Culture Makes a Difference –
A Comparison of Cultural Standards in Austrian and German Management

 

Dr. Frank Brück
Center for International Studies
Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration
Augasse 2 – 6
A-1090 Vienna, Austria

Phone: +43-1-31 336 - 43 12
Fax: +43-1-31 336 - 752
E-mail: brueck@wu-wien.ac.at

 

 

Culture Makes a Difference –
A Comparison of Cultural Standards in Austrian and German Management

 

Abstract

Dealing with cultural differences is especially problematic if they appear unexpectedly. This is the case for the German speaking countries in Europe. The results of many studies on cultural differences indicate that there are no substantial cultural differences among the cultures of Germany, Austria and Switzerland. No doubt there are great similarities in the cultures of these countries but members of the German culture, for example, still experience great difficulties - even a culture shock - when they work in Austria for a longer period as do Austrians working in Germany. It seems that the approach to many cultural studies is simply not subtle enough to identify the existing differences. The method applied requires to clearly reveal the subtle differences between two countries. This study tries to take a closer look at the cultures of Austria and Germany by using the cultural standard method developed by the German psychologist Alexander Thomas, whereby it should be possible to identify the subtle differences between the two cultures. Cultural standards are internalized by socialization and determine most of a groups perception, thinking, judgement and actions. If cultural standards of one given culture are compared with those of another, the basic and decisive patterns at work in cross-cultural interactions can be analyzed. This study's main objective is to identify work-related Austrian cultural standards and to compare them with the German culture. In a second step the relevance of these relative cultural standards to the management will be discussed. For that purpose 24 narrative interviews with Germans and Austrian working the other culture have been taken and analyzed. The results show that even the cultural differences between two countries which are very closely related can have implications for the management.

 

Culture Makes a Difference –
A Comparison of Cultural Standards in Austrian and German Management

 

When persons of differing cultural backgrounds meet, they are very often faced with considerable difficulties when dealing with and understanding people from another culture. This can be especially problematic if the different cultures have to work together, as is the case, for example, in international working teams or with expatriates. Very often, the cultural dissimilarities seem to have a decidedly negative influence on their ability to collaborate. Differing cultural norms, differences in the perception and evaluation of critical situations, as well as a divergence of culturally motivated responses to the problem at hand, can seriously impede or even render impossible finding an acceptable solution.

Dealing with cultural differences is especially problematic if they appear unexpectedly. This is the case for the German speaking countries in Europe. The results of many studies on cultural differences indicate that there are no substantial cultural differences among the cultures of Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Very often the three countries can be found in the same cultural cluster or category (cf. Hofstede, 1984; Schneider/Barsoux, 1997). No doubt there are great similarities in the cultures of these countries but members of the German culture, for example, still experience great difficulties - even a culture shock - when they work in Austria for a longer period as do Austrians working in Germany. So there must be a few differences. It seems too that the approach to many cultural studies is simply not subtle enough to identify them. Therefore, this study tries to take a closer look at the cultural differences between Austria and Germany by a method developed by the German Alexander Thomas (1989), whereby it should be possible to identify the subtle differences between the two cultures.

Objectives

Alexander Thomas (1991) derives the characteristic cultural patterns of perception, evaluation, organization and behavior from "cultural standards". "Cultural standards are characteristic guidelines of groups, organizations and nations, which define their perception, thinking and behavior" (Thomas, 1991, p.5). This is based on the concept that a culture is basically an orientation pattern consisting of symbols, which are shared by and handed down by a defined group or community and which also determines affiliation to the group in question. Cultural standards are internalized by socialization and can be considered and determines most of a groups perception, thinking, judgement and actions. If we compare the cultural standards of one given culture with those of another, we can analyze the basic and decisive patterns at work in cross-cultural interactions. This study's main objective is to identify work-related Austrian cultural standards and to compare them with the German culture. In a second step the relevance of these relative cultural standards to the management will be discussed.

The Method

The method applied required to clearly reveal the subtle differences between the two countries' cultures. Cultural standards are developed out of text material consisting of so called "critical incidents". These are short stories in which a person describes an awkward or strange behavior of members of another culture. The test person should have lived for a while in the other culture and should pick out stories in which they could not understand why these people behaved in a certain way. To find these critical incidents, narrative interviews were used which are a variation of qualitative interviews and are especially effective in cross-cultural comparisons.

Fritz Schütze (1977) has created this special interview technique which supposedly minimizes the interviewer bias and in spite of the interview-like situation, yields almost uninfluenced study and text material. Due to the extremely passive role of the interviewer, the narrative interview also has the advantage of favoring the development of a relationship between the interviewer and the test persons. By avoiding the traditional question-and-answer strategy and its implied disadvantages, the test persons are encouraged to control the interview and to regard the interviewer merely as an audience for their narration. Narrations are not only natural processes acquired through socialization and common to all levels of society (Schütze, 1977), but also reproduce behavioral structures and chronological sequences (cf. Lamnek, 1995).

At the beginning of the interview the objectives and the interview procedure are explained. The interviewer tries to create an atmosphere that encourages a detailed narration and helps the test person to feel less awkward about the interviewer and the entire situation. Schütze (cf. 1977) actually recommends giving only a "harmless general idea", or vague guideline, in order to prevent influencing the narrator, thus hindering the development of a storyline. The less the narrator is influenced, the more the results correspond to a natural account told without outside influence. The very loose formulation of the question in general is also designed to reduce pressure from the test person.

It is now the narrator's turn to speak. The main part of the narration should be told without any interruption or intervention from the interviewer. The narrator should be allowed to determine the line of events to be told, as well as to choose what he wants to relate or not. He should also be allowed to elaborate, according to the communication factors mentioned above (cf. Schütze, 1977). The more detailed the individual events are presented, the better the results. After having listened to the narration, the interviewer can now try to get additional information from the narrator. However, the narrative character of the interview should not be altered. The actual purpose here is to encourage the narrator to add to his story and to go into even more detail.

After the transcription of the interviews, the texts are searched for critical incidents and from this, typical behavior patterns are extracted. For this purpose a qualitative content analysis is used as described by Mayring (cf. 1996) and Oevermann (cf. 1997). During this qualitative analysis, categories are formed in an inductive way. These categories, which are found in the different texts, are the basis for cultural standards. The results are then compared to similar situations and examples. The interpretation of these examples leads to the definition of cultural standards.  

The Study

For this study, Germans with work and/or study experience in Austria ranging from 4 months to 20 years were interviewed. To make sure the results were representative for the study, the author also conducted a number of interviews with Austrians who had spent a considerable period of time in Germany, and were qualified to answer questions on the subject. In average the interviews lasted for about an hour. Germans were questioned about critical situations experienced while living in Austria and Austrians were asked about critical situations experienced in Germany. In addition, the test persons were also asked to try to identify cultural patterns.

The interviews were all conducted, recorded and transcribed in Austria. The author questioned 19 Germans, as well as 5 Austrians who had lived and worked in Germany for several months at least. He asked them to talk about the main differences they noticed between the two cultures, paying special regard to their places of work or study. At the next level, the author extracted the typically Austrian or German behavior patterns and cultural standards. Naturally, the results needed to demonstrate typical cultural distinctions between Germany and Austria and were not intended to merely relate to individual experiences. A panel discussion consisting of four Germans and two Austrians, whose backgrounds were similar to those of the test persons, helped to further confirm the results. Accounts of unusual situations were dropped, and the cultural standards were defined in greater detail. Thus, misinterpretations could, in all probability, be ruled out.

Generally it can be said that almost all test persons displayed a strong desire to talk about their experiences and problems dealing with a foreign culture, while simultaneously they were extremely reluctant to make generalizing statements. So, on the one hand, they needed to talk about a problematic issue, while on the other hand they were afraid to be too inaccurate or vague. For some of the test persons, who were obviously experiencing a culture shock, the interview even seemed to have a kind of a therapeutic effect.

The Results

The interviews and episodes actually dealing with cultural dissimilarities were identified and combined in the following Austrian cultural standards:

• Conflict avoidance

• In-direct communication

• Social orientation

• Importance of academic titles and hierarchies

• Neglect of rules and regulations

• Supplier-centered service

The six categories listed above all refer to the Austrian cultural standards observed in the results. For example, social orientation can be seen as the Austrian counterpart of German achievement orientation. Since Austrians as well as Germans were interviewed, we can report on the cultural standards of both countries. It is important to mention that these cultural standards are only valid in the relation between Austria and Germany. Cultural standards are relative factors. The comparison of Austria or Germany with other cultures can bring up entirely different relative cultural standards. In order to make a clear distinction, representatives of the two cultures are in the following texts are referred to as "Austrians" or "Germans", the distinguishing factor being their nationality. The technical terms used for defining the cultural standards are distinct labels for individual categories and should not be confused with stereotypes. They were chosen to determine a generic term denoting a characteristic behavior pattern.

Conflict Avoidance

The desire to avoid conflicts is not merely a random trait of the Austrian culture, but rather the central element being the most important cultural standard often impairing the relations between representatives of the two cultures. When "German straightforwardness" comes face to face with "Austrian conflict avoidance", misunderstandings are often the result, which in turn encourages prejudice and the formation of stereotypes.

We can say that the differences in the two countries organizational structures and decision-making procedures are strongly influenced by a dissimilar approach to solving conflicts and by a differing assessment of personal and factual aspects in communication. A good example in this case is the Austrian policy of neutrality, which, since it is introduction at the countryīs state-treaty negotiations, has been guided by the motto: "Make good friends everywhere and avoid one-sided alignments". If we go back even further in Austriaīs history, we come across the famous statement: "Belli gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube! (Let others wage wars, but you, fortunate Austria, marry!)". This statement describes the essence of Austriaīs policy of conflict avoidance. Turn your opponents into allies rather than openly confronting them and ending up in making real enemies.

Similarly, the Austrian social partnership creates joint committees designed to recognize potential conflicts and to find solutions before they become an actual problem. Their main objective is to avoid open confrontation. Naturally, committees and commissions are the perfect s for these cases. Joint decisions guarantee that the members of a committees can never be made individually responsible, and allow them to blend in with the rest of the group. These committees are highly efficient tools of conflict avoidance and for decades have largely ruled out the threat of industrial action and impending strikes.

The mechanisms at work in politics can also be found in everyday situations. Relations between individuals should not be jeopardized, so open criticism is avoided whenever possible. Austrians feel that straightforward, open and unveiled critical remarks, which are typical of Germans, might insult your negotiating partners, and are generally refrained from. If you have to be critical at all, at least make sure you let your fellow negotiators know how much you appreciate them and their work.

Clear and straightforward statements are only made when there is no other option. Austrians try to steer clear of discussions of that kind or postpone them indefinitely. Secretly they always hope that the others know how to read between the lines and understand anyway, or that they get their information from a third party, which would reduce any possible strain on the relationship. In order to avoid having to make decisions personally and then be made responsible for them, Austrians are also prone to using rules and regulations as a pretext for not responding.

Even if Austrians personally may not respect rules and regulations all that much, they are repeatedly used as an excuse for steering a potentially critical situation away from the personal level. If there is no way around giving a negative response, always make clear it is only because your hands are tied. After all, "it is what the law says". The overall aim is not to get personally tied up in a conflict. When dealing with your friends, though, you sometimes may have to bend the rules a little; naturally you want to keep your friends, and rules and regulations should not get in the way. For Germans this line of reasoning is not easy to understand. They tend to regard the Austriansī behavior as overly bureaucratic or may even interpret it as "nepotism" - something that is clearly going against their clearer and more analytic view of bureaucracy.

Avoiding conflicts is also extremely important when it comes to communication. Business or factual issues only rank second and are not regarded as that significant. Discussions that reach a point where clear, straightforward and thus highly awkward statements can no longer be avoided tend to be terminated, as a continuation might put a further strain on the relationship. Germans on the other hand are more ready to immediately settle all questions at hand and to try arriving at a solution quickly, even if it means they have to drive a hard bargain. After the discussion, though, they leave business aside and get back to the personal level. For Austrians, this going back and forth between the factual and the personal level is extremely hard to understand. Faced with criticism, they very often feel awkward or even insulted.

While Austrians generally try to avoid confrontations, Germans try to solve problems in a straightforward manner and with clearly defined positions. Austrians rather attempt to arrive at a compromise in as amicable a way as possible. Germans, as a rule, counter these efforts with distinct bargaining positions, since they distinguish much more between personal and factual issues, and seem to expect Austrians to do the same. Consequently, Austrians very often regard Germans as arrogant and self-satisfied, for them it only proves the stereotype of the "disagreeable" German. On the other hand, Germans tend to see Austrians, constantly trying to pour oil on troubled waters, as being slow, sloppy and weak.

Clearly, the Austrian cultural standard "conflict avoidance" greatly influences the two countries dealings with each other. The following critical incidents, all dealing with the cultural standard mentioned, demonstrate what this means in everyday life and how it can generate misunderstandings.

Examples of Conflict Avoidance

A German women living in Austria for about one year and holing a high management position in an Austrian bank describes her husbandīs difficulties with the Austrian culture:

He got this research assignment, the management of Erich Friedīs estate, very well paid. The Austrians wanted him for that position at all costs, after all heīs an expert. The contract was planned for a term of five years. Then, because they paid so well, they said the contract would have to be renewed every year, but three years were "not a problem at all". Then, after these three years it turned out that they should have renewed the contract by February 1, and in April, when he had already received verbal confirmation, they said: "The contract, no, we didnīt extend it". It was really ridiculous, and I wonder whether thatīs a typically Austrian situation, ... the fact that for two months he had basically been working without a contract at all, which is really impossible. They should have told him that his contract expired. As I said, itīs ridiculous, only think of health insurance coverage, etc. Absurd, but thatīs how it was! In the end they offered him a different contract, not as well paid, and he accepted immediately, after all I was already there working with him at the time. We talked about the whole situation and said, "so thatīs what itīs like in Austria? Thatīs the other side of the coin.

An Austrian student describing a situation in which he felt personally attacked by a German professor:

One day, the professor who did a lecture on monetary union invited all the students for a cup of coffee. And he said that Austria, except for tourism, was economically completely dependent on Germany. We were, in a way, only following orders from Frankfurt. And that Austria had actually wanted it that way, we had chosen to be so dependent on the German mark. We might have followed the example of the Swiss, but there we were, economically dependent on Germany. He actually said that! Can you imagine?

Indirect Communication

While Germans feel that Austrians are insincere, not entirely honest and hardly ever say what they really think, Austrians claim that Germans are rude and too direct. According to Germans, Austrians never "get to the point", but Austrians are often "put off balance" by Germans and their straightforward manner. Austrians have developed a rather indirect style of communication. The use of polite phrases is highly important, and they display an aversion almost "Asian" in style to letting their partners "lose face", to cornering them or saying something they might take for an insult. In return, they expect the same kind of behavior from their discussion partners and feel they are being personally attacked by aggressive communication strategies.

An Austrian musician had been turned down by companies in both Austria and Germany. The Germans were very direct and clear about it. They told him that they didnīt like his songs and that it was no use discussing the matter. The Austrians on the other hand were rather euphemistic. In their case, the songīs negative reception sounded almost like a positive statement: "Itīs actually not bad!" In addition, they even led him to believe that they could make something of it. "Letīs give it a try." Actually, these phrases were only meant to communicate that they were not interested in a cooperation either, or they would have said something much more specific and positive. If polite phrases such as these are uttered in Austria, and especially if they are followed by phrases like "Why donīt I give you a call", or "Weīll be hearing from each other", the actual message is essentially the same as in the German example – they are not interested. In Austria, however, the message has to be decoded first, and for someone accustomed to a more direct style of communication, misunderstandings are almost inevitable. Straightforward, unencoded statements and the plain facts are likely to put Austrians off balance and will have them back out. Directness is considered a transgression, an attack on the personal level, which usually also dominates in objective discussions.

This behavioral aspect is rooted in the two countriesī differing approach to communication in general. Germans are used to put a lot of emphasis on the facts as such in communication, while for Austrians personal aspect play a much more important role. Germans usually want to know "what the whole thing is all about", and they mean it. First and foremost they want to tackle and analyze a problem, and personal issues and feelings are completely irrelevant even out of place in that context. The most important thing for them is to find solutions and to get their point across. Polite phrases and consideration for personal relationships are merely obstacles to finding solutions and to communication procedures. Objective and straightforward discussions, on the other hand, speed up the entire process and help arrive at useful results. The extensive use of polite phrases and assertions of mutual personal esteem might generate misunderstandings. As soon as Germans have found a solution, though, they are ready revert to the personal level.

Thus, the problem is that, when dealing with Germans, Austrians are often denied the form of communication they are accustomed to. Clearly, the purpose of a discussion is to arrive at a solution, but for Austrians the relationship level always plays an important role and must not be neglected. Even in an emergency, when they have to come up with solutions quickly, keeping the personal level in mind is absolutely imperative. The most important factor for Austrians is that the people involved get along, respect each other and are mindful of hierarchies and social structures. No matter how important an issue might be, it does not justify neglecting personal aspects.

 

COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

..

Germany

Austria

Stress on

Factual aspects

Personal aspects

Aim

Solutions

Conflict avoidance

Style

direct

indirect

Table 1: Communication Strategies

The above chart reveals the contrasting approaches to communication in Austria and Germany. It also explains why communication problems between representatives of the two cultures arise in the first place. The statement. "What really divides Austrians and Germans is their common language" shows another important aspect: cultural dissimilarities are an even greater problem if you do not expect them. So, because Austrians and Germans share a common language, they often underestimate misunderstandings resulting from differing communication strategies.

Examples of differences in Communication

A German secretary of an Austrian firm reports her difficulties in adjusting to the Austrian communication style:

" ... boss always used to say that all the suppliers and customers hated me. I donīt know why, they always said that they didnīt like me, even though I built up and managed the office, and everything worked just fine. Thatīs why my boss thought a lot of me and my work. But all those phrases like "Gnädige Frau" and "Küss die Handī", that was extremely hard, I just couldnīt say that all the time. Iīve always been pretty straightforward and direct, and so of course I would tell them things like "It doesnīt work that way" or "You canīt do that", but they never wanted to hear that. The women especially, they just couldnīt take being told things like "It doesnīt work that way" by another woman. There were a number of women who refused to talk to me, and when they got me on the phone they always said: "Ah, itīs the German voice, I guess Iīm going to get a rude answer right away". But while most women took it the wrong way, men often seemed to think it was a sign of competence. Women generally thought I was too straightforward, or that I was trying to treat them like children, especially when I had to tell them something like "The invoice is all wrong", or "You havenīt paid yet, when are you going to?" I had the awkward task to ask about these things, especially when there were problems, my boss wanted it that way. But most of the customers wanted to hear flattering remarks, and I just couldnīt do that. I couldnīt say things like "Gnädige Frau" or "Thank you" and "Please" all the time. I mean, I sort of got used to it and now I do that too, after all Iīve lived here for 16 years. But in the beginning it was pretty bad, they always wanted to hear "please and thank you".

An Austrian conductor who lived in Germany for a longer while got frustrated with the indirect Austrian communication when he returned to Austria:

In Germany it is not like in Austria. In Austria I heard this very nice, very Austrian statement from this guy who worked for a record company. Everything was organized, everything was planned, etc. So I went and met him, taking the tape with me and told him I had everything ready for production. And then he said, "Listen, I said okay. This not the same as yes". Thatīs Austria! First they tell you, "Okay, letīs give it a try", and a little while later suddenly: "Okay does not mean yes". Itīs a terrible habit. All that talk and no-one ever gets to the point. Really annoying! Now, in Germany, I must say, things are different, you can rely on what youīre told.

Importance of Titles and Hierarchies

The much greater importance placed on degrees, titles and hierarchic structures in Austria was mentioned by all Austrians and Germans questioned as a main cultural dissimilarity. While academic titles and hierarchies seem to play a smaller role in Germany, titles are used a lot more in Austria, sometimes even without adding the name of the person. For Austrians, this is only natural and perfectly understandable, but Germans tend to be reminded of the Vienna Congress and the time of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy.

The stress on using academic and other titles guarantees the recognition of hierarchies. Expressions like "Frau Chefin" and "Herr Doktor" or even "Herr Hofrat" help identifying and navigating hierarchic and social structures and make power and influence visible even for outsiders. "Tangible" hierarchies have the advantage of being much less called into question. If you address someone with "Herr Hofrat", it is absolutely clear for everyone concerned that they are dealing with someone important. Potential conflicts, which could arise from confusing a "Hofrat" with someone less influential or important can easily be avoided and the strategy makes sure everyone gets things straight.

Several of the interviews revealed that sometimes problems were caused by the fact that people did not mention their title, and consequently others taking part in the discussion misunderstood their importance. The examples demostrate the significance of academic and other titles in Austria. Just like insignia on an army officerīs uniform, titles show a personīs rank. They are not only extremely useful for their bearers, but also help others to make a clear assessment of the situation.

The main reason for this factor may be the relatively low subjective power distance in Austria. According to Hofstede (1984) the Austrian culture reveals the worldīs lowest rate of power distance, which indicates that Austrians also have the worldīs lowest acceptance of power distance. Even though the stress on using academic titles might imply the opposite. On the one hand Hofstede seems to be right, as Austrians tend to invariably question their superiorsī qualification. In order to avoid confrontations, they play by the rules, while simultaneously telling themselves that hierarchies are of no actual significance, and that they are just as capable or qualified as their superiors, something persons of the same hierarchic level are quick to agree upon. But on the other hand Hofstedeīs definition of low power distance does not go together with the tendency of Austrian superiors to create a large gap between themselves and their subordinates. Stressing titles and hierarchies they try to make sure that their position is recognized. The greater the gap the better. To a much greater degree than in Germany, the more or less artificial stress on hierarchies and titles, serves to secure positions and structures and to avoid struggles for power. This seems to be a clear evidence for high power distance. Therefore it seems that the result of Hofstede are not really helpful for understanding the Austrian behavior in this respect.

Examples of the different use of hierarchies and titles

A German manager reports:

Yes, titles are important in Austria, I know that. I have an example of renting an apartment. Friends of mine. Now, he does not have a university degree, heīs only got his high-school diploma, not the regular one but one from a commercial college (Handelsakademie), and he works in a bank. But his wife is a medical doctor. They have already had the same problem twice. When he went to ask about an apartment, he was, reluctantly, allowed to have a look at it, but you could tell that the landlord did not approve. Then they asked him "And what does your wife do?" When he told them she was a medical doctor, all of a sudden everything changed. It was "Frau Doktor" this and "Frau Doktor" that, they were full of praise and admiration. I mean, she is a doctor all right, but at the moment she is on maternity leave, so she doesnīt have an income, but she got to rent the apartment in the end. And her husband, the bank employee, was sort of allowed to move in with her. Things like that happened already twice to them.

An Austrian student was surprised:

I needed to go to one of the departments at the university one day and the secretary wasnīt there. Only a younger woman, and she was really nice. I asked if I could sign up for the classes there and she was very helpful and then even went to check whether there were any grade reports for me. She was really nice! And later it turned out that she was a professor at the department. I thought she was maybe an assistant or something. But when I passed that sign outside, with all the names on it I saw that she was a professor. I just canīt imagine anything like that happening at an Austrian university.

 

Social Orientation

There are also distinct differences between Germans and Austrians where achievement orientation is concerned. Germans can identify with efficiency much more than Austrians. For Germans, "efficiency" serves as a measure for their professional performance, and someone who works hard and well is appreciated. It also gets them respect and attention, and is a much more important factor in defining self-esteem.

For Austrians, personal aspects are also extremely important at their place of work. Efficiency is certainly an important factor, but social and personal aspects rate much higher. If efficiency and favorable results go at the expense of social aspects, Austrians tend to slow down or oppose the process. While Germans consider deadlines as something they have to stick to and consequently concentrate on them, Austrians always bear the social and personal consequences of commitment in mind. If the price seems too high, they rather risk not meeting a deadline, something that seems absolutely impossible for most of the Germans.

In order to increase efficiency, Germans are much more bound by clearly defined structures and demands than Austrians, and often feel that working conditions in Austria do not meet their requirements. Tasks are very often not assigned to an individual person but handed over to entire groups without any clearer explanation of what needs to be done and by whom. In Austria, statements like: "I believe we all agree we need to buy a new fax machine", are typical. For Austrians, who prefer working as part of a group, this is not a clear or definite call for action. The best thing to do is to wait and see, and usually the first person unable to deal with the situation any longer will take the required steps. For Germans such vague definitions of tasks at hand are an obstacle to the entire groupīs efficiency, as well as to their own individual performance. As they tend to identify with their performance, the Austriansī behavior creates an extremely awkward and unproductive atmosphere that can only be improved if they take the initiative. This, of course, only proves to Austrians that their way of dealing with the situation is right, since it shows that problems generally solve themselves if you only wait long enough.

Germans living in Austria seem to gradually change their views on the Austrian strategy of "laissez faire". In the beginning they seem to feel highly uncomfortable and put a lot of effort into improving unsatisfactory situations, but after a while (especially with Germans who have lived in Austria for 10 years or more) they get used to it and adjust their assessment of Austrians. They admit that they have come to believe that "After all, Austrians know how to live comfortably - and in a way they are right". So apparently they adjust to life in Austria and even adopt some Austrian values, while in the beginning they often experience an acute culture shock, since using efficiency as a measure for evaluating oneīs performance can turn out to be quite difficult in Austria.

Consequently, the motivation techniques of the two countries reveal considerable differences. Payment by result or bonuses seem to be much less successful in Austria than in Germany. Similarly, references to the efficiency or success of the company as a whole cannot produce the same motivation as in Germany, where the value of the individual employee is also defined by the entire companyīs success. In Austria, strategies offering promotion seem to be more successful.

Austrian bureaucracy, which to Germans appears exaggerated and outdated, also reflects the difference in the two countriesī rating of efficiency. When it comes to Austrian bureaucracy, Germans often complain about a lack of efficiency and productivity. In a study on Austriaīs image, German managers were questioned on Austriaīs qualification as an economic location, and identified its bureaucratic structure as the main obstacle for successful work (cf. Christl/Hansl 1996). Here, social orientation and the importance placed on personal aspects are especially pronounced. "Nepotism" seems to be the essence of Austrian social orientation, and often meets with Germans disapproval, as it is not compatible with their achievement-oriented manner of doing business. Efficient bureaucracy beyond the use of tax stamps, handwritten copies and endless odysseys from offices to counters and back would actually be much closer to the German ideal. Naturally, German bureaucracy is not entirely free of inefficiency, but as a rule it is felt to be more productive than in Austria. Thus, because of its peculiarities with regard to hierarchies and the use of official titles, and because of the stress on social orientation, the Austrian bureaucratic system can be seen as the prototype of differing cultural values for Germany and Austria.

Examples of different performance orientation in Austria and Germany

A German CEO in Austria:

In Austria, when you go tell the people in charge: "I need this job done, itīs urgent", it takes them until 4:00 in the afternoon to do it, because a few other things always come up. In Germany youīll have everything on your desk by 10:00 in the morning. Perhaps things get done at the expense of a few other issues, but they get done.

The frustration of a German manager in an Austrian bank:

They needed to buy a new fax, but nobody did anything about it (...) they knew they should, and in a way they did take care of the matter. Someone decided on which particular fax to get, but no-one really went and actually bought it. They only said: "We need to buy a new fax", and that was it. I just donīt get it! They knew it was a problem and that they should do something about it, so why didnīt they? I would do something if I saw there was a problem. Sometimes I believe they are all a bit surprised when they are faced with commitment or with someone taking the initiative.

Neglect of Rules and Regulations

According to many Germans, the statement "Rules are made so we can go round them" could be made an Austrian motto. The difference between Austrians and Germans when it comes to dealing with rules and regulations seems to be most obvious with regard to traffic regulations. While rules and regulations are highly important for Germans, for Austrians they only resemble an optional guideline - as long as regulations do not go against their interests they generally observe them. Simultaneously, though, rules encourage opposition and are often considered exaggerated or too binding for a particular situation.

Austrians tend to deny there is a deeper sense to regulations and laws. Germans are more ready to obey them, because they feel rules make sense. They believe rules are there for a reason - even though they personally may not understand what led to their creation in particular. Again, this is a good example of how the evaluation of factual and personal aspects varies in the two countries. Laws are rational and related to a factual context, which makes it easy for Germans to identify with them and to trust there is a reason behind the creation of laws. They would not exist if they did not make sense. Austrians, on the other hand, tend to neglect rules and to adapt their behavior to the situation at hand. Principles are good and important things, but they should not always be allowed to determine oneīs behavior.

The key example mentioned in several of the interviews is the behavior of pedestrians. Naturally, it makes sense not to cross a street when the lights are red, but Austrians will cross all the same, if they feel that it is more important for them to get to the other side or that there is no apparent danger. Austrians in Germany are very often approached and reminded to observe the rules. Very often, Germans refer to children who might be tempted to copy a bad example. Most Austrians probably agree to this line of reasoning, but the argument is rarely convincing enough for them to modify their behavior.

Unlike Germans, Austrians like making spontaneous decisions, and rules sometimes get in the way. They can obstruct their individual freedom and are unpopular and considered annoying. Austrians favor an emotional approach to problems, but rules and emotions are not always compatible, so sometimes regulations are not taken very seriously. For Germans, playing by the rules is an important factor for producing excellent results. It shows that they are efficient, fact- and achievement- oriented, and thus rules are much more compatible with German behavioral parameters. Austrians also feel that to always do as the law requires shows a lack of creativity as well as a lack of courage to make decisions. Skillful circumvention of the law is considered an art and often met with appreciation.

 

Examples of the different relation to rules and regualtions

An Austrian student in Germany rode a bike like at home:

... and there was something else I noticed (...) there was this German girl, she was really hysterical. She didnīt have a bike, so I said she could go with me on my bike. She sat on the carrier, but she said: "Actually, weīre not allowed to do that, itīs against the law". I knew it was, but anyway, she went with me on my bike, and then I crossed a street at a red light, and she almost had a heart-attack. She was really mad at me and said I was crazy and irresponsible for shooting a red light, especially with her on the carrier. We could be made to pay a fine, and so on. I was pretty surprised, because I didnīt know whether she was serious or not. But she really meant it, I think it was pretty sad.

Supplier-Centered Service

Not as pronounced, but still noticeable and mentioned on various occasions is a contrasting behavior towards customers. Good, efficient and friendly service seems to be rated more highly in Germany. In Austria, the behavior towards customers is obviously influenced by a differing evaluation of power structures. "The customers are always right" only applies as long as they observe the institutions or enterprises unwritten rules. Very often, Austrians make their customer feel that they are only a "necessary evil", and that they do not need to help if they do not feel like it. This phenomenon can be observed in businesses and the catering trade, in factories and workshops as well as at universities.

Communication strategies with all their indirectness and polite phrases only serve as a cover-up for a more or less openly demonstrated lack of interest or commitment. Again, for Germans this is a further proof of inefficiency, which does not make sense to them and is very hard to understand. Something like a love-hate relationship between service enterprises and their customers exists in Austria. On the one hand you need and appreciate the customers, but on the other hand they are a burden and curb your personal freedom. Unfortunately, in most of the studies this factor has been neglected so far as a possible explanation for some problems in Austriaīs tourism.

Example of differences in customer orientation

A student describes the differences in the German and Austrian service-culture:

Another example: I needed one of those little light bulbs for the back light on my bike, not the actual light, only the bulb, I donīt know what theyīre called. Anyway, I went to this bike shop and tried to explain what I wanted, and they were really friendly, immediately understood what I wanted, very good service. If you go to a copy shop in Austria and ask them how much it costs to have your diploma thesis bound as a book, they only tell you: "Thereīs a list of prices up on that wall". And when you ask them: "But canīt you tell me the price", they only say: "No, but thereīs the list, so take a look at it". Somehow I think that Austrians are a lot less friendly to their customers than Germans.

Effects on the Management

The cultural standard method enabled us to identify six categories of cultural patterns that can lead to misunderstandings in Austrian-German contacts. There are clearly many similarities between the two cultures but these cultural standards make a difference that can be felt by either culture. Moreover these differences are responsible for the fact that the Germans experience culture shock (cf. Torbjörn, 1992) when staying in Austria for a longer period than three months and more. The same happens to Austrians in Germany. This shows that these differences matter and that it would be unwise to neglect cultural standards. It would help people of both cultures to adjust their own expectations before spending longer period of time in the other culture. A little preparation before a stay in the other culture could help Germans and Austrians to be able to work more efficiently in the different cultural environments. This is especially important as a culture shock can be far harder to overcome if one cannot identify "cultural differences" as the underlying problem.

Almost all of the six cultural standards seem to have some importance in the area of management. If we define a "Manager" as a person who practises management activities (cf. Staehle, 1991, p 64), we can identify communication as the most important activity which occupies more than 90 per cent of a managers working time (cf. Mintzberg, 1973). Following that, we can define cultural standards as relevant for managers when:

• the flow of communication and information is influenced by them;

• they directly relate to management activities such as leadership, motivation or control; and

• if the cultural standard relates to the general attitude towards performance and success;

Our investigation reveals that the cultural standards "conflict avoidance" and "indirect communication" directly influence communication. While German managers prefer clear, objective and straightforward discussions, Austrians managers tend to pay much more attention to personal aspects and favor an indirect style of communication and confrontation. Since management processes are to a high degree communication processes, we can conclude that German and Austrian management techniques differ in very many areas and are therefore not entirely compatible.

The cultural standard "social orientation" is also very important for managers. The assessment of achievement-orientation and efficiency not only shows that Germans identify much more than Austrians with their own work as well as with the performance of the entire company, but also that alternative motivation strategies are required. These issues are highly important for management strategies, since the assessment of performance and the motivation of employees are extremely important tasks for every manager.

With regards to motivation, the differences in the rating of academic titles and hierarchies have to be taken into account here. High positions in hierarchies and any kind of titles are important motivational factors in Austria. Flat efficient hierarchies that are appreciated by German managers are not necessarily the best solutions in Austria, where higher hierarchies are more common. (cf. Trompenaars, 1993, p 203). In high hierarchies there is simply more room for positions and titles.

The Austrian's almost "Southern European mentality," when it comes to observing rules and regulations, may affect management processes too. If we think of control as an important management activity, the different attitudes toward rules in a company can cause great misunderstandings and confrontations. German managers who do not take into account that in Austria there is always a certain way of handling things that may not fit into the set of company regulations, will sometimes find themselves having no effect. Austrian managers on the other hand will have to understand that German subordinates are much more bound to rules than they would expect them to be. Creative bending of rules might be more difficult here.

The lack of customer service orientation observed in Austria, however, does not seem to be of high significance in this context. Although it is important that a company tries to satisfy their customers, it does not have the same level of relevance to the management.

Cultural Standard

Significance for Management Activities

Conflict Avoidance

high

In direct Communication

high

Social Orientation

high

Importance of Academic titles and Hierarchies

high

Neglect of Rules and Regulations

high

Supplier-centered Service

low

Table 2: Significance of Cultural Standards for Management Activities

We can see that most of the cultural standards that have been found out in this study are of rather high significance for managers. This shows that even subtle cultural differences play an important role in the workplace. It is not enough to simply focus on the most obvious differences of certain areas as German-speaking Europe. For success, one has to take a closer look and to try to find the hidden cultural traps in the relation between some countries too. This is not only necessary for expatriates who are going to live in another culture but also for businessmen who have to negotiate with members of different cultures. Cross-cultural management trainings are designed to prepare managers for working in an international environment and for dealing with culturally differing backgrounds. Such trainings can help bridge the cultural gaps and provide managers with detailed information on other cultures. It is, however, clear that an increase in the sensitivity for cross-cultural situations still seems to be the best preparation for cultural differences which can be quite difficult to be find out sometimes – as it is the case in the relation of Austria and Germany.

Literature

BRÜCK, F. (1996): Stereotype im interkulturellen Training. In: Arbeitspapier 6: Kultur & Management, Wien/Linz: S 17 - 24; 1992;

BRÜCK, F./TALOS, S. (1997): Erfassung von managementrelevanten Kulturunterschieden zwischen der deutschsprachigen Schweiz und Österreich. In: Fink, G.: Unpublished Final Report of the Research Project "Kultur & Management". Vienna: Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien;

BRÜCK, F. (1999): Anwendbarkeit von bestehenden Methoden und Instrumentarien zur Bewältigung interkultureller Differenzen im österreichischen Management, Dissertation, Wirtschaftsuniversität Vienna;

HOFSTEDE, G. (1984): Cultureīs Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. London: Sage Publ.;

LAMNEK, S. (1995): Qualitative Sozialforschung, Band 1 und 2, 3. corr. ed. Weinheim: Beltz;

MAINDOK, H. (1996): Professionelle Interviewführung in der Sozialforschung. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus-Verlag;

MINTZBERG, H. (1973): The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row;

NUSS, B. (1993): Das Faust-Syndrom - EinVersuch über die Mentalität der Deutschen. Bonn, Berlin: Bouvier;

OEVERMANN/ALLERT/KONAU/KRAMBECK (1979): Die Methodologie einer "objektiven Hermeneutik" und ihre allgemeine forschungslogische Bedeutung in den Sozialwissenschaften. In: SOEFFNER (Ed.): Interpretative Verfahren in den Sozial- und Textwissenschaften. Stuttgart, S 352 - 434;

SCHNEIDER, S./BARSOUX, J.-L. (1997): Managing Across Cultures. London: Prentice Hall;

SCHÜTZE, F. (1977): Die Technik des narrativen Interviews in Interaktionsfeldstudien - dargestellt an einem Projekt zur Erforschung von kommunalen Machtstrukturen. Bielefeld, Fakultät für Soziologie;

STAEHLE, W.H. (1991): Management, 6. Auflage. München: Franz Vahlen München;

THOMAS, A. (Ed.) (1988): Interkulturelles Lernen im Schüleraustausch, SSIP-Bulletin Nr. 58. Saarbrücken: Breitenbach;

THOMAS, A. (1989): Interkulturelles Handlungstraining in der Managerausbildung. In: Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium, Heft 6, S 281ff;

THOMAS, A. (1991): Grundriß der Sozialpsychologie, Band 1 und 2. Göttingen: Hofgrefe;

TORBJÖRN, I. (1982): Living Abroad. Personal Adjustment and Personnel Policy in the Overseas Setting. Chichester. New York: John Wiley & Sons;

TROMPENAARS, F. (1993): Handbuch Globales Managen. Düsseldorf/Wien, ECON;

WITZEL, A. (1982): Verfahren der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Frankfurt: Campus;