Because of the rapid changes brought about by globalization, it is virtually impossible to read a newspaper or magazine or watch a news broadcast without seeing or hearing discussions about cross-cultural issues in global business. Most of these articles and/or discussions focus on developing a recipe for cross-cultural communications. That is, if you visit country X, you should behave this way or that way and observe this custom and refrain from doing this or that. Though often done with good intentions, much of this information tends to be false and misleading.

Cross-cultural communications take place within a particular context and it is this context that should be of paramount importance. Clearly, it is advisable to learn as much as possible about a foreign country before visiting it. This would be the case whether one was traveling for pleasure or for purposes of conducting business. However, beyond this cursory glance at foreign customs, what should one really know before leaving on an overseas business trip? Just remember the word "context" because it will strongly influence the nature of your contact with a foreign business counterpart.

Here are some issues concerning context in cross-cultural communications:

1 What are the dynamics of the transaction? This is the most important consideration and one that far too many people fail to appreciate or consider seriously. If we are speaking about customs and habits within a strictly cultural context, then the transaction dynamics do not apply. Indeed, the entire topic of cross-cultural communications is rendered mute. In the context of the transaction, however, the implications are as clear as they are complicated. Transaction dynamics will determine whose culture is dominant in any given circumstance. In a very real sense, your bargaining position will determine whether or not your culture or business style, for lack of a more descriptive term, will be the background upon which the negotiation will occur. In simpler terms, who stands to gain the most by concluding the transaction will almost surely determine the context for the bargaining process and the final deal. If the other side needs to do business with you more than you need to do business with them, your business culture will be dominant.

2 Where are the negotiations taking place? This is what many would consider a nuance, if you will; however it does play out in quite an extraordinary manner. The question is not what country or province, but rather under what circumstances will the initial meetings occur? If your company has decided to visit another country and allows the host company to set up the meeting agenda as well as a proposed itinerary, you will then be doing business within the confines of the host country culture. If, on the other hand, you decide to have the initial meetings at a neutral location such as a hotel or conference facility in the host company's country and only decide to visit their facility/offices after first hearing their initial proposal, then your company or nation's culture will be dominant.

3 Culture is a very nebulous word. Style is actually more appropriate because the rapid spread of globalization has actually given rise to a trans-nationalization of cultural imperatives. The world's dominate economies from each geographic region tend to mix and match and become a mongrel culture including bits and pieces of each one that are appropriate to all. Anybody who has ever visited New York City for a global business meeting will readily attest to this.

4 Language must be negotiated beforehand. Everybody does not speak English. I have to remind readers of this fact. Your foreign counterpart might choose to conduct the meetings in English as a courtesy to you. However, this is a double-edged sword that really does cut both ways. By conducting the meeting in English, your host might be trying to make you more comfortable and thereby loosening your grip on your focus. I am almost always suspect of foreigners who want to conduct meetings in English because inevitably this will require the presence of professional translators. Another problem seldom considered is that foreigners who do speak English can often add a subtext to their usage of the language. I have a whole file of English-to-be-translated correspondence that defies description. I have seen situations where English was the language being used, but Americans were not quite sure of just exactly what was being said and what meanings the words actually conveyed.

5 Context is dependent upon the medium of communications. Communications via e-mail occur according to commonly accepted practices and guidelines for e-mail. Faxes and letters are really very flexible documents that encompass and embody several different styles. Telephone communications tend to gravitate towards a mutual understanding of the differences in styles. Videoconference meetings, though more direct and personal tend not to be very dependent upon any set format unless the parties involved deem it necessary. Face to face meetings are really where cross-cultural issues arise and it is my contention that even in this case, how the situation plays itself out depends greatly upon the personalities and intent of the various participants as well as their relative positions of strength and influence. A good example of this might be a smaller company negotiating to be a vendor for a much larger multinational.

The other critical factor concerning cross-cultural communications is the business segment issue. If you just dropped onto this planet and knew nothing about how business is conducted globally, you would have to think that all of the companies doing business were multinational corporations with huge budgets for international business development. When one reads an article about reasons why companies should plan to allow their executives to remain onsite at foreign destinations for an unlimited time period, one wonders. The reality and indeed the common thread in most of my writing in Gateway, is the simple fact that small and medium companies conduct business in an entirely different manner. Unfortunately, however, most of the business press fails to make this distinction. In my mind, too many assume that their audience gets the point or understands the reasoning behind certain articles. My e-mail does not reflect this basic assumption on the part of the general business press.

This subject of cross-cultural communications is an excellent example of what I am talking about. Suggesting that business executives plan upon being capable of staying for indefinite periods in a foreign country is not something that most business executives are capable of doing. However, one does not have to look very far in numerous business publications to find articles of this type especially as it refers to doing business in Pacific Rim or ASEAN countries. This is not an indictment of the general business press. It is, however, an indication of the reality confronting too many business executives not working with unlimited budgets for business development. Though the specifics have changed in the past decade, the tone of most writing about cross-cultural communications really assumes situations that are entirely unrealistic for most executives.

Another way in which this issue becomes apparent is in the perception of U.S. business executives by business executives in foreign markets. As an export manager, one of the things that I used to hear frequently from foreign distributors was, "why is company ABC so impatient?" Unfortunately, foreign distributors are more concerned with selling products and/or services in their market than they are about understanding the underpinnings of change in another country. The reason why many of these foreign executives perceived Americans, specifically those of us in the United States, as being impatient is because these foreign distributors were generally larger business organizations within their own countries who were accustomed to doing business primarily with huge U.S. multinationals. When smaller companies, especially in the medical technology field, began to export their products toward the end of the 1980's, there was an entirely different dynamic established. To this day, many of the foreign distributors whom I know personally are unable to cope with this basic change in one industry within the United States. Large multinational corporations with business operations in several markets have larger business development budgets and can realistically afford to be more patient than a smaller domestic company newly entering foreign trade.

This last point highlights a fact that we in the United States tend to forget: cross-cultural communication is a two-way dialogue. One party issues a statement and this statement must then be conveyed or transmitted to the other party. The other party must then understand this statement before they can respond with an appropriate answer. Therefore, we must understand and be understood simultaneously in order to communicate across different cultures. Cross-cultural communications is about many things, including but not limited to the following:
Who is talking to whom?
What is being discussed?
Why would party A choose to speak with party B instead of party C?
Is there the possibility of making a win-win connection between the parties?