Für neue Kunden:
Für bereits registrierte Kunden:
151 Seiten, Note: 2,0
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations
List of Appendices
1.1 Problem and Research Question
1.2 Research Objectives
1.3 Structure and Content
2 Culture and its Implications
2.2 Cultural Dimensions
2.2.1 Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s Cultural Dimensions
2.2.2 Hall’s Cultural Dimensions
2.2.3 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
2.2.4 Trompenaars’ Cultural Dimensions
2.3 Cultural Differences
3 Communication and its Implications
3.2 Levels of Communication
3.2.1 Verbal Communication
3.2.2 Para-verbal Communication
3.2.3 Non-verbal Communication
3.3 Intercultural Communication
3.3.1 History and Development
3.3.3 Barriers to Intercultural Communication
3.3.4 Intercultural Contact and Culture Shock
4 Cultural and Communicational Problems in the Tourism Industry
4.1 Surveys on Cultural Challenges occurring
4.1.1 Empiric Approach
4.1.2 Interviewees target group
4.2 Research results concerning Intercultural Communication
4.2.1 Analysis of the Employee - Employee Level
4.2.2 Interviewees of Survey
184.108.40.206 Attitude towards Work Flow
220.127.116.11.3 Business meetings
18.104.22.168 Motivation and Aims
4.2.3 Analysis of the Host - Tourist / Guest Level
22.214.171.124 Interviewees of Survey
126.96.36.199 Tourist Behaviour
188.8.131.52 Travel Motivation
184.108.40.206 Social Contact for the Tourist
5 Preventing Cultural Discrepancies in a Tourism Enterprise
5.1 Aims and Necessity of Compensation
5.2.1 Intercultural Training
220.127.116.11 Culture Awareness Training / Diversity Training
18.104.22.168 Contrast Culture Training
5.2.3 Intercultural Team-Building
5.2.4 Language, Translation and Communication Training
5.2.5 Intercultural Reintegration
5.3 Critical Reflection
5.4 Target Check
List of Cited Literature
Figure 1: Iceberg Model
Figure 2: Hofstede's Pyramid of Human Uniqueness
Figure 3: Four Sides of Communication
Figure 4: Communication Process
Figure 5: Levels of Communication
Figure 6: Gesture 1
Figure 7: Gesture 2
Figure 8: Gesture 3
Figure 9: Gesture 4
Figure 10: Scientific Disciplines and Intercultural Communication
Figure 11: Course of adaption level concerning intercultural acting
Figure 12: Sex distribution Survey 1
Figure 13: Age distribution Survey 1
Figure 14: Countries responents ever dealt with
Figure 15: Participation in a course for intercultural communication
Figure 16: Germans and their position on time management
Figure 17: Necessity for UK- and UAE-participants to
Figure 18: Introduction style to business meetings of people
Figure 19: Tendency for making jokes during discussions
Figure 20: Exposure to vague situation by people who worked in the UK and the UAE
Figure 21: Oral and written communication and the value being attached
Figure 22: Preference for oral and written communication of UK- and UAE-participants
Figure 23: Necessity for UK- and UAE-participants to learn languages
Figure 24: Best ways to improve intercultural competence
Figure 25: Possible barriers to successful intercultural communication
Figure 26: Gender distribution Survey 2
Figure 27: Age distribution Survey 2
Figure 28: Frequency distribution for citizenship
Figure 29: The 61 Countries the interviewees dealt with
Figure 30: Foreign languages and mother tongues spoken by the interviewees
Figure 31: Willingness to prepare oneself for a stay abroad
Figure 32: Reasons for "tourists" for going abroad
Figure 33: Preparation for people's stay abroad
Figure 34: Different tourist groups and their preparations
Figure 35: Accomodations people comiciled while being abroad
Figure 36: Main reasons why misunderstandings occured
Figure 37: Factors that influence the tourist-host relationship the most
Figure 38: Intercultural training methods
Figure 39: Three dimensions of intercultural competence
Figure 40: Relation between familiarity and freedom of decision
Figure 41: Level of intercultural learning
Figure 42: The "Culture Assimilator"
Figure 43: Process model of reintegration
Table 1: Extension of the most-spoken languages
Table 2: Frequency distribution for citizenship
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Appendix 1: Maslow's hierarchy of needs
Appendix 2: Survey No. 1
Appendix 3: Results Survey 1
Appendix 4: Survey No. 2
Appendix 5: Results Survey 2
Tourism is the most superficial way of an intercultural encounter1 and one of the biggest in- dustrial sectors in the world. “The WTTC (World Travel and Tourism Council) estimates that over 230 million jobs in world are supported by the tourism industry, which equates to 8.3 per cent of total global employment, or one in every 12 jobs.”2 Furthermore, the latest statistics from 2008 show that tourism has not reached its peak yet. Over 80 countries earned more than € 642 billion through international tourism in 2008, while in 1990 it had only been € 207 billion.3 Another statistic representing and pointing up the booming tendency is the one show- ing the international tourist arrivals: while there had only been 25 million arrivals in 1950, the number constantly rose to 922 million in 2008 and by 2020 1.6 billion international tourist arrivals are expected.4 With so many tourists spending time abroad every year it is a logical consequence that different culture groups meet. From time to time, people may spend two weeks in Turkey, Dubai, Cancun or on Bali. This unfortunately might happen without the people even getting the local culture rudimentarily. But if they try to get to know the local cul- ture, difficulties may occur. It is not only the language which is different and causes troubles and misunderstandings in communication; attitudes and the way people think vary greatly. Tourists often do not prepare themselves properly for their stays abroad; just reading a travel guide may not be sufficient at all. When going abroad people need to be aware of different behavioural rules and patterns. But not only tourists have to face this problem. In the tourism industry many people work abroad which not only leads to multicultural teams but also to misunderstandings going back to cultural differences. These groups, both tourists and em- ployees, need to face their upcoming cultural communication challenges. Communication is an important and indispensible commodity; especially in the tourism industry conversations and interpersonal contact are trivial. Imagine a city tour or a checkout without a single word spoken. According to scientific investigations on interpersonal communications in the econ- omy, managers spend 70% of their daily labour time with communicating.5 Due to the in- creasing internationalisation and globalisation of the tourism industry, the effects of intercul- tural relations on human resource management need to be taken into consideration. Objects of an international and therefore intercultural management theory are specification, organisa- tion and practical experience of the management in the context of different cultures and so- cieties. Especially in the tourism industry it is important for employees to have, in addition to the usual culturally independent skills such as technical, social, conceptual and strategic competences, multicultural competence which is necessary when different culture groups converge.6 Which role do these skills play and what would people do in order to achieve them? As soon as people with different cultural backgrounds interact intercultural communication comes into play.
The aim of this work is to find out about the difficulties people, in this case tourists and em- ployees in the tourism industry, have while dealing with foreign cultures. People with different cultural backgrounds not only speak a different language, they think and act differently; addi- ti]onally they have got unequal ways of dealing with daily life and differing perceptions. What are the main reasons for all the occurring difficulties and misunderstandings? Is it just the language barrier that leads to misapprehensions or are there more serious aspects causing essential problems. Communicating with people from other countries and cultures is not al- ways easy; especially when people are not well-prepared for a stay or life in a new cultural surrounding. Within this work reasons for cultural differences are getting discovered. If you ask people about the reasons for misunderstandings, they mainly answer insufficient lan- guage skills at first. But after having thought about the theme more intensely, cultural differ- ences are also being seen as a cause for troubles and misapprehensions between hosts and guests. Since people who work in the tourism industry need to deal with foreigners nearly every day, they need to be prepared properly for their time abroad. Tourists often only have contact to one different culture while being abroad, which without is not apparently less prob- lematic. Not getting the other culture can lead no misunderstandings, to small ones but also to serious ones. Finding out about the difficulties, the reasons causing them and the way people prepare themselves will be analysed in this work.
The work is divided into six main parts, whereas the first and last build the frame. While the chapter two deals with culture and its implications, focuses the third chapter on communi- cation and its implications. Within the second chapter culture is taken into pieces; origin, different approaches and ideas of culture are getting described as well as their exponents are being introduced. I limited myself to only four scientific approaches; otherwise it would have gone beyond the scopes. With the four most important exponents of culture chapter two gives an overview of different ideas, interpretations and components of culture. Due to different cultures differences and misunderstandings occur, which are introduced in 2.3.
Chapter three gives an understanding of communication and the associated implications on behaviour; firstly how communication takes places, who takes part in a communication process, what influences communication and which communication level exist and which role do they play when communication with each other. The three main communication levels verbal, non-verbal and para-verbal are being analysed in detail. Within this analysis their importance with reference to communication is brought up. The chapter concludes with the conflation of culture and communication. Intercultural communication with its historical development and its relevance broached. Consequently, the barriers to intercultural communication and negative impacts such as culture shock complete this third chapter.
The fourth chapter contains the interpretation of the results which have been achieved by two surveys. The chapter begins with general information about the survey, the interviewees target group which were tourists on the one hand and people who spent time working abroad in the tourism industry on the other hand; and gets on with the actual results of the surveys. The analysis of the survey is subdivided into different aspects such as attitudes towards team, time and business meetings. I chose the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates for some closer considerations. In the following paragraphs I will then differentiate between the different motivations and aims people with different cultural backgrounds have. Misunderstandings conclude the first part of this chapter, whereas the second part is connected directly. The second area of conflict deals with the problems tourists have while being abroad. Tourist behaviour and the reason for going abroad are being described; additionally, the different types of contact people have while staying overseas. Last but not least, the fourth chapter concludes with the misunderstandings tourists often have to face.
The penultimate chapter focuses on the methods which are being offered in order to reduce phenomena such as culture shock or simple misunderstandings. Different possibilities to prepare you for a stay abroad are known. Cultural trainings, including simple briefings but also on-site experiences are just one option which is brought up in chapter 5. Additionally to the preparations, e.g. culture assimilator, culture-awareness-training, contrast culture training and language course which are all take place before, while or directly after the moving abroad, a reintegration is necessary, too. This chapter completes with a critical reflection and the target check.
Culture originates from the Latin word cultura, which descends from colere (“to cultivate”)7. Due to its various meanings, culture is “a complex multidimensional phenomenon”8 which has ever since been tough to define properly.
Distinct approaches on culture led to the numerous existing definitions. “In 1952, Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn published a list of 160 different definitions of the word:”9 Cul- ture may be defined from a historical perspective, from a behavioural perspective, from a symbolic perspective, but we “could also define culture from a structural perspective”10. Fur- ther, culture may be defined from a normative perspective. Consequently, it is impossible to name the one real definition since cultural differences already occur in one single nation.11 As soon as unequal ethnic cultures band together within one country no homogeneous conclu- sion can be expected. Therefore, culture does not consider country’s frontiers or an entire nation. Further, culture takes root where history and characteristics of conjoint behaviour patterns are recognised. Cross-border similarities between Bavarians and Austrians or Fri- sians and Danes underline this presumption. A Bavarian has more in common with an Aus- trian than he actually has with a Frisian, although both origin from the same country.12
Sir Edward Burnett Tylor (1832 - 1917), was an English anthropologist who, in 1871, defined culture as the “complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by a man as a member of society”13. In this work, I treat culture as just described since scientists and anthropologists treat this interpre- tation as the classic definition of culture.14 In the course of time, the term culture changed with regard to content and new interpretations occurred. The interpretation that is used in everyday’s life usually is quite vague and cursory. Trying to state culture more precisely, in- evitably leads to a deeper and more precise version, like the one presented by Tylor. Gerard Hendrik Hofstede (1928 - present) an influential Dutch organisational sociologist devides culture into two types: “Culture 1” which he characterises as an impression of human creation power. This power appears for example in fine art, music, literature and architecture.15 The other type, “culture 2” of Hofstede’s cultural terminology refers to “the collective programming of the mind”16. With the beginning of infancy children acquire mental programming and demonstrate this in their attitude, ethical values and norms, as well as in their behavioural pattern, although they are maily unconscious. As soon as confrontation with a foreign culture occures the own programming sinks in.17 This interpretation of culture will be detailed out later on.
The so-called “iceberg model”, which clarifies the cursory and precise levels, is the most famous and used metaphor for culture.18 As in figure 1 displayed, the iceberg can be divided into two sides: the visible side, which mirrors the objective culture, and the invisible side, which mirrors the subjective culture.
Everybody can observe the upper part, the visible tip which constitutes only 10% of culture19, but it may be obvious or not. It contains elements such as the way of life, laws and customs, food, clothes, manners, monuments, newspaper, rituals, music and language20 and may be termed as artefacts and behaviour21.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 1: Iceberg Model22
Although those elements are visible for everyone they still need to be analysed in order to be understood properly. This analysis and understanding can only take place by having a closer look at the bottom side of the iceberg.
The invisible hidden part, which makes up 90%23 includes elements such as values, norms, religion, attitudes, history, philosophy, friendship, time and space, problem-solving, decision- making, social status, communication style and sex, and sin and cleanness24 and may be named as basic assumptions in cultural theory25.
Inbetween those two levels you may see a third dimension which is mainly unconcious but awareness-capable.26 This level which would be situated just around the water surface contains aspects such as self-image, attitudes and values (latter ones can also be found in the invisble part of the iceberg model).
In the past decades numerous scientists tried to conceptualise intercultural differences in order to be able to prepare the handling of participants of varying culture groups superiorly. I already introduced some approaches at the very beginning of this chapter.
Among the best-known are the studies and models by the Englishman Edward T. Hall and the two Dutchmen Geert Hofstede and Fons Trompenaars. Hofstede is the most quoted expert if it comes to cultural comparing.27 Therefore, I will pay more attention to the cultural dimensions of the pioneer Hofstede.
In the very beginning of their research study and in their book “Variations in Value Orientations” they wrote the following statement: “[...] there is a definite variability in the ways of life human beings build for themselves.”28 Later on they added that “[...] there is a limited number of common human problems for which all peoples at all times must find some solutions.”29 Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck defined cultures on the idea of value orientations and which structure characteristic they set great store by. All in all six elementary problems were filtered out as the major ones familiar to every culture group:30
1 What is the character of inborn human nature? (The human nature orientation)
Human beings may be noticed as good, evil or a mixture of both, or as changeable and unchangeable. It is impossible to imagine a world in which every human being is unchangeably good.31
2 How is the relation between man and nature like? (The man-nature relationship)
People either live in mastery, harmony or subjugation with nature. Mastery means that people have the need to control their nature, whereas harmony is based on the theory that people should collaborate with nature in order to keep up harmony. Subjugation supports the belief that human beings have to submit to nature.32
3 What is the mode of human acting? (The activity orientation)
Within this dimension it is all about the convictions about adequate aims. A culture may be being, becoming or doing, which adds up to different attitudes towards the organisation of life. People living the extreme idea of “being” enjoy the day and live for the moment33, those living the idea of “becoming” have an aim which they try to reach by developing “all aspects of the self as an integrated whole”34. The last group of people lives the concept of “doing” which is a form of activity focusing on actions that lead to a clear and for everybody visible result. In fine it is about accomplish- ment.35
4 Where do people focus on with reference to time? (The time orientation)
The three variations describing the temporal focus are past, present and future. People living their lives with regards to the past use models which date back when planning their futures. It also refers to the respect which is paid to the elderly.36 Inno- vation and change is only accepted as long as it is in accord with tradition and past experiences. The middle variation focuses on the “here and now”; the closer future may be considered in some cases as well. Those people do not really care about the past or consequences that might occur in the future because they see the future as something vague and unpredictable. While present-orientated societies treat time as a scarce good which makes them solve problems straight away and with regards to current circumstances and requirements, future-orientated people do not care much about past performances and things such as concept of change, career planning and training are valued.37
Concluding, this entire dimension does not only deal with the conception of time, it also involves things such as respect for tradition and the contrary desire for change which is often seen as technical progress.38
5 What is the mode of relationship between two men? (The relational orientation)
People can either be lineal (hierarchical relationship), collateral (group relationship) or individual (the individual aim takes priority over the one of the group).39 This di- mension simply deals with the way people work together and how they see them- selves; as a member of a group or as a single counsel. You will find a strict hierarchy within a lineal society, while an individualist believes “that social structure should be arranged based on individuals”40. Relationships within a group of people have an in- fluence on the attitude towards work, their superiors or other groups of a collectivist. The strictest variation of this dimension is the first one which has been mentioned: lineal. Everything is classified and in a hierarchical order, so that people show re- spect for authority, seniority, family and gender.41
6 What is the concept of space? (The space orientation)
The last (and not always mentioned) dimension of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s cul- tural approach can be subdivided into public, private and mixed. Privacy is important to some people who value private get-togethers and keep strangers away. Public- orientated people think that meetings held in private are suspicious and social close- ness is taken as a matter of fact. Within the mixed variation, both public and private activities are demarcated.42
Kluckhohn and Strodbeck’s cultural dimensions allow cultures to change over several years. This fact is one factor that makes the approch so interesting. Further factors are the wild- reaching connection to the fields of sociology, philosophy, anthropology etc. and the easy adaptability.43
Edward T. Hall (born in 1914 in Webster Groves, Missouri died in 2009)44, who is supposed to be the “Godfather of intercultural studies”45 and the founder of intercultural communication (whereupon I will come to in 3.4), was an American anthropologist analysing the connection between communication and culture. He differentiated the relation between time and space, particularly between high context-cultures and low context-cultures.46 In doing so, Hall vulgarised the misunderstandings occurring between members of North American - North
European culture groups and South Europeans, Africans and Asians.47 According to Hall “culture is communication”48 and “speed of messages, context, space, time, information flow, action chains, and interfacing are all involved in the creation of both national and corporate character”49. Hall never categorises countries but you will find hints in his work classifying individual countries.50 Therefore, he differentiated culture on the following four bases:
- Context (low / high context) “is the information that surrounds an event”51. Since Hall equalises culture and communication he defines high context and low context com- munication as follows: “A high context (HC) communication [...] is one in which most of the information is already in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message. A low context (LC) communication is just the oppo- site; i.e., the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code. Twins who have grown up together can and do communicate more economically (HC) than two law- yers in a courtroom during a trial (LC), a mathematician programming a computer, two politicians drafting legislation, two administrators writing a regulation.”52 Contex- tual Communication is characterised by comparatively little speaking and writing. The reason for this is that the information is already contained in the physical environment and in the communicator itself.53 Shortly, context whether it is high or low, can be de- scribed as “the level of information included in a communication message”54. LC cul- tures include Northern Europeans such as Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavia and North America, while HC cultures are Japan, people from the Arab World and Medi- terranean who are very family-orientated and cultivate their relationships to family, colleagues, clients and friends. People originating from a HC culture inform them- selves about most things associated with people they see as important.55
- Space (personal / physical) may be seen as the “ways of communicating through handling of personal space”56. Space in this context can be demonstrated by an easy description of two cultures. The Japanese space allocation is harmonic and reflects the relationship between the people by having less room separations.57 On the other side, there is, among others, the American culture which clarifies its higher private demand through the
- Time (monochromic / polychromic cultures): Societies are polychromic if time is get- ting split so that plots overlap each other, whereas monochromic societies organise their times so that activities can be carried out one after the other.58 Cultures in which time is seen unlimitedly are, amongst others, South America, the Middle East and Spain. In those polychromic cultures time is regarded as a commodity having an open end and being simultaneously insertable. Appointment calendars are getting less meticulously subdivided into parts and meetings are getting loosened by telephone calls and conversations with third parties. The opposite monochromic cultures attach importance to punctuality and strict orders.59
- Information flow (covert / overt message) is concerned with “the structure and speed of messages between individuals”60 and plays an important role if it comes to conver- sations taking place between people with different cultural backgrounds. Cultural dif- ferences often lead to misunderstandings which then might end up in problems and are “often the greatest stumbling blocks to international understanding”61. Which sta- tions does a message have to go through? Is it an easy journey and how long will it last until the message finally arrives? In low-context countries (e.g. Germany, the USA or Switzerland) information is not meant to wander freely. Quite the contrary, in- formation is a “highly focused, compartmentalized, and controlled”62 commodity. In order to clarify this dimension a simple example: A Japanese senior executive (an exponent of a high-context culture) may share his so that as much employees as possible know as much as possible about the operating activities; whereas, a Ger- man boss “hides” behind his locked doors. He has got his secretary in the front room absorbing everything trying to get in. The interpersonal contact is kept to a minimum and information is often kept in the top management levels.63
This approach once more is based on theoretical assumptions although it has already brought us closer to the “linguistic features of culture [...] to cultural differences”64. The one finally working out a more applicable approach was Geert Hofstede, whose cultural dimensions will be introduced next.
Geert Hofstede, born 1928 in Haarlem, Netherlands, is a Dutch organizational sociologist and anthropologist whose studies concentrate on the cultural interaction between nations and organisations.65
He defines “culture as the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another”66. Special attention is dedicated to the key expression collective programming.67 Hofstede modified and shortened Kluckhohn’s definition as it has already been discussed above. Hofstede implies that culture is “a process to which each of us has been subjected since birth”68. His assumption is that “people carry mental programmes developed during childhood and reinforced by their surroundings throughout their lives”69. Therefore he specifically distinguishes personality from culture. It may sometimes be tough differentiating between personal behaviour and cultural characteristics.70 “In any intercultural encounter, there is always a temptation to feel that the others have bad character or bad intentions, rather than to realise that they are acting according to different rules.”71 In connection with mental programming Hofstede refers to “software of the mind”72. For this reason, he expresses his view that social systems can only exist because human behaviour is not created at random. Further, it is predictable to a certain extent.73 Hofstede once declared that “we assume that each person carries a certain amount of mental programming that is stable over time and leads to the same person’s showing more or less the same behaviour in similar situations.”74 Therefore, human behaviour is only partly predictable. This, to a certain degree, goes back to a homogeneous mental programming of individual cultural representatives. On the other hand, you may be able to identify an existing individual mental programming.75 An example for this is the fact that you will never find two people who are programmed the same way. Hofstede makes use of the pyramid model illustrating “three levels of uniqueness in human mental programming”76 (figure 2). The bottom part deals with the things people do because they are human beings; therefore everything that is part of this level is inherited, cannot be learned or adopted and is universal.77 Those basic needs, such as drinking, sleeping and surviving, are demonstrated in-depth in Maslow's hierarchy of needs (Appendix No.1).
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 2: Hofstede's Pyramid of Human Uniqueness78
Expressing those characteristics is getting illustrated by the middle section - the culture, which is only learned and specific to a group or category. The way people express hunger, pain etc. goes back to the childhood. The surrounding, the civilisation and certain groups of people, who people deal or had to deal with, influence their acting and behaviour.79
The upper part, the personality level, is totally individual and has got the greatest level of uniqueness80 ; is both inherited and learned, and also is the unique mental programme of a person which reverts to “a combination of genes and the personal experiences he or she has acquired”81.
While working as an organisational psychologist at IBM from 1967 till 1973, his studies of national work related values had the aim to understand the power of our social education and environment.82 By surveying between 116,000 and 117,00083 IBM employees from all over the world (more precisely from 72 different countries84 ) and from all hierarchical levels (“from the unskilled worker to the chief executive officer”85 ) on more than 60 items such as attitudes of the employees towards management, leadership, job satisfaction and their relation between work and leisure time86, Hofstede at first differentiated four main cultural dimensions but later on he revealed five dimensions which deal with general problems every single soci- ety has to face and which need to be fought differently.87 The fifth dimension often gets disregarded if it comes to business studies and expert articles.88 The five dimensions of worldrelated values, which “can be compared and contrasted with one another”89, are Identity, Hierarchy, Gender, Truth and Virtue.90 Each dimension has its two extremes:
- Individualism vs. Collectivism (IC): In some countries, for instance the Nether- lands, Belgium, Great Britain, Germany and the USA, the individual takes the centre stage. People need to develop their own personality and define their belonging. Whilst in Singapore, Japan, Turkey, Argentina or Guatemala the individual submits to the group.91 In a nutshell this dimension represents “the degree to which individual goals and needs take primacy over group goals and needs.”92 Measured characteris- tics associated with individualism are personal time, freedom and challenge. Whereas a collectivist can be associated with training, physical conditions and use of skills.93
- Power Distance (PD), with the two extremes high power and low power:94 According to Hofstede in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands all-to-great power differences are not accepted. In comparison, in countries such as Belgium, Singapore, Guate- mala, Greece or Germany the acceptability of a hierarchical structure, both at work and in society, are significantly higher. In cultures with a low acceptability of differ- ences of strength at multiple levels decisions are getting delegated, large reward dif- ferences are not getting accepted, right to a say for all parties concerned is getting aspired and organisational structures are getting kept low. For cultures with a high power distance it is the exact opposite.95 Recapitulated, this means that PD is “the way in which interpersonal relationships develop in hierarchical society”96.
- Masculinity vs. Femininity (MF): MF is “the degree to which people value work and achievement versus quality of life and harmonious human relations”97 and is geared to the traditional gender role98. More precisely, MF affects issues such as distribution and acceptance of gender roles within social spaces of certain cultures. In masculine cultures it is expected that men are “real” men who need to be ambitious, look out for being No. 1, admire winning, have a certain appearance, are dedicated to the cause Culture and its Implications and are success-orientated, as well as stand for size and strength.99 A society repre- senting this masculine extreme is above all Japan followed by Mexico, Germany and the USA. They pay tribute to symbols like money, intrepidity, earnings, recognition, challenge, advancement and success100 whereas femininity is accredited to being mothers, housewives or nurses and is associated with good relationships, coopera- tion, desirable living area and employment security101. In return, Sweden and the Netherlands are extremely feminine.102 Hofstede imputed, amongst others, modesty, solicitousness, domesticity, caring for others, harmony and relationship orientation to women.103 From a company’s point of view masculinity provides implications for moti- vation of employees. David C. McClelland (an American psychological theorist, who died in 1998 at the age of 80) found out that in countries with a high masculinity-index the so-called “achievement motivation”, the motivation by success, is lived.104
- Uncertainty Avoidance (UA): Some countries, e.g. Germany, Belgium, Japan and Guatemala, people try to reduce uncertainty by formal regulations, a lower tolerance for dissents and a highlighted role for experts. The inhabitants of these countries are “especially averse to uncertainty, security is sought through an extensive set of rules and thorough training”105. People of cultures with less uncertainty avoidance tend to be more proactive and take on responsibilities. Additionally, they are recognisably less afraid of taking risks. Those people, originating from Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden and Hong Kong, take the day as it is instead of pre-planning and structuring it.106 Summarised, UA mirrors “the degree to which people feel threatened by am- biguous situations”107.
- Confucian Work Dynamism, also known as long-term vs. short-term orientation: This dimension, describing “the extent to which a culture programs its members to accept delayed gratification of their material, social, and emotional needs”108, often gets disregarded in literature. Nevertheless it should not be forgotten entirely. Going back to a questionnaire created by Hofstede addressing Chinese students and based on the theory of Confucius, it is also applicable to cultures not using this heritage. Confucian Work Dynamism pictures the value of virtuousness regardless of reality. Long-ranging-orientated cultures are affected by canniness and persistency; it’s all about persistence, hierarchy, thrift and sense of shame, whilst short-run-orientated cultures are associated with respect for tradition, the fulfilment of social obligation, personal steadiness, reciprocation of favours and saving face.109
Although this approach is one of the most famous and quoted ones it, nevertheless, has been criticised over the years. There were doubts concerning the representativeness of the study. Those misgivings alluded to a possible bias of the results based on the choice of in- terviewees. Hofstede himself passed criticism on the five cultural dimensions. He admitted five dimensions may probably not be sufficient in order to describe the culture of one or more countries: “...the [...] dimensions are not necessarily exhaustive; they do not present the final word on dimensions of national culture. First, it may be that there exist other dimensions re- lated to equally fundamental problems of mankind which were not found in the [...] research because the relevant questions were simply not asked.”110 Since the study was launched more than 30 years ago, the change of values is left unconsidered. However, this point of criticism can be largely invalidated on the basis of culture being a long-term and hardly un- changeable construct.111
Despite all the criticism, Hofstede’s approach still is the milestone of cultural research. He made it possible to classify different cultures by using different criteria and his approach delivered possibilities of comparison between countries. Additionally, it indirectly served as a basis for follow-up studies.
The cultural model of Fons Trompenaars (born in 1952)112, a Dutch author studying cross- cultural communication, and the British Charles Hampden-Turner is geared to the one of Hofstede; nevertheless he tried to develop a different model. Firstly, Trompenaars treats cul- ture as a means of problem solving of human groups113 and defines culture as “the way in which a group of people solves problems and reconciles dilemmas”114 and as a set of rules and methods which are being developed by a society, a region or an organisation in order to cope with perseverative problems115. After having sent out 15,000 questionnaires to manag- ers in more than 28 countries, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner “extrapolated their find- ings into their theory of value dimensions”116. They, according to numerous sources, subdivide culture into the following seven dimensions.117
- Individualism vs. Collectivism
- Universalism vs. Particularism
- Specific vs. Diffuse
- Neutral vs. Emotional
- Achievement vs. Ascription
- Exposure and significance to time
- Exposure and significance to environment118
The first five dimensions characterise the category of interpersonal relations between members of a certain culture. While describing the manner of dealing with the environment and the factor time, the last two dimensions each build a category themselves.119
The culture dimension individualism vs. collectivism has got the same meaning as in Hofstede’s approach and therefore will not be defined again.
The cultural dimension universalism vs. particularism reflects the primacy of the general in comparison to the primacy of the specific.120 It mirrors the extent “to which people derive their identity from within themselves or their group”121.
Specific cultures keep business and public matters separately while diffuse-orientated cultures mix them up.122 This dimension describes the extent “to which people’s various roles are compartmentalised or integrated”123. Imagine Prof. Dr. Peter Sullivan going to the local bakery. In a diffuse culture the baker welcomes the man with “Good morning, Prof. Dr. Sullivan”. As you can see he gets accosted the same way as at university. His academic status is also valid if it comes to private areas of life. Specific cultures act differently: All areas of life are getting treated separately. Whether it is family, leisure, unions and clubs, work or the pub specific approaches are getting advanced. The overall question of this dimension is: How explicitly can personal relationships and professional connections be separated from each other?124
In the category neutral vs. emotional Trompenaars discusses the degree to which people of a certain culture group are able to express their feelings and emotions in public.125 By using the word “emotion” Trompenaars does not only refer to heavy emotional releases, moreover he includes daily phenomena such as smiling, crying, gesticulating as well as pulling faces.126 Emotions have a huge influence on human behaviour therefore Western European businessmen need to know how to act properly while doing business with someone from Japan.127
This dimension concentrates on finding out how people actually achieve a certain status? Is it by achievement or by ascription? A social status reached by achievement can be identified through the professional position, income or properties such as houses, cars or clothes. Within these performance-orientated cultures individual achievement is deciding for obtaining an ascertained status. All those above mentioned factors are getting reached by people’s own performances and their motivation. In this context Trompenaars once mentioned: “There is an “even break” so that winners “make it” by their own determination and ability. If X wins and Y is beaten, it is important to attribute the success of X to his or her “get up and go” [...]”128. This view allows the rags-to-riches story as it is dreamed and described in many American films. Rating the social status on origin and affiliation refers to the use of aspects such as birth, age of the person, affinity, group membership, education, race, religion etc. as distinctive parameters.129 In his cultural research Trompenaars also included the question whether respect is a matter of origin. Countries like e.g. Denmark, Australia and the USA declined this statement while in Japan younger people must take their hat off to an elderly.130 Summarised this dimension describes the manner “in which respect and social status are accorded to people”131.
Different culture groups may have different relations to time. Some cultures (e.g. Italy and France which capitalise tradition) are past-orientated, which means that achievements that have already been registered carry weight; whereas other cultures such as England, the Netherlands and the USA attach importance to future planning.132 The exposure and significance to time subdivides cultures into past / present-orientated and future-orientated cultures and expresses the relative focus people have on past events and future activities.133
The last of Trompenaars’ seven dimensions deals with the question whether a man forges his own destiny and the exposure and significance to the environment. This exposure and significance can be inner-directed or outer-directed which means that culture groups either focus “on controlling the environment”134 or focus “on living in harmony with nature”135. German-speaking and Anglo-Saxon countries e.g. like to have everything under control which means that they make decisions deliberately and assume that they can influence their future fate.136 Basically each individual’s fate can be influenced and controlled by will, attitude of soul, inner attitude etc., which undoubtly leads to attainment of check on the nature.137
Trompenaars’ has to deal with similar points of criticism as Hofstede. The representativeness as well as the little number of dimensions is being questioned. Another point of critique refers to the genesis of the individual dimensions. Trompenaars leaves us in the dark about the exact proceeding of the evaluation of the seven cultural dimensions. They are a result of pure analysis of literature (he takes Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s approach into consideration) and therefore do not represent conceptual categories.138
As a course of matter the mentioned representatives of cultural dimensions are not the only ones who have looked into the subject. Plenty more exist but describing their approaches in detail would go beyond the scope of this work. Not to leave them on the sidelines, scientists who also worked on the phenomenon culture were / are among others: Helen Spencer- Oatey, Eberhard Dülfer, Ernest R. Parson, Edgar Schein, Michael Argyle, Nancy J. Adler and Edward C. Stewart.139
Differences, discrepancies, dissonances, friction, incongruities, inconsistencies, unpleasant- ness can all be used synonymously for “a disagreement between people”140. The reason for this puzzle is the fact that people are not the same. As soon as human beings are not like each other, which is an established fact, misunderstandings, caused by cultural differences, may occur. Which aspects excite these cultural misunderstandings? Two of the just men- tioned scientists, Hofstede and Trompenaars, worked together with Czinkota and Ronkainen on a number of elements which produce cultural differences in order to answer this question. A huge topic gives attention to communication; in addition to communication, cultural differ- ences may also occur because of discrepancies in social categories, in rules of social behav- iour or in service.141 Different religion, language (verbal and non-verbal), infrastructure, aes- thetics, education, political system, economic values, value orientation, perceptions, spatial experience, national character, behaviour patterns such as customs, standards and roles may also lead to cultural differences.142 Most people are aware of difficulties that might ap- pear when going abroad, but recognizing and finally admitting them can be a tough task to cope.143 Culture delivers the devices to track the searching for meaning and to deduce our comprehension to others. “Consequently, communication cannot exist without culture, culture cannot be known without communication, and teaching and learning cannot occur without communication or culture.”144
Thence, the above mentioned reasons for cultural differences contain hidden aspects of communication; therefore this wide area will be discussed in detail in chapter 3.
Information transfer takes place by the use of communication. Therefore, communication “is one of the most critical factors in the success of a business.”145 It is more than just sending a message from one to the other. Communication is omnipresent and a matter of course but only gets scrutinised once in a blue moon.146 The term originates from the Latin word “communicare” which means “to share”.147 Nevertheless it does not only refer to sharing information, furthermore emotions, imaginations and opinions, as well as appeals concerning the behaviour of others and motivating encouragement may be shared.148 Additionally, the context of communication is governed by the three variables channel, time and place.149 Communicating takes place all over the world (on the streets, in a shop, at work while doing business etc.), wherefore it is an indispensible commodity150 which is, according to Schulz von Thun, made up off four sides / aspects151:
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 3: Four Sides of Communication152
The Material Component covers the matter of content that is the presentation of facts. The second side is the Relationship Aspect which shows in which relationship people stand to and what they think of each other. Thirdly, there is the Appeal Aspect that indicates whereto the communication partner is caused. The fourth and last side of communication is the Self- revelation Aspect which contains information about the transmitter and its frame of mind.153
Due to the various directions out of which people look at communication there is no single definition. Nevertheless each branch created its own interpretation: IT-specialists, physicists, physiologists or medical scientists give attention to functional aspects, whereas jurists and text scientists show interest in the communication content and behavioural scientists care about the particularity of interpersonal relationships that arise out of communicative action. Hence, all are communication scientists in the broadest sense. Thus, it always depends on the point of view out of which people analyze communication processes.154
The definition, which I use within this work, is an interaction between information, message and understanding. It combines all those three approaches such as the information technological and medial level, the level of content and the relation level. Consequently, communication is “the process by which individuals try to exchange ideas, feelings, symbols, meanings to create commonality.”155 This process includes the sending of verbal messages via words on the one hand and the sending of non-verbal messages such as pauses, attitude, volume and tone of voice, physical appearance or facial expression on the other hand.156 In the end the receiver “only” needs to understand and interpret the message sent by the transmitter. This part, the understanding and interpreting, is the barrier in every communication process cause misunderstanding and misinterpreting can turn up very easily. Figure 2 shows the process from sending out a message to receiving the message and finally giving a feedback.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 4: Communication Process157
If both partner originate from the same culture area communication generally takes place without any difficulties, but if we assume that both dialogue partners have unequal cultural backgrounds and come from two different countries misunderstandings and misconstructions may occur. This communication process may be divided into seven stages and starts with a thought created by one of the dialogue partners, the so-called transmitter.158
Secondly, these thoughts are being transformed into a figurative format that contains, among other things, the actual sound of the spoken words (language), body language and the transmission medium such as e-mail, fax, telephone or a normal conversation. This whole step is known as encoding.
The message itself is the third stage of the communication process. This stage contains the message as a physical product, the manner in which the message has been sent out. Examples for the mode of message are the handwriting in a letter or the gesture of sign language.
The communication channel is the fourth stage of the process. It is the so-called communication medium, which may be completely standardised or non-standardised. Fully standardised media are leaflets, brochures, newspapers; limited standardised are memos, letters or e-mails; and non-standardised media are telephone calls and face-to-face conversations.159
After having received the message, it is up to the other dialogue partner, the so-called receiver, to decode the received. Decoding the message, the fifth stage, can be as difficult as encoding it. Due to varying backgrounds, the step of decoding can be hazardous. The similar the culture areas of both parties are, the higher the chance for a successful communication.
The sixth stage is the receiver itself. Expectations, stereotypes, preconceptions and imagination as well as its own culture group influence the interpretation of the received.
While interpreting the received message the receiver finally provides a feedback (seventh stage) in form of both a verbal and non-verbal reaction to the transmitter. By judging the re- ceivers reaction the sender gets the chance to discover whether sending the intended mes- sage succeeded.
Communication does not only take place in normal conversations, furthermore it combines several levels such as body language, the speed of talking and silence. The following figure traces the three communication sides: verbal, para-verbal and non-verbal whereupon each side has its own characteristics. Extra-verbal reflects the fourth side of communication, which deals within oral communication with components such as time, place and clothes, and tactile and olfactory aspects. Within the written communication, those aspects are time (e.g. frequency), space (place and mode of transmission) and quality and folding of the paper. Nevertheless, no attention has been paid to the fourth level of communication.160 Therefore, the following figure shows the three common levels of communication. A closer look on these three communication sides is taken in 3.3.1 until 3.3.3. According to the psychologist Albert Merhabian the understanding of spoken words consists as follows: only 7% of the communication is effectively understood by the words getting used; 38% is picked up via the intonation (the way of saying something: volume, accentuation etc.) and 55% is received through the facial expression and further non-verbal communicational media such as body vibe or body language.161
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 5: Levels of Communication162
Following up the previous figure verbal communication is divided up into two sectors: The written part and the spoken one. Although, according to Edward Hall, not even 10% of communication are verbal it is the most established way of communicating.163 The means of expression of verbal communication is the language which, according to estimates, is only 40,000 to 100,000 years old.164 Some scientists, e.g. Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, even see culture and communication as one process with mutual exertion of influence: “The culture in which individuals are socialised influences the way they communicate, and the way that individuals communicate can change the culture they share over time.”165
Language is a medium to express feelings, thoughts, ideas etc. and is already learned in the babyhood when children learn the language of their culture group.166 Due to varying definitions of language the question “how many languages exist?” can only be answered objectionably. It is a wide difference if only the large main languages are taken into account or if additionally all subtle distinctions to the point to regional and local dialects are considered.167 According to the “Linguistic Survey of India” 179 different languages and 544 dialects exist in India alone.168 Dülfer emanates from ca. 2,790 living languages169, while Spitzer counts approx. 8,000170. More than half of all humans speak one of the big five languages: Chinese, English, Spanish, Russian and Hindi. Table 1 shows the development of speakers of the top seven languages in the world. Mandarin has undergone a noteworthy development. The number of people speaking Mandarin has nearly tripled between the years 1958 and 2009, whereas German remained quite consistently.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Table 1: Extension of the most-spoken languages
More than 95% of the world population speak the hundred most frequently used languages. One third of the languages is only spoken by less than one thousand people which demonstrates the other extreme. The language Ongota is only spoken by 19 Ethiopians and this day, only 6 people are able to speak Elmolo.176 The number of dialects is far above the one of languages and is estimated to approx. 12,000.177 A language shows culture and even gets experienced as its own culture.178 All forms of international co-operations require conversations with foreign partners.179 During such conversations with foreigners misunderstandings are about to appear very easily. Reasons for misapprehensions within verbal communication are based on the characteristics of language such as:
Communication and its Implications
- Phonology, which describes the differences in speech sound;
- Semantics, which is the difference in meaning of words and sentences;
- Morphology, which outlines the differences in the forms of words and meaning units;
- Syntactic, which specifies the differences connected with syntax such as the se- quence of words and their relation to each other; and
- Pragmatics, which characterises the misinterpreting of words and phrases.180
Communication is not only about the conversation based on words and idioms. As already mentioned, this part only represents a relatively small proportion; nevertheless the use of language is indispensible.
Spoken utterances are modulated by para-verbal phenomena such as prosody, intonation, voice, colour of the voice, tempo, rhythm, accent, intensity, tone pitch and sound volume. Those characteristics are never autonomous since they stick to vocal utterances and modulate them.181 What in one culture seems as a heavy argument may be seen as a normal discussion in another culture.182 Everything that regards the style and form of the above described verbal communication but is not part of language is para-verbal communication.183
In some African and Arabian cultures people use the sound volume in order to rule speaker changes. The one with the loudest voice wins the battle for speaking. In contrast this kind of acting breaks the rule of a conversation: such a simultaneously and vociferous speech indexes an argument or similar problems.184
Another example which clarifies cultural differences, shown through para-verbal communication, is the way people take breaks while having a talk. Whereas, cultures of the Middle East tend to avoid pauses between speeches, which may be a disincentive to Europeans as it appears staccato-like, Native Americans are famous for their very long, at times minute-lasting breaks within and in between contributions. However, even Finns make noticeably longer pauses as e.g. West Europeans.185
Non-verbal Communication (NVC), often simply entitled as body language or “silent language”186, is the part of interpersonal communication which exists without a single words. The middle segment of figure XX covers the communications which are not spoken. This communication channel focuses on the optic-visual phenomenon which sparked the interest of many scientists. Although verbal communication is the dominant communication medium per se, body language gained in importance and should not be disregarded.
According to Ueli Gyr, head of the popular cultures department at the University of Zurich, non-verbal communication covers the entirety of, within interaction context, occurring nonlinguistic phenomena, regardless of whether a shared code and intentionality, sent out by the transmitter, are given.187 Those hidden signals, which occur during a conversation or interaction, require a correct interpretation.188
Body language includes facial expression, body language, body position, body movement, gestures, dress, touch and gaze behaviour.189 The following four pictures show kinesic behaviour which often leads to misunderstandings all over the world:
In some countries in the Middle East this gesture is understood as an invitation to sex. Therefore you should better avoid banging your fist into your palm.191
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 6: Gesture 1190
This gesture means “OK” or delicious in countries such as Ger- many and the USA, but in France this sign means zero, in Japan it is the token of money and in Tunisia this even means “I will kill you”.193
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 7: Gesture 2192
Although this gesture is the international diving symbol for going up, it also has different meanings: In most countries this means everything is fine; while in Australia and Nigeria this is an impolite gesture.195
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 8: Gesture 3194
In English-speaking countries you should pay attention on how to show this sign. Showing it with the palm of your hand outwards is a rude gesture. The other way around, with the palm facing in- wards, it means victory. In Germany it also signifies the number two.197
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 9: Gesture 4196
Eye contact is not always a polite thing; in certain cultures it is even rude to stare at people and look one another in the eyes. The length people are allowed to stare at someone differs from culture to culture. In some cultures looking directly in the eyes of someone’s opposite is understood as interest and honesty, while in other cultures this behaviour is seen as a sign of disrespecting the counterpart.198
Always knowing what means what in each culture group is kind of tough; especially in the tourism industry when people from all over the world clash constantly. Misunderstandings are preassigned and it is difficult to avoid them entirely. Nevertheless, there are ways to reduce those misunderstandings; one method is to train the intercultural competence.
The term “intercultural communication” has first been used in an essay of the same title by Hall and Trager in 1954. At that time, both already pointed out that intercultural communication should be seen as a promising field of science without referring exclusively to the field of economy.199 However, the idea of intercultural communication already appeared earlier; intercultural communication is as old as mankind. The first time people originating from different tribes met, there cultures clashed and they had to try to communicate.200 Main features can be found in a multitude of scientific classics: Sigmund Freud’s concept “The Unconscious” (around 1890), for example, was elementary for working out unknowing levels of culture, respectively cultural imparts of communication. Another example showing the beginnings of intercultural communication is Charles Darwin’s book “The Expression of the Motions in Man and Animals”. This work was relevant for the reason of ethology, whose research on non-verbal communication was taken up in the anthropologic part of intercultural communication. Additionally, Karl Marx’ ethnologic-focussed works can also be seen as scientific precursors of this field.201
Nevertheless, it was Edward T. Hall who stimulated the development of an anthropological perspective in the field of intercultural communication. Between 1942 and 1946, the American anthropologist Hall served in an US army corps for engineers in Europe and the Pacific. During that time, he soon realised that in daily communication heavy misunderstandings between the American soldiers and the respective populace occurred.202
He “elaborated a view of culture as an unconscious framework of shared meaning which makes communication possible but makes intercultural conflict inevitable”203 and stated that theoretically, “there should be no problem when people of different cultures meet. Things being, most frequently, not only with friendship and goodwill on both sides, but there is an intellectual understanding that each party has a different set of beliefs, customs, mores, values, or what-have-you. The trouble begins when people have to start working together, even on a superficial basis. Frequently, even after years of close association, neither can make the other’s system work! The difficulties I and others have observed persist so long and are so resistant to change that they can be explained only in psychological terms: people are in and remain in the grip of the cultural type of identification. [...] Man must now embark on the difficult journey beyond culture, because the greatest separation feat of all is when one manages to gradually free oneself from the grip of unconscious culture.”204 He brought up that people were not aware of their culture and that intercultural understanding barriers are being created because of concealed discrepancies in the way people think, act and communicate. Hall set himself the goal to find possibilities to describe these concealed differences impartially.205 He later used all the information for his work at the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) which was founded by the US congress in order to train development aid worker and diplomats. The USA, under the government of Truman, wanted to make use of the experiences and information Hall had collected during World War II in order to harness them in postcolonial states in South America, Africa and Asia. This practical experience is the initial point of his book “The Silent Language” (1973, originally 1959), which is meant to be the book that established the anthropological perspective of intercultural communication. In order to specify this “silent language”, Hall differentiates ten “primary message systems” (PMS) which are fundamental types of human behaviour:206
- Interaction is the heart of every individual culture. It is a two-way action, whereupon linguistic interaction the outstanding form of interaction is; but each PMS is simulta- neously marked by specific forms of interaction.
- Association: In the sense of alliance and collectivisation; each individual culture has its own typical models of reciprocal arrangements concerning the lives of their mem- bers.
- Livelihood: Every culture needs to find a way to secure the living of its members.
- Ambisexuality: This PMS is about the sexual reproduction and differentiation of gender based on the sex.
1 cf. Hofstede (1997), p. 297
2 Miller (2009), p. 22
3 cf. World Tourism Organization (2009), p. 4
4 cf. World Tourism Organization (2009), p. 2
5 cf. Schulze (2002), p. 140
6 cf. Freyer; Pompl (2000), p. 114 et seqq.
7 cf. Maletzke (1996), p. 15
8 Reisinger; Turner (2003), p. 4
9 Jandt (2004), p. 4
10 Jandt (2004), p. 4
11 cf. Jandt (2004), p. 4
12 cf. Rothlauf (2009), p. 23
13 Tylor (1871), p. 1
14 cf. Reisinger; Turner (2003), p. 5
15 cf. Mahnke (2008), p. 381
16 Hofstede (2001), p. 9; Hofstede (1993), p. 19
17 cf. Mahnke (2008), p. 381
18 cf. Schmidt (2007), p. 21
19 cf. Tilden-Machleidt (2008), http://cross-culture.de
20 cf. Schmidt (2007), p. 22; cf. Rothlauf (2009), p. 25
21 cf. Podsiadlowski (2004), p.8
22 Source: Author’s own
23 cf. Tilden-Machleidt (2008), http://cross-culture.de
24 cf. Schmidt (2007), p. 25 et seq.; cf. Rothlauf (2009), p. 22
25 cf. Podsiadlowski (2004), p. 8
26 cf. Podsiadlowski (2004), p. 8 and Landesakademie (2008), http://lehrerfortbildung-bw.de
27 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 47
28 Kluckhohn; Strodtbeck (1961), p. 1
29 Kluckhohn; Strodtbeck (1961), p. 10
30 cf. Woodman (2003), p. 80
31 cf. Reisinger; Turner (2003), p. 23 and Woodman (2003), p. 80
32 cf. Steers; Sanchez-Runde; Nardon (2010), p. 412
33 cf. Steers; Sanchez-Runde; Nardon (2010), p. 412
34 Kluckhohn; Strodtbeck (1961), p. 17
35 cf. Steers; Sanchez-Runde; Nardon (2010), p. 412 and Woodman (2003), p. 81
36 cf. Mead (2005), p. 32
37 cf. Bender (2005), p. 37 and Mead (2005), p. 32
38 cf. Woodman (2003), p. 81
39 cf. Steers; Sanchez-Runde; Nardon (2010), p. 412
40 cf. Steers; Sanchez-Runde; Nardon (2010), p. 412
41 cf. Mead (2005), p. 30 et seq.
42 cf. Mead (2005), p. 32
43 cf. Woodman (2003), p. 81
44 cf. Hall, E. T. (2008), http://www.edwardthall.com
45 Schmidt (2007), p. 40
46 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 48
47 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 62 et seq.
48 Hall, Edward T.; Hall, Mildred Reed (1987), p. 3
49 cf. Hall, E. T.; Hall, M. R. (1990), p. 6 et seqq.
50 cf. Schugk (2004), p. 142
51 Hall, E. T.; Hall, M. R. (2002), p. 167
52 Hall, E. T.; Hall, M. R. (1987), p. 6
53 cf. Schugk (2004), p. 140
54 Reisinger; Turner (2003), p. 24
55 cf. Hall, E. T.; Hall, M. R. (1987), p. 6 et seq.
56 Reisinger; Turner (2003), p. 24
57 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 63
58 cf. Podsiadlowski (2004), p. 17
59 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 63; Podsiadlowski (2004), p. 17 et seq. and Apfelthaler (2002), p. 48
60 Reisinger; Turner (2003), p. 24
61 Hall, E. T.; Hall, M. R. (1987), p. 22
62 Hall, E. T.; Hall, M. R. (1987), p. 23
63 cf. Hall, E. T.; Hall, M. R. (1987), p. 22 et seq. and Schmidt (2007), p. 41
64 cf. Woodman (2003), p. 83
65 cf. Handelsblatt Management Bibliothek (2005), p. 88
66 Hofstede (2001), p. 9
67 cf. Lewis (2006), p. 17
68 Lewis (2006), p. 17
69 Schmidt (2007), p. 28
70 cf. Hofstede, Gert Jan; Pedersen; Hofstede, Geert (2002), p. 42
71 Hofstede, Gert Jan; Pedersen; Hofstede, Geert (2002), p. 42
72 Hofstede (2001), p. 2
73 cf. Schugk (2004), p. 32
74 Hofstede (2001), p. 2
75 cf. Schugk (2004), p. 32
76 Gibson (2000), p. 21; Schmidt (2007), p. 17
77 cf. Woodman (2003), p. 84
78 Source: Author’s own adopted by Hofstede (2001), p. 2 et seqq.; Hofstede (1991), p. 6
79 cf. Woodman (2003), p 84
80 cf. Woodman (2003), p.84
81 Schmidt (2007), p. 18
82 cf. Schmidt (2007), p. 28
83 cf. Hofstede (2001), p. xix and Blom; Meier (2004), p. 47
84 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 47
85 Schmidt (2007), p. 28
86 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 47 and Lüsebrink (2005), p. 20
87 cf. Hofstede (2001), p. xix
88 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 50
89 Reisinger; Turner (2003), p. 24
90 cf. Hofstede, Gert J.; Pedersen; Hofstede, Geert (2002), p. 92
91 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 50
92 Reisinger; Turner (2003), p. 24
93 cf. Shaules (2007), p. 51
94 cf. Hofstede, Gert J.; Pedersen; Hofstede, Geert (2002), p.92
95 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 51 et seq.
96 Reisinger; Turner (2003), p. 24
97 Reininger; Turner (2003), p. 24
98 cf. Zülch (2004), p. 8
99 cf. Apfelthaler (2002), p. 59 and Schmidt (2007), p. 39
100 cf. Schmidt (2007), p. 38 and Shaules (2007), p. 51
101 cf. Apfelthaler (2002), p. 59 and Shalues (2007), p. 51
102 cf. Schmidt (2007), p. 39
103 cf. Zülch (2004), p. 8; Apfelthaler ( 2002), p. 59 and Schmidt (2007), p. 39
104 cf. Apfelthaler (2002), p. 59
105 Schmidt (2007), p. 34
106 cf. Schmidt (2007), p. 34 and Blom; Meier (2004), p. 52
107 Reisinger; Turner (2003), p. 24
108 Hofstede (2001), p. xx
109 cf. Zülch (2004), p. 9 and Shaules (2007), p. 52
110 Hofstede (1984), p. 212
111 cf. Schugk (2004), p. 132
112 cf. Handelsblatt Management Bibliothek (2005), p. 215
113 cf. Lepski (2007), p. 4
114 Trompenaars (2006), p. 6
115 cf. Handelsblatt Management Bibliothek (2005), p. 216
116 Parker (2006), p. 145
117 cf. Woywood (2008), p. 80; Schugk (2004), p. 152 and Apfelthaler (2002), p. 67
118 cf. Hampden-Turner; Trompenaars (2000), p. 11
119 cf. Schugk (2004), p. 152; Blom; Meier (2004), p. 57 and Steers; Sanchez-Runde; Nardon (2010), p. 414
120 cf. Kutschker; Schmid (2002), p. 722
121 Steers; Sanchez-Runde; Nardon (2010), p. 414
122 cf. Blom; Maier (2004), p. 58
123 Steers; Sanchez-Runde; Nardon (2010), p. 414
124 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 58
125 cf. Steers; Sanchez-Runde; Nardon (2010), p. 414
126 cf. Apfelthaler (2002), p. 69 and Woywood (2008), p. 81
127 cf. Woywood (2008), p. 81
128 Hampten-Turner; Trompenaars (2000), p. 189
129 cf. Schugk (2004), p. 165 and Blom; Meier (2004), p. 61
130 cf. Woywood (2008), p. 81
131 Steers; Sanchez-Runde; Nardon (2010), p. 414
132 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 62
133 cf. Steers; Sanchez-Runde; Nardon (2010), p. 414
134 Steers; Sanchez-Runde; Nardon (2010), p. 414
135 Steers; Sanchez-Runde; Nardon (2010), p. 414
136 cf. Woywood (2008), p. 82
137 cf. Schugk (2004), p. 168
138 cf. Schugk (2004), p. 173
139 cf. Reisinger; Turner (2003), p. 22 et seqq.
140 cf. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2010), http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com
141 cf. Reisinger; Turner (2003), p. 16 et seqq. and Reisinger (2009), p. 119 et seqq.
142 cf. Maletzke (1996), p. 42 and Czinkota; Ronkainen; Moffett (2009), p. 26 et seqq.
143 Czinkota; Ronkainen; Moffett (2009), p. 39
144 Gay (2000), p. 77
145 Ahlstrom; Bruton (2010), p. 40
146 cf. Brehm (2009), p. 310
147 cf. Apfelthaler (2002), p. 131
148 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 73
149 cf. Brehm (2009), p. 312
150 cf. Podisadlowski (2004), p. 25
151 cf. Schulz von Thun (1998), p. 25 et seq.
152 Source: Author’s own adopted by Brehm (2009), p. 313
153 cf. Brehm (2009), p. 313
154 cf. Bolten (2007), p. 11 et seq.
155 Schmidt (2007), p. 59
156 cf. Hofstede; Pedersen; Hofstede (2002), p. 18
157 Source: Author’s own adopted by Hodgetts; Luthans (1997), p. 271
158 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 74 et seq.
159 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 75
160 cf. Bolten (2007), p. 23
161 ct. Podsiadlowski (2004), p. 26 et seq.
162 Source: Author’s own adopted by Blom; Meier (2002), p. 80
163 ct. Podsiadlowski (2004), p. 26
164 cf. Häusel (2000), p. 38
165 Gudykunst; Ting-Toomey (2003), p. 117
166 cf. Blom; Meier (2000), p. 80
167 cf. Schugk (2004), p. 58
168 cf. Maletzke (1996), p. 76
169 cf. Dülfer (1996), p. 264
170 cf. Spritzer (2003), p. 73
171 cf. Rothlauf (2009), p. 175 et seq.
172 cf. Rothlauf (2009), p. 175; cf. Pädag. Institut für die deutschen Sprachgruppen (2009), http://www.blikk.it
173 cf. Rothlauf (2009), p. 175 et seq.
174 cf. Vester (2010), http://www.sprachwelt.de
175 cf. Ethnologue - Languages of the World (2010), http://www.ethnologue.com
176 cf. Schugk (2004), p. 58 et seq.
177 cf. Dülfer (1996), p. 264
178 cf. Blom; Meier (2004), p. 80
179 cf. Podsiadlowski (2004), p. 25
180 cf. Reisinger; Turner (2003), p. 18 et seq.
181 cf. Heringer (2007), p. 96
182 cf. Gibson (2004), p. 40
183 cf. Paret (2007), p. 216
184 cf. Knapp (1996), p. 65
185 cf. Knapp (1996), p. 65
186 Rothlauf (2009), p. 154
187 cf. Schugk (2004), p. 84
188 cf. Schmidt (2007), p. 81
189 cf. Gibson (2004), p. 37 et seqq.
190 SPIEGEL ONLINE (2006), http://www.spiegel.de
191 cf. SPIEGEL ONLINE (2006), http://www.spiegel.de
192 SPIEGEL ONLINE (2006), http://www.spiegel.de
193 cf. Gibson (2004), p. 37
194 SPIEGEL ONLINE (2006), http://www.spiegel.de
195 cf. Gibson (2004), p. 37
196 SPIEGEL ONLINE (2006), http://www.spiegel.de
197 cf. SPIEGEL ONLINE (2006), http://www.spiegel.de
198 cf. Gibson (2004), p. 38
199 cf. Roth (1996), p. 254
200 Samovar; Porter; McDaniel (2009), p. 1
201 cf. Hepp (2006), p. 50
202 cf. Hepp (2006), p. 51
203 Shaules (2007), p. 27
204 Hall (1976), p. 239 et seq.
205 cf. Shaules (2007), p. 28
206 cf. Hepp (2006), p. 51