Managing Cross Cultural Business Ethics

Author(s): Chris J. Moon and Peter Woolliams

Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 27, No. 1/2, Business Challenging Business Ethics:
New Instruments for Coping with Diversity in International Business: The 12th Annual EBEN
Conference (Sep., 2000), pp. 105-115
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25074367
Accessed: 28/09/2010 02:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

Cross Cultural
Managing
Business Ethics

The

ABSTRACT.
updated with

help

structure

managers

Peter Woolliams

database
(1993)
(1998) has been

Trompenaars

Hampden-Turner

to

assembled

Chris J. Moon

their

cross

to develop
their com
experiences
across the
and
business
for
managing
petence
doing
than 50,000
The database comprises more
world.
cases from over 100 countries
and is one of the
in order

cultural

richest sources of social constructs. Woolliams

and Trompenaars
(1998) review the analysis under
taken by the authors in the last five years to develop
the
the methodological
underpinning
approach

world's

work.

into

concepts

a new

on

model

extended

ethics.

business

edge in relation

The

to business

paper

asserts

knowl

that

ethics is culturally

specific;

isManager, Ethics & Responsible Business

Chris Moon
Practice Consulting, Arthur Andersen. He is Secretary
and taught all theMBA Business Ethics
ofEBEN-UK
classes at The Management
School, Imperial College,
University of London, for 3 years. He has published over
20 articles and several book chapters concerning Business
Ethics; and is a member of The Institute of Social and
and a Fellow of the Royal
Ethical AccountAbility
the
encouragement of Arts, Manufactures &
Society for
Commerce.

is Clifford
Thames
Peter Woolliams
of
Professor
International Business at the Anglia Business School
at the
having been formerly Professor ofManagement
East London Business School. He has worked exten
sively

as

an

and

academic

practitioner

throughout the world with many

and
ative

management
management

gurus.
and

His

main

international

consultant

leading organisations
interests
business

are

compar

dynamics.

has been visiting researchfellow for the Centre for

International Business Studies (Amsterdam) 10 years
and has worked closely with Dr. Fons Trompenaars and

He

Dr.

Charles

Hampden-Turner.

is not

emphasis
mean

and

emotion,

syntheses,

Too
of

conceptions

rational-analytic

that

to avoid.

easy

intuition,

great
reality
are

not adequately developed.

This presents implications
across cultures and
for doing business and managing
ethical

for resolving
KEY WORDS:

dilemmas.

business

agement,

dilemma

cultural

competence

ethics,

reconciliation,

man

cross-cultural
ethical

trans

codes,

1.

Introduction

recon

dilemma

This paper reviews

ciliation of cultural differences.
to
in
dilemmas of cross
relation
these latest updates
cultural

may

on

Hampden-Turner

1999) have

and Woolliams,

(Trompenaars
the

with

Trompenaars

Recently

an

ethnocentrism

that

and

It is becoming
(i.e. global)
on a false

clear
theory

that the quest

of international
that

premise
is possible
theory
intention
of this

for a universal
is based

ethics

a single unifying
The
desirable.
alone

such

let

to dismiss
is not
paper
writers
of such eminent

valuable

insights
business
international

ethics

the
on

as Donaldson

(1985,
and De George
1992). However,
(1985,
1989)
to draw on their
the authors of this paper wish
own research
and
Moon,
1999) and
(Woolliams
in the arena of cross-culture,
that of key gurus
such

as Trompenaars

and Trompenaars,
(1993)
to
increase
the depth
(1998),

Hampden-Turner
of current understanding
work

and to add value

in the business

of writers

ethics

that fresh
it is hoped
Thus
this paper asserts

being provocative
can be gleaned.

to the

field.

By

insights
that all

because
they are
subjective
reader.
Any quest
by each
interpreted
differently
of a universal
for the application
code that fails
ethical

codes

to take

this

Of

course

are

into

itmay

should

true that most

be

abandoned.

societies

value

etc.
privacy,
in their prac
vary considerably
to managers
Thus
the
value
interpretation.

loyalty, honesty,
but these values
tical

account
be

2000.
Journal of Business Ethics 27: 105-115,
jfegl
r"
? 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in theNetherlands.

promise-keeping,

106 Chris J. Moon

and Peter Woolliams

comes
from under
professionals
and
the
standing
evaluating
meaning
they give to
or
to
codes
any published
evolving
thereby deter
mine
effective
behaviours.
appropriate
personal
and

business

to achieve
have attempted
this
the development
of computer
models
on CD-ROM
users
to
that enable

The

authors

through
available
undertake
their

evaluations

self-sufficiency

The

"subjectivities".
is grounded

in

approach

et

Trompenaars
on
building
cross

al.

rationale
the

research

the work

delineated

culture,
extensively
of recognising
the different
in
different
cultures
by people

importance
ently
model

the same
on

based

of

dated
United

of

approved. Where
to the conduct

to a questionnaire
countries
for use

responsiveness
in Anglo-Saxon
Arab Emirates?

recent

researcher

swear on the Quaran with

to jointly
even consider
dent before he would
a questionnaire

and

the

conduct

that contained

ethical

scenarios

the

board

were

an

initial

and Trompenaars
valid
comparative
order

(1998)
cases

and

multi-national
barriers

of

50,000, Woolliams
some 40,000
selected
in
from 60 countries

a model

to validate

faced with

set of

for managers

international

international

operations

communication.

alent managers
the integrity

were

selected

from

corporations
and cultural

equiv
Functionally
in order to "assail"

into national
research
of existing
were
Scenarios
and organizational
culture.
pre
a
two
between
dilemma
that portrayed
sented

principles
among

such
friends.

as respect
for law and
58-item
questionnaire

The

loyalty
was

1998, p. 11)

are hypothetical,

never

replicate
around
conducted

. . .". Translation

meeting

cultures

were

and
all

reality,
situations

the
that

by asking
context
of the

the wider

These

the alternatives".
on

Thus

the full database

various

questionnaire
the Middle
Africa,
The validity
of

revisions

East

across

problems

considered

undertaken

country.
data

approved

of
not

conduct,

and Trompenaars,

as a result

From

to

common
to the experiences
of
are getting
in all cultures.
"You
. . ."; "An
dismissal
is being
employee's
. . ."; "You have come
a
secret
from

consider

research

leads

cultural
prescrip
is a description

Ours

to be

to "balance
The

between

dilemmas

can

promoted
discussed

were
2.

would

respondents,

se."

per

Although
abstraction

managers

1998).

which

(Woolliams

sought

at
looking
dilemmas

all

conduct.

actual

former,

in the

the respon

a gap

is always

tions

vali
had

not

to behave:

ought

behaviour

with
relationships
Research
environment).

How

them

deemed
"unethical",
"corrupt",
for
Rules
insider
against
"illegal".
dealing,
are
to
difficult
where
enforce,
example,
particularly
lies in better information.
competitive
advantage

meanings
to appar

overcome

forced-choice

in ways of which
their culture
cultural beliefs prove ill suited
of successful business we might

behave

their

can we

around

although

probably

find

the

behind

reconstructs
the respondent
the
culture
how
they perceive
through

that

. most,

There

developed.

(Al-Refaei,

the

(the
are themselves
and techniques
methods
processes,
in which
related to the cultures
they are used and
been

rationale

was

of
meaning
and
others
they

and explain
these
generalise
owe
their origin
from
the
to
between
given
relationships

meanings
people,
time and nature

defensive

The

format

well-known
things. Trompenaars'
seven dimensions
of cross culture

to structure,
helps
differences.
They
different meanings

have

out.

and
who,
(1993
1998)
on
of earlier researchers

have

given

to explore
for
this

inter
structured
discussion;
through
and
oral
views,
histories,
cognitive
mapping,
such
that
idiomatic
based
strategy
consulting,
and
oddities were
ironed
temporary
ambiguities
validated

were

to

translators
scenario

and

investigations
and for each
to the

made

in Asia,

of

experience
and Eastern Europe.

was norma
the questionnaire
of
coherence,
pragmatism,
tively
The
of
the
and
reliability
correspondence.
in the questionnaire
dimension
scales inherent
tested

in terms

on
tests using
revised
based
constantly
measure
of
internal
Cronbach's
consistency
Alpha
of
for each combinatorial
scale. Administration

was

the questionnaire
minimise
defensive

was

carefully

to

managed

responsiveness
by ensuring
the independent
etc; and emphasising
anonymity,
basis of the research.
The

dilemmas

were

selected

on

the basis

that

Cross Cultural

Managing
shared by all
they were
is significant
degree. What
to the challenge
response

a varying
is that the attitude and
to

cultures
of

each

to vary significantly
between
to
the
relevance
subject
particular
found

is

ethics,
between

the

of

group

cultures.

opposing
seemingly
and particularism.
People
are confronted
with
choices when

behaviour.
are

there

how

defines

of uni

3.

one

extreme

as

to by the culture
in
agreed
are
codes
is
This
accepted.
to the golden
rule and its deriv

("do unto others as you would have them

as well
as society,
unto
do
you9). In business
this translates
into rules defining
conducts
cor
such as equal opportunities,
political
atives

etc.

rectness,

an equally valid
the other, we encounter
on
of particular
based
type
judgement

At

to people we
is dominating

obligations
relationship
determined

know.

Here

the
is

and behaviour

by this relationship.
Any ethical
to
is deemed
relation
this
secondary
to
are
as
friends
ship. Obligations
perceived
more
to
than obligations
adhere
important
to a code that appears abstract. Behaviour
code

is determined
based
process
by a thinking
on: "J must protect my partner or
irre
friend,
what
abstract
ethical
rules
any
may
spective of
say. Otherwise,
above

The

Trompenaars
of
analysis

research

of

this

other

individuals
and groups
50,000
an
Universalism-Particularism
along

scale
variables

economic

as contained
in the
paradigm
were
database.
Scales
constructed

this

scale. Extensive

database

grouping,

of

mining
sought
linkage
cross-cultural
scales and

to other
such

as
gender,

concerning

ecological

education,
religion,

(based mainly
identifies
1936),

Lewin,

concept
sation
where

fragmented.
as a one-parent
demands
higher

the

role

on

individuals

socio
job

underlying
of moderni

of

secondary.
roles. Whereas,
a feature of smaller,
or where

ties,

the

as a feature

such

the family becomes

or
live on their own,
People
and career places
family. Work

more

be

in the U.S.

research

and personal

Technology

life

replaces
tends to

particularism
largely rural communi
so dictates.
terrain
Here

the

to know

continues

everyone
The
frequently
and Toby
(1951),

everyone
personally.
from Stouffer
incident

cited

the dilemma
of a
that poses
a
car
in
The
illustrates
this
passenger
paradigm.
too fast. Does
driver has an accident
by driving
to tell the truth
the passenger
have an obligation
in

or

court
was

friend

to protect
his/her
a mother,
an illicit

If the

friend?
lover

an

during

or just an occasional
work
assignation,
colleague,
same i.e. the
the judgement
remain
the
may
universalistic
is to tell the truth.
requirement
or his or
to protect
his/her
friend,
her lover to conceal
the affair, may mean
that
are
of
the
situation
into
taken
aspects
particular

Or

the need

account.

Trompenaars'
reveals statistically
between

extensive

nationalities.

individual
icant

and
by Woolliams
extensive
quantitative

includes

Trompenaars'
some
to place
individuals

arefriends for?"

what

supports

dilemmas

may
traditional

an obligation
or ethical code which

is universally
which
these
adherence

propositions

become

encounter

to a moral

to adhere

This

nationality.

of universalism

other people's
judge
asserts in this respect that
yet alternative
types of

we

be

was

variable

significant

cross-culture.

The

Earlier

judgement.
At

most

everywhere
considering
friends and/or

we

Trompenaars
two "pure"

of

aspects

to their personal
their obligations
at
The
society
large.
universalism-particularism
dilemma

to

arises

that
values

versalism

etc. The

function,
confirmed
Trompenaars'

Of

107

Ethics

of business

dilemmas

the

was

dilemma

Business

trends

data

on

this

case

differences
highly
significant
there is always the
Whilst
to consider,
there are signif

response
that some

cultures

tend

to be more

universalistic

and Germans),
whereas
(Americans
are more
and
(Venezuela
particularistic

others

Gulf Countries)
is often
try
from

(Al-Refaei, 1998). The dilemma

revealed

head

to impose
the world.
based

on

tries

that

when
a

to define

office

multi-national
for

(best way?)
single
in the home
country

companies
a system
and

try

it as the universal

system throughout
Rules
about "Pay for performance"
individual
sales may work well
in coun
are

individualistic,

but

in countries

108 Chris J. Moon

are more

which

ferentiating
one employee

the idea of dif

communitarian,

or

and Peter Woolliams

4.

the performance
of
to another may be alien

highlighting

of meaning

Questions

research
has considered
the
previous
an
of "culture"
in defining
importance
orthog
most
onal set of ethical principles,
has focussed

the main
focus of this paper are
to
of
The
attributed
meaning.
questions
meaning
in
ethical
life is,
issues
business
and professional
?
an important
not
of
therefore,
point
enquiry
least of all because
Business
and Professional

on

Ethics

and

compared

counter-productive.

Whilst

rather

corporate

(Linthicum
is
there
dominant
the work
of ethics

when
example,
the
between

congruence
values and
organisational
not
it is
force,
surprising
the organisation
for which
on

is based

acceptance

culture

national

for

Thus,

1994).
value

than

the values

of

to

value

culture

plays.

As

p.

(1996,

Tayeb

85)

maintains:

or
or best way
on
debates
ethical

truth

Previous

underlying
and other
the employees.
Customers
may be in second place. However,
codes may
that
overlook
the vital
role

national

versal

can achieve

the

these

ignore

issues

in Unitarian

cultures

a narrow

follow
to whom

they

. . . tend

organisations

to

set of goals, have few stakeholders

are

are

and

accountable,

less

respon

sive to the needs and interests of their employees

alike. In pluralistic nations
and their communities
cater
for
the interests of a large
organisations
to be
and are expected
number of stakeholders,
part of the society
for its well-being.

at large and take responsibility

(i.e. it has a different

meaning).
even appears
to correlate with
National
The Chinese
the size of the organisation.
appear
owned
whereas
larger.

support
culture

a strong
businesses
SMEs

culture-specific
ones.
intra-cultural
of

study
found

organisations
measures
the differences
Indian

consistent

with

and English

have

support

family
this question

from

deriving

their
and

tended
issues

and

questions

as

employees
?
and
church
is itself

an

ask such
should
to

alternative

act of asking

the very

culturally
specific.
and his co-researchers

con
Trompenaars
the
have
such
debates
comment,
tinually
ignored
fundamental
about
the
of
any
question
meaning
or peoples.
to people
For example, when
text
to
and
and German
from
English
translating
trans
seeks to achieve
the translations
linguistic

factor

at the end

cases

In many

and equivalence.
parency
sion results even with

"perfect
do you

of meal,

confu
?

translations"
"pay

the check

Kong)
average much
seem
to
factors

Tayeb
Indian

(1996) recalls
and English

that on

a number

peoples

the two

differences
as a whole.

of

samples
between

even

fail to overcome
linguistics
of what does it mean?
problem

(U.K.)? But
fundamental

its

the
In

it is
Sony Walkman,
marketing
is
assumed
that the product
(which
technically
it is manufactured
and
identical
wherever
same
has
the
sold throughout
the globe)
meaning
to

famous

customers.

Americans

However,
it as a
perceive

studies

show

that

can use

they
product
being disturbed by others,
as a
in China
it is perceived
whereas
product
can
use
to
to
music
without
listen
they
disturbing
to listen

family

and Hong

between
cultural

small

are on

Such

which

were

for

preference
(as in Taiwan

in the U.S.

outweigh
a matched-pair

issues
issues

power
dependency
individual
and business,
often
as to what
extent
business

meaning.
between

viz.:

and private
life are emotionally
distinct whereas
societies
in some communitarian
such as Japan
is a source
of emotional
and
the organisation

to have

of behaviours.

with a bill (U.S.)" or pay the bill with a cheque

in more
such
individualistic
societies,
Similarly,
as the U.S.
it is maintained
and U.K.,
that work

material

code

i.e.

Thus

As

...

as a type of univer
behaviours
be
may
that there is a uni

may be misconceived
code.
salistic
Acceptable
on the assumption
defined

that a code

systems of
stakeholders
such

concerns

What

to music

without

Same product, different meaning.

Similarly,
to different
has different
meanings
"banking"
others.

peoples;
European
Writers

Islamic Banking
and American

is far different

to other

Banking.
to the "law" as
rarely point
arbiter
of ethical matters.
the final
However,
to
define
and
business
may prefer
practitioners
resolve
and

this

on ethics

ethics

through

is particularly

in (company)
law;
changes
to international
relevant

Cross

Managing
law which

business

has

some

shown

convergence
again, the law

1997). But
(Carroll and Gannon,
of
because
has a different
purpose

its different

its different meaning in different

a red traffic light cause
Does
or pedestrians
to not jay walk?

role deriving
from
parts of the world.

to stop,
but not so in Taiwan!).
(Perhaps yes in Germany,
cameras
are
in some countries
accepted
Speed

drivers

be

regarded
of providing
may not be
issue

The
only

of

us

of

Meanings
compared

law, may
in terms

is not

between
that these

rights

to

given

groups

cultures.
also

to

the

include:

individuals

(Individualism

or

Communitarianism)
to the degree
of involve
Meanings
given
or Diffuse)
ment
in relationships
(Specific
to
C. Meanings
and
given
body
language
B.

other
D.

non-verbal

Meaning

leakage
to status

given

Meaning

(Achieved

contact".

Lewin

Americans

have

is not
privacy
therefore SPECIFIC

necessary
implications
Each
interaction
stands

first

Individualism

position
versus

of Pay for
Communi

such
impact on business
policies
as "pay for
a
Consider
pay scheme
performance".
at the Head
Office
devised
of a multinational

some

can

one

in an Individualistic

Culture.

The

the individual,
differ
emphasise
individual
from another,
and show

as
and
achieved
personnel
having
high
in
low. If this pay scheme
is implemented
a Communitarian
the effect of breaking
Culture,

others

alone

in

the

specific

moment.

iswithout
specific relationship
about
the
meaning
relationships

to improve and develop.

culture, we take care
at the cost to individual
freedom.

entiate

the present

at a time, without
any
for the overall relationship.

is thought
Society
uals have their freedom
In a COMMUNITARIAN

company
scheme would

situation

specific

of

are

These

involved.

relationships.
Specific
that what
is shared is determined

means

given

ethical

Lewin,

in this

one

the freedom
culture,
and serves society.
to improve because
individ

based

actually

to nature

of society even
Thus what
is the

is, every
not even

"It's because
the
concluded,
a relatively
small domain
of
which
is
offand
because
it's
very sealed
privacy
sealed off, they can have a big public
life".
as
In some
this
cultures
(such
American),
to just a few
is very
domain
related
limited
areas - and this leads to lots of
relationships

to time

In an INDIVIDUALISTIC
comes
the individual

tarianism

of involvement

given

of

need.

the greatest

the Americans,
appraising
Psychologist,
to
in
"It's
the
States because
wonderful
be
said,
so
to
tend
be
people
hospitable.
They have open
can
and visitors
into
personalities,
easily get

instance

of rights

Performance?

with

of how
important
Regardless
privacy
culture has a private domain
they will
Kurt
discuss with many
other people.

situation
A.

member

where
or

Ascribed)
E. Meaning
F. Meaning

the group

B. Meaning

the law alone

truth

differences

reminds

and

in disastrous
result
identity may
In such a culture,
the
consequences.
perhaps
on
scheme
should
the
overall
depend
pay/bonus
of the whole
group or even go to
performance
the group

up

German

enough.
of universal

source

The

minimum
to managers

guidance

Trompenaars
A.

in others.

as the moral

109

Ethics

a threat

but are considered

(for the greater good),

to individual
liberties

Business

Cultural

any symbolic
between
the

more
secret domains
of personal
What
is
is
privacy.
private
clearly very different
and is separated
In specific
from what
is public.
to
in
that
cultures,
nothing
applies
relationships
individuals'

one

situation

next

one.

Each

necessarily
event of

carries

over

into

the

is its own

relationship
its specific
roles and costumes.
In a DIFFUSE
culture
is private.
everything
car is private,
The
is private.
In
the refrigerator
the beginning
of any relationship,
you protect
little drama with

this privacy.

Initially

this

leads

to a no-no

rela

is very polite
and deliber
tionship.
Everything
a
has
distant
and
"cool"
try
ately
feeling. Don't
to do business
at this stage of the
relationship!
Nobody

is available

being polite.
intermixture

for anything
than
yet other
in diffuse
For people
the
cultures,
a
source
of private
and public
is
of

110 Chris J. Moon

comfort,

and pride. But

strength
culture usually experiences
burden.

confidence,
from a specific

person
it as a suffocating
cultures
Specific

and Peter Woolliams

their

to break

and

create

differences
between
tive

remake

a diffuse

of

These

relationships.
of confusion
and alarm

all kinds

two

the

such

cultures.

When

culture

meets

a representa
an individual

a specific
their domains
of privacy
culture,
A German,
Italian or Frenchman
may see
?
an
as someone
as rude and careless
Englishman

from

collide.

who
business

in

is pushy
and premature
?
for instance
and

doesn't

understand

agreements

arrogant

the

importance

is not

very

to do

trying
someone

them;

show

they may

were
acci

their dis

in Italian
pleasure
by talking
together
excitedly
out of the room. The
and then walking
Italians
are an especially
In
if
culture.
contrast,
affecting
a group of Indonesians
insulted
accidentally
not
out. They may feel
would
walk
they
probably
not
insulted
but probably
would
show it. You

you

might
them

even

not

be
trust

their

but

You

aware

that you
in you would

find

your project
?
and the more
why
and disappointment,
fails!

might
understand
frustration
the project

had

insulted

be damaged.
and never
failing
you express your
the more
rapidly

of business
of status

D. Meaning

The

as a business
and careful
timid
unreasonable,
as
seems
someone
to want
"all
and
who
partner
or nothing"

if you
and you

example,
of Italians

who

in
responsible
see
the
may
Englishman
as snobbish
Italian or Frenchman
and
- as
bureaucratic
that is
typically
and

them!

honouring
German,

as

insulted

dentally

separate
tiny private
the accom
and enjoy
large public,
of highly
and
focused
relationships,
plishments
further
the freedom
that comes from being
able
from

a team

with

working

their

For

cultures.

affecting

even when

the

"all"

is completely

impractical.

In an ACHIEVEMENT

orientated

culture, you
you do and have done. The
emphasis
the results you attain and the performance,

are what
is on

can exhibit
and materialistic
gains you
as proof
of your
achievement.
Competition
status.
In an
and
individual
effort
enhances
results

culture,
you are who
you are by
Your
ascribed
of your birth and position.
to ability or innate dif
status has no reference
we
when
between
individuals.
ferences
Thus,

ASCRIBING
virtue
C. Meaning

of body language
us that some

also reminds

Trompenaars

display emotions,
of them. All
expression
release pent-up
emotions,
easily

and others

societies

withhold

the

to
find ways
people
but each culture has
so ? some pri
its own sanctioned
of
way
doing
cultures
and some publicly.
Some
express
vately
emotions
AFFECTING
their
continuously.
cultures

such

as Americans

and

Europeans,
easily. The Japanese
relatively
display
because
cultures"
call these
they
"transparent
their
about
show
their emotion
everything

introduce
in terms

we

ourselves,
of status.

Some

are positioning
ourselves
them
introduce
may

selves by firstly describing

others may do
orientated)
family

and

E. Meaning

social

position

their job (achievement

so by reference
to their
(ascribing).

of time

emotions

material

possessions,
?
ideas, beliefs
In many
other

their

you may
Japanese,
are feeling,
thinking
NEUTRAL
cultures,
considered
childish,
These

differences

lead to distrust

themselves,

other

people,

everything.
societies,
including
never
reveal what
or

In

the
you
these

believing.
such public displays may be
rude.
harmful
and even

in displaying
emotions
may
and
between
neutral
and hostility

"All this about past,

said in effect,
St. Augustine
nonsense
because
the only
and future is
present,
on
went
But
exists
is
he
the
that
present."
thing
to say "we have
the present
of
three presents,
and the
present
taken up to good
with
of
his ghosts

the

the present
of the
past,
present of the future." A theme

Dickens
effect
by Charles
?
the
and future. Thus,
Christmas
past, present,
on
we
to
the present
depends
meaning
assign
We
time sense we relate to predominantly.
which
have moments

where

the present

is much

more

Managing

of

say, "I now

but

about",
can use

understand
others will

it tomorrow"

others

I
say "I like this because
"I
and still others will
say,

just like being here

You can imagine

and participating".
the problems
that arise when
or
a
to
of
you try
system
implement
goal-setting
that
have
into
cultures
management
by objectives
a small future orientation.
like France
Cultures
and Venezuela
the

future

may
because

on

care
the

less about
future

for
planning
has little or no

In other

the present.

Business

Cultural

by the future.
in the workshop
will
what my
life has been

by the past and

the participants

affected
Some

Cross

the

science

and technology.
The
of EXTERNAL
control

view
of

INTERNAL

control.

often

Westerners

don't

In eastern

Japanese

time

as either

or SYN

SEQUENTIAL

CHRONY.

societies,
there.

much

in the
in the distant
past and ending
starting
distant future. Often,
they arrange their diagram
as concentric
circles. Westerners
have the idea

structure

have
can,

or boxing,

an opposing
and if you

view

business.

can sound very remote but it is very close

in the sense of culture and how it affects business

Nature

at large. Look back at the dif

and management
over
nature
ferent ways
have dealt with
people
to the Renaissance
time. Prior
in 15th century
was

was

out

put

there

there;
by

what

seen

and Talos,
the supreme
cultures

pre-Renaissance
an environment

beings
in psychological
it controls
control

was

The

Renaissance

of nature

into

as amachine

begin
cause

to realise

an

customers,
part of the envi
take cus
companies
many

are a natural

in the West!
issue

of directors.
Likewise,

in Japan. They
talk about
don't

you
and have

become

Relatively
is not
quality
never
talk about

stantly

that are

things
habitual.

a society may be seriously

talks about quality.

minds,

Their

sick

In their
if it con

Nature

organism.

of nature, was
God. These
designer,
believed
that there was
determined

to be doing. Nature
the locus of external

terms,
us rather
turned

than

the opposite.
this organistic
view
one.

If you picture
da Vinci),
you

(like Leonardo
if you push here
there. Hence
developed
that

environment.

includes

the goal

needed

a mechanistic

nature

a reaction

as

and the environment

human

their

customers

such a big
it because,
so obvious

the
the

and
they are the environment
strive to remain
is theirs. They

in harmony
with
business
environment

of

and Aikido,
force from

it to your advantage.
how
the Japanese
explain

to

ronment,
many
Japanese
tomers onto their boards

of nature

nature

help
For

the environment

unheard

Europe,

in American

the natural

and use

can

is still

model

example,
the basic principle
is that you
force, so you hit as hard as you
In
hit harder,
you will win.

is to take

principle
environment
This

the organistic
For

arts like Karate

martial

and since
F. Meaning

to

try

on

in societies
does not work
that
approach
in control
believe
and don't allow control.

This

very
football

occurs
in a much more
that experience
discreet
to represent
in chunks. Another
manner,
way
to
note
is
these extreme
that you can
perceptions

pre-Renaissance
to one
converted

control
put
have
everything.
They
budgetary
to control
control
finances,
they have pay-for
to control compensation.
performance
They have
staff appraisals
that control,
etc.; etc. They now
have in the context of this paper ^ethical control"\

Very
mechanisms

cultures,
The
invented
is very
handy.
Spanish
are
at
For the
and
it!
very
"manyana"
good
evolves
time,
through
Japanese,
experience
bearing
future

111

Ethics

can

you
the idea

is the mech
that you could control nature. This
is
anistic view
of nature;
that the environment
we
can
out
there
that
control
with
something

5. Dilemma
The

reconciliation

future

for

business

to examine

continue
norms

and values

actors.

Norms

ethics

should

the

relationships
and what
these mean

are what

is usual

to

be
between
to

the

and

accepted
values are what you would
practice whereas
prefer.
are convergent,
we have
When
values and norms
little difficulty. When
have a source of

we

is rightly
to reflect
to which
debate

values

and norms

disharmony.
placed at the centre of
on its norms
and values
these

can change

are

appropriate.
values

peoples'

Ethical

conflict,
debate

inviting
society
and the degree
Constructive
and hence

the

112 Chris J. Moon

and Peter Woolliams

?
of their groups
it is known
that
although
often
their
behaviour
people
reluctantly
change
first (norms) because
they rarely address the issues
norms

start to change
the way
they think (values)
to
the meaning
they give
things.
is to ignore these differences
The first mistake

and
i.e.

and maintain

own

one's

and cultures.

eties

in different

is a "win-lose"

This

own

ship and your

norms

ethical

of

relation

the destination

culture,
In practice,
the
an unfamiliar

one's own ethical code or prin

to
is
fail as your adversary
ciples,
likely
quickly
to
mistrust
you. This will be a lose-win
begins
at best is only a lose-lose
strategy. Compromise
some
strategy and still requires you to abandon
role and abandon

been

international

code

suggest
include

two

human

extreme

dignity.

working
human

together

ethical

ideals
is said to mean

Kyosei
for the common
is said to mean

dignity
of each

on
-

kyosei

and

living

and

good, whereas
or
the sacredness

this version
of
However,
person.
the universalism-particularism
dilemma
ignores
the fact that the nationality
profile of stakeholders

value

from
may have changed
an American
company
holders

now

have

may
the Far East.

the original
issue. Thus
American
with
share
50%

of

of general
any statement
a
starting point. Whereas,
only
shown that cross-cultural
training
to: greater feelings
of well-being

dence
with

for

perceptions
adjustment
formance

CEO
values
The

indicate
but
process:

review

that

their

in the

that the
appropriate
their strategy for

statement

reconciliation
is only

the

of

self-confi

relationships

are

an essential

to be

to ostracism.

lead

gift

in

This

is significant
considered
has been

giving
part of relationship

as
It is

building.
of the gift that
(i.e. meaning)
interpretation
is the critical factor
1986).
(Albert,
must
be able to interpret
cultural
Managers
the

signals

often

overlooked

selective

through
but more

1986),
(Albert,
ception
to be aware of inconsistencies
need

and Nelson
be

(1995)

trained with

than

per

this

they
in cultural

argue that managers

to business
ethics

respect

rely on
them
(Donaldson,
1992)
guide
the murky waters
of dirty tricks, payoffs,
through
these
and bribes
Adler,
1992). However,
(cf.
that the only real
authors all miss
the basis point
and

practices.

reconcile

They

can

not

to

intuition

solution

of values
start

business

international

Japan where
an important

should

on

a belief

and

and Graham,
Thus
(Adler
1989).
a
is
first
about
another
culture
step;
only
learning
one
must
cultural
recognise
heterogeneity.

the basis of the changed

shareholder
in
PhD
thesis
(Dickerson,
preparation).
Table
Caux Round
does
(1998) web-site

mulation

of

could

beliefs

now

can contribute

In fact,
(Black and Mendenhall,
1990).
cause
the lack of such training may
be the
of
individual
and organisational
failure; the costs of

be more

itmay
team

can
have

the manager,
improved
relationships
of correct
the development
nationals,
of host
culture
better
members,
to the new culture,
and higher
per

host

Trevino

and

principles
studies

behaviour

its shareholders

on

value whereas

by all.

be

Its business
strategy formulated
an
code may
the basis of
ethical
acceptable
on maximising
shareholder
have been focussed
from

begin

of
component
and
sensitivity.
training
understanding
a
et al. (1988) pointed
As Triandis
out, giving
a
step to becoming
gift can be an important
a gift incorrectly
member
of a group, and giving

to

trying

to

shared values,

for cultural

1995; Caux Round

of the Caux
code
based

seek

reconciles dif
process
a shared per
and
values,
fering
thereby develops
on
to and
business
behaviour
spective
acceptable

ethics

a uni
to produce
of ethics (cf. Donaldson

1994; Hosmer,
The writers
1996).
that this code be

We

measured.

business

are estimated
to
and Mendenhall
by Black
over
be $50?150K
and
for individual
$2
failure,
as a whole.
The
billion per year to U.S. business

made

and Dunfee,

be

aims

document

standard against which

that identifies

thus considered

position.
have
Attempts

Table,

can

behaviour

this

aspirations,

which

of your
versal

of

a world

Thus,

alienate

adopting
we can "fit in" and be
accepted.
tension caused by trying to act out

statement

to express

honoured

soci

principles may
to make
your adversary. A second
easy mistake
is to adopt
the uwhen in Rome,
do"
do as Romans
for
of
the
sake
Here,
(?), or
paradigm.
harmony
a
more
we
to
think
that
close
may
sale(!),
likely
our
behaviours
and
(norms)
by abandoning
the norms

As

and
is to recognise
then respect
these differences
(Trompenaars

Hampden-Turner

1998).

then
and

Cross

Managing
Some
business

contexts.

sanctions

for

There

complying

creation.

may be rewards
or
with
breaking
these approaches

Noble

1991) based on
social
equity,

(Frederick,

sovereignity,
human
rights,

Corporate

up being
or Donaldson's

scriptive

shared exchanges,
the
through
of subjectivity
and ethnocentrism

that this is effective

systems and moreover
across cultures.
in doing business
and managing
is the "new
This
has "added
that
approach"
over and above "compromise
value"
solutions"

national

outcomes
to all
and produces
acceptable
ethically
model
parties and is based on a new fundamental
conceived

and Hampden-Turner

by Trompenaars

(1998).
The

is how
following
and
Woolliams
Trompenaars

for

(1989) fundamental
end up as being overly pre

compromise;
international

to

their own

value

been

as the basis

diagnostic

problem
can be exposed. Current
research is accumulating
to reconcile
evidence
that it is possible
different

integrity,
fall short of

used

self
tools

and

whole

attempts
is that
The
danger
as drawn up by DeGeorge

end

may

(1992)

to produce

concerned
based

to meanings.
individual
and

beliefs.

managers
probing
moral guidelines,
such

of Trompenaars
and
and Trompenaars

investigate
to clarify the meaning
they give
In this way, both at the level of the

help
orientations

Ethic

respecting
market

such

but

have

attempts

a Transcultural

to devise

Woolliams

computer
individuals
and groups

to ethical
issues in
of meaning given
complexity
different
cultures: nepotism,
values,
incompatible
of business
the legitimacy
expectations,
public
and wealth

the work

support

administered

company
policy. Nevertheless,
are highly
in origin,
ethnocentric
developed
a full and proper understanding
of the
without

made

113

Ethics

Hampden-Turner,
have been
(1998)

and General
Xerox,
(e.g. Caterpillar,
to
deal
with
modified
par
perhaps

Dynamics)
ticular cultural
and

To

codes of
developed
for
guidelines
dealing with
have

organisations
conduct with

problems

Business

Cultural

rights may
and hence
impractical.

typical

Hampden-Turner,
have now expressed

dilemma.

The Letter or the Spirit of the Law?

a foreign buyer to buy
contract with
Six months
after the ABC mining
company had signed a long-term
bauxite in ten annual instalments, the world price of bauxite collapsed. Instead of paying $4 a tonne below world
to
market price, the buyer now faced the prospect of paying $3 above. The buyer faxed ABC to say it wished
the

renegotiate

alone

the now

contract.

ruinous

final

The

expense

words

of

the

fax

of these contract

read:

cannot

"You

terms." ABC

us

expect

negotiators

as your

new

had a heated

to

partner

discussion

carry

about

this

situation.

Which

view do you support?

a. A contract is a contract. Itmeans precisely what its terms say. If the world price had risen we would not be
are they talking about? We had a deal. We bargained. We won.
crying, nor should they. What
partnership
End of story.
statement of original
It is an honest
b. A contract symbolises
the underlying
intent. However,
relationship.
such rigid terms are too brittle to withstand
turbulent environments.
tacit
of
forms
have the
Only
mutuality
flexibility to survive.
c. A contract is a function
split the difference.
d. A contract symbolises
cumstances
transform

of both

their

crying,
losses.

nor

should

and the legal system covered

relationship

by it.We

should

It is an honest statement of original

the underlying
intent. Where
relationship.
terms
must
to preserve
of
that
the mutual
then
be
contract,
spirit
renegotiated

relationship.
e. A contract is a contract.
be

the underlying

It means

they. We

precisely

would,

what

however,

the terms
consider

say. If the world

a second

contract

price
whose

had risen we would

terms

would

help

cir
the
not
offset

114 Chris J. Moon

a

Option

is

clearly

(win-lose).

Option

(lose-win).

Option

and Peter Woolliams

the universalistic
option
b is the particularistic
view
c is the compromise
solution

be

account

the opposing
value and seeks to recon
cile and find a unifying
solution.
? is the
Option
reverse
a
and commences
with
particularistic
view but still seeks a unified
reconciled
solution.
are
Both
of these
win-win
New
strategies.
an

reveals

effective

global managers.
relation between
on

feedback
ness

to reconcile
that propensity
is
of high
performing
New
studies confirm
high cor

behaviour

such propensity
and 360 degree
business
and managerial
effective

managing
business.

situations
from
ranging
to
business
through
and
projects
day-to-day

new

for

prospecting

(lose-lose).
to reconcile
Both
options d and e are seeking
e
an
starts
the opposing
values.
from
Option
to
ethical
in
universalistic
takes
but
viewpoint

evidence

in wide

important

existing
And
studies

are

that

showing

the

can be
developed
through
are using
computer-based
on CD-ROM)
that enable

to reconcile

propensity

The

training.
models

authors

(available
to explore
and business
managers
professionals
their own value
and to identify
their
systems
on
various
ethical
scales.
The
dilemma
position
self-sufficiency
analysis aids the user in
and interpreting
their relationship
understanding
to various
and the meaning
ascribe
they
pub
resulting

lished

and/or

ethical codes. What

may
proposed
are new
for
business
global
paradigms
of cross-cultural
with
dilemmas
business

emerge
dealing
ethics.

1998).

(Hampden-Turner,

Acknowledgements
6.

Trans-cultural

competence
for

Arguments
This

demonstrates
that
paper
is
needed
framework
ological
can

manager
competence

a new

and develop
acquire
and high performance

particularism,
are able to

strongly with
international

the extent

when
cile

with

business"

diversity.
?
other

shown

Business

the

held

at Christ

1999; and The

1999 "Business

Ethics.

New

instruments

diversity
at Amsterdam,
1999.
September,

in

international

with

The

Netherlands,

References
N.:

Dimensions
International
1992,
of
Kent
Behaviour
(PWS
Organizational
Publishing

Adler,

Co.,

Boston).

and J. L. Graham:
Adler, N.J.
1989, 'Cross-cultural
Interaction:
The
International
Comparison
Fallacy?', Journal of International Business Studies
(Fall), 515-537.
Albert, R. D.: 1986, 'Conceptual Framework for the
Development
Orientation

promise.

is being

Millennium"

of

"Business

with

ratings by both peers

on
for" and "success
"suitability
and/or
and
postings
partnerships

competence

held

Network

Ethics

held

lst-3rd

to recon
and unable
severely
challenged
then these women
also show signs of com

Trans-cultural

a New

Challenging
for
coping

in middle
In fact, women
a male
than those adopting
management
a
to
tend
in
man's
world
approach
perceived
to
reconcile
have a higher
propensity
opposing
values
than their male
counterparts.
Although,
dealing

in Tunis,
Fourth Annual

Ethics

15th-16th
Church,
Oxford,
April
12th EBEN Annual
Conference

universalism

or working

Business

European
Ethics
for

correlates
competence
of their experience
with

assignments
and with
diverse workforce,
and managers
in" overseas

than those

Business

December,
1998; The
of the U.K.
Association

Conference

managers
usually
some managers
from each
reconcile
both
approaches.

trans-cultural

Cultural

lOth-llth

responses
1999). While

put

peer
through
sented at: The
Cross

in the job.
exhibit
consistently

and Woolliams,
(Trompenaars
American
managers
typically
first, they say, and East Asian
region
This

that

trans-cultural

managers
High-performing
more
of this trans-cultural
competence
or compromise
who
give polarised

favour

method

in order

this paper have been developed

to papers pre
in relation
review
on
First International
Conference

to

and Evaluation

Programs',
Intercultural Relations 10,

of Cross-cultural

International
197?213.

Journal

of

Managing

Cross

Cultural

H.: 1998, 'Cultural Transfer of Technology

Al-Refaei,
to Gulf GCC Countries',
Ph.D. thesis (University
of East, London).
1990, 'Cross-cultural
Black, J. S. andM. Mendenhall:
and a Theoretical
Training Effectiveness: A Review
Framework
for Future Research',
Academy
of
Management Review 15(1), 113?136.
S. J. and M.
Carroll,
1997, Ethical
J. Gannon:
Dimensions
Sage Series
of International Management.
in Business Ethics (Sage Publications,
London).
Caux Round
Table.:
'Business Ethics',
The
1996,
Business
10(1),
Magazine
of Socially Responsible
January.

Caux
http

Round

Table:

://www.

1998,

cauxroundtable.

Principles

for Business:

org.

R.:

De

Financial
1992, 'Ethics and Worse',
George,
Times, July 3, p. 12.
De George, R.:
1985, Competing with Integrity in
International Business
Press,
(Oxford University
New York).
T.: 1985, 'Multinational Decision-making
Donaldson,
International
Norms',
Reconciling
Journal
of
Business Ethics 4, 357-366.
T.:
1989, The Ethics
Donaldson,
of International
Press, New York).
(Oxford University
.
. . What?
in
T.:
'When
Rome, Do
Donaldson,
1992,
in
International Business and Cultural Relativism',
a
P.M. Minus
Business
in
Global
The
Ethics
(ed.),
of
pp. 67-78.
Economy (Kluwer, Boston),
T. and T. W. Dunfee:
'Toward
1994,
Donaldson,
a Unified
Business
Ethics:
of
Conception
Business

Integrative Social Contracts Theory',

Academy of
Management Review 19, 252-284.
'The Moral Authority
of
Frederick, W. C:
1991,
Transnational Codes', Journal of Business Ethics 10,
165-177.
L. T.: 1995, 'Trust: The Connecting
Link
Hosmer,
and
between Organizational
Theory
Philosophical
Review
Ethics',
20,
Academy
of Management
379-403.
Lewin, K.:

Stouffer,

115

Ethics

S. A.

Personality',
395-406.
Tayeb, M. H.:

and
and J. Toby: 1951, 'Role Conflict
American Journal of Sociology LUI-5,

1996, The Management

of aMulticultural
Workforce. Chichester (John Wiley, U.K.).
L. K. and K. A. Nelson:
Trevino,
1995, Managing
Business Ethics. Straight Talk About How To Do It
and Sons, Inc., NY).
Right (John Wiley
and C. H. Hui:
Triandis, H. C, R. Brislin
1988,
'Cross-cultural

Across

Training

Temple University,

U.S.A.

the

Individualism

collectivism

International
Divide',
Journal
of
Intercultural Relations 12, 269-289.
F.: 1993, Riding
the Waves of Culture
Trompenaars,
(Economist Books, U.K.).
F.

Trompenaars,

and

C.

Understanding

1998,

Hampden-Turner:

in Business

Cultural Diversity

(Irwin,

U.K.).
F.

Trompenaars,
Cultural

and

Competence,

P. Woolliams:
People

1999,

Trans
U.K.,

Management,

22nd April.
P. and C. J. Moon:
'Towards
1999,
Woolliams,
Free Business
Business Ethics
Culture
Ethics',
Discussion Paper 1(7), Earlybrave Publications
Ltd.,
U.K.

P. and F. Trompenaars:
1998, The Meaning
Research
of Meaning,
(Earlybrave
Monograph
Publications
Ltd., U.K.),
pp. 1-41.

Woolliams,

Chris J. Moon
Andersen.

Arthur

I Surrey

Street,

London WC2R 2PS,

United Kingdom
E-mail:

chris.moon@uk.arthurandersen.com

Peter Woolliams
Anglia
Anglia

1936, Some Socio-psychological

differences
between the US and Germany, Principles of Topological
Psychology (Wiley Inc., U.S.A).
and Extent of
Linthicum, D. O.: 1994, The Nature
Cultural Values to an Organisations'
Culture, DEd
Thesis,

Business

Business

Polytechnic

School,

University,

Danbury
Essex CM3

Park,
4AT,

United Kingdom
E-mail:

peterwoolliams@aol.com