Managing Cross-Cultural Perceptual Conflict

Managing Cross-Cultural Perceptual Conflict

Copyright 2002 by

www.culturebanc.com

All Rights Reserved

This study guide has been prepared for the employees of Shell by Bill Drake. It is intended to be used as the basis for group discussion, either on-site or on-line, but also may have value when used as a self-paced study guide.

Like all studies which attempt to describe differences and similarities between groups of people, it is possible that some of the contents may be offensive to some people. If this is your experience, then please send your critical, constructive comments to us for inclusion in the guide as it evolves. The email address is [email protected]

Dutch, British, & Americans
Many cross-cultural conflicts arise because what each group sees as positive about itself, the other group sees as negative, e.g.Behavior that one culture sees as friendly and open another culture may see as disrespectful and unprofessional; Behavior that one culture sees as polite deference, another culture may see as an inability to speak clearly & make a decision.
What do you think are the five greatest strengths, or traits, of most members of the nationality group with which you identify yourself? After considering this list, write it down as a column.

Next, try to think of how someone might turn each of these strengths around and see it in a negative perspective. Write these down opposite your list of strengths in another column

Examples: A Strength like Seen as negative is:

Friendly >>>>>>>>>Unprofessional

Disciplined >>>>>> Rigid

Innovative >>>>>>>Unstable

The challenge here isnt to see why the other perspective is WRONG - it is to see how the other perspective MAKES SENSE IN CONTEXT --- and then to understand the context.

For example: In what context might our friendliness be experienced as unprofessional? What would be the preconditions, the attitudes, the beliefs, and the images held in the minds of those who have this perspective?

Reconciling Differences
Only when most people within each group achieve cultural self-awareness, and:Most people within each group are able to see HOW and WHY the other group sees their positives as a negative, and;When most people within both groups are able to discuss these differences non-judgmentally, then;Mutual understanding & accommodation can occur.
Reconciliation of differences is very different from solving a problem.

When you set out to solve a problem, the first step is to define the problem. This means that the other groups attitude, perspective etc immediately gets defined as the problem. The mind-set of - They see us as unprofessional, and we need to change that makes it THEIR PERSPECTIVE which you conclude is the source of YOUR problem.

In contrast, when you set out to reconcile differences, the first step is to examine the interface in order to find areas where (1) greater understanding, meaning significant new information, is needed before accommodation and compromise can occur, and (2) areas where only a simple adjustment to the information base of each group is required.

Misuse Of Cultural Dimensions
Culture is only one set of influences on communicationLanguage & Environment also criticalTerms like Individualism and Collectivism contain powerful normative assumptionsThat vary greatly between cultures, languages, and environmentsSimplistic application of cultural conceptsA major business risk during internationalization of domestic leadership
There is a major potential problem even if cultural dimensions are grasped, and that is the danger that they will be used as a set of recipe stereotypes. This leads the person encountering a new culture after simplistic, inadequate preparation to apply their learning in inappropriate, counterproductive ways, e.g. This society is High Power Distance, which means that I should .

In such cases, the Expected local culture too easily enters into ones expectations as a neat and linear model; the complexities and interconnections among cultural aspects may be missed. The expected culture may exist in the persons mind as a set of stereotypes formed around these linear images. And, as is the case in judgmental heuristics in decision making, these stereotypes may predispose the individual or group toward initial ways of dealing with a new culture that are erroneous even as they falsely seem comfortable. Importantly, they may also interfere with valuable continuous learning in the new setting, since the soiourner may - albeit unconsciously - selectively screen his/her perceptions to confirm the stereotypes rather than relate dynamically to the realities of the alternative culture. The core problem for leadership in group and organizational settings is that the resulting cross-cultural interactions may be problematical and dysfunctional, as opposed to increasingly successful and functional. (see) Snyder, M., Seek And Ye Shall Find: Testing Hypotheses About Other People, (in) The Ontario Symposium on Personality And Social Psychology, 1981, Hilldsdale, N.J. Erlbaum Publishing

Stereotypes & National Image
Stereotypes are: enduring traits or characteristics attributed by others to groups that are affiliated by observable factors such as nationality, language, race, gender, appearance, belief, and/or behavior.There are strong tendencies in many culturesTo claim a basis for stereotypes in natureTo set up dichotomies which claim to exhaust all possibilitiesTo attach disproportionate value to one side of a dichotomy
All people have an age, a gender, and appearance, a family, and membership in social groups. Yet each of these distinguishing characteristics is interpreted in very different ways using very different criteria, beliefs and assumptions by different cultures.

Many cultures load the distinction between male and female with elaborate, complex concepts designed to emphasize differences in many different ways.

Likewise age - old age and youth age are valued many different ways by different cultures - the relative value of each state, and the norms for behavior which attach to each stage of age, are grounds for endless variety in human cultures.

All people have a family, at least in the beginnings of life, and develop within a complex set of assigned roles - parent child, sibling - sibling, extended family relationships, etc.

And while all societies create, define, and sustain a wide variety of social groups, membership and participation in these groups is subject to complex rules and norms which create insider/outsider dichotomies in almost all social groups.

Stereotypes Have Value
Stereotypes have been stereotypedThey are neither good nor bad - although they are positive & negativeExample: assertive/receptive aggressive/passivePerception depends on making distinctions & seeing differencesJudgment involves evaluating perceptions for value in application
Pairs of terms rarely exhaust the possible field of discussion. For example, to be not beautiful does not imply being ugly, since a person with severely malformed features and a great mind, or great artistic ability would not be seen as ugly by many, although they would be quite definitely not beautiful as such standards conventionally apply to individuals.

Stereotypes inhibit thinking by supplying ready-made parameters which pretend to exhaust the possibilities and thus focus discussion and exploration within pre-defined bounds. If the conceptual pair Beautiful --- Ugly is accepted as the limits of discussion, it will never be possible to discuss those people who may be physically unattractive in a conventional sense but who would not, by another set of conventional terms, be judged ugly. Conversely, it also eliminates consideration of people who may meet all conventional standards for physical beauty ( in their culture) but who cannot be called beautiful because, again in conventional terms, their character may be flawed in ways that prevent others from seeing them as beautiful.

What Is Typically Dutch?
Moralistic, Individualistic, Liberty & Peace-Loving, & Tolerant?Self-assured, Proud, Ironic, & Serious?Modest, Tidy, Prudent, Thrifty, & Conservative?Home & Family-Oriented?We must be very cautious, but the information is useful
See Typically Dutch Ruth Benedict On The National Character Of Netherlanders by Rob Van Ginkel, The Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences, April 1992 Volume 28 No. 1

See also: What Is Typically Dutch? By Bart Van Heerikhuizen, The Netherlands Journal of Sociology 1982 Vol. 18

National Character studies have a lengthy tradition both in scholarship and in political and military intelligence work. There are many objections, including many legitimate objections to the process - it is over-simplistic, it is reductionist, it homogenizes, it creates a false sense of reality, and it is implicitly racist, sexist or classist.

All of these criticisms are potentially accurate and true, but that does not mean that observations about the Dutch, the British, or the Americans are a priori false or malicious, nor does it mean we cant learn from them.

What it does mean is that we cant accept them unquestioningly, nor can we use them to judge others. Indeed, the most useful application of these national character studies is for the subjects of such studies to sit down together and discuss them element by element with their colleagues from other cultures, using these lists to focus their discussion on both similarities and differences, and to discover each others reality as individuals who are immersed in different cultural contexts.

BEDAARD
Circumspect PatientReservedPerseveringUnimaginativeDullAwkwardDrudging
Positive Attribution Negative Attribution

As it is easy to see in this example, the same cultural characteristic can be seen in both positive and negative terms.

The attribute of bedaard is central to how traditional Dutch culture attributes positive value to an individuals character. The traits that make up the concept are highly valued in traditional Dutch culture, and their expression in a persons behavior and demeanor is familiar and recognizable to any Dutch person.

This very centrality of bedaard as a constellation of highly positive Dutch values makes it especially difficult for Dutch people who deal with foreigners who, because of the stereotyping processes, turn these virtues into negatives.

Have you seen any examples of this kind of perspective-shift occurring between Dutch and American colleagues?

What American values/norms/assumptions may be at work if the positive Dutch value constellation were being perceived as a negative constellation by Americans?

Viewed from another perspective, how might a Dutch person see a foreign colleague who did not value the bedaard constellation of values and norms through affirmative behavior or attitude?

Positive Potential American Perception Dutch Perception
We are friendly We are informalWe are politeWe are relaxedMeetings are to have discussionsDetails can be filled in as we go alongThey are unprofessionalThey are not preparedThey are not forcefulThey are not involvedMeetings are to make decisionsEveryone should come with all details
As an example, we might ask -

Which elements of the American expression of friendliness might be seen as an expression of an unprofessional attitude by Dutch colleagues, and why? Also Which elements of the Dutch belief system concerning acceptable professional behavior might be affected by one or more factors in American informality?

We might also ask Given that a number of European research studies have identified both friendliness and an international mentality as very strong Dutch attributes, how is it that American friendliness & informality might be poorly received in the Dutch business context?

After answering these questions, we can then ask - What adaptations must occur before Dutch participants can see American friendliness & informality as a positive attribute, and American participants can feel valued for their friendliness & informality, without compromising Dutch standards for acceptable professional behavior? From here it is a few short steps to reconciliation.

Positive Potential American Perception Dutch Perception
We are professional We are formalWe are focusedWe are all businessMeetings are for doing important workAttention to details is critical They are unfriendlyThey are judgmentalThey are not relaxedThey are uptightMeetings are to assure everyones on boardThey dont get the big picture
Like cafs, meetings provide ample grounds for the exercising of opinions. The difference is that in a meeting the speakers must back their opinions with careful and comprehensive research. This gives them the confidence to express their opinions with an energy and resolution that other nations might find intimidating. But, in the end, there is a lot of give and take. The aim of a meeting is not to out-vote a minority, but to reach a joint decision that the team can happily implement. Foreigners less used to such forthright cut and thrust, however, may be left bleeding by the wayside.

(From) Xenophobes Guide To The Dutch by Rodney Bolt, Ravette Books, PO Box 296, Horsham, West Sussex, UK, RH13 8FH Fax (01403) 711554

What implications, if any, do you see in this quote for American and Dutch colleagues as you interact with one another individually and in groups, in face-to-face meetings and by telecommunications?

Positive Potential Dutch Perception American Perception
We are honest and directWe know what is rightWe are experienced in world class businessWe are a tolerant societyThey are tactless & judgmentalThey think they know it all & are stubbornThey talk in Dutch to conceal information They tolerate drugs & immorality
Tolerance is not simply a virtue - it is a national duty. With 370 people for every square kilometer, the Netherlands is Europes most densely populated country. If the Dutch didnt forgive - or at least ignore - each others foibles and peculiar inclinations, life itself would become intolerable. Tolerance is really pragmatism in disguise. Even if they see something that, secretly, they find rather shocking, the Dutch will appear unruffled - provided that it does not intrude upon their freedom.

Xenophobes Guide To The Dutch by Rodney Bolt, Ravette Books, PO Box 296, Horsham, West Sussex, UK, RH13 8FH Fax (01403) 711554

How does the Dutch reputation for direct, honest, factual and even blunt dialogue fit with this observation concerning tolerance? What do you think are some of the boundaries of Dutch tolerance in business environments, and are these boundaries different in any significant way from those of Americans or British business cultures as you know them?

Positive Potential American Perception British Perception
We are innovative problem solversWe are decision makersWe are friendlyWe are precise in our communicationsWe try hard to be culturally sensitiveThey value change for changes sakeThey tend to take over the showThey are tiresomeThey are obsessed with definitionsTheir questions are intrusive & uninformed
The English do not like being told what to do. Any order has to be given with a degree of politeness. Should you follow custom and express an order as a request, you will achieve the desired effect. Express it simply as an order, with no hint of personal choice, and the English will invariably break for tea.

In English business, operations are characterized by an unusual devotion to democracy. Since individual decision-making is considered dangerous, almost every decision is taken by committee. So much so, that whenever you try to get hold of an English business man or woman, you will invariably be told that he or she is in a meeting.

Xenophobes Guide To The English by Anthony Miall Ravette Books, PO Box 296, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 8FH Fax (01403) 711554

What implications do you think these two quotes may have for how business is conducted between and among Americans, British and Dutch parts of Shell?

Positive Potential British Perception American Perception
We are polite and do not impose on othersWe value traditionWe respect precedentWe do things our own wayWe find many aspects of life ironical & amusingThey are indirect and wont get to the pointThey resist changeThey are rigidThey think they are superior to othersThey are snobs who make fun of us
The wry smile that greets the well-judged understatement is a characteristic English expression. They love irony and expect others to appreciate it too. In this, they are all too often disappointed as foreigners take umbrage at what appears to them to be unbearable rudeness. This, of course, merely confirms what the English have always secretly suspected - that foreigners cannot take a joke.


In spite of the exaggeration for amusing effect, this observation may contain some interesting implications for the style and content of personal communications between American and British colleagues. Can you think of any such possibilities?

Positive Potential American Perception British Perception
We are efficientWe are detail-orientedWe apply science to managementWe honor agreements to the letterThey are superficialThey are fussyThey do not understand peopleThey care more about paper than people
The term good sport is not exclusively confined to sporting events. It describes the sort of behavior both on and off the playing field that characterizes everything the English really respect. In all physical trials, the good sport will play without having been seen to practice too hard and will, ideally, win from innate superiority.

He or she will then be dismissive of their victory and magnanimous toward the loser. It goes without saying that the good sport will also be a good loser. There will be no arguing with umpires or outward signs of disappointment. On the contrary, a remark such as The best man won tossed airily to all, and never through clenched teeth, is obligatory in the face of defeat.


Do you think that Americans and English colleagues could benefit from frank discussions possible differences in how disagreements, conflicts between ideas, and other competitive pressures might arise during collaboration and cause each group to use behaviors learned from sports and other forms of competition? Do you see any areas where British and American sports competition styles may clash in a collaborative business environment?

National Image Judgments
National image judgments not value-neutral descriptions of empirical realityThey are normative, evaluative, and attitudinalfriendly, kind, nice, warm, charmingcold, stiff, dull, egoistic, meanracist, arrogant, xenophobic, parochialBased on diverse informationDirect experience most relevant
Images Of National Character In An International Organization: Five European Nations Compared

Nico Wilterdink, The Netherlands Journal of Sociology

One should disassociate oneself from both the simple realism that regards conventional national images as a largely valid summation of actually existing national character traits, and the extreme skepticism or constructionism that denies the reality or even possibility (or at least the observability) of nation-specific differences in behavioral modes and observations, and therefore regards these national images as purely mythical.

It is assumed here that national images are connected to observable aspects of social life in the nations concerned (cultural traditions, communication codes, political arrangements), but also represent simplifications, biased selections, emotional evaluations, and distortions of this reality.

Direct experiences are a special category (of information about national images). Though not objective in any sense, they are often regarded as the ultimate proof of the truth-value of statements about national character.

National Image Studies
Serve to order the social worldStrong need in multi-cultural environmentsHelp to explain social experiencesNave attribution a potential problemHelp to evaluate meaningNormative & emotional judgments a potential problem
The data for these comparisons comes from (1) a 100 person sample at European University Institute in Florence, Italy, (2) a survey of comparative qualitative journal research studies on national stereotypes, (3) additional surveys at the European University Institute, and(4) miscellaneous literature.

Respondents at EUI were highly educated and academically-oriented people who are suspicious of crude generalizations, stereotypes, and prejudices. There was almost unanimous agreement with the statement My nation is characterized by certain distinct traditions, and 93% agreed that The people of my country have certain personality traits which are, on the whole, different from those of people in other countries.

There were no substantial differences between We-images and They-images - personality traits most mentioned about each nation were not contradicted by that nations self-image. Also, No one remarked that the French were modest, that the English were spontaneous, the Germans lazy, the Italians disciplined, or the Dutch nationalistic.

Spirit Of Liberty

Individualistic

Critical Attitude

Modest

Ironic

Reserved & Sober

Prudent

Frugal

Serious

Peaceful

AUTHOR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X X

Dutch Research On Dutch National Character

1. Steinmetz, S. R., Die Niederlande, (1930) Weltpolitische Bcherei, 15, Berlin

2. Huizinga, J. Nederlands Geestesmerk (1934), Leiden

3. Kruijt, J.P., De Psychologie Van Het Nederlandse Volk: Gistern, Heden, Morgen (1939), Amsterdam

4. Van Schelven, T., De Nederlanders (in) Meertens, P.J. et al (eds) De Nederlandse Volkskarakters, (1938) Kampen

5. Romein, J., Beschouwingen Over Het Nederlandse Volkskarakter (in) Romein, J. (ed) In Opdracht Van De Tijd: Tien Voodrdrachten Over Historische Themas, (1946) Amsterdam

6. Waterink, J. Het nederlandsche Volkskarakter (in) de Vries, J., (ed) Volk Van Nederland, (1943) Amsterdam

7. Meertens, P.J., Le Charactre Nerlandais et ses varits Rgionales, Revue de Psychologie des Peuples (1950) 5 (1) 33-49

8. Benedict, Ruth, The Study Of Cultural Patterns In European Nations,1974, Mead, M. & Benedict, R. (eds) New York

Tolerance

Faithfulness

Perseverance

Diligent

Honesty

Anti-theological

Domestic

Malicious

Bourgeois

Hygienic

AUTHOR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

X X X X

X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X X

X X X

X X X X X

Dutch Research On Dutch National Character

1. Steinmetz, S. R., Die Niederlande, (1930) Weltpolitische Bcherei, 15, Berlin

2. Huizinga, J. Nederlands Geestesmerk (1934), Leiden

3. Kruijt, J.P., De Psychologie Van Het Nederlandse Volk: Gistern, Heden, Morgen (1939), Amsterdam

4. Van Schelven, T., De Nederlanders (in) Meertens, P.J. et al (eds) De Nederlandse Volkskarakters, (1938) Kampen

5. Romein, J., Beschouwingen Over Het Nederlandse Volkskarakter (in) Romein, J. (ed) In Opdracht Van De Tijd: Tien Voodrdrachten Over Historische Themas, (1946) Amsterdam

6. Waterink, J. Het nederlandsche Volkskarakter (in) de Vries, J., (ed) Volk Van Nederland, (1943) Amsterdam

7. Meertens, P.J., Le Charactre Nerlandais et ses varits Rgionales, Revue de Psychologie des Peuples (1950) 5 (1) 33-49

8. Benedict, Ruth, The Study Of Cultural Patterns In European Nations,1974, Mead, M. & Benedict, R. (eds) New York

Dutch National Image
Friendly+-\Internationalist\+\Progressivex+\Serious\++Frugalx++Hard-working\+\Stubborn-x+Moralisticx++
LIT NET MISC

EUI RANKINGS

EUI Rankings = current study (n = 100+)

LIT = Cross-national stereotype studies

NET = Interviews with Dutch academics & researchers

MISC = Survey of all available literature (travel books, etc)

Friendly = 30%, including kind, pleasant, sociable, and easy-going

20% = internationalist, including cosmopolitan, multilingual, and open to the world

12% = progressive, including tolerant, liberal, egalitarian, and democratic

12% = serious, including too serious, calm, reserved, cold, and boring

11% = hardworking, busy, effective, enterprising

11% = frugal, sober, mean, not generous, commercial, money-conscious, and profit-oriented

10% = arrogant ( in matters of knowledge and opinions), stubborn, stolid, sure of their knowledge

Source: Images Of National Character In An International Organization: Five European Nations Compared Nico Wilterdink, The Netherlands Journal of Sociology

The Dutch According To Xenophobes Guide
GezelligheidYes, but Dat kan nietZuilenDegelijke spullen
Xenophobes Guide To The Dutch by Rodney Bolt, Ravette Books, PO Box 296, Horsham, West Sussex, UK, RH13 8FH Fax (01403) 711554

Living on top of each other as they do, the Dutch have discovered that the best way to get along is by making sure that everything is always gezellig. The mood in a neighborhood caf on a cold afternoon is gezellig; a mother will call out Keep it gezellig to children becoming dangerously boisterous; a popular Dutch beer is advertised as guaranteed gezellig. Rather than turn on the lights at twilight, a family will light a few candles, make a pot of coffee and sit looking out of their large, clean window, suffusing themselves with gezelligheid.

For the Dutch, the other side of a question is as important as the question itself. Tolerance requires that issues be examined from all sides.

The Dutch dont say What will the neighbors think? but Think of the neighbors!

Dat kan niet (It is impossible) Dutch people know that when they hear these words it is time to give up and go home.

The perception that society is made up of zuilen (pillars) goes hand in hand with the Dutch belief in tolerance: mutually exclusive world views need not be mutually destructive, but can jointly prop up a sturdy, gezellig whole.

The Dutch consider a flashy display of worldly goods an extreme of bad taste. This is not to say that the Dutch deprive themselves material comfort.

English National Image
Reserved+++Nationalisticx-\Friendly\+\Arrogant\-\Conservativex++Humorousx++
EUI RANKINGS

LIT NET MISC





Reserved = 35%, including distant, closed, formal, stiff, and withdrawn.

Nationalistic = 35%, including isolationist, chauvinistic, insular, and parochial

Arrogant = 13%, including proud, pretentious, snobbish, smug, self-assured

Friendly = 14%, including kind, cordial, well-meaning, nice, cooperative, easy, and informal.

Humorous = 10%, including witty and cynical

Conservative = 9%, including old-fashioned and traditional


High-Context British Business
Personal relations are criticalSpending time together is keyInsiders vs Outsider status matters Intermediaries & go-betweens are usefulFaithfulness to existing relationshipsMarket penetration time is significant
Quotes from North European Business Cultures: Britain vs. Denmark & Germany, by Malene Djursaa, (in) European Business Journal 12(2) June 1994

English people would rather deal with someone they like if they possibly can (Dane)

The human side means a lot. If he doesnt like me there wont be a deal - for the Englishman the people are vital, whether you get along (German)

Personal contact is important- but it can also be an obstacle. Theres nothing doing if they already have a good relationship with your competitor (Dane)

Ive noticed that very often there is a kind of go-between who facilitates your contacts - theyre a kind of buffer between suppliers and big customers. (Dane)

Many go to England and are disappointed because things dont happen straight away. I think there is a personal relationship with those people - they want to know what you stand for, who you are - and that takes a bit longer. (German)

Were very loath to throw overboard existing supply lines - we dont de-list products overnight. We do give second and third chances. (English)

The Englishman manages a lot of things on the basis of his knowing other people - and using his personal contacts. (Dane)

They are more indirect than us. We present things straight - the English take the scenic route - feel that it isnt necessary, not gentlemanly, to get right into business. (Dane)

High-Context British Business
Communications & Information StructureGetting to the point isnt effectiveBeing direct in a round-about wayPoliteness and good form matter
Quotes from North European Business Cultures: Britain vs. Denmark & Germany, by Malene Djursaa, (in) European Business Journal 12(2) June 1994

I dont believe in getting to the point immediately - I think its better to sound out the person you are speaking with by talking around the subject. (Scots)

It wasnt for my sake that I tried to press ahead - it was really so that he shouldnt waste his time. But I very quickly learned that he is the one to give the signal for when to talk business. (German)

If you are to sell in the English market its just as much the person who has to be approved as the product. (Dane)

If there is no chance of business, we say look, there is a very remote chance of business. If we find there is a chance of business, we say that we have to have a closer dialogue. (English)

You get signals, feelers. I can tell, talking to an English business man, fairly early on, the lie of the land. Even though he says yes I know he means no . (Dane)

The English According To Xenophobes Guide
Going too farA good sportIf it was good enough for my grandfather Common senseClass & competitiveness

If there is one trait that absolutely singles out the English it is their shared dislike for anyone or anything that goes too far.

If an English man or woman refers to you as a good sport, you will know that you have really arrived.

Each new invasion from the future is met with the indignant question What was wrong with the old one? As far as the English are concerned, there is no answer to that.

Common sense is central to the English attitude toward almost everything in life. In fact, it is common sense and thoroughly English to never be wrong-footed in any way. To fall foul of changing circumstances is inexcusable. One should be prepared at all times.

The class system is a reflection of the fierce competitiveness of the English. For whilst they believe that, as a race, they are superior to every other nation on earth, they have a surprising need to establish their individual superiority within their own society.They do this by maneuvering into cliques in whose company they feel comfortable. Once there, they adopt mutually exclusive fashions of all kinds and nurture a kind of phobia about other groups to which they do not belong. All this is achieved through skillful manipulation of the class code.

German National Image
Orderly+++Serious+++Hard-working+++Arrogant\+\Complexx-+Philosophicalx-+Romanticx-+
EUI RANKINGS

LIT NET MISC





Bureaucratic mentality = 44%, including orderly, over-disciplined, over-organized, efficient, rule-obeying, rigid, inflexible, and punctual.

Serious = 25% including dull, boring, heavy, and lacking a sense of humor

Hardworking = 19%, including industrious, laborious, and ambitious

14% = arrogant, including they know everything better and they are convinced they are right


French National Image
Nationalisticx\+Arrogant+\+Refinedx++Individualistic+-+Charmingxx+Distantxx+
LIT EUI MIS

EUI RANKINGS





Nationalistic = 46% of respondents used this word or equivalent - chauvinistic, patriotic, ethnocentric, isolationist, militaristic, xenophobic, racist, or reserved/cold/indifferent to outsiders.

Arrogant = 27% of respondents used this word or equivalent - proud, snobbish, pretentious, intimidating, or showing superiority

These two traits were combined to make the judgment that the French tend to isolate themselves from foreigners and to treat them with contempt because from their narrow-minded point of view they feel superior.

Charming = 13% including vivacious, open, enthusiastic, and passionate.

Refined = 19%, including civilized, cultured, and elegant


Italian National Image
Spontaneous+++Egoistic/-/Undisciplined+++Cheerful++/Family-orientedxx+Refinedx\+Theatricalx++
EUI RANKINGS

LIT NET MISC





54% = spontaneous, including expressive, open, lively, uninhibited, sociable, available, and oriented to personal contact. Some also characterized as noisy and talkative.

21% = cheerful, including optimistic, know how to enjoy life, and joie de vivre.

21% = undisciplined, including unreliable, disorganized, chaotic, and inefficient.

21% = egoistic, including egocentric (males in particular), self-centered, opportunistic, not oriented toward the common good, and lacking in community spirit. However 14% mentioned strong family spirit and a strong group loyalty.

12% = refined, including elegant, cultivated, and stylish.

8% = theatrical, including image-conscious, insincere, and conceited.


Documents

Managing Cross-Cultural Perceptual Conflict