Достижение эквивалентности при переводе текстов по менеджменту и кросскультуре

Вышеперечисленные переводческие приемы видятся наиболее подходящими при переводе терминов, формирующих и функционирующих в терминосфере менеджмента и кросскультуры.

Таким образом, в данной дипломной работе представлено сопоставление английских и русских терминов по менеджменту и кросскультуре, проанализированы проблемы, возникающие при переводе терминов, а также показаны различные подходы к достижению эквивалентности на материале текстов по менеджменту и кросскультуре.

Библиографический список

Академия наук СССР кафедра иностранных языков. Язык и стиль научного изложения, под ред. Цвиллинга М. Я. М.: Изд-во «Наука», 1983. 272 с.

Арнольд И. В. Стилистика. Современный английский язык: Учебник для вузов. 5-е изд., исп. и доп. М.: Флинта: Наука, 2002. 384 с.

Арнольд И. В. Лексикология современного английского языка. М.: Изд-во литературы на ин. яз., 1959. 351 с.

Ахманова О. С. Словарь лингвистических терминов. Изд. 2-е, стереотипное. М.: Едиториал УРСС, 2004. 576 с.

Бархударов Л. С. Язык и перевод (Вопросы общей и частной теории перевода). М.: «Международные отношения», 1975. 240 с.

Буянова Л. Ю. Термин как единица логоса: монография. - М.: ФЛИНТА: Наука, 2012 . 224 с.

Виноградов В. С. Введение в переводоведение (общие и лексические вопросы). М.: Издательство института общего среднего образования РАО, 2001. 224 с.

Володина М. Н. Когнитивно - информационная природа термина (на материале терминологии средств массовой информации). М.: Изд-во МГУ, 2000. 128 с.

Володина М. Н. Теория терминологической номинации. М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1997. 180 с.

Гвишиани Н. Б. Язык научного общения (вопросы методологии): монография. М.: Высшая школа, 1986. 280 с.

Головин Б. Н., Кобрин Р. Ю. Лингвистические основы учения о терминах: Учебное пособие для филол. спец. вузов. М.: Высшая школа, 1987. 104 с.

Гореликова С. Н. Природа термина и некоторые особенности терминообразования в английском языке. Омск: Вестник ОГУ №6, 2002. URl.: http://vestnik.osu.ru/2002_6/27.pdf

Даниленко В. П. Русская терминология. Опыт лингвистического описания. М.: Наука, 1977. 248 с.

Канделаки Т. Л. Семантика и мотивированность терминов. М.: Наука, 1977. 168 с.

Крупнов В. Н. В творческой лаборатории переводчика. М.: Изд-во «Международные отношения», 1976. 192 с.

Крупнов В.Н. Русско-английский словарь активной деловой лексики. М.: Дело, 1997. 384 c.

Комиссаров В. Н. Теория перевода (лингвистические аспекты): учеб.
для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. М.: Высшая школа, 1990. 253 с.

Латышев Л. К. Курс перевода: Эквивалентность перевода и способы ее достижения. М.: Междунар. отношения, 1981. 248 с.

Левицкая Т. Р., Фитерман А. М. Проблемы перевода (англ. яз.). М.: «Междунар. отношения», 1976. 208 с.

Левицкая Т. Р., Фитерман А. М. Пособие по переводу с английского на русский. М.: Изд-во «Высшая школа», 1973. 136 с.

Мешков О. Д. Семантические аспекты словосложения английского языка. М.: «Наука», 1986. 209 с.

Нелюбин Л. Л. Толковый переводческий словарь. М.: Флинта: Наука, 2003. 320 с.

Разинкина Н. М. Развитие языка английской научной литературы. М.: Изд-во «Наука», 1978. 212 с.

Рецкер Я. И. Пособие по переводу с английского языка на русский язык: 3-е изд., перераб. и доп . М.: Просвещение,1982. 159 с.

Суперанская А. В., Подольская Н. В., Васильева Н. В. Общая терминология: Вопросы теории. Отв. ред. Т. Л. Канделаки. Изд. 3-е, стереотипное. М.: Едиториал УРСС, 2004. 248 с.

Терминография и перевод научного текста: межвузовский сборник научных трудов. Под редакцией Борисова Л. Т., Горьковский гос. ун-т. Горький, 1989. 94 с.

Федоров А. В. Основы общей теории перевода (лингвистические проблемы): для ин-тов и фак-тов иностр. языков. Учеб. пособие. 5-е изд. СПб.: Филологический факультет СПбГУ; М.: ООО «Издательский дом «ФИЛОЛОГИЯ ТРИ», 2002. 416 с.

Фрагмент интернет статьи, посвященный Шаббату. URL: http://ec-dejavu.ru/s-2/Sabbath.html

Швейцер А. Д. Перевод и лингвистика. (Газетно-информационный и военно-публицистический перевод). М.: Воениздат., 1973. 280 с.

Швейцер А. Д. Теория перевода: Статус, проблемы, аспекты. М.: Наука, 1988. 215 с.

Ярцева В. Н. Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. М.: «Сов. энциклопедия», 1990. 685 с.

Dictionarist: онлайн звуковой словарь. URL: http://ru.dictionarist.com/keiretsu

Lingvo 12.0: Большой англо-русско-английский общелексический словарь. Электронная версия, 2008.

Multitran: электронный онлайн словарь. URL: http://www.multitran.ru

The Oxford Russian-English, English -Russian Dictionary, New York, 2007.

Приложение А

Оригинал фрагмента книги «Management across cultures. Challenges and strategies» by Richard M. Steers, Carlos J. Sanchez-Runde, Luciara Nardon, 2010г.

Regional trends and cultural differences

In order to operationalize the core cultural dimensions discussed here, it is helpful to have a means of classifying cultures so that country - or at least regional - comparisons can be made. Mindful of the limitations discussed above, we chose to estimate cultural differences within country clusters (as opposed to individual countries) by adapting a framework originally proposed by Simcha Ronan and Oded Shenkar, and subsequently used by others with some modifications. This framework focuses on identifying regions where ample anthropological data were available, and our use of these clusters reflects this imbalance. Because of this, some regions (e.g., Central Asia, Polynesia) are not included, while others (e.g., Europe) are covered in considerable detail. In addition, according to these efforts, several countries (e.g., Brazil, India, and Israel) do not easily fit into such a framework, so again some caution is in order.

Based on this research, we can use this framework to identify nine country clusters for which sufficient data were available to estimate central tendencies in cultural characteristics: Anglo cluster (e.g., Australia, Canada, the UK, the US); Arab cluster (e.g., Dubai, Egypt, Saudi Arabia); Eastern European cluster (e.g., Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland); East/Southeast Asian cluster (e.g., China, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Thailand); Germanic cluster (e.g., Austria, Germany); Latin American cluster (e.g., Argentina, Costa Rica, Mexico); Latin European cluster (e.g., France, Italy, Spain); Nordic cluster (e.g., Denmark, Norway, Sweden); and Sub-Saharan African cluster (e.g., Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria). Culture ratings for regions were then estimated.

The results are shown in Exhibit 3.6. Note that these are only rough estimates based on available research. Moreover, in making use of the information presented here, it is important to recognize that no point on any assessment scale is preferred over any other; they are simply different, and that significant within-cluster variance can often be found.

While it is sometimes necessary to focus on central tendencies between cultures for purposes of general comparisons, the role of individual and regional differences

Exhibit 3.6 Central tendencies of core cultural dimensions across regions

in determining attitudes and behaviors should not be overlooked. Still, it should not be surprising that cultural ratings for countries in the same cluster of the world (e.g., Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) tend to be closer than ratings for countries located in a different cluster of the world (e.g., Italy, Spain, France). This is a natural consequence of contiguous countries in various regions living side-by-side with their neighbors over centuries and sometimes millennia. Still, important cultural differences can be found across peoples inhabiting a particular region. Finally, it is important to remember that, while these cultural dimensions may be a useful shortcut for gaining conceptual entry into general cultural trends across countries and regions, they are in no way a substitute for more-systematic in-depth analyses as they relate to the study of culture, work, and organizations.

Digging deeper: cultural complexities and contradictions

The related concepts of culture and cultural differences were introduced above as a means of seeing beyond overt behaviors and better understanding why and how some people act differently than others. What is often missed in these generalizations, however, is that individuals within the same society may use different strategies to deal with identical challenges. As a result, it is often unwise to stereotype an entire culture. Instead, we look for nuances and counter-trends, not just the principal trends themselves. Failure to recognize this often leads to failed personal and business opportunities.

Consider the concept of equal opportunity in the workplace. The fight for equal opportunity has been a long and difficult struggle in many nations of the world, north, south, east, and west. For many, this struggle has been quite vociferous because the underlying beliefs are so strong. What people often fail to recognize here, however, is that to a large extent societal and corporate practices regarding equal rights are embedded in our core beliefs and values. Hence, it is important to be able to compare such beliefs and practices across cultures, as well as within them. For example, some cultures stress sex role differentiation. That is, men and women are expected to play different roles in society and, as such, should be treated differently. Other cultures have increasingly stressed minimizing sex role differentiation, believing that both men and women should share both home and work responsibilities. Still other cultures strive for flexibility and tolerance. As a result of these cultural differences, many people are quick to criticize the beliefs of others as being either overly paternalistic or overly indulgent. But, for the keen observer, differences can often be found just under the surface.

To see how this works, we revisit Anna Hеkansson as she arrives in Bahrain for her negotiations. Her first surprise is meeting her counterpart at Gulf One Investment Bank in Bahrain: Nahed Taher, the first woman CEO of the bank. A former senior economist at the National Commercial Bank, Taher has been immersed in plans for financing public-sector projects, including expansion of the terminal that handles Mecca pilgrims at Jeddah's King Abdulaziz International Airport. She also oversees financing for a water desalination plant for Saudi Arabian Airlines, as well as Saudi copper, zinc, and gold mines. Taher may be an unusual example of an Arab executive, but she is increasingly becoming a common one. In fact, business leaders like Nahed Taher are gaining power despite the odds - ten women executives from the Middle East made the Forbes “World's 100 Most Powerful Women” list.

How are these women managing to break through the global glass ceiling? In many cases, the increasing globalization of the world's economy has played an important role. The economic liberalization of several Muslim countries in recent years, along with the privatization of large parts of government-run companies, has helped Muslim businesswomen get a greater foothold. “Now opportunities are open to everyone,” says Laura Osman, the first female president of the Arab Bankers Association of North America. “The private sector runs on meritocracy.” In fact, banking in the Muslim world is populated by a growing number of women, even in the historically all-male executive suite. Sahar El-Sallab is second in command at Commercial International Bank, one of Egypt's largest private banks. Indeed, four out of ten Commercial International Bank employees and 70 percent of its management staff are women. Similarly, Maha Al-Ghunaim, Chairman of Kuwait's Global Investment House, has steadily grown the investment bank she founded into more than US$7 billion in assets. It recently won permission to operate in Qatar and next wants to establish a presence in Saudi Arabia.

Muslim businesswomen also sit in the top ranks of mega-conglomerates. Imre

Barmanbek runs one of Turkey's largest multinationals, Dogan Holding, which recently went through a shift in operational focus from finance to media and energy. Lubna Olayan helps oversee the Olayan Group of Saudi Arabia, one of the biggest multinationals in the Middle East with investments in more than forty companies. And the top ranks of the conglomerate run by the Khamis family of Egypt include several women. Originally from India, Vidya Chhabria is chairman of the United Arab Emirates' Jumbo Group, a US$2 billion multinational that operates in fifty countries, with interests in durables, chemicals, and machinery products. It also owns Jumbo Electronics, one of the Middle East's largest Sony distributors of consumer electronics, as well as worldwide brands in information technology and telecom products. Thus, while Muslim women may still have a long way to go to reach “equality” in the business world, progress can be seen. For a lucky and determined few, opportunities do exist. “Just being a woman in our part of the world is quite difficult,” says El-Sallab of Egypt's Commercial International Bank. “But if you have the proper education, credibility, and integrity in the way you handle your job, intelligent men will always give you your due.”

The example of Nahed Taher and these other women managers raises an old dilemma. Even though cultural differences have been acknowledged across nation-states and regions for centuries, there is no consensus regarding the role of cultural differences in global business. Do cultural constraints really matter if people operating in a global arena are able to overcome them? When dealing with this question, most people fall into one of two groups: believers and non-believers. Believers argue that, based on available research evidence and practical experience, culture does matter because what works in London will likely not work Guangzhou, Bangalore, or Moscow. They point out that people who have worked abroad are well aware how different things can be in places around the world, and that much of this difference can only be explained by cultural characteristics. Non-believers, in turn, argue that people are different in general, and that no two Indians (or Chinese or Russians or Saudis) behave in exactly the same way. They argue further that organizations in one country can - and often must - operate very differently from those in another country. Finally, they argue that from the standpoint of research, the variance explained by culture is often small, and numerous other factors may be equally (or perhaps more) important in explaining behavioral differences across borders, including legal, political, economic differences, and available technologies.

Which of these positions is a more accurate reflection of reality, and what are the implications for global managers? While both research and practical experience suggest that culture does matter, research and practical experience also suggests that culture alone is not sufficient to explain the behavior of our foreign counterparts. Otherwise, how can we explain the success of Nahed Taher in a male-dominated culture?

For this reason, we must be cautious in our interpretation of cultural phenomena.

Strong preconceptions about the role (or lack thereof) of culture may blind us to the ways in which culture often does matter. Understanding the role of culture in management practice requires a way of thinking about culture that will help to identify cultural influences and inform the best course of action to deal with them. In other words, we need to understand what culture is and what it does, how our own culture has influenced our way of thinking in terms of working assumptions and personal and group biases, and how to acquire a sufficient understanding of how culture works to be able to tease out cultural influences on various situations in which we find ourselves. This is clearly no easy task, but it may nonetheless be an important one for global managers.

Our two examples - Sweden's Anna Hеkansson and Bahrain's Nahed Tahler - highlight some important limitations of applying simplistic models to complex phenomena. On the one hand, such models provide a good starting point to understanding the influence of culture and the challenges posed by cultural differences. On the other hand, they focus our attention to a limited set of parameters and may mislead our interpretation of reality.

The dualities perspective - using a “both/and” logic in which both alternatives or paths have merit for purposes of analysis, rather than an “either/or” logic that forces analysts to choose between alternatives that are simultaneously worth pursuing - was introduced in Chapter 1 as a tool that often proves useful

Exhibit 3.7 Cultural complexities and contradictions

in understanding complex issues. This concept can also be applied here in regards to understanding how culture works in and across various societies. In particular, taking such an approach highlights the fact that cultures often influence attitudes and behaviors in opposites ways. This forces us to delve deeper into our study of cultures in ways that go beyond simply comparing cultural dimensions. Instead, it requires us to seek out underlying complexities and contradictions that ultimately aid in our ability to act successfully in or across very different environments. We suggest five cultural complexities and contradictions worthy of note (see Exhibit 3.7).

Cultural stability and change

One of the dangers in any attempt to categorize cultures into a set of fixed dimensions is that this implies that cultures are stable and remain unchanged. However, while some aspects of culture are indeed stable and persistent, others evolve and change over time. That is, at the same time that groups of people strive to remain faithful to what and who they are, they simultaneously accommodate change and evolve where necessary or desirable.

Cultures change and evolve over time in response to pressures both outside and inside of society. Because cultures are learned, they are also adaptive and evolve over time in response to a myriad of external forces that can affect society. For example, Saudi women are now being allowed to drive cars - a sign, however small, that things are changing in the Middle East as they are in other parts of the world. Germany offers another example. Following the Second World War, Germany was divided into eastern and western sectors. East Germany was transformed into an authoritarian communist state, while West Germany supported democracy, individualism, and capitalism. Contacts across borders were highly restricted, particularly after the Berlin Wall was erected in the early 1960s. Over time, despite a common heritage dating back centuries, this absolute division created major cultural differences between Ossies (East Germans) and Wessies (West Germans). Following reunification almost fifty years later, both sides realized that they had grown apart culturally as well as economically. This schism still adversely affects Germany today through differences in work ethics, entrepreneurial drive, economic prosperity, and political beliefs.

On the other hand, some assumptions and beliefs are fairly stable and resist change. We may notice changes in behaviors, but the meanings and assumptions behind these behaviors are often deeply rooted in cultural values that are fairly stable. A good example of this can be found in studies of the impact of television broadcasting around the world. Television series that are aired worldwide are supposed to influence the lives of large populations across cultures with dominant Western, principally American, values. One particular study is interesting in this regard. When it was first released, the mini-series Dallas reached hundreds of millions of people in almost ninety countries. As a result, the annual migration of the tuareg in the Sahara Dessert was postponed for ten days so that local people could watch the final episodes. Still, the migration occurred anyway and little changed after that. People in different cultures also seek - and often find - different meanings in the same reality. Continuing with the Dallas example, researchers found that Dutch audiences saw not so much the pleasures of conspicuous consumption, but a reminder that money and power do not protect people from tragedy. Israeli Arabs saw confirmation that women abused by their husbands should return to their fathers. Black South Africans focused on the risks associated with sexual encounters during the late teens, while Ghanian women confirmed that men are not to be trusted. One mini-series, but many different interpretations.

The implication for managers is that the cultures they must work with - including their own - are in a constant state of flux. As they come in contact with other cultures (perhaps through global organization networks), they face new problems, apply their cultural frames in different ways, negotiate new behaviors, and change important aspects of their culture, leading to behaviors that may seem contradictory. On the other hand, these changes take place within a cultural context, and the outcomes may be different than originally anticipated. Take, for example, the implementation of performance-based rewards. In many Western countries, merit pay and bonuses are (at least in theory) based largely on individual performance, while in many Asian countries they are often distributed equally to an entire group or department. It is largely a matter of equity as opposed to equality.

A scientific and technological advance in foreign cultures is another case in point. When injected with operational meaning within the framework of the culture introducing them, technical and scientific advancements preserve the original distinctiveness of the culture that adopts them. Therefore, technological diffusion does not necessarily lead to a convergence of cultures adopting the new ways. In Israel, for instance, orthodox Jews install elevators in buildings that automatically stop on all floors during the Sabbath, so that its members do not have to press the floor keys and thereby break traditional Sabbath rules prohibiting any form of work. The technology is not only used; it is also adapted. Similarly, it is the experience of many managers in Asian countries that the adoption and diffusion of Western managerial techniques do not necessarily lead companies to adopt overall Western approaches. Instead, these innovations become new elements within their traditional overall cultural system.

Holistic and fragmented behavior

Another fundamental problem of trying to categorize cultures is that it implies a degree of homogeneity. When describing individual cultures (whether through simplified dimensions or deep descriptive analysis), we focus on shared aspects that are frequently found across the cultural group. Since cultures are shared, by definition culture includes what is common among members of a group. Members of a cultural group invest considerable time and effort in tying together the various strands that collectively represent and define social behavior.

However, cultures are also fragmented in the sense that they often allow for internal variations, and even significant discrepancies, in their midst. Despite people's tendency to stereotype, logic and personal experience suggest that variations - sometimes significant - can be found in all cultures. For example, while people often describe Australia as a highly individualistic culture and China as a highly collectivistic culture, there are, in fact, many collectivistic Australians and many individualistic Chinese. In fact, many cultures overlap considerably with those of their neighbors, having more in common than not. These differences - and similarities - must be clearly recognized when trying to make comparisons across cultures or nations. While people often generalize about various cultures in order to facilitate a basic understanding of cultural trends, it would be highly inaccurate to conclude that all members of any culture behave in the same way.

Cultural fragmentation, however, does not lead to a complete disintegration of a society. Cultures still remain overall systems of meanings that can help us make sense of experienced variations. The behavior of cultural outliers, for example, remains largely unexplainable except against the backdrop of their own cultural backgrounds. In the end, because cultures are simultaneously fragmented and systemic, holistic and heterogeneous, even the extreme behaviors of outliers can be explained by the fact that such individuals are simultaneously reacting against and within their own cultures.

Consider Commercial International Bank's Sahar El-Sallab's observation (above) that “if you have the proper education, credibility, and integrity in the way you handle your job, intelligent men will always give you your due.” That is, within a cultural context there are ways - perhaps only transparent to people within that culture - in which cultural constraints can be overcome. Only by understanding the cultural context in which behaviors occur can outsiders understand the behaviors that will be considered proper or acceptable across nation-states and those that are likely to be very different in Cairo, London, and New York. In other words, we may find fragmentation of behaviors within cultures, but even these behaviors are imbued with cultural meaning.

Universal and idiosyncratic characteristics

Descriptions of culture using a limited set of dimensions may lead to the impression that this limited set of adjectives can capture the essence of culture. However, experience and observation tells us that culture is more complex and paradoxical, with many exceptions and qualifications to any general classification. All cultures contain defining elements that defy universal qualifications. Examples include the Latino notion of orgullo, or pride for the accomplishments of their people; the Brazilian jeitinho, or flexible adaptability; and the Japanese kao, or face (kao o tateru for saving face). These unique aspects of culture are enmeshed in and derived from unique historical experiences and responses and are not fully captured by general categories and descriptions, which fail to acknowledge the intricacies of the meaning of the concepts.

For example, while most people would agree that US culture is largely individualistic, the general classification of individualism versus collectivism fails to capture important nuances underlying this defining characteristic that is often captured in the American vernacular by the term “pioneering spirit.” For example, consider George Washington's fabled boyhood response when questioned regarding his responsibility for the felling of a cherry tree, “I cannot tell a lie.” This response and the actions that preceded it highlight not only the value of truthfulness that American parents attempt to impart to their children, but also a strong pattern of individual choice and action characteristic of the culture. The parable does not indicate that one should consider other's feelings, ask before taking action, or apologize for past actions taken. Rather, it suggests, as does a well-known American axiom, that it is acceptable to “act first, and ask questions later” as long as one takes individual responsibility for one's actions. It is this individual initiative, decisiveness, risk-taking, and responsibility that are conveyed by the term “pioneer spirit”, not just individualism.

Going one step further, the conception of individualism as active initiative and responsibility is much more nuanced than the conception portrayed by the general categories of individualism and collectivism, which also cannot explain apparent contradictions. For example, American pop and media culture is rife with admiring stories of those who sacrifice for others, such as a soldier who falls on a grenade to save his comrades. While such self-sacrificial action is at odds with a global value of the individual over the group, it is highly consistent with the pattern of individual initiative, decision making, action, and responsibility that is, again, incorporated into the American concept of pioneer spirit. Hence, intelligent managers will avoid simple solutions and look for the nuances underlying categorizations, not just the rhetoric.

Explanatory and predicative powers

A discussion of culture frequently leads to an exaggerated assumption of causality and determinism. It is easy to make connections between general cultural characteristics and actions, such as “People from collectivistic cultures will prefer team work” or “Hierarchical cultures prefer authoritarian leaders.” However, these types of conclusions are problematic for several reasons. To begin with, as it was discussed above, fragmentation can result from the acceptance of cultural values within cultures. Second, cultures are composed of idiosyncratic elements that can be combined in unique ways leading to unpredictable consequences. And third, culture both constrains and enables behavior.

Culture provides frameworks for making sense of the world around us, for learning and expanding our horizons. These frameworks are important for interpreting phenomena around us, communicating with others, and organizing social and psychological processes. These cultural frameworks limit the array of alternatives considered by members. In the words of Yi-Fu Tuan, a founding figure of the field of human geography, “all cultures are flawed blinders as well as the source of unique illuminations; they deserve affection rather than idolatry; they are our first home rather than the last.” Simply put, culture is an important source of biases in the way we interpret the world and choose to act. Understanding these biases may help us explain why people in different places make different decisions. This may help explain, for example, why women in the Arab world are less active in the workplace than Western women.

However, cultural biases may be overcome either by individual effort, such as the example of Nahed Taher and other Arab women who were able to succeed in a male-dominated environment. Similarly, changes in the environment may lead to different behaviors. Personal computers are a wonderful tool for engineers exploring for minerals and oil, unless the engineers find themselves in a region of the globe that does not support such technology. Similarly, culture provides us with guidelines to help us navigate situations, but these situations themselves will often influence the choice of behavior. In other words, the way a person communicates may change significantly when this person is communicating with a boss or a friend, or just by a change in the context around her, such as finding herself in a foreign culture.

Furthermore, these biases are not necessarily a bad thing. In some situations, they may be an asset and an important source of creativity for global companies. As different cultures come in contact with different perspectives, novel solutions may emerge. When combined, the dynamism of cultural frames and their interaction with the environment may lead to apparently paradoxical behaviors. In short, it is very difficult for managers to predict the behavior of their foreign counterparts. Anna Hеkansson's efforts as described in the beginning of this chapter may have helped her understand the generalities of the culture, but they did not provide any guidance in how to deal with Nahed Taher. As such, culture influences, rather than determines, action. Individuals within cultures are able to “use” cultural elements strategically and “negotiate” new cultural arrangements.

Cultures and subcultures

Finally, as noted earlier, a key characteristic of culture is that it is learned. People acquire values, assumptions, and behaviors by seeing how others around us behave and by observing their families. However, herein lies a major source for over-generalizations and stereotypes about national cultures. This is because most people within one culture belong to multiple, and often conflicting, subcultures. Subcultures can include levels of education (intellectual culture), professions or specializations (professional culture), normative beliefs about right and wrong and organized religion (religious culture), places of work (organizational culture), geographic locations within a country (regional culture), and so forth. What this means is that people can also acquire additional cultural tools from the various subcultures to which we belong. Culture is a collective, socially constructed phenomenon that exists or emerges whenever a set of basic assumptions or beliefs is commonly held by a group of people. Thus, multiple subcultures co-exist within organizations, industries, and nations. Cultural makeup is thus layered and influenced by varied group memberships. These subcultures may be overlapping, superimposed, or nested, and may interact with each other. These multiple layers of culture shape individuals' attention, interpretations, and actions, and the cultural layer that is salient can vary over time. As such, in a single point in time, people simultaneously belong to one culture and many cultures, making the study of cultural differences even more problematic.

US corporations

Identifying a “typical” company in any culture is a challenge, but perhaps nowhere is this challenge more acute than with respect to American firms. Like elsewhere, US companies reflect the culture(s) where they do business, and since the US is so strongly multicultural, it is not surprising to find major differences across companies - even in similar industries. Still, it is possible to develop a general portrait of what such a company looks like in terms of its basic organizing structure and management processes. To accomplish this, however, it is useful to first consider how we might describe American culture.

US cultural patterns

Based on the Anglo core cultural dimensions discussed in Chapter 3, we might begin by suggesting that the dominant central tendencies of American culture are moderately egalitarian, strongly individualistic, strongly mastery-oriented, strongly monochromic, and moderately universalistic. This description helps us build a platform - albeit an imprecise one - for further analysis. Now let's go a step further. What happens when we add to this picture the observations of people who have spent considerable time with Americans? Journalists and social scientists from various countries have tried to do this for many years. While acknowledging that the US probably has greater diversity than many other countries, these writers have nonetheless tried to characterize Americans using a small number of adjectives.

For starters, Americans tend to be highly individualistic. Perhaps no other country in the world stresses individual rights and responsibilities more than the US. Here, a “man's home is his castle” and success is determined by personal effort. It is important to be independent and stay out of other people's business. At the same time, Americans tend to be materialistic. As a society that is focused on achievement, material possessions often represent symbols of success, and conspicuous consumption can become a lifestyle. This belief often leads to a short-term focus that requires considerable energy to achieve immediate results. Americans also tend to be informal. Americans tend to be “laid back” and spend their time “hanging out.” They are often uncomfortable with formality and are quick to remove their coats, use first names, and discuss personal details with new acquaintances. Many people also feel the typical American is linear. Americans tend to be single-minded in the pursuit of their objectives and often rush headlong towards their goals with a determination that can border on obsession. They do things “24/7” and are never far from their cell phones, laptops, and Blackberries. Work frequently takes precedence over family and friends.

In addition, Americans can at times be a bit impatient. Americans seem to be in a perpetual hurry; they want things done now. Time is seen as a measurable - and sometimes marketable - commodity that should be used wisely in the pursuit of one's objectives, whether business or pleasure. Compared to many other cultures, Americans are risk-oriented. Americans tend to be optimistic and opportunistic, and are often comfortable taking risks in order to achieve desired objectives. They are also superficial. Americans often ignore the details or conflicting positions underlying complex issues and prefer to focus on the “big picture.” They enjoy small talk, but have little patience with cultural niceties or ceremonial observances. They sometimes have difficulty building deep or lasting relationships. And they can be blunt. They often like to “put their cards on the table” from the start and are suspicious of anyone who does not reciprocate. Understanding nuances or subtleties in conversations is not their strong suit.

Americans are often described as being overly trusting and friendly towards people they hardly know. They come across to many foreigners as naпve and uninformed on matters of global importance. They are admired for their technical competence, but not their sophistication. However, they can also be very generous. On a per capita basis, Americans give more money to charities than anyone else on the planet. Some say this is because they have more money to give or because of US tax policies that reward charitable contributions, but there is more to it than this. There is a fundamental belief that people have a moral responsibility to support social causes, political causes, local causes, and even sometimes perfect strangers to an extent seldom seen elsewhere. Finally, many Americans tend to be a bit jingoistic and seem convinced that the United States is the greatest country in the world. There is no reason to discuss this; anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.

Do all Americans fit this description? Of course not. For starters, the US is a very heterogeneous society consisting of many strong cultures. Most of its citizens, or their ancestors, migrated to the US from various regions of the world in search of a better life, and brought their cultures with them. It is therefore important to recognize that when people try to describe a “typical” American, they are often focusing on Anglo- Americans or, more accurately, European Americans. Other American cultures, including Asian Americans, African Americans, Native Americans, and so forth, can have very different cultural characteristics. And even among the European American community, stark cultural differences can be found. Indeed, the individualistic nature of the US encourages and supports cultural diversity. Despite all of this, if so many observers from so many different backgrounds come to the same conclusions about the “typical” American, such observations are difficult to ignore.

Even so, a critical question here is not so much how the typical American (or anyone else) is described, but rather against which standards they are judged. That is, what are the characteristics of different cultures and how do these differences affect interpersonal assessments and relations? For example, people from more collectivistic cultures, such as China, Korea, and Japan, often see Americans (as well as some British, Australians, and Canadians) as being highly individualistic, while these “Westerners” often see their “East Asian” counterparts as being highly collectivistic. The point here is not that one orientation is superior to the other. Rather, the point is that if both “Westerners” and “East Asians” can better understand each other, if they can genuinely get inside each other's heads and learn what motivates them, they are far more likely to succeed in forming partnerships or doing business together than if they remain mired in their own cultural crosscurrents.

Organization and management trends in the US

Based on what has been learned so far about prevailing American cultural patterns, consider how the people characterized by this description might build organizations. First, many of these organizations would likely stress individual achievement and responsibility, control over the environment, a linear approach to decision making, respect for rules and policies and a sense of order, and a belief that, at least in theory, anyone can rise to the top. As a result, the typical US organization is perhaps best described as a loosely coupled system with many key parts located outside of the company for purposes of efficiency and flexibility.

In addition, in many US firms, CEOs get most of the credit for company successes and much of the blame for failure; they also get much of the money, regardless. US CEOs tend to have considerable power as decision-makers and leaders so long as they succeed. Indeed, we often hear about the “imperial CEO.” If they do not succeed, however, they tend to disappear rather quickly. Partly as a result of this, many US firms tend to have a top-down decision-making style.

Organization design in typical US firms tend to be rather fluid. They tend to have many alliances and partners and frequently reinvent themselves when the need arises (e.g., under conditions of financial exigency). When they need capital to expand the business, market research for a new product, or in-depth legal advice, most US firms typically go outside the company. Likewise, both manufacturing and service companies often rely on outside suppliers and distributors that have only a tenuous relationship to the company.

Inside many American companies, employees on all levels are often viewed as factors of production rather than valued members of the organization. Indeed, in some American companies, “permanent” employees are routinely hired and fired based on variations in workloads. From an accounting perspective, they are considered as part of a firm's variable costs, not fixed costs. And the use of contingent workers is on the rise, partly to save money and partly to increase operating efficiency. Not surprisingly, as a result of this fluidity, employee commitment to organizations is on the wane.

Exhibit 6.3 Design of a typical US corporation

Note: The shaded boxes represent formal parts of the organization. The white boxes represent independent agencies, institutions, service providers, and contingent workers that are largely outside the formal organization design.

In view of the high levels of individualism across US society (indeed, can we talk in terms of one society?), creating a “typical” organizing framework is imprecise to say the least, Still, it is possible to at least highlight some of the more common trends, as illustrated in Exhibit 6.3.

This exhibit illustrates the general paradigm for US firms. However, in view of the highly individualistic nature of the prevailing culture, it is not surprising to find a wide variation around this general model. US firms can be highly autocratic or highly participative, mastery-oriented or harmony-oriented, and so forth. Even so, a general model serves a useful purpose as a starting point for cross-cultural comparisons.

Organization and management trends in Canada and the UK

It is clearly a mistake to assume that organization and management practices are identical - or even similar, in some cases - across the broad so-called “Anglo” cluster. For example, when British managers are asked to compare US and British managers and corporations, they typically offer one of two responses: either they are very similar or they are very different. Such is the heterogeneity of corporations on both sides of the Atlantic. Frames of reference, as well as nuances, become both important and ambiguous. At the same time, when Canadians are asked to compare US and Canadian managers and organizations, they, too, can sometimes find sizable differences.

In order to delve a bit deeper here in this comparison, and commenting on British organizational trends, London Business School professor Nigel Nicholson has suggested that the major challenge is to understand how much of an organization's ethos or operating model comes from national cultures, sector cultures, or parent company cultures. At the national level, key inputs are obviously regulatory elements as well as governance norms and cultural factors, such as shared expectations of employees and other stakeholders. On these factors, only a few differences between the two cultures are noted. However, the typical governance rules in the UK are quite different. As a rule, British companies are far less tolerant of power aggregation than are their American counterparts. For example, they tend to oppose unitary boards of directors and strongly prefer the separation of the Chairman and CEO roles between two people, unlike the tendency in the US to integrate these two roles into one person. They also dislike dual-share voting systems, and have rules that prevent banks from owning major shares in companies.

In addition, British firms are also far less encumbered with layers of lawyers, spend far less money on government lobbying, and have generally weak trade associations. Management consultants do have an influence on British firms, but less so than in the US.

In general, then, Nicholson notes that British firms tend to be more liberal than the US and maintain more liquidity and fluidity in ownership. However, if British firms are more liberal in ownership and governance, they tend to be more conservative in management policies and practices. The ethos of British management is highly pragmatic, achievement-oriented, and entrepreneurial, but is often opposed to “out-of-the-box” thinking, weak on leadership, strong on financial management, and frequently poor on vision, community, and integration.

Adding to these observations, University of Birmingham professor John Child cautions against placing too much emphasis on seeing ideal types and archetypes of British (or any other) firms. For example, while many larger UK companies have been acquired by or merged into larger non-British firms, a strong entrepreneurial and SME sector remains. And, as in any country, there are large differences between traditional manufacturing and newer service firms.

Like Nicholson, Child points to differences in ethos as providing particularly significant contrasts between US and British firms. Indeed, he adds to Nicholson's list of features characterizing many larger British firms, including a short-term cost-conscious orientation (hence, a generally low emphasis on personal development and training), poor internal integration (both horizontal and vertical), and a continuing failure to communicate adequately with employees. Finally, although some have suggested that Britain may be losing its individualistic culture to a degree, Child points out that in organizations that continue to use performance-based incentives (see Chapter 10), such as in many financial and consulting services, we still see high levels of initiative and a strong achievement orientation.

Speaking of differences between Canadians and their US counterparts, McGill professor Nancy Adler offers the following observations: Compared to Americans, Canadians tend to understate their strengths and perhaps overstate their weaknesses. They do not usually claim to be the best at something. Canadians strongly believe in collegiality. For example, Canada is one of the leaders in creating middle-country initiatives where a group of countries in the world tries to get something done (instead of trying to go it alone). Canadians tend to be more formal than Americans - titles and family names are important. Canadians are generally more polite and less confrontational than their American counterparts. Canadians are also less explicitly and publicly religious. Finally, Canadians believe in more collective responsibility across society in such areas as education and health care. All of this is not to say that overlaps do not occur; obviously they do. However, assuming that Americans and Canadians live identical life styles or share identical values can only lead to lost opportunities for global managers.