For Caspiano

Linear- Active and Multi-Active Cultures

Sven Svensson is a Swedish businessman living in Lisbon. A few weeks ago he was invited by a Portuguese acquaintance, Anotonio, to play tennis at 10:00 AM. Sven turned up at the tennis court on time, in tennis gear and ready to play. Antonio arrived half an hour late, in the company of a friend Carlos, from whom he was buying some land. They had been discussing the purchase that morning and had prolonged the discussion, so Antonio had brought Carlos along in order to finalize the details during the journey, They continued the business while Antonio changed into his tennis clothes, with Sven listening to all they said. At 10:45 they got on the court, and Antonio continued the discussion with Carlos while hitting practice balls with Sven.

At this point another acquaintance of Antonio’s, Pedro, arrived to confirm a sailing date with Antonio for the weekend. Antonio asked Sven to excuse him from a moment and walked off the court to talk to Pedro. After chatting with Pedro for five minutes, Antonio resumed his conversation with the waiting Carlos and eventually turned back to the waiting Sven to begin playing tennis at 11:00. When Sven remarked that the court had only been booked from 10:00 to 1:00, Antonio reassured him that he had phoned in advance to rebook it until noon. No problem.

It will probably come as no surprise to you to hear that Sven was very unhappy about the course of events. Why? He and Antonio live in two different worlds or, to put it more exactly, use two different time systems, Sven, as a good Swede, belongs to a culture which uses linear-active-time- that is, he does one thing at a time in the sequence he has written down in his date book. His schedule that day said 8:00 AM get up, 9:00 breakfast, 9:15 change into tennis clothes, 9:30 drive to the tennis court, 10:00-11:00 play tennis, 11:00- 11:30 beer and shower, 12:15 lunch, 2:00 PM go to the office and so on.

Antonio, who had seemed to synchronize with him for tennis from 10:00 to 11:00, had disorganized Sven’s day. Portuguese like Antonio follow a multi-active time system, that is, they do many things at once, often in an unplanned order.

Multi-active cultures are very flexible. If Pedro interrupted Carlos’ conversation, which was already in the process of interrupting Sven’s tennis, this was quite normal and acceptable in Portugal. It is not acceptable in Sweden, nor is it in Germany or Britain.

Linear-active people like Swedes, Swiss, Dutch and Germans, do one thing at a time, concentrate hard on that thing and do it within a scheduled time period. These people think that in this way they are more efficient and get more done. Multi-active people think they get more done their way.

Let us look again at Sven and Antonio. If Sven had not been disorganized by Antonio, he would undoubtedly have played tennis, eaten at the right time and done some business. But Antonio had had breakfast, bough some land, played tennis and confirmed his sailing plans, all by lunchtime. He had even managed to rearrange the tennis booking. Sven could never live like this, but Antonio does, all the time.

Multi-active people are not very interested in schedules or punctuality, They pretend to observe them, especially if a linear-active partner insists. They consider reality to be more important than man-made appointments. Reality for Antonio that morning was that his talk with Carlos about land was unfinished. Multi-active people do not like to leave conversations unfinished. For them, completing a human transaction is the best way they can invest their time. So he took Carlos to the tennis court and finished buying the land while hitting the balls. Pedro further delayed the tennis, but Antonio would abandon the match with Sven. That was another human transaction he wished to complete. So they would play till 12:00 or 12:30 if necessary. But what about Sven’s lunch at 12:15? Not important, says Antonio. It’s only 12:15 because that’s what Sven wrote in his date book.

Two small groups of tourists- one consisting of four Germans and the other of three French people- were visiting the aviary at thee same time as we were. The Germans had made their calculations, obviously having decided to devote 100 minutes to the visit; consequently they spent one minute in each cage. One German reads the captions, one took photographs, one videoed and one opened and close doors. I followed happily in their wake. The three French people began their tour a few minutes later than the Germans but soon caught up with them as they galloped though the cages containing smaller birds. As the French made a lot of noise and generally got in the way. The Germans were relieved when the French rushed on ahead towards the more exciting cages.

The steady German progress continued through cages 11 to 15. Cage 16 contained the owls (most interesting). There we found our French friends again, who had occupied the cage for five minutes. They filmed the owls from every angle while the Germans waited their turn. When the French eventually rushed out, the Germans were five minutes behind schedule. Later on, the French stayed so long with the eagles in cage 62 that the Germans had to bypass them and come back to see the eagles later. They were furious at this forced departure from their linear progression, and eventually finished their visit half and hour late. By then the French had departed, having seen all they were interested in.

A study of attitudes toward time in a Swiss-Italian venture showed that, after some initial quarreling each side learned something from the other. The Italians finally admitted that adherence at least in theory to schedules, production dead-lines and budgets enabled them to clarify their goals and check on performances and efficiency. The Swiss, on the other hand, found that the more flexible Italian attitude allowed them to modify the timetable in reaction to unexpected developments in the market, to spot deficiencies in the planning that had not been evident earlier, and to make vital last-minute improvements with the extra-time.

Germans, like the Swiss, are very high on the linear-active scale, since they attach great importance to analyzing a project, compartmentalizing it, tackling each problem at a time in a linear fashion, concentrating on each segments and thereby achieving a near-perfect result. They are uneasy with people who do not work in this manner, such as Arabs and those from many Mediterranean cultures.

Americans are also very linear-active, but there are some differences in attitude. As Americans live very much in the present and race towards the near future, they sometimes push Germans into action before the latter want to act. Germans are very conscious of their history and their past and will often wish to explain a lot of background to American partners to put present actions in context. This often irritates Americans who want to “get on with it.”

Reactive Cultures

Japan belongs to the group of reactive, or listening cultures, the members of which rarely initiate action or discussion, preferring to listen to and establish the other’s position first, then react to it and formulate their own.

Reactive cultures are also found in China, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, Turkey and Finland. Several other East Asian countries, although occasionally multiactive and excitable, have certain reactive characteristics. In Europe, only Finns are strongly reactive, but Britons, Turks and Swedes fall easily into “listening mode” on occasion.

Reactive cultures listen before they leap. Reactive cultures are the world’s best listeners in as much as they concentrate on what the speaker is saying, do not let their minds wander (difficult for latins) and rarely, if ever, interrupt a speaker while the discourse or presentation is on-going, When it is finished, they do not reply immediately. A decent period of silence after the speaker has stopped shows respect for the weight of the remarks, which must be considered unhurriedly and with due deference.

Even when representatives of a reactive culture begin their reply, they are unlikely to voice any strong opinion immediately. A more probable tactic is to ask further questions on what has been said in order to clarify the speaker’s intent and aspirations. Japanese, particularly, go over each point many times in detail to male sure there are no misunderstandings. Finns, although blunt and direct in the end, shy away from confrontation as long as they can, trying to formulate an approach that suits the other party. The Chinese take their time to assemble a variety of strategies that will avoid discord with the initial proposal.

Reactives are introverted; they distrust a surfeit of words and consequently are adept at nonverbal communication. This is achieved by subtle body language, words apart from the excitable gestures of Latins and Africans. Linear-active people find reactive tactics hard to fathom because they do not slot into the linear system (question/reply, cause/effect) . Multi-active people, used to extroverted behavior, find them inscrutable – giving little or no feedback. The Finns are the best example of this behavior, reacting even less than the Japanese, who at least pretend to be pleased.

In reactive cultures the preferred mode of communication is monologue-pause-reflection-monologue. If possible, one lets the other side deliver its monologue first. In linear-active and multi-active cultures, the communication mode is a dialogue. One interrupts the other’s monologue with frequent comments, even questions, which signify polite interest in what is being said. As soon as one person stops speaking, the other takes up his or hers turn immediately, since the Westerner has an extremely weak tolerance for silence.

People belonging to reactive cultures not only tolerate silences well but regard them as a very meaningful, almost refined, part of discourse. The opinions of the other party are not to be taken lightly or dismissed with a snappy or flippant retorts. Clever, well-formulated arguments require- deserve-lengthy silent consideration.

Meetings in Different cultures

Beginnings

Consider how people conduct meetings, face-to-face, in different countries. Meetings are not begun in the same way as we move from culture to culture. Some are opened punctually, briskly and in a “businesslike” fashion. Others start with chitchat, and some meetings have difficulty getting going at all.

Germans, Scandinavians and Americans like to get on with it. They see no point in delay. Americans are well known for their business breakfast (a barbaric custom in Spanish eyes). In England, France, Italy and Spain it would be considered rude to broach serious issues immediately; its much more civilized to ease into the subject after exchanging pleasantries for 10 minutes- or half an hour. The English, particularly, are almost shame-faced at indicating when one should start: “Well, Charlie, I suppose we ought to have a look at this bunch of paper- work.” In Japan, where platitudes are mandatory, there is almost a fixed period that has to elapse before the senior person presents says: “Fitsu wa ne…” (“The fact of the matter is…”), at which point everybody gets down to work.

Structuring a Meeting

Just as ways of beginning a meeting vary, so do methods of structuring them. Linear-active people are fond of strict agendas, for agendas have linear shape. Other, more imaginative minds (usually Latin) tend to wander, wishing to revisit or embellish, at will, points already discussed. Their agenda, if one can call it that, might be described as roundabout, or circuitous, which for Germans and Americans means no real agenda at all. Asians, especially Japanese, have another approach again, one that concentrates on harmonizing general principles prior to examining any details. At meetings where two or more cultural groups are involved, or at any meeting of an international team, the chairperson has the task of establishing a procedural and communicative style that will be acceptable to, even welcomed by, all the participants.

The purpose of a meeting depends on where one is coming from. Britons and Americans see a meeting as an opportunity to make decisions and get things done. The French see it as a forum where a briefing can be delivered to cover all aspects of a problem. They hunger for elegance processes. Germans, more concerned with precision and exactness, expect to gain compliance. Italians use meetings to evaluate support for their plans. The Japanese regard the first few sessions as occasions for establishing status and trust and finding out what possible sources of discord need to be eliminated from the outset. All of these objectives may be seen as worthy by everyone, but the proprieties will vary. A skillful chairperson must be sensitive to these expectations and be quick to define a mutually shared aim.

My recent experience with a one world international team (British, American, Australian, Irish, Spanish, Chilean, Finnish and Chinese airlines alliance) indicated that skillful team leaders- in this case a Canadian, followed by a Finn- are able to blend procedural styles each possessed unique strengths that could be combined to produce a successful one world style. Tolerance and a sense of humor on the part of the team leaders were also significant contributory factors.

Linear-active members need relatively little preamble or small talk before getting down to business. They like to introduce bullet points that can serve as an agenda. Tasks or issues are segmented, discussed and dealt with one after the other. Solutions reached are summarized in the minutes.

Multi-active members are not happy with the bullet-point approach, which they see as premature conclusions reached by their linear colleagues. They prefer to take points in random order (or in order of importance) and discuss them for hours before listing bullet points as conclusions. When they see topics listed at the beginning, they feel they have been manipulated.

Reactive people do not have their linear obsession with agendas, neither are they wooed by multi-active arguments. In Japanese eyes, for instance, things are not black and white, possible or impossible, right or wrong. They see arguments and ideas as points converging and ultimately merging. An emotional coming together is considered more important than an intellectual approach.