abstract

The current and potential growth of the Chinese economy means that US and European organizations increasingly want to work with Chinese partner organizations. However, the Chinese-western cultural differences often present barriers to effective collaboration. This paper suggests a conceptual framework that explains why the Internet and groupware technologies provide practical ways to bridge the cultural differences and make collaboration. The framework is developed from a social constructionist perspective that helps explain the actual experiences of the authors in communicating between US and Chinese organizations. The paper summarizes the distinctive differences between the Chinese and US along dimensions of values, language, and behavior and illustrates how the Internet and groupware technologies help bridge these differences. The paper concludes with a summary of the utility of the framework and its implications for cross-cultural management of technology.
 
 
 
 
 

background

The increasing globalization of business and commerce requires firms and even non-commercial organizations to collaborate across cultures if they are to manage technology effectively. While some products are designed for global markets, many products require special design features for distinctive national, ethnic, or cultural markets. Moreover, the functions of research and development, design, and production increasingly are located where they can contribute the most to the firm, not in the firm’s home country. What this means is that organizations are expanding their use of teams from different countries and cultures.

The availability of low-cost, well-trained technical personnel in China and the recent strong growth of the Chinese economy mean that western firms have a growing interest in working with Chinese organizations. The goals are to utilize Chinese expertise in research and product development and to manufacture products that will find acceptance in the growing Chinese markets. In some cases, there is the desire or requirement to transfer US (western) technology to China. In other cases, there is the desire to collaborate with Chinese partners but also to limit the degree to which the US partner’s intellectual property is revealed. Actual experiences vary, and not every collaborative effort has proved successful.

However, we believe that a win-win situation can be developed whereby US businesses team up with the Chinese to help them develop their industry and economy more quickly, and in so doing, gain access to the huge potential Chinese market. This requires phenomenal transfer of knowledge in both directions. The Chinese gaining knowledge on product and business know-how and the US gaining knowledge on the macro- and micro- views of China and its markets. The Clinton Administration’s policy of engagement (as evidenced by his visit in June 1998 to China) recognizes the political and business value of working closely with the Chinese. Most agree, nonetheless, that the US-China cultural differences are serious barriers to the smooth working of such collaboration.
 
 

Premises

There are three underlying premises of this paper. First, the authors believe that current trends in the globalization of business and commerce will continue, and in this emerging global economy, competition and cooperation/collaboration will co-exist. Firms and nations will continue to experience the tension that accompanies this combination. They will face what may appear to be some aspects of the game-theoretic "prisoners’ dilemma" as they deal with this tension.

Second, despite these tensions, the benefits of collaboration and cooperation (win-win) will outweigh the problems (win-lose), and thus collaborative ventures will continue. The world has become too interconnected, and there is too much economic interdependence, for isolationism to be a viable strategy.

Third, electronic technologies can help bridge cultural differences, but there is no substitute for mutual respect and collaboration based on learning about one’s partners’ strengths, values, and the context within which their decisions are enacted.
 
 

Experience Bases for Premises

The authors together combine US and Chinese cultures. One author was born in, and has lived his entire life in, the US. Another author is of Chinese heritage, was born in Hong Kong, has lived, worked, or conducted extensive business in Taiwan, Singapore, China, South Korea and Japan, and now lives in the US. The other author is Chinese and has spent her entire life in China but has lived and studied in Japan, Korea, and the US. Recent experiences in collaborative ventures include the following:

• Use of "the Coordinator" and CIM3 (i.e., Computer Integrated Man-Machine Manufacturing) system in CIM’s manufacturing operation. The Coordinator ((Flores and Winograd, 1986; Winograd, 1986) is an early example of groupware, using fairly well-defined communication structures for creating and responding to electronic messages within a work group. The CIM3 system (Winograd, Newman, and Yim, 1991; Yim 1991) is a combination of architecture and software designed to enable a firm to operate as a virtual enterprise. The system employs a workflow layer on top of the more conventional computer integrated manufacturing system functions. CIM used these systems to manage a virtual enterprise that had business operations in Hong Kong, China, Singapore, and the US. CIM operated financial management, along with sustained engineering and prototype operations in Hong Kong, advanced manufacturing and assembly operations in China, and design, marketing, and other business functions in the US.
• Use of E-mail and Lotus Notes in the IFTF/CTISS collaboration. The Institute for the Future (IFTF, a US-based "think tank" group) and the CTISS (Beijing) use email (unstructured) communications and Lotus Notes (structured as a knowledge management platform) to develop proposed studies and to create shared work products for clients.
• Use of E-mail and and an HTML based repository (in a collaborative extranet web site) in CIM/CTISS research work. CIM (from its US base) and CTISS (Beijing) conduct joint research projects and collaborate in creating proposals work products for clients.

The overall goal of the paper is to enable organizations to improve their capabilities to manage cross-cultural collaborative arrangements and thereby improve their strategic management of technological resources. The objectives of the paper are to outline a conceptual approach to understanding the issues in cross-cultural work, to summarize the particular differences between US and Chinese cultures, and to illustrate how the Internet and groupware technologies help bridge these differences.

Culture is taken to mean the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, along with the arts, institutions, and other products of work and thought. Anthropologists sometimes think of culture as the totality of how things get done, and this is a convenient way to think of culture in the context of this paper.

The paper focuses on observed cultural differences between the US and China. To the extent that Canada and western European countries share characteristics of the US culture, the observations may apply to them as well. The authors acknowledge the limited scope of the paper and recognize that both the model presented and the observed cultural differences represent simplifications of what are complex issues. Nonetheless, the experience of using Internet and groupware technologies suggests that organizations planning cross-cultural collaborations may use them effectively.
 
 

Overview of Remainder of Paper

The remainder of the paper comprises four sections. The following section reviews two models of communication and learning, pointing out that the social model may have more relevance to joint ventures and collaborative arrangements than a more mechanistic model. The next section summarizes a few key differences between US and Chinese cultures. The subsequent section presents observations on how Internet and groupware technologies help overcome some of the US-Chinese cultural differences. The concluding section summarizes the observations and discusses the prospects for using electronic technologies in joint ventures and other collaborative arrangements.
 
 
 
 

models of learning and communication

"Container" Model of Learning (Knowledge Transfer) and Communication

Figure 1 illustrates one model of learning and communication. Entity A has knowledge, which can be communicated to entity B, enabling both A and B to have the knowledge that initially resided only with A. In this model of learning and communication, knowledge is something that can be transferred. We can say that B has learned from A.
 
 

This "container" or "transfer" model is a practical description for what Badaracco (1991) calls migratory knowledge. We normally think of explicit knowledge—knowledge that can be encapsulated and distributed (as through scientific papers or books)—as the type of knowledge being transferred. However, migratory knowledge may also be tacit knowledge, which is not easily encapsulated but may be passed along via apprenticeships or a myriad of subtle cultural cues.
 
 

Socially-constructed Knowledge

Figure 2 illustrates another representation of learning and knowledge. Adapted from Weick (1979), this model represents knowledge as just one of four inter-related aspects of a process. Knowledge, cognition, action, and communication are inseparable, leading Weick to propose "How can I know what I think until I see what I say?" The term enactment captures this interrelationship among the different aspects of knowing, acting, communicating, and perceiving. In this model, knowledge takes on meaning as the entity interacts with its environment through communicating with other entities, acting (and thereby changing the environment), and interpreting cues arising from these interactions.

Figure 3 illustrates what happens when two entities together work-act-communicate-make sense of their environment. Partners in joint ventures and similar collaborative efforts recognize that communication sometimes is incomplete, even when the partners agree on actions to be taken. The difficulty of adequate communication often means that knowledge is not transferred or shared. Badaracco (1991) notes this when he refers to embedded knowledge, knowledge that resides in the relationships between and among individuals and groups.
 
 

cultural differences

Prior Isolation of China Is a Factor

People in the US may not be aware of the relative isolation of China for many years. Americans, with their strong tradition of a free press and relatively open borders, tend to be aware of events across their country and around the world. Against this openness, the average Chinese has a major drawback from his/her lack of exposure resulting from the many years of isolation forged politically by the government prior to the opening up in 1978. Even since then, the conservative nature of the Chinese government-controlled mass media, and the relative inability for most in China to travel abroad, has made the Chinese population rather "information thirsty," especially among intellectuals. The Chinese place a much higher value on information than their US counterparts, and they tend to study, digest, and reflect upon the information a lot more than the US citizen who may take information for granted.
 
 

Language and Interactions with non-Chinese

Most Chinese, even if they speak English, are much weaker conversationally than in reading and writing. They also are clumsy when put into positions to respond or react publicly, without prior preparation. In contrast, the Americans are generally very good at this. Consequently, if something is written down and a Chinese is given the time to read and to produce a written response, he/she will be able to come up with reasoned, well-thought-out responses.
 
 

Other Dimensions of Culture

Tables 1 and 2 illustrate some differences between the Chinese and US culture that can be significant in business dealings. Recognize that these are generalizations; these differences may not appear in each interaction.
 
 
 

internet and groupware bridging characteristics

Internet and Groupware Technologies

Internet and Groupware technologies are combinations of hardware architecture (particularly networks) and software applications that enable individuals and groups to communicate, share information, and collaborate by producing joint products. Our interest and focus is on the social and communications aspects, thus we are not particularly interested in electronic ordering, bill paying, and similar transaction processing systems. However, applications such as email, chat, newsgroup, group scheduling, collaborative writing tools, collaborative engineering systems, workflow systems, shared databases and knowledgebases, whiteboarding, internet telephone, and even desktop video conferencing. Even someone seeing something relevant on the World Wide Web and emailing a colleague with a synopsis of the information and/or the link to the site fits into our concepts of Internet and Groupware technologies.
 
 

What the Internet and Groupware Provide

These technologies are particularly well-suited for bridging the differences observed between Chinese and US cultures, as summarized in Tables 1 and 2. In particular, the technologies offer:

• Lower costs of communication—especially important when the distance is great
• Improved communication through
  • Written documents—giving greater clarity of intent and purpose and "leveling the playing field" for the Chinese, who are better at written communication
  • Traceability—since most communications are documented—thus putting a greater responsibility on the one initiating the communication
• Asynchronous communication—useful when there are 12 time zones of separation between the US and China—and this has the added advantage of giving the Chinese time to think and to respond appropriately
• Structured/Semi-structured workflow helps synchronize differences in procedures and methodologies, thus helping to manage expectations.

conclusions

The experiences of the authors support the postulate that Internet and Groupware facilitate US-China cross-cultural communications and thereby make collaboration across the two cultures easier. The enactment or social construction models of learning and knowledge creation suggest that other such cross-cultural collaborative efforts also can effectively use Internet and Groupware technologies. Especially with "greenfield" operation, both sides develop a "shared language" through the implementation of new systems and processes. The socially-constructed shared knowledge base resulting from these experiences may not be easily captured in books or procedures manuals. This may be an example of knowledge that is embedded in, and does not exist apart from, the relationships themselves. All this can have significant benefit for partners in cross-cultural collaborative efforts.

From these observations and models, we conclude that the Internet and Groupware technologies facilitate learning of partners’ strengths and thus make China-US ventures and alliances more effective. However, the technology itself is not a panacea; it does not eliminate cultural differences; we should not exaggerate its role. These technologies serve as a bridge to simplify and aid communication. However, in using this bridge, both partners can focus on a shared object and shared processes, thus building shared experiences and enacting a shared knowledge base.

In the process of establishing mutual trust and confidence, face-to-face contact will not be eliminated. The Internet and Groupware technologies may be able to reduce the number of such meetings; they certainly can make such meetings more effective.

references

This paper was first presented by the authors at the 7^th International Association for Management of Technology Annual Conference (IAMOT’98), Feb. 1998 in Orland, FL. The text above is the edited version as published in "Cahiers du MoT" (notebooks of MoT), a publication of Groupe ESC - Grenoble, France in summer 1998.