Beyond Sophisticated Stereotyping-Cultural Sensemaking in Context

Academy ol Managemenl ExecuUvs. 2000, Vol. 14, No. 1

Beyond sophisticatedstereotyping: Cultural

sensemaking in context

Joyce S. Oslond and Allan Biid

Executive OverviewMuch of our cross-cultural training and research occurs within the framework of bipolar

cultural dimensions. While this sophisticated stereotyping is helpful to a certain degree,it does not convey the complexity found within cultures. People working across culturesare frequently surprised by cultural paradoxes that do not seem to fit the descriptionsthey have learned. The authors identify the sources of cultural paradoxes and introducethe idea of value trumping: In a specific context, certain cultural values take precedenceover others. Thus, culture is embedded in the context and cannot be understood fullywithout taking context into consideration. To decipher cultural paradoxes, the authorspropose a model of cultural sensemaking. linking schemas to contexts. They spell out theimplications of this model for those who teach culture, for people working across cultures,and for multinational corporations.

li U.S. Americans are so individualistic and be-lieve so deeply in self-reliance, why do they havethe highest percentage of charitable giving in theworld and readily volunteer their help to commu-nity projects and emergencies?

In a 1991 survey, many Costa Rican customerspreferred automatic tellers over human tellers be-cause "at least the machines are programmed tosay 'good morning' and 'thank you.'"' Why is it thatso many Latin American cultures are noted forwarm interpersonal relationships and a culturalscript of simpatia (positive social behavior),^ whilesimultaneously exhibiting seeming indifference asservice workers in both the private and public sec-tors?

Based on Hofstede's^ value dimension of Uncer-tainty Avoidance, the Japanese have a low toler-ance for uncertainty while Americans have a hightolerance. Why then do the Japanese intentionallyincorporate ambiguous clauses in their businesscontracts, which are unusually short, while Amer-icans dot every i, cross every t, and painstakinglyspell out every possible contingency?

Many people trained to work in these culturesfound such situations to be paradoxical when theyfirst encountered them. These examples often con-tradict and confound our attempts to neatly cate-

gorize cultures. They violate our conceptions ofwhat we think particular cultures are like. Con-strained, stereotypical thinking is not the onlyproblem, however. The more exposure and under-standing one gains about any culture, the moreparadoxical it often becomes. For example, U.S.Americans are individualistic in some situations{e.g., "the most comprehensive of rights and theright most valued is the right to be left alone"*) andcoUectivist in others (e.g., school fundraisingevents).

Long-term sojourners and serious cultural schol-ars find it difficult to make useful generalizationssince so many exceptions and qualifications to thestereotypes, on both a cultural and individuallevel, come to mind. These cultural paradoxes aredefined as situations that exhibit an apparentlycontradictory nature.

Surprisingly, there is little mention of culturalparadoxes in the management literature.^ Ourlong-term sojourns as expatriates (a combined to-tal of 22 years), as well as our experience in teach-ing cross-cultural management, preparing expatri-ates to go overseas, and doing comparativeresearch, has led us to feel increasingly frustratedwith the accepted conceptualizations of culture.Thus, our purpose is to focus attention on cultural

65

66 Academy of Management Executive February

paradoxes, explain why they have been over-looked and why they exist, and present a frame-work for making sense of them. Our intent is toinitiate a dialogue that will eventually provideteachers, researchers, and people who work acrosscultures with a more useful way to understandculture.

A look at the comparative literature reveals thatcultures are described in somewhat limited terms.^There are 22 dimensions commonly used to com-pare cultures, typically presented in the form ofbipolar continua, with midpoints in the first exam-ples, as shown in Table 1. These dimensions weredeveloped to yield greater cultural understandingand allow for cross-cultural comparisons. An un-anticipated consequence of using these dimen-sions, however, is the danger oi stereotyping entirecultures.

Sophisticated Stereotyping

In many parts of the world, one hears a genericstereotype for a disliked neighboring ethnicgroup—"The (fill in the blank) are lazy, dirtythieves, and their women are promiscuous." Thisis a low-level form of stereotyping, often basedon lack of personal contact and an irrationaldislike of people who are different from oneself.Professors and trainers work very hard to dispelsuch stereotypes. Rarely, however, do we stop toconsider whether we are supplanting one form of

stereotyping for another. For example, when weteach students and managers how to perceivethe Israelis using Hofstede's'' cultural dimen-sions, they may come to think of Israelis in termsof small power distance, strong uncertaintyavoidance, moderate femininity, and moderateindividualism. The result is to reduce a complexculture to a shorthand description they may betempted to apply to all Israelis. We call thissophisticated stereotyping, because it is basedon theoretical concepts and lacks the negativeattributions often associated with its lower-levelcounterpart. Nevertheless, it is still limiting inthe way it constrains individuals' perceptions ofbehavior in another culture.

Do we recommend against teaching the culturaldimensions shown in Table 1 so as to avoid sophis-ticated stereotyping? Not at all. These dimensionsare useful tools in explaining cultural behavior.Indeed, cultural stereotypes can be helpful—pro-vided we acknowledge their limitations. They aremore beneficial, for example, in making compari-sons between cultures than in understanding thewide variations of behavior within a single cul-ture. Adler̂ encourages the use of "helpful stereo-types," which have the following limitations: Theyare consciously held, descriptive rather than eval-uative, accurate in their description of a behav-ioral norm, the first best guess about a group priorto having direct information about the specific peo-ple involved, and modified based on further obser-

Table 1Common Cultural Dimensions

Subjugation to naturePastBeingHierarchical relationshipsPrivate spaceEvil human natureHuman nature as changeableMonochronic timeHigh-context languageLow uncertainty avoidanceLow power distanceShort-term orientationIndividualismMasculinityUniversalismNeutralDiffuseAchievementIndividualismInner-directedIndividualism (competition)Analyzing (reductivist)

HarmonyPresentContaining and controllingGroupMixedNeutral or mixed

Mastery ol natureFutureDoingIndividualisticPublicCSoodHuman nature as unchangeablePolychronic timeLow-context languageHigh uncertainty avoidanceHigh power distanceLong-term orientationCollectivismFemininityParticularismEmotionalSpecificAscriptionOrganizationOuter-directedGroup-organization (collusion)Synthesizing (larger, integrated wholes)

Sources: Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck (1961); Hall & Hall (1990); Hofstede (1980); Parsons & Shils (1951); Trompenaars & Hampden Turner(1993); Trompenaars (1994). The dimensions are bipolar continua, with the first six containing midpoints.

2000 Osland and Bird 67

vations and experience. As teachers, researchers,and managers in cross-cultural contexts, we needto recognize that our original characterizations ofother cultures are best guesses that we need tomodify as we gain more experience.

As teachers, researchers, and managersin cross-cultural contexts, we need torecognize that our originalcharacterizations of other cultures arebest guesses that we need to modify aswe gain more experience.

For understandable, systemic reasons, businessschools tend to teach culture in simple-mindedterms, glossing over nuances and ignoring com-plexities. An examination of the latest crop of or-ganizational behavior and international businesstextbooks revealed that most authors present onlyHofstede's cultural dimensions, occasionally sup-plemented by Hall's theory of high- and low-con-text cultures.^ Although these disciplines are notcharged with the responsibility of teaching culturein great depth, these are the principal courses inmany curricula where business students are ex-posed to cross-cultural concepts. Another handi-cap is that many business professors do not re-ceive a thorough grounding in culture in their owndisciplines and doctoral programs. One could fur-ther argue that we are joined in this conspiracy togive culture a quick-and-dirty treatment by practi-tioners and students who are looking for ways tosimplify and make sense of the world.

The limitations of sophisticated stereotypingbecome most evident when we confront culturalparadoxes. This is the moment we realize our un-derstanding is incomplete, misleading, and poten-tially dangerous. Perhaps because cultural para-doxes reveal the limitations in our thinking, theyare often left unmentioned, even though virtuallyanyone with experience in another culture canusually identify one or two after only a moment'sreflection.

Why Don't We Know More About CulturalParadoxes?

With one exception,'° the cross-cultural literaturecontains no mention or explanation of cultural par-adoxes. This absence can be explained by:

• homegrown perceptual schemas that result incultural myopia

• lack of cultural experience that leads to misin-terpretation and failure to comprehend the en-tire picture

• cultural learning that plateaus before completeunderstanding is achieved

• Western dualism that generates theories withno room for paradox or holistic maps

• features of cross-cultural research that encour-age simplicity over complexity

• a between-culture research approach that isless likely to capture cultural paradoxes than awithin-culture approach.

PercepfuaJ Schemas

When outsiders look at another culture, they inev-itably interpret its institutions and customs usingtheir own lenses and schemas; cultural myopiaand lack of experience prevent them from seeingall the nuances of another culture.

In particular, a lack of experience with the newculture creates difficulties for new expatriates try-ing to make sense of what they encounter. Thesituation is analogous to putting together a jigsawpuzzle. Though one may have the picture on thepuzzle box as a guide, making sense of each indi-vidual piece and understanding where and how itfits is exceedingly difficult. As more pieces are putinto place, however, it is easier to see the biggerpicture and understand how individual piecesmesh. Similarly, as one acquires more and variedexperiences in the new culture, one can develop anappreciation for how certain attitudes and behav-iors fit the puzzle and create an internal logic of thenew culture.

The danger with sophisticated stereotyping isthat it may lead individuals to think that the num-ber of shapes that pieces may take is limited andthat pieces fit together rather easily. As Barnlundnotes: "Rarely do the descriptions of a politicalstructure or religious faith explain precisely whenand why certain topics are avoided or why specificgestures carry such radically different meaningsaccording to the context in which they appear.""

Expatriates and researchers alike tend to focusfirst on cultural differences and make initial con-clusions that are not always modified in light ofsubsequent evidence.'^ Proactive learning aboutanother culture often stops once a survival thresh-old is attained, perhaps because of an instinctiveinclination to simplify a complex world. This maylead us to seek black-and-white answers ratherthan tolerate the continued ambiguity that typifiesa more complete understanding of another culture.

One of the best descriptions of the peeling awayof layers that characterizes deeper cultural under-


standing is found in a fictionalized account of ex-patriate life written by an expatriate manager,Robert Collins.'^ He outlines ascending levels on aWesterner's perception scale of Japanese culturethat alternate, in daisy-petal-plucking fashion, be-tween seeing the Japanese as significantly differ-ent or not really that different at all:

The initial Level on a Westerner's perceptionscale clearly indicates a "difference" of greatsignificance. The Japanese speak a languageunlike any other human tongue . . . they writethe language in symbols that reason alonecannot decipher. The airport customs officersall wear neckties, everyone is in a hurry, andthere are long lines everywhere.

Level Two is represented by the suddenawareness that the Japanese are not differentat all. Not at all. They ride in elevators, havea dynamic industrial/trade/financial system,own great chunks of the United States, andserve cornflakes in the Hotel Okura.

Level Three is the "hey, wait a minute" stage.The Japanese come to all the meetings, smilepolitely, nod in agreement with everythingsaid, but do the opposite of what's expected.And they do it all together. They really aredifferent.

But are they? Level Four understanding rec-ognizes the strong group dynamics, commoneducation and training, and the generalsense of loyalty to the family—which in theircase is Japan itself. That's not so unusual,things are just organized on a larger scalethan any social unit in the West. Nothing isfundamentally different.

Level Five can blow one's mind, however.Bank presidents skipping through streetsdressed as dragons at festival time; singleladies placing garlands of flowers aroundhuge, and remarkably graphic, stone phallicsymbols; Ministry of Finance officials rear-ranging their bedrooms so as to sleep in a"lucky" direction; it is all somewhat odd. Atleast, by Western standards. There is some-thing different in the air.

And so on. Some Westerners, the old Japanhands, have gotten as far as Levels 37 or 38.''*

The point of CoUins's description is that it takestime and experience to make sense of another cul-

ture. The various levels he describes reflect differ-ing levels of awareness as more and more piecesof the puzzle are put into place. Time and experi-ence are essential because culture is embedded inthe context. Without context it makes little sense totalk about culture. Yet just as its lower-order coun-terpart does, sophisticated stereotyping tends tostrip away or ignore context. Thus, cognitive sche-mas prevent sojourners and researchers from see-ing and correctly interpreting paradoxical behav-ior outside their own cultures.

Theoretical Limitations

Another reason for the inattention to cultural par-adoxes stems from the intersection between cogni-tive schemas and theory. Westerners have a ten-dency to perceive stimuli in terms of dichotomiesand dualisms rather than paradoxes or holisticpictures.^^ The idea of paradox is a fairly recentwrinkle on the intellectual landscape of manage-ment theorists'^ and has not yet been incorporatedinto cultural theories in a managerial context.

Cross-cultural research is generally held to bemore difficult than domestic studies. Hofstede's''work represented a major step forward andlaunched a deluge of studies utilizing his dimen-sions. Hundreds of studies have used one or moreof Hofstede's dimensions to explore similaritiesand differences across cultures regarding numer-ous aspects of business and management. How-ever, Hofstede himself warned against expectingtoo much of these dimensions and of using themincorrectly. For example, he defended the individ-ualism-collectivism dimension as a useful con-struct, but then went on to say: "This does notmean, of course, that a country's Individual Indexscore tells all there is to be known about the back-grounds and structure of relationship patterns inthat country. It is an abstraction that should not beextended beyond its limited area of usefulness."^^

When we fail to specify under what conditions aculture measures low or high on any of the com-mon cultural dimensions, or to take into consider-ation the impact of organizational culture, it mis-leads rather than increases our understanding ofcomparisons of culture and business practices.Such an approach prevents rather than opens upopportunities for learning and exploration.

A final explanation for the failure to addresscultural paradoxes can be traced to the emic/eticdistinction commonly used in the cultural litera-ture. An emic perspective looks at a culture fromwithin its boundaries, whereas an etic perspectivestands outside and compares two or more cultures.To make between-culture differences more promi-

2000 OsJand and Bird 69

nent, the etic approach minimizes the inconsisten-cies within a culture. Most cultural approaches inmanagement adopt a between-culture approach,playing down the within-culture differences thatexpatriates must understand in order to work suc-cessfully in the host country.

Anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss warned thatexplanation does not consist of reducing the com-plex to the simple, but of substituting a more intel-ligible complexity for one that is less intelligible.^În failing to acknowledge cultural paradoxes orthe complexity surrounding cultural dimensions,we may settle for simplistic, rather than intelli-gently complex, explanations.

Sources of Paradox in Cultural Behavior

Behavior that looks paradoxical to an expatriate inthe initial stages of cultural awareness may sim-ply reflect the variance in behavioral norms forindividuals, organizational cultures, subcultures,as well as generational differences and changingsections of the society. In addition, expatriatesmay also form microcultures^^ with specific mem-bers of the host culture. The cultural synergy ofsuch microcultures may not be reflective of thenational culture. These false paradoxes need to bediscarded before more substantive paradoxes canbe evaluated.

Based on an analysis of all the paradoxes wecould find, we have identified six possible expla-nations for cultural behaviors that appear trulyparadoxical. They are:

• the tendency for observers to confuse individualwith group values

• unresolved cultural issues• bipolar patterns• role differences• real versus espoused values• value trumping, a recognition that in specific

contexts certain sets of values take precedenceover others.

Confusing individual with group values is exem-plified by the personality dimension labeledallocentrlsm versus idiocentrism, which is the psy-chological, individual-level analog to the individ-ualism-collectivism dimension at the level of cul-ture.2' Allocentric people, those who pay primaryattention to the needs of a group, can be found inindividualistic cultures, and idiocentric people,those who pay more attention to their own needsthan to the needs of others, in coUectivist cultures.What we perceive as cultural paradox may notreflect contradictions in cultural values, but in-stead may reveal the natural diversity within any

culture that reflects individual personality andvariation.

Unresolved cultural issues are rooted in the def-inition of culture as a learned response to prob-lems. Some paradoxes come from problems forwhich there is no clear, happy solution. Culturesmay manifest a split personality with regard to anunresolved problem.^^ As a result, they shuttleback and forth from one extreme to the other on abehavioral continuum. U.S. Americans, for exam-ple, have ambivalent views about sex, and, as onejournalist recently noted: "Our society is a stew ofprurience and prudery."^^ Censorship, fears aboutsex education, and sexual taboos coexist uncom-fortably with increasingly graphic films and TVshows and women's magazines that never go topress without a feature article devoted to sex. Thismelange is more than a reflection of a diversesociety that has both hedonists and fundamental-ists with differing views of sex; both groups man-ifest inconsistent behaviors and attitudes aboutsex, signaling an enduring cultural inability toresolve this issue.

Bipolar patterns make cultural behavior appearparadoxical because cultural dimensions are oftenframed, perhaps inaccurately, as dualistic, either-or continua. Cultures frequently exhibit one ofthese paired dimensions more than the other, but itis probable that both ends oi the dimensions are

Bipolar patterns make cultural behaviorappear paradoxical because culturaldimensions are often framed, perhapsinaccurately, as dualistic, either-orcontinua,

found in cultures—but only in particular contexts.For example, in Latin America, ascribed status,derived from class and family background, is moreimportant than its polar opposite, achieved status,which is based on talent and hard work. When itcomes to professional soccer, however, achievedstatus trumps class and ascription.

Often some groups and roles appear to deviatefrom cultural stereotypes. For example, in theUnited States, autocratic behavior is frequently tol-erated in CEOs, even though the United States ischaracterized as an egalitarian culture. Such be-havior may also be an example of a high powerdistance context in a low power distance culture:We accept that CEOs possess an unequal degreeof power and that they will behave in a differentmanner than most U.S. Americans.

There is also a difference between real versus es-


poused values. All cultures express preferences forideal behaviors—for what should be valued and howpeople should act. Nevertheless, people do not al-ways act consistently with ideal behaviors and val-ues. For example, U.S. Americans may simulta-neously pay lip service to the importance of equality(an espoused value), while trying to acquire morepower or influence for themselves (a real value).

A final possible explanation of cultural para-doxes derives from a holistic, contextual view ofculture in which values co-exist as a constellation,but their salience differs depending on the situa-tion. Using the Gestalt concept of figure-ground, attimes a particular value becomes dominant (fig-ure), while in other circumstances, this same valuerecedes into the background (ground).^'' In India,for example, collectivism is figural when individ-uals are expected to make sacrifices for their fam-ilies or for the larger society—such as Hindu sonswho postpone marriage until their sisters marry, ordaughters who stay single to care for their parents.In other circumstances, however, collectivismfades into the background and individualismcomes to the fore and is figural when Indians focusmore upon self-realization—for example, elderlymen who detach themselves from their family toseek salvation.2^ Taking the figure-ground analogya step further, depending on the context, one cul-tural value might trump another, lessening the in-fluence another value normally exerts.^^ For exam-ple, we find it useful to view culture as a series ofcard games in which cultural values or dimensionsare individual cards. Depending on the game, pre-vious play, and the hand one is dealt, playersrespond by choosing specific cards that seem mostappropriate in a given situation. Sometimes a par-

ticular card trumps the others; in another round, itdoes not. In a given context, specific cultural val-ues come into play and have more importance thanother values. To a foreigner who does not under-stand enough about the cultural context to inter-pret why or when one value takes precedence overanother, such behavior looks paradoxical. Mem-bers of the culture learn these nuances more orless automatically. For example, children learn inwhat context a socially acceptable white lie ismore important than always telling the truth. Atrue understanding of the logic of another cultureincludes comprehending the interrelationshipsamong values, or how values relate to one anotherin a given context.

A true understanding of the logic ofanother culture includes comprehendingthe interrelationships among values, orhow values relate to one another in agiven context.

A Model of Cultural Sensemaking

To make sense of cultural paradoxes and convey aholistic understanding of culture, we propose amodel of cultural sensemaking. The model shownin Figure 1 helps explain how culture is embeddedin context.2'' Cultural sensemaking is a cycle ofsequential events:

• Indexing Context. The process begins when anindividual identifies a context and then engagesin indexing behavior, which involves noticing or

Indexingcontejrt

Noticing cues aboutthe situation

Makingattributions

Drawing inferencesbased on identityand experiences

Selectingschema

Enacting appropriatebehavioral scripts

Culturalvalues

Constellation ofvalues embedded

in schema

Culhis

The sh(traditi

inherited

uralory

idow ofon andmindsets

FIGURE 1Cultural Sensemaking Model


attending to stimuli that provide cues about thesituation. For example, to index the context of ameeting with a subordinate, we consider char-acteristics such as prior events (recent extensivelayoffs), the nature of the boss-subordinate rela-tionship within and without work (golfing part-ner), the specific topic under discussion (employ-ee morale), and the location of the interaction(boss's office).Making Attributions, The next step is attribution,a process in which contextual cues are analyzedin order to match the context with appropriateschema. The matching process is moderated orinfluenced by one's social identity (e.g., ethnic orreligious background, gender, social class, orga-nizational affiliation) and one's history (e.g., ex-periences and chronology). A senior U.S. Ameri-can manager who fought against the Japanesein World War II will make different attributionsabout context and employ different schemawhen he meets with a Japanese manager thanwill a Japanese-American manager of his gen-eration, or a junior U.S. manager whose personalexperience with Japan is limited to automobiles,electronics, and sushi.Selecting Schema. Schemas are cultural scripts,"a pattern of social interaction that is character-istic of a particular cultural group."^^ They areaccepted and appropriate ways of behaving,specifying certain patterns of interaction. Frompersonal or vicarious experience, we learn howto select schema. By watching and working withbosses, for example, we develop scripts for howto act when we take on that role ourselves. Welearn appropriate vocabulary and gestures,which then elicit a fairly predictable responsefrom others.The Influence ol Cultural Values. Schemas re-flect an underlying hierarchy of cultural values.For example, people working for U.S. managerswho have a relaxed and casual style and whoopenly share information and provide opportu-nities to make independent decisions will learnspecific scripts for managing in this fashion. Theconfiguration of values embedded in this man-agement style consists of informality, honesty,equality, and individualism. At some point, how-ever, these same managers may withhold infor-mation about a sensitive personnel situation be-cause privacy, fairness, and legal concernswould trump honesty and equality in this con-text. This trumping action explains why the con-stellation of values related to specific schema ishierarchical.The Influence of Cultural History. When decod-ing schema, we may also find vestiges of cul-

tural history and tradition. Mindsets inheritedfrom previous generations explain how history

remembered.2^ For example, perceptionsisabout a colonial era may still have an impact onschemas, particularly those involving interac-tions with foreigners, even though a countrygained its independence centuries ago.

Some Illustrations of Sensemaking

Sensemaking involves placing stimuli into aframework that enables people "to comprehend,understand, explain, attribute, extrapolate, andpredict."^" Let's analyze each of the cultural para-doxes presented in the introduction using the sen-semaking model. In the United States, when acharity requests money, when deserving peopleare in need, or when disaster hits a community(indexing contexts), many U.S. Americans (e.g., re-ligious, allocentric people making attributions) re-spond by donating their money, goods, or time(selecting schema). The values underlying thisschema are humanitarian concern for others, altru-ism,̂ ^ and collectivism (cultural values). Thus, in-dividualism (a sophisticated stereotype) is moder-ated by a communal tradition that has its roots inreligious and cultural origins (cultural history).

Fukuyama^^ writes that U.S. society has neverbeen as individualistic as its citizens thought, be-cause of the culture's relatively high level of trustand resultant social capital. The United States"has always possessed a rich network of voluntaryassociations and community structures to whichindividuals have subordinated their narrow inter-ests."^^ Under normal conditions, one should takeresponsibility for oneself and not rely on others.However, some circumstances and tasks can over-whelm individual initiative and ingenuity. Whenthat happens, people should help those in need, alesson forged on the American frontier {culturalhistory). To further underscore the complexity ofculture, in the same contexts noted above, the taxcode and prestige associated with philanthropy(cultural history) may be the primary motivationsfor some citizens (e.g., idiocentric, upwardly ambi-tious people making attributions) to act charitably(selecting schema), but the value underlying theschema would be individualism.

The Costa Rican example is illustrated in Figure2. When bank tellers interact with clients {indexingcontext) many of them (e.g., members of variousin-groups, civil servants making attributions) donot greet customers and make eye contact, butconcentrate solely on their paperwork (selectingschema). The values that underlie this schema arein-group-out-group behavior^^ and power (cultural

72 Academy of Managemenf Execufive February

Indexing context

Costa Rican bank tellersinteract with customers

Making attributions

Tellers as;- In-group members dealing with

out-group member- Civil servants

>•

Selecting schema

Task-oriented behavior that doesnot include a pattern of courteous

greetings and eye contact

Cultural values

In-group/out-groupbehavior

(collectivism)and high power

distancetrump simpat/a

Cultural history

State-ownedbanks did not train

employees incustomer service

FIGURE 2Making Sense of Paradoxical Behavior: Seemingly Indifferent Customer Service in a Culture

Characterized by Positive, Warm Relations

values). In coUectivist cultures such as Costa Rica,members identify strongly with their in-group andtreat members with warmth and cooperation. Instark contrast, out-group members are oftentreated with hostility, distrust, and a lack of coop-eration. Customers are considered as strangersand out-group members who do not warrant thespecial treatment given to in-group members (fam-ily and friends). One of the few exceptions to sim-patia and personal dignity in Costa Rica, andLatin America generally, is rudeness sometimesexpressed by people in positions of power.̂ ^ In thiscontext, the cultural value of high power distance{the extent to which a society accepts the fact thatpower in institutions and organizations is distrib-uted unequally)^^ trumps simpatia. Whereas sim-patia lessens the distance between people, theopposite behavior increases the distance betweenthe powerful and the powerless. Unlike many othercontexts in Costa Rica, bank telling does not elicita cultural script of simpatia. and state-ownedbanks did not have a history of training employeesin friendly customer service (cultural history) atthis time.

In the third cultural example, when Japanesebusiness people make contracts (indexing con-text), they (e.g., business people making attribu-tions) opt for ambiguous contracts (selectingschema). The dominant value underlying thisschema is collectivism (cultural value). In thiscontext, collectivism is manifested as a beliefthat those entering into agreement are joinedtogether and share something in common; thus.

they should rely on and trust one another. Col-lectivism trumps high uncertainty avoidance (so-phisticated stereotype) in this context, but uncer-tainty avoidance is not completely absent. Someof the uncertainty surrounding the contract isdealt with upstream in the process by carefullychoosing and getting to know business partners,and by using third parties. An additional consid-eration is that many Japanese like flexible con-tracts, because they have a greater recognitionof the limits of contracts and the difficulties offoreseeing all contingencies (cultural history).Even though U.S. Americans are typically moretolerant of uncertainty (sophisticated stereo-type), they value pragmatism and do not like totake unnecessary risks (cultural values). If a dealfalls through, they rely on the legal system for aresolution (cultural history).

Working From a Sensemaking Approach

Sophisticated stereotypes are useful in the initialstages of making sense of complex behaviorswithin cultures. However, rather than stereotypingcultures somewhere along a continuum, we canadvance understanding by thinking in terms ofspecific contexts that feature particular culturalvalues that then govern behavior. Geertz main-tains that "culture is best seen not as complexes ofconcrete behavior patterns—customs, usages, tra-ditions, habit clusters-—as has by and large beenthe case up to now, but as a set of control mecha-nisms—plans, recipes, rules, instructions {what

2000 Osland and Biid 73

computer engineers call 'programs')—for the gov-erning of behavior."^"''

Understanding the control mechanisms within aculture requires the acquisition of attributionalknowledge, the awareness of contextually appro-priate behavior.^s This is in contrast to factualknowledge and conceptual knowledge. Factualknowledge consists of descriptions of behaviorsand attitudes. For example, it is a fact that Japa-nese use small groups extensively in the work-place. Conceptual knowledge consists of a cul-ture's views and values about central concerns.Sophisticated stereotyping operates in the realm ofconceptual knowledge. This category of knowl-edge is an organizing tool, but it is not sufficient fortrue cultural understanding. Knowing that the Jap-anese are a communal society (conceptual know-ledge) does not explain the noncommunal activi-ties that exist in Japanese organizations or whenthe Japanese will or will not be communal. Forexample, why are quality control circles used insome work settings and not in others? Factual andconceptual knowledge about Japanese culturecannot answer that question; only attributionalknowledge can.

Managers can acquire attributional knowledgefrom personal experience, vicariously from others'experience, and from cultural mentoring. The per-sonal experience method involves carefully ob-serving how people from another culture act andreact, and then formulating and reformulating hy-potheses and cultural explanations for the ob-served behavior. When expatriates test their hy-potheses and find them valid, they form schemasabout specific events in the host culture.

One can learn vicariously by reading aboutother cultures, but the best form of vicariouslearning is via cultural assimilator exercises.^sThese are critical incidents of cross-cultural en-counters, accompanied by alternative explana-tions for the behavior of people from the foreignculture. After choosing what they perceive as themost likely answer, trainees then read expertopinions relating why each answer is adequateor inadequate. These opinions are validated bycross-cultural experts and include informationabout the relative importance of cultural dimen-sions or context-specific customs in the culture inquestion.

A cultural mentor can be viewed as a hybrid ofvicarious and personal acquisition of attributionalknowledge—a sort of live cultural assimilator.Cultural mentors are usually long-term expatri-ates or members of the foreign culture. The latterare often helpful souls who have lived abroadthemselves and understand the challenge of mas-

tering another culture or people not totally in stepwith their own culture.''^ "They interpret the localculture for expatriates and guide them through itsshoals, as well as providing them with the neces-sary encouragement when it feels like the expatri-ates will never 'break the code' of another cultureand fit in comfortably."-" Reading an explanationfrom a book or working through a series of culturalassimilators is different from receiving an expla-nation of an experience the expatriate has person-ally lived through and now wishes to understand.Cultural mentors can correct inaccurate hypothe-ses about the local culture. Expatriates who hadcultural mentors overseas have been found to farebetter than those who did not have such mentors:They were more fluent in the foreign language;

Cultural mentors can correct inaccuratehypotheses about the local culture*

they perceived themselves as better adapted totheir work and general living conditions abroad;they were more aware of the paradoxes of expatri-ate life, indicating a higher degree of acculturationand understanding of the other culture; and theyreceived higher performance appraisal ratingsfrom both their superiors and themselves.''^

In spite of the benefits of mentoring, few multi-nationals formally assign a cultural mentor to theirexpatriates. Yet another way of developing an ex-patriate's attributional knowledge is to providemore training in the host country rather than rely-ing solely on predeparture culture "inoculations."

Admittedly, there are trade-offs to developingattributional knowledge. The acquisition of cul-tural knowledge takes a good deal of time andenergy, which is not available to all managers. Noris it reasonable to expect employees who workwith people from various cultures on a daily basisto master each culture. Nevertheless, organizingthe knowledge they do acquire as context-specificschemas can speed up cultural learning and pre-vent confusion and errors in making sense of cul-tural paradoxes.

If we accept that cultures are paradoxical, then itfollows that learning another culture occurs in adialectical fashion—thesis, antithesis, and synthe-sis. Thesis entails a hypothesis involving a sophis-ticated stereotype; antithesis is the identificationof an apparently oppositional cultural paradox.Synthesis involves making sense of contradictorybehavior—understanding why certain values aremore important in certain contexts. Behavior ap-pears less paradoxical once the foreigner learns to


index contexts and match them with the appropri-ate schemas in the same way that members of thehost culture do. Collins's description of the West-erner's Perception Scale in comprehending Japa-nese culture''^ illustrates one form of dialecticalculture learning, an upwardly spiraling cycle ofcultural comprehension.

Using The Model

Because this cultural sensemaking model providesa more complex way of understanding culture, ithas clear implications for those who teach culture,for those who work across cultures, and for orga-nizations that send expatriates overseas.

Teaching About Cultural Understanding

Sophisticated stereotyping should be the begin-ning of cultural learning, not the end, as is so oftenthe case when teaching or learning about culture.Recognition of a more complex, holistic, sensemak-ing model of culture allows us to respond moreeffectively when students or trainees provideexamples of paradoxes that seem to contradict cul-tural dimensions. The model also requires a some-what different teaching approach. We have devel-oped a sequential method that has been effectivein our teaching:

• Help students understand the complexity oftheir own culture. To acquaint students with thevast challenge of comprehending culture, we be-gin with a thorough understanding of the inter-nal logic of one's own culture and its socioeco-nomic, political, and historical roots. We addcomplexity by pointing out paradoxes as wellas identifying regional, ethnic, religious, orga-nizational, and individual variations in behav-ior. For example, when Thai students describetheir culture as friendly, we ask the followingseries of questions: "Are all Thais friendly? AreThais always friendly? Under what circum-stances would Thais not exhibit friendly behav-ior? Why?"

• Give students cultural dimensions and valuesas well as sophisticated stereotypes as basictools. These dimensions, including the valueslisted in Table 1, can then be used to explaincontrasting behavior from two or more differentcultures {e.g., what can sample obituaries fromthe United States and Mexico reveal about cul-tural values? What is the typical response ofbusinesses in both countries when a member ofan employee's family dies?). Students practicerecognizing cultural dimensions in cross-cul-

tural dialogues and cases and leam sophisti-cated stereotypes. This helps them gain concep-tual knowledge about different cultures so theycan make between-culture distinctions.

• Develop students' skills in cultural observationand behavioral flexibility. One of the difficultiesexpatriates confront in making sense of a newculture is the contradiction between the ex-pected culture, the sophisticated stereotypetaught in predeparture training or gleaned fromothers, and the manifest culture, the one actu-ally enacted in a situation.'*'' To help studentsbecome skilled at observing and decoding othercultures, teach them to think more like anthro-pologists and give them practice in honing ob-servational and interpretive skills. To help stu-dents develop the behavioral flexibility neededto adapt to unanticipated situations, role-play-ing and videos of cross-cultural interactions canbe used.

• Have students do an in-depth study or experi-ence with one culture. To go beyond sophisti-cated stereotypes, students learn the internallogic and cultural history of a single culture.They acquire attributional knowledge from cul-tural mentors and/or cultural immersion, in ad-dition to extensive research.

• Focus on learning context-appropriate behaviorin other cultures and developing cultural hy-potheses and explanations for paradoxical be-havior. Once students have mastered the pre-ceding steps, the emphasis changes to learningschemas for different contexts. For example, stu-dent teams are instructed to deliberately dem-onstrate incorrect behavior; they ask others topoint out the mistakes and then replay the sceneusing correct behavior. To model the crucial be-havior of asking for help in understanding cul-tural mysteries,"*^ students use cultural mentorsto explain situations they choose to learn about(e.g., "How do managers in ^ encourageemployees to perform at high levels? Why doesthat work for them?") The variation in the men-tors' answers ("Some managers are successfuldoing this while others . . .") and the qualifiedanswers {"This seems to work unless . . .; it de-pends on . . .") helps students develop more com-plex understandings of the other culture. Tohighlight the message of moving beyond cul-tural stereotypes, use language that focuses onforming and testing hypotheses about contex-tual behavior: "What are your hypotheses aboutwhy a French employee behaves this way in thissituation? How can you find out if these hypoth-eses are correct?"


Sensemaking for Individuals Working AcrossCultures

After the training program, and once on assign-ment in a new culture, this cultural sensemakingapproach has other practical implications.

• Approach learning another culture more like ascientist who holds conscious stereotypes andhypotheses in order to test them. One of the keydifferences between managers who were iden-tified by their fellow MBA students as the "mostinternationally effective" and the "least interna-tionally effective" is that the former changedtheir stereotypes of other nationalities as theyinteracted with them while the latter did

• Seek out cultural mentors and people who pos-sess attributional knowledge about cultures.Perhaps one of the basic lessons of cross-cultural interaction is that tolerance and effec-tiveness result from greater understanding ofanother culture. Making sense of a culture's in-ternal logic and decoding cultural paradoxes iseasiest with the aid of a willing and knowledge-able informant.

Perhaps one of the basic lessons of cross-cultural interaction is that tolerance andeffectiveness result from greaterunderstanding of another culture.

• Analyze disconfirming evidence and instancesthat defy cultural stereotypes. Even people witha great deal of experience in another culture canbenefit from analyzing cultural paradoxes. Forinstance, the question, "In what circumstancesdo Latin Americans fail to exhibit simpatia?" ledto a more complex cultural understanding forone of the authors, who had already spent ninecurious years in that region. Once expatriatescan function reasonably well in another culture,it is easy for them to reach plateaus in theircultural understanding and mistakenly assumethat they comprehend the entire puzzle. This pre-sents a danger when expatriates inadvertentlypass on inaccurate information about the localculture, or make faulty, and even expensive,business decisions based on partial under-standings.

• Leam cultural schemas that will help you be ef-fective. Knowing how to act appropriately in spe-cific cross-cultural settings results in self-confi-dence and effectiveness. One cannot memorize allthe rules in another culture, but understanding the

values that underlie most schemas can often pre-vent us from making serious mistakes.

How Mul/inafionai Organizations Can Use theSensemaking Model

The cultural sensemaking model also has practi-cal implications for multinational organizations.

• Use cognitive complexity as a selection crite-rion for expatriates and people in interna-tional positions. Avoid black-and-white think-ers in favor of people who exhibit cognitivecomplexity, which involves the ability to han-dle ambiguity and multiple viewpoints. Thisskill is better suited to a thesis-antithesis ap-proach to understanding the paradoxical na-ture of culture.

• Provide in-country cultural training for expatriatesthat goes beyond factual and conceptual knowl-edge. Predeparture cultural training is comple-mented by on-site training, which has the advan-tage of good timing. In-country culture trainingtakes place when expatriates are highly moti-vated to find answers to real cultural dilemmasand when they are ready for greater complexity.^'

• Gauge the cultural knowledge possessed by ex-patriates within a country. The accuracy anddepth of one's cultural understanding is not al-ways linked to the time one has spent in anothercountry; it depends on the degree of involvementwith the other culture as well as cultural curios-ity and desire to learn. Nevertheless, when com-panies determine the optimum length of over-seas assignments, they should consider howmuch time is generally necessary to functioneffectively in a particular culture. If a firm's ex-patriates stay abroad for only two years, it isless likely that a deep understanding of the cul-ture will be shared among them than if theywere to stay for longer periods. As long as thelonger-term expatriates do not stop at a low-level plateau of cultural learning, mixing short-term (2-3 years) with longer-term expatriates(6-7 years) with permanent expatriates couldproduce more shared organizational learningabout the culture. It is also essential to recognizethat expatriates working for the same organiza-tion may be at different levels of cultural under-standing.

• Act like learning organizations with regard tocultural knowledge. Multinationals benefit fromformal mechanisms to develop a more complexunderstanding of the cultures where they dobusiness through such methods as cultural men-tors and in-country cultural training. There


should also be mechanisms for sharing culturalknowledge. For example, having returned expa-triates give formal debriefing sessions in whichthey report what they learned in their assign-ment increases the company's collective cul-tural knowledge and eases the expatriates' tran-sition home by helping them make sense of ahighly signiiicant experience.*'^

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the UCLA CIBERCross Cultural Collegium for its contributions tothe article. Dr. Osland's research is partiallyfunded by a grant from the Robert B. Pamplin Jr.Corporation.

Endnotes

' This was one oi the findings of a class research project onthe acceptance oi ATMs by Dr. Osland's graduate students atINCAE's (Central American Institute of Business Administra-tion) Banking Program in 1991.

^Triandis. ]. C . Marin, G.. Lisansky, J., & Betancourt, H. 1984.Simpad'a as a cultural script of hispanics. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology. 47(6): 1363-1375.

^ Holstede. G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International dif-ferences in v/ork related vaJues. Beverly Hills: Sage.

* Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis,J.. dissenting).

^ The descriptions of cultural metaphors in Understandingglobal cuitures: Metaphorical journeys through 17 countries(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994) by Martin Gannon and hisassociates, contain passing leierences to paradoxes, but do notaddress the issue directly.

^Parsons, T. & Shils. E. 1951. Toward a genera! theoiy ofaction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; Kluckhohn, F. &Strodtbeck, F. L. 1961. Variations in value orientations. Evanston,IL; Row, Peterson; Holstede, op.cit.; Triandis, H. C. 1982. Dimen-sions of cultural variations as parameters of organizationaltheories. International Studies ol Managemenf and Organiza-tion. 12(4); 139-169; Ronen. S. & Shenkar. O. (1985). Clusteringcountries on attitudinal dimensions; A review and synthesis.Academy oi Management Review. 10: 435-454; Hall, E. T. & Hall,M. R. 1990. Undersfanding cu/(urai differences. Yarmouth, ME;Intercultural Press; Fiske, A. P. 1992. The four elementary formsof sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations.Psychoiogicai Review, 99(4), 889-723; Schwartz, S. 1992. Univer-sals in the content and structure of values; Theoretical ad-vances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology. 25: 1-86. NewYork. NY: Academic Press; Trompenaars, F. & Hampden Turner,C. 1993. The seven cuitures of capitalism. New York; Doubleday.

'Hofstede, op. cit.Âdier, N. 1997. Znfernational diinensions of organizational

behavior, 3"^ ed. Cincinnati; South-Westem, 75-76.^ Hall & Hall. op. cit.'"Gannon, op. cit.'̂ Bamlund, D. 1975. Public and private self in Japan and ihe

United States. Yarmouth, ME; Intercultural Press, 8.'̂ Osland, J. S. 1995. The adventure of working abroad: Heio

tales hom the global frontier. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.

'̂ Collins, R. J. 1987. Max Danger: The adventures of an expatin Tokyo. Rutland, VT; Charles E. Tuttle Co.

i * . , 14-15.i, R. C. 1988. Aiigning deveiopmen/ to values in

India. In D. Sinha 8i H. S. R. Kao (Eds.). Social values anddevelopment: Asian perspectives; 315-333. New Delhi; Sage.;Wilbur, I. 1995. A brief iiistory of everything. New York; Sham-bala.

'̂ Quinn. R. & Cameron. K. S. (Eds.) 1988. Paradox and trans-formation. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger; Smith, K. K. & Berg. D. N.1987. Paradoxes of group iife. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass.

" Hafstede, op. cit.'̂ Hofstede. G. 1994. In U. Kim, H. S. Triandis, C. Kagitîbasi,

S. Choi & G. Yoon (Eds.), /ndividuaJism and coiiecd'visni. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage. xi.

'̂ Levi'Strauss. C. 1962. La pensee sauvage. Paris: Adier'sForeign Books, Inc.

'° Fontaine. G. 1989. Managing international assignments:The strategy for success. Englewood Clifls, NJ; Prentice Hail.

'̂ Triandis, H. C, Bontempo, R.. Villareal, M. ).. Asai. M.. &Lucca, N. 1988. Individualism and collectivism; Cross-culturalperspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology. 54(2); 323-338.

^^Bateson. G. 1973. Steps to an ecology of mind. London;Paladin Books.

^̂ Haught, J. 1993. What does sex have to do with it? Orego-nian, December 29. 1993, D7.

^* Tiipathi. Marin, op. cit.

^̂ Bird. A.. Osland, J. S.. Mendenhall. M.. & Schneider, S. 1999.Adapting and adjusting to other cultures: What we know butdon't always tell. Journal of Management Inquiry. 8(2); 152-165.

^'' Context is also embedded in culture, so one could arguethat the entire model is situated within the broader culture. Forsimplicity's sake, however, we chose to focus only on the sen-semaking that occurs in deciphering cultural paradoxes.

^̂ Triandis. Marin, et. al., op. cit.^̂ Fisher, G. 1997. Mindsets: The role of culture and perception

in international relations. Yarmouth, ME; Intercultural Press.^° Starbuck, W. H. & Milliken. F. J. 1988. Executives' personal

filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In D. Ham-brick (Ed.), The executive effect; Concepts and methods iorstudying top managers. Greenwich, CT; JAI Press, 51.

^' Barnlund. op. cit.^̂ Fukuyama, F. 1996. Trust. New York: Penguin Books.33 Ibid.. 29.^* Triandis. et al., op. cit.^̂ Osland, J. S., De Franco, S.. & Osland. A. 1999. Organiza-

tional implications of Latin American culture: Lessons for theexpatriate manager. Jouinal of Management Inquiry. 8(2); 219-234.

3̂ Hoistede, Culture's consequences, op. cit.^'Geertz. C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York:

HarperCollins Basic Books. 44.^^Bird, A.. Heinbuch. S., Dunbar, R. & McNully. M. 1993. A

conceptual model of the effects of area studies training pro*grams and a preliminary investigation of the model's hypothe-sized relationships. International Jovnal of Intercultura! Rela-tions. 17(4); 415-436.

^̂ The original cultural assimilators were developed byHarry Triandis at the University of Illinois. A recent collection isiound in Inteicuilural interactions: A practical guide, by R. Bris-lin, K. Cushner, C. Cherrie, & Yong, M., Thousand Oaks. CA;Sage, 1986 and 1996 (second edition).

•"' Osland, Worfcing abroad, op. cit." Ibid.. 68.•'̂ Ibid., 74.


*̂ Collins, op. cit," Schermerhorn, Jr., J. & Bond. M. H. 1997. Cross-cultural lead-

ership dynamics in collectivism and high power distance set-tings. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 18(4);187-193.

^^ On occasion we have heard irustrated cross-cultural train-ers grumble that some expatriates view seeking out cultural

explanations with the same disdain they reserve for stopping toask ior driving directions.

"•̂ Ratiu, 1. 1983. Thinking internationally; A comparison ofhow international students learn, /nternationai Studies of Man-agement and Organization. 13:139-150.

'"Bird, Osland, et al., op. cit."^ Osland. Wording Abroad, op. cit.

Joyce S. Osland, associate pro-iessor at the University of Port-land, lived and worked abroadfor 14 years and continues towork throughout Latin America.Her research and consulting fo-cus includes expatriates. LatinAmerican management, andwomen leaders. She authoredTile Adven ture of Working Abroad,and coauthored OrganizationaiBefiavior: An Experiential Ap-proach and The OrganizationaiBehavior Header. Contact: [email protected].

Allan Bird, professor at Cali-fornia Polytechnic State Uni-versity, worked and livedoverseas for eight years. Hisresearch and consulting iocuson international HRM, particu-larly managerial effectivenessin international contexts andthe performance of JapaneseMNCs. He has authored nu-merous articles and books,and recently coedited, withSchon Beechier, Japanese Mul-tinationals Abroad: Individualand Organizational Learning.Contact; [email protected].

Executive Commentaries

June DelanoEastman Kodak Company

I doubt anyone with cross-cultural experience canread Osland and Bird's article without remember-ing a moment when careful cross-cultural prepa-ration had to be jettisoned. The moment that cameto my mind was meeting a Japanese colleague ona visit to the United States. Instead of the formalityand reserve I expected, he kicked off his shoes,tucked his feet under him in a chair, and leanedclose to me conspiratorially, saying: "So what is itreally like here at corporate headquarters?" Hisbehavior made no sense within my "sophisticatedstereotype" of Japanese culture, but we nonethe-less found common ground and developed a goodworking relationship. Over time, I came to realizethat he was a free spirit whose exuberant person-ality overrode his cultural group norms.

Osland and Bird's model is helpiul in explainingthis and other paradoxical experiences, and itlooks as if it has broader application than tradi-tional expatriate training. This is important be-cause companies like mine, Kodak, have fewer andfewer true expatriates. Instead, we have people ofmany nationalities who lead multicultural teams,work on multicountry projects, and travel monthlyoutside their home countries. In any year, they maywork in Paris, Shanghai, Istanbul, Moscow, or Bue-

nos Aires with colleagues irom a different set ofcountries. It is impossible for these global travel-ers to remember a sophisticated stereotype foreach culture they encounter, much less develop adeep understanding of each.

Kodak has also gone beyond traditional culturaltraining by addressing multiculturalism from ateam perspective. In this regard, we developed aworkbook for leaders managing global teams. Theworkbook explains in simple terms the roles ofteam members and team leaders in different cul-tures using Hofstede's cultural dimensions of hier-archy/equality, individualism/collectivism, task/relationship, and risk avoidance/risk comfort. Butthe workbook also offers the following advice,which is consistent with Osland and Bird's thesis:

Because a team member comes from a coun-try where a particular orientation exists doesnot mean that she will necessarily embodythat orientation. Cross cultural tools are notflawlessly predictive, so be prepared for indi-vidual surprises and contradictions.

Along this line, there is one piece of advice in thearticle I would give greater emphasis to—the caution

Documents

Beyond Sophisticated Stereotyping-Cultural Sensemaking in Context