Over the next decade, a staggering 75% of the projected growth in international business will come from the world's emerging markets - particularly from China, and its neighbors in the Pacific Rim. Napolean said that "when China wakes, it will shake the world". There is 1.2 billion of everything in China today, with an economy that within ten years will outstrip Japan, and in 20 years, at both country's current rates of growth, will surpass the U.S. Until 1500AD, China was one of the world's supreme powers, and in the context of its 5,000-year history, its current re-emergence is just the shaking off of a short nap. For the last decade, we have witnessed the growth of the "little dragons" of Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand. And this is after the revolutionary re-emergence of post-war Japan as a world economic powerhouse. Finally, let's not overlook the renascent rumblings of the "baby dragons" of Indonesia and Vietnam, countries who historically have played the roles of trade dynamos of the region. Clearly, American business and the American workers who follow, are packing their bags and going very Far East.And therein lies the challenge: East meeting West. As technology brings the world together, clashes of cultural differences are magnified, ironically, just as we learn about new ways of working and living together on the planet. Like the two parts of the universal whole, as represented in the Buddhist symbol of yin and yang, both East and West must ultimately accept that they are each only half the story of what, only with the other, will result in a perfect combination. Unless both East and West value and understand what the other brings to the formula, we will have an imperfect and less-than-satisfactory union of one attempting to assert its ways at the expense of the other.
What, then, are the cultural challenges that Americans and Asians face when attempting to work with each other in the region? What are the all-too-often uninformed assumptions that underly the behaviors driving both sides in their quest for success? Beyond the superficial, how do the expectations of the American work ethic "fit" or "fail" with Eastern ethos, and what are the implications for HR managers responsible for providing the American working in Asia with the tools necessary for success in the region?
Appreciating the geographical "oppositeness" of East and West is a good place to start when trying to understand the vastness that needs to be bridged by Americans in the workplace of day-to-day Asia. We are both, literally, on the other side of the world to each other, geographically as well as culturally. Both worlds start from two opposite poles, and each pole is rooted in a deep history that pulls all current activity, like magnets, more or less in opposite directions. One of the fundamental differences between East and West are the different philosophical underpinnings of both societies which result in, among other things, day-to-day business behaviors that can be radically different, and subsequently, mystifying to the other. Western traditions emphasize a rational struggle to understand and abide by universal standards; Eastern traditions emphasize a contemplative understanding and perfection of behaviors that are appropriate to changing circumstances. The Judeo-Christian tradition of the West had God giving Ten Commandments of right and wrong to Moses: "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not", and Plato posited "ideals" against which humans could judge and measure themselves and their world. However, the Confucian and Taoist traditions of the East stress the virtue of behaving appropriately according to the circumstantial requirements of the moment. By observing order and working to perfect one's role, as opposed to changing it, the Easterner behaves according to what the moment requires, and not according to an abstract universal.
The conflicts inherent in these two opposing philosophical start-points reveal themselves dramatically in the behaviors that Americans and Asians reveal to one another at work; these behaviors bely the underlying differences in the assumptions both have about the way the world is supposed to work. Western contracts, for example, are supposed to be documents that enforce dependable, unchanging behavior projected out over time. In Asia, however, the contract is more a statement of the principles by which we agree to work together, as trustworthy partners. It is not designed to predict specific behavior over time. When circumstances change in Asia, requiring new behaviors, the Westerner is expected to be "flexible", while, all too often, the Westerner sees deviation from the agreement as a breach of understanding and trust. It is important for Western managers in Asia to recognize that the contract is merely the beginning of the negotiation, not the end of it.
American management style also usually presupposes individual, proactive participation and "ownership" of task. Western management theories abound with concepts of flattened organizations, individual empowerment, proactive decision-making, etc. These ideas reflect, not surprisingly, Western traditions of the rights of the individual, the power of rational control, the equalness of people. However, Asian managements style typically emphasizes the subordination of the role of the individual to the greater demands of the group within which the individual is a member; the power of obligations and relationships, and the need for respecting order, structure and hierarchy, as opposed to changing it. Where in the West, efficiency and change often equals effectiveness, in the East, passive acceptance of what is, and the ability to perfect one's work with others within these parameters might be the greater virtue... and lead to a smooth-running, and hence, successful organization.
In practical terms, these fundamental differences require Westerners to re-think their roles at work in Asia. How are managers perceived, and what kind of behaviors are expected of them? American managers need to be more directive, providing detailed, clear and timely information, through trusted Asian associates who can function as language and cultural "interpretors" with subordinates. It would be wrong to assume that workers will take individual initiative, speak up, question, take risks, etc. More than likely, until and unless clear information and "green lights" are provided by the manager, subordinates will do nothing. Additionally, the manager is required to be all-knowing, to make decisions, to provide answers, to exercise authority in a caring and concerned way. Meetings are not usually the brainstorming sessions they are in the West, unless all participants are the same level. More often than not, meetings begin and end as the leader directs, and what is dicussed is usually guided by the leader. In the face of whatever hierarchy exists at the table, participants will be reticent to volunteer ideas and thoughts, lest they be judged badly by others. The silent participant in Asia is not uninvolved: they may be passionately concerned with the issues on the table, but equally concerned about appearing insubordinate or unappreciated. And the leader in Asia is traditionally the senior male, precisely because of his age and experience, despite the capabilities and qualifications of other younger team members.
Americans need to practice the communication skills necessary to overcome these differences. In Asia, the person who speaks least often has the most to say, while the person who speaks the most often has the least to say. Direct, "get-it-done" efficiency-oriented, "no-nonsense" speech is very harsh in Asia and often slams the door shut rather than moving things along. Confronting someone, expressing anger or frustration openly, and criticizing in public will more often than not, stall things out.
The corollary, of course, is that Americans will more often be met with speech that is indirect, "soft", qualified, and complex and subtle in its real meaning. Americans must begin to develop "context antennaes", enabling them to read the context in which the communication occurs, for more often, real information is embedded in the larger environment and not in the content itself.
We can see that the conflicts that emerge between Asians and Westerners at work are often reflections of deeper, hidden, and subsequently, unrecognized, fundamental differences in values and beliefs about how individuals and organizations are to behave with each other. The first task is to recognize that these deep differences exist, and to identify those areas that are most profoundly affected by these differences at work. Then individuals need to be trained in the new skills, management, communication, decision-making, negotation, etc., that are required in order to change thier behaviors to be more effective with their Asian colleagues. Ideally, cross-cultural training needs to be effected on both sides of the Pacific, creating the bridge between East and West. Awareness and skills, East and West, Confucian and Platonic: bringing yin and yang together is a challenge not easily met, but a task that must be performed in order to form the perfect whole of business success.
© 2000 Dean Foster Associates