, it is
often not easy for them to suggest ideas in the early
stages of a project, for the fear that their ideas may
be rejected. Openness in attitude and support from
the leader and other members will encourage them
to participate sooner, and gentle nudges from the
leader will help them move forward within the given
deadlines.
Given the short time frame of most GVT projects,
leaders may need to guide HC members more firmly
regarding what needs to be done in the early stages
so as to move the project along. Since HC members
come from a high power distance culture in which
the leader or superior (boss) provides instructions,
only then will they feel a sense of urgency to follow
through. Leaders will also need to caution their LC
members to be patient and to recognize the HC’s need
for a more bureaucratic process. For decision mak-
ing in GVTs, it is important to understand the chal-
lenges that are presented by different team dynamics
when there are members who are relationship ori-
ented rather than task oriented. The relationship-
oriented members will tend to have a different view
of the task. They believe in ensuring that people can
work together cohesively and collegially. Team mem-
bers must therefore experience a rapport- and trust-
building phase in the beginning rather than jumping
straight to the work. All of this is time consuming,
and, when decisions need to be reached, this happens
through a process of idea exchanges and deliberation.
 How to Manage GVTs ◾ 209

Thus, HC members may not be observant and fol-

low through the timelines set because they need to
protect the harmonious work environment among the
members.
Low context: LC individuals tend to take a monochronic
view of time and employ a sequential way of doing
things. Each task has its own process, and the pro-
cess follows a systematic progression from point A to
point B in a timely and efficient manner. For LC indi-
viduals, negotiation regarding the timeline is accept-
able as long as it is based on clear strategies for how
the task will be followed through and completed.
For this reason, in certain conditions and under
certain circumstances, LC individuals can say “No”
to their boss and disagree with his or her decisions,
particularly when deadlines are not being met, and
they observe deviations from the planned schedule.
For LC members, time is money and thus cannot be
wasted or neglected. LC team members are sensitive
to the need to comply with the conditions, as stipu-
lated in the contract, that clearly establish milestones
and outcomes. Timeliness is crucial, and hence any
incompatibilities or obstacles need to be avoided
or swiftly dealt with at any cost. If a team member
encounters problems in the tasks assigned to him or
her, LC individuals expect him or her to voice his
or her concerns immediately and find solutions to
the problem, whether unforeseen or foreseen. Task-
oriented team members also tend to start the team
process by outlining the procedures and tasks to be
accomplished. They will be efficient in providing all
the instructions that are needed to get started and
normally will not waste any time getting started. In
short, GVT leaders need to prepare both HC and LC
members to be proactive, as well as reactive, and to
210 ◾ Culture Matters

align their behaviors with the decisions to be made.

If clashes do arise, the deliberation necessary to
resolve them may take less time when the members
are sensitive to time factors.
4. Relationship building versus task orientation
High context: In the early phases of team formation,
leaders need to create a warm environment for HC
members in order to establish rapport and inculcate
trust. HC team members who feel comfortable from
the outset will be at ease throughout the rest of the
team’s work. The glue that bonds a cohesive team is
how intensely the members feel for each other and
how strong a sense of belonging the members feel,
since HC individuals regard relationships as highly
important. To create this sense of belonging, GVT
leaders can use warm-up sessions or getting-to-know-
you sessions during the team’s early days. Studies
have shown that teams that meet at least once with
all members present, whether physically or virtually,
perform much better than teams that have no oppor-
tunity to meet at all during the span of their project.
GVT leaders may want to consider using Skype or
other technology so that members have an oppor-
tunity to see each other face to face. HC individuals
need to feel that their leaders and fellow team mem-
bers are willing to invest time in getting to know
them, so these types of activities are paramount for
GVTs since the team may have few chances to meet
face to face. Once HC individuals sense interest from
their colleagues, they are more willing to move the
job along efficiently.
Low context: Although a sense of rapport is important for
LC individuals, their priority is more on the task to be
accomplished. They emphasize a clear understanding
 How to Manage GVTs ◾ 211

of tasks and outcomes rather than fostering relation-

ships. GVT leaders need to provide LC team members
with clear plans, agendas, and milestones so that proj-
ect goals can be met efficiently and on time. Leaders
also need to keep LC members regularly updated on
progress. Thus, GVT leaders need to consider both
macro and micro levels of planning. LC individuals
favor logical thinking and reasoning in their decision
making, and task takes priority over relationships, so
leaders must foster in their LC members an awareness
of the importance of balancing task and relationship
building in working with their HC colleagues. LC team
members need clear objectives and deadlines, but
merely assigning tasks to be carried out without any
attention to relationship building will discourage and
alienate their HC colleagues.

In a Nutshell
An analysis of the active participants in the WSIS decision-
making process clearly showed that HC and LC participants
contributed almost equally in all three stages—(1) problem
identification, (2) proposal making, and (3) solution. However,
when the findings were further explored in terms of how the
individuals participated in the decision-making process, the
two cultural orientations showed differences in strategies,
approaches, and mannerisms. At each stage of the decision-
making process, the participants exhibited unique behaviors
depending on whether they were high or low context. Tables
16.2 and 16.3 summarize the differences in behavior between
HC and LC individuals and the related dos-and-don’ts behavior
guidelines.
212 ◾ Culture Matters

Table 16.2 Distinction of Cultural Values between HC and LC

Cultural Values of High Context Cultural Values of Low Context
Credibility and trustworthiness. Reliability and performance.
MNCs need to provide all team Provide clear goals and
members with ample timelines so that these team
background information about members can plan, organize,
each other in order to reduce and coordinate their tasks.
uncertainties and anxieties Members also need to
about who they will be working understand the credibility of
with. This information will also their fellow team members,
help establish a sense of the e.g., know something about
trustworthiness of the their past performance, in
members. order to assess their reliability
and the quality of their work.
Rapport building. Leaders need Task orientation. Leaders need to
to hold a warm-up session—a ensure that tasks are clearly
getting-to-know-you session identified and delegated to
early in the forming of the team members. Members need
team, for example, a face-to- to feel that they have
face or videoconferencing ownership in terms of
meeting, to give team members performing the task assigned to
a chance to actually see each them.
other’s faces and observe
nonverbal cues.
Nonavoidance approach to Confrontational conflict
conflict resolution. Leaders need resolution. If conflicts arise,
to intervene when members leaders need to think
experience conflicts. Members strategically about how to
from an HC culture will use manage them. Oftentimes, the
either avoidance or a best strategy is to seek a
nonconfrontational strategy win–win result wherein
once they trust their members deliberate on the
colleagues. best outcome and arrive at a
solution that satisfies all parties.
(Continued )
 How to Manage GVTs ◾ 213

Table 16.2 (Continued) Distinction of Cultural Values between

HC and LC
Cultural Values of High Context Cultural Values of Low Context
The ability to resolve conflicts LC culture individuals tend to
in a collegial manner is crucial confront others directly and
for maintaining a harmonious express their disagreements in
relationship. If conflicts arise, an open manner, preferring to
members may need an deal directly with the affected
intermediary to arbitrate the individual rather than
issue. employing a mediator.
Consensus decision making. The Empowerment in decision
decision-making process is making. Since individualistic
based on two key aspects: cultures operate based on
(1) hierarchical roles and self-reliant thinking and
(2) consensus. Thus, HC autonomous decision making,
members generally refer to members of this culture need
their leader for a final decision, to feel empowered in decision
since they are accustomed to making. They cannot be told
follow bureaucratic procedures what to do for the sake of
or seek the approval of other following or complying with
team members. Members feel what others are doing.
more secure receiving
instructions on what to do from
their leaders, since they will
then not be responsible for the
success or failure of the
outcome.
Source: Adapted from Mohd Yusof, S.A. & Zakaria, N., Exploring the
State of Discipline on the Formation of Swift Trust within Global
Virtual Teams. Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International
Conference on System Science, Jan. 4–7, Maui, HI, pp. 475–482,
2012.
214 ◾ Culture Matters

Table 16.3 High-Level Comparison of Decision-Making Behaviors

by Cultural Context
High Context Low Context
• Begin message using formal • Begin message with informal
salutation or initial greetings or no salutation
• Introduce initial paragraph • Jump into the subject matter
with compliments, gratitude, straightaway and express
and appreciation feelings clearly
• Use polite or padded words • State opinions first, then
to express feelings or to soften with polite words
avoid being frank (e.g., say thank you but not
• Seek approval by asking until late in the message)
questions instead of • Use succinct, brief, assertive,
disclosing real intentions or and concise words to make a
opinions point
• Write lengthy messages • Write lengthy messages with
without clear direction or lots of detail when giving
focus (at times) instructions or explanations
about the assertions made

References
Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational
Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Mohd Yusof, S.A. & Zakaria, N. 2012. Exploring the State of
Discipline on the Formation of Swift Trust within Global
Virtual Teams. Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International
Conference on System Science, Jan. 4–7, Maui, HI, pp. 475–482.
Chapter 17

Culture Counts! “It Is

Not What You Said,
But How You Said It!”

Fatimah was astounded and discouraged when

Anthony sent her a message that said, “Your idea is
not logical” and then proceeded to suggest another
idea—“Option A is a better one!” It was not his rejec-
tion of her idea that upset her—after all, in a team,
it is totally acceptable for diverse ideas to be brought
up—but rather how he said it, snappishly and curtly,
with only a few words. “If I were to respond,” she
thought, “I would say it this way: your idea is good,
but there are lots of ways that we can think about
the project and its options. We should consider
Option A as it has the lesser cost. Perhaps, it would
be better if we started by weighing each of the avail-
able options to understand the cost and benefit?”
Looking back at Anthony’s message and the way
she herself would have responded, she chuckled.
One had an elongated manner with padded words,
whereas the other was concise and straight to the

215
216 ◾ Culture Matters

point. She began to understand the true influence of

culture in a global virtual team (GVT). Even when
people were working at a distance, words were an
important bridge between team members, but differ-
ent cultural backgrounds gave them a different sense
and aura, altering the working climate. What a shame
that she failed to understand the cultural nuances!

Throughout this book, my standpoint, based on my

research findings and other related studies, has been clear:
culture does matter. Culture influences the way that people
work, communicate, and collaborate across geographical dis-
tances and time. Multinational organizations, especially their
GVT leaders, need to pay attention to cultural differences
when building a team structure. The readiness of an orga-
nization to fully employ the GVT work structure is directly
dependent on their ability to develop GVT leaders and teams
that are culturally competent. What makes the GVT work
structure more challenging is that team members are asked to
collaborate with strangers in a virtual space, across geographi-
cal boundaries and time zones. Organizations need to nurture
leaders who have the right capabilities and competencies to
deal with the challenges of working in a virtual collabora-
tive environment. GVT leaders need to develop and hone
their skills in all three areas: (1) cognition, (2) emotion, and
(3) behaviors—the CAB model (refer to Chapter 15 on the
intercultural competence model) when they begin to work
with and manage teams in the virtual workspace.
Two key questions were asked and answered: (1) how
do we develop culturally competent global leaders who are
capable of confronting and dealing with multicultural virtual
teams? and (2) how do we encourage global leaders to be
open to the many idiosyncrasies, the differing emotions, and
the unpredictable patterns of thought that may arise from
divergent, culturally rooted behaviors? The current challenge
for multinational corporations (MNCs) is to build leaders who
Culture Counts! “It Is Not What You Said, But How You Said It!” ◾ 217

are wide open in mind, heart, and behavior, as well as com-

petent in their field—they must be willing to embrace all the
possibilities inherent in cultural complexity. MNCs must take
steps to educate their employees at both the managerial and
team-member level, to develop competencies for both lead-
ers and individual contributors in understanding the unique
demands and benefits of a team that is composed of people
from different cultural backgrounds and working together at a
distance. In particular, in order to be successful and effective,
GVTs need the guidance of leaders who fully understand the
different cultural ways of working in terms of cognition, emo-
tion, and behaviors.
The deeper questions that arise are why does culture mat-
ter, and how does culture matter? Multinational organizations
need to address these two fundamental concerns when assign-
ing leaders to high-performing GVTs. Not only team leaders
but also team members need to fully develop competencies in
all three areas—cognitive, affective, and behavioral (refer to
Chapter 15) when they manage team members in the virtual
workspace. Cultural values influence all three aspects in vari-
ous manners due to the GVTs’ heterogeneous composition.
For myself, having had the experience of more than 10
years as both a student-expatriate in a Western learning con-
text and a corporate-expatriate in the Middle Eastern work-
ing environment has resulted in such an enduring long-term
life-learning journey. Hence, cultural competency was built
over the years as it grew difficult and challenging—more than
I could have ever imagined. When I first arrived in the United
States to begin my PhD journey, the exhilaration and the feel-
ing of joy has managed to overcome my fear of living abroad.
It was proven that, over the years, my daily face-to-face
encounters with cultural diversity have given me golden
opportunities to understand why and how people communi-
cate and relate to others. With such deep experiences in the
expatriation process, this book offers rich insights into the
understanding of how culture impacts online communication.
218 ◾ Culture Matters

Despite—or perhaps because of—the astounding advances

in computers and communication technologies, people still
encounter cultural diversity at a distance. Culture still matters.
In essence, people from different cultural backgrounds
use different strategies, approaches, and mannerisms when
they communicate. But what is most interesting is that both
high- and low-context cultural behaviors showed signs of
switching—of adaptation or acculturation—in this new
GVT environment. Each of the cultural groups seemed to
maintain their cultural values and intercultural communica-
tion styles, but, at the same time, they also adapted to the
cultural values and intercultural communication styles of
others. In the cross-cultural and international management
literature, many studies have noted that before managers
were sent abroad for international assignments, they would
be given cross-cultural training to help them better adapt
and acculturate to the unfamiliar environment that they
would be entering (Zakaria 2000; Adler 1997; Kim 1991;
Berry 1990). However, in the case of Civil Society partici-
pants, no prior training was given to them because they par-
ticipated voluntarily. This, and the fact that they came from
different parts of the world and belonged to different organi-
zations, made it more challenging to offer any form of cross-
cultural training prior to their participation in the WSIS. In
this respect, they are purer examples of cultural influence
on communication because they did not receive any formal
cross-cultural training. Yet, over time, they learned to toler-
ate, be sensitive to, be aware of, and respond accordingly to
cultural differences that are encountered during their WSIS
participation.
Global leaders need to accustom themselves to the differ-
ent cultural environments that they encounter and attune their
behaviors to take into account the disparate cognitive, affec-
tive, and behavioral responses of others. Thus, global leaders
managing GVTs need to educate team members to become
adaptable in their behavior (flexible and mutable), open their
Culture Counts! “It Is Not What You Said, But How You Said It!” ◾ 219

minds (nonjudgmental), and be receptive in their emotions

(sympathetic, passionate, and tolerant). In other words, incul-
cate switching behaviors when necessary to reduce culture
shock at the individual level and be understood by managers
at the organizational level. If full cultural understanding can
be achieved, GVT members will celebrate the cultural diversity
among them rather than taking it as cultural challenge, thus
enhancing rather than impeding their cohesiveness.
In a nutshell, the key purpose of this book was to present
a rich description of how different cultural orientations impact
communicative and collaborative behaviors, using examples
from a study on the WSIS Civil Society decision-making pro-
cess. By using Hall’s high-context versus low-context cultural
dimensions, fleshed out with other related cultural dimensions
such as individualism–collectivism (Triandis 1988; Hofstede
1980) and task versus relationship oriented (Hall 1976), the
preceding chapters, I hope, provide valuable insights and a
concrete foundation for the understanding of multidimen-
sional cultural variables as applied in a globally distributed
environment.
Misunderstandings stemming from cultural differences will
not be alleviated unless and until people learn to be toler-
ant, appreciative, and aware of and to respond appropriately
to such variations. Cairncross (1997) argued strongly that
the death of distance is the inevitable outcome of computer-
mediated communication, whereas Olson and Olson (2000)
believe that distance still matters and will continue to pose
challenges in a globally distributed collaboration. Barsoux
and Schneider (1997) also challenged the myth of the melting
pot or global village—i.e., the death of culture. As discussed
in this book, there is clear evidence that neither the death
of distance nor the death of culture is a reality yet and that
differences still exist even in the wired world. What matters,
then, is whether these cultural differences will promote or
inhibit intelligent, useful, and productive collaboration and
communication.
220 ◾ Culture Matters

References
Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational
Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Barsoux, J.L. & Schneider, S.C. 1997. Managing Across Cultures.
London: Prentice Hall.
Berry, J.W. 1990. Psychology of acculturation. In J.J. Berman (Ed.),
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989: Cross-Cultural
Perspectives. Current Theory and Research in Motivation, 37
(pp. 201–234). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Cairncross, F. 1997. The Death of Distance: How the Communications
Revolution Will Change Our Lives. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/
Doubleday.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Kim, Y. 1991. Intercultural communication competence. In S. Ting-
Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Interpersonal
Communication (pp. 259–275). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Olson, G.M. & Olson, J.S. 2000. Distance matters. Human–Computer
Interaction, 15(2 & 3), 139–178.
Triandis, H.C. 1988. Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconcep-
tualization of basic concept in cross-cultural psychology.
In G. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Studies of
Personality, Attitudes, and Cognition (pp. 60–95). London:
Macmillan.
Zakaria, N. 2000. The effects of cross-cultural training on the accul-
turation process of the global workforce. International Journal
of Manpower, 21(6), 492–510.
Index

A C
ABN AMRO, 45 CAB intercultural competency
Achievement cultures, 51 framework, 189–198, 216
Adjourning (teamwork model), affective aspect, 194–195
183 aspects, 189
Agenda-driven issues, 79 behavioral aspect, 195–198
Agenda setting, 62 cognitive aspect, 192–193
Ambiguous versus detailed cultural adroitness, 189
communication style, cultural awareness, 189
150–153 cultural blind spot, 197
AMD, 45 cultural sensitivity, 189
Asynchronous time dimension, 20 ethnocentric person, 197
relationship orientation, 191
B task orientation, 191
Characteristics and elements of
Behaviors global virtual teams,
online communicative, 135–143 19–26
problem identification, 97–103 asynchronous time dimension,
proposal making, 108–121 20
solution, 127–131 case, 24–26
Blogs, 39, 62 communication barriers, 20
Born leader, 198 computer-supported cooperative
Boundary between personal work, 20
and working lives, 51 culturally distinctive, culturally
British Petroleum, 45 synergistic, 21–22

221
222 ◾ Index

different times, different urgency, Contexting, 40

23–24 Conversational maxim, 151
multinational corporations, 19 Corporate-expatriate, 217
social network systems, 27 Corporate perspective, 31
synchronous time dimension, 20 Cultural dimensions, see
technology dependent, Problem-solving
technology savvy, 22 in the workplace, mirror
time dimensions, 20 image of
videoconferencing, 23 Cultural values, 157–172, see also
working together, working at a Culture and cultural values,
distance, 22 overview of
Chief listener, 147 distinction between HC and LC,
Civil Society, see World Summit on 212–213
the Information Society individualism versus collectivism,
CMC, see Computer-mediated 158–163
communication collectivism, 160
Collective mind, 50 common knowledge,
Collectivism, see Individualism assumption of, 163
versus collectivism high-context participants, 159,
Communication, see Intercultural 161
communication, in-group versus out-group, 162
high-context versus statements, 158
low-context; Intercultural we versus they, 162
communication styles relationship orientation, 157
Communicative behaviors, see task oriented versus relationship
Online communicative oriented, 163–170
behaviors Civil Society study, 164
Community media, 117, 167 formal salutation, 167
Computer-mediated communication individualistic people, 163
(CMC) relationship-oriented people,
barrier in situations relying on, 39 166
challenges arising using, 185 task-oriented message, 165
collaboration via, 39 well-being of other
development of, 12 participants, 168
globally distributed collaboration Cultural vignette
and, 4 diverse communication styles,
participation in, WSIS Geneva 14–15
listservs, 71 virtual workplace (working with
reliance on, 22 strangers in cyberspace),
tools, 61–62 24–26
Computer-supported cooperative working at a distance, working
work (CSCW), 20 with culture, 6
 Index ◾ 223

Culture and cultural values, definition of active

overview of, 29–36 participants, 73
cultural characteristics, 32, key people, 74
33–35 patterns of participation, 73
artifacts, products, and distribution of less active
symbols, 33–34 participants, 77–81
basic assumptions, 34–35 agenda-driven issues, 79
external adaptation, 34 consensus, 80
internal integration, 34 decision-making process, 77, 80
norms and values, 34 dynamic process, 78
onion model, 33 feedback, 79
definition of culture, 29 responses and deliberation, 78
human mental programming, documents generated, 63
levels of, 30 globalization, 60
national character, 32 information search, 62
personality, 31–32 logic, 59
perspectives of culture, 31 problem identification, 64
software of the mind, culture proposal making, 64
as, 30 responses and deliberation, 64
Culture shock, 178, see also Virtual solution, 64–65
cultural shock (team theoretical models of decision-
process) making process, 65–71
alternatives, 67
D authoritative choice, 67
email use, situational analysis
Dauntless decision maker, 147 of, 69, 70
Death of distance, 219 implementation, 68
Digital-wave workspace, 12 problem recognition, 65
Distributed decision-making virtual space factors, 61
process, overview of,
59–81 E
active months of participation,
71–73 Elements of global virtual teams, see
analysis, 72 Characteristics and elements
email listserv, 72 of global virtual teams
aesthetic element, 61 Email
agenda setting, 62 lists, 39, 72
blogs, 62 use, situational analysis of, 69, 70
choice, 62 English-language culture, 39
CMC tools, 61–62 Ethnic perspective, 31
distribution of active Ethnocentric person, 197
participants, 73–76 Expatriation process, 177, 181
224 ◾ Index

F distinction of cultural values

between HC and LC,
Facebook, 48 212–213
Facetime, 187 dos and don’ts of cultural
Forming (teamwork model), 181 orientation for GVT
leaders, 204–211
G collectivistic versus
individualistic, 204–205
Gender perspective, 31 relationship building versus
General Motors, 45 task orientation, 210–211
Generational perspective, 31 specific versus neutral
Global leaders, see GVT communication styles,
management (culture 206–207
and decision making for time orientation (rigid versus
global leaders); “Working flexible), 207–210
together at a distance,” managing distributed decision
what global leaders making in a GVT, 202–203
should know about summary, 211
managing
Global virtual team (GVT), 12 H
challenges, 12
characteristics, 12, see also Hall, Edward, 37, see also
Characteristics and Intercultural communication,
elements of global virtual high-context versus
teams low-context
description of, 11–17 Hampden-Turner, Charles, 45, see also
case, 14–15 Problem-solving in the
cultural diversity, 13 workplace, mirror image of
culturally heterogeneous Heineken, 45
members, 21 High context (HC), see also
definition of team, 11 Intercultural communication,
digital-wave workspace, 12 high-context versus
teams, importance of, 11 low-context
virtualness, 13, 14 communicative orientation, 202
global leader development, 174 culture, 145
leaders, see Intercultural individualism versus collectivism,
competencies, why GVT 159, 161
leaders need intercultural communication
Google+, 19 styles, 145
GVT management (culture and online communicative behaviors,
decision making for global 137, 141
leaders), 201–214 problem identification behaviors,
culture, 202 98
 Index ◾ 225

proposal making, 108, 116 English-language culture, 39

solution, 127 message receivers, 40
Honeymoon phase (cultural nonverbal communication, 37
adjustment), 177 silent language, 38
Honeywell, 45 summary of high- and low-
Human mental programming, levels context cultures, 41–42
of, 30 time talks, 38
Human relations, relationship Intercultural communication styles,
between time orientation 145–156
and, 54 ambiguous versus detailed style,
150–153, 154
I chief listener, 147
conversational maxim, 151
IBM, 45 dauntless decision maker, 147
Ice-breaker stage (teamwork high-context culture, 145
model), 181 indirect versus direct style,
ICT, see Information communication 146–149
technology low-context culture, 145, 152
Indirect versus direct nonassertive approach, 148
communication style, out-group member, 149
146–149 saving face, 146
Individualism versus collectivism, social interaction, elements of,
204–205 151
collectivism, 160 types of messages based on HC
common knowledge, assumption and LC dimension, 154
of, 163 Intercultural competencies, why
high-context participants, 159, GVT leaders need, 185–200
161 born leader, 198
in-group versus out-group, 162 CAB intercultural competency
statements, 158 framework, 189–198, 216
we versus they, 162 affective aspect, 194–195
Information communication aspects, 189
technology (ICT), 3 behavioral aspect, 195–198
Information search, 62 cognitive aspect, 192–193
ING, 45 cultural adroitness, 189
In-group versus out-group, 162 cultural awareness, 189
Intercultural communication, cultural blind spot, 197
high-context versus cultural sensitivity, 189
low-context, 37–44 ethnocentric person, 197
common ground, establishment relationship orientation, 191
of, 39 task orientation, 191
context dimension, 38 description of intercultural
contexting, 40 competency, 186–188
226 ◾ Index

acculturation, 187 Merrill Lynch, 45

process of developing Messenger, 187
intercultural competency, Mirror image of individual
187 behaviors, 48, see also
dimensions of global leadership Problem-solving in the
in the context of GVTs, 199 workplace, mirror image of
importance of intercultural Motorola, 45
competency, 185–186 Multinational corporations (MNCs),
onion model, 186 12
consultants working with, 45
J current challenge for, 216
scenario, 193
Johnson & Johnson, 45 team management and, 19

L N
Leaders, see GVT management National perspective, 31
(culture and decision Nonverbal communication, 37
making for global leaders); Norming (teamwork model), 182
Intercultural competencies,
why GVT leaders need; O
“Working together at a
distance,” what global Onion model, 33, 186
leaders should know about Online communicative behaviors,
managing 135–143
Lean media, 5 ambiguous construct, 140
Logic, 59, 162, 194 context cultural dimension, 136
Low context (LC), see also detail and direct construct, 140
Intercultural communication, divergent behavioral patterns,
high-context versus 138
low-context high-context cultural orientation,
communicative orientation, 202 137, 141
culture, 145 indirect construct, 140
online communicative behaviors, low-context cultural orientation,
137, 142–143 137, 142–143
problem identification, 98, 101 research question, 135–136
proposal making, 112, 118 Organizational perspective, 31
solution, 128, 129
P
M
Particularism, 49
Mars, 45 PepsiCo, 45
Mental programming, 30 Personality, 31–32
 Index ◾ 227

Pfizer, 45 human behaviors in the work-

Philips, 45 place, orientations of, 48
Polychronic time orientation, 207 information technology,
Problem identification, 83–103 introduction of, 47
behaviors, 97–103 loose reckoning, 54
communication style, 99 mirror image of individual
example, 97 behaviors, 48
high-context participants, 98 particularism, 49
impact of culture, 102 people orientation, 49–51
low-context participants, 98, self-opinionated voice, 50
101 sequential time orientation, 55
succinct proposal, 100 status, 51
Civil Society’s contributions in synchronic time orientation, 54
decision-making processes, time orientation, 53–55
83–91 triangle cultural model, 47
degree of effectiveness of universalism, 49
active participants, 85 Proposal making, 105–121
messages, 84, 85 agendas, 106–108
problem identification, 83 aggressive tone in message, 115
ranking and distribution of arguments, 121
active participants, 86–88 behaviors, 108–121
solution stage, 85 community media, 117
process, 91–97 constructing or specifying
draft document, 93 alternatives, 105
examples of problem difference between low- and
identification statements, high-context participants,
94–96 112
problems identified, 92–93 example proposals, 106–108
responses, 91 high-context participants, 108, 116
Problem-solving in the low-context participants, 112, 118
workplace, mirror image “multiple root servers,” 113
of, 45–58 strategies, 112
achievement cultures, 51 tone of message, 111
achievement versus ascription,
51 R
boundary between personal and
working lives, 51 Relationship orientation, 157, 191,
collective mind, 50 210–211, see also Task
dichotomy, 53 oriented versus relationship
dilemma, 46 oriented
emotions, 50 Religious perspective, 31
environment orientation, 51–53 Rigid versus flexible time
group-based values, 47 orientation, 207–210
228 ◾ Index

S T
Saving face, 146 Task orientation, 191
Self-opinionated voice, 50 priority on content in, 157
Sequential time orientation, 55 relationship building versus,
Significance of culture, 215–220 210–211
communication, examples of universalism and, 49
cultural influence on, 218 Task oriented versus relationship
corporate-expatriate, 217 oriented, 163–170, 219
death of distance, 219 Civil Society study, 164
deeper questions, 217 formal salutation, 167
misunderstandings, 219 individualistic people, 163
student-expatriate, 217 relationship-oriented people, 166
switching, 218, 219 task-oriented message, 165
Silent language, 38 well-being of other participants,
Skype, 19, 23, 187 168
Social interaction, elements of, 151 Team, see Global virtual team,
Social network systems, 27 description of
Social perspective, 31 Teamwork model, 181
Software of the mind, culture as, 30 Technological perspective, 31
Solution, 123–134 Time orientation
behaviors, 127–131 polychronic, 207
choice, 123 relationship between human
Civil Society participants, 123, 126 relations and, 54
disagreement, 125 rigid versus flexible, 207–210
draft document, endorsement Time talks, 38
of, 123 Trello, 19
endorsement, 124 Triangle cultural model, 47
high-context participants, 127 Trompenaars, Fons, 45, see also
low-context participants, 128, 129 Problem-solving in the
self-interest, decision based on, workplace, mirror image of
129 Twitter, 48, 187
strategies, 131
Specific versus neutral commu- U
nication styles, 206–207
Status, 51, 149, 180 Universalism, 49
Storming (teamwork model), 182
Stranger phenomenon, 182 V
Student-expatriate, 217
Switching, 218, 219 Values (cultural), 157–172
Synchronic time orientation, 54 distinction between HC and LC,
Synchronous time dimension, 20 212–213
 Index ◾ 229

individualism versus collectivism, Virtual cultural shock (team

158–163 process), 181–183
collectivism, 160 adjourning, 183
common knowledge, forming, 181
assumption of, 163 ice-breaker stage, 181
high-context participants, 159, norming, 182
161 storming, 182
in-group versus out-group, stranger phenomenon, 182
162 teamwork model, 181
statements, 158 Virtualness
we versus they, 162 dimensions of, 14
relationship orientation, 157 extent of, 13
task oriented versus relationship Virtual workplace, 3–10
oriented, 163–170 case, 6–7
Civil Society study, 164 computer-mediated
formal salutation, 167 communication, 4
individualistic people, 163 globally distributed
relationship-oriented people, collaboration, 4
166 information communication
task-oriented message, 165 technology, 3
well-being of other lean media, 5
participants, 168 management problem areas, 4
Values (cultural), culture and unresolved question, 5
(overview of), 29–36
cultural characteristics, 32, W
33–35
artifacts, products, and Web conferencing, 62
symbols, 33–34 We versus they, 162
basic assumptions, 34–35 WhatsApp, 48, 187
external adaptation, 34 Wiki Webs, 62
internal integration, 34 “Working together at a distance,” what
norms and values, 34 global leaders should know
onion model, 33 about managing, 173–184
definition of culture, 29 cross-cultural training, 173
human mental programming, cultural adjustments, 177–180
levels of, 30 adaptation, 180
national character, 32 adjustment, 179
personality, 31–32 changes in human behavior, 180
perspectives of culture, 31 culture shock, 178
software of the mind, culture expatriation process, 177
as, 30 honeymoon phase, 177
Videoconferencing, 23 transference of culture, 179
230 ◾ Index

virtual cultural shock (team Civil Society, 62, 63, 202

process), 181–183 decision-making process,
adjourning, 183 83–91, 219
forming, 181 participants (solution), 123, 126
ice-breaker stage, 181 study, 164
norming, 182 Geneva, 65, 71, 92
storming, 182 listserv, 68
stranger phenomenon, 182
teamwork model, 181 Z
World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS) Zoom, 19