Onions, Oceans and Rainbows

Onions, oceans and rainbows:

Using metaphors to understand cultural differences in management

Eliane Karsaklian, LARGEPA - Sorbonne

Abstract

Plethora of articles has been published with the aim of explaining the idiosyncrasies of the Chinese culture and the Chinese behavior in the international business scene. In an attempt to offer an alternative prism leading to a better understanding of the Chinese thinking and behavioral patterns, we moved the discussion from the traditional Western cultural analysis frameworks, to models used in disciplines other than business. Walking in the footsteps of international authorities on the topic, we offer a more interdisciplinary view to the same issue. As a matter of fact, physics and international business had never been brought together before in order to explain cultural differences and their impact on international business and management.The complexity of cultural facets can be captured in models from other scientific fields which contribute to more accurate cultural analysis. We suggest that because physics acknowledges paradoxtheories, constructs emanating from that field can be valuable to understanding and managing intercultural issues in business as well. Implications for practice and future research are posited at the end of the article.

Keywords: cultural frameworks, international business, quantum physics, China, paradox management, international management, metaphors

Introduction

Understanding culture from different prisms is imperative for researchers and practitioners alike. Sources of information about ‘other cultures’ are abundant however not always accurate. As pointed out by Fang (2005, p.72), “managers are increasingly frustrated by cultural paradoxes they encounter that do not accord with famous cross-cultural manuals”. Globalization, technology and unprecedented interactions between people from other cultures are changing the landscape of cross-cultural understanding. It is indeed disturbing to work with a Chinese counterpart who has been educated abroad and is a purchaser for an international company in China. How much of the “Do’s and Don’ts” lists that have been proliferating in the market is still applicable to such individual? How much of a Chinese and how much of a non-Chinese is that person today?

Opposed to the assumption that cultural values are permanent and static, Fang (2005) defends the idea that behaviors shape and change values, and by interacting with people from other cultures, individuals change their behaviors and eventually their values. This is how cultures evolve. A superficial analysis of a culture is the one based on behaviors and this is where stereotypes come from. A physicist who takes one measure of a certain phenomenon at a given moment and asserts generalizable conclusions is also stereotyping. There is more to be observed, studied and understood in cultures than behaviors as much as there is in natural phenomena.

This paper contributes to the extant cross-cultural and international business and management literature in several ways. First, it responds to the call (Li, 2012, 2014, 2016; Li et al., 2012; Fang, 2014, 2011, 2010, 2005, 2003, 1999; Fang et al., 2008; Fang and Faure, 2011; Faure and Fang, 2008; Faure, 1995; Chen, 1987; Chen, 2001; Chen and Starosta, 1997; Chen, 2002; Ghauri and Fang, 2001; Shi and Wright, 2003) to develop better knowledge and understanding of the Chinese culture by using appropriate analytical tools. Specifically, it adds to the discussion about the appropriateness of Western cultural frameworks when studying Eastern cultures by addressing the issues linked to the bipolarity of Western frameworks, reducing human behavior to simplified pairs of mental and psychological opposites (Li, 2016). Second, the paper uses a unique and innovative interdisciplinary approach in bringing physics and culture together aiming at analyzing cultural phenomena through the lenses of natural phenomena. Third, it suggests rainbows as a metaphor to explain that there are necessary conditions for the large array of cultural specificities to become salient and show as a spectrum of behaviors. Lastly, the rainbow metaphor displaces the discussion from the confrontation between West and East to take it to higher levels of understanding cultural diversity and its impact on international business and management.

Onions, oceans, and rainbows

The complexity of cross-cultural understanding led researchers up to use metaphors to illustrate the components and dynamics of cultures. Hofstede (1984) used an onion as a metaphor to explain the different layers or levels of culture starting from practices at the most superficial and observable levels and finishing at values as the core of the onion. In a contestation of this metaphor, Fang (2005) proposes the ocean as a more appropriate metaphor, indicating that the waves we see are just part of what is inside the water and that the deeper we dive, the more elements we will find in it (internal factors). Also, waves vary in terms of intensity and what comes to the surface can vary depending on weather conditions (external factors). While Hofstede’s metaphor states that cultures are static, Fang’s metaphor indicates the contrary; cultures are dynamic and evolve thanks to interactions with other cultures and context. Fang (2005), states that some cultural values are more salient by rising to the surface, while others stay temporarily in the deepest levels of the ocean, that is, different elements take precedence over others in the same culture depending on the context. The ocean metaphor illustrates paradoxical behaviors and is consistent with the asymmetrical balancing proposed by Li (2014) in which one of the opponent elementsof culture can be sometimes dominant while the other one will be subordinate. Under other circumstances, the former subordinate element of culture will become dominant and so forth, in a dynamic evolution.

Metaphors are particularly useful to illustrate intangible and abstract concepts such as culture. Taken together, the metaphors proposed so far relate indirectly to natural elements because culture, “like all other universal phenomena, intrinsically embraces paradoxes and change” (Fang, 2005, p. 75). In this paper, we propose the natural phenomenon caused by light as a metaphor to explain the linkages between quantum physics and culture. We propose the rainbow as a metaphor.

First, rainbows are originated by the interaction of two basic elements of nature – rain and sun- (dialectical - incompatible in theory but necessary and complementary conditions for rainbows to happen). Second, rainbows are contextual; there is need of a certain amount of humidity and of luminosity for them to happen. Third, rainbows are intangible but visible (as dialectical as cultures), what is a rare phenomenon. Forth, although we can see them from side to side, it is impossible to know where they begin and where they finish (as much as it is impossible to know the whole extent of a culture). Fifth, they are universal – there are rainbows in all countries and they all have the same colors, in the same order, and with the same format (people of all cultures can relate to rainbows). Sixth, the colors are distinct but inseparable (unity-in-diversity; Li, 2014). Seventh, rainbows are both real and fictitious (dialectical) because there is mystery and superstition around them as well as legends involving people, elves, fortune, (good and bad) luck, Gods, which are culture-dependent.

The nature of rainbows

By the metaphor of rainbows, we bring physics and culture together in order to better understand interactions between different cultures in international business and management. Just like cultures, rainbows need contradictory and complementary conditions to happen. Although these conditions are universal, beliefs about rainbows are culture-dependent. Rainbows are real but intangible, just as are cultures and their magnitude is difficult to measure with accuracy.

Rainbows are the prism of light and light is both particles and waves. The wave-particle duality of light is reconciled through the prism which channels colors to diverse directions towards the rainbow (Orzel, 2012; Waldman, 2002). Each color makes its way through wavelength to the rainbow. Colors have different wavelengths, but they all get together at the same time, at the same place, in the same order. This static appearance of rainbows hides the underlying dynamics enabling the rainbow to happen. Light travels through water droplets which reflect colors back to the human eye. We would want colors in a rainbow to appear very bright but in reality they appear a bit blurred to human eye. Same could be said about some cultural features to the foreigner’s eye because of lack of knowledge about the other culture. Rainbows are ephemeral but stable. Several conditions need to be combined for rainbows to happen and to be seen. Time, as part of the context, is paramount in this case. All conditions should be gathered at exactly the same time for a rainbow to happen. As stated by Fang (2005, p. 81), “to capture the ‘moment’ of national culture, we need to return culture to its natural context of time”. Context can relate to the prism through which one can analyze cultures and natural phenomena, as everything in cross-cultural settings.

A rainbow is a representation of the dispersion of light and the best evidence that light is composed of a spectrum of wavelengths each one associated with a distinct color (Waldman, 2002). Light waves reflect and refract when they cross over the boundary from one medium to another. The decrease of speed upon entry of light into water causes a bending of the path of light. The droplet causes a deviation in the path of light as it enters and exits the drop. The refraction of light at two boundaries of the droplets results in the dispersion of light into a spectrum of colors. The sensation of white light results from a mixture of colors of light. Technically speaking, white is not a color because there are no wavelengths’ characteristic of white light. Likewise, black is not a color either because technically, black is just the absence of wavelengths of the visible light spectrum. Actually black is just the absence of light. Thus, the popular bipolar vision of colors (black or white) is just a human artifact and is inappropriate to explain natural phenomena as are the bipolar dichotomist definitions of culture such as individualistic or collective, masculine or feminine, long term or short term oriented and so forth.

Cultures, just like natural phenomena, are made of a spectrum of features which become more or less salient depending on the incidence ray, that is, the input. If the black or white (bipolar) metaphor is inappropriate to understand cultures, mean scores are inconsistent too, because calculating average scores to describe cultures would be assimilated to merging all colors of the spectrum to narrow them down to a single color – white – which not only is non-existent as a color, but also masquerades the real features (colors) within a given culture. Instead, researchers and practitioners should visualize and understand the dispersion of features within a culture just as the dispersion of rays in a water droplet.

Different materials (media) are distinguished from each other by their different optical densities. The optical density is a measure of the tendency of a material to slow down light as it travels through it. This change of speed causes refraction and reflection within the new medium because the direction undertaken by the rays are dependent on the light speed variation when crossing media boundaries because the speed of light depends on optical density. In cultural terms, we could say that the bigger the cultural distance (Tihanyi et al., 2005), the higher the density and the consequent low speed to penetrate the culture. That is, the understanding of foreign cultural codes is slowed down when cultural distance is bigger, while it can go faster when cultures are more similar.

A light wave, as any wave, is an energy-transport phenomenon. It transports energy from one location to another and doesn’t just stop when it reaches the end of a different medium (Waldman, 2002). When a light wave strikes a boundary between two distinct media, a portion of energy is transmitted into the new medium (refraction) and a portion of energy is reflected off the boundary and stays within the original medium as depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Light waves across different media

The amount of energy being absorbed by the new medium and the amount of energy being reflected out of the new medium are dependent on several variables and external factors. Likewise, in cultures some external stimuli are reflected (become salient and visible) while others are refracted (stay inside of the culture and are thus invisible, but have, nevertheless, an impact on it). But what is not salient is still existent and needs other types of stimuli to be revealed.

Thus, the energy transported by the incident ray (input) will be split into two other rays – reflected ray (output) and refracted ray (absorbed by the new medium). Reflection and refraction are opposed phenomena. Reflected rays and refracted rays are split into two different and opposed directions although they are originated by the same incident ray. There is thus contradiction and complementarity at the same time. Part of the ray will be reflected back to the original medium and part of it will stay within the new medium. Likewise, when a culture is exposed to external factors (people, information, products, etc., from other cultures) some of these factors are reflected back as behaviors. This is what is usually said about Asians adopting Western behavioral patterns. It is often also called economic behavior (Leung, 2008) mainly represented by consumption behavior. But part of the stimulus (ray) is refracted within the targeted cultures, that is, it is absorbed by that culture and it will represent one of the factors that contribute to the culture’s evolution. As said previously, cultures evolve thanks to the interaction with other cultures (Fang, 2005) and cannot be defined as static matters.

The metaphor of light reflection and refraction means that international interactions are mainly based on a stimulus-response model. The incident ray emitted by the outsider will generate an immediate reaction from the locals (reflection) but part of it will be recorded in memory (refracted) and reaction from locals to that part of the stimulus will be delayed. In other words, the phenomenon happens even if there are no external visible signs of it.In order to work together and succeed in cross-cultural interactions, it is imperative that business people understand that their behavior is an input to other cultures, which generates a specific output at that specific moment. A different input would generate a different output and so forth. We can parallel business and management in international settings with the formation of a rainbow, as demonstrated in Figure2.

Figure 2 – Business in international settings explained with rainbow formation

Rainbows are generated by the interaction of an input (light) with a medium (water). The output generated by a ray (input) is partly refracted and stays within the micro environment and is partly reflected back to the macro environment. What business people see is the reflection generated by their own behavior. Reflections depend on the wavelengths and as such, the reflection is dependent on the type of input received by the culture. Thus, what becomes salient to outsiders is only the reflection and more often than not, this is how cultures are perceived and classified. Disappointments in intercultural interactions are mostly originated by the fact that foreigners don’t get the color they expected reflected back to them. To obtain so, they need to first send an input with the corresponding wavelength. The input is the context created by behavior because cultures are context-dependent (Li, 2012; Fang, 1999).

One of the basics of quantum physics is that nothing is definitely impossible and business people need to be ready to face unpredicted and surprising reactions and outcomes from people from other cultures. Reality should not be denied because it is not seen (Gasiorowicz, 1974). What is improbable is not impossible (Matuzawa, 2016) and measurement of phenomena doesn’t change their state; it changes the researchers’ knowledge about their state.

The critical angle

Each raindrop is a sphere and it scatters light over an entire circular disc in the sky. The radius of the disc depends on the wavelength of the light (Baker, 2013). A spectrum is a continuum of wavelengths and although human eye is able to distinguish around 100 different colors, the seven colors of the rainbow are just an artifact of human perception. Newton reduced the rainbow to seven colors inspired by the seven notes in a musical scale (Waldman, 2002). Human eyes are thus conditioned to see only seven colors in a rainbow. Such conditioning is also a result of the sequence learned by heart to remember the colors and their order in a rainbow – Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain (ROYGBIV) – Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet. This example demonstrates the willingness and power of humans to narrow down natural phenomena into small pieces consistent with their own references. Here, the ‘measure’ taken by Newton reduces the rainbow to seven colors while there are more than 100 colors in nature that human eye can see. Same logic applies to Western measures of cultures by narrowing them down to few bipolar cultural dimensions in one level and even narrower with the aim of selecting only one of their polarities to define each culture. Such frameworks are far away from capturing the essential features of cultures.

As universal as a rainbow can be thought to be as a natural phenomenon, the number of colors vary depending on the culture because of linguistic matters. In languages that have fewer color words, people see fewer discrete color bands in a rainbow. Here again, what researchers and practitioners see in a culture is a limited part of what that culture is made of and certainly limited to what they have been conditioned to see. There are colors in nature that humans are unable to describe because they haven’t been named in their languages. Not mentioning the different meanings of colors across cultures. The natural human reaction is thus to ignore or deny the existence of the unknown color or to turn it into something they are familiar with (“it is a kind of blue”, “it is something between orange and red”, etc.). Same applies to the understanding of words and expressions that can either not exist in some cultures or have different meanings. As much as English is the international language for business, expressions in English don’t mean the same in all countries, either if they are native speakers or not. Even more misleading are the faux-amis.