Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna

FACOLTA’ DI LINGUE E LETTERATURE STRANIERE

Corso di Laurea in Lingua e Cultura Italiane per Stranieri

INTERCULTURAL NEGOTIATIONS:

DUTCH DEALING WITH ITALIANS

Tesi di Laurea in Lingua Inglese

Relatore: Presentata da:

Prof.ssa METTE RUDVIN SYLVIA DOORDUYN

Correlatore:

Prof.ssa CINZIA SPINZI

Sessione II

Anno Accademico 2011/2012

2

Contents

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………4

2. Intercultural communication……………………………………………………6

2.1 Culture…………………………………………………………………………8

2.1.1 Definition of culture…………………………………………………...9

2.1.2 Hofstede’s cultural dimensions………………………………………15

2.1.3 Trompenaars’ and Hampden-Turner’s basic assumptions…………...21

2.1.4 Pinto’s F-cultures and G-cultures……………………………………23

2.1.5 Hall’s monochronic, polychronic and high- and low-context

cultures……………………………………………………………….25

2.2 Communication………………………………………………………………27

2.3 Intercultural communication between international organizations……..……32

2.3.1 Intercultural competence and training………………………………..34

2.3.2 The impact of cultural aspects on negotiations………………………39

3. Characteristics of the Dutch culture…………………………………………..54

4. Characteristics of the Italian culture………………………………………….62

5. Misunderstandings that may occur due to cultural and linguistic differences

during a negotiation between Dutch and Italian businessmen………………69

5.1 Hofstede’s cultural dimensions………………………………………………70

5.2 Trompenaars’ and Hampden-Turner’s cultural dimensions…………………72

5.3 Hall’s cultural dimensions…………………………………………………...75

5.4 Other cultural and linguistic dimensions…………………………………….78

6. Interpreting in the business world……………………………………………..82

6.1 Business interpreting…………………………………………………………85

6.2 Modes of interpreting in business settings…………………………………...87

6.3 The business interpreter’s role……………………………………………….90

6.4 Ethics in business interpreting……………………………………………….94

6.4.1 Impartiality…………………………………………………………...95

6.4.2 Accuracy……………………………………………………………..97

6.4.3 Confidentiality……………………………………………………….99

3

6.5 Recurrent issues…………………………………………………………….100

6.5.1 Briefing……………………………………………………………..100

6.5.2 “Lay” interpreting…………………………………………………..101

6.5.3 The interpreter as a scapegoat………………………………………102

7. Research on Dutch businessmen dealing with Italians……………………...104

7.1 General information………………………………………………………...105

7.2 Misunderstandings due to cultural and/or linguistic differences…………...107

7.3 Intercultural training………………………………………………………..114

7.4 The use of interpreters………………………………………………………116

7.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….122

8. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..128

9. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………...135

10. Appendices…………………………………………………………………….139

10.1 Appendix 1: ‘Culture star’……………………………………………...139

10.2 Appendix 2: Approaches to intercultural training………………………140

10.3 Appendix 3: Power Distance Index…………………………………….141

10.4 Appendix 4: Masculinity Index………………………………………...142

10.5 Appendix 5: Long-Term Orientation Index…………………………….143

10.6 Appendix 6: Uncertainty Avoidance Index…………………………….144

10.7 Appendix 7: Individuality Index………………………………………..145

10.8 Appendix 8: Interpreter-mediated interaction model…………………...146

10.9 Appendix 9: Questionnaire……………………………………………..147

10.10 Appendix 10: Results questionnaire……………………………………155

4

1. Introduction

This thesis focuses on intercultural negotiations: thanks to the globalization of the

world’s economy, businessmen from different countries and cultures are brought into

contact with each other on a daily basis throughout the world. Intercultural negotiations

differ greatly from normal negotiations, since the negotiators do not have the same

linguistic and/or cultural background. The main goal of this thesis is to gain insight into

the influence of cultural and linguistic differences on negotiations, and in particular on

negotiations between Dutch and Italian businessmen. The sub-goals of this thesis are as

follows:

- analyzing intercultural communication in general;

- analyzing the concept of intercultural competence;

- examining the differences between the main characteristics of the Dutch and the

Italian culture;

- examining misunderstandings and/or problems that may occur during a

negotiation between Dutch and Italian businessmen;

- analyzing the field of business interpreting;

- investigating the experience of Dutch businessmen in negotiating with Italian

business partners.

I will start this thesis by analyzing the field of intercultural communication in

chapter 2, on the basis of publications of leading figures in this field (such as Gudykunst

and Kim 1992, Jandt 2001 and Verluyten 2009). In this chapter the concepts of

communication and culture will be discussed, along with the cultural models of Hofstede

(2002), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2006), Pinto (1994) and Hall (1990).

Subsequently, I will discuss the role of intercultural communication with regard to

international organizations, the concept of intercultural competence and the influence of

cultural differences on negotiations.

In chapter 3 I will briefly highlight the main characteristics of the Dutch culture,

while chapter 4 will concentrate on the main characteristics of the Italian culture. In

chapter 5 I will then examine the various misunderstandings and problems that may occur

due to cultural and linguistic differences during a business encounter between Dutch and

5

Italian businessmen. In chapter 6 I will analyze the field of business interpreting, on the

basis of publications of among others Pöchhacker (2004), Gentile et al. (1996) and Hale

(2007). In this chapter I will discuss the different interpreting modes of the business

interpreter, the business interpreter’s role and the ethics concerning the profession of the

business interpreter.

Chapter 7 will concentrate on the results of the questionnaire I sent out to Dutch

businessmen who import alimentary goods from Italy, and therefore negotiate with Italian

businessmen. I designed this questionnaire in order to investigate the opinion of the

respondents on: cultural and linguistic differences between themselves and their Italian

partners and misunderstandings that may occur during negotiations due to these

differences; intercultural training programs; and the use and role of the interpreter.

Finally, chapter 8 will provide the conclusion to this thesis.

6

2. Intercultural communication

Culture and communication are two concepts that are intertwined very closely, since the

development of human culture is only possible through communication and it is only with

the use of communication that we are able to pass our culture on to the next generation.

In their publication on intercultural communication, William B. Gudykunst and Young

Yun Kim1 quote a pioneer in intercultural communication studies, Edward T. Hall, who

states that culture is communication and communication is culture and that one concept

can not be studied without the other. Our communication is influenced by the culture we

grew up in in various ways. It influences our perceptions of the world, the way we sent

out messages verbally and nonverbally and also how we perceive and interpret messages

coming from others (Gudykunst and Kim 1992: 133). But given that we learn the

language, norms and rules of our culture when we are still very young we are not aware

of the fact that our culture influences our behaviour and communication, let alone in

which way it does (ibidem: 4). Thus, our communication patterns often are unconscious

and for this reason it is difficult for us to explain why we behave in a certain way and

reject other ways (ibidem: 133).

Gudykunst and Kim (1992: 13) explain that the members of a culture are able to

communicate, because of the fact that they share the same basic assumptions and modes

of behaviour. This can not be said for the communication between people coming from

different cultures and therefore it is necessary that we become aware of the influence that

culture has on our own communication in order to communicate effectively with

someone that has a different cultural background. In addition, Susanne Günthner and

Thomas Luckmann state that when communicating, we make use of communicative

genres, i.e. ‘historically and culturally specific, fixed solutions to recurrent

communicative problems’.2 Thanks to these fixed solutions we know what to expect in

certain situations and what is supposed to be said and done by all participants. In order to

1 Gudykunst, W.B., Kim, Y.Y. (1992), Communicating with Strangers. An Approach to Intercultural

Communication, New York, McGraw-Hill: 4. 2 Günthner, S., Luckmann, T. (2001), “Asymmetries of Knowledge”, in Di Luzio, A., Günthner S., Orletti,

F. (2001), Culture in Communication. Analyses of Intercultural Situations, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John

Benjamins: 61.

7

communicate in a different culture one should not only have knowledge about the

specific communicative genres of that culture and their constitutive elements, but one

should also know when it is appropriate to use what genre (Günthner and Luckmann

2001: 61). Communicative genres may differ for example with regard to their discursive

organization, stylistic and/or thematic features (ibidem: 68-69).

In my opinion, it is also necessary to understand that our way of living is by no

means better than that of another culture and that we may also learn some very interesting

things from the way other cultures handle their daily activities. This might be hard since

we have been taught by our community to interpret things in a certain way and that other

ways are strange or incorrect. S. Paul Verluyten,3 professor of intercultural

communication, explains that when we interpret and predict other people’s behaviour

relying on our own norms and values it is called “Self Reference Criterion”. Relying on

the Self Reference Criterion you are likely to make attribution mistakes, i.e. ascribing ‘to

the other person’s words or deeds a meaning which does not correspond to the intended

meaning.’ (Verluyten 2009: 62). The probability to make attribution mistakes is much

higher when the participants come from different cultures, since they will not share the

same interpretative framework. Attribution errors are reversible, which means that when

A gets a mistaken impression of B, B may get the reverse mistaken impression of A

(ibidem: 64).

According to Geert Hofstede,4 a pioneer in the field of culture studies,

intercultural encounters happen on a daily basis throughout the world thanks to new

communication and transport techniques. For example, there may be interactions between

tourists and the local population, between teachers and immigrant children or between

businessmen and politicians from different countries. Adrian Holliday et al. state that

‘within the process of globalization’ intercultural communication can be seen as an

everyday activity.5

Along with the growing amount of intercultural interactions, the literature and

research on intercultural communication has expanded significantly since the 1960s.

3 Verluyten, S.P. (2009), Intercultural Communication in Business and Organisations. An Introduction,

Leuven, Acco: 17. 4 Hofstede, G. (1991), Allemaal andersdenkenden. Omgaan met cultuurverschillen, Amsterdam, Contact:

257. 5 Holliday, A., Hyde, M., Kullman, J. (2004), Intercultural Communication, New York, Routledge: 148.

8

Even though these publications all have the subject of intercultural communication, we

can find various definitions, points of views and goals among the different authors, who

come from different domains in the social sciences: communication theory, linguistics,

cultural anthropology etc. David Pinto,6 professor of intercultural communication and

founder of the ‘Inter-Cultural Institute’,7 states that for the definition of intercultural

communication alone various terms are used, among which interracial communication,

cross-cultural communication, international communication, communication with

strangers and interethnic communication. According to Pinto (1994: 14-15) the discipline

of intercultural communication studies the interaction between people with different

cultural backgrounds and has the goal of increasing intercultural awareness and hereby

effective intercultural communication. Holliday et al. (2004: 3) explain that while

intercultural communication examines the communication between people from different

cultures, cross-cultural communication compares the communication practices of one

culture with that of another culture.

We will now have a closer look at the concept of culture and the models various

scholars designed in order to categorize all cultures according to different criteria. After

this we will pass on to the concept of communication. We will then have a look at the

role of intercultural communication in international organizations. In this section I will

examine the term intercultural competence and the way in which this can be achieved,

after which I will discuss the influence cultural differences have on various aspects of a

negotiation, according to various researchers.

2.1 Culture

For many years, the word culture has been used to refer to artistic and intellectual life,

including music, literature, theatre, film etc. In the field of intercultural communication

however, this is not the meaning that the term culture refers to. Instead it refers to the

values and practices that people acquire growing up and living in a group, and which they

share with that same group. According to Verluyten (2009: 23), culture can not be a

6 Pinto, D. (1994), Interculturele communicatie. Dubbel perspectief door de drie-stappenmethode voor het

doeltreffend overbruggen van verschillen, Houten/Diegem, Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum: 14. 7 http://www.davidpinto.nl/english/index.php

9

property of an individual because it is always shared with other members of the group to

which the individual belongs. An important aspect of cultures is that they are open, this

means that cultures can be influenced by each other: ‘The human world is not composed

of a motley of independent encapsulated, free-floating cultures; rather, it is one of

constant interplay and exchange…’ (Holliday et al. 2004: 61). Hubert Knoblauch8

therefore states that cultures are not isolated, but a result of interactive processes. They

are also constantly recreated and renewed as new members of the group learn the culture

and pass it on themselves at a later stage. In his publication on intercultural interactions,

Edwin Hoffman9 therefore states that culture is not only a characteristic of a certain

society but also the product of that same society. According to Klaas Schermer,10

we may

also see culture as everything that is not nature.

Schermer (2008: 120) states that there are at least three different ways to look at

other cultures: thinking of one’s own culture as superior to all others and judging other

cultures according to the norms of the own culture (ethnocentrism); regarding all cultures

as equal and acknowledging the fact that another culture may only be judged by the

norms of that particular culture (cultural relativism); idealizing foreign cultures

(xenophily). In order to communicate effectively in intercultural encounters, Schermer

(ibidem) claims that one should adopt the view of cultural relativism, or as Hofstede calls

it, ‘polycentrism’ (Hofstede 1991: 260).

2.1.1 Definition of culture

To the word ‘culture’ have been given an enormous amount of different definitions

throughout the years and there are many different ways in which the term is used.

In the late nineteenth century Tylor put forward an anthropological definition of culture

in his book Primitive Culture. In their publication on intercultural communication,

8 Knoblauch, H. (2001), “Communication, Contexts and Culture”, in Di Luzio, A., Günthner S., Orletti, F.

(2001), Culture in Communication. Analyses of Intercultural Situations, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John

Benjamins: 26. 9 Hoffman, E. (2002), Interculturele gespreksvoering. Theorie en praktijk van het TOPOI-model,

Houten/Diegem, Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum: 28. 10

Schermer, K. (2008), Interculturele samenwerking en communicatie, Groningen, Wolters-Noordhoff: 92.

10

Heather Bowe and Kylie Martin11

quote Tylor’s definition of culture: ‘that complex

whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs, and any other

capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society’ (Tylor quoted in Bowe

and Martin 2007: 2). According to Fred E. Jandt, professor of communication, culture

refers to the following:

1. A community or population sufficiently large enough to be self-sustaining […]

2. The totality of that group’s thought, experiences, and patterns of behaviour and its

concepts, values, and assumptions about life that guide behaviour and how those evolve

with contact with other cultures

3. A process of social transmission of these thoughts and behaviors over the course of

generations

4. Members who consciously identify themselves with that group […]12

Jandt (2001: 9) underlines the fact that culture is not a genetic trait, but instead learned by

observing other members of the society. Culture permeates every aspect in life, including

language, religion, values, marriage, food, work, health and education. To conclude Jandt

states that culture ‘refers to the totality of a people’s socially transmitted products of

work and thought.’ (ibidem: 10).

According to Verluyten (2009: 23), several scholars claim that culture is the sum

of the solutions which a certain group of people has given to universal problems. These

problems are universal because every society in the world has to deal with them: they

include for example feeding, finding shelter, children’s education etc. This is the case

with Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner, who’s model we will explore

more in depth in a following paragraph.

Every subculture and culture provides its members with a set of values and norms

which tell them how to behave within that particular culture. People are only aware of

some of the norms and rules that guide their behaviour, while they remain unaware of

others. Gudykunst and Kim state that a value is the ‘belief that a specific mode of conduct

or end-state of existence is personally and socially preferable to alternative modes’ (1992:

53), while norms are ‘socially shared guidelines for expected and accepted behaviors,

violation of which leads to some form of sanction.’ (ibidem: 57). New members of a

11

Bowe, H., Martin, K. (2007), Communication Across Cultures. Mutual understanding in a global world,

New York, Cambridge University Press. 12

Jandt, F.E. (2001), Intercultural Communication. An Introduction, London, Sage Publications: 6.

11

society acquire the culture in different implicit and explicit ways. According to Hoffman

(1991: 36), proverbs, rituals and the behaviour of parents and other role models are

means of implicit learning for children, while public education is an example of explicit

learning, since children study the language and history of their society. The acquisition of

a culture does not stop when we have grown up, but continues throughout our lifetime,

since it is in constant negotiation with our environment (ibidem: 37). This does not mean

that cultures change quickly over time, instead they contain very stable aspects which are

hard to change, even though sometimes there may be the necessity to do so (ibidem: 43).

According to Verluyten (2009: 201), the underlying values of a culture may change only

very slowly over time, while it is possible for superficial practices to change relatively

rapidly.

Since culture comprehends so many different aspects of our lives, many scholars

have tried to stratify the concept of culture. Giuliana Garzone13

quotes Hall who defined

culture as consisting of three different layers. The outer layer is the one of explicit culture

and includes the material reality of a certain culture. These are the differences that are

most easily recognized and include for example, customs, clothing, food and institutions.

The middle layer contains the norms and values of a culture. As we have seen above,

norms inform us what is seen as right and wrong behaviour and values tell us what is

good and bad. The inner layer consists of the implicit culture in which we find the basic

assumptions to deal with the problems every culture faces. These assumptions often are

unconscious and they are very difficult to recognise for someone coming from a different

culture (Hall quoted in Garzone 2003: 55).

We can also use the metaphor of an onion to describe culture; it consists of

different layers each representing a different aspect of the culture. According to Hofstede

(1991: 19-20), moving from the outer layer towards the inner layer we find the symbols,

the heroes, the rituals and the values of a culture. Symbols are objects, words or gestures

that have a special significance for the members of a group, for example the flag of a

nation. Heroes are role models for the society, which can be real or fiction. Rituals are

social activities that are actually unnecessary but considered essential within a certain

13

Garzone, G. ed. (2003), Domain-Specific English and Language Mediation in Professional and

Institutional Settings, Milano, Arcipelago.

12

group, like for example religious ceremonies. These three different aspects are visible in

the practices of a society and represent their values. The values determine what people

see as normal or abnormal, good or bad, rational or irrational etc.

Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner14

place the explicit products of a

culture in the outer layer of the onion. Just like the outer layer of Hall these products are

easy to recognize and include for example language, architecture and fashion. These

products reflect the values and norms of a society, which are not directly visible for a

stranger and which are therefore to be found in the middle layers of the onion. The core

of the onion (and the culture) resembles the inner layer of Hall and is made out of the

implicit basic assumptions. These basic assumptions try to give the most effective

solution to the universal problems of societies and eventually have been internalized by

the people using them. The adaption of these solutions is therefore an unconscious

process which makes the basic assumptions hard to describe for a member of the society

and even harder to discover and understand by someone coming from a different society.

Hoffman (2002: 30) divides culture into four different elements, namely:

- The language people speak within a certain society; the language reflects the

knowledge, values and norms of that society

- The knowledge people have and gather from their environment

- The values and norms of a society

- The symbols, rituals and heroes of a society

In order to function effectively within a certain society it is necessary to have knowledge

of all the cultural elements listed above.

Often in literature dealing with the subject of intercultural communication, the

word culture is used to refer to a national culture, namely the culture of a specific

country. We can see this for example in the study of Hofstede, at which we will have a

closer look later on. However, this equation of culture and a nation state may not always

be appropriate since many countries these days are inhabited by people with different

cultural backgrounds. The inhabitants of these countries can therefore not be seen as part

of a homogeneous cultural group. On top of this there exist a great variety of subcultures

14

Hampden-Turner, C., Trompenaars, F. (2006), Over de Grenzen van Cultuur en Management,

Amsterdam/Antwerpen, Business Contact: 35-38.

13

within each single country and therefore individuals differ from their compatriots

according to their membership to different subcultures. This leads to the conclusion that

people living in the same country do not necessarily have to share the same culture.

Yet, Verluyten states that ‘there are good reasons to think that the level of the

nation state is in many cases of prime importance in shaping the culturally defined

features of the individual who is born within its borders’ (2009: 32-33). His motivation

for this statement is the fact that the nation state has many ways to influence its

inhabitants in a powerful way, such as the political, legal, economic and educational

system. Holliday’s ideas coincide with Verluyten’s when he talks about the ‘powerful and

emotive use of culture within and between nation states’ and says that ‘the people within

these states are encouraged to see themselves as belonging to these particular groupings

and as being distinct from those in other states.’ (2004: 176). Hofstede’s research

confirms this by revealing dominant cultural values of the countries he included in his

survey.

Of course these findings do not mean that subcultures are totally irrelevant,

because they too have influence on the behaviour and customs of that particular group.

Verluyten (2009: 32) states that people can be divided into subcultures according to

language, religion, ethnic background, gender, race, social or economic class etc.

According to Gudykunst and Kim a ‘subculture involves a set of shared symbolic ideas

held by a collectivity within a larger society.’ (1992: 13). In order to work with

unambiguous membership and clear concepts it is however a great advantage for

scientific studies to work with national cultures and not with subcultures (Verluyten

2009: 34).

According to Holliday et al. (2004: 3), the equation of culture to language might

lead to some problems as well since many major languages are not spoken just in one

single country but by people from different nationalities. These people do share the same

language (even though there might be some important differences across borders also

referring to this aspect), but do not share the same cultural background. This is true for

example for the English, Spanish and Arabic language.

I believe that it is important to avoid over-generalization when describing other

cultures. According to Verluyten (2009: 37), when we apply the characteristics of a group

14

to an individual member of that group, this is called the ecological fallacy. As we have

seen before, an individual can belong to many different subcultures and not all people

coming from a particular country will act in the precise same way. In addition human

beings are not only defined by their cultural background, but other dimensions intervene

as well, such as situational factors and individual features (ibidem: 37-38). Every

individual is different and should therefore be seen as an individual and not merely as a

member of a specific cultural group. To quote Holliday et al.:

it appears increasingly likely that many people have biographies entailing various cross-

cutting allegiances – they share different parts of their personal cultural repertoires with

different collections of people. And if there is an ‘integrated whole’, it may be a quite

individual thing (2004: 55).

Of course this does not undermine the fact that between two people from the same

cultural context there are certain commonalities and there is a general understanding of

expected behaviour (ibidem: 163). To explain this idea Singer came up with the ‘culture

star’ (see appendix 1) which ‘considers the various ‘cultures’ in which individuals exist

and from which they ‘source’ their identities.’ (Singer quoted in Holliday et al.: 163). The

values and norms ascribed to a certain culture can be seen as an average with regard to

which the people belonging to that culture can differ in a smaller or greater amount.

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2006: 40) explain that in stereotyping we

often forget that an individual from a certain culture does not always act according to the

norms of that culture. They also state that cultures differing strongly on certain norms

tend to see only the extremes of those norms, because we place greater value on

differences than on similarities. According to Jandt, stereotypes are ‘negative or positive

judgments made about individuals based on any observable or believed group

membership’ (2001: 70). Because of stereotypes we often only see what we expect to see

and reject any perceptions that challenge our beliefs (ibidem: 72). However, Verluyten

(2009: 32) states that it is not entirely possible to get rid of stereotypes, since it is

impossible to have an objective knowledge of all the different cultures in the world. Often

our stereotype of a certain cultural group is the only information we can rely on during

the initial communication with a member of that group. We can however improve the

accuracy of that mental picture in a number of ways: avoid value judgements and stick to

15

factual information, enrich the information you already have and try to understand the

underlying causes of what you already know about the other culture or of what you

observe during the communication.

Cultural processes can be examined by using two alternative approaches, which

were labelled emic and etic by the linguist Pike. The emic approach examines a specific

culture from the inside in order to try to understand the behaviour of the people belonging

to that culture from their point of view. The etic approach examines predetermined

aspects of a specific culture from the outside comparing it to the same aspects of another

culture (Pike quoted in Gudykunst and Kim 1992: 41). An example of an etic cross-

cultural approach is the research Geert Hofstede conducted.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to describe all the different cultures in the world.

For this reason several scholars have tried to develop a model by which we can categorize

cultures. We will now have a look at the most well-known models.

2.1.2 Hofstede’s cultural dimensions

Hofstede defines culture as ‘the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes

the members of one category of people from another.’ (1991: 16, my translation). He uses

the metaphor ‘software of the mind’ to explain his concept of culture: culture determines

the programming of our hardware, e.g. our brain. This programming consists of an

unconscious conditioning that leaves individuals a relative freedom in their thinking,

feeling and acting, but always within the borders of the possible thoughts, feelings and

actions which the social environment supplies. This cultural programming starts in the

environment we grow up in and continuous at a later age at school and afterwards also at

work (ibidem: 290-291). Hofstede distinguishes national culture from subcultures:

national culture is that component of our mental programming which we share with most

of our compatriots as opposed to most other world citizens. Besides our national

component, our cultural programs contain components associated with our profession,

regional background, sex, age group, and the organizations to which we belong (Hofstede

quoted in Garzone 2003: 56).

16

According to Hofstede culture should be distinguished from innate human characteristics

and individual personality. These three aspects together shape the individual.

Hofstede (1991: 25-26) is famous for his cross-cultural study that discovered

work-related value dimensions which can be used to compare different cultures. The

questionnaire he designed for his research examined the work-related value systems of

over a 100.000 employees from 50 different nationalities of the multinational corporation

IBM. From the results of this survey Hofstede identified the following four dimensions

along which cultures may vary: individualism, masculinity, power distance and

uncertainty avoidance. These four cultural dimensions influence organizations,

institutions and human behaviour and thinking. Hofstede defines dimensions as ‘aspects

from which a culture can be compared to other cultures’ (ibidem: 26, my translation).

Later on a fifth dimension was identified with regard to differences in national cultures,

namely long-term orientation. This dimension was discovered by the psychologist

Michael Bond with the help of a survey based on eastern values: the Chinese Value

Survey (ibidem: 27). Of course the score of a culture on a certain dimension represents an

average and we can not expect that every person from that specific culture fits that exact

average. Moreover the scores are not absolute, but relative positions according to which

the cultures differ.

All the employees who were examined with the survey of Hofstede belonged to

the same multinational IBM, which means that the cultural differences found can not be

due to different organizational cultures but only to national cultures (ibidem: 25).

We will now have a closer look at the dimensions Hofstede identified.

Individualism – collectivism. According to Hofstede (ibidem: 68-104), this

dimension shows how people see themselves and their relationships with others. In an

individualistic culture people define themselves primarily as an individual and put the

interests of the group on the second place; they are motivated by their own needs. In a

collectivistic culture on the other hand, people give priority to the goals of the group over

their own personal objectives. In exchange for this loyalty to the group, the group

provides the individual with protection and help. Interdependent activities are important

just like interpersonal relationships. Collectivistic cultures also value harmony,

maintaining face and tradition. Hofstede argues that the role identity a member has inside

17

the group is given a greater importance than the personal identity, while in individualistic

cultures this is the other way around. In individualistic cultures people are defined by

what they have accomplished on their own. Individualistic cultures stress the importance

of contracts, both in business relationships as in the employer-employee relationship. In

collectivistic cultures on the other hand, these relationships are seen in moral terms. In

individualistic cultures the boundaries between different groups and between members of

a group are loosely structured whereas they are sharply defined in collectivistic cultures.

This also means that collectivistic cultures tend to be particularistic; their value standards

differ for members from their own group and people who do not belong to their group.

Individualistic cultures usually apply the same value standards to all human beings and

can therefore be defined as universalistic.

Hofstede claims that individualism has been associated with a direct

communication style, which means that the intentions of the speaker are embodied in the

spoken message. Collectivistic cultures make bigger use of the indirect communication

style, which means that the intention of the speaker is not clear from the spoken message

but has to be understood by taking into account the context. If a conflict arises,

collectivistic cultures also handle an indirect style in order to avoid an open conflict and

to maintain harmony, while individualistic cultures prefer a direct conflict and solution-

orientation style. On the basis of his data, Hofstede suggested further associations that

can be made with the individualism-collectivism dimension:

- Wealth. There is a strong relationship between a nation’s wealth and individualism.

- Geography. Countries with moderate and cold climates tend to show more individualism.

- Birth rates. Countries with higher birth rates tend to be collectivistic.

- History. Confucian countries are collectivistic. Migrants from Europe who populated

North America, Australia, and New Zealand tended to be sufficiently individualist to

leave their native countries (Hofstede quoted in Jandt 2001: 202).

The nine most individualistic cultures are all Western or European, while the ten most

collectivistic cultures are all Oriental or South American cultures (see appendix 7).

Individualistic and collectivistic elements are however to by found within all cultures.

According to Holliday et al. the difference is made by de various combinations of these

elements (2004: 143).

18

Masculinity – femininity. Hofstede (1991: 105-139) states that the difference

between masculine and feminine cultures is that the latter permit women and men to have

more overlapping social roles, while masculine cultures stress the traditional gender roles.

Masculine cultures place high value on traditionally male attributes such as competition,

strength, material success, ambition and assertiveness. Feminine cultures value more

nurturing aspects such as concern for the weak, service, affection, compassion, quality of

life and interpersonal relationships. Hofstede also revealed some associations for this

dimension:

- Geography. Feminine cultures are somewhat more likely in colder climates.

- Birth rates. In feminine cultures, the woman has a stronger say in the number of children.

In masculine cultures, the man determines family size (Hofstede quoted in Jandt 2001:

210).

The four countries with the highest masculinity index scores are respectively Japan,

Australia, Venezuela and Italy, while the four countries with the lowest masculinity index

scores are Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark (see appendix 4).

Power distance. This definition is explained by Hofstede (1991: 37-67) as ‘the

extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country

expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.’ (ibidem: 39, my translation). With

institutions Hofstede refers for example to families, schools or the entire society. In

cultures with a high power distance, control and influence are usually in the hands of a

small group, while the power in low power distance cultures is distributed more equally

among the population. We can also see this in the workplace where high power distance

cultures usually have an autocratic boss and power is centralized. According to Hofstede

there is also a great difference between the salary of superiors and subordinates in these

cultures, while in low power distance workplaces people are considered more equal and

the democratic bosses consult their subordinates when they have to make an important

decision. Subordinates in a low power distance culture do not necessarily accept all

orders of superiors and they want to know why they should follow these orders. In high

power distance cultures orders are almost never rejected or even questioned. Hofstede

claims that cultures with a high power distance usually see power as an inevitable aspect

19

of society, while cultures with a low power distance think power should be used only in

legitimate ways. The associations Hofstede found for this dimension are:

- Geographical latitude. Higher latitudes are associated with lower power distance.

- Population. Large population is associated with high power distance.

- Wealth. National wealth is associated with lower power distance.

- History. Countries with a Romance language […] score medium to high as do Confucian

cultural inheritance countries, whereas countries with a Germanic language […] score

low. Both the Romance language countries and the Confucian cultural inheritance

countries were both ruled from a single power center, whereas the Germanic language

countries remained “barbaric” during Roman days (Hofstede quoted in Jandt 2001: 214).

The cultures that score highest on the power distance index are all South Asian or

Caribbean cultures, while those that score lowest are European democracies (see

appendix 3).

Uncertainty avoidance. Hofstede (1991: 140-175) explains that this dimension

shows whether cultures avoid or tolerate ambiguous and uncertain situations. In cultures

that have a high score on the uncertainty avoidance index, this can be shown by the need

for rules and predictability, low risk-taking, a high level of anxiety, fear of failure, a

belief in absolute truths, employment stability, a high savings quote and strict norms for

behaviour. According to Hofstede, the people in these cultures are likely to have the

following characteristics: active, nervous, aggressive, emotional and intolerant. Cultures

that score low on uncertainty avoidance on the other hand are relaxed, self-controlled,

contemplative and unemotional. Hofstede claims that workplaces in high uncertainty

avoidance cultures have a large set of rules and stress the need for precision and

punctuality. In cultures with a high uncertainty avoidance things that are different than

normal are seen as dangerous, while in cultures with a low uncertainty avoidance

different things are held interesting. Associations with uncertainty avoidance are:

- Religion. Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christian cultures […] score high. Judaic and

Muslim cultures tend to score in the middle. Protestant Christian cultures score low.

Eastern religions score medium to very low […]

- History. Cultures with a Romance language and history of Roman codified laws score

high uncertainty avoidance. Cultures with Chinese-speaking populations and Confucian

tradition tend to score lower (Hofstede quoted in Jandt 2001: 215).

20

The cultures that score highest on the uncertainty avoidance index are above all Southern

European and South American cultures, while Northern European and South Asian

cultures score the lowest (see appendix 6).

Long-term orientation – short-term orientation. Hofstede (1991: 200-217) argues

that cultures with a long-term orientation encourage savings, perseverance toward results,

a sense of shame and a willingness to subordinate oneself for a purpose. Cultures with a

short-term orientation are characterized by a concern with one’s face, respect for tradition

and a preference for quick results. Hofstede believes there is a correlation between the

recent economic growth of several South East Asian countries and their long-term

orientation.

The national culture dimensions Hofstede identified influence without a doubt

communication in general and organizational communication in particular. However,

Robert Shuter15

underlines the fact that Hofstede’s study does not show in what way

these dimensions affect communication. Communicative factors such as language,

nonverbal behaviour and communication style have not been investigated. This is one of

the limitations of the study we examined above. Moreover, Bowe and Martin (2007: 84)

stress that the dimensions are based on general cultural differences and therefore not all

members of a culture will respond to the national scores. According to Verluyten (2009:

191), we should also keep in mind that all members of the team that composed the

questionnaire were American or European and that the questions therefore might be

culturally biased. This means that some questions might have been irrelevant to people

from non-western cultures and also that some non-western values remained undiscovered.

In my opinion, another limitation of Hofstede’s research is the fact that many countries

were not included in the survey: China, most African and many East-European countries

were absent. On top of this the data was collected over four decades ago and a new

survey might be needed to establish any changes in the national dimensions. However, as

Lee G. Bolman and Terrence D. Deal16

point out, there has been no other cross-cultural

15

Shuter, R. (1989), “The International Marketplace”, in Asante, M.K., Gudykunst, W.B. eds. (1989),

Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, London, Sage Publications: 395. 16

Bolman, L.G., Deal, T.E. (2008), Reframing Organizations. Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, San

Francisco, Jossey-Bass: 274.

21

research on the same scale and Hofstede’s study therefore remains the most quoted and a

major reference.

The fact that the procedures and rules of an organization are influenced by

national culture is noted by another scholar as well. Philippe d’Iribarne17

investigated a

Dutch, French and American workplace of the same multinational and found that the

national values and norms have a great influence on organizational structures and

strategies.

2.1.3 Trompenaars’ and Hampden-Turner’s basic assumptions

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2006) derive their cultural model from the theory of

the anthropologists Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, who distinguish five universally shared

basic problems that emerge from relationships with nature, activities, time, and other

human beings:

- Man-nature orientation: What is a human being’s relation to nature? Should humans

dominate over, live in harmony with or subjugate themselves to nature?

- Activity orientation: What is the modality of human activity? Are the people in this

culture being (i.e. passively accepting), being-in-becoming (i.e. transforming) or

doing (i.e. initiating action)?

- Time orientation: What is the temporal focus of human life? Does the culture place

an emphasis on the past, the present or the future?

- Human-nature orientation: What is the character of innate human nature? Are

humans primarily evil, good, or a mixture of both?

- Relational orientation: What is the relationship of the individual to others? Are

interpersonal relationships organized in a linear hierarchy, by group identification, or

individualism? (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck quoted in Jandt 2001: 228)

According to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2006: 40), within these five value

orientations all cultures develop a unique position. Each culture recognizes different

solutions to each problem, but prefers a certain solution above all others.

17

D’Iribarne, P. (1998), Eer, contract en consensus, Amsterdam : Nieuwezijds: 17-18.

22

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner re-elaborated this model by saying that the

universal problems are related to three different fields of human life, namely:

environment, human relationships and time. The solutions a given culture provides for

these problems can be divided into seven fundamental aspects of culture:

Human relationships

Universalism – particularism. According to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner

(ibidem: 46-86) in universalistic cultures rules should be applied at all times and there is a

clear distinction between what is right and wrong. In particularistic cultures exceptions

can be made according to circumstances and personal relationships. Trompenaars and

Hampden-Turner argue that most Protestant Christian cultures are universalistic, while

Catholic Christian cultures are mostly particularistic.

Individualism – collectivism. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (ibidem: 69-90)

state that in individualistic cultures people are in the first place individuals and personal

needs are important, while in collectivistic cultures people are in the first place part of a

group and the goals of the group are placed above personal goals. What is considered the

in-group also differs from culture to culture; it can be the family, the organization one

works in, all compatriots etc.

Neutral – emotional. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (ibidem: 91-104) claim

that people in neutral cultures do not usually show their emotions and try to handle as

objective and detached as possible, while in emotional cultures it is much more accepted

to express emotions.

Specific – diffuse. According to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (ibidem: 105-

129), in specific cultures a certain relationship holds only in a specific context, while in

diffuse cultures the relationship extends to different contexts of life and therefore in a

business relationship the whole person is involved.

Achievement – ascription. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (ibidem: 130-149)

argue that in some cultures people are valued according to their achievements (such as

good study results), while in other cultures status depends on characteristics such as age,

gender and/or family.

23

Attitudes to time

Monochronic – polychronic. According to the authors (ibidem: 150-175), some

cultures see the passing of time as the following of events on a linear line, in others as a

cycle that combines the past, present and future. For some cultures the future is of utmost

importance while other cultures place great value on what has happened in the past.

Attitudes to the environment

Inner-directed – outer-directed orientation. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner

(ibidem: 176-194) state that some cultures think that values and motives of what is right

and wrong come from the individual him- or herself, while other cultures believe that the

environment has a great pressure on the individual and determines his or her behaviour.

These basic assumptions of cultures are not only of great influence on the people

but also on the organizations operating in that given society. Trompenaars and Hampden-

Turner (ibidem: 20-24) make a distinction between three different levels of culture within

the professional world: on top stands the national culture, within which we can find

different organizational cultures, and within each organizational culture we can encounter

a variety of professional cultures. Aspects of these different cultures interact with each

other within each individual, along with the possible other subcultures the individual

belongs to.

The theory of Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner receives some critique from

Verluyten (2009: 210-211), who states that the scholars do not explain why and how they

arrived at these seven dimensions of culture and that it is difficult to compare two

cultures with regard to these dimensions, since the countries included in the survey differ

from one chart to the next.

2.1.4 Pinto’s F-cultures and G-cultures

Pinto defines culture as the following:

culture is an evaluating system of values, norms and rules. Culture is passed on from

generation to generation and in this way internalized by the people who consider

themselves as a member of that group. The interpretation of the world and the behaviour

of the members of a group are often unconsciously influenced by their culture (1994: 39,

my translation).

24

In his book Interculturele Communicatie Pinto (ibidem: 42) argues that no scholar has

developed a classification of cultures based on the basic assumptions of the inner layer of

culture. In his research he therefore looked for the deeper causes of cultural differences

and found them in the ‘underlying structure’ of culture. He distinguishes two very

different underlying structures of culture which he calls ‘G-cultures’ and ‘F-cultures’, but

that can also be named modern/western and traditional/non-western cultures. F-cultures

have a Fijnmazige (fine-mazed) structure of norms, while in G-cultures dominates a

Grofmazige (coarse-mazed) structure of norms. This means that people in G-cultures

always have to translate the general norms to the specific situation and in doing so they

have a relative freedom in their behaviour. In F-cultures there are specific norms for

every situation and the individual has no choice but to apply them. According to Pinto

cultures are never totally fine-mazed or coarse-mazed, but can be put on a line that goes

from one extreme to the other. Apart from F- and G-cultures, Pinto (ibidem: 43) also

distinguishes a third type of cultures, namely M-cultures (Mengculturen), which have a

mix of Fijnmazige and Grofmazige structures. Pinto lists the following characteristics of

F-cultures and G-cultures:

F-cultures. According to Pinto (ibidem: 42-62), the people in F-cultures are in the

first place members of a group, which determines everyone’s role in society. There exist

detailed norms and rules that describe the normal and good behaviour for every situation.

Fidelity and obligations towards the family are of utmost importance and have to be

placed before friends, work and business relationships. Pinto claims that the behaviour

and reputation of every member of a family have consequences for the reputation of all

the other members of that same family. For this reason there is a great pressure on the

individual to behave according to the norms. If the norms are broken by a member of the

family everyone will be deeply ashamed. Status is ascribed according to the family and

the individual’s role within it, but also according to age, religion and property. According

to Pinto, the different roles within a family are very clear: women stay inside to educate

the children, while men should take care of all activities outside. Human relationships are

more important than time schedules and people will be involved in various tasks at the

same time. Communication is implicit. Business contacts are always immediately seen as

25

personal contacts and therefore time is needed to get to know a new contact. Examples of

F-cultures are the Moroccan, Turkish, Chinese and Vietnamese culture.

G-cultures. Pinto (ibidem: 42-62) argues that the people in G-cultures are in the

first place individuals, with personal freedom and responsibilities. They have to make

individual choices, since no specific rules and norms exist for every situation. Every

individual finds his or her own job without the help of other family members. According

to Pinto, the individual is much more bound to internal than external norms and therefore

feels guilty (and not ashamed) when breaking one of his or her internal norms. Status

comes with personal achievements. The strong family ties we find in F-cultures are by no

means seen as normal in G-cultures. Family members do not support each other

financially and children leave the family house as soon as possible. Time schedules are

very important and people will finish one task before initiating the next. Pinto claims that

communication is explicit in G-cultures. There is a clear distinction between business

contacts and personal contacts. Examples of G-cultures are the American, English,

German, French and Dutch culture.

Pinto (ibidem: 46) states that F-cultures have been developed in areas with few

natural resources. For this reason people had to group together in order to survive. We

can find G-cultures in areas where there is no daily struggle to survive and therefore

people do not need the help of others and have a more individual existence. I agree with

Verluyten (2009: 213) on the fact that it might be difficult to apply Pinto’s model to real

cultures, since the generalisations are very broad.

2.1.5 Hall’s monochronic, polychronic and high- and low-context cultures

According to Jandt (2001: 39), the publication of Edward T. Hall’s The Silent Language

in 1959 is generally seen as the beginning of the formal study of intercultural

communication. The term ‘silent language’ refers to the unconscious communicative

behaviour of human beings. Hall argues that the programs of culture ‘guide the actions

and responses of human beings in every walk of life.’18

18

Hall, E.T. (1990), Understanding Cultural Differences, Yarmouth, MEL Intercultural Press: 3.

26

Hall (1990: 6-7) states that cultures can be compared on a scale from high-context

to low-context. The concept of context stands for all the information that can be found in

the surrounding of an event; context is the opposite of text. In high-context

communication very little information is in the explicit part of the message, the words,

while most of the information is already in the person or has to be found between the

lines and in the physical environment. According to Hall, we can also define this kind of

communication as implicit: for the right interpretation of the message we must not only

take into account the content of the message, but we also need a sufficient knowledge of

the persons involved and the situation in which the message is issued.

In low-context communication on the other hand, most of the information is

embedded in the explicit part of the message and therefore we can also define low-

context communication as explicit communication. The content of the message itself is

enough to correctly interpret the message, which is delivered in an unambiguous way.

Hall claims that in high-context cultures close personal relationships are important and

extensive information networks exist. In low-context cultures there is a need for

background information in every new interaction. According to Michael L. Hecht et al.19

,

high-context cultures rely on nonverbal communication to a greater extent than low-

context cultures. People in high-context cultures also expect their interlocutor to perceive

the subtle clues they provide with the use of for example facial expressions, movements

and speed of interaction.

Hall (1990: 13-14) also elaborated another dimension which we can use to

compare different cultures: time systems. He distinguishes two kinds of time systems,

namely monochronic time and polychronic time. These systems appear very natural and

logical to the people using them, but in fact they are learned. Hall argues that people in

cultures with a monochronic time system normally pay attention to one thing at a time

and only move on to the next task when the previous one is finished. In these cultures

time is experienced as a linear line and as something that can be divided into segments;

schedules are therefore broadly used. Time is precious and can therefore be lost, wasted

or saved. In cultures with a polychronic time system human transactions are placed above

19

Hecht, M.L., Andersen, P.A., Ribeau, S.A. (1989) “The Cultural Dimensions of Nonverbal

Communication”, in Asante, M.K., Gudykunst, W.B. eds. (1989), Handbook of International and

Intercultural Communication, London, Sage Publications: 177.

27

the importance of holding on to schedules. People often are involved with many things at

once and there is a great involvement with other human beings.

2.2 Communication

According to Schermer (2008: 214), communication is a complicated circular process of

exchanging information which consists out of a continuous translating of thoughts into

symbols and symbols into thoughts. Communication can take place between two people,

but also between groups or organizations. Jandt (2001: 29-32) argues that the

communication process consists of the following aspects:

- Source: the person who desires to communicate an idea.

- Encoding: the process of finding a symbol that represents the idea. Examples of

symbols are words and gestures. The relationship between the symbol and the thing it

represents is arbitrary and varies from culture to culture.

- Message: the result of encoding, i.e. the encoded idea.

- Channel: the means that is used to transmit the message, i.e. the medium.

- Noise: anything that distorts the message. Noise can be external (sounds in the

surroundings), internal (thoughts or feelings of the receiver) or semantic (when the

symbol used by the source has alternative meanings that distract). Because of noise,

the message may not only be distorted, but things may also be omitted from or added

to the original message.

- Receiver: the person who attends to the message, may this be intentionally or not.

- Decoding: the process of attributing meaning to the received symbol.

- Receiver response: anything the receiver does or says after decoding the message.

- Feedback: the part of the receiver response to which the source attends.

- Context: ‘the environment in which the communication takes place and which helps

define the communication.’ (ibidem: 32). According to the linguist George Yule,20

the physical context (in particular the time and place) influences our understanding of

the message, along with the larger social context.

20

Yule, G. (2006), The Study of Language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 114.

28

Jandt (2001: 33) claims that the underlying communication process is essentially

the same for intercultural and intracultural encounters, but the way people communicate

and interpret the interaction process is strongly influenced by their cultural background.

Hence, the success of the communication depends on the extent to which the source and

the receiver have a similar understanding of the context and share the same meaning for

the symbol which the source communicates. According to Pinto (1994: 24) we can

distinguish three different messages: the idea of the message in the head of the source,

the encoded idea and the interpreted message in the head of the receiver. Gudykunst and

Kim (1992: 35-37) state that the process of encoding and decoding messages is

influenced by four different factors:

- Cultural influences: the dimensions of cultural variability (e.g. individualism-

collectivism), values, and communication norms and rules that predominate in our

culture.

- Sociocultural influences: our membership in social groups, our self-conceptions, our

role expectations, and our definition of interpersonal relationships.

- Psychocultural influences: our stereotypes of and attitudes toward strangers’ groups.

- Environmental influences: the geographical location, climate, and architectural

setting, as well as our perceptions of the environment.

Communication is always imperfect in the sense that the idea of the source and

the interpreted message of the receiver are never exactly the same. Even two persons

who share the same culture will not perceive the world in an identical way. Jandt (2001:

179) explains the limitations of our senses and the fact that when two persons are

looking at the same object they will never perceive the exact same thing because of their

individual perception process. Jandt claims that things become even more difficult when

two people do not have the same cultural background, since ‘the route from stimulus to

sensation is in part conditioned by culture.’ (ibidem: 182).

Moreover, Jandt (ibidem: 183-185) states that culture has a great effect on the

perception process, consisting of the three steps selection, organization and

interpretation. Our culture determines which stimuli we are more likely to attend to.

Jandt explains that this is one of the reasons that make it difficult to differentiate specific

speech sounds in another language; our culture simply has not trained us to do so. The

29

organization of the stimuli and the conceptual categories that we use are then influenced

by our language that provides us the symbols we use to group certain perceptions

together. This phase of organization is very similar to the process of encoding which has

been described above. As Yule puts it, the language we learn provides us ‘with a

readymade system of categorizing the world around us and our experience of it.’ (2006:

216). According to Jandt (2001: 187), the final step of interpretation attaches a meaning

to our perceptions, which is greatly determined by our cultural background. We can

compare this ultimate step with the process of decoding. As Verluyten says: ‘People do

not see or hear an object or concept in itself, but an object or concept plus cultural

connotations attached to it.’ (2009: 145). Someone from the Netherlands for example

might consider a cow an animal that provides us with milk and meat, while a person

from India sees in the cow a creature that has to be worshipped and fed.

It is therefore not difficult to understand why communication between people

from different cultures can easily lead to misunderstandings and conflicts. In addition,

Günthner and Luckmann (2001: 64) explain that the repair procedures, i.e. procedures

interlocutors may use to overcome misunderstandings and to resume the conversation,

also differ from one culture to another and that they therefore may not always be effective

and sometimes even lead to more misunderstandings or a total breakdown of the

communication. Volker Hinnenkamp lists seven different types of misunderstandings,

which pass respectively from overt misunderstandings, to covert misunderstandings, and

finally to latent ones:

1. There is an immediate recognition of a misunderstanding, which is indicated by a repair

at the next possible opportunity and is then followed by a return to the status quo ante.

[…]

2. There is an immediate recognition of a misunderstanding, which is indicated by a repair

at the next possible opportunity, but there is no return to the status quo ante. The

misunderstanding itself becomes a resource of continuation. […]

3. There is a gradual recognition of a misunderstanding, which may be indicated by

disturbances in the conversational flow, […] until one interlocutor becomes aware that

some kind of misunderstanding has occurred. What may follow is a further treatment as

described in 1 and 2. […]

4. There is a gradual recognition of a misunderstanding, which may be indicated by

disturbances in the conversational flow, […] until it is recognized but does not get treated

as described in 1 and 2. […] In other words, interlocutors will overcome the

misunderstandings without ever getting to its roots. […]

30

5. There is a gradual recognition of a misunderstanding, which may be indicated by

disturbances in the conversational flow, […] until the communication comes to a halt,

dissolves, breaks down or is reinitiated by a change in the topic. […]

6. There is obviously no recognition of a misunderstanding. But an outside observer regards

it as a misunderstanding; or one of the participants may have received particular

information afterwards (even after a long time) that leads her to reassess the interaction

(or parts of it) as a misunderstanding. […]

7. To an outside observer there is no manifestation and no indication that a

misunderstanding has occurred, yet one interlocutor (or even both interlocutors) may

have the feeling that either she has or was or they have or were misunderstood. So the

misunderstanding may have been noticed but remained unnegotiated. 21

According to Hinnenkamp (2001: 221), the covert types of misunderstandings are the

most frequent in intercultural situations. He also claims that the greater the cultural

differences, the more likely it is misunderstandings will occur.

According to Pinto (1994: 22) communication is effective when the message is

received by the listener as intended by the speaker. There are four conditions for this to

happen (ibidem: 25-26):

1. The technical condition: the receiver must understand the language in which the

message is delivered and the participants must be able to see and/or hear each

other.

2. The cognitive condition: the participants must communicate on an intellectual

level that is acceptable for both of them and have a sufficient knowledge of the

subject that is being discussed.

3. The interpretive condition: the participants must have the same interpretation of

the symbols they use.

4. The affective condition: the language and gestures must have the same emotional

meaning for both participants.

Pinto (ibidem: 35) believes that problems that have to do with the first three conditions

are easy to recognize, whereas problems regarding the affective condition are much more

difficult to overcome because in most cases they are not recognized as such. In my

opinion it is however doubtful that a message will be interpreted in the exact same way

and has the same emotional meaning for two different participants.

21

Hinnenkamp, V. (2001), “Constructing Misunderstanding as a Cultural Event”, in Di Luzio, A., Günthner

S., Orletti, F. (2001), Culture in Communication. Analyses of Intercultural Situations,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 215-219.

31

Communication can furthermore be divided into verbal communication and

nonverbal communication. While we communicate verbally with the use of language,

there exists a wide range of ways to communicate nonverbally, for example with the use

of signs, gestures, body language, facial expressions, colours, sounds and smells.

According to Pinto (ibidem: 24), when two or more people are together in fact they are

always communicating, since all behaviour delivers some kind of information to the other

people around. Moreover, Pinto claims that the nonverbal elements influence strongly the

way the verbal elements are interpreted. Just like verbal communication, nonverbal

communication differs strongly across countries and cultures, even though we often think

of it as a natural and/or universal kind of language. Instead we acquire the way we

communicate nonverbally in the culture we grow up in. According to Pinto (ibidem: 29),

nonverbal communication is often unconscious communication and difficult to keep

under control. Since the interpretation of nonverbal communication most of the times also

happens unconsciously, it is very easy for misunderstandings to arise when the nonverbal

communication codes differ, which is often the case when two people from different

cultures meet. In addition, Hoffman (2002: 164) states that it is difficult to find out the

meaning of nonverbal language, since the significations may differ according to the

circumstances and cultures, but also because of the fact that no tools like dictionaries

exist for nonverbal language. According to Hoffman (ibidem: 193-194), nonverbal

communication may have five different functions:

1. Contributing to the situational reality and the own role within it.

2. Regulating the start, continuation and termination of the interaction.

3. Clarifying and commenting on the verbal language.

4. Expressing emotions like happiness, sadness and angriness.

5. Conveying more or less specific meanings with the use of gestures.

32

2.3 Intercultural communication between international organizations

According to Juan C. Palmer-Silveira et al.,22

people of different cultural backgrounds are

constantly brought into contact with each other in business settings. International

business meetings take place in countries with different cultures and specific economic,

political and social situations. Because of the globalization of the world’s economy,

Verluyten believes that

a vast number of companies will feel a growing need to

- buy and sell abroad: contacts leading to negotiations leading to contracts

- welcome foreign businesspeople on their visit

- market their goods or services internationally and adapt them to foreign markets

(2009: 17).

According to Hofstede (1991: 279), organizations can expand internationally in five

different ways: 1. Establish a new settlement in a foreign country; 2. Take-over of a

foreign settlement; 3. An international fusion between two or more settlements; 4. An

international joint venture; 5. Collaboration with a foreign partner. We will concentrate

on this fifth point where partners collaborate for specific products and/or markets and

have mutual interests in doing so, since intercultural negotiations are one of the most

common and difficult intercultural situations in which businesspeople are likely to enter.

While originally business communication was mostly enacted face-to-face, Palmer-

Silveira et al. (2006: 12) state that new technologies have let to other means of

communication and consequently a wider use of internet and mobile phones.

Negotiations and meetings may therefore also be held with the use of teleconferencing, or

as linguist Belinda Crawford Camiciottoli defines it: ‘interactive group communication

through an electronic medium’. 23

The profound differences between cultures often make it difficult to interact

effectively in these intercultural situations and a development of both language and

cultural competences is necessary. Many scholars therefore stress the importance of

22

Palmer-Silveira, J., Ruiz-Garrido, M., Fortanet-Gómez, I. eds. (2006), Intercultural and International

Business Communication, Bern, Peter Lang: 12. 23

Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2006), “Corporate Earning Calls: a Hybrid Genre?”, in Palmer-Silveira et al.

(2006): 111.

33

intercultural competence and training for those operating in an international workplace.

Even though it is considered important to understand the values when communicating

with someone from a different culture, Verluyten (2009: 61) believes that practices, and

thereby visible behaviour, are more important to learn about for businessmen. Indeed, the

failure or success of an intercultural encounter in the business setting will probably be

evaluated in terms of the business itself, which means that the signing of a beneficial

contract or the reaching of a deal is the main goal, and not the psychological well-being

of the parties involved (ibidem: 237). Linguist Paolo E. Balboni24

indeed believes that

communication is ‘perfect’ when the exchange leads to the fulfilment of the goals of the

participants.

Cultural differences are important factors in negotiating, decision making and

motivation. According to Schermer (2008: 237), the larger the amount of people that

participate in an intercultural negotiation, the more complex the communications gets and

the more likely its is that misunderstandings occur. Marie-Thérèse Claes and Marinel

Gerritsen state that the following rules apply in the international business world:

1. The salesman is expected to adapt to the culture of the buyer

2. The visitor is expected to adapt to the local culture25

According to Verluyten (2009: 235-236), the question who adapts to whom is

furthermore determined by the following factors: numerical majority or minority,

dominant or dominated relation, physical location, perceived need or possibility and

perceived cultural distance.

Garzone (2003: 52-53) states that much research has been done on intercultural

problems in the field of business communication, since this is an environment in which

people from different cultures come into contact on a large scale in order to discuss

subjects of mutual interest and this often involves important decision-making. Especially

the influence of cultural differences on international business negotiations has received

great attention from a large number of different disciplinary sectors. Opportunities to

conduct field research and examine actual business meetings and negotiations are

24

Balboni, P.E. (2007), La comunicazione interculturale, Venezia, Marsilio: 13. 25

Claes, M., Gerritsen, M. (2007), Culturele Waarden en Communicatie in Internationaal Perspectief,

Bussum, Coutinho: 229.

34

however rare according to Bowe and Martin (2007: 162), because of commercial

confidentiality.

2.3.1 Intercultural competence and training

According to Verluyten (2009: 18-19), mutual goodwill and understanding is not enough

in order to communicate effectively in intercultural situations; intercultural

communication skills are needed. Unfortunately, these are not innate and do not come

about naturally. However, there are many ways to acquire intercultural competence.

Gudykunst and Kim state that a large amount of books have been written in order to

provide the reader with ‘the conceptual tools needed to understand culture,

communication, how culture influences communications, and the process of

communication between people from different cultures.’ (1992: 5). These books can be

studied at home, but it is also possible to participate in an intercultural training course,

which can be focused on different aspects and have various durations (from half an hour

to several months). In this way, cultural differences that would otherwise remain

unconscious, are made explicitly aware of.

Even though intercultural training is crucial for organizations operating at an

international level, according to Verluyten (2009: 40) it’s importance is still not widely

acknowledged in the business world. Even when the need for intercultural training is

recognized by a manager, it will often be given in a limited form in order to save time

and money. Verluyten argues that this is not very wise, since intercultural

communication skills ‘can make the difference between a successful negotiation and a

failure’ and ‘may be your competitive edge in the global economy.’ (ibidem: 217).

According to the psychologist Richard W. Brislin,26

intercultural training can also

provide guidelines for work-related aspects such as negotiation styles. We will now have

a closer look at what has been written on this subject by leading figures in this field.

Pinto (1994: 177) elaborated a three-step-method to deal with intercultural

differences and communicate effectively with people from other cultures:

26

Brislin, R.W. (1989), “Intercultural Communication Training”, in Asante, M.K., Gudykunst, W.B. eds.

(1989), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, London, Sage Publications: 441.

35

1. becoming aware of the norms and values of one’s own culture

2. getting to know the norms and values of the other culture

3. determining how to handle the differences between these norms and values in the

given situation and establishing your own boundaries

According to Schermer (2008: 286) we could add a fourth step to this method, namely

looking back at the intercultural encounter in order to establish whether or not there have

been misunderstandings and if so, how these might be avoided in future encounters. Pinto

(1994: 15-17) summarizes the first two steps under his concept of the double perspective

approach, which means that one should be able to perceive situations and act according to

the perspective of his or her own norms and values as well as according to the perspective

of the other. Even though, according to Pinto, this approach is a necessary condition in

order to communicate effectively across cultures, it is not sufficient and the scholar

believes that intercultural training is needed. He believes intercultural training is even

more important for certain professions, such as importers, managers, doctors, police

officers and teachers (ibidem: 201). The three-step-method of Pinto has been criticised

for its simplicity and for the fact that it is difficult to apply in actual intercultural

situations. In fact I believe that Pinto’s three-step-method is not very useful since it does

not explain in what way the differences between de norms and values can be handled

with.

Hoffman (2002: 138-139) has developed a more complex model for intercultural

encounters, which can help locate and resolve misunderstanding due to cultural

differences. He called his model the TOPOI-model and this name stands for the five areas

in communication where cultural differences and misunderstandings can be traced:

- Taal (language): the verbal and nonverbal language of the interlocutors.

- Ordening (perception): the way in which the interlocutors perceive the encounter and

the subjects discussed.

- Personen (persons): the personal characteristics of the interlocutors and their

relationship.

- Organisatie (organization): the social and professional context and the goal of the

encounter.

36

- Inzet (attitude): the underlying motives and needs of the interlocutors and their

attitude towards the other participant.

These areas in fact are interrelated and in the model separated only for theoretical

necessity. According to Hoffman an open-minded and unprejudiced attitude is of utmost

importance in intercultural communication, along with the showing of respect and

involvement (ibidem: 137). It is very difficult to know the communication characteristics

of all cultures, but with these principles it may be possible to prevent misunderstandings.

In his publication Hoffman (ibidem: 144-146) further gives a detailed lists with

recommendations for intercultural encounters of which I will give only some examples:

- respect and allow acceptable differences in verbal and nonverbal language

- ask for and explain unknown significations

- listen actively and empathize with the other

- reflect on the underlying motives of the other

Hofstede (1991: 284-286) states that one can learn to communicate across cultures

in three phases; awareness, knowledge and skills. In the first place one should become

aware of the fact that the culture he or she grew up in ‘programmed’ his or her mind in a

specific way and that people that grew up in other cultures have a different ‘software’.

Secondly, Hofstede argues that we should gather information about the symbols, heroes

and rituals of the other culture and try to understand the underlying values. Finally, we

should learn the skills to recognize and use the symbols of the other culture and to

participate in their rituals. This last phase, of course, comes with experience. Even though

intercultural communication can be learned, Hofstede believes that some people are more

likely to succeed than others. People that are emotionally stable, have a high tolerance for

uncertainty and that are willing to try new things might be more effective in intercultural

communication. Furthermore Hofstede distinguishes two different kinds of intercultural

training: one that is focused on the specific knowledge of one particular culture and one

that is focused on general knowledge and becoming aware of cultural differences.

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2006: 241-242) mention trans-cultural

competence and according to them this can be achieved by becoming aware of cultural

differences, respecting these differences and finally trying to conciliate these differences.

According to the authors, trans-cultural training should make people aware of the fact

37

that they are constantly attributing meaning to all objects and activities surrounding them.

Only after this people can accept that others perceive those same objects and activities in

a different way, respect those different interpretations and maybe even enrich their own

perspectives with those of a different culture. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (quoted

in Garzione 2003: 61) believe that when the intercultural training only consists out of

delivering information about other cultures it will reinforce stereotyping, and for this

reason it is always important to include the promotion of cultural awareness.

However, to acquire factual knowledge of the other culture is also an important

part of intercultural training and Verluyten (2009: 231) mentions the following points

with regard to which information can be provided: languages, education, etiquette, time

and space, communication patterns, religion, geography, social structure etc. According

to Julio C. Giménez,27

this knowledge about the other person’s culture can significantly

reduce the uncertainty we normally experience in an interaction with someone from a

different culture, since it increases our ability to predict the future behaviour of the other

person. Other objectives of intercultural training according to Verluyten are:

- ‘developing one’s sense of observation.’ (2009: 18).

- ‘developing a higher degree of openness’, which means to be open to what is new

and be willing to share in the practices of a different culture whenever possible. For

everyone there will be boundaries to this attitude and at that point openness can be

replaced by the minimalist attitude of tolerance; ‘one refrains from acting against

someone else’s practices, but no attempt is made to share them or even to understand

them from the inside.’ (ibidem: 53).

- ‘learn how to avoid ethnocentric reactions, attribution errors and reliance on the SRC

[i.e. the Self Reliance Criterion]’ (ibidem: 229).

Jandt on the other hand, summarizes the various intercultural communication

skills as follows:

Good intercultural communicators have personality strength (strong sense of self and are

socially relaxed), communication skills (verbal and nonverbal), psychological adjustment

(ability to adapt to new situations), and cultural awareness (understanding how people of

different cultures think and act). These areas can be divided into eight different skills:

27

Giménez, J.C. (2006), “Helping Advanced Learners of English Cope with the Demands”, in Palmer-

Silveira et al. (2006): 297.

38

self-awareness (using knowledge about yourself to deal with difficult situations), self-

respect (confidence in what you think, feel, and do), interaction (how effectively you

communicate with people), empathy (being able to see and feel things from other

people’s points of view), adaptability (how fast you can adjust to new situations and

norms), certainty (the ability to do things opposite to what you feel), initiative (being

open to new situations), and acceptance (being tolerant or accepting of unfamiliar things)

(2001: 46).

Brislin (1989: 442-443) believes that effects of intercultural training can be

noticed on three different levels. The first level is the one of cognitions and includes a

greater understanding of the other person from his or her point of view. Moreover the

trainee is able to look beyond stereotypes and to identify the source of misunderstandings

in intercultural situations. The second level is the one of affect and includes a greater

enjoyment and a decrease of anxiety while communicating with people from a different

culture. Brislin argues that the final level is the one of behaviour and includes better

coping with cross-cultural adjustment and better working relationships. When we set

these three different targets of training against three different levels of trainee

involvement we get nine different approaches to cross-cultural training (see appendix 2).

The three involvement levels range ‘from passive reception of knowledge through very

active collaboration with the trainers.’ (ibidem: 444). Brislin (ibidem: 445) states that an

intercultural training program should integrate all three targets and that the program

should start with low-involvement activities after which trainers can proceed with

moderate involvement approaches and, if the trainer is experienced enough, high-

involvement activities. The key to a good intercultural training program according to

Brislin are qualified, knowledgeable and well prepared trainers.

There are also some academics who criticise the intercultural training programs,

like for example Holliday et al., who ironically call it a ‘culture shock prevention

industry’ (2004: 55). According to the authors these programs often exaggerate cultural

differences and seem to propagate stereotypes. This will lead to an approach in which

people are only looking for conformation of the characteristics the person from the other

culture is supposed to exhibit and thereby overlook any other characteristics that

disconfirm the stereotype (ibidem: 197). In addition Holliday et al. (ibidem: 62) believe

that these programs turn culture into a negative concept instead of a positive one, by

focusing on problems and misunderstandings due to cultural differences. In their

39

publication they offer some research tasks that should improve the reader’s noticing skills

and ‘strategies in undoing and dealing with essentialist cultural prejudices.’ (ibidem:

148).

In fact, often intercultural differences are not treated in relative but absolute terms

in simplistic intercultural training programs. According to Verluyten, these programs are

however most popular since it offers managers what they want, i.e. ‘the acquisition of

intercultural competency in a short time, with no pains and minimal effort.’ (2009: 238).

Hofstede refers to these kind of programs as the ‘fast food approach to intercultural

diversity and communication’ (quoted in Verluyten 2009: 238). According to Verluyten

(2009: 237) these kind of intercultural training programs may lead to inappropriate

attempts at adaptation strategies, such as: unnecessary or unwanted adaptation; reciprocal

adaptation, leading to reverse inadaptation; overadaptation and hypercorrection.

2.3.2 The impact of cultural aspects on negotiations

According to Ulijn and Strother ‘negotiation is a process in which two or more entities

discuss common and (apparently) different interests and objectives in order to reach an

agreement or a compromise (contract) in mutual dependence because they see benefits in

doing so.’ (quoted in Garzone: 63). According to the psychologist Roy J. Lewicki,28

negotiators are interdependent, i.e. they rely on the other party for attaining their own

goals. Jochen Rehbein29

explains that the communication in a negotiation is therefore

characterized by a cooperative oppositional structure, since the buyer wants to buy a

product for the lowest price possible from a seller who wants to sell his or her product for

the highest price possible. In this way negotiation ‘is a device which is an auxiliary

communicative gadget to the selling-buying pattern, in short an ‘auxiliary device’ for

processing the pattern in a way which is successful for participants.’ (Rehbein 2001: 174-

175). The auxiliary device of negotiation triggers the repetitiveness of the rounds of

28

Lewicki, R.J. (1983), “Lying and Deception. A Behavioral Model”, in Bazerman, M.H, Lewicki, R.J.

eds. (1983), negotiating in organizations, London, Sage Publications: 68. 29

Rehbein, J. (2001), “Intercultural Negotiation”, in Di Luzio, A., Günthner S., Orletti, F. (2001), Culture

in Communication. Analyses of Intercultural Situations, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 174.

40

offering (by the seller) and bidding (by the buyer), i.e. ‘the traditional pattern of buying

and selling.’ (ibidem: 174).

Examining these definitions we can conclude that business negotiations are

transactional conversations, i.e. ‘conversations aimed at achieving some objective that is

external to the communicative exchange’ (Garzone 2003: 52). Garzone explains that

cultural diversity can have a big impact on the negotiation, since ‘any disturbance in

communication due to linguistic and cultural problems may result in evident and tangible

damage, e.g. the failure to close a deal or conclude a commercial agreement.’ (ibidem:

53). Negotiation styles differ across cultures and it is difficult to change the negotiating

behaviour you are familiar with. According to the model Weiss and Stripp (quoted in

Garzone: 63-65) put forward, culture may have impact on twelve different aspects of a

negotiation:

1. Basic concept of the negotiation process: distributive bargaining (oriented towards

unilateral benefit), joint problem-solving, debate, contingency bargaining

(integrative or distributive according to the issue) and/or nondirective discussion

2. Most significant type of issue: substantive (e.g. price), relationship-based (e.g.

mutual trust), procedural (structure of discussions) and/or personal-internal (e.g.

respect within one team)

3. Selection of negotiators: knowledge, negotiating experience, personal attributes

and/or status

4. Individuals’ aspirations: individual – community

5. Decision-making in groups: authoritative – consensus

6. Orientation toward time: monochronic – polychronic

7. Risk-taking propensity: high – low

8. Bases of trust: external sanctions, other’s reputation, intuition and/or shared

experience

9. Concern with protocol: informal – formal

10. Communication complexity: high – low (similar to the notion of high and low

context communication of Hall (1990))

11. Nature of persuasion: direct experience, logic, tradition, dogma, emotion and/or

intuition

41

12. Form of agreement: contractual (i.e. written and legally binding) – implicit (i.e.

orally)

According to Lewicky (1983: 86), apart from these negotiation aspects culture may also

influence what is considered appropriate behaviour during a negotiation in terms of

strategies and tactics, i.e. what are the normative rules for ethical and unethical

behaviour. Garzone (2003: 73) explains that when the behaviour of the negotiators does

not meet the expectations of the other party this may have a disturbing effect and even

impede a positive outcome of the negotiation. In this case we could say that a culture

bump has taken place. Bolman and Deal use the metaphor of theatre in order to explain

this situation: ‘negotiation is a carefully crafted ritual that delivers the performance

various audiences demand. […] In theater actors who deviate from the script disrupt

everyone else’s ability to deliver their lines.’ (2008: 305). Of course culture is not the

only aspect which influences the outcome of intercultural negotiations; Leonald

Greenhalgh and Scott A. Neslin,30

both professors of business administration, explain that

other factors interfere, such as the situational power of respectively the seller and the

buyer and individual skills and characteristics of the negotiators.

We will now focus on some particular domains in which cultural differences may

lead to misunderstandings during an intercultural negotiation, namely: language,

nonverbal communication, time, space and etiquette.

Language

According to Jandt, language is ‘a set of symbols shared by a community to communicate

meaning and experience.’ (2001: 126). Yule (2006: 11) states that we do not inherit the

language of our parents, but instead acquire our first language in a culture. Hoffman

(2002: 171) therefore claims that the vocabulary of our language reflects cultural

elements like the perception of reality, the social structure of the community and kinship

relationships. According to Garzone (2003: 54) language is one of the major areas where

problems may arise, not only due to different native languages but also because of the

30

Greenhalgh, L., Neslin S.A. (1983), “Determining Outcomes of Negotiations. An Empirical

Assessment”, in Bazerman, M.H, Lewicki, R.J. eds. (1983), negotiating in organizations, London, Sage

Publications: 129-130.

42

fact that different cultures have different normative expectations of interpersonal

communication. On the other hand, Verluyten (2009: 95) believes that language problems

are often quite easily recognized as such and therefore less difficult to overcome.

According to Garzone (2003: 66-67), there are three possible types of interaction

when we look at the linguistic competence of the negotiators. In the first one the language

in which the negotiation takes place is the native language of one of the participants,

while it is a second language for the other party. In this case their command of the

language is unequal. In the second type of interaction the negotiators use a language that

is a second language for both of them, i.e. an interlanguage. Often there is an unequal

command of the language also in this case. In the last type of interaction an interpreter is

used by one or both of the parties. Garzone explains that if the participants of the

interaction have an unequal command of the language used for the negotiation, this leads

to asymmetry in the interaction, i.e. ‘a situation where participants have unequal access to

interactional power with no equal rights and obligations in communication’ (ibidem: 73-

74). But even when all negotiators speak the same language and have an equal command

of it, communication problems may occur due to different behavioural expectations. For

example, people may have different strategies for various speech acts, such as apologies

or complaints.

Foreign language. Verluyten (2009: 95) believes that knowing your interlocutor’s

language may be quite rewarding, since it may lead to a friendlier relationship. However,

according to Yule (2006: 163-164) very few people reach a native-like proficiency in

using a foreign language, and even if they do they will never sound just like native

speakers, since the “correct” pronunciation is learned at a very early age. Yule states that

there are three different components of communicative competence when using a foreign

language. The first one is grammatical competence, i.e. ‘the accurate use of words and

structures.’ (ibidem: 169). The second is sociolinguistic competence and indicates ‘the

ability to use appropriate language’ (ibidem). The last is strategic competence and refers

to ‘the ability to organize a message effectively and to compensate, via strategies, for any

difficulties.’ (ibidem). According to Verluyten, in case one speaks the foreign language

very well, two kinds of problems may arise, namely:

43

Native speakers may assume that they can treat you as just another native speaker,

but even after years of study this is not likely to be the case, and sometimes they will

lose you when they use language-specific expressions […]

Native speakers may assume that, with a thorough knowledge of their language, you

also became familiar with all aspects of their culture (2009: 96).

In fact, according to Bertha Du-Babcock and Richard D. Babcock, both professors of

business management, people who only partially speak the foreign language may ‘be

more effective as their encoded blunt or “rude” messages are more likely to be tolerated

and attributed to their language deficiencies than would be the case for full bilinguals’.31

English. Throughout history different languages have been used in order to do

business with foreign people. Palmer-Silveira et al. state that nowadays ‘English is the

lingua franca of business for the communication between people with different mother

tongues and different cultures’ (2006: 10). Leena Louhiala-Salminen and Mirjaliisa

Charles,32

both researchers in English Business Communication, explain that a lingua

franca is used by non-native speakers who have to communicate for a specific goal, and

that it is used in a somewhat reduced form with respect to the original native speaker

usage. According to Jandt (2001: 160), in 1990 approximately 750 million people in the

world spoke English, which means one in every seven people. It is the native language of

12 countries, an official language in 33 other countries and widely studied in another 56

countries. At this moment there are even more non-native than native speakers of English

and approximately 80% of the communication that takes place in English is without any

native speaker. In fact Palmer-Silveira et al. (2006: 10) state that within the European

Union English is the language used in most international meetings. Frank van Meurs et

al. explain that English is used for example ‘in Italy between an Italian company and its

international distributors […] and in in-company communication in the Dutch division of

a multinational company, for instance in e-mails’. 33

Verluyten (2009: 96-97) lists some precautions that can be taken when using

English in international business in order to avoid misunderstandings:

31

Du-Babcock B., Babcock, R.D. (2006), “Developing Linguistic and Cultural Competency in

International Business Communication”, in Palmer-Silveira et al. (2006): 74. 32

Louhiala-Salminen L., Charles M. (2006), “English as the Lingua Franca of IBS”, in Palmer-Silveira et

al. (2006): 30. 33

Van Meurs, F., Korzilius H., Den Hollander A. (2006), “The Persuasive Effect of the Use of English in

External Business Communication on Non-Native Speakers of English: an Experimental Case Study of the

Impact of the Use of English on a Dutch Job Site”, in Palmer-Silveira et al. (2006): 140.

44

- Speak slowly and clearly and eliminate background noise.

- Avoid long sentences and complicated syntax.

- Repeat the same information more than once, paraphrasing it in a different way or

with different words. Summarise periodically what has been said and discussed, and

check for understanding frequently.

- Avoid idiomatic expressions, proverbs and expressions that refer to culture-specific

features.

According to Louhiala-Salminen and Charles (2006: 34), the competence of lingua

franca users generally varies and, together with the cultural background and

communicative goal, this proficiency influences the communication process. Balboni

(2007: 88) explains that since the pronunciation of English words almost always happens

according to the rules of the native language of the speaker, even when talking English

two people coming from different countries may have some difficulties in understanding

each other.

Direct and indirect communication. Some cultures (especially the individualistic

ones) prefer directness and open criticism, while others (most collectivistic cultures)

favour harmony and therefore indirect communication. Direct speech may be seen as

impolite by people who prefer indirect speech, which in turn may seem vague or unsure

to someone used to direct speech. According to Yule (2006: 120) it is important to

recognize these differences and to focus on the meaning of the message instead of on the

way it is said. Verluyten (2009: 123) explains that people coming from cultures that

value indirect speech may avoid giving a direct negative response, but convey this in a

implicit way. For instance, in Asia a gentle smile may hide disagreement in a

negotiation, while a westerner would mistakenly attribute the meaning of agreement to

this kind of behaviour. Since a high amount of the meaning of a message is conveyed

with the use of nonverbal signals in cultures of indirect speech, according to Verluyten

business will almost always be conducted face-to-face in these countries and not over the

telephone.

Politeness and face. According to Bowe and Martin (2007: 26), to be polite means

to know which style of communication to use with varying levels of familiarity and/or

formality, in different types of situations and relatively to the age and/or gender of your

45

interlocutor. Not only do cultures have different ways to mark politeness, also the

function of these politeness expressions may differ consistently. Garzone (2003: 185)

therefore states that apart from the decision the be more or less polite, one should also

take into consideration the different forms through which politeness could be expressed.

Holliday et al. (2004: 185) claim that the mere fact that a certain culture uses politeness

markers like ‘please’ more often than another culture, does not mean that the people

belonging to the first culture are more polite and respectful than the people belonging to

the other culture. People from both cultures are simply using the communicative patterns

they are socialized with.

Politeness is strongly related to the concept of “face”, i.e. the public self-image,

which was elaborated by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson.34

The authors explain

that in being polite, one shows consideration for the other person’s face. A face-

threatening act on the other hand, threatens the self-image of the hearer or the speaker

him- or herself, and in this case politeness strategies should be used in order to reduce the

possible loss of face. Whether or not a certain act is considered as face-threatening is

culturally determined and correlated with the social importance given to distance and

power. Yule explains that face can refer to negative and positive face: ‘negative face is

the need to be independent and free from imposition. Positive face is the need […] to be a

member of the group.’ (2006: 119-120). Bowe and Martin (2007: 37) claim that the

suggestion of Brown and Levinson that there is a direct link between directness and

politeness has been criticised. An indirect speech act is not necessarily more polite than a

direct one, as this differs from culture to culture.

Loudness. Verluyten (2009: 102) claims that the average loudness of voice is

determined by culture and that often this may lead to attribution errors: people may be

seen as aggressive or obnoxious when they speak louder than usual, or on the other hand

they may seem shy or unsure when they speak with a lower voice than someone is used

to. Correlated with this aspect is the use of under- and overstatements. According to

Verluyten (ibidem: 103-104), people that speak in a very low voice, like South East

34

Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1978), “Universals in language use: politeness phenomena”, in Goody, E.

(1978), Questions and politeness: strategies in social interaction, London, CUP.

46

Asians, usually tend to understate their point, while people with a higher loudness of

voice, like for example Americans, tend to overstate their point.

Terms of address. Bowe and Martin state that terms of address have different

functions across cultures, but usually ‘reflect the relationship between the individual and

their social context.’ (2007: 95). Terms of address can be first and last names, pronouns,

titles, kinship terms etc. The naming system a society uses reflects important aspects of

that culture. Most languages have two different pronouns for the second-person, like in

Italian ‘tu’ and ‘Lei’ and in Dutch ‘jij’ and ‘U’. According to Bowe and Martin (ibidem:

96-98), which pronoun is used is determined by the status of the interlocutors and their

degree of intimacy. In English, where this distinction has been lost, other aspects of

grammar can be used to indicate the degree of formality.

Balboni (2007: 97-98) claims that in some cultures (e.g. Mediterranean ones)

polite naming strategies involve the use of titles in various situations, while in others (e.g.

Anglo-Saxon ones) titles are used in a very limited way and familiarity is considered

more important and/or polite than distance. These cultures may shift to the first name

quite quickly when addressing someone during a negotiation or business encounter, while

for other cultures (like the Chinese culture) this is inacceptable behaviour that causes

great embarrassment and discomfort. Bowe and Martin (2007: 110) explain that titles are

part of the honorific register which is traditionally used to convey honour or to show

respect and deference. Every language has different methods to indicate honorific

language, not only with the use of terms of address but also with the choice of other word

classes like verbs and adverbs (as in the Japanese language).

Taboos. In addition one should also be careful with regard to the choice of topic

and with the words one uses. For example, Verluyten (2009: 100) claims that in some

cultures words may have a symbolic meaning and according to the people coming from

that culture they can actually influence reality and affect events. According to Balboni

(2007: 29) there are three universal taboos: secretions of the human body, “eros” and

“thanatos”, i.e. discourse about sexual intercourse and illness or death. Apart from these

universal taboos every culture has its own taboos and in intercultural encounters one

should be careful not to bring up a topic which is a taboo in the culture where the other

47

interlocutor comes from, since this may be offending and/or lead to a breakdown of

communication.

Nonverbal communication

According to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2006: 99) at least 75 percent of all

communication is nonverbal. Nonverbal communication can happen consciously but also

unconsciously. The authors argue that in most cases nonverbal communication underlines

the information that is transmitted verbally, but sometimes nonverbal and verbal

information contradict each other. In this case people tend to rely (unconsciously) on the

information that has been provided by the means of nonverbal communication.

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (ibidem) state that it is easy to misinterpret the

nonverbal communication of someone that does not share your cultural background, since

nonverbal communication is, just like verbal communication, largely culture-specific. An

example from my own experience is that when a Dutch person wants to beckon another

person, he or she uses the exact same gesture a southern Italian would use to wave

someone goodbye.

Gestures. According to Verluyten (2009: 130), we can make a distinction between

emblems and gestures. Emblems are symbolic signals with a conventionalized meaning

and therefore they do not depend on speech (for example “thumbs up”). While we may

find the same emblems in different cultures, the meaning of a single emblem may differ

strongly. Verluyten explains for example that forming a circle with the thumb and

forefinger, may mean “okay” in America, “zero” in some European countries and

“money” in Japan. The same emblem may even have a different meaning within one

country, which is the case for example in Italy where emblems differ in the North and the

South. Gestures on the other hand, accompany speech and do not have a fixed meaning of

themselves. According to Yule we can also make a distinction between different kinds of

gestures: iconics ‘are gestures that seem to be a reflection of the meaning of what is said’;

deictics are gestures we use to point at objects while we are talking; finally, beats are

gestures that ‘accompany the rhythm of talk and are often used to emphasize parts of

what is being said’ (2006: 173).

48

Eye contact. Verluyten (2009: 132-133) states that the duration of eye contact

varies across cultures. He argues that many western cultures value sustained eye contact

during conversation and that avoiding eye contact in these cultures may be seen as a sign

that you have got something to hide, are rude or not interested. In many Asian cultures

however, it is a sign of respect to lower one’s eyes when talking with someone socially

superior. According to Verluyten sustained eye contact will be seen as an invasion of the

private sphere in these cultures and as a sign of rudeness or even threatening.

Emotions. In their publication on emotions in intercultural communication, David

Matsumoto et al.35

state that the various roles, displays, and antecedents of emotions

differ significantly from culture to culture, just like the perceived intensity and duration

of the emotion and the nonverbal and verbal reactions to it. Even though the expression

of emotions is culturally determined, Schermer (2008: 224) argues that there are six

emotions of which the facial expressions are universally identified: anger, happiness,

sadness, surprise, fear and disgust. According to Hecht et al. (1989: 171), in

individualistic cultures individual freedom is valued highly and therefore also the

expression of the own emotions. Individuals in collectivistic cultures however, may

suppress emotional display that is contrary to the mood of the group. Moreover, the

appropriateness to show emotions during business meetings differs across cultures.

Clothing. According to Balboni (2007: 72), the clothes we chose to wear

communicate our view of the relationship we have with the interlocutor and whether or

not we consider the encounter informal or formal. For instance, in case a businessman

takes of his jacket, this may mean he wants to pass from a formal to a more informal

register. In addition, Balboni argues that in some cultures it is considered normal to

exhibit wealth and/or social differences with the means of status symbols, like expensive

watches or designer clothes, whereas in other cultures it is not approved to demonstrate

how rich you are.

35

Matsumoto, D., Wallbott, H.G., Scherer, K.R. (1989), “Emotions in Intercultural Communication”, in

Asante, M.K., Gudykunst, W.B. eds. (1989), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication,

London, Sage Publications: 225.

49

Time

As Verluyten states time ‘underlies human activity in a broad variety of ways.’ (2009:

65). We can also note aspects of time in the conversation, for example with turn-taking,

acquiescing and the tolerance of silence.

Turn-taking. According to Verluyten (ibidem: 67), turn-taking during a

conversation is one of the aspects of communication that is strongly affected by culture,

and this is complicated even more by the fact that turn-taking mechanisms are largely

unconscious. In some cultures people expect turns to alternate orderly and for this reason

only one person speaks at a time. In case two persons speak at the same time, one of them

will usually stop almost immediately. Verluyten (ibidem: 68) argues that the speaker will

signal a completion point when he or she wants to indicate that he or she finished

speaking and someone else may take the turn. The completion point can consist out of

asking a question, for example, or pausing after the last sentence. In my experience, the

duration of this pause also differs across cultures, as in some cultures the pause between

the end of the speaker’s turn and the beginning of the turn of another speaker is

significantly shorter with respect to other cultures. It is also possible for the listeners to

indicate they want to take the turn, for example with the use of facial expressions or short

sounds. In other cultures it may be normal for turns to be interrupted more often and

sometimes turns may overlap when two persons talk at the same time. It is also possible

that someone extends his or her own turn and in this way obligates the others to keep

listening to him or her. According to Yule (2006: 128), when the conventions of turn-

taking differ it is easy for participants to misinterpret the intentions of the other party and

consider someone shy when he or she keeps waiting for an opportunity to take turns or

rude when someone keeps interrupting the person that is talking at that moment.

Acquiescing. Verluyten (2009: 65) explains that this term is used to define the

feedback signals the listener provides to the speaker in order to show that he or she is

following the discourse of the speaker. The producing of backchannel signals in itself is a

universal aspect in human communication, but the way it is carried out differs strongly

across cultures along with the frequency with which people acquiesce. According to

Verluyten (ibidem: 66), people are not conscious of their own acquiescing frequency nor

50

are they aware of the fact that people from other cultures have a different acquiescing

frequency, even if they might notice that there is something ‘weird’ going on during the

conversation. Verluyten argues that different acquiescing frequencies may lead to

attribution mistakes when people are not made aware of them. In this way someone

communicating with a person from another culture that has a lower acquiescing rate may

mistakenly believe this person is not paying attention to what he or she is saying. When

on the other hand someone is acquiescing at a higher frequency this may mistakenly be

interpreted as agreeing, while the person may only be showing his or her full attention.

According to Bowe and Martin (2007: 66-67), the way in which people acquiesce also

differs, some examples of acquiescing are:

- small sounds like ‘mm’ or ‘yeah’

- head nods or shakes

- sentence completion

- request for clarification

- brief repetition

In addition the speaker may expect the listener to acquiesce in specific moments.

Tolerance of silence. Verluyten (2009: 69-70) argues that some cultures tolerate

and value positively long periods of silence during a conversation, while others feel

uneasy even when there is just a short moment of silence. The author explains that in

countries like China or Japan it is normal for people to stay in silence also during a

negotiation, in order to reflect for example on an offer that has been made. People coming

from cultures that do not tolerate such long periods of silence (like most western

countries) will often see this silence as a form of rejection of the offer and maybe even

lower their price before their interlocutors have given a response to the first offer. In this

way the unawareness of cultural differences may cost a company quit some money.

According to Jandt (2001: 116) silence may communicate very different things in

different cultures, like embarrassment, respect, repressed hostility, contemplation,

agreement or disagreement.

Structure of events. In my experience, different cultures structure certain events in

a very different way. In addition the degree of punctuality may vary across cultures: in

some cultures there is a significant time lag between the stated time and the actual

51

starting time of an event. According to Verluyten (2009: 73) the structure of a negotiation

consists out of the following four subcomponents:

a. getting acquainted with the other party

b. negotiating and consulting

c. deciding

d. implementing the decision.

Verluyten (ibidem: 73-75) explains that the parties may have different expectations of

every singular phase of the negotiation and this may lead to miscommunication. The

subcomponents that are considered most important and the time invested into the several

parts of the negotiation also differ depending on the culture. For example, Verluyten

argues that in some Arab cultures, the first part of getting acquainted may last for weeks,

while other cultures (like the Dutch one) may consider this part of the negotiation as

relatively unimportant and therefore dedicate only a couple of minutes to it. These

cultures may be considered extremely cold and impersonal in countries where getting

acquainted and building up trust is essential in a business relation.

Verluyten further states that the second part of the negotiating itself can be

structured in two different ways, namely by “zooming in” or “zooming out”. With

zooming in you ‘start with the general idea and then gradually move towards closer

detail’, while with zooming out you ‘start with the details and work your way up to the

general agreement.’ (ibidem: 76). Different views on the negotiation process may cause

frustration and irritation. According to Verluyten (ibidem: 77), westerners generally

would like to get straight to the point, while for example Japanese circle around the core

issue in order to avoid direct disagreement and preserve harmony.

The author (ibidem: 79) explains that the third part of the decision may take the

form of a contract, but also an oral agreement or a handshake. The interpretation of a

contract may also vary, since some cultures find it legally binding while others consider it

not as a final agreement but as a mere declaration of mutual cooperation.

Verluyten (ibidem: 79-81) claims that the final part of implementing the decision

may also lead to some problems if, for example, a western culture would like it to start as

soon as possible while the counterpart is more flexible and considers a deadline for

completion more as a guideline that can change according to the circumstances.

52

Space

Interpersonal distance. According to Verluyten (ibidem: 91), the distance you keep while

conversing with another person depends on several parameters, such as the degree of

intimacy you have with that person, age and gender, but also on your cultural

background. Generally speaking people from countries in the Middle East stand closest,

followed respectively by Latin countries, Northern America, Northern Europeans and

Asian countries. Verluyten states that even though people are usually not aware what

interpersonal distance is normal for them, they maintain this distance with incredible

accuracy. When two people from different cultures meet this aspect may lead to some

irritation or even to a breakdown of communication. Verluyten (ibidem: 92) argues that

attribution mistakes may be made when someone comes closer than the other person is

used to, since he or she may see this behaviour as intruding, pushy or even aggressive. On

the other hand when someone maintains a larger distant than usual, the other might

consider this behaviour cold or reserved. According to the author (ibidem: 93), in cultures

with a relatively small interpersonal distance, it is usually much more accepted to touch

your interlocutor. South East Asian cultures that have a large interpersonal distance

almost never touch one another during an interaction.

Etiquette

According to Verluyten (ibidem: 135), etiquette consists out of arbitrary conventions that

are by no means universal. Since it is a visible and often conscious aspect of culture,

according to the author it is usually quite easy to understand what is appropriate

behaviour and what is not. In my opinion it might be easy to understand the appropriate

behaviour in a certain culture, but to adapt one’s own behaviour to the norms of that

culture is quite difficult, since most of these actions (like for example greetings) are

carried out automatically. Therefore, it is necessary to make a conscious effort in order to

change the behaviour one is used to into the behaviour that is appropriate in the other

culture.

53

Greetings. Verluyten (ibidem: 136) states that the exchange of greetings is a

universal phenomena, but the way in which it is carried out is culture-specific. Other

factors, like the social relationship and the context may influence the form of greeting.

People might take a bow, nod with the head, hug each other or shake hands, and even

here the duration of the handshake differs across cultures. Farewells are influenced by

culture as well, along with other factors like the degree of intimacy and the expected time

apart.

Gift giving. Verluyten (ibidem: 137) argues that in most western countries this is

not a very important aspect of a business relation and the value of business gifts is

relatively limited. In some Asian cultures however, giving gifts is an important element in

building up a good business relation and there are specific rules for what is considered an

appropriate gift and sometimes even for the wrapping of the gift. According to Balboni

(2007: 81) in some cultures gifts need to be opened immediately in front of the person

who gave the present, while people in other cultures leave the present unopened and only

unwrap it when everyone else is gone.

Dinner. Verluyten (2009: 138) states that in some cultures business dinners have

an important role in establishing a business relation and in this case he advises to inform

oneself on the table manners and the eating and drinking habits of that specific culture.

For example, Balboni (2007: 131) argues that in some cultures it might be rude to leave

some food on your plate, while in other cultures this is seen as a sign of wealth. In my

opinion, when one party expects an extensive lunch or dinner before the actual

negotiation and the other party favours a quick sandwich, problems may also arise.

According to Balboni (ibidem: 132), the question as to who is expected to pay for the

dinner may also differ across cultures: sometimes the hosts pay everything while in other

cases everyone pays for themselves.

54

3. Characteristics of the Dutch culture

In this chapter I will summarize the main characteristics of the Dutch culture, focusing in

particular on those aspects that may influence the behaviour of Dutch businessmen during

negotiations. As we have seen in the previous chapter, individuals that belong to a certain

culture will never behave in exactly the same way. In her publication on the Dutch

culture Sheryl Buckland therefore states: ‘For every description of a “typical Dutch

person in a typical situation” there will be somebody who behaves quite differently.’36

However, she also believes that there are some national characteristics to be found in the

Dutch culture and that a certain degree of generalisation is inevitable in describing a

specific culture. These national characteristics may not be static, but nor do they change

overnight. We will now have a closer look at these characteristics of the Dutch culture.

According to Hofstede a Dutch company will exhibit features of what he calls ‘the

village market’. This organizational model is to be found in cultures with a small power

distance and a weak uncertainty avoidance. In the village market ‘there will be few pre-

set rules and procedures, and many problems will be settled pragmatically, on a case-by-

case basis, through discussion, on an equal footing, between those who have a conflict or

disagree.’ (Hofstede quoted in Verluyten 2009: 189). According to Verluyten (2009: 206-

207), this means that the job of a Dutch boss is to organize and create consensus among

the employees in order to safeguard harmony, and not to order people around. For this

reason strikes and open conflicts are very rare phenomena in Dutch organizations. In case

a conflict or problem arises this will be resolved with a debate and every individual

involved has the right to express his or her opinion before any decision is made.

Openness is extremely valued in the workplace; social hierarchy in organizations

and in the Dutch society in general is weak. According to anthropologist and cross-

cultural trainer Jacob Vossestein, employees holding lower positions within a Dutch

company are therefore not seen as ‘inferiors who only do what their boss tells them to.’37

This is reflected by the position of the Dutch culture on Hofstede’s power distance index

(1991: 41); with a score of 38 the Netherlands is listed fortieth on a total of 53 countries

36

Buckland, S. (2006), Netherlands, Rijswijk, Elmar B.V.: 8. 37

Vossestein, J. (2001), Dealing with the Dutch, Amsterdam, Kit Publishers: 51.

55

(see appendix 3). According to Vossestein (2001: 54) examples of egalitarianism in

companies are the company council and collective labour agreements. Of course in Dutch

society hierarchical relationships do exist and people are aware of them, but they try hard

not to make that awareness too obvious (ibidem: 29).

Dutch society is universalistic, which means that the rules and norms apply to

everyone in the same way. Equal rights for all citizens is very important in the Dutch

culture and so is the right to express one’s opinion. For this reason Buckland states that

‘children are taught to express their opinions and to feel that they have a right to be

heard.’ (2006: 54). Vossestein (2001: 53) explains that employees demand a say in the

affairs of the company and will speak up in case they do not agree with the way things

are going. Communication is therefore very direct in the Netherlands and does not

conceal anything. According to a Dutch expression, it is recht door zee (i.e.

“straightforward”). In addition, Schermer (2008: 174) claims that people should be able

to talk about everything in the Netherlands and that taboos are almost inexistent. I believe

that this frankness and openness might be hard to handle for someone with a different

cultural background, especially if it is taken as criticism instead of as a comment.

According to Buckland (2006: 59), the Dutch generally also prefer other people to tell

them what they really think and might consider people from other cultures as excessively

polite, vague or false.

According to Buckland (ibidem: 55-56), egalitarianism can also be found in

another aspect of the Dutch culture: Dutch people do not constantly try to prove their

success to the people around them and if someone tries to be better than the rest (at

school or at work) he or she will almost always be frowned upon. This also involves the

purchase of luxury goods and status symbols, which is seen as exaggerated and

unnecessary, even for the boss of an organization. In my opinion, a typical Dutch saying

reflects this attitude: Doe maar gewoon, dat is al gek genoeg!, which means ‘Just act

normal, that’s strange enough!’. Trying to get yourself noticed with a certain behaviour

implies you feel superior in some way, which is inacceptable since nobody is better than

anybody else.

In fact, Verluyten believes that the Dutch culture shows a ‘tendency towards

levelling, i.e. towards behaving like everyone else rather than trying to stand out and be

56

the best.’ (2009: 187). Vossestein calls this ‘low profile behaviour’ and adds that ‘[i]f

people do indeed occupy a high place in society they shouldn’t openly pride themselves

on it, while those in more lowly positions have the right to speak up, too.’ (2001: 29).

Businessmen occupying a high position should therefore not expect any privileges or

more respect than other staff members. This is all reflected by the low score on the

masculinity index of Hofstede (1991: 111); the Netherlands is ranked fifty-first of the 53

countries surveyed and has a score of only 14 (see appendix 4). Buckland (2006: 55)

therefore states that Dutch people do not live to work, but work to live and possibly the

only taboo in Dutch conversation is the topic of one’s income and personal finances.

According to Vossestein (2001: 82) status at work is achieved by one’s own performance

and not acquired through inherited assets. We can also see the levelling Verluyten talks

about in the tax system of the Netherlands, which tries to bring everyone to the middle

ground by taking more from the rich and less of the poorer citizens (ibidem: 31).

The low scores of the Netherlands on the masculinity as well as on the power

index show clearly in their business relationships. According to Schermer (2008: 174),

the Dutch are not afraid to show disagreement to their superiors and nobody in the

organization is seen as more important than anybody else. Buckland (2006: 142) explains

that this does not mean that Dutch employees do not respect their boss and senior staff,

but this respect is two-way. Using your superior position to your own advantage or

making decisions without consultation of the staff is not tolerated.

Vossestein (2001: 43) claims that Dutch colleagues tend to address each other by

their first name, but a new boss or costumer will be addressed by his or her last name,

which also implies the use of the formal pronoun “U” instead of the informal “je”. The

use of academic titles is limited to writing and usually does not occur in speech, since this

is seen as ‘boastful rather than respectable.’ (ibidem: 32). According to Vossestein

(ibidem: 48), Dutch people are oriented towards content and not form or ritual; a

characteristic that can be traced back to Protestant religion. Because of the fact that form

and ritual are not taken into much consideration, outward signs of respect are usually not

seen as important and opinions are expressed in a clear manner without any ‘obscuring or

disguising for the sake of politeness.’ (ibidem: 69). As Vossestein explaines:

57

the honesty and effectiveness of criticism and outspokenness is considered far more

important than the status of either the speaker or the person commented upon. As long as

basic standards of common decency are respected, anything goes – as long as it is likely

to lead to improvement (ibidem: 79).

Even though Dutch businessmen dress casually and address each other by their first

names, the context of doing business is quite a formal one and they adhere to the

conventions of business. According to Buckland, greetings consist of a firm handshake

and when businessmen from other countries come to visit, the Dutch company might give

them some gifts, which ‘are typically corporate gifts with the company logo.’ (2006: 89).

In my opinion, efficiency is an important value in Dutch organizations and comes

with great organizational skills. Most Dutch people are very precise and highly

structured, always applying the regulations and procedures. Dutch people prefer to come

to the point as quickly as possible, to receive simple, clear information and to set clear

objectives and targets. Order is also required in conversations and for this reason

overlapping turns and interruptions are not tolerated; one person speaks at a time and

turns alternate orderly from one speaker to another.

Even though there is a low tolerance of silence in Dutch conversation, in my

experience Dutch people prefer silence over small talk and believe that one should speak

only when he or she has something important (i.e. related to business matters) to say.

Small talk within business meetings is seen a waste of time, and time is money.

According to Buckland, punctuality is highly valued and ‘people plan their time carefully

and well in advance’, which means it is difficult to reschedule appointments (ibidem:

143). Since there is always work waiting, Vossestein (2001: 91) claims that long meals

are seen as a waste of time (and therefore money), which leads to the fact that Dutch

businessmen have the shortest lunch breaks in Europe. Meetings always have a fixed

agenda, specific aims and a clear timetable.

Verluyten (2009: 83) argues that the interpretation of time in economic terms and

the adherence to schedules and deadlines shows that the Dutch culture is a monochronic

one. Thus, time is seen as linear and separable and time commitments are taken very

seriously, sometimes at the cost of human relationships. In addition Dutch businessmen

tend to do one thing at a time and concentrate on the task at hand, not on the people

58

involved. As we have seen before they emphasise promptness and have a need to receive

concrete information, since their communication style is low-context.

Because of this promptness and the fact that time is money, according to

Vossestein (2001: 70) Dutch negotiators tend to take positive aspects quickly for granted

and focus almost immediately on the imperfections, which emphasizes their

straightforwardness and critical attitude. During negotiations they will focus on the

practical aspects, such as deadlines and prices, and they give great importance to the

following up of verbal and written agreements. Planning is relatively long-term oriented

and deals are closed for long-term profits, which is reflected by the score of the

Netherlands on the long-term orientation of Hofstede (1991: 209), on which they take the

tenth position out of 23 countries with a score of 44 (see appendix 5). Just like other

countries with a relatively high long-term orientation, there is a high amount of savings

and investments in the Netherlands (Vossestein 2001: 88).

On Hofstede’s index of the uncertainty avoidance dimension (1991: 145), the

Dutch culture takes the thirty-fifth position out of 53 countries with a score of 53 (see

appendix 6). This middle position is reflected by contrasting aspects in the Dutch

business world. On the one hand Vossestein claims that Dutch companies are run ‘in a

‘pro-active’ way’, which means that they ‘think in advance of every potential

development or mishap that might influence the outcome, so that you can immediately

react and adjust the plan to the new reality.’ (2001: 109). On the other hand Buckland

(2006: 143) states that Dutch people are flexible in moving from one company to another

and that they are rarely loyal to their company.

The Dutch culture scores very high on Hofstede’s individuality dimension (1991:

73); with a score of 80 it is listed on the fourth position out of 53 countries (see appendix

7). According to Schermer (2008: 174) this means that everyone is responsible for their

own deeds and is free to choice the education, job and partner he or she wants. Vossestein

states that Dutch people expect to be able to make their own decisions and dislike any

‘claims which infringe on their personal freedom’, including ‘social niceties and

conventions about dress, and the possible demands which dealing with hierarchy might

impose.’ (2001: 117). Since content is considered more important than external aspects,

people should be free to dress the way they want. With regard to the theory of Pinto

59

(1994) we can define the Dutch culture as a G-culture; people are free to choose their

own symbols, heroes and rituals (Schermer 2008: 174).

In my experience emotions are generally not shown in public in the Netherlands

and people who do show emotions might be looked at with embarrassment or scepticism.

According to the cultural model of Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2006), we may

therefore define the Dutch culture as neutral. According to Buckland, even expressions of

great enjoyment might be taken ‘as an indication of insincerity and superficiality, rather

than as a genuine expression of pleasure’ (2006: 58), just like a high degree of familiarity

from someone who does not know them well will almost certainly make a Dutch person

suspicious. Excessive compliments will also make the Dutch feel uneasy and suspicious,

since they themselves are always focused on imperfections and nothing is ever seen as

perfect. Vossestein (2001: 70) therefore claims that the use of superlatives is very

restricted in the Netherlands.

According to Buckland, Dutch people feel that emotions and intuition should be

left out even more in business situations, since they ‘are regarded as inimical to clear,

rational, decision-making.’ (2006: 148). Businessmen should be able to make decisions

relying on figures, facts and logical arguments and not on sentiments. The strong

opinions of the Dutch are therefore expressed in a non-emotional manner and they will

almost never use dramatic gestures or raise their voice in order to get their point through,

since this will only undermine their point of view in the eyes of their Dutch colleagues.

As Vossestein states, ‘a stern look, a hushed voice and restrained movements are the

norm’ (2001: 72).

According to Buckland (2006: 163), Dutch people keep their distance physically

and in business situations it is not considered normal to touch each other. They value eye

contact and will regard people as untrustworthy when they do not look them in the eye.

Space is usually not used to demonstrate status and even at meetings everyone may sit

where they want to.

Due to the specific nature of the Dutch culture, work and leisure time are strictly

separated. In addition, Vossestein (2001: 65) claims that the Dutch have a functional

approach to business relationships: they are seen as transactional relationships in which

personal characteristics are not of importance. It is therefore not necessary to like each

60

other personally in order to strike a deal; the Dutch are only interested in the product and

the price. Moreover a Dutch person will not necessarily feel offended when a colleague

openly criticizes his or her work, since the work and the person are not the same thing

and therefore the criticism will not be taken personally (ibidem: 73). In my opinion this

does not mean that criticism on work-related aspects will always leave a Dutch

businessman untouched, given that the criticism does concern the way in which he or she

performs his or her function within the company. There is however a general

understanding between Dutch colleagues that criticism should not be regarded as aimed

directly at the person.

According to Vossestein (2001: 9-10), Dutch people generally have a large

interest for other cultures and the Dutch society itself can be seen as multicultural, since

over 15% of the total population was not born in the Netherlands. In addition, the Dutch

economy is open and oriented towards the international market. There is a

disproportionately high number of Dutch multinational companies with respect to the

small area and population of the country (ibidem: 134). Vossestein claims that the

international orientation is reflected in numerous aspects of the Dutch society:

Dutch schools spend more teaching hours on foreign languages than any other European

nation, and foreign programmes on Dutch television – and there are plenty of them – are

broadcast in the original language, with subtitling. World geography is taught in all

schools and foreign news is reported in depth in the Dutch media (ibidem: 135-136).

For this reason Vossestein (ibidem: 141-142) states that Dutch people are usually good at

languages and that they have a particular good knowledge of English, followed by

German and French. In fact the use of English in the Netherlands is constantly increasing,

mainly in order to give advertising and education an image of cosmopolitanism. The

Dutch school system tries to prepare its students for their future careers by emphasizing

personal development and social participation. Facts and figures about Dutch culture and

history are not considered important in order to succeed in today’s society. Buckland

(2006: 79) claims that Dutch people will appreciate it if a foreigner tries to speak some

Dutch, but often they will switch immediately to English as soon as they understand they

are not dealing with a Dutch person.

61

To sum up Vossestein describes the main characteristics of the Dutch culture as

follows:

Egalitarianism: the idea that people are equal, especially from a moral point of view, and

accordingly, the somewhat ambiguous stance the Dutch have towards hierarchy and

status;

Directness and critical attitudes: the Dutch are never afraid to voice their many opinions

in clear terms;

Pragmatism and money-mindedness: a functional approach to life, with an eye open to

the financial aspects, but less so for more relationship-oriented matters; […]

Internationalism and openness: a trading nation that needs to face the world, and does

(2001: 13).

62

4. Characteristics of the Italian culture

In this chapter I will briefly indicate the main characteristics of the Italian culture that

may be of influence on the behaviour of Italians during business negotiations. According

to Jandt (2001: 461), Italy has an ethnically homogeneous culture, unlike most other

countries of the world. Italy might ethnically still be more homogeneous than other

European countries, but according to journalist Jan Van der Putten38

Italy too has become

a land of immigration and many migrants have arrived from North Africa, the Far East

and Central Europe.

On top of this, large cultural differences exist between the different Italian

regions, which makes it difficult to regard the Italian culture as homogenous. Hofstede

(1991: 59) for example states that a research in the different regions of Italy will probably

show that Northern Italy has a relatively lower power distance than Southern Italy. These

regional differences are a product of Italian history: intercultural trainer Charles Abbott

explains that Italy ‘was a land of separate, warring city-states, later ruled by other

European powers. Italy was not unified until 1861 and in a sense still has the feeling of a

“young” country, despite its antiquity.’39

As a consequence Italy is a country with distinct

regions, which each have their own dialects and cultural characteristics. There are

however some characteristics that can be found throughout the whole country and we will

now have a closer look at those characteristics of the Italian culture.

According to the journalist Maarten Veeger,40

the most important thing for an

Italian person is his or her family. Everyone is loyal to their family members, who can be

trusted and will always help you in times of need. This also shows in the Italian business

culture, which is dominated by small- and medium-sized family firms and has a very low

number of successful multinationals. Veeger (2006: 273) claims that this is probably due

to the personal nature of Italian business; managers want to control everything personally

without any delegation of responsibilities and for this reason it is impossible for a

company to grow. According to Abbott (2008: 45), small-sized companies make up for

38

Van der Putten, J. (1999), Italianen, Amsterdam, Mets: 95. 39

Abbott, C. (2008), Italy, London, Kuperard: 22. 40

Veeger, M. (2006), Een verleidelijk theater. Cultuurwijzer voor het Italiaanse leven, Amsterdam, Bert

Bakker: 273.

63

two thirds of the Italian economy and employment. Most of these companies are family-

owned and employ family and friends. When the owners of the company retire their

children will often take over business.

Abbott argues that the Italian culture has been largely shaped by the Catholic

Church, which has always stressed the importance of the family. The author claims that

‘[c]atholicism is an autocratic, top-down religion, with a hierarchy of authority’ (2008:

47). For this reason Italy has a deeply-ingrained social hierarchy which is not only

reflected in the family but also in the structure of Italian companies (even though family

and business often coincide). In fact, according to Hofstede the typical organizational

model for companies in countries like Italy, i.e. with a large power distance and a strong

uncertainty avoidance, is ‘the pyramid of people’. This model typifies organizations

‘where there is a clear hierarchical (pyramidal) structure and where, in case of conflict,

there is a procedure to refer decisions up to the person who is higher in the hierarchy’

(Hofstede quoted in Verluyten 2009: 190). Decisions are made at the top in Italy and to

get any business done you will need to speak to the director or president. The Italian

culture is ranked at the thirty-fourth position of Hofstede’s power distance index (1991:

41), with a score of 50 (see appendix 3). Related to the relatively high power distance is

the great disparity of income in Italy (Abbott 2008: 43). On the uncertainty avoidance

index on the other hand (Hofstede 1991: 145), Italy scores 75 and is listed twenty-third

(see appendix 6).

According to Abbott (2008: 48), the influence of the Catholic Church might have

you think that Italians are extremely moral, while in fact they are remarkably tolerant

with regard to subjects such as fraud or sexual infidelity and they believe that in the end

everyone is a sinner. The author argues that what actually matters is to keep up

appearances at all times and costs. While the Dutch culture emphasizes content, for the

Italians style and external appearances are of utmost importance. In my opinion this is

reflected by the Italian saying fare la bella figura, which means ‘to look good’ or ‘to

make a good impression’. This is paramount in Italian culture, as Abbott states: ‘in Italy

how you dress and act speaks volumes about you and it’s important to dress and act

correctly.’ (ibidem). Therefore, it is important to show off and to make sure people notice

your wealth and beauty. This aspect of the Italian culture is strongly related with the high

64

masculinity score on Hofstede’s index (1991:111): Italy has a score of 70 and takes the

fourth position (see appendix 4). Not without reason has the Italian culture and its

products been exported all over the world: According to Veeger (2006: 265) the label

“made in Italy” sells well, since it stands for innovation, good quality, trendiness, and

authenticity.

The strong social hierarchy and formality of the Italian culture are reflected in the

Italian language. Abbott (2008: 144) argues that Italians are usually quite formal at work

and will often use academic titles to address their business partners and colleagues. The

use of first names is very restricted in the office and the norm is therefore to address

colleagues by using their surname, which also involves the use of the formal pronoun

“Lei” instead of the informal “tu”. According to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner

(2006: 135), one gains status in the Italian culture mostly by ascription and not

achievement; age and experience are valued highly. With reference to the cultural theory

of Pinto (1994), the Italian culture can be categorized as a M-culture, i.e. a culture that

includes the underlying structures of both G- and F-cultures. However, in my opinion the

Italian culture shows more characteristics of F-cultures than characteristics of G-cultures.

According to Abbott (2008: 45), the Italian culture is particularistic, which means

that relational and situational factors are taken into account in decision-making and that

universal rules are not blindly applied. Hence, for each rule there can always be an

exception. Italians do not stick to the rules but often try to get around laws and edicts,

relying on a network of personal loyalty. According to Abbott (ibidem: 56) the only rules

that are rigidly observed are those concerning food and dress.

Abbott (ibidem: 132) argues that even managers routinely ignore procedures and

rules in order to get things done; an Italian manager should be flexible, creative and

pragmatic. He or she will work with employees he or she trusts rather than with more

qualified employees he or she does not consider reliable. Vice versa employees give

loyalty to their manager not because of the fact they have a contract, ‘but because they

personally support the boss’ (ibidem), which means that the manager should obtain

personal commitment from their staff. Managers should therefore also be reliable and

charismatic. In order to implement decisions, insistence and follow-up are necessary,

65

since instructions and procedures alone are not enough to get a project started; close

personal supervision is essential.

Clearly, the Italian culture is relationship-based and relationships are often the

only way to get something done, for example finding a job or closing a deal. Abbott

claims that Italians expect regular contact and consideration from their family and

friends, but also from their business relationships; ‘a relationship implies

responsibilities.’ (2008: 76). Forming a business relationship with Italians can be a very

slow and gradual process. Italians value hospitality but nevertheless will be very formal,

or at least during the first contacts. Because of their relationship-orientation, Abbott

(ibidem: 73) argues that Italians prefer face-to-face meetings over telephone calls, but a

telephone call is always better than an impersonal email. According to the author, in

doing business with Italians aspects such as ‘[d]oing favors for people, being charming,

and staying flexible are vital.’ (ibidem: 133). Italians prefer to do business with human

beings, not merely businessmen, and therefore focus on the personal relationship.

According to Van der Putten (1999: 394), in business negotiations decisions are

not merely based on figures and facts, but feeling and intuition are also important factors,

along with family considerations and personal connections. Initial decisions may always

change later on if the situational factors require to do so. Van der Putten argues that, in

order to come over as polite and friendly, Italians often promise more than they are

eventually able (or willing) to realise; a ‘yes’ may therefore not always mean ‘yes’, but

often should be seen as a ‘maybe’ or even a ‘no’. According to Abbott (2008: 131), even

though Italians look for solid business relationships, their goal is short-term consistent

profit. Italian companies seize opportunities and take risks, rather than planning on a

long-term basis. Italy was not part of the survey on long-term orientation, but I believe

that the Italian culture would probably have scored relatively low on this index, as Abbott

remarks: ‘Strategic planning is rare in Italian companies.’ (ibidem: 134). Since Italians

are spontaneous, in my experience they can be very flexible and inventive in difficult

situations and have a great ability to smooth them over.

According to Abbott (ibidem: 138), the Italian culture is diffuse, which means that

little distinction is made between the job and the employee. Criticism on the job will

therefore often be taken as personal criticism. As Abbott states: ‘Italians are not on the

66

whole confrontational, but may well hit back with everything they’ve got if criticized

directly.’ (ibidem). In my opinion criticism should therefore be delivered in an indirect

way and preferable with no other people around. It is possible to openly disagree with

someone, but this should be done in a polite (i.e. indirect) manner.

Abbott (ibidem: 139) argues that the communication style in Italy is generally

high-context, which means that the real issues are coded and in my experience this can

make it very difficult to interpret the subtle statements Italians make. Information is not

given in a clear explicit way, instead the message is delivered indirectly and can only be

understood by taking the situational factors into account. Abbott claims that Italians

usually have good speaking skills and are ‘long on rhetoric and ideas but often short on

facts.’ (ibidem). Their language use can be very intense and emotive and they will often

use body language in order to emphasize their point. According to Jandt (2001: 224),

Italy is a “contact culture”, which means that Italians display a high amount of

immediacy behaviour, such as touching, eye contact, close personal distance and vocal

animation. Opinions are therefore exchanged lively, in a relatively loud voice and with

many expressive gestures (Abbott 2008: 49). With reference to the cultural model of

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2006) we can state that the Italian culture is

emotional.

In building up a business relationship, Abbott says that it is normal to talk about

your company, your own background and your family, since this will show you have

social responsibilities and therefore a need to make business work (2008: 143). Hence,

small talk is considered an important aspect in establishing business relationships and

will take up a considerable part of the first meeting, leaving the details for a future

encounter. Given the fact that Italians have a very low tolerance of silence, small talk

often is also used whenever silences occur during a conversation. According to Abbott

(ibidem: 141) Italians may not always speak a foreign language and even if they do speak

English they often have a heavy accent. A senior Italian negotiator will therefore usually

bring an assistant who speaks English reasonably well to function as an interpreter during

the negotiation.

Abbott (ibidem: 94) argues that a good deal of business and getting to know each

other may also take place over dinner. Food and beverages are very important in the

67

Italian culture and each region has its own dishes and ingredients. Because of the rich

diversity between the Italian regions, ‘there are two thousand names for the huge variety

of pasta shapes, and more wine labels – at least four thousand – than anywhere else in the

world.’ (ibidem). Lunch is often seen as the main meal of the day and may even take a

couple of hours. According to Abbott (ibidem: 162), business is normally concluded

during a long lunch or a dinner during which not only business will be discussed. Italians

are usually highly cultured people who like to talk about subjects such as architecture,

literature, history and art, but also sports and local food and wine.

According to Verluyten (2009: 83), the Italian culture is not very time-conscious;

it is a polychronic culture geared towards the present and there is a limited economic

dimension of time. Related to the polychrony of Italian cultures is the fact that it is

acceptable for several people to speak at the same time and therefore for turns to overlap.

We can see this clearly in debates where participants are often fighting for attention on

the floor. Verluyten (ibidem) argues that even in meetings it is not considered rude for

people to talk all at once or even to take a telephone call in the room. Polychronic people

are generally used to doing many things at once and are highly distractible and subject to

interruptions.

According to Abbott (2008: 147), meetings normally do not have a formal

structure in Italy. However, I believe that nowadays agenda’s are used quite often, even

though it is not necessary to follow the points in order and the Italians may quickly go

from one item to the next and then return to a previous one. Since the Italian culture is

high-context most people know what items will be discussed during the meeting and the

decisions are often already made in the corridors before the actual meeting begins. Abbott

(ibidem) argues that time schedules and commitments are considered less important than

relationships and that plans may be changed often and easily according to the current

situation.

To sum up, business in Italy ‘has a strong social and presentational aspect’

(ibidem: 142). Italians are relationship-oriented and are therefore highly committed to the

people around them (may they be family, friends or business relationships). Even within

the business world, family is a very important factor in Italy. Italian organizations usually

have an authoritarian boss and a strong hierarchy. Formality and external appearances are

68

valued highly, which shows for example in the Italian language and clothing habits.

Because of the great importance that is given to personal connections, rules and time

commitments may not always be followed and adhered to.

69

5. Misunderstandings that may occur due to cultural and linguistic differences

during a negotiation between Dutch and Italian businessmen

According to Hofstede (1991: 183), the international cooperation within the European

Union suffers from problems due to strong cultural differences. As an example he states

that while some European cultures score very low on the power distance index and/or

uncertainty avoidance index, other European countries are in the top ranking of these

indexes. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2006: 20-21) too believe that there are

sharp differences within the borders of the European Union and especially between the

cultures of Northern West-Europe and the cultures of what they call Latin Europe. They

ascribe the values of analysis, logic and rationality to the cultures of Northern West-

Europe and intuition and ‘human related behaviour’ to the cultures of Southern Europe.

According to them, nowhere else in the world do cultures differ so much from one

another as they do in Europe. With regard to this aspect Vossestein quotes the thesis of a

Dutch scientist: ‘European unification might take a long time as long as Italian raincoats

are elegant and Dutch ones waterproof.’ (2001: 93).

When people state that cultures in the modern world are growing closer and

becoming ever more similar, Hofstede (1991: 226) thinks they base their ideas on

superficial practices like clothing and consummation. The underlying values are however

not taken into consideration, even though they determine the meaning people attribute to

those same superficial practices. According to Hoffman (2002: 32), because of the fact

that the practices of a culture represent the values and norms that lie underneath, people

may react very strongly to intercultural differences.

As we have seen before, intercultural negotiations bring together businessmen

with different languages and social conventions, which may for a large part be unfamiliar

to the other party. Both come to the negotiation with different expectations and strategies

and this may lead to tension or even conflict. I believe that what matters in intercultural

negotiations is not what one party shows and says, but how this is seen and heard by

other party.

In the previous two chapters we have seen the main characteristics of both the

Dutch and the Italian culture. Relying on the differences between these characteristics it

70

is possible to predict some sources of misunderstanding and/or conflict between Dutch

and Italian businessmen during a negotiation. We will now have a closer look at the main

sources of misunderstandings, using the dimensions of the cultural theories of Hofstede

(1991), Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2006), and Hall (1990). I should note that

not all dimensions are included; only those that may lead to misunderstandings or conflict

in a conversation between Dutch and Italians are listed. Most of these dimensions are

interrelated and sometimes partially overlap.

5.1 Hofstede’s cultural dimensions

Power distance. Mette Rudvin41

argues that in monocultural situations, interlocutors are

usually aware of the differences between them in terms of status and class and they will

change their communicative patterns accordingly. In bicultural situations however, the

hierarchical relationships may not be clear to all participants and the social and

communicative rules governing the encounter may differ significantly.

The Italian culture scores higher on the power distance index than the Dutch

culture (respectively a score of 50 and 38). According to Hofstede (1991: 182), it is easier

for someone coming from a culture with a smaller power distance to adjust to a culture

with a higher power distance than vice versa. Indeed, there may be some difficulties for

Italians when dealing with Dutch businessmen. For example, it might be hard for Italians

to know who to address during the negotiation, since the hierarchical roles of the Dutch

negotiators often will not be made explicit, while Balboni (2007: 124) argues that the

position of the Italian boss is usually made evident by factors such as table seating. In

addition, because of the low tolerance of hierarchy in the Dutch culture, orders by a

Dutch boss are mostly expressed in the form of a proposal or suggestion and Balboni

(ibidem: 105) claims that Italians may mistakenly interpret this as a piece of advice

instead of as a real order. In my opinion, the Dutch negotiators might however also

experience some problems, for example in accepting the authority of the Italian boss and

his or her direct orders.

41

Rudvin, M. (2003a), “Cross-Cultural Issues in Community Interpreting”, in Garzone (2003): 183-184.

71

Every member of the Dutch delegation will have a right to give his or her opinion

on the decision to made. According to Buckland this may ‘take a great deal of time and

outsiders can regard the process as irritatingly long.’ (2006: 149). In Italian organizations

decisions are often only made by the boss, and in case he or she is not present during the

negotiation, the Dutch party may think they already have an agreement while in fact this

agreement still has to be approved by the Italian boss. It is also possible for Dutch

businessmen to openly disagree with their superiors, while this is unthinkable in the

Italian organizational culture.

Since hierarchy is of an existential nature in countries with a higher power

distance index, even outside the office the Italian boss remains superior and will often be

given privileges. The Dutch boss on the other hand, may be seen queuing in the office

cafeteria during the lunch break just like everybody else.

Masculinity – femininity. Out of all the European countries Italy has the highest

masculinity score (70), while the Netherlands is the most “feminine” country (score of

14). For this reason, there are significant differences to be found between the Italian and

Dutch culture with respect to this dimension.

According to Verluyten (2009: 188), in highly feminine cultures consensus is

valued highly and industrial conflict is very rare. In highly masculine cultures however,

industrial conflict happens quite often and is believed to be best resolved with a good

fight. In my opinion, if a conflict arises during a negotiation between Dutch and Italian

businessmen the different ways of handling the conflict may cause some problems. The

Italians would prefer a direct confrontation, while the Dutch would like the conflict to be

resolved with a debate during which everyone gets the same amount of time to express

his or her opinion.

Another difference between the two cultures has to do with “showing off”: In the

Italian culture material success is admired and people like to exhibit their wealth with the

purchase of status symbols, such as expensive cars, watches or designer clothes. In the

Dutch culture however, nobody should regard him- or herself as more important than

anybody else and therefore extravagant behaviour is frowned upon. Therefore, it would

be normal for a Dutch boss to come to work in an ordinary car in order to signal his or

her employees that they are all equal. In Italy a boss would probably lose the respect of

72

all his or her employees if he or she turns up at work in a cheap car. If a Dutch boss

therefore presents him- or herself at the negotiation without any status symbols or other

means to evidence his or her superiority, the Italian businessmen might not take him or

her very seriously. On the other hand, the Dutch businessmen may believe that the Italian

boss shows off his or her superiority in an excessive way and would probably not

appreciate this.

Uncertainty avoidance. Since the Italian culture scores higher on the uncertainty

avoidance index (75), they may have some difficulties with the lack of structure and clear

rules in the Dutch culture, which has a score of 53 on the index of this dimension. Even

though Italians often avoid rules, on the surface they do take them very seriously and

prefer for the rules to be there. According to Hofstede (1991: 183), Italy has a

considerable higher amount of rules and laws than the Netherlands. So while Italians

might get irritated by the lack of rules in the Netherlands, Dutch businessmen might get

upset when the Italians do not adhere to the few rules that do exist in the Dutch culture.

Another difference related to uncertainty avoidance is the fact that Italy prefers

academics with a strong specialisation, while Dutch people usually prefer a broader

education. This might lead the Italian businessmen to consider their Dutch partners of

less prestige and vice versa.

Long-term orientation – short-term orientation. While Italians usually negotiate

in order to gain a short-term profit, Dutch businessmen tend to plan on a long-term basis

and are therefore geared towards long-term profits. This may lead to some problems

during the negotiation, but in my opinion these will probably resolved quite easily with a

compromise.

5.2 Trompenaars’ and Hampden-Turner’s cultural dimensions

Universalistic – particularistic. The Italian culture is more particularistic than the Dutch

one, which is considered a universalistic culture. According to Trompenaars and

Hampden-Turner (2006: 47), this difference may lead to different expectations with

regard to the business relationship. For example, once the business relationship has been

established, the Italian businessmen might expect personal favours from their Dutch

73

partners. Dutch businessmen will probably consider this unethical, since they believe that

all rules apply to everybody in an equal way and therefore no exceptions can be made.

The refusal of the favour would in return lead the Italian businessmen to distrust the

Dutch. Moreover, Italians may see the extensive Dutch contracts with strict conditions

also as a form of distrust in their business relationship, since they believe that the main

reason to continue the business contacts as agreed upon is the personal relationship they

worked up over time. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (ibidem: 56) argue that the

contract in this case has the mere function of a guideline and is not as definitive as the

Dutch may see it. In my opinion Italians do not see contracts merely as guidelines, but it

is however true that they base the business relationship more on the personal relationship

than on the contract.

Neutral – emotional. The Dutch culture is considered a neutral culture, while the

Italian culture is emotional. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (ibidem: 22) state that

Northern Europeans do not let their emotions “get in the way” during negotiations and try

to stay rational and focused on the goal. Southern Europeans on the other hand consider

business a human affair and therefore get much more emotionally involved, or at least

they appear to do so. This difference may lead to mistaken attributions on both sides

during the negotiation.

For example, Italians may attribute lack of involvement to the emotionless tone of

voice Dutch people generally use. They might also think of the Dutch businessmen as

detached, cold people who withhold their real emotions; Italians prefer to do business

with real human beings, not extremely rational businessmen. On the other hand, in my

opinion the Dutch may misinterpret the behaviour of their Italian partners as aggressive

or angry, because of their expression of emotion, use of gestures, louder voice and closer

interpersonal distance, while the Italians probably just want to convey their sincere

feelings with their communication style.

Raised voices are a sign of aggressiveness in the Dutch culture, and if the Italian

businessmen raise their voice this might lead to a very distant and uncooperative attitude

from their Dutch partners. In addition, according to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner

(ibidem: 95), the Dutch businessmen might consider the Italians unprofessional when

they show much emotion, since they are used to neutral unemotional behaviour at work.

74

Hecht et al (1989: 168) argue that the Italian culture may also be defined as high-contact

because of the aspects listed above, while the Dutch culture clearly has a low-contact

culture. According to Balboni (2007: 69), Mediterranean people hold an interpersonal

distance of an arms length, while Northern Europeans stand apart from each other at a

two arms length.

Specific – diffuse. The Italian culture is more diffuse than the specific Dutch

culture, which means that in Italy no clear distinctions are made between work and

personal life. For this reason, Italians see the business relationship as a much more

personal matter than the Dutch do; in Italy the business relationship usually is extended to

the personal lives of the businessmen (and vice versa) and Italians therefore want to get to

know the people they are dealing with. According to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner

(2006: 22), the Dutch businessmen however do not see any necessity in this for they are

only interested in the role their business partners play within the specific organizational

context. They may therefore think of the small talk about family and hobbies as a waste

of time, while the Italians may think the Dutch are rude and cold because of their

impersonal attitude. In my opinion, another consequence of the fact that the Italian

culture is more diffuse than the Dutch one, is that direct criticism of the Dutch on a

business matter may offend the Italians, since ideas about business can not be separated

from the person in the Italian culture and criticism will always be taken personally.

Achievement – ascription. While in the Netherlands status comes with

achievement only, and hence one’s own performances are the only aspect that counts, in

Italy some factors of ascription may interfere. Age and experience for example, are much

more valued in Italy and according to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (ibidem: 131)

Italian businessmen might feel that young Dutch employees, even if they have a higher

function, do not show sufficient respect to older people. In addition, Italians might boast

about academic degrees, influential family members or relationships with important

people during a negotiation, since these are aspects that gain respect in their home

country. However, as we have seen before, showing off is not appreciated in the Dutch

culture, nor are the above listed aspects of any influence on a business relationship in the

eyes of the Dutch businessmen. In my opinion, it is therefore likely that this kind of

behaviour of the Italians businessmen has a negative effect on the business relationship.

75

On the other hand, the fact that the Dutch only evaluate their employees on the basis of

performance may seem very cold and impersonal to the Italian negotiators.

5.3 Hall’s cultural dimensions

Monochronic – polychronic. The Dutch culture is a monochronic culture, while the

Italian culture is polychronic. In other words; the Dutch culture is time-oriented, while

the Italian culture is relationship-oriented. Due to this difference, many problems may

occur not only during the negotiation between Dutch and Italian businessmen, but also

during the phase of implementation (in case an agreement has been reached).

Because of the fact that the Italian culture is relationship-oriented, at the

beginning of the negotiation and during first contacts, the most important issue for the

Italian businessmen is getting to know the other party. They are likely to inquire about

the personal background of the Dutch negotiators and will be happy to talk about their

own background, company and family. In addition, during business lunches other

subjects, such as history and philosophy, might be drawn into the conversation. Building

up a good business relationship is important to Italians and according to Trompenaars and

Hampden-Turner (ibidem: 57) they believe that the time invested in this phase of getting

acquainted will prevent problems in the future.

Dutch negotiators on the other hand are time- and task-oriented, and Vossestein

therefore argues that ‘[t]hey tend to get down to business without allowing much time to

get to know their counterparts. Within minutes they begin to focus on the purpose of the

meeting, to discuss the qualities of the product involved, the details of the transaction.’

(2001: 81). To the same extent, a Dutch business phone call would go straight to the

point, whereas an Italian would start with some small talk. To the first the behaviour of

the other may seem a waste of time, while the second may think the other is being quite

rude. In my opinion, Dutch businessmen might also have some problems joining a

conversation on art or literature, since the Dutch school system does not particularly

concentrate on these subjects.

Thus, according to Vossestein the time-orientation of the Dutch negotiators may

lead them to overlook aspects which the Italians consider important, such as ‘personal

76

contact, prestigious appearance, ceremony and circumstance.’ (ibidem: 81). In my

opinion, this direct approach to business can appear very impatient and unsophisticated in

the eyes of the Italian businessmen. The Dutch negotiators on the other hand, may get

very frustrated when the Italians do not get to the point and keep talking about subjects

other than business.

Monochronic people usually are not good at doing two different things at the

same time and therefore concentrate on one single task at hand, whereas people from

polychronic cultures may be involved with two (or even more) tasks or persons at the

same time, switching continuously back and forward between them. According to

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2006: 155), the fact that Italian businessmen may not

give their undivided attention to their Dutch partners may offend the Dutch, since it

makes them feel as if they are not important enough to the Italians to address their full

attention to. In addition, Balboni (2007: 40) argues that the Dutch businessmen may think

of the Italians as confused, superficial or inconclusive because of the way in which they

continuously change subjects and switch back and forward between various topics.

Vossestein claims that this polychronic behaviour will probably ‘make the Dutch uneasy

and irritable.’ (2001: 105). On the other hand, in my opinion the Italians might get

irritated because of the stiffness and coldness with which the Dutch businessmen

negotiate.

If the two parties have been able to reach an agreement, more difficulties may

arise during the phase in which the decision should be implemented. As we have seen

before, time schedules and punctuality are of utmost importance in the Dutch culture,

mainly because of the fact that time is money. Italians do not take deadlines this

seriously, since goals and objectives often change over time according to the

circumstances. They prefer not to work with fixed time schedules, because human

transactions are considered more important and you can never know beforehand what (or

who) will have priority in a specific moment. According to Verluyten (2009: 81), this

‘lack of order’ may cause great irritation to the Dutch party, given that Dutch flexibility

when it comes to deadlines is near zero. On the other hand, I believe that the Dutch way

of playing by the book without taking into consideration any situational and personal

factors will probably lead to irritation on the Italian side as well.

77

Low-context communication - high-context communication. According to Jandt

(2001: 222), the Italian culture has a high-context communication style, while the Dutch

culture is characterized by low-context communication. The Italian negotiators will

therefore talk around the point and it is the task of the Dutch businessmen to place the

crucial pieces in the right place. The Dutch businessmen will however not be used to this

kind of communication and in my opinion might find it difficult to interpret the

ambiguous Italian statements, since they do not have sufficient knowledge of the

situational factors in order to reveal the underlying message. The Italian negotiators

might also rely on nonverbal communication to a greater extent in order to get their

message through. Dutch people are however not used to picking up these subtle cues and

therefore they will probably not be noticed.

The communication style of the Dutch negotiators on the other hand will be

highly detailed and specific so that the message can be interpreted in only one single way.

The Italians might look for underlying messages here, while there is no other message to

be found than the one that was explicitly stated. Because of the low-context

communication style of the Dutch businessmen, they will also need a larger amount of

background information every time they meet with their Italian partners and this may be

annoying to the latter party, which relies more on personal network in order to receive the

information they need.

Direct communication – indirect communication. The concept of direct and

indirect communication is highly correlated with low- and high-context communication.

As we have seen in the chapter on Dutch culture, the Dutch are known for their directness

and outspokenness. In my opinion, this way of delivering messages directly and openly,

may come across as rude, arrogant or uncultured to the Italian businessmen. According to

Buckland (2006: 145), this frankness is a two-way process, and the Dutch also prefer

their interlocutors to tell them exactly how they feel and what their views are. As

Vossestein states: ‘The Dutch are not very good at dealing with ambiguity and

ambivalence. They like clear definitions, straight lines, sharp divisions between this and

that.’ (2001: 95). The indirect communication style of the Italian businessmen will

therefore be difficult to understand for a Dutch person. In addition, Buckland argues that

the excessive compliments, flattery and rhetoric in the language use of the Italians may be

78

‘regarded as false and suspect.’ (2006: 148). The wish for Italians to make a good

impression (fare la bella figura) may also lead Italian negotiators to say “yes” where they

actually mean “maybe”, while a Dutch businessmen prefers to hear “maybe” in this case.

Buckland (ibidem: 82) claims that this prevarication will be considered irritating and

sometimes even rude.

5.4 Other cultural and linguistic dimensions

Use of English. A survey taken in 1987 established how many foreign languages people

across Europe are able to speak. Of the thirteen countries involved Italy scored second

last with an average of 0,3 foreign languages, while the Netherlands scored second first

(after Luxembourg) with an average of 1,3 (Hofstede 1991: 263). By now these averages

are likely to have changed, but because of the international orientation of the Dutch

culture we may presume that Dutch people in general have a higher proficiency in foreign

languages with respect to Italians. As we have seen in chapter 2 though, a good

proficiency of the foreign language alone is not enough in order to communicate

effectively; idiomatic expressions, accents, different speech strategies, cultural

connotations etc. may still lead to misunderstandings.

In case the Dutch negotiators do not have a good proficiency of the Italian

language (it is very unlikely that the Italian negotiators speak Dutch), the negotiation

between Dutch and Italian businessmen will probably take place using English as a lingua

franca (at least when there is no interpreter present at the negotiation). Even though

Dutch people generally master English very well, according to Buckland (2006: 159)

sometimes they can come across as too direct and forceful when speaking English. This is

due to the fact that, when expressing themselves in English, they often leave out subtle

modifications that are used in Dutch in order to soften the tone of their speech and

opinions. In this way they might seem to insist on their point of view, while in fact they

are only making a suggestion. This intent might be misinterpreted by their Italian

counterparts who may take offense.

The use of English during the negotiation might also lead to misunderstandings

because of different discourse modes. For example, when Italians speak English they may

79

use the discourse mode they are used to when talking Italian, i.e. a complex discourse

with many subordinated phrases. According to Balboni (2007: 94) it is very difficult to

construct a phrase in English using Italian syntax and therefore the Italian negotiator

might communicate in a confused way. Hence, the Dutch negotiators, who are used to a

linear structured discourse, might have great difficulties understanding the Italian.

Formality. Italians tend to be relatively more formal in business situations with

respect to Dutch people, who instead may value informality in order to communicate at

ease. Even though Buckland argues that ‘[t]here is greater use of surnames and titles in

dealing with unfamiliar business acquaintances’ (2006: 143), Dutch businessmen will

shift to the use of first names quite quickly, in order to indicate familiarity and

friendliness. In my opinion Italians may see this as overfamiliar and impolite, as they

show politeness with the use of distancing strategies in naming and addressing, like for

example using surnames, academic titles or the first name with a title (e.g. Dr. Giorgio).

In addition, the clothing of both parties may reveal a great deal of their expectations with

regard to the degree of formality: Italian businessmen usually wear expensive clothes that

underline their status, while Dutch businessmen put less emphasis on their clothing and

may quickly take of their jacket after the first presentations have been made.

Turn-taking. Turn-taking in the Netherlands happens, like everything else,

orderly. In Italy though, it is normal for turns to overlap and people might interrupt

frequently. Verluyten (2009: 68) quotes a research of Ulijn, who studied a conversation

between a Dutch and an Italian person; his conclusions were that the Italian took turns by

interrupting his Dutch interlocutor in one case out of three, while the Dutch person only

made use of this strategy in one out of six cases. Dutch negotiators will therefore often

wait for a Transition Relevant Place in order to take turns. Garzone (2003: 71) explains

that this could be for example when the other participant takes a pause or uses a falling

intonation. In my opinion, when an Italian businessmen consistently interrupts his or her

Dutch partners, this may be interpreted as rude or impolite behaviour by the Dutch,

whereas the intention of the Italian is probably to collaborate and to show his or her

involvement. Italians may find it difficult not to talk before their turn and to adapt to the

Dutch turn-takings strategies. According to Balboni (2007: 124), the Dutch businessmen

80

on the other hand will find it different to fight for the floor, since they are used to the fact

that everyone gets to talk an equal amount of time.

Tolerance of silence. Both the Dutch and the Italian culture have a low tolerance

of silence, but the tolerance of Italians towards silence is even lower than that of the

Dutch. For this reason Italian businessmen may feel the need to “fill up” every short

silence that occurs during the negotiation or business lunch with some small talk, reason

for which the Dutch might think of their Italian counterparts as a little too talkative.

Dinner. Dinner is the perfect moment for socialization according to Italians, while

for the Dutch socialization happens after dinner, preferable during the consummation of

alcoholic drinks. Food is therefore of much greater importance in Italy. Vossestein once

interviewed an Italian who had come to the Netherlands for business and quotes: ‘You

Dutch don’t find food interesting, for us Italians it is much more important. Put five or six

Italians together – serious business people, good friends, whatever – and in no time they

will be discussing food.’ (2001: 90, emphasis left out). Not only do Italians like to talk

about food, they also like to talk about business while eating and prefer to get to know

their counterparts over dinner. Dutch businessmen on the other hand, do not consider

lunch or dinner an important aspect in the building up of a business relationship and

would prefer a quick simple meal in order to get back to business as soon as possible.

In the rare case Dutch businessmen do invite Italians for a dinner, I believe that

problems may occur with regard to the starting time. The invitation will probably be for 6

o’clock, which is the average dinner time in the Netherlands, while Italians usually dine

around 8 or 9 o’clock. For this reason the Italian businessmen might presume that the 6

o’clock invitation is for an aperitivo and that arriving later will not be a problem.

However, this will be very offensive to the Dutch, since dinner actually starts at 6 and

they will have to wait for their guests to arrive in order to get started.

Hospitality. With reference to the Dutch culture, Buckland states that ‘[i]f you

visit an office on a regular basis you are likely to be treated as a colleague after your first

couple of visits.’ (2006: 86). However, in my opinion the way in which Dutch people

treat their colleagues or their business partners may differ distinctively from the way

Italians do. The literal translation of the Dutch word for hospitality (gastvrijheid) is

guest-freedom, which implies that the Dutch interpretation of hospitality is to leave your

81

guests alone so they can do whatever they want to. Italian businessmen on the other hand,

usually expect and provide their own guests with lavish meals, sightseeing tours and

impressive hotels. The Italian hospitality might get the Dutch businessmen to think that

no business is getting done, while the Dutch hospitality might get the Italians to think that

they are not treated with sufficient respect or are not regarded as important.

To conclude, many misunderstandings and conflicts may arise due to cultural and

linguistic differences during a negotiation between Dutch and Italian businessmen and

many others may be added to the ones listed above. It is possible to overcome these

differences and prevent any problems with the means of intercultural training programs

that create intercultural awareness. However, it is also possible to use the services of an

interpreter and/or intercultural mediator in order to bridge the cultural and linguistic

differences during a negotiation. The following chapter will therefore discuss interpreting

in business situations.

82

6. Interpreting in the business world

As we have seen in chapter 2, throughout the ages people of different tongues have had

the need to communicate with each other. The gap between the two languages was often

bridged with the use of a lingua franca, such as Latin, Arabic or French. However, in

other occasions where the interlocutors did not share any language at all, they used an

interpreter in order to be able to communicate with each other. Adolfo Gentile et al. 42

argue that the role of the interpreter is one of the oldest professions, just like Franz

Pöchhacker who states that interpreting ‘is an ancient human practice which clearly

predates the invention of writing – and (written) translation.’43

Pöchhacker actually

defines business interpreting ‘as a ‘primeval’ type of interpreting’, since the first

interpreted encounters ‘will have served the purpose of trading and exchanging goods, of

‘doing business’.’ (2004: 13).

Gentile et al. define interpreting as ‘the oral transfer of messages between

speakers of different languages’ (1996: 5). Pöchhacker (2004: 10) regards interpreting as

a branch of Translation, which can be distinguished from other translational activities by

its immediacy. In interpreting the original message is presented only once and the

rendition of the interpreter is produced under time pressure with almost no chance for

revision. Sandra Hale specifies that ‘interpreting refers to the translation of the spoken

word and Translation to the translation of the written word.’44

According to Garzone

(2003: 51), the main purpose of the interpreter is to enable effective communication

between his or her clients by removing the language barrier. The interpreter does not

transfer individual words from one language to another, but thoughts and ideas.

Therefore, Rudvin argues that the task of the interpreter ‘is to find a balance between the

‘idea’ contained in the source text, the original, and reformulate that same ‘idea’ in a

language that does not necessarily possess the instruments to express that same ‘idea’.’45

The rendition of the interpreter can be situated somewhere on a continuum between the

42

Gentile, A., Ozolins, U., Vasilakakos, M. (1996), Liaison Interpreting. A Handbook, Melbourne,

Melbourne University Press. 43

Pöchhacker, F. (2004), Introducing Interpreting Studies, London, Routledge: 9. 44

Hale, S.B. (2007), Community interpreting, New York, Palgrave Macmillan: 3. 45

Rudvin, M. (2003b), “Interpreting for Public Services”, in Garzone (2003): 114.

83

original message and the expectations and norms of the receiver’s culture (Rudvin 2003b:

115).

Even though the role of the interpreter has existed for centuries, according to

Gentile et al. interpreting ‘as a recognized and distinct area of expertise, and certainly as

a particular social role, arrived only with modernity, and as a result of the curious new

ways in which individuals and populations speaking different languages have had to

interact.’ (1996: 6). The first role of interpreting to be fully recognized was the one of the

international conference interpreter. Garzone explains that for a long time other fields of

interpreting were not ‘considered worthy of professional consideration or scholarly

endeavour’ (2003: 7), because it was thought that no skills other than language

proficiency were required in order to interpret outside the conference hall.

The different fields of interpreting can be broadly divided into conference

interpreting and public service interpreting. Fortunately, thanks to the growing need of

public service interpreters, there is an emerging recognition of this field of interpreting as

a professional area of expertise, which for example is shown by legislative requirements

and ‘schemes of accreditation and training of interpreters’ in countries like the United

States and Australia (Gentile et al. 1996: 2). However, the understanding of the role of

public service interpreters and the expectations of their performance still differs

significantly throughout the world. According to Gentile et al., in order to achieve

professional socialization for public service interpreters there are still some important

steps to be taken: the identification of professional skills, the recognition of the

profession by the society at large, the need to complete a training program designed

specifically for public service interpreters and ‘the application of professional standards

in practice.’ (ibidem: 72).

For a long time the interpreter was seen as invisible and neutral in the

communication process. Garzone (2003: 11) argues that only in the 1990s the interpreter

was first recognized as part of the communicative process and as the producer of a text

within a situational and cultural context. According to the author, in the field of public

service interpreting, ‘the interpreter is physically present and active in the communicative

exchange.’ (ibidem: 12). Rudvin explains that

84

what unfolds during the exchange (the ‘meaning’, result, conclusion), is a result of the

interlocutors’ combined interaction. […] In other words, the interpreter is not interpreting

a ‘fixed, set meaning’ already in place in the minds and utterances of the other two

interlocutors.46

According to Hale, the conversation progresses as a result of the input of all three

interlocutors as ‘the interpreter’s renditions of each speaker’s turn will determine the next

turn’ (2007: 12). The renditions of the interpreter are inevitably influenced by his or her

own (subjective) interpretation of events. As Hale explains, ‘different interpreters will

produce different renditions, choosing different words, different syntax, different

nuances, which may trigger different reactions in the participants’ (ibidem). The

interpreter will therefore necessarily affect the outcome of the interaction and can not be

seen as neutral or as ‘a transparent entity through which some assumedly fixed meaning

passes, crosses linguistic systems and comes out the other side ‘untouched’.’ (Rudvin

2002: 220).

Various interaction models have been designed to represent the process of

interpreter-mediated interaction. R.B.W. Anderson for example, designed a linear model

(see appendix 8) through which he depicted the interpreter-mediated interaction ‘as a

monolingual speaker of language A communicating with a monolingual speaker of

language B via an interpreter commanding both languages’ (quoted in Pöchhacker: 88).

According to Pöchhacker (2004: 88), this type of linear model puts emphasis on the role

of the interpreter as positioned ‘in the middle’. Other scholars preferred a triangular

representation of the two clients and the interpreter, foregrounding the interpreter’s role

as an active participant.

Public service interpreting can be further divided into two different fields, namely

community-oriented interpreting and business-oriented interpreting or escort interpreting.

According to Schweda Nicholson, community-oriented interpreting comprises ‘everyday

and emergency situations which refugees, other immigrants, and migrant labourers may

encounter in their communication with bureaucrats, officials, police, employment

counsellors, school, public assistance and health care personnel of all kinds’ (quoted in

46

Rudvin, M. (2002), “How Neutral is ‘Neutral’? Issues in Interaction and Participation in Community

Interpreting”, in Garzone, G., Mead, P., Viezzi, M. eds. (2002), Perspectives on Interpreting, Bologna,

CLUEB: 218.

85

Garzone 2003: 15). Garzone (2003: 16) argues that community interpreting can be further

divided into different fields, such as medical interpreting, legal interpreting and court

interpreting. Pöchhacker (2004: 13) defines the settings of community interpreting as

intra-social, since the interpreted encounter takes place within a monolingual society.

Business interpreting on the other hand, is acted out in inter-social settings, where contact

takes place between different social entities.

According to Gentile et al. (1996: 1), research on interpreting has been almost

entirely concentrated on conference interpreting; only recently studies on public service

interpreting have appeared. This is probably correlated with the relatively low status and

understanding of public service interpreting and the diffuse use of untrained bilinguals as

interpreters in public service settings. Even though there has been a significant increase

of research work on public service interpreting in the recent decades, most of this

research is concerned with community interpreting, and business interpreting has

received little attention. Garzone claims that the main reason for this is that the attention

of the researchers is directed ‘to the interpreter’s role in contexts where social,

humanitarian and psychological issues have primary importance.’ (2003: 49).

We will now have a closer look at the field of business interpreting, after which I

will analyze the interpreting modes and role of the business interpreter. I will then discuss

the ethics concerning the profession of the business interpreter and I will conclude this

chapter with some recurrent issues regarding business interpreting.

6.1 Business interpreting

Not only does business interpreting receive little attention from within the field of

interpreting studies, also the scientific field of business communication tends to ignore

the possibility that an interpreter may be present during a negotiation. It is often assumed

that the presence of an interpreter does not change the negotiation process itself.

Linguistic problems have received very little attention in literature in business

communication, especially with respect to the ever greater attention that is given to cross-

cultural issues. According to Garzone it is however essential that all parties involved in

the negotiation ‘have an adequate command of a shared linguistic code’ and the outcome

86

of a negotiation may be strongly influenced by the choice of language and the degree to

which the negotiators speak that language (2003: 78).

Garzone quotes Harris who defines escort interpreting as the ‘type of interpreting

done with accompanying visitors, diplomats and businessmen to meetings and

negotiations’ (2003: 15). Gentile et al. argue that the use of interpreters in international

business contacts ‘has only developed with the burgeoning of substantial international

trade since the 1960s.’ (1996: 11). According to the authors the term business interpreting

‘denotes two or more business people discussing business matters through an interpreter.’

(ibidem: 116). This definition entails various situations, for example a negotiation

between importer and exporter; a meeting between the owner of a multinational company

and the local head of a foreign department of that company; or a meeting between local

businessmen and a foreign consultant.

Gentile et al. (ibidem: 41) state that the presence of an interpreter does not change

the objective of a business negotiation, for example to sell or buy a product, to reach an

agreement on investments or to set up a joint venture. However, given that the interpreter

is the only person aware of the intentions of both parties, he or she ‘has to intervene to a

certain extent in the dynamic of the communication in order to help it flow in the most

economical and efficient fashion.’ (ibidem: 24). The communication flow of an

interpreter-mediated negotiation will therefore not be exactly the same as that of a similar

one between two speakers of the same language. For example, an interpreter-mediated

negotiation will inevitably take much more time. Moreover, Gentile et al. argue that the

flow of communication is not as constant in negotiations where interpreters are present,

since there are intervals ‘during which each client is not directly and cognitively engaged-

when the interpreter is relaying an utterance to the other person and that person is

replying’ (ibidem: 36). This means that the negotiators are not able to respond

spontaneously to each other.

In addition, Frank Ernst Müller explains that the turn-taking mechanism will be

different in an interpreter-mediated negotiation: overlap of turns will make it impossible

for the interpreter to operate and for this reason he or she ‘may allocate turns and regulate

87

who will be the next speaker or recipient’.47

In this way, the interpreter not only relays,

but also coordinates the conversation. Wadensjö has highlighted this coordination role of

the interpreter, which is crucial for the prosecution of the interaction (quoted in Garzone:

50). According to Gentile et al. (1996: 36), if the businessmen are not familiar with these

structural requirements they might have a negative influence on the outcome of the

negotiation and on the perception of the interpreter’s role.

Even though the interpreter-mediated interaction will never be exactly the same as

an interaction between interlocutors who speak the same language, the business

interpreter should ensure that the clients behave in the way as they would have done in a

normal interaction. Therefore, the interpreter should encourage the parties to address each

other and not the interpreter. Gentile et al. in fact state that ‘[t]he most effective

interpreter, the one who is most ‘in control’, is the one whose presence effects the least

amount of disruption or change to the normal behaviour (linguistic or otherwise) of the

other parties.’ (ibidem: 53).

6.2 Modes of interpreting in business settings

According to Gentile et al. the increasing amount of international business contacts ‘has

extended the range of work of conference interpreters, who have generally seen a

continuum between their work in official international conferences and organizations, and

in private business meetings and negotiations.’ (ibidem: 9). It is true that both business

and conference contexts concern specific and detailed discussions on for example

production and warehousing techniques. However, the modes in which conference and

business interpreters normally perform are different: conference interpreters usually

interpret in the simultaneous mode or the classic consecutive mode, while business

interpreters mostly interpret in the short consecutive or the chuchotage mode.

Garzone explains the difference between simultaneous and consecutive

interpreting:

47

Müller, F.E. (2001), “Dialogue-Interpreting”, in Di Luzio, A., Günthner S., Orletti, F. (2001), Culture in

Communication. Analyses of Intercultural Situations, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 248.

88

In simultaneous interpreting (SI), the interpreter, secluded in a booth equipped with

headset and microphone, listens to an oral text and translates it synchronically, in real

time. In consecutive interpreting (CI), the text is rendered at the end of the speech or in a

pause especially set aside for translation after a chunk of the speech lasting a few

minutes; in most cases, the consecutive interpreter relies on notes taken during speech

delivery (2003: 7).

Pöchhacker (2004: 19) explains that whereas note-taking is common in consecutive

interpreting in conference settings (classic consecutive), in public service settings the

interpreter usually relies after every turn of speech, which diminishes the length of the

segments and the need for note-taking (short consecutive). So, when using the

consecutive mode of interpreting, the business interpreter waits for his or her client to

finish speaking, after which he or she interprets this message to the second client. The

second client then conveys a new message, which is interpreted to the first client after the

second client has finished his or her speech. According to Gentile et al. (1996: 24), the

length of the speech segments may vary, but generally speaking the interpreter allows the

speaker to express him- or herself freely. Business interpreters may also have to perform

in the classic consecutive mode sometimes, when a business negotiation includes for

example a public presentation and the interpreter is called upon to relay for a large group

of people (ibidem: 117).

The simultaneous mode of interpreting used in public service settings differs from

the one that is used in conference interpreting as no technical equipment is used. Gentile

et al. explain that in business settings the simultaneous mode consists out of

‘chuchotage’: the interpreter takes place behind the client and whispers the interpretation

to the client ‘while the speaker continues with the delivery of the communication without

reference to the interpreter.’ (ibidem: 26). This mode of interpreting is used for example

during a visit on a factory floor. Gentile et al. summarize the diverse range of settings in

which the business interpreter is called upon:

- formal meetings, introductions, welcoming speeches, protocol;

- smaller meetings of groups or even one-on-one meetings at various levels of

formality;

- discussions of main points at issue in contracts or work plans;

- technical group meetings which go into detail over plans or specifications;

- visits to relevant sites or institutions;

- extra-curricular activities such as tourist sightseeing or recreation;

- lunches, dinners and banquets at various levels of formality (ibidem: 120).

89

According to the authors (ibidem: 19), the variety of physical environments in business

interpreting commends a great flexibility of the interpreter who should adopt his or her

mode of interpreting to the location in order to deliver a good performance.

In public service interpreting, the same interpreter usually works in both

directions: the interpreter has two clients or two groups of clients, each of which speak a

different language, and the interpreter works ‘back and forth’ between those two

languages. Pöchhacker (2004: 20) defines this kind of interpreting in two directions as

bilateral interpreting. In business settings this is the case when only one interpreter is

present at the negotiation or meeting; the interpreter is being employed by one of the two

parties, but both parties rely on his or her performance. It is however also possible for

two interpreters to be present at a negotiation. According to Gentile et al. (1996: 17),

normally it is the company of the host country that provides one or two interpreters to

work for both parties, but it is also possible for each party to bring their own interpreter.

Verluyten advises always to use two interpreters in a negotiation and ‘to bring your own

interpreters rather than relying on those that are provided by the opposite party.’ (2009:

99).

Gentile et al. argue that the interpreters will commonly ‘work out between

themselves who will interpret in which direction’, unless one party insists that his or her

own interpreter works in a specific direction (1996: 118). Even though the code of ethics

tells interpreters to work into their mother language, Gentile et al. state that the business

interpreter usually works into his or her second language, because of the fact that they are

‘familiar with the client’s accent, cultural background and topical context.’ (ibidem: 119).

The interpreters may also decide to work in both directions, each for half the duration of

the negotiation. A study by Marja Jänis has proved that interpreters working into their

second language may use a certain degree of compression and generalizations, while

interpreters working into their native language have ‘more linguistic resources for

processing output’ and therefore additions are more common.48

On the other hand, when

interpreting into the native language, she argues that there is the possibility of

miscomprehension of the original message which may lead to an incorrect interpretation.

48

Jänis, M. (2002), “From A to B and from B to A: what is the difference?”, in Garzone, G., Mead , P.,

Viezzi, M. eds. (2002), Perspectives on Interpreting, Bologna, CLUEB: 63.

90

When interpreting into the second language miscomprehension of the original message is

far less likely.

According to Gentile et al., consecutive interpreting is usually done in the first

person, ‘i.e. the interpreter speaks as the person who has made the remarks’ (1996: 26). In

some business situations however, this rule may be broken in order to avoid chaos. An

example is a negotiation in which more than two businessmen take part: in this case turn-

taking is more chaotic and two members of the same party may speak successively

without a possible intervention of the interpreter. The interpreter is therefore obliged to

identify the source of the message he or she is about to interpret to the other party. Even

though this will increase the artificiality of the situation, it is necessary in order to make

the clients aware of who has said what.

6.3 The business interpreter’s role

The concept of ‘role’ defines ‘a set of more or less normative behavioral expectations

associated with a ‘social position’.’ (ibidem: 147). Gentile et al. explain that there are two

different dimensions to the interpreter’s role: the ‘ideographic dimension’, which

describes the interpreter’s own attitudes towards his or her role, and the ‘nomothetic

dimension’, which describes the expectations a social system has of the interpreter

(ibidem: 31). Since public service interpreting cannot ‘rely on long-standing common

practices and agreed guidelines’, the role of public service interpreters is constructed in

an uncoordinated manner (ibidem: 12). Therefore it is not surprising to find a quite

limited understanding of the role of the business interpreter in both of the dimensions

mentioned above.

As Gentile et al. state, there is a ‘lack of clarity between interpreting and other

roles–such as tourism interpreting and guide-work, which is more often monolingual or

bilingual work linked to other roles.’ (ibidem). This ‘difficulty in clearly delineating role

and recognizing the boundary between the interpreting function and other activities’, is

compounded by the physical environment of business settings, which are relatively

intimate (ibidem: 23). The physical proximity of the interpreter to the clients may make it

hard for the clients not to treat the interpreter as a third interlocutor. The authors argue

91

that the clients should instead regard the interaction as a discussion among themselves

and look at the interpreter as an instrument rather than the focus of the communication

(ibidem: 32).

Gentile et al. make a distinction between interpreters, bilingual aides and bilingual

guides. Bilingual aides are able to speak two or more languages and use a foreign

language ‘in the direct conduct of their primary role (for example, an airline booking

clerk […])’ (ibidem: 14). Their work is therefore monolingual and does not ‘involve

transfer of message from the speaker of one language to the speaker of another language’

(ibidem). Bilingual guides are bilingual aides operating in specific fields, such as tourism

and business travel. Interpreters are often expected to act as bilingual guides in certain

occasions. As distinctions between these roles are often unclear to the employer of the

interpreter, he or she might expect ‘that an interpreter will be a kind of bilingual dog’s

body, able to do many things in addition to interpreting.’ (ibidem).

For example, if the business interpreter travels along with the delegation, he or

she will often be the only link with the host culture (since he or she is the only person

speaking the language of that culture) and therefore ‘may need to assume additional roles

including that of a public relations officer and secretary, and to take care of such tasks as

collecting documents, writing minutes, booking hotels and paying bills.’ (ibidem: 117).

Gentile et al. argue that the greater the difference between the two cultures, the more

likely it is the interpreter will be called upon to ‘play a more generalized ‘cultural bridge’

role.’ (ibidem). The multiplicity of tasks and the switching from one role to another may

cause a serious amount of stress for the interpreter and ‘can make inordinate demands on

the interpreter’s time and concentration-being ‘on duty’ perhaps from breakfast to late

evening, and having to deal with sometimes competing demands from members of the

delegation.’ (ibidem). Ideally, many of these roles should therefore be performed by other

agents or bilingual delegate members.

According to Gentile et al., these expectations also influence the way the

interpreter is perceived when he or she is in fact functioning as an interpreter during a

negotiation. For example, the party who employed the interpreter might expect ‘the

interpreter to elicit information, provide summing up, smooth over difficulties, gather

intelligence etc.’ (ibidem: 15). Hale claims that the negotiators might also assume that the

92

interpreter will not relay asides ‘that may be offensive to the other party, or statements

that may be detrimental to their case’ (2007: 131). These activities contradict the

interpreter’s ethics (see paragraph 6.4). It is however generally accepted that the business

interpreter might have to perform some activities that do not actually belong to the role of

the interpreter, as Gentile et al. state:

business interpreting covers the full ceremonial paraphernalia of business visits including

entertaining, intelligence-gathering and other activities that perhaps fall outside the role

of the interpreter strictly defined but seem a necessary concomitant of business

interpreting (1996: 12).

The clients of a business interpreter will have different cultural backgrounds,

which implies that they have different values, beliefs and behavioural conventions. They

might also have different expectations with regard to the situation at hand, i.e. the

negotiation process. We have seen in chapter 2 that these cultural factors have a strong

influence on communication. Kondo and Tebble argue that, since the interpreter needs to

smooth over cultural differences by adjusting the original message to the cultural norms

and expectations of the receiver, ‘the ideal role of the interpreter is to serve not only as a

linguistic but also as a cultural mediator.’ (quoted in Pöchhacker 2004: 148). According

to Gentile et al., the business interpreter should therefore have a thorough knowledge of

both cultures in order to understand the message conveyed ‘and to anticipate any possible

sources of misunderstandings in the total exchange.’ (1996: 20). Language can not

function outside context and the interpreter should take the various cultural factors into

account in his or her rendition. The interpreter should also be aware of the nonverbal

aspects of communication used in both cultures he or she works with.

However, according to Garzone it is not the task of the interpreter to explicitly

explain cultural differences or ‘possible cultural implications of certain forms of

behaviours’ to the negotiators (2003: 90). Instead, he or she should use other strategies in

order to prevent incomprehension and misunderstandings. Hale states that most ‘cross-

cultural differences that are reflected in the language, such as politeness, indirectness or

other pragmatic considerations, should be bridged in an accurate pragmatic rendition of

the original, without the need to interrupt the flow.’ (2007: 132). Thus, the interpreter

should use interpreting techniques in order to overcome cultural differences. According

93

to Gentile et al. the interpreter ‘may provide information of a cultural nature to enable the

other parties to formulate their utterances so as to get the maximum benefit from the

interpreted interview’, as long as this is done at the briefing stage and not as an

intervention in the course of the negotiation itself (1996: 49). Hale (2007: 141) believes

that only cultural differences that can not be reflected through language (such as greetings

or body language) may require some intervention of the interpreter in order to avoid

misunderstandings. However, she argues that ‘only the very broad cultural conventions’

can be highlighted by the interpreter, since other differences are often related to

individual factors (ibidem: 132). Gentile et al. too warn for ‘the risk of falling into facile

generalizations about individuals’ (1996: 20): the interpreter should avoid to promote

cultural stereotyping.

The expectations of the business interpreter’s role may also differ across cultures.

For example, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner argue that the interpreter in achieving

cultures is seen as someone who has to perform professionally. He or she should interpret

accurately and impartially and has a neutral position, which means that he or she serves

in the interest of effective communication and not in the interest of either party. In

collectivistic cultures on the other hand, the interpreter is in service of his or her

employer:

A Japanese translator […] does not only give his interpretation of the words, but also of

the gestures and their meaning. He supports his own team and if necessary protects them

from confrontational conduct by the Western negotiators. He won’t interpret any rude

remarks towards one of his superiors and he will advise his team on how to respond the

tactics of the other party. In short, he’s on their side (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner

2006: 139, my translation).

The authors add that in these cultures ‘the interpreter is often the most important

negotiator.’ (ibidem). Stewart too describes cultural difference in the role that is ascribed

to the interpreter. According to the author North Americans tend to see the interpreter

as a window pane that transmits the message from one language to the other; but in

cultures where a third-person role is customary, the interpreter’s role may become a much

more active one, to the consternation of the American who is likely to interpret it as

inefficiency or perhaps disloyalty (Stewart quoted in Gudykunst and Kim 1992: 161).

94

Collectivistic cultures often use a third person as a mediator in situations of conflict, in

order to maintain harmony and prevent the loss of face (Pinto 1994).

According to Gentile et al., consequences of the lack of clarity with regard to the

interpreter’s role, are ‘the poor remuneration and industrial status, neglected professional

development, and inadequate management and policy direction experienced by those

wanting to work professionally as public service interpreters.’ (1996: 10). Garzone (2003:

12) affirms that business interpreting carries little prestige and often is modestly paid.

6.4 Ethics in business interpreting

All professions have to address the question of ethics. According to Gentile et al., it is

thought that ‘professionalism and ethics are inextricably linked, that you cannot claim to

possess the former without also possessing the latter.’ (1996: 56). Ethics are basically

rules of conduct based on underlying moral considerations. These rules should safeguard

the welfare of the clients and ensure a high quality standard of professional activities.

Gentile et al. claim that a code of ethics provides professionals with ‘parameters within

which professional decisions are made, parameters, that is, which act as rules of

professional conduct.’ (ibidem: 58). It is important to realize that these are parameters

only and that no code of ethics can provide professionals with do’s and don’ts in a black

and white fashion, since it can not possibly cover all possible situations. According to

Jandt (2001: 40) it also needs to be understood that ethics reflect the culture in which they

are produced, which means that codes of ethics for a certain profession may differ across

the world.

Efforts to provide a code of ethics for interpreters have been made primarily with

regard to conference interpreting, where the first code was adopted in 1957: the AIIC

Code of Professional Ethics. Later, several codes of ethics have been established for legal

and healthcare interpreting, while business interpreting is rarely taken into account

(Gentile et al. 1996: 164). According to Pöchhacker, in order to establish whether a given

interpreter can be expected to follow the code of ethics, a certification or ‘membership in

a professional organization that has adopted a code of conduct and practice’ is necessary

(2004: 165). Examples of such professional organizations are the North-American

95

“National Council on Interpretation in Health Care”49

and the Australian “National

Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters”.50

Despite the existence of

several organizations for medical, legal and conference interpreters, no organization for

business interpreters has yet been founded .

Hale examined sixteen codes of ethics from nine different countries and

concluded that these codes addressed three broad areas, namely:

1. interpreters’ responsibility to the authors of the utterances, which includes accuracy,

impartiality and confidentiality;

2. interpreters’ responsibility to the profession, which includes professional conduct,

issues such as dress, punctuality, and solidarity; and

3. interpreters’ responsibility to self as a professional, including the need for

professional development, role definition, adequate working conditions and pay rates

(2007: 108).

In this paragraph the business interpreters’ responsibility to the clients will be discussed,

addressing therefore the concepts of impartiality, accuracy and confidentiality. Because

of the fact that the business interpreter operates within the context of another professional

setting (that of the companies involved), Gentile et al. argue that ‘ethical conflicts often

arise for the interpreter.’ (1996: 57). Since the different codes of ethics for interpreters

rarely give a solution for this kind of ethical dilemmas, Hale (2007: 130) claims that the

business interpreter needs to use his or her own professional judgment in order to decide

whether or not to flout the code of ethics for a higher good.

6.4.1 Impartiality

Theoretically, since the task of the public service interpreter is to assure effective

communication between the two parties involved, both parties have equal claim on the

interpreter’s services. According to Gentile et al., impartiality

means that a professional must carry out professional duties to the best of his/her ability

regardless of who the client is in terms of gender, race, social and economic status,

ethnicity etc. The service provided must never be coloured by the professional’s personal

likes, dislikes, preferences, ideological leanings etc. (1996: 58-59).

49

www.ncihc.org 50

www.naati.com.au

96

The seating arrangements should underline the impartiality of the interpreter: ‘A

triangular arrangement of seating is the optimum configuration.’ (ibidem: 18). In this

way, it is possible for all three parties to keep eye-contact with each other and the clients

will not suspect that the interpreter is taking sides.

However, the reality in business settings is often different. In fact Gentile et al.

state that business situations are an exception to this general principle of impartiality.

According to the authors, business ethics prescribe that ‘an interpreter who is paid by a

particular side in a business negotiation owes loyalty to that side.’ (ibidem: 61). The idea

of the interpreter working for his or her employer and thereby acting as an agent for the

client is indeed often seen as a condition of employment of the business interpreter

(ibidem: 37). The role of the business interpreter is therefore not that of a neutral

facilitator of communication but rather a member of the negotiation team. Gentile et al.

argue that this is due not only to the economic dependence, ‘which puts pressure on the

interpreter to work for and on behalf of the client’, but also to the fierce loyalty on which

corporate cultures are often based (ibidem: 121). Bowe and Martin (2007: 142) therefore

find it more reasonable for a business interpreter to act as an advocate for his or her

employer rather than letting a single interpreter serve both parties.

Normally, public service interpreters should not give their opinion on any matter

regarding the interpreter-mediated interaction. However, Gentile et al. state that the

business interpreter ‘may have to do things like disclosing information and informing on

colleagues’ performance if these are considered to be of business advantage to the

‘client’.’ (1996: 61-62). The client might expect the interpreter to control the quality of

the performance of the other interpreter, which may lead to a tension between the

professional ethics of the business interpreter and these expectations of the client (ibidem:

119). According to Gentile et al. an ‘interpreter who objects in principle to such business

practices should not accept interpreting assignments in the business context.’ (ibidem:

62).

In addition, the interpreter is often privy to more information than the other

parties because of his or her bi-cultural competence. Gentile et al. therefore claim that the

business interpreter is often ‘called upon to provide opinions about the other party, about

the sincerity of their offers and the likelihood that they will continue to negotiate.’

97

(ibidem: 121). The view of the business interpreter as strictly impartial is in this case

unrealistic and unpractical. Even though the interpreter may provide information on the

culture of the other party, according to Gentile et al. (ibidem: 54) it is always up to the

businessmen to use this information in making a professional judgment or decision.

6.4.2 Accuracy

As Gentile et al. state, ‘[t]he interpreter’s objective is to effect as accurately as possible

the communication between the parties.’ (1996: 42). According to some scholars, to

interpret accurately means not to leave out parts of the meaning of an utterance or to add

anything to it: all the information stated by the client should be transferred, and nothing

other than that. Gentile et al. state that ‘[a]dditions, suppressions, omissions and

distortions all amount to inaccurate interpreting.’ (ibidem: 50).According to the authors,

the interpreter should not act as a censor or filter and the clients are responsible for their

own utterances and the effect they have on the communication (ibidem: 49).

Hale however believes that ‘often additions or omissions are needed in order to

achieve accuracy’, since the interpreter should relay the sense, message and

communicative style of the original speech using the conventions of the receiver’s culture

and language (2007: 112). According to Seleskovitch, producing an accurate rendition

requires the interpreter ‘to have his listeners understand it as well as it was understood by

those who heard it directly from the speaker himself’ (quoted in Pöchhacker 2004: 145).

Thus, in order to interpret accurately, the interpreter should: understand the speaker’s

intentions in context, take into account the interlocutors and the situation, understand the

appropriateness of the message according to the different cultural conventions and strive

for a similar reaction in the receiver as the original might have (Hale 2007: 7). According

to Hale, not only the content of the message is important, but also the manner in which it

is delivered, since features such as register and intonation ‘denote much meaning

intended by the speakers.’ (ibidem: 25). She argues that accurate interpreting therefore

also consists out of ‘using the appropriate forms (grammar, syntax, lexis, etc.) of a

language as well as its collocations (which words may occur in constructions with which

other words). Forms and collocations will vary from a little to a great deal across any two

98

languages.’ (ibidem: 50). Thus, according to Hale, accuracy is not achieved by a literal

translation, but by an adaptation to convey the form, tone and meaning of the original

message in the receiver’s language and culture (ibidem: 112).

According to Gentile et al., in transferring the message from one language to

another, the interpreter should take many factors into account: cultural, organizational or

professional aspects involved in a negotiation might ‘require some input from the

interpreter, who has the requisite knowledge alongside linguistic and message transfer

skills.’ (1996: 42). Examples of the skills required to give an accurate rendition of the

original message are language skills (‘the ability to use language correctly in any given

situation’ (ibidem)), listening skills, speaking skills (such as fluency, quality of voice,

choice of idiom etc.), interaction management skills, cross-cultural competence and note-

taking techniques (ibidem: 42-55). In order to interpret accurately the interpreter should

for example be aware of the register used by both parties and ‘must not talk ‘up’ or

‘down’ at anyone receiving the interpreting service’ (ibidem: 48), since this may

influence the way the message is received and thereby change the original intention.

According to Gentile et al., the business interpreter should especially be aware of

differences in negotiation style which include:

the degree of directness, the willingness or ability to reach a decision or make that

decision known during the meeting, the capacity to deviate from previous

correspondence, the means used to express degrees of agreement or disagreement to

propositions, the role of ceremony and protocol in the negotiation, the expectations as to

the sequencing of elements in the negotiation, the expectations relating to dress, food and

body language (ibidem: 120).

In short, knowledge of all the cultural aspects that influence intercultural negotiations

(see chapter 2) is of vital importance for the business interpreter in order to interpret

accurately.

Although this may seem provocative, according to Gentile et al. (1996: 122) the

business interpreter might find it necessary to breach the ethical principle of accuracy in

some particular stages of the negotiation: The objective of both parties is to gain

maximum profit from the deal and for this reason they will often push forward to a

breaking point. An accurate, straightforward rendition of anger or rudeness may lead to a

deadlock at this stage of the negotiation, ‘while modified interpreting will provide

99

opportunities for the negotiation to move on and succeed.’ (ibidem). The business

interpreter may therefore choose to play a mediating role and to soften the atmosphere.

Both parties will probably be grateful for the modifying influence of the interpreter, since

it was conducive to the process of doing business. Gentile et al. claim that the choices of

the interpreter should ‘always be guided by the principle of facilitating communication

rather than hindering it.’ (ibidem). Garzone too admits that ‘in spite of the breach of the

professional code of conduct, the results of such interference are not always negative.’

(2003: 101).

As we have seen before, the business interpreter works in different environmental

settings which may impinge on his or her performance. If the environment affects the

performance of the interpreter in a negative way and the interpreter can not guarantee

accurate renditions, Gentile et al. (1996: 19) believe that he or she should ask for a

change of location. It would be unethical for a business interpreter to accept an

assignment if he or she feels that his or her skills are not adequate in order to interpret

accurately in that specific situation.

6.4.3 Confidentiality

The business interpreter should observe confidentiality at all times. According to Gentile

et al. confidentiality

means that a professional must not disclose information about individuals or situations

obtained in the course of professional duties unless permission has been granted by the

persons involved or the professional is required to do so by anyone legally entitled to

such information (1996: 58).

Gentile et al. explain that in the course of the negotiation, the interpreter ‘becomes privy

to information of a non-linguistic nature’, which is a by-product of the professional

function of the interpreter: he or she ‘is not the intended recipient of such information.’

(ibidem: 59). Since this information is an incidental or accidental possession of the

interpreter and the legitimate possession of the other professionals (the negotiators), the

interpreter must maintain confidentiality and should certainly not use this information for

personal or financial gain (ibidem). According to Hoffman (2002: 191) the cooperation

100

between the interpreter and his or her clients should be based on trust, given that distrust

of the client in the interpreter may impede effective communication.

6.5 Recurrent issues

In the final paragraph of this chapter some recurrent issues regarding business

interpreting will be addressed, namely: briefing, the use of untrained interpreters in

business situations and the interpreter as a “scapegoat”.

6.5.1 Briefing

According to Garzone (2003: 92), ideally the interpreter should have a briefing with both

parties prior to the negotiation. In practice however, briefing often concerns only the

party who employed the interpreter, if briefing happens at all. In the briefing session the

interpreter might explain his or her role to the clients or obtain information about the

issues that will be discussed during the negotiation or meeting. The clients might be using

a specialized terminology or technical jargon during the negotiation and it is important

for the interpreter to have knowledge of that specific lexicon. For example, Gentile et al.

claim that during a negotiation not only contracts and deadlines will be discussed, but

also ‘specific descriptions of products or detailed arrangements for delivery and

payments.’ (1996: 118). It is therefore necessary for the clients to provide the interpreter

with detailed information on the products, services, objectives and structure of the

company and especially on the subject that will be discussed during the negotiation. In

this way the business interpreter is able to do the necessary research and to prepare him-

or herself adequately for the negotiation.

If the company has briefed the interpreter on the subject that will be discussed

during the negotiation, Hale argues that the negotiators might assume ‘that the interpreter

will add information the party has forgotten to state.’ (2007: 131). It is however not the

interpreter’s task to add anything to the messages of the client, as this will ‘contradict the

code of ethics’ accuracy’ clause (ibidem). The business interpreter should make this clear

to both parties during the briefing session.

101

According to Gentile et al., companies often do not wish to provide the interpreter

with any information or specific documentation prior to the negotiation, ‘because of the

confidential nature and commercial sensitivity of the information.’ (1996: 118). The

direction of the negotiation might therefore be very unpredictable for the interpreter. This

again shows a low understanding of the interpreter’s role, since the interpreter is bound

by a code of ethics which prescribes confidentiality. On the other hand, Gentile et al.

state that the more technical the discussion becomes, the more informal the discourse

often will be. According to the authors, the main objective of the specialists involved in

the negotiation is to ‘convey accurate messages and to get things done by whatever

means available’ (ibidem: 121), which means that protocol formalities are not that

important and that the interpreter may use various methods in order to facilitate

communication. For example, the interpreter might ask a specialist to spell out a certain

concept or to draw a technical process.

During the briefing the interpreter might also explain some aspects of the other

party’s culture to the negotiators in order to avoid misunderstandings during the

negotiation. Hendon et al. believe that the best result may be achieved in the negotiation

process, ‘when the interpreter acts as a real bicultural broker, which is only possible if an

exhaustive pre-negotiation briefing is held; sometimes it is even worth welcoming the

interpreter onto the negotiating team as a full-fledged member.’ (quoted in Garzone 2003:

81). According to Gentile et al. (1996: 54), the interpreter might also explain certain

cultural aspects that may have impinged on the negotiation process during a debriefing

session, in order to increase the understanding of what took place during the negotiation.

Garzone (2003: 99) however claims that while the awareness of the importance of

briefing is rising, debriefing is still very rare and often replaced by an informal

interaction.

6.5.2 “Lay” interpreting

According to Pöchhacker, it is often assumed that language competence alone is enough

in order to interpret, since interpreting is seen ‘as a language-switching operation

preformed more or less naturally by any bilingual.’ (2004: 54). Special knowledge (of the

102

cultures or the subjects involved), interpreting skills (such as note-taking and interaction

management) and ethics are all too often not taken into consideration. For this reason, ad

hoc approaches to interpreting are applied by companies and untrained bilinguals often

function as interpreter during meetings or negotiations. Pöchhacker refers to the use of

bilingual in-house staff members as interpreters as “lay” interpreting or natural

interpreting, ‘that is, interpreting done by bilinguals without special training for the task.’

(ibidem: 22). Gentile et al. argue that the use of untrained bilinguals as interpreters shows

that many companies ‘lack an appreciation of the nature of language and the difficulties

inherent in the transfer of a message from one language to another.’ (1996: 38).

In most of these cases the people involved do not have a clear understanding of

the interpreter’s role, the interpreting techniques and the ethics concerning the profession.

Gentile et al. (ibidem: 2) claim that these practices often lead the interpreters to assume

roles that are not supposed to be carried out by them, with negative results for the quality

of the interpretation. According to Pöchhacker (2004: 152), the “natural interpreters” may

for example use indirect speech instead of relaying in the first person, generating the

conversation artificial. Hale states that untrained interpreters mostly produce ‘a rendition

that is grammatical in the target language, conveys a message that on the surface, and out

of context, may appear to be correct, but that fails to capture the original intentions’

(2007: 23). She argues that the original intentions can only be conveyed by using a

pragmatic, discourse-based approach to interpreting, and not an approach based on the

sentence or, even worse, word level of the original message (ibidem).

6.5.3 The interpreter as a scapegoat

According to Garzone (2003: 102), in an interpreter-mediated negotiation, the interpreter

is the participant who is most frequently interrupted. She argues that the reason for which

the negotiators often break in when the interpreter is speaking, is that the interpreter is not

an autonomous interlocutor. Therefore, when a businessman has understood what the

interpreter is saying in his or her rendition, he or she often wants to give an immediate

response, before having heard the full rendition. In this way, the interposition of the

103

interpreter’s turn may however have a buffer effect and prevent abusive interruptions

between the other participants.

In case of communication breakdown during a negotiation, the interlocutors often

blame the interpreter, not acknowledging the responsibility they have with regard to their

own utterances. Gentile et al. state that this ‘may be due to ignorance, carelessness, a

conflict of expectations from the other parties or simply thinking of the interpreter as a

filter who will make the utterance come out right anyway.’ (1996: 49). Also in case one

of the parties commits an error of judgment or fact, Gentile et al. state that it ‘is not

uncommon for these errors to be remedied by adducing the interpreter’s error, with

agreement that the positive consequences outweigh the wounding of the interpreter’s

pride.’ (ibidem: 122-123). The authors claim that the interpreter should make a

professional judgment as to where to draw a limit to this practice (ibidem).

104

7. Research on Dutch businessmen dealing with Italians

As we have seen in chapter 3, the Netherlands is a trading nation that exercises import

and export on a large scale, especially with other European countries (Schermer 2008:

47). Indeed, Buckland states that ‘the Netherlands has supported the creation of a single

[European] market and the removal of trade barriers’ (2006: 46). Within Europe, Italy is

one of the most important business partners of the Netherlands. Even though 50 years ago

Italy was still a largely agrarian society, according to Abbott it ‘is now the fifth- or sixth-

biggest manufacturing economy in the world.’ (2008: 43). In 2009 the Netherlands

imported for 6,3 billion euro’s from Italy, while the Dutch export value to Italy was even

higher: 16 billion euro’s, which is 5% of the total Dutch export.51

6,5% of the Dutch

import from Italy concerns alimentary goods.52

In order to gain insight into actual negotiations between Dutch and Italian

businessmen I sent out a questionnaire to 90 Dutch companies that import alimentary

goods from Italy (see appendix 9). The target of the questionnaire were Dutch

businessmen who frequently negotiate and communicate with Italian business partners.

The questionnaire can be divided into four different parts: the first part (question 1-10) is

designed in order to gain general information about the company, the respondent him- or

herself and the nature of their contact with Italian business partners; the second part of the

questionnaire (question 11-16) focuses on misunderstandings that occur during

negotiations due to cultural and/or linguistic differences; the third part (question 17-22)

addresses the question of intercultural training programs; and the fourth and final part of

the questionnaire (question 23-29) investigates the use of interpreters by the companies

involved. At the end of the questionnaire it is possible for respondents to add any further

comments (question 30). The results of the questionnaire will be analyzed by following

the above subdivision (for an overview of all the results, see appendix 10).

51

http://www.agentschapnl.nl/onderwerp/itali%C3%AB-handel-met-nederland 52

http://martevansanten.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/import-van-italiaanse-producten-blijft-groeien/

105

7.1 General information

Out of the 90 questionnaires I sent out, I received 35 responses. The total amount of

respondents per question may vary, since not all respondents answered all individual

questions. The respondents work within companies that are involved with the import of

various alimentary goods from Italy, namely: wine, olive oil, coffee, liquors, pasta and

delicatessen. The product that is imported the most by these companies is wine. This is

not surprising since Veeger states that ‘Italy is responsible for a fifth of the total

production of wine all over the world.’ (2006: 195, my translation). All organizations

involved are small companies and most respondents declare to be the owner or director of

the company (94%). Only two respondents hold a different function within the company,

namely manager and salesperson. 50% of the respondents are between 40 and 50 years

old, 32,35% above 50 and 17,65% between 30 and 40 years. The majority of the

respondents are male (69,7%). In order to be sure that all respondents have a Dutch

cultural background, question 6 inquires about the nationality of the respondents and all

35 affirm to have to Dutch nationality.

The majority of the respondents hold business contacts with Italians for over 5

years (61,76%). 17,65% have had Italian business partners for 3 to 5 years, while 14,71%

have been doing business with Italians since 1 to 3 year(s). 5,88% have had contact with

Italian partners for less than a year. Most respondents are in contact with their Italian

business partners at least once a week (35,29%) or once a month (38,24%). 14,71% of the

respondents say that they are in contact with Italian businessmen at least once every two

months and 8,82% once every six months. Only one respondent (2,94%) is in contact

with Italian business partners at least once a day.

The questionnaire also inquires about the proficiency of the respondents in

various languages, namely: Dutch, Italian, English and German. Not surprisingly, 94,12%

and 5,88% of the respondents declare to have a respectively perfect and good proficiency

in Dutch. 38,24% of the respondents believe to speak Italian quite well, while 35,29%

think they do not speak Italian well. 20,59% of the respondents have a good proficiency

in Italian, while only two respondents (5,88%) believe to have a perfect proficiency in the

Italian language. Over half of the respondents declare to have a good proficiency in

106

English (55,88%), while 29,41% think they have a perfect proficiency in this language. 5

respondents (14,71%) believe to speak English reasonably well. Most respondents speak

German well (38,24%) or quite well (41,18%). 14,71% of the respondents do not have a

good proficiency in German, while 5,88% have a perfect proficiency in this language.

The majority of the respondents (92,31%) declare to never use the Dutch language

during a negotiation with Italian business partners, while two respondents (7,69%) say to

use it almost never or sometimes. Italian on the other hand, is used sometimes by 25,71%

of the respondents, often by 22,86%, almost always by 20% and always by 17,14%.

5,71% of the respondents declare that they never use Italian during a negotiation with

Italian businessmen, while 8,57% say that they almost never use Italian in this situation.

Most respondents use English sometimes (27,27%) or often (24,24%) during a

negotiation with Italian partners, while the same amount of respondents declare to use

this language almost always (18,18%) or always (18,18%). Only one respondent (3,03%)

says that he never uses English in doing business with Italians, while three respondents

(9,09%) use English almost never in this situation. 55,56% of the respondents declare to

never use German during a negotiation with Italian partners, while 37,04% declare to use

this language sometimes in the given situation. One respondent (3,7%) says to use

German often when doing business with Italians, while another respondent (3,7%)

declares to almost never use German. Five respondents state that they have used a

language other than the ones mentioned above when dealing with Italians. We can

conclude that negotiations between the Dutch companies involved and their Italian

business partners happen for the most part in Italian or English.

The only respondent who declares to use the German language often in doing

business with Italians, also believes she has a good proficiency in this language. All

respondents who state that they use English always or almost always during a negotiation

with Italians also declare that they have a good or perfect proficiency in English. Of the

respondents who say that they always or almost always speak Italian during negotiations

with Italian businessmen (13 in total), only 15,38% state to have a perfect proficiency in

Italian and 46,15% think they speak Italian well. However, five of these respondents

(38,46%) speak Italian only reasonably well.

107

There is no correlation between the frequency with which the Dutch businessmen

are in contact with their Italian partners and the language they use. However, of all

respondents who are in contact with Italian businessmen for over 5 years (21), almost half

of them (47,62%) use Italian more often than English during negotiations with their

Italian partners. 28,57% use Italian almost just as often as English in this situation, while

only 23,81% of this group use English more often than Italian when dealing with Italians.

On the other hand, 71,43% of the respondents who do business with Italians for less than

a year or for 1 to 3 years (7), use English more often than Italian when communicating

with their Italian business partners. The remaining 28,57% use English and Italian for

more or less the same amount.

7.2 Misunderstandings due to cultural and/or linguistic differences

In chapter 5 we have seen that various cultural and linguistic differences between the

Dutch and Italian culture may lead to misunderstandings during a negotiation. Relying on

the answers of the respondents we can verify whether or not these differences are noted

by the Dutch businessmen and if they actually lead to misunderstandings. 42,86% of the

respondents affirm that linguistic differences between them and their Italian partners have

sometimes led to misunderstandings. 40% of the respondents believe that linguistic

differences have almost never led to any misunderstanding, while 17,14% believe this has

never been the case. In the previous paragraph we have seen that five respondents often

use Italian when negotiating with Italians while they do not have a very good proficiency

in this language. It is interesting to see whether or not linguistic differences have ever led

to misunderstandings according to them. Two of these respondents believe that linguistic

differences have sometimes led to misunderstandings, while the other three believe this

has almost never happened.

On the question whether or not there have ever occurred any misunderstandings

during a negotiation with Italian businessmen due to cultural differences, 37,14% of the

respondents answer almost never, followed by never (31,43%) and sometimes (25,71%).

Only 5,71% of the Dutch businessmen believe that there have often been

misunderstandings due to cultural differences. The majority of the respondents (74,29%)

108

therefore also believe that they have never missed a deal or contract due to cultural and/or

linguistic differences between them and their Italian partners. 8,57% of the Dutch

businessmen state that they did miss a deal or contract due to these differences and the

remaining 17,14% do not know whether or not this has ever happened.

Most respondents (51,43%) believe that cultural differences only have a small

degree of influence on negotiations. 28,57% of the Dutch businessmen state that this

degree is moderate, while 14,29% think cultural differences have a large degree of

influence. Only 5,71% of the respondents believe that cultural differences have no

influence at all on negotiations. Of all respondents who believe that cultural differences

have a large degree of influence on negotiations (five in total), one answers she missed a

deal due to cultural and/or linguistic differences, one says not to and the other three do

not know whether or not this has ever happened to them. Both respondents who believe

that cultural differences do not have any influence at all on negotiations, also declare that

in their experience linguistic and cultural differences have never or almost never led to

misunderstandings.

The majority of the Dutch businessmen (62,86%) state that they have noticed

differences between Dutch and Italian norms and habits with regard to negotiations.

28,57% say they have never noticed such differences and the remaining 8,57% do not

know whether or not such differences exist. Of all respondents who state that they have

never noticed these differences (10 in total), the majority (8) also believe that cultural

differences have a small degree of influence on negotiations (the other two believe that

the degree of influence is moderate) and they all believe that they have never missed a

deal due to cultural and/or linguistic differences, except for one respondent who does not

know whether or not this has ever happened.

The respondents who declare to have noticed differences with regard to the Dutch

and Italian norms and habits in negotiations (22 in total), are also asked to explain what

kind of differences they had noticed. 20 respondents provide an example of these

differences and 35% of them name the Dutch directness and Italian indirectness as the

main difference: ‘In the Netherlands people are generally direct in doing business. In my

experience Italians are more relaxed and less direct.’ (respondent 1)53

; ‘Dutch are more

53

I translated the Dutch comments of the respondents into English.

109

direct, Italians take more time.’ (respondent 2). These answers clearly show the

differences in the communication style between Dutch and Italians we have already seen

in chapter 3, 4 and 5. Dutch people are direct in their communication and like to get to

the point as quick as possible, while Italians have an indirect communication style and are

under less time pressure, since they do not have the same perception of time in economic

terms.

20% of the respondents indeed mention the lack of punctuality of Italians and the

fact that they do not act according to the oral or written agreements: ‘Italians never

deliver according to the agreed upon time schedules.’ (respondent 10); ‘Italians are

generally less precise and punctual’ (respondent 12). Whereas time schedules and

deadlines are sacred to the Dutch, they are seen more as guidelines by the Italians who

are mostly human-oriented rather than time-oriented. Not surprisingly 25% of the Dutch

businessmen name the personal orientation of the Italians as the main difference when it

comes to business contacts: ‘The social aspect is of first importance in Italy. Business

aspects are only dealt with later on.’ (respondent 26); ‘personal contacts and attention to

these contacts are very important’ (respondent 30); ‘We want more appointments/visits a

day; that NEVER happens!’ (respondent 20); ‘Italians almost never respond to emails,

you really have to try hard in order to buy a product.’ (respondent 15). We have seen in

chapter 4 that Italians prefer a telephone call over an email, since they see the latter as too

impersonal. Respondent 15 will therefore probably be more successful if she would call

or make a personal visit in order to speak directly to her Italian business partners. The

answer of respondent 26 clearly shows the preference of Italians to first get to know their

business contacts before starting to discuss business matters. Respondent 20 says she can

not manage to go to several appointments in one day and this is probably due to the fact

that a single appointment takes up a lot of time in Italy, since the Italian businessmen

would like to hear all about the company and the people involved.

Another 10% of the respondents mention formality and politeness as the main

difference between Dutch and Italian norms with regard to negotiations: ‘Italians are

more nonchalant. But have very formal manners.’ (respondent 21); ‘Italians are very

polite.’ (respondent 16). Italians are perceived as more formal and polite and this is

probably due to their addressing modes (the use of titles and surnames in doing business

110

is more diffuse in Italy than in the Netherlands) and their clothing habits (while Dutch

people believe everyone should wear whatever he or she prefers, Italians tend to wear

expensive and formal suits in order to show off their status and success).

The final question of this part of the questionnaire asks the Dutch businessmen

whether or not they have ever noticed any differences between themselves and an Italian

business partner with regard to specific aspects during a negotiation. These aspects are

based on the differences found between the Dutch and the Italian culture in the previous

chapters and include: directness in communication, politeness in communication,

expected degree of formality, loudness of the voice, choice of topics, use of gestures, use

of eye contact, expression of emotions, interruption of someone else’s speech,

punctuality, obedience to deadlines and/or contracts, expectations of the business

relationship, expectations of the negotiation structure and proficiency in the language

used. In case the respondents declare to have noticed any of these differences they are

also asked whether or not this specific difference has led to misunderstandings and/or

problems during the negotiation. We will now have a close look at the results of this

question.

With regard to directness in communication the majority of the respondents

(57,14%) state to have noticed differences between themselves and their Italian business

partners, but according to them these differences have not led to any misunderstandings.

Only 5,71% believe that these differences have led to misunderstandings and/or problems

during the negotiation, while 37,14% declare that they have never noticed any differences

regarding this aspect of communication. With regard to politeness in communication

51,43% of the Dutch businessmen have never noticed any differences between

themselves and their Italian partners during a negotiation, while the remaining 48,57%

declare to have noticed such differences but that these have never led to any

misunderstandings and/or problems.

Also with respect to the expected degree of formality during a negotiation, the

majority of the respondents (70,59%) say that they have never noticed any differences

between themselves and the Italian businessmen. The remaining 29,41% have noticed

differences in the expected degree of formality but these differences have again not led to

any misunderstandings and/or problems according to the respondents. 77,14% of the

111

Dutch businessmen have never noticed any differences between themselves and their

Italian partners with regard to the loudness of their voices, while 20% declare to have

noticed such differences. Only one respondent (2,86%) states that he has noticed

differences with regard to this aspect and that these differences have led to

misunderstandings and/or problems during a negotiation. The same goes for the choice of

topics during the negotiation: only one respondent (2,94%) believes that differences with

regard to this aspect have ever led to misunderstandings and/or problems, while 11,76%

of the respondents say they have noticed differences in the choice of topic, but that these

differences have never led to any misunderstandings. The majority of the Dutch

businessmen (85,29%) declare to have never noticed any differences between themselves

and their Italian partners with regard to this aspect.

Most respondents (60%) do declare to have noticed differences with regard to the

use of gestures, but none of them thinks that these differences have ever led to

misunderstandings during a negotiation. The remaining 40% have never noticed any

differences between themselves and the Italian businessmen with regard to the use of

gestures. Differences in eye contact on the other hand, have not been noticed by the

majority of the Dutch businessmen (62,68%), while 34,29% have noticed differences in

eye contact but state that these have never led to any misunderstandings. Only one

respondent (2,86%) thinks that these differences have ever led to misunderstandings

and/or problems during a negotiation. Also with regard to the expression of emotions,

only one respondent (2,86%) has noticed differences between himself and the Italian

businessmen and believes that these differences have led to misunderstandings. 45,71%

of the respondents have also noticed differences regarding this aspect, while the

remaining 51,43% declare to have never noticed any differences in the expression of

emotions.

The majority of the Dutch businessmen (71,43%) have never noticed any

differences between themselves and the Italian businessmen with regard to the

interrupting of someone else’s speech, while 25,71% declare to have noticed such

differences but that these have never led to any misunderstandings. Only one respondent

(2,86%) believes that differences regarding this aspect have ever led to

misunderstandings during a negotiation. Differences in punctuality on the other hand, are

112

perceived by 45,71% of the respondents, even though they believe that these differences

have never led to misunderstandings between themselves and the Italians. A quarter of

the respondents (25,71%) do believe that such differences have led to misunderstandings,

while the remaining 28,57% never noticed any differences between themselves and their

Italian business partners with regard to punctuality. The same amount of Dutch

businessmen (28,57%) declare to have never noticed differences in obedience to

deadlines and/or contracts. 37,14% of the Dutch businessmen have noticed differences

regarding this aspect and they believe that these differences have led to

misunderstandings, while the remaining 34,29% also noticed these differences, but does

not believe that they have ever led to misunderstandings and/or problems.

With regard to the expectations of the business relationship, 42,86% of the

respondents state to have noticed differences between themselves and the Italian

businessmen, but believe that this differences have never led to misunderstandings.

However, 17,14% of the Dutch businessmen believe that these differences have led to

misunderstandings and/or problems during the negotiation, while the remaining 40%

have never noticed any differences with regard to this aspect. 14,71% of the respondents

state that differences in expectations of the negotiation structure have led to

misunderstandings and/or problems during negotiations with Italian businessmen, while

26,47% have also noticed these differences but do not believe that they have led to any

misunderstandings. The majority of the respondents (58,82%) have never noticed any

differences between themselves and their Italian partners with regard to this aspect.

Finally, regarding the proficiency in the language used during the negotiation, the

majority of the Dutch businessmen (54,29%) have noticed differences but believe that

these have never led to misunderstandings and/or problems, while 8,57% of the

respondents state that these differences have led to misunderstandings during a

negotiation. The remaining 37,14% have never noticed any differences at all with regard

to this aspect.

We may conclude that the choice of topics, the loudness of the voice, the

interruption of someone else’s speech, the expected degree of formality, the use of eye

contact, the expected degree of politeness and the expression of emotions are the aspects

with respectively the highest percentages of respondents who declare that they have never

113

noticed any differences between themselves and their Italian business partners with

regard to these specific aspects. The use of gestures, directness in communication and

proficiency in the language used are the aspects with regard to which most respondents

notice differences between themselves and their Italian partners, while they state that

these differences have never led to any misunderstandings and/or problems during

negotiations. On the other hand, the obedience to deadlines and/or contracts, punctuality,

the expectations of the business relationship and the expectations of the negotiation

structure are the aspects that, according to the respondents, respectively cause the most

misunderstandings and/or problems.

Of all 35 respondents, there are 21 Dutch businessmen (60%) who affirm that the

differences between them and their Italian business partners with regard to at least one of

the above listed aspects led to misunderstandings and/or problems. 42,86% of this group

(9 respondents), state that the differences with regard to only one of these aspects led to

misunderstandings, while 23,81% mark two aspects that led to misunderstandings, and

another 23,81% declare that three of these aspects led to misunderstandings and/or

problems. Only one respondent (4,76%) says that the differences with regard to four

different aspects have led to misunderstandings and another respondent (4,76%) believes

that five different aspects have led to misunderstandings. Not surprisingly, these last two

respondents are also two out of three respondents who declare to have missed a deal due

to cultural and/or linguistic differences.

What is surprising however, is that none of the five respondents who states to

always or almost always speak Italian during negotiations with Italian businessmen,

while their proficiency in this language is only reasonably well, believes that differences

with regard to the proficiency in the language used have ever led to misunderstandings

and/or problems during the negotiation. Most of them (80%) do recognize differences

with regard to this aspect, but they do not believe this has led to misunderstandings. The

fifth respondent (20%) declares to have never noticed any differences regarding the

proficiency in the language used.

Only two respondents (5,71%), state to have never noticed any differences

between themselves and their Italian partners with regard to all aspects listed above. One

of these respondents, respondent 4, also believes that cultural and/or linguistic differences

114

have no influence at all on negotiations and he states that no misunderstanding and/or

problems have ever occurred due to cultural or linguistic differences during a negotiation

with Italians. Respondent 11 on the other hand, believes that cultural differences have a

moderate degree of influence on the business negotiation and states that

misunderstandings have almost never occurred due to cultural or linguistic differences.

Both respondents have had Italian business contacts for over 5 years, which means that

awareness of cultural differences does not necessarily comes over time, but in some cases

should be acquired through for example intercultural training. The next part of the

questionnaire focuses on the use of intercultural training programs.

7.3 Intercultural training

The first question of the third part of the questionnaire, asks the Dutch businessmen if it

would be useful, in their opinion, to have knowledge of cultural differences (such as

those regarding the aspects listed above in question 16) ahead of the negotiation. The

majority of the respondents (57,14%) answer that this would be useful to them, while

20% of the Dutch businessmen do not think this would be useful. The remaining 22,86%

do not know whether or not it would be useful to understand these cultural differences

before starting the negotiation process. It is surprising to find respondent 18 in the group

of businessmen who believe that it would not be useful to know these cultural differences

ahead of the negotiation, since she earlier declared to have missed a deal due to cultural

and/or linguistic differences. This would entail that she believes that knowing the cultural

and/or linguistic differences that led to the negotiation breakdown beforehand, would not

have changed the outcome of the negotiation. The other two respondents who missed a

deal due to cultural and/or linguistic differences do believe that it would be useful to have

knowledge of these differences ahead of the negotiation.

11,43% of the respondents believe that intercultural training is necessary in order

to be able to do business abroad, while the majority (60%) believe this is sometimes the

case. 17,14% believe that intercultural training is not necessary in order to do business

with foreigners and the remaining 11,43% do not know whether or not this is necessary.

All four respondents who believe that intercultural training is necessary also believe that

115

it would be useful to understand cultural differences ahead of the negotiation. However,

only two of them believe that cultural differences have a large degree of influence on the

negotiation, while the other two believe that this degree of influence is small. Out of the

six respondents who believe that intercultural training is not necessary, the majority

(66,67%) think that cultural differences have a small degree of influence on the

negotiation.

The majority of the Dutch businessmen (60%) believe that intercultural training

may improve the probability of a successful outcome of a negotiation, while 8,57% do

not agree with this. The remaining 31,43% do not know whether or not intercultural

training may help to improve the outcome of a business negotiation. All three

respondents who do not believe that intercultural training may improve the outcome of a

negotiation, also believe that cultural differences influence negotiations only to a small

degree and two of them state that intercultural training is never necessary in order to do

business abroad. Two of these respondents also state that linguistic and cultural

differences have never or almost never led to misunderstandings, while the third

respondent states that this has sometimes happened.

The vast majority of the respondents (97,14%) state that the company they own or

work for does not offer any form of intercultural training to their employees. Only one

respondent (2,86%) affirmed that his company offers some form of intercultural training.

This respondent, 32, is the owner of the company and has been doing business with

Italians for 1 to 3 years. Even though he states that no misunderstandings and/or problems

ever occurred during a negotiation due to cultural and/or linguistic differences,

respondent 32 believes that it can be useful to have knowledge of cultural differences

ahead of the negotiation and that intercultural training is sometimes necessary. According

to respondent 32, cultural differences have a moderate degree of influence on

negotiations.

Only three of the Dutch businessmen (8,82%) have ever participated in an

intercultural training course, while 91,18% of the respondents have not. All three

respondents who have participated in an intercultural training course believe that it is

useful to have knowledge of cultural differences ahead of a negotiation, that intercultural

training is sometimes necessary and that intercultural training may improve the outcome

116

of a negotiation. Because of their positive attitude towards intercultural training, we may

conclude that the intercultural training they attended has been useful to them.

The last question of this part of the questionnaire asks the Dutch businessmen

what they believe should be the goals of an intercultural training. The options are as

follows (the respondents may choose more than one option): making people aware of

cultural differences, informing about different negotiation styles, studying foreign

languages, giving factual knowledge about other cultures, teaching intercultural

communication skills and study one’s own culture. The option that most respondents

believe to be a goal of intercultural training is ‘making people aware of cultural

differences’, with a percentage of 81,25%. In the second place comes ‘informing about

different negotiation styles’ with 65,63%, followed by ‘teaching intercultural

communication skills with 59,38%. 37,5% of the respondents think that ‘studying foreign

languages’ should also be a goal of intercultural training, and 31,25% think the same of

‘giving factual knowledge about other cultures’. To ‘study one’s own culture’ is

considered a goal of intercultural training only by 9,38% of the respondents.

The high percentage of the goal ‘inform about different negotiation styles’ may be

explained by the fact that the respondents of the questionnaire are all businessmen. The

three Dutch businessmen who have participated in an intercultural training all agree that

‘making people aware of cultural differences’ and ‘inform about different negotiation

styles’ should be goals of intercultural training, while ‘studying foreign languages’ and

‘study one’s own culture’ should not. Two of these respondents also considered ‘teaching

intercultural communication skills’ a goal of intercultural training, while the other

respondent believes that ‘giving factual knowledge about other cultures’ should be a goal

of intercultural training.

7.4 The use of interpreters

In this fourth and final part of the questionnaire the Dutch businessmen are asked

questions about the use of interpreters and their view on the interpreter’s role. The

majority of the respondents (51,43%) believe it is sometimes necessary to use the

services of an interpreter in order to be able to do business abroad, while 45,71% do not

117

consider this necessary. The remaining 2,86% do not know whether or not it is necessary

to use an interpreter when doing business with foreigners. 40% of the Dutch businessmen

believe that using the services of an interpreter may improve the probability of a

successful outcome of a negotiation. 31,43% do not believe this is the case, while 28,57%

do not know whether or not the use of an interpreter may improve the outcome of a

negotiation (this high percentage could be explained by the fact that the respondents have

little experience with the use of interpreters). One respondent explains:

Given that I have lived in Italy for 8 years my situation is different than that of a

company who tries to do business with Italy merely acting from the Netherlands. I

developed most contacts, language skills and knowledge of manners during my stay in

Italy. No course or mediator can beat that! (respondent 28)

Of all five respondents who say they mostly use the Italian language in doing

business with Italians, while they do not speak this language perfectly well, four

respondents (80%) believe that it is not necessary to use the services of an interpreter in

order to do business abroad (one respondent believes that this is sometimes necessary).

However, three of them (60%) do believe that the use of an interpreter may improve the

probability of a successful outcome of a negotiation, while one respondent (20%) does

not agree with this and the fifth respondent (20%) does not no whether or not this is true.

All three respondents who have participated in an intercultural training believe that the

use of interpreters is sometimes necessary in order to do business abroad. Two of the

three respondents (66,67%) believe that the use of an interpreter may also improve the

outcome of a negotiation, while the third respondent (33,33%) does not agree with this.

The majority (72,73%) of the respondents who believe that the use of an

interpreter does not improve the probability of a successful outcome of a negotiation (in

total 11 respondents), do believe that using the services of an interpreter is sometimes

necessary in order to do business abroad (the remaining 27,27% do not believe this is

necessary). This would mean that they see the interpreter only as a person who transfers a

message from one language to another, without facilitating communication or bridging

cultural differences. Of the three respondents who declare to have missed a deal due to

cultural and/or linguistic differences, two (66,67%) believe that the use of an interpreter

is not necessary in order to do business abroad, while the third (33,33%) believes this is

118

sometimes necessary. To the question whether or not the use of an interpreter may

improve the outcome of a negotiation, one respondent (33,33%) answered yes, another

(33,33%) no and the third (33,33%) did not know if this was true. These answers show

that at least two of these respondents (66,67%) do not believe that the use of an

interpreter could have prevented them from missing a deal.

Most respondents (88,57%) declare that they and their company never use the

services of an interpreter. The remaining 11,43% sometimes use the services of an

interpreter. Surprisingly, out of the four respondents who state that they sometimes use

the services of an interpreter, two respondents (50%) state that the use of an interpreter is

not necessary in order to do business abroad (the other two believe this is sometimes

necessary) and one of them even believes that the use of an interpreter does not improve

the probability of a successful outcome of a negotiation, while the other one does not

know whether or not this is the case. This may be due to unsatisfied experiences with

(possibly untrained) interpreters.

Question 26 asks the Dutch businessmen how important they consider the

following aspects for an interpreter: impartiality, confidentiality, accuracy, knowledge of

business terms, knowledge of the cultures involved and knowledge of the field in which

the companies operate. Impartiality of the interpreter is seen as fundamental by the

majority of the respondents (68,75%), while 12,5% think it is very important and another

12,5% believe it is quite important. The remaining 2,65% believe that impartiality is an

unimportant aspect with regard to the interpreter. Confidentiality is considered

fundamental by the majority of the respondents (78,13%), while 6,25% believe it is very

important, another 6,25% that it is quite important, 3,13% that it is not very important and

the remaining 6,25% that it is unimportant. Accuracy is seen as fundamental by 71,88%

of the Dutch businessmen, while 18,75% believe it is a very important aspect with regard

to the interpreter’s role. 6,25% believe it is quite important and the remaining 3,13%

think it is an unimportant aspect.

The knowledge of business terms is seen as fundamental by half of the

respondents (50%) and 28,13% think it is a very important aspect. 18,75% believe it is

quite important and the remaining 3,13% do not believe it is important at all. Knowledge

of the cultures involved is considered fundamental by 40,63% of the Dutch businessmen,

119

while 37,5% consider it very important. 12,5% believe it is quite important, 6,25% that it

is not very important and the remaining 3,13% that it is an unimportant aspect with

regard to the interpreter’s role. Finally, knowledge of the field in which the companies

operate is considered quite important by 34,38% of the respondents, while 28,13%

believe it is fundamental and 18,75% think it is very important. 15,63% believe it is not

very important and 3,13% consider it an unimportant aspect for the interpreter.

We may conclude that confidentiality, accuracy and impartiality are respectively

seen as the most fundamental aspects regarding the interpreter’s role, in accordance with

the interpreter’s ethics. It may however be surprising that impartiality is considered

fundamental by the majority of the respondents, since the business interpreter often is

expected to act as a servant for his or her employer, instead of as an impartial facilitator

of communication. Only two respondents (6,25%) believe that impartiality is an

unimportant aspect with regard to the interpreter’s role. It should be noted that one

respondent (respondent 13) believes that all six aspects are unimportant for the

interpreter. Knowledge of business terms is considered less important than

confidentiality, accuracy and impartiality, even though it is a fundamental aspect for the

interpreter in order to relay accurately. Knowledge of the field in which the companies

operate is considered the least important aspect with regard to the interpreter’s role,

followed by knowledge of the cultures involved.

The next question asks the respondents which of the following tasks do they

consider part of the interpreter’s job (it is again possible to choose more options): explain

cultural references, adapt language to the culture of the receiver, name misunderstandings

and explain them during the conversation, literally translate everything that is being said,

explain unknown terms, give his or her opinion on the other party or on the negotiation in

general and organizational tasks (such as booking a business trip). The task that is

considered as part of the interpreter’s job by the highest percentage of respondents

(81,25%) is to ‘name misunderstandings and explain them during the conversation’,

followed by ‘explain unknown terms’ (78,13%), ‘adapt language to the culture of the

receiver’ (59,38%), ‘literally translate everything that is being said’ (53,13%), ‘explain

cultural references’ (43,75%), ‘give his or her opinion on the other party or on the

negotiation in general’ (9,38%) and ‘organizational tasks’ (3,13%).

120

The fact that the interpreter should literally translate all messages is still believed

to be part of the interpreter’s job by more than half of the respondents, even though it is

impossible to achieve an accurate interpretation when translating literally. Six

respondents (18,75%) actually name both ‘adapt language to the culture of the receiver’

and ‘literally translate everything that is being said’ as tasks of the interpreter, while it is

impossible to perform both tasks at once. This shows that some of the Dutch businessmen

have a low understanding of the interpreter’s profession. The fact that ‘give his or her

opinion on the other party or on the negotiation in general’ is considered a task of the

interpreter by less than 10% of the respondents again shows that most respondents do not

expect the interpreter to act as a member of the negotiation team, but rather as an

impartial facilitator. Organizational tasks are seen as part of the interpreter’s job only by

one respondent. Most respondents believe that the main task of the interpreter is to

explain misunderstandings and unknown terms, which is quite surprising considering that

so few of the respondents believe that misunderstandings often occur during a negotiation

with Italian businessmen.

Of the four respondents who state that they sometimes use the services of an

interpreter, none believes that ‘explain cultural references’ and ‘organizational tasks’ are

part of the interpreter’s job, while all four believe that to ‘name misunderstandings and

explain them during the conversation’ is a task of the interpreter. Three out of four

respondents believe that the interpreter should ‘explain unknown terms’, while only one

respondent thinks the interpreter should also ‘give his or her opinion on the other party or

on the negotiation in general’. Two of the four respondents believe that the interpreter

should ‘adapt language to the culture of the receiver’, while the other two believe that the

interpreter should ‘literally translate everything that is being said’. One of the respondents

explains: ‘I want the interpreter to simply translate literally. Because of years of

experience abroad I acquired sufficient cultural knowledge in order to guide the

interaction in the right direction.’ (respondent 15).

The Dutch businessmen are then asked how they feel about the following

statements: the interpreter is a bridge between two languages; the interpreter is a bridge

between two cultures; the interpreter simply translates messages; and the interpreter is a

mediator of communication. The majority of the respondents (59,38%) believe that the

121

first statement (‘the interpreter is a bridge between two languages’) is true, while 34,38%

think this is partly true. The remaining 6,25% do not know whether or not they feel the

statement to be true. 25,81% of the respondents agree with the second statement (‘the

interpreter is a bridge between two cultures’), while the majority (54,84%) think this

statement is partly true. 9,68% of the respondents do not agree with this statement, while

another 9,68% do not know whether to agree or disagree with it. 22,58% of the Dutch

businessmen think that the third statement (‘the interpreter simply translates messages) is

true, while 32,26% believe it is partly true. 41,94% of the respondents think that this

statement is untrue and the remaining 3,23% do not know whether it is true or not.

Finally, the fourth statement (‘the interpreter is a mediator of communication’) is

considered true by 36,67% of the respondents, while 40% believe it is partly true. 16,67%

think this final statement is untrue and the remaining 6,67% do not know whether to

consider it true or not.

All three respondents who do not see the interpreter as a bridge between two

cultures, believe that it is partly true that the interpreter simply translates messages.

Surprisingly, all three do believe that it is part of the interpreter’s job to explain unknown

terms and to adapt language to the culture of the receiver. One of these three respondents

also believes that it is the interpreter’s task to explain cultural references. These are all

actions the interpreter uses in order to bridge cultural differences. Indeed, two of these

respondents also believe that it is quite important for the interpreter to have knowledge

about the cultures involved and the third even believes that this is very important. Of all

respondents who believe that it is true that the interpreter simply translates messages (7 in

total), the majority (71,43%) think it is part of the interpreter’s job to literally translate

everything that is being said. Most of them (57,14%) also do not believe that the use of an

interpreter may improve the probability of a positive outcome of a negotiation. Five

respondents do not believe that the interpreter is a mediator of communication, even

though three of these respondents do believe that it is the task of the interpreter to name

misunderstandings and explain them during the conversation.

Of the four respondents who sometimes use the services of an interpreter, three

believe that the interpreter is a bridge between two languages and a mediator of

communication, while one respondent thinks that these statements are only partly true.

122

Only one respondent feels that the interpreter is a bridge between two cultures, while two

believe this is partly true (the fourth respondent did not answer this question). On the

statement that the interpreter simply translates messages their opinions are divided: one

believes this is true, one thinks it is only partly true and according to the third it is untrue

(the fourth respondent did not answer this question).

The final question of this part of the questionnaire asks the Dutch businessmen

whether or not they believe it is necessary for an interpreter to have a university degree.

More than half of the respondents (51,61%) believe that the knowledge of the two

languages and cultures involved is enough. 19,35% of the respondents think that the

interpreter should have a university degree in foreign languages and cultures, while

16,13% believe that the interpreter should have a university degree in translating and/or

interpreting. 9,68% believe that the interpreter should have a university degree in the

economic sector and one respondent (3,23%) says that ‘the direction of the degree does

not matter, but the level is important’ (respondent 8).

7.5 Conclusion

The results of the questionnaire show that most Dutch businessmen use the English or

Italian language when dealing with Italian business partners. German is used only

occasionally, while the Dutch language is almost never used. There is a correlation

between the length of the period for which the respondents have been in contact with

Italian business partners and the language used: the longer the respondent has had Italian

business contacts, the more likely it is he or she will be using Italian during a negotiation.

English on the other hand, is used more often by Dutch businessmen who have not been

in contact with Italians for a long period of time (less than three years).

While the respondents who declare that they use English most of the time when

dealing with Italians also state that they have a good proficiency in this language, there

are some respondents who use Italian during negotiations even though they do not have a

very good proficiency in this language. This means that they negotiate and discuss

important matters in a language they do not speak perfectly well. Verluyten advises not to

123

use a foreign language during a negotiation if you do not have a perfect or good

proficiency in it:

Even after many years of learning, chances are that you will not grasp all the

connotations and subtleties of the other language. In case of doubt, it is preferable to stick

to English and/or to bring an interpreter for your business negotiations; you can then

choose to speak the foreign language when it suits you, use it at receptions, banquets and

dinners, etc. (2009: 95).

However, these respondents all state that they never use the services of an interpreter. In

their book on business communication, Hendon et al. also discourage anyone from

negotiating ‘in a foreign language, unless you know it very well.’ (quoted in Garzone

2003: 80). Nevertheless, only two of these five respondents believe that linguistic

differences have sometimes led to misunderstandings, while the other three believe this

has almost never happened. It is likely though, that misunderstandings did occur during

negotiations due to linguistic differences, but that the respondents remained unaware of

them.

The number of respondents who affirm that misunderstandings and/or problems

occurred during a negotiation due to linguistic and/or cultural differences is reasonably

low: not a single respondent states that misunderstandings have often occurred due to

linguistic differences and less than half of the respondents say this has sometimes

happened; a quarter of the respondents believe that misunderstandings have sometimes

occurred due to cultural differences and only 5,71% say this has often happened. In fact,

only three respondents affirm to have missed a deal and/or contract due to cultural and/or

linguistic differences. These three respondents are all in contact with Italian businessmen

for at least three years and with a frequency of at least once a week. This shows that even

after frequent contact and a reasonably long period of dealing with Italians, cultural

and/or linguistic differences may still lead to misunderstandings and even to the

breakdown of a negotiation. It is therefore advisable to use an interpreter in order to

bridge the cultural and linguistic gap between the two parties.

An explanation for the fact that most respondents state that they do not often

perceive misunderstandings during a negotiation, could be that they might feel the need

to “save face” and therefore do not want to admit that misunderstandings occur. It is

124

however also possible that misunderstandings do occur but that the Dutch businessmen

are not aware of them. The majority of the respondents do perceive differences between

their own norms and habits with regard to negotiations and those of the Italian

businessmen. But even though cultural differences are perceived, only 14,29% of the

Dutch businessmen believe that these differences have a large degree of influence on

negotiations. It is therefore possible that the respondents overlook misunderstandings

when they occur, because they do not expect them to occur. The examples of cultural

differences the respondents provide, clearly underline the main differences between the

Dutch and Italian culture we already found in the previous chapters: directness vs.

indirectness, time-oriented vs. human-oriented and differences in expected degree of

formality and politeness.

Very few respondents state that differences with regard to the aspects listed in

question 16 led to misunderstandings and/or problems during a negotiation. Only the

obedience to deadlines and/or contracts, punctuality, the expectations of the business

relationship and the expectations of the negotiation structure caused misunderstandings

and/or problems to a relatively high number of respondents. Again this may be caused by

the possibility that the Dutch businessmen are unaware of misunderstandings that occur

during a negotiation. Misunderstandings with respect to deadlines and punctuality are

hard to miss, but other misunderstandings are much more difficult to detect. When an

Italian businessman for example expects a high degree of politeness during a negotiation,

while a Dutch business partner addresses him or her by the first name, this may cause the

Italian to think of the Dutch person as disrespectful, even though the intentions of the

Dutch businessman are to create a smaller distance between the negotiators. The Italian

businessman therefore misunderstands the intention of the Dutch businessman and might

react irritated, while the Dutch negotiator does not know what caused this reaction and

that a misunderstanding has occurred.

The majority of the respondents (almost 60%) believe it is useful to have

knowledge of the cultural differences between themselves and their Italian business

partners ahead of the negotiation, but only a quarter of the Dutch businessmen think that

intercultural training is necessary in order to do business abroad. Thus, intercultural

training is not seen as necessary and the respondents may think that knowledge of

125

cultural differences may also be acquired through other means, such as a relatively long

stay in Italy. Most respondents do however believe that intercultural training may

improve the probability of a successful outcome of a negotiation. It is therefore surprising

that only one respondent affirms that his company offers intercultural training to his

employees and that only three respondents have ever participated in an intercultural

training program. A possible explanation for this is that intercultural training courses are

considered too expensive and/or time-consuming. The following quote of Vossestein may

therefore not be so true: ‘the Dutch public sees the world as a holiday destination, while

the Dutch business world sees it as a huge potential market. To exploit it to the full

people read and study, learn other languages and take cultural preparation courses.’

(2001: 144, my emphasis). Most respondents do however understand that the focus of

intercultural training should be on creating cultural awareness and learning intercultural

communication skills, and not on studying foreign languages and factual information

about other cultures, as the first two aspects were mentioned far more often as goals of an

intercultural training than the latter ones. The respondents also consider the distribution

of information about different negotiation styles an important goal of intercultural

training.

Most respondents believe that the use of an interpreter is only sometimes

necessary and less than half of the respondents (40%) believe that the services of an

interpreter may improve the probability of a successful outcome of a negotiation. Almost

90% of the respondents never use the services of an interpreter. The attitude of the Dutch

businessmen towards the use of interpreters is clearly represented by this comment: ‘The

sudden transition of ‘doing business with Italians’ to the use of an interpreter is not clear

to me. As if Italians are completely different people and a mediator should be used in

order to be able to work with them.’ (respondent 35). Like this respondent, Dutch

businessmen often do not perceive the need to use the services of an interpreter, because

they do not realize to what extent cultural differences influence communication and

negotiations in particular. In addition, they often think that interpreters are only needed in

order to bridge linguistic differences and since most respondents have a good proficiency

in the language they use when negotiating with their Italian partners, they do not believe

it is necessary to use an interpreter. However, if the negotiation takes place in English

126

misunderstandings may also occur because of the fact that the Italian businessmen do not

usually have a very good proficiency in this language. In addition, as Rudvin states, it is

often very ‘difficult for second language speakers to successfully emulate complex

linguistic norms such as politeness markers’ (2003a: 187) and for this reason it is wise to

bring an interpreter to the negotiation.

Often the use of interpreters will also be avoided in order to save money and time:

an interpreted negotiation will take at least twice as long as a regular negotiation. In

addition, Alessandro Messina explains that with regard to the interpreter’s services,

it is quite difficult for the consumer to check quality and the professional to assure it.

Nowadays there are few sectors, whether in industry or in services, where potential

clients have to accept such uncertainty about the “value of money” aspect of what they

buy. And this is probably one of the reasons why users finally see translation and

interpreting as just a cost factor.54

Quality standards, qualification requirements and general guidelines with regard to the

interpreter’s profession are necessary in order to resolve this problem.

According to the respondents it is important for an interpreter to act

confidentially, to interpret accurately and to remain impartial. The importance the Dutch

businessmen ascribe to the impartiality of the interpreter, shows that they do not expect

the interpreter to serve his or her employer, but rather to safeguard effective

communication between both parties. This is also shown by the fact that the interpreter is

expected to ‘give his or her opinion on the other party or on the negotiation in general’ by

less than 10% of the respondents and that only one respondent expects the interpreter to

perform organizational tasks. Knowledge of business terms, of the field in which the

companies operate and of the cultures involved are considered relatively less important

and this may explain why companies do not always perceive the interpreter’s need for a

briefing ahead of the negotiation; they do not always understand that cultural elements,

information on the company and business terms are fundamental aspects for an

interpreter in order to give a high quality performance.

54

Messina, A. (2002), “Quality Research and Quality Standards in Interpreting: the State of the Arts”, in

Garzone, G., Mead, P., Viezzi, M. eds. (2002), Perspectives on Interpreting, Bologna, CLUEB: 104.

127

The low degree of understanding with respect to the interpreter’s role and job is

also shown by the fact that over half of the respondents state that the interpreter should

literally translate everything that has been said, while they also believe that the interpreter

should interpret accurately. We have seen in the previous chapter that a literal word-by-

word interpretation will almost never lead to an accurate interpretation. On top of this,

some respondents state that the interpreter should adapt the message to the receiver’s

culture and interpret literally. It is impossible for an interpreter to adapt the message to

another culture when relaying the message literally.

Even though, according to the respondents, the main task of the interpreter is to

explain misunderstandings and unknown terms, the respondents consider the interpreter

more as a bridge between languages than as a bridge between cultures. Most respondents

do however understand that the interpreter does not simply translate messages and that he

or she also functions as a mediator of communication. On the other hand, the responses to

the final question clearly show that most businessmen do not realize that specific

interpreting skills are needed in order to give a high level performance. The interpreter

should not only have a thorough knowledge of the languages and cultures involved, but

also needs to acquire for example memory, note-taking and interaction management

skills. Only a quarter of the respondents acknowledges this need by stating that the

interpreter should have a university degree in translating and/or interpreting. The other

respondents believe that the knowledge of the languages and cultures involved or a

university degree in another sector is enough in order to be able to interpret. This fact

may also induce businessmen to use untrained bilinguals as interpreters during

negotiations.

To sum up, the Dutch businessmen are generally aware of cultural and/or

linguistic differences between themselves and their Italian business partners, but they do

not believe that these differences have a large degree of influence on negotiations. The

respondents neither believe that misunderstandings and/or problems occur often due to

cultural and/or linguistic problems, possibly because they are not aware of them.

Intercultural training is considered useful, but offered only by one of the companies

involved. Interpreters are rarely used, probably in order to save money and time, and the

Dutch businessmen have a low understanding of the interpreter’s role and profession.

128

8. Conclusion

In the second chapter of this thesis we have seen that culture consists of values and

practices which people share with a certain group. Culture may be seen as consisting of

three different layers: the outer layer with the material reality; the middle layer with the

norms and values; and the inner layer with the basic assumptions to deal with universal

problems (Hall quoted in Garzone 2003: 55). These basic assumptions, which guide

people’s behaviour, are often unconscious. We also have examined the cultural models of

four different scholars, which distinguish cultures according to various characteristics:

- the model of Hofstede (1991) with his five cultural dimensions: individualism,

masculinity, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation.

- the basic assumptions of Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2006):

individualism–collectivism, neutral–emotional, specific–diffuse, achievement–

ascription, monochronic–polychronic and inner-directed orientation–outer-

directed orientation.

- the theory of Pinto (1994): F-cultures, M-cultures and G-cultures.

- the theory of Hall (1990): monochronic–polychronic and high-context–low-

context cultures.

Even though the underlying communication process is the same for intra- and

intercultural encounters, the way people communicate is influenced by the culture they

come from. Because of the fact that culture influences the perception process (which

consists out of the selection, organization and interpretation of messages), it is difficult

for interlocutors who do not have the same cultural background to effectively

communicate and understand each other’s messages (Jandt 2001: 182). When two people

coming from different cultures communicate with each other, their modes of behaviour,

communicative genres and basic assumptions will vary. Since most people are not aware

of the fact that culture influences communication, misunderstandings, attribution

mistakes and conflicts may occur during an intercultural encounter. Even though

nonverbal communication is often considered a natural kind of language, this aspect of

communication too differs strongly across cultures. Because of the fact that nonverbal

communication and its interpretation mostly happen unconsciously, it is likely for

129

misunderstandings to occur due to cultural differences in nonverbal communication

(Pinto 1994: 29).

Because of the growing globalization, businessmen from various parts of the

world are brought into contact on a daily basis. In this thesis I have concentrated on one

specific situation during which businessmen from different cultures communicate with

each other: negotiations. Negotiations are transactional conversations; the goal of the

interaction is to reach an agreement or to sign a contract. Effective communication is

necessary in order to reach this goal, and this is not an easy task since businessmen with

different cultural backgrounds have different negotiation styles and modes of

communicating. When the behaviour of one party does not meet the expectations of the

other party, this may impede a positive outcome of the negotiation. For this reason, the

influence of cultural differences on business negotiations has received much attention

from a variety of scholars. The situation in intercultural negotiations is made even more

difficult by the fact that more interlocutors interfere in the communication process, which

leads to a higher probability of misunderstandings (Schermer 2008: 237). Cultural

differences may cause misunderstandings in various domains of business communication:

- language: the use of foreign languages, the use of English as a lingua franca,

direct–indirect communication, politeness and face, loudness of voice, terms of

address, taboos.

- nonverbal communication: the use of gestures, eye contact, emotions, clothing

habits.

- time: turn-taking mechanisms, acquiescing, tolerance of silence, the structure of

events and in particular of negotiations, which can be divided into four parts:

getting acquainted with the other party, negotiating and consulting, deciding, and

implementing the decision (Verluyten 2009: 73).

- space: interpersonal distance.

- etiquette: greetings, gift giving, dinner.

Because of the fact that misunderstandings may occur during a negotiation due to

cultural differences, many scholars believe that intercultural competence and training are

necessary in order to do business with foreigners. However, this need is recognized only

by few international organizations. According to Verluyten (2009), international

130

negotiators should especially have knowledge of the outer layer of culture, since this

layer contains the visible behaviour and practices. Intercultural training programs may

concentrate on various topics, such as different negotiation styles, intercultural

communication skills, creating cultural awareness, learn the values and norms of other

cultures and creating awareness of one’s own values and norms. According to Brislin

(1989: 445), intercultural training should have effect on the trainee at three different

levels, namely: cognitions, affect and behaviour. In addition intercultural training may

happen on different levels of involvement with regard to the trainee. Unfortunately, short

simplistic intercultural training programs which often exaggerate cultural differences,

seem the most convenient solution to many managers, since they save them a lot of time

and money (Verluyten 2009: 238).

In chapter 3 I examined the main characteristics of the Dutch culture, which may

influence the behaviour of Dutch businessmen during negotiations. These main

characteristics include: a weak social hierarchy, consensus-based decision making, value

of openness, a strive for egalitarianism, high level of individuality, direct and low-context

communication, status through achievement, time- and task-oriented (monochronic),

long-term orientation, adherence to procedures and rules, internationally oriented, focus

on content instead of form and ritual, a relatively low degree of formality (especially in

clothing habits) and a limited use of forms of politeness (especially in addressing). In

addition the Dutch culture is specific, universalistic and neutral.

The main characteristics of the Italian culture which may influence the negotiation

style and strategies of Italian businessmen were examined in chapter 4. These main

characteristics are: the importance of family and close friends, a strong social hierarchy,

top-down decision making, status mostly through ascription, relationship- and human-

oriented (polychronic), short-term orientation, flexible with regard to procedures and

deadlines, indirect and high-context communication, a high amount of immediacy

behaviour, importance of culinary culture, focus on style and form instead of content, a

relatively high degree of formality and politeness (again in clothing and terms of

address). In addition the Italian culture is diffuse, particularistic and emotional.

The differences between these main cultural characteristics may lead to some

problems and misunderstandings during a negotiation between Dutch and Italian

131

businessmen. In chapter 5 I have examined the main sources of these problems and

misunderstandings, on the basis of the cultural dimensions of Hofstede (1991),

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2006) and Hall (1990). In this conclusion I will only

give a couple of examples of possible misunderstandings:

- content vs. form: the Dutch businessmen might not make a good impression on

the Italian businessmen, who generally dress more formally and use politeness

strategies more often. The Italian businessmen on the other hand, might come

across as superficial or excessively showing off their status and wealth.

- neutral vs. emotional: the Dutch businessmen might come across as cold and

distant, while the Italians might be seen as unprofessional when they show their

emotions during a negotiation.

- time-orientated vs. relationship-oriented: Italians consider business a personal

matter and want to get to know the other party before discussing business. The

Dutch businessmen might consider this small talk a waste of time (and money),

since they have an impersonal view of business. They instead would prefer to get

to the point as quickly as possible, which the Italians might consider as impatient

and rude behaviour.

- direct communication vs. indirect communication: the openness and directness of

the Dutch businessmen may be considered rude or arrogant by the Italian party,

while the indirect communication style of the Italians may be seen as vague or

irritating by the Dutch party.

These misunderstandings may be prevented by using the services of an

interpreter. In chapter 6 I have therefore examined the field of business interpreting. The

business interpreter enables effective communication by bridging the cultural and

linguistic gap between the negotiators. There is a limited understanding of the

interpreter’s role in the business world. For this reason the business interpreter is often

expected to perform tasks that do not strictly belong to his or her role (such as guide-

work and public relations), or that go against the general ethics of interpreters: he or she

might be expected to serve his or her employer, while the interpreter’s ethics clearly state

that the interpreter should act impartially. Therefore, ethical conflicts may arise for the

interpreter. The business interpreter might also find it necessary to breach the principle of

132

accuracy in certain situations, for example in order to mediate at difficult points in the

negotiation. Unfortunately, it is often assumed that bilingual skills alone are sufficient in

order to function as an interpreter. For this reason many companies use “natural”

interpreters instead of professionals, which leads to low quality interpreting and damages

the profession.

In chapter 7 I analyzed the results of the questionnaire I sent out in order to

investigate the practices of Dutch businessmen who import alimentary goods from Italy.

We have seen that most negotiations between Dutch and Italian businessmen take place

in English or Italian, which means that the Dutch businessmen almost never use their

mother language during a negotiation. In case the interlocutors do not have a perfect

proficiency in the language which is being used, it is likely that misunderstandings will

occur. Very little attention is however given to this linguistic dimension of negotiations in

the field of business communication.

The differences the Dutch businessmen reported to have noticed between

themselves and their Italian partners correspond with the differences between the main

characteristics of both cultures which we have seen in chapter 3 and 4, namely: direct vs.

indirect communication, time-oriented vs. relationship-oriented and a relatively low

degree of politeness and formality vs. a relatively high degree of politeness and formality.

Surprisingly, the majority of the Dutch businessmen state that they have never noticed

any differences between themselves and the Italian businessmen with respect to the

loudness of the voice, the interruption of someone else’s speech and the expression of

emotions, even though we have seen that these aspects vary significantly between the

Dutch and Italian culture.

Even though cultural differences are in general noted by the Dutch businessmen,

the majority does not believe that these differences have often led to misunderstandings

during a negotiation with Italian business partners. Neither do they believe that cultural

differences have a large degree of influence on negotiations. It is however possible that

misunderstandings do occur during a negotiation between Italian and Dutch businessmen,

but that they are not noticed by the negotiators, because they do not expect cultural

differences to influence on the negotiation and therefore for misunderstandings to occur.

133

The majority of the Dutch businessmen believe that intercultural training is

sometimes necessary in order to do business abroad and that it may improve the

probability of a successful outcome of a negotiation, but only three out of 35 businessmen

have participated in an intercultural training program and only one company offers

intercultural training to its employees. We may therefore conclude that intercultural

training is considered useful, but not commonly followed by Dutch businessmen in this

particular sector. The participation in an intercultural training program would certainly

increase the awareness of the Dutch businessmen with respect to the influence of cultural

and linguistic differences on negotiations. In addition, it would be useful in order to learn

more about the communication and negotiation style of their Italian partners, which may

in turn increase the probability of effective communication and a positive outcome of the

negotiation.

Almost half of the Dutch businessmen believe it is not necessary to use an

interpreter in order to do business abroad and one-third thinks that the use of an

interpreter does not improve the probability of a successful outcome of a negotiation.

Only four of the businessmen who filled in the questionnaire ever used an interpreter in

order to negotiate with Italian business partners. The results of the questionnaire clearly

show that the Dutch businessmen have a low understanding of the interpreter’s role. It

might be possible that this is due to the fact that the companies in question have never

used the services of a professional interpreter and therefore are not familiar with the

advantages this might bring to both parties.

As we have seen, the use of interpreters is quite limited in this sector. This might

be explained by the fact that most Dutch businessmen see the interpreter especially as a

bridge between two languages, and since the majority of the Dutch businessmen have a

good proficiency in the language they use during negotiations with their Italian business

partners, they do not perceive the need to use the services of an interpreter.

Misunderstandings may however also occur when all negotiators have a good proficiency

in the language which is being used, since communicative genres and patterns are

culturally determined and therefore not shared by the two parties. Thus, the use of an

interpreter is advisable also if the two parties speak the language which is being used

quite well, since he or she will be familiar with the communication styles of both

134

cultures. However, the Dutch businessmen do not believe that it is necessary to use an

interpreter in order to bridge cultural differences, since they are of the opinion that

cultural differences influence negotiations only to a small degree. In addition, the use of

interpreters is probably avoided in order to save money and time.

We may conclude that the majority of the Dutch businessmen are not aware of the

influence that cultural and linguistic differences have on negotiations, and therefore do

not perceive the need to use the services of an interpreter or to participate in intercultural

training programs. If the Dutch businessmen would participate in intercultural training

programs and/or use the service of interpreters, negotiations with their Italian business

partners would probably lead to economically more interesting deals and business

relationships.

135

9. Bibliography

Abbott, C. (2008), Italy, London, Kuperard.

Balboni, P.E. (2007), La comunicazione interculturale, Venezia, Marsilio.

Bolman, L.G., Deal, T.E. (2008), Reframing Organizations. Artistry, Choice, and

Leadership, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Bowe, H., Martin, K. (2007), Communication Across Cultures. Mutual understanding in

a global world, New York, Cambridge University Press.

Brislin, R.W. (1989), “Intercultural Communication Training”, in Asante, M.K.,

Gudykunst, W.B. eds. (1989), Handbook of International and Intercultural

Communication, London, Sage Publications: 441-457.

Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1978), “Universals in language use: politeness phenomena”, in

Goody, E. (1978), Questions and politeness: strategies in social interaction, London,

CUP: 61-88.

Buckland, S. (2006), Netherlands, Rijswijk, Elmar B.V.

Claes, M., Gerritsen, M. (2007), Culturele Waarden en Communicatie in Internationaal

Perspectief, Bussum, Coutinho.

Crawford Camiciottoli, B. (2006), “Corporate Earning Calls: a Hybrid Genre?”, in

Palmer-Silveira et al. (2006): 109-137.

D’Iribarne, P. (1998), Eer, contract en consensus, Amsterdam : Nieuwezijds.

Du-Babcock B., Babcock, R.D. (2006), “Developing Linguistic and Cultural Competency

in International Business Communication”, in Palmer-Silveira et al. (2006): 55-82.

Garzone, G. ed. (2003), Domain-Specific English and Language Mediation in

Professional and Institutional Settings, Milano, Arcipelago.

Gentile, A., Ozolins, U., Vasilakakos, M. (1996), Liaison Interpreting. A Handbook,

Melbourne, Melbourne University Press.

Giménez, J.C. (2006), “Helping Advanced Learners of English Cope with the Demands”,

in Palmer-Silveira et al. (2006): 289-306.

Greenhalgh, L., Neslin S.A. (1983), “Determining Outcomes of Negotiations. An

Empirical Assessment”, in Bazerman, M.H, Lewicki, R.J. eds. (1983), negotiating in

organizations, London, Sage Publications: 114-134.

136

Gudykunst, W.B., Kim, Y.Y. (1992), Communicating with Strangers. An Approach to

Intercultural Communication, New York, McGraw-Hill.

Günthner, S., Luckmann, T. (2001), “Asymmetries of Knowledge”, in Di Luzio, A.,

Günthner S., Orletti, F. (2001), Culture in Communication. Analyses of Intercultural

Situations, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 55-85.

Hale, S.B. (2007), Community interpreting, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Hall, E.T. (1990), Understanding Cultural Differences, Yarmouth, MEL Intercultural

Press.

Hecht, M.L., Andersen, P.A., Ribeau, S.A. (1989) “The Cultural Dimensions of

Nonverbal Communication”, in Asante, M.K., Gudykunst, W.B. eds. (1989),

Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, London, Sage

Publications: 163-185.

Hinnenkamp, V. (2001), “Constructing Misunderstanding as a Cultural Event”, in Di

Luzio, A., Günthner S., Orletti, F. (2001), Culture in Communication. Analyses of

Intercultural Situations, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 211-243.

Hoffman, E. (2002), Interculturele gespreksvoering. Theorie en praktijk van het TOPOI-

model, Houten/Diegem, Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.

Hofstede, G. (1991), Allemaal andersdenkenden. Omgaan met cultuurverschillen,

Amsterdam, Contact.

Holliday, A., Hyde, M., Kullman, J. (2004), Intercultural Communication, New York,

Routledge.

Jandt, F.E. (2001), Intercultural Communication. An Introduction, London, Sage

Publications.

Jänis, M. (2002), “From A to B and from B to A: what is the difference?”, in Garzone,

G., Mead, P., Viezzi, M. eds. (2002), Perspectives on Interpreting, Bologna, CLUEB:

53-64.

Knoblauch, H. (2001), “Communication, Contexts and Culture”, in Di Luzio, A.,

Günthner S., Orletti, F. (2001), Culture in Communication. Analyses of Intercultural

Situations, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 3-33.

137

Lewicki, R.J. (1983), “Lying and Deception. A Behavioral Model”, in Bazerman, M.H,

Lewicki, R.J. eds. (1983), negotiating in organizations, London, Sage Publications:

68-90.

Louhiala-Salminen L., Charles M. (2006), “English as the Lingua Franca of IBS”, in

Palmer-Silveira et al. (2006): 30.

Matsumoto, D., Wallbott, H.G., Scherer, K.R. (1989), “Emotions in Intercultural

Communication”, in Asante, M.K., Gudykunst, W.B. eds. (1989), Handbook of

International and Intercultural Communication, London, Sage Publications: 225-246.

Messina, A. (2002), “Quality Research and Quality Standards in Interpreting: the State of

the Arts”, in Garzone, G., Mead, P., Viezzi, M. eds. (2002), Perspectives on

Interpreting, Bologna, CLUEB: 103-109.

Müller, F.E. (2001), “Dialogue-Interpreting”, in Di Luzio, A., Günthner S., Orletti, F.

(2001), Culture in Communication. Analyses of Intercultural Situations,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 245-270.

Palmer-Silveira, J., Ruiz-Garrido, M., Fortanet-Gómez, I. eds. (2006), Intercultural and

International Business Communication, Bern, Peter Lang.

Pinto, D. (1994), Interculturele communicatie. Dubbel perspectief door de drie-

stappenmethode voor het doeltreffend overbruggen van verschillen, Houten/Diegem,

Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.

Pöchhacker, F. (2004), Introducing Interpreting Studies, London, Routledge.

Rehbein, J. (2001), “Intercultural Negotiation”, in Di Luzio, A., Günthner S., Orletti, F.

(2001), Culture in Communication. Analyses of Intercultural Situations,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 173-207.

Rudvin, M. (2002), “How Neutral is ‘Neutral’? Issues in Interaction and Participation in

Community Interpreting”, in Garzone, G., Mead, P., Viezzi, M. eds. (2002),

Perspectives on Interpreting, Bologna, CLUEB: 217-233.

Rudvin, M. (2003a), “Cross-Cultural Issues in Community Interpreting”, in Garzone

(2003): 177-199.

Rudvin, M. (2003b), “Interpreting for Public Services”, in Garzone (2003): 111-175.

138

Shuter, R. (1989), “The International Marketplace”, in Asante, M.K., Gudykunst, W.B.

eds. (1989), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, London,

Sage Publications: 392-406.

Schermer, K. (2008), Interculturele samenwerking en communicatie, Groningen,

Wolters-Noordhoff.

Trompenaars, F., Hampden-Turner, C. (2006), Over de Grenzen van Cultuur en

Management, Amsterdam/Antwerpen, Business Contact.

Van der Putten, J. (1999), Italianen, Amsterdam, Mets.

Van Meurs, F., Korzilius H., Den Hollander A. (2006), “The Persuasive Effect of the Use

of English in External Business Communication on Non-Native Speakers of English:

an Experimental Case Study of the Impact of the Use of English on a Dutch Job Site”,

in Palmer-Silveira et al. (2006): 139-179.

Veeger, M. (2006), Een verleidelijk theater. Cultuurwijzer voor het Italiaanse leven,

Amsterdam, Bert Bakker.

Verluyten, S.P. (2009), Intercultural Communication in Business and Organisations. An

Introduction, Leuven, Acco.

Vossestein, J. (2001), Dealing with the Dutch, Amsterdam, Kit Publishers.

Yule, G. (2006), The Study of Language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Websites

http://martevansanten.wordpress.com/2007/12/20/import-van-italiaanse-producten-blijft-

groeien/

http://www.agentschapnl.nl/onderwerp/itali%C3%AB-handel-met-nederland

http://www.davidpinto.nl/english/index.php

http://www.naati.com.au

http://www.ncihc.org

139

10. Appendices

10. 1 Appendix 1: ‘Culture star’

(Singer quoted in Holliday et al. 2004: 164)

140

10.2 Appendix 2: Approaches to intercultural training

(Brislin 1989: 445)

141

10.3 Appendix 3: Power Distance Index

(Hofstede 1991: 41)

142

10.4 Appendix 4: Masculinity Index

(Hofstede 1991: 111)

143

10.5 Appendix 5: Long-Term Orientation Index

(Hofstede 1991: 209)

144

10.6 Appendix 6: Uncertainty Avoidance Index

(Hofstede 1991: 145)

145

10.7 Appendix 7: Individuality Index

(Hofstede 1991: 73)

146

10.8 Appendix 8: Interpreter-mediated interaction model

(Anderson quoted in Pöchhacker 2004: 88)

147

10.9 Appendix 9: Questionnaire

Doing business with Italians

Questionnaire for Dutch companies who import alimentary goods from Italy

The goal of this questionnaire is to obtain a greater understanding of the problems that

may occur due to cultural and/or linguistic differences during a business negotiation

between Dutch and Italian companies. This questionnaire is created for Dutch

businessmen who import alimentary goods from Italy and therefore negotiate with

Italians. The questionnaire can be completed by every employee that has contact on a

regular basis with Italian business partners. The completion of the questionnaire will only

take 5 minutes of your time and will be highly appreciated. For any questions or

comments you may always contact me at the following email address:

s.doorduyn@live.nl

General information

1. What is the name of the company you work for? ……

2. In which field does this company operate? ……

3. What is your role within this company? ……

4. What is your age?

- <20 years

- 20-30 years

- 30-40 years

- 40-50 years

- >50 years

5. What is your gender?

- Male

- Female

6. What is your nationality? ….

148

7. What is your proficiency in the following languages?

Perfect Good Quite good Not good

Dutch

Italian

English

German

Other language

8. For how long have you been doing business with Italian companies?

- <1 year

- 1-3 years

- 3-5 years

- >5 years

9. How often are you usually in contact with Italian business partners? At least once

every…

- day

- week

- month

- 2 months

- 6 months

- year

149

Linguistic and cultural differences

10. How often do you use the following languages during negotiations with Italian

business partners?

Always Almost

always

Often Sometimes Almost

never

Never

Dutch

Italian

English

German

Other

language

11. Have there ever occurred any misunderstandings and/or problems due to linguistic

differences during a negotiation with Italian business partners?

- always

- often

- sometimes

- almost never

- never

- I don’t know

12. Have there ever occurred any misunderstandings and/or problems due to cultural

differences during a negotiation with Italian business partners?

- always

- often

- sometimes

- almost never

- never

- I don’t know

150

13. Have you ever missed a deal or contract due to cultural and/or linguistic

differences?

- yes

- no

- I don’t know

14. What degree of influence do you think cultural differences have on a negotiation?

- large degree of influence

- moderate degree influence

- small degree of influence

- no influence at all

15. Did you ever notice any differences between Dutch and Italian norms and habits

with regard to negotiations?

- yes, namely: ….

- no

- I don’t know

16. Have you ever noticed any differences between you and an Italian business

partner with regard to the following aspects during a negotiation, and if so did

these differences ever lead to any misunderstandings and/or problems?

Yes, and this aspect has led

to misunderstandings

and/or problems

Yes, but this aspect has not

led to misunderstandings

and/or problems

No

Directness in

communication

Politeness in

communication

Expected degree of

formality

Loudness of the

voice

Choice of topics

Use of gestures

151

Use of eye contact

Expression of

emotions

Interruption of

someone else’s

speech

Punctuality

Obedience to

deadlines and/or

contracts

Expectations of the

business

relationship

Expectations of the

negotiation structure

Proficiency in the

language used

Intercultural training

17. Do you believe it would be useful to have knowledge of cultural differences (such

as those listed above) ahead of the negotiation?

- yes

- no

- I don’t know

18. Do you believe intercultural training is necessary in order to be able to do

business abroad?

- yes

- sometimes

- no

- I don’t know

152

19. Do you believe intercultural training may improve the probability of a successful

outcome of a negotiation?

- yes

- no

- I don’t know

20. Does your company offer any form of intercultural training to his employees?

- yes

- no

- I don’t know

21. Have you ever participated in an intercultural training?

- yes

- no

22. What do you believe should be the goals of an intercultural training? (more

options possible)

- making people aware of cultural differences

- inform about different negotiation styles

- studying foreign languages

- giving factual knowledge about other cultures

- teaching intercultural communication skills

- study one’s own culture

Interpreter

23. Do you believe using the services of an interpreter is necessary in order to be able

to do business abroad?

- yes

- sometimes

- no

- I don’t know

153

24. Do you believe using the services of an interpreter may improve the probability of

a successful outcome of a negotiation?

- yes

- no

- I don’t know

25. Have you or your company ever used the services of an interpreter?

- yes, often

- yes, sometimes

- no

- I don’t know

26. How important do you believe the following aspects are for an interpreter?

Fundamental Very

important

Quite

important

Not very

important

unimportant

Impartiality

Confidentiality

Accuracy

Knowledge of

business terms

Knowledge of

the cultures

involved

Knowledge of

the field in which

the companies

operate

27. Which of the following tasks do you believe are part of the interpreter’s job?

(more options possible)

- explain cultural references

- adapt language to the culture of the receiver

- name misunderstandings and explain them during the conversation

154

- literally translate everything that is being said

- explain unknown terms

- give his or her opinion on the other party or on the negotiation in general

- organizational tasks (such as booking a business trip)

28. How do you feel about the following statements:

True Partly true Untrue I don’t know

The interpreter is a bridge

between two languages

The interpreter is a bridge

between two cultures

The interpreter simply

translate messages

The interpreter is a mediator

of communication

29. Do you believe it is necessary for an interpreter to have an university degree?

- yes, in translating and/or interpreting

- yes, in foreign languages and cultures

- yes, in the economic sector

- yes, in another sector, namely: ….

- no, the knowledge of the two languages and cultures is enough

30. Are there any comments you would like to make? ……..

Thank you for your time!

155

10.10 Appendix 10: Results questionnaire

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181