This paper demonstrates culture’s influence on management trainings and the respective implications for planning and implementing trainings in different cultures. Referring to an apparent gap in the cross-cultural literature, the author has conducted a study on differences in training styles and their cultural background, using the example of Germany and Great Britain
After a brief introduction into the field of cross-cultural training, the cultural differences between Germany and Great Britain that have been identified through interviews as well as training observations are presented.
The paper analyses the implications of cultural preferences on teaching and learning, programme contents, training activities and training structure, as well as the role of the trainer and the role of training participants.
The study intends to serve as an incitation for educators and trainers to prepare their programmes in a culturally compatible way.
This paper will demonstrate culture’s influence on management trainings and the respective implications for planning and implementing trainings in different cultures. Taking the example of Germany and Great Britain, the author has investigated differences in training styles and their cultural background in the two countries.
After a brief introduction into the field of cross-cultural training, the cultural differences between Germany and Great Britain that have been identified through empirical research are presented. The paper analyses the implications of cultural preferences on teaching and learning, programme contents, training activities and training structure, as well as the role of the trainer and the role of training participants.
The study intends to serve as an incitation for educators and trainers to prepare their programmes in a culturally compatible way.
Management research for many years tended to ignore the influence of culture by assuming similarity across the world’s industrialized countries. Largely dominated by US American studies, management research failed to question if the results had any meaning or importance within the context of a second culture. This ethnocentric view of management has been changed in the last 20 years through a wide variety of studies that have been conducted to investigate cultural differences in management processes around the world (cf. Hofstede, Trompenaars,...). Through these studies, the importance of cultural influence on management practice became evident.
But not only the academic world was faced with an increasing pressure to deal with a multicultural reality. Companies doing business internationally had to deal with the problem, that successful managers at home were not successful anymore in their expatriate assignment. Cross-cultural competence became the new buzzword for management education and training.
Again, US American influence dominated the new research field of cross-cultural competence and cross-cultural trainings. The Handbook of Cross Cultural Training (Landis&Brislin, 1983) was the first extensive research collection in this area. Even in the early days of cross-cultural training research – being "anti-ethnocentric" by definition and therefore avoiding the ethnocentric trap mentioned above – the cultural influence on trainings was already mentioned as one important factor that had to be taken into consideration when planning training programmes. Meeting the needs of the training participants had always been identified as a prerequisite for successful trainings."Trainers must strive to create a learning environment that is supportive of learners and use pedagogy that responds to diverse needs and learning styles. Trainers should also be prepared to assist learners who are not responding well to certain learning approaches and be prepared to offer alternatives." (Paige/Martin, 1983, 48)
But until today, US American research on training still has a decisive influence worldwide in terms of training contents and training methodology and considering cultural influence on trainings seems to be an underdeveloped research area. A cross-cultural theory which seriously deals with the conditions, contents and methods of learning across cultures has not yet been developed.
Many examples of costly international failures showed that cross-cultural competence, i.e. global thinking and behaviour as well as an understanding of foreign cultures, does not necessarily develop automatically as a result of international contacts. Dealing successfully with unfamiliar cultures and their respective peculiarities needs to be learned.
Cross-cultural competence can be acquired in cross-cultural trainings, which are designed to help develop an understanding of foreign cultures and reduce prejudice. Cross-cultural trainings investigate individual thought- and behavior patterns and reveal differences with regard to cross-cultural interactions, in order to broaden cross-cultural horizons and to achieve a higher degree of tolerance and open-mindedness. The broad objectives of cross cultural trainings usually range from helping to adjust to a new cultural environment to increasing personal satisfaction as well as professional effectiveness in working with other cultures. The specific goals derived from these broad objectives typically focus on a process of change in three areas: cognition, affect and behaviour. Trainees do not only have to know about cultural differences, they should also be able to cope with the emotional implications and react in an appropriate way (Gudykunst et al., 1996)
„Cross-cultural learning", though, does not mean discarding one´s personal cultural background, but serves as an expansion of orientation structures and patterns designed to guarantee success in one’s own, as well as in foreign cultural areas (Thomas, 1998).
As the term „cross-cultural" indicates, cross-cultural trainings are designed to establish a mutual understanding between representatives of differing cultural backgrounds. The training process is meant to help the trainees to gain an insight not only into their own, but also into foreign cultures, and encourages the understanding of culturally motivated behaviour (Fofannah, 1987). The most important factor of cross-cultural learning processes in this respect is the comparison of cultures and the trainees´ culture plays an important role. It is the basis for experiencing a foreign culture and its main characteristics and peculiarities. In this sense, the participants´ cultural background is part and parcel of planning cross-cultural training programmes.
This aspect is especially important if trainers and participants do not share cultural backgrounds (e.g.: if a British trainer works with German trainees). Both sides, the trainer as well as the participants bring in their culturally motivated assumptions and expectations. Training methods, programmes, materials and activities which are suited for one culture may be misunderstood within another culture and cause stress and anxiety. Thus, the trainer needs to be aware of possible cultural differences when organising the programme.
In order to fill (at least a small) part of the gap in training research that has been mentioned above, i.e. to find out about cultural differences that influence training situations, the author conducted an empirical study of cross-cultural trainings in Germany and Great Britain.
The research approach and the results of the study are illustrated below:
The study is based on the interpretative paradigm of qualitative social research (Wilson, 1973). Individuals create their social environment with „multilateral interpretations of behavioral intentions and by assigning significance to things and events" (Witzel, 1982, 114). The test persons are experts with regard to their individual experiences and to the assessment of these experiences. Taking the opinions and interpretations of individuals into account seems to be especially suitable for the only subjectively experienced area of culture and for cultural patterns inherent in everyday situations.
In order to find out how the German and the British culture determine and influence cross-cultural management training programmes, the author conducted sixteen qualitative problem-centred interviews with twelve British and four German cross-cultural trainers. The cross-cultural trainers had all worked with trainees from Germany and Great Britain and reported on their experiences with German and British trainees in interviews which lasted from 40 to 75 minutes.
The author chose problem-centred interviews, which are a rather loose, semi-structured form of interview that allows the test persons to freely talk about the chosen subject. „Semi-structured" in this context means that the interview has rather flexible guidelines which are developed by the researcher and serve as orientation patterns and memory aids during the interview. The discussion is not based on the opinion and questions of the interviewer, but on the accounts of the test persons. The interviewer has to decide at which point or stage he wants to show his interest by asking questions associated with the information obtained during the interview. Special emphasis was put on the differences between Germany and Great Britain with regard to the following aspects, which were also used as a guideline for the problem-centred interviews:
These guidelines for the interviews were developed from the literature on cultural differences with regard to learning and teaching methods, and were designed to register the potentially critical areas of cross-cultural trainings with regard to multi-cultural training groups. The guidelines were adhered to in a rather general way and were only used in order to give additional clues to the trainees, in case their narration came to a halt or broke off. Thus, they also served as a memory aid for the interviewer.
In addition to these interviews, four training observations (two with German trainers and two with British trainers) were used to verify the first conclusions drawn from the interview material. The method of participant observation was again based on the guidelines that had already been used for the interviews. Observing commercial trainings proved to be difficult in two respects: getting agreement from the company and getting agreement from the trainer. An important aspect that needs to be mentioned is the fact that all the trainers considered the topic an important and worthwhile one, and consequently were genuinely interested. Contacts with the trainers were established mainly through personal recommendations. Thus, suspicion with regard to the research project could be ruled out and a willingness to share professional experiences was guaranteed.
The empirical data from both interviews and observations were analyzed and assessed with regard to their content, (i.e. especially striking cultural differences, which were mentioned in a number of the interviews, were collected and combined as an individual concept). The term „concept" is derived from the Grounded Theory (Glaser/Strauss), and defines a certain label that can be ascribed to individual phenomena and examples (cf. Strauss/Corbin, 1996, 43). Concepts referring to similar phenomena were consequently joined to form a category, i.e. a generic concept.
The various concepts were put in relation to a category based on conditions resulting in a certain phenomenon, to the context in which the phenomenon occurred, and to their degree or significance. In the following, the categories are described in greater detail.
This category plays a central role in this study. It was repeatedly mentioned by all the trainers, mostly even at the beginning of the interview. Both its dimensions have a decisive influence on cross cultural management trainings.
Content and Techniques of Training Programmes – the Participants’ Expectations
German training participants seem to be much more interested in the theoretical aspects of the training. They attach importance to theories and theoretical concepts, logical explanations and definitions. The cognitive acquisition of knowledge is always the most important aspect. Practical examples only serve as additional explanation (deductive approach).
The British participants, on the other hand, are much more interested in actual results, and quickly get bored with detailed theoretical discussions. They are satisfied with a general concept they can work on, and do not try to „go into depth". People from Great Britain like to experience knowledge and information intuitively.
Germans want to have everything spelled out, need to reflect on and analyze everything. They do not participate in role-plays for the experience only, like the British would, but want to see things fall into place and make sense - they need to fit their training experiences into a theoretical concept. The theoretical processing of training activities thus plays an important role.
Germans in general have a rather scientific approach to problems. Therefore, individual cases and practical examples, experience etc. alone are not a guarantee of success for them. Logical concepts need to be presented, which also explain the theoretical principles associated with the practical examples for German participants to be satisfied. (Their approach is: „It works in real life, but does it also work in theory?")
The scientific approach is much less interesting to the British, in some extreme cases they may even find it deterring. Scientific and academic results do not have the same significance in the English speaking world as in Germany. Scientific concepts are designed to explain real-life situations, so it is not enough if they only apply to theories. Thus, in training sessions with British participants, theoretical concepts are only necessary insofar as they help processing training experiences. Real-life experiences are always the main objective, and are worked on and discussed and may then be fit into a theoretical framework.
Britsh trainer (B): „Germans tend to be very critical. They will always want the WHY."
B: „Something else Germans do, which drives me crazy, and which Anglo-Saxons don´t do is, they get caught up in theoretical discussions. For example, I´ve got a certain task to do, I have to, say, prepare a group of Germans for their stay in GB or in the USA or in Russia, it doesn´t really matter which. I do the introduction, and then they start this huge discussion on what culture actually is. By now I´m used to it and know how to deal with it, but I really had to learn. Because actually, the discussion is not even a theoretical basis for the entire seminar, the most important issue is, these people will be in Russia in two weeks time..."
B (about Germans): „ ... and very often participants seem to think they needed to dissect the theoretical model, not because they don´t like me personally, or because they disagree with Hofstede and his ideas, but because they are presented with this theoretical concept and it needs to be watertight and has to be universally valid."
B: „In general to be seen as an effective trainer of a German group you need to input lots of information, whereas a trainer of a British group may have to spend more time facilitating experiential activities."
B: „I think, introducing things you need a much more comprehensive introduction for German people, just to give it weight. Whereas in England you let the exercises speak for themselves."
B (about British participants): „They are very pragmatic, they want to know how to apply it, they want to see what it will do, what have I learned, what´s it used for, what can I do tomorrow?"
The respective education systems offer a possible explanation for German problem orientation and British behaviour orientation. Similar experiences were also reported by German exchange students at British universities. Asked about cultural differences with regard to education structures they noticed during their stay, many students mentioned the differing approach in education. Universities in Germany put a lot of emphasis on teaching theoretical knowledge. For the exams, the students often have to learn from long lists of specialist literature. The British system, on the other hand, stresses the practical approach to imparting knowledge. During the semester groups of students have to solve a number of case studies, and their grades usually combine exam results, presentations and case studies. According to German students, they actually acquire less theoretical information in England, but they deal with the subject in much greater detail and work more with real-life examples.
German problem orientation and British behavior orientation are also apparent in problem-solving strategies, for example in workshops, case studies and similar methods used in cross-cultural trainings.
German participants spend a lot more time on theoretical reflections and on devising strategies, before they start working on the actual problem. British participants seem to do the exact opposite. When working on a case study, German trainees usually start with preparing a theoretical concept, they approach the problem theoretically. Solutions in writing are often elaborated in great detail, everything they put down in writing is well thought out. British participants generally start with a brainstorming session and collect a number of ideas, and immediately proceed to solving the problem. They may perhaps revise some ideas later on which do not work out („trial and error"). The British approach is much more pragmatic. The most important thing is to find a solution, a way out, some kind of strategy. Their motto generally is: "Better to have a temporary solution than no solution at all."
Germans always try to get to the root of the problem, they try to discover underlying motives and causes and define the problem. They need to finish the preparatory steps before starting to consider all important aspects and to work on various suggested solutions, and eventually they always select the one solution that seems to be best. The problem as such is always the decisive issue, while for the British the only thing that counts is finding a solution at all. „So what if we know why it doesn´t work, it´ll only hold us back anyway."
B: „Germans have to discuss everything, really everything. Anglo-Saxons will talk about a few important points, and then they do something, try one approach and then hope to find out where they made mistakes, and then try something different. Germans generally smile at that, because for them it´s not well thought out."
It may be interesting to investigate the various training techniques used. Asked about how they compose their training programmes, most trainers mentioned similar techniques: Critical incidents, case studies, theory sections, simulations, role-plays. Most of the cross-cultural training concepts developed in the USA seem to be widely used and accepted. However, there are indications that American training programmes are usually adapted, depending on where they are used, and also most trainers have mentioned certain preferences. It was found that during the training the emphasis on cognitive and experiential techniques varies greatly, and that, consequently, similar training methods are not used in the same way in Germany and Great Britain.
For German cross-cultural trainings the trainers spend much more time talking. Explanations take up more time and go much more into detail. The „problem" is discussed at great length, and the trainer tries to impart theoretical knowledge. British trainers, on the other hand, regard themselves much more as „facilitators", who only give the group a general idea and help the trainees to make useful experiences during the training.
Repeatedly, German trainers mentioned during the interviews that they actually favoured the theoretical, cognitive approach. The main goal of cross-cultural trainings in Germany is to impart knowledge. Of course, also interactive methods (such as simulations or role-plays) are used, but only if there´s „enough time to spare".
If German trainers are short of time, they are likely to reduce the interactive parts of the training and merely try to impart knowledge and to teach the theoretical basis, while British trainers place little importance on theory and favour a much more experiential training style. German trainers may not even stick to the schedule if they feel they need to explain theoretical concepts in greater detail.
Asked about how they distributed cognitive and experiential sections in their trainings, German trainers estimated the relation to be about 3:1 and British trainers 1:4. Thus, there is a decisive difference in how they structure their training programmes. German trainers seem to emphasize „thinking", and British trainers „experience". For Germans, the most important issue is the problem, for the British it is behavior.
German trainer (G): „Cross-cultural trainings also have got a lot to do with knowledge."
G: „In my training programmes, the first stage is always imparting theoretical knowledge, and then the second stage, which is usually much shorter, is facilitating or coaching."
G: „I hardly ever do simulations or role-plays, there is never enough time."
B: „The British would typically say: Does it have to be so detailed? Why all the flip charts, why all these questions and answers. You can do things a lot more comfortably, you can learn things intuitively, experientially, that´s o.k. That´s the challenge for British trainers, they organize their training programmes in a way that their trainees learn things experientially."
B: „I use as little upfront lecturing as possible - let them actually do it!"
B: „I think training can only be effective, really effective if it´s experiential."
B: „It´s difficult, though, I´ve always found it hard to work with Hofstede, because it was difficult to present a theoretical model and then also to apply it. I believe it makes much more sense to use a pragmatic approach and to derive the model from real-life situations."
B: „Right now, I sometimes supervise training sessions. There´s this German trainer, who does cross-cultural seminars on China. I was at one of her her seminars, she´s exellent, really first rate. Only it´s way too much information. With every exercise she looked at her watch and said, o.k., we have to speed things up, this is going way too slow. But that´s impossible with a four-day seminar. You can only take in a certain amount at a time. I´d rather learn about four important issues and I understand what they´re all about, instead of sixteen where I start confusing everything and feel I don´t understand anything anymore.
So I told her that and she said, she knew and that I was right, but how could you improve things. And my idea was, she´s trying to teach ten intellectual paradigms, complicated things, and I suggested reducing the number to six. And with every issue I mentioned, she said no, she was so personally attached to the matter, she only wanted to drop the exercises, because for her they were not important. And I think that´s typical. I can only smile about things like that, but it´s typical. I have to deal with these things every day in my work."
Germans generally communicate in an explicit way, the Britsh on the other hand rather implicitely, symbolically and encoded. Germans discuss every aspect of a problem, in order to eliminate all uncertainties. The British, however, also communicate „between the lines", diplomacy and politeness determine the relations between individuals. Obvious facts are not talked about, they are tacitly taken for granted. The British even ridicule the Germans and their tendency to discuss every little detail - „to spell things out" has a negative connotation in English. The British lack of precision and detailed work, however, is often criticized by Germans. Germans have great difficulties in understanding the British indirect communication style. They often feel that the British do not want to or cannot give a straightforward answer and try to evade the issue.
Edward Hall (1990) described these differences in communication styles as High Context vs. Low Context. Context here refers to the information inherent in communicative structures, i.e. everything that is expressed without words in addition to the actual spoken message. German communication contains very little additional information (low context), everything that needs to be said is said in order to avoid uncertainties. There´s a lot of emphasis on mentioning all aspects of a problem and to leave as little as possible unsaid.
British „high context" communication differs from the German style in that it contains a lot more implicit information. This communication style requires a greater degree of confidence in your communication partners. These conditions need to be met for the discussion to be successful, as everyone needs to be able to decode the message in order to understand everything.
This factor is also evident in situations where people meet for the first time. For the British it is very important to get to know their opposite number. That means they briefly talk about a number of issues in order to find out about common interests. Small talk here serves the purpose just perfectly.
Germans spend a lot less time on small talk, it is not in their nature to „waste time on irrelevant matters". Rather quickly they start discussing the actual matter at hand, they immediately want to deal with the „real issue". Consequently, Germans need to discover relevant details at a later stage in the discussion, as they failed to learn the useful facts about their discussion partners earlier on. At that point, however, the British already dispose of a lot of background information, a common basis has been formed where information is shared. The bits of information which are actually exchanged, though, only make up a small part of the entire message that is to be understood by the others.
Germans thus communicate in a much more exact manner than the British, information is explicit and direct and all uncertainties are immediately discussed until a solution is found. British indirect communication is often criticized by the Germans: „I asked three questions and only got one answer."
B: „Germany is more analytical. I think it is necessary with Germans to spell things out point by point by point."
B: „British understatement and avoiding to spell things out because it might be too much of an effort means I can´t be successful with a German group. They simply don´t understand what I´m talking about."
G: „Of course it is also difficult for us to communicate as diplomatically, elegantly and politely as the British. That´s one problem with the German language, and I think also when we speak English we´re much too direct. That´s always something the British complain about, that even when Germans speak English, they still think in German."
B: „Now, in Germany I´ve noticed that when people ask a specific question they also expect a precise and detailed answer. In Great Britain on the other hand, people very often expect a little extra information. So if a question comes up and you know that there are a few other things that might be relevant in this context, they expect a much more comprehensive answer than the Germans. And then very often the British approach is, well, we don´t really want to give a definite answer, we just want to talk about it in general."
The differences in communication strategies are also apparent with regard to feedback (e.g.: in role-plays). Germans with their direct communication style often seem very „honest" to the British, but at the same time also indiscreet, rude and aggressive. The feedback given by German trainers is often considered too much of a „lecture" by the Britsh.
For Germans criticism always has a negative connotation, the Britsh however mention positive as well as negative aspects. Unfavourable critical remarks are often expressed in an almost neutral, very cautious, polite and diplomatic way.
Consequently, British critical remarks are often only understood by the British themselves, while Germans sometimes fail to notice the criticism completely and consequently are unable to react to it. British trainers very often also remark on positive aspects, which is something German trainers working with British trainees need to learn.
B (about British feedback strategies): „ ... more subtle, less direct. Very clear to the English, but not to other countries. So you have to be good at reading between the lines."
B: „One of the trainees performed really badly in one of the role-plays, it was a complete disaster, he made every possible mistake. An Anglo-Saxon would still most probably find something positive about it to remark upon and say: „Now, I liked this particular aspect, but some of the other things, maybe you could try something else. When person A said this, and person B said that, perhaps it might have been better to ...". Something like that. The Germans on the other hand?: „That was really awful!". They also do that among themselves in seminars. „You didn´t get the point. What you should have said is ...". Germans are much more direct."
The contrast between German factual orientation (i.e. the stress on factual and objective aspects) and British personal orientation that emphasizes personal relationships reveals a number of aspects which are relevant for cross-cultural training situations.
One of the central aspects of German factual orientation is the Germans´ serious approach to trainings and things in general, which contrasts starkly with the British sense of humour and its numerous functions.
The British approach cross-cultural trainings in a rather relaxed manner, and their opinions are emphasized by their use of humour. A good sense of humour forms an important part of British trainings and accomplishes several functions in this context. Humourous remarks and jokes are designed to create a relaxed atmosphere, to reduce tensions, and to „break the ice". Especially at the beginning of training sessions the participants may be somewhat apprehensive, and the conscious use of humour and jokes may help to create a much more agreeable training situation. The relationship between the trainer and the trainees may thus turn out to be much more „amicable".
Humour is also used during the training in order to motivate the participants. British trainees expect to be „entertained" by their trainers. There has to be a certain amount of fun to the trainings, so the trainees remain interested in the subject.
Excessively dry and theoretical explanations only seem to deter the British and are unlikely to be successful, as the trainees will stop paying attention and feel the training is useless anyway, if they´re not sufficiently motivated. Thus, British trainers consciously incorporate humour into their training programmes in order to make sure their trainees pay attention and also take in the more complex issues. They try to establish a personal relationship with their audience. The most important issue for the British is not the matter as such, the theoretical contents of the programme, but the other participants as well as their personal contact with the trainer. The personal level is very important for implementing training goals. The subject can be taught much more easily by using an easy-going, humorous approach that motivates the participants and conveys the central aspects in an entertaining way.
German participants are much more serious than their British colleagues. The training sessions are part of their job, they serve an educational purpose only, and consequently, the question whether they are „fun" or not is entirely irrelevant. This does not necessarily mean that the atmosphere at German training sessions is not relaxed at all. However, too many jokes and too much humour are considered out of place, as people may feel they are not being taken seriously. German trainees do not expect their trainers to be „entertainers" or to motivate them with a relaxed and easy-going approach. They expect the trainers to be experts with a lot of subject knowledge.
Motivation is seen from different angles in the two countries. For the Germans, factual orientation already serves as a motivating factor and compels them to participate in the training programme as it might be useful for their job (e.g.: their forthcoming assignment abroad). In Great Britain, however, a humourous approach is used to create an amicable training situation which in turn motivates the participants.
G: „ Actually, in Germany nowadays things are not as terribly dry anymore, and trainings are carried out in a much more relaxed way. But still you have to be careful in Germany not to tell too many jokes, - a good sense of humour is something very personal, so if you don´t know the people very well, you may want to be careful - and also you may not be taken seriously in Germany."
G: „ ... very serious, you don´t laugh all that much , whereas in British trainings everything is very relaxed, lots of jokes that are not always easy to understand for Germans. The British sense of humour is a decisive factor in cross-cultural trainings and in other situations, relationships and also in communication. I believe it´s the one element that is the most difficult to convey.
So, in order to facilitate communication in Great Britain, humour plays an important role also in seminars. The British typically consider the Germans stiff and uptight, but when British trainers have to teach in Germany they are not considered to be serious enough. Or they´re regarded as being too relaxed."
B: „You can always motivate people by making fun of them just a little, with a joke or a good sense of humour. But that´s something others have to understand, which is very difficult in Germany. If I make a joke about one of the participants in Germany, perhaps because he´s not paying attention at the moment, I risk a negative and indignant reaction. The British, as a rule, simply laugh about it and say, well yes, you´re right, I´ll try and pay attention. A sense of humour is an important aspect of communication, while in Germany jokes are very nice and relaxing, so if you tell a joke during the seminar, all right, but it is not useful as a communication strategy, and the reactions may be quite critical."
B: „The British would tend to view the heavy-on-information approach of the Germans as boring and often value a trainer who is amusing. There´s a tendency among British - probably Anglo-Saxon in general - seminar participants to value slickness of approach over volume of input; this tendency may be reversed for the Germans."
B (about German trainees and their expectations): „I think, in general they see it as part of the tapestry of their career development, and to that extent they take it seriously. I think they concentrate, and they would see they´re here to learn, and you know all of those things are prerequisites, whereas in England you would have to make sure that people want to learn and that the information is provided in a way they can learn easily. So if there are any hurdles to learning, if it becomes difficult to learn, then the Germans would persevere with that longer, whereas the English would just say: well I think the course is hopeless."
Thus, it is also one of the tasks of the trainer to prove to the German participants that the various training methods are useful after all, especially when they´re dealing with new or unfamiliar training methods, as for example role-plays. Very often, simply hinting at the purpose of the methods applied or at their inherent usefulness helps to bring down barriers and to get the participants´ interest. Instead of simply announcing a „role-play", a German trainer would probably talk about „a training activity", in order to demonstrate the seriousness of the method and its importance for the entire training. For Germans, „play" is easily associated with fun and with lack of seriousness. Something that is merely a lot of fun can never really yield actual results, and thus is not factually oriented enough for Germans.
B: „I tend to inform them (German group) that some of the activities might seem a little strange but please just go along with them because there´s always a goal there."
B: „So for example, when I do trainings in Germany I always use a transparency that lists the advantages of role-plays, lots of numbers and research results on why it is good to do role-plays, even though they do take a lot of time. But sometimes I just have to, you know, its just the German way of argumentation, so if you can convince some of them that these techniques are actually a wonderful invention ... Anyway, its a good move here in Germany to have lots of numbers and statistics at hand, ... while in Great Britain as a rule, well, I just wouldn´t do it, I would rather say something funny about it."
Another important aspect of German factual orientation and British personal orientation concerns the role of the trainers and the expectations of the participants with regard to the programme. As I mentioned before, trainers of German groups mainly have to demonstrate their professional competence, all other aspects are a lot less relevant. In other words, a trainer with a lot of well-founded specialist knowledge, but who´s not entertaining or charming at all, may be able to motivate a German, but not a British audience.
For British training participants, the trainer´s personality and social competence are much more important than for German trainees. The trainers have to be accepted by their audience, and to convince them they need to „sell" their programme. The relationship between trainers and trainees is highly important and often determines the success of the entire training programme.
B: „It all depends on how you introduce yourself. In Germany I always make sure I tell them a lot about my qualification, and also the names of the companies and other institutions I´ve worked for, and how successful my training programmes are. With a British audience, I usually try to find a more personal approach, I would rather tell them something about myself."
The attempts of the Germans to avoid unclear situations are reflected in a number of aspects in training situations, not only on the organizational, but also on the methodic, conceptual and personal level.
German trainers usually meticulously plan training concepts and schedules. Timetables, the various training phases as well as breaks are planned in advance and are considered obligatory. The planned phases and breaks are consequently expected by the participants. A too vague timetable would be considered unprofessional.
British trainers put less emphasis on detailed timetables, and usually do not take them too seriously. Training processes can be relatively flexible and may take up more or less time than planned. Naturally, British participants also expect to be given a schedule at the beginnning of the session, but they do not expect the trainer to meticulously stick to it. On the contrary, a more flexible organization is generally appreciated and is considered more customer-service oriented.
B (about German trainees): „Well, there´s the organizational expectation to begin with, that everything has to be perfectly planned. Of course it´s entirely o.k. for the participants of a relatively expensive seminar to expect extensive preparation from the trainer, and that all the study materials are printed and available. But I have got the impression that the demands the Germans make are sometimes a bit exaggerated, ..."
B (in Germany): „For my seminars I always have to prepare a very detailed schedule, and of course I do it, but I don´t really believe in it, I merely do it because I know it´s expected, not because I think it makes sense. And I know, I hardly ever stick to it in the end, and sometimes I´m criticized for it, not so much if the entire seminar is a success, in that case the schedule is entirely irrelevant, but still the participants notice it. Something like: It is Tuesday, 2:30 p.m., so right now we should be doing this or that, but we already did that yesterday."
Teaching cross-cultural know-how in Germany is always associated with a certain degree of perfectionism, the trainers want to inform the participants as extensively and elaborately as possible, and also there´s the expectation of the participants to be taught detailed and well-founded knowledge. This approach seems to be linked to a concept that may be regarded as a „search for the absolute truth". Trainers as well as participants are not content with one single experience, one single example, a discussion etc., but they want to get „real answers" that explain every aspect of the question, are universally applicable and help to avoid future conflicts.
German trainers as a rule spend a lot more time on explanations and theoretical information than British trainers, because they want avoid having to leave their participants alone with incomplete information in an unfamiliar situation, where they might be led to draw conclusions that fail to include all important aspects of the problem, or may even deviate entirely from the explanations of the trainer (who´s an expert after all).
By keeping to their well thought-out schedules and plans and by presenting and discussing all topics at great length, the trainers also guarantee that no important aspect is overlooked or forgotten.
British trainers on the other hand like to work with experiential, interactive methods that allow the participants to experience how cross-cultural conflicts actually occur. This method is also successful, because the participants do not expect to be presented with a model solution. The trainees should take home their own experiences. According to the majority of British trainers, individual experience is worth a lot more than a varitey of theoretical concepts. The perfectionist approach and the desire to be taught „definite information and knowledge", is much less marked with British trainers. The British can live much more easily with the realization that they do not know and do not have to know everything.
B: „Germans often expect a very comprehensive programme, so quite often with workshops, if you are running a workshop, you have a very flexible programme and then people have a problem with that ... we spend time on whatever you feel is important, so if this is important we continue to work on it."
An analysis of the training handouts that were distributed during the observed trainings confirmed these findings:
For German participants the trainer is an expert, who has to be able to anwer all questions that migh come up and present comprehensive solutions to the problems. „Expertise" is often associated with specialist knowledge, and also with practical experience and thus with the trainer´s age. Consequently, it can be rather difficult for younger trainers to be accepted and to prove they´re compentent, as they are often being „rejected" or considered less qualified because of their age. This „shortcoming" however can be made up with comprehensive theoretical knowledge on the subject.
For German trainers, professional competence is a basis for their credibility. It can be acquired primarily through their education and also as a result of cross-cultural experience. Thus, it is not enough for German trainers to be able to talk about interesting personal experiences, they have to have dealt with the theoretical aspects of the issue and need to be able to give expert explanations. A trainer needs to be an expert in order to be qualified to prepare others for their cross-cultural experiences. Expert are able to pass on their knowledge and to reduce the trainees´ anxiety by offering clear and definite solution.
The central issue is the belief in the „power of knowledge", which helps to deal with and solve critical situations. According to German participants, cross-cultural trainings are meant to be comprehensive preparatory measures to be provided by specialists and experts. Thus, British trainers are very often and unexpectedly faced with German participants asking questions like: „What qualification do you have to do this training programme?"
In Great Britain, the „cult of the expert" is much less pronounced. The British also accept younger trainers as long as they are generally entertaining and manage to convince them with their personality and rhetorical skills. Real life experience is more important than theoretical knowledge. The trainers do not have to „know and be able to explain everything", they may not even have answers to all questions. Germans would regard this as a sign of incompetence or even as a „weakness", it would hurt the authority of the trainer.
These contrasting expectations with regard to the role of the trainers are also apparent in group discussions. British trainers like to also discuss problems among themselves. They exchange experiences and ideas, while in German groups exchanging thoughts and ideas is basically limited to trainers and participants, with the trainers being regarded as experts on the subject and not so much as a part of the group.
B (on German expectations): „The trainer is the expert and is there to impart knowledge which should be supported in much detail with written documentation. It would be a surprise and probably an unwelcome one, if the trainer were to come in and run the session around a series of amusing anecdotes."
B: „I think one of the most important questions I get asked by Germans is „how are you qualified to teach me?" and it´s a question I never really get asked so much by English people. They (Germans) are interested in „Do you have a PhD in this subject?"
B (on German expectations): „Expert knowledge and being an expert in the sense that you can offer solutions, which field you work in, which qualification you have to do the training, what speaks for and against you as a trainer, I feel that for the British these questions are less important, or that they decide whether they accept you or not at the beginning of the programme."
Management training in a global environment typically involves people with different cultural backgrounds and these different backgrounds should be reflected in the trainer’s choice of the training material and training pedagogy. Trainers should be aware of the implications different training methodologies can have and how different approaches relate to different learning styles. The importance of the consonance between the trainer’s teaching style and the trainees’ learning styles is mentioned throughout the cross cultural training literature as a very important factor for planning and implementing cross cultural trainings.
The aim of this paper was to demonstrate how the British and the German culture may influence cross-cultural management trainings in order to draw conclusions with regard to planning and implementing trainings for participants from Germany or Great Britain.
A competent trainer should be aware of the possible implications of culturally based preferences but he should also keep in mind that cultural influence is just one of the factors that determine training success. Trainers have to select from the wide variety of training tools the ones that meet the following criteria:
There is a potential risk in the use of every training tool for a trainer:
too much focus on lectures and input from the trainer could be regarded as boring, too passive, not challenging enough for participants who are used to a different learning style. Too much focus on discussions, group problem solving, role playing could be interpreted as too trainee-centred with a lack of input from the trainer (the expert) and therefore a lack of learning output. Too much emphasis on simulations and role plays however could be regarded as not serious enough, childish and maybe even too risky (in terms of self disclosure) for the training participants.
The training will only be effective, if the trainer’s assumptions about the training purpose and the correspondent training style are communicated successfully to his training audience, i.e. if the learners share the same expectations and interpretations of the training situation. The trainer can then take over the role of a facilitator while each participant assumes responsibility for his own learning outcome.
The results presented in this study are to be a first step and should serve as motivation for cross-cultural trainers to develop their training programmes for German/British trainees in a culturally more compatible way. The paper is also meant to serve as an incitation for management trainers in general, to consider their participants´culture when planning their programmes.
Adler N. (1991): International dimensions of organizational behavior, PWS-Kent Publishing, Boston, MA.
Brislin R./Landis D./Brandt M. (1983), Conceptualizations of Intercultural Behavior and Training. In: Landis D. & Brislin R.W., Handbook of Intercultural Training, Vol.I, Pergamon Press, New York
Brislin R. (1990): Applied cross-cultural psychology, Newbury Park, California, USA, Sage Publications
Brislin R. & Yoshida T. (1994): Intercultural Communication Training: an introduction, Sage Publications, London
Cushner K. (1990): Cross-cultural pychology and the formal classroom, in: Applied cross-cultural psychology, R. Brislin, Sage Publ., London, S.98-120
Dadder, R. (1987). Interkulturelle Orientierung. Analyse ausgewählter interkultureller Trainingsprogramme. Saarbrücken: Breitenbach.
Danckwortt D. (1987): Probleme interkulturellen Lernens, in: Otto Benecke Stiftung (Hrsg.): Kulturelle Konfrontation oder interkulturelles Lernen, Seminardokumentation Entwicklungsländerprogramme, Heft 6, S.5-20, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden
Ebster-Grosz D. & Pugh D. (1996): Anglo-German Business Collaboration, Pitfalls and Potentials, Macmillan Press, London
Fofannah A.A.S. (1987): Kulturelle Konfrontation oder interkulturelles Lernen?, in: Otto Benecke Stiftung (Hrsg.): Kulturelle Konfrontation oder interkulturelles Lernen, Seminardokumentation Entwicklungsländerprogramme, Heft 6, S.183-185, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden
Gudykunst W. & Ting-Toomey S. (1990): Culture and interpersonal communication, Newbury Park, Sage
Gudykunst W.B., Guzley R.M., Hammer M.R. (1996), Designing Intercultural Training, in: Landis D. & Bhagat R.S., Handbook of Intercultural Training, 2nd edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Hall E. (1990): Understanding cultural differences: keys to success in West Germany, France, and the United States, Intercultural Press Yarmouth
Hofstede G. (1986): Cultural differences in teaching and learning, in: International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol 10, 301-320, 1986
Hofstede G.(1991): Cultures and Organizations - Software of the mind, Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival, McGraw-Hill, London
Hofstede G. (1993): Interkulturelle Zusammenarbeit. Kulturen, Organisationen, Management, Gabler, Wiesbaden
Johnson H. (1991): Cross-Cultural Differences: Implications for Management Education and Training, in: Journal of European Industrial Training, 15;6, S.13-16
Keller E. (1982): Management in fremden Kulturen: Ziele, Ergebnisse, und methodische Probleme der kulturvergleichenden Managementforschung, Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern/Stuttgart
Lamnek S. (1995): Qualitative Sozialforschung. Bd. 2: Methoden und Techniken. München: Psychologie-Verlags-Union.
Landis D. & Brislin R.W. (1983): Handbook of intercultural training. Vol. I-III. New York: Pergamon.
Lawrence P. (1980): Managers and Management in West Germany, Croom Helm London
Mayring P. (1993): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (4., erweit. Aufl., Neuausg). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.
Nill A. (1995): Die interkulturelle Gültigkeit von Managementtheorien aus wissenschaftstheoretischer Perspektive, in: Hinterhuber H.: Die Herausforderungen der Zukunft meistern, Peter Lang Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, S.149-176
Paige M.R.&Martin J.N. (1983), Ethical Issues and Ethics in Cross-cultural Training, in: Landis D.&Brislin R.W., Handbook of Intercultural Training, Vol.I, New York, Pergamon
Paige M.R. (1996), Intercultural Trainer Competencies, in: Landis D. & Bhagat R.S., Handbook of Intercultural Training, 2nd edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Reisch B. & Tang Z. (1992): Know-How Transfer Asien - Zur Gestaltung deutsch-asiatischer Informations- und Weiterbildungsmaßnahmen, Institut für interkulturelles Management (Hrsg.), Arbeitsunterlage
Reisch B. (1991): Kulturstandards lernen und vermitteln, in: Thomas A.: Kulturstandards in der internationalen Begegnung, ssip bulletin, Nr. 61, Saarbrücken, S.71-101
Scherm E. (1993): Internationales Personalmanagement, Oldenburg Verlag, München
Strauss A. (1991), Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung, Wilhelm Fink Verlag, München
Thomas A. (1988): Interkulturelles Lernen im Schüleraustausch, ssip bulletin Nr. 58, Verlag Breitenbach, Saarbrücken
Thomas A. (1991): Kulturstandards in der internationalen Begegnung, ssip bulletin, Nr. 61, Verlag Breitenbach, Saarbrücken
Thomas A. & Hagemann K. (1992): Training interkultureller Kompetenz, in: Interkulturelles Management, Bergemann N. & Sourisseaux A.L.J. (Hrsg.), Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, S.173-198
Thomas A. (1993): Kulturvergleichende Psychologie. Eine Einführung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Thornhill A.R. (1993): Management Training across cultures: The challenge for trainers, in: Journal of European Industrial Training, 17;7, S.43-51
Wilson T.P. (1973), Theorien der Interaktion und Modelle soziologischer Erklärung. In: Arbeitsgruppe Bielefelder Soziologen (Hrsg.), Alltagswissen, Interaktion und gesellschaftliche Wirklichkeit. Reinbeck 1973, 54-79
Witzel A. (1982), Verfahren der qualitativen Sozialforschung - Überblick und Alternativen, Campus, Frankfurt