Managing Cross Cultural Business Ethics Author(s): Chris J.

Moon and Peter Woolliams Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 27, No. 1/2, Business Challenging Business Ethics: New Instruments for Coping with Diversity in International Business: The 12th Annual EBEN Conference (Sep., 2000), pp. 105-115 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25074367 . Accessed: 28/08/2012 12:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

Cross Cultural Managing Business Ethics

Chris J. Moon
Peter Woolliams

ABSTRACT. updated with

assembled to

The

Trompenaars
managers

Hampden-Turner
help

database (1993) (1998) has been

their cross

and an may

that emphasis mean

ethnocentrism on that

is not

easy

to avoid.

Too of

great reality are

rational-analytic syntheses, emotion,

conceptions and

structure

intuition,

to develop their com experiences across the and business for managing petence doing than 50,000 The database comprises more world. cases from over 100 countries and is one of the cultural in order world's richest sources of social constructs. Woolliams and Trompenaars (1998) review the analysis under taken by the authors in the last five years to develop the the methodological underpinning approach
Recently Trompenaars with Hampden-Turner

not adequately developed. This presents implications across cultures and for doing business and managing for resolving KEY WORDS:
agement, cultural dilemma competence

ethical

dilemmas. ethics, cross-cultural

ethical codes,

business

man
trans

reconciliation,

work.

(Trompenaars
the concepts

and Woolliams,
into a new model

1999) have
on dilemma

extended
recon

1.

Introduction clear theory that the quest of international that let such for a universal ethics is based

This paper reviews ciliation of cultural differences. to in dilemmas of cross relation these latest updates
cultural business ethics. The paper asserts that knowl

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

edge in relation

to business

ethics is culturally

specific;

premise is possible theory intention of this

a single unifying The desirable. alone the on

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

valuable

(1985, and De George 1992). However, (1985, 1989) to draw on their the authors of this paper wish own research and Moon, 1999) and (Woolliams in the arena of cross-culture, that of key gurus such as Trompenaars Hampden-Turner of current understanding work of writers being provocative can be gleaned. ethical codes and Trompenaars, (1993) to increase the depth (1998), and to add value ethics to the By field.

insights business international

to dismiss is not paper writers of such eminent ethics as Donaldson

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

in the business

that fresh it is hoped Thus this paper asserts are

insights that all

throughout the world with many

and ative management management gurus. and His main international

leading organisations
interests business are compar dynamics.

because they are subjective reader. Any quest by each interpreted differently of a universal for the application code that fails to take Of this into account be should be abandoned. value course itmay true that most societies

He

has been visiting researchfellow for the Centre for International Business Studies (Amsterdam) 10 years and has worked closely with Dr. Fons Trompenaars and
Charles Hampden-Turner.

loyalty, honesty, but these values tical

Dr.

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

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

106 Chris J. Moon comes from under professionals and the standing evaluating meaning they give to or to codes any published evolving thereby deter mine effective behaviours. appropriate personal and business The through available undertake their authors to achieve have attempted this the development of computer models on CD-ROM users to that enable self-sufficiency evaluations The in rationale the to explore for this of

and Peter Woolliams inter structured discussion; through and oral views, histories, cognitive mapping, such that idiomatic based strategy consulting, and oddities were ironed temporary ambiguities validated out. format The was rationale that behind the forced-choice reconstructs the respondent the culture how they perceive through around them ought to behave:

of meaning and others they

. . . most,

approach

"subjectivities". is grounded et have al. the work

research

although

not

all

respondents,

would

Trompenaars on building cross importance given ently model

and who, (1993 1998) on of earlier researchers delineated the

probably

behave

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

approved. Where to the conduct find behaviour

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

meanings to appar

the same

well-known things. Trompenaars' seven dimensions of cross culture and explain these generalise owe their origin from the to between given relationships of with relationships Research environment). their

deemed "unethical", "corrupt", for Rules insider against "illegal". dealing, are to difficult where enforce, example, particularly lies in better information. competitive advantage
is always and former, per actual which se." a gap conduct. leads between Ours to tions the cultural prescrip is a description conduct, of not

to structure, helps differences. They different meanings meanings people, time and nature

There

approved

conduct

(Woolliams Although abstraction scenarios sought managers promoted discussed

board meeting

and Trompenaars,

1998, p. 11) and all the that

(the are themselves and techniques methods processes, in which related to the cultures they are used and have dated United been developed. How can we overcome vali in the had defensive responsiveness in Anglo-Saxon Arab Emirates? to a questionnaire countries for use A recent researcher

the can were

dilemmas never

are hypothetical, reality, situations

replicate around conducted

to be

swear on the Quaran with to jointly even consider dent before he would a questionnaire (Al-Refaei, that contained 1998). ethical

the respon at looking dilemmas

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

cultures consider

were

considered

the wider on various

by asking context of the These were the full database revisions of

translators scenario

to and

to "balance were 2. The an research initial data set of 50,000, Woolliams some 40,000 selected in from 60 countries for managers operations from

the alternatives".

undertaken Thus

investigations and for each made to the in Asia,

country.

From

and Trompenaars valid comparative order to validate and multi-national faced with barriers of

(1998) cases a model

questionnaire the Middle Africa, The validity of tested

as a result East

experience and Eastern Europe.

international

international communication. were

corporations and cultural

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

was

alent managers the integrity

selected

equiv Functionally in order to "assail"

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

into national research of existing were Scenarios and organizational culture. pre a two between dilemma that portrayed sented such friends. among The as respect for law and 58-item questionnaire loyalty was

the questionnaire minimise defensive

principles

responsiveness by ensuring the independent etc; and emphasising anonymity, basis of the research. The dilemmas were selected on the basis that

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

Cross Cultural

Business

Ethics etc. The to be

107 most variable This was

a varying is that the attitude and each dilemma cultures. that values was Of arises of uni

function, confirmed Trompenaars'

aspects of

significant concerning

nationality.

supports ecological

propositions
cross-culture.

to vary significantly between to the relevance subject particular ethics, between is the the group of dilemmas opposing seemingly and particularism. People are confronted with choices when

of business 3. The dilemmas research in the U.S. the such

versalism

everywhere considering friends and/or Earlier as Lewin, (based mainly identifies 1936), the role of underlying of moderni

to their personal their obligations at The society large. universalism-particularism dilemma behaviour. there are defines how we Trompenaars two "pure"

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

concept sation where more

of universalism

as a feature

judgement. At one extreme we encounter an obligation or ethical code which

fragmented. as a one-parent demands higher become

the family becomes or live on their own, People and career places family. Work individuals and personal life Technology replaces tends to

on

to adhere

to a moral

may traditional be ties,

is universally which these adherence atives

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

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

particularism largely rural communi so dictates. terrain Here everyone personally. from Stouffer incident

("do unto others as you would have them as well as society, unto do you9). In business this translates into rules defining conducts cor such as equal opportunities, political
rectness, etc.

the dilemma of a that poses a car in The illustrates this passenger paradigm. too fast. Does driver has an accident by driving to tell the truth the passenger have an obligation in court was or friend to protect his/her a mother, an illicit friend? lover If the an during

everyone The frequently and Toby (1951),

to know cited

At

an equally valid the other, we encounter on of particular based type judgement to people we is dominating know. Here the is and behaviour

obligations relationship determined code

by this relationship. Any ethical to is deemed relation this secondary to are as friends ship. Obligations perceived more to than obligations adhere important to a code that appears abstract. Behaviour is determined based process by a thinking on: "J must protect my partner or irre friend, what abstract ethical rules any may spective of say. Otherwise, The above this what arefriends for?" and by Woolliams extensive quantitative

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

Trompenaars' reveals statistically between individual icant others is often try from trends universalistic

extensive

data

on

this

case

nationalities.

response that some

differences highly significant there is always the Whilst to consider, there are signif cultures tend to be more

research includes

Trompenaars of analysis

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

Trompenaars' some to place individuals of this scale scale. Extensive other

as contained in the paradigm were database. Scales constructed of

Gulf Countries)
revealed a office to define head

(Al-Refaei, 1998). The dilemma

when multi-national for (best way?) single in the home country companies a system and try

individuals and groups 50,000 an Universalism-Particularism along database to other such

mining sought linkage cross-cultural scales and as gender, education, religion, socio job

to impose the world. based tries on that

variables

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

it as the universal

economic

grouping,

108 Chris J. Moon which are more or communitarian, highlighting compared the idea of dif

and Peter Woolliams 4. What of meaning

Questions concerns

ferentiating one employee

and

the performance of to another may be alien

counter-productive.

research has considered the previous an of "culture" in defining importance orthog most onal set of ethical principles, has focussed Whilst on corporate a rather 1994). value Thus, than for national culture (Linthicum is there dominant the work of ethics acceptance when example, the between the values of that a code can achieve value

the main focus of this paper are to of The attributed meaning. questions meaning in ethical life is, issues business and professional ? an important not of therefore, point enquiry least of all because Business and Professional may be misconceived code. salistic Acceptable on the assumption defined truth or or best way on debates ethical these Thus issues i.e. and as a type of univer behaviours be may that there is a uni code issues issues of behaviours. have deriving tended from issues ask such should to

Ethics

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

versal Previous to

ignore

systems of stakeholders such national maintains:

...

underlying and other the employees. Customers may be in second place. However, codes may that overlook the vital role culture plays. As Tayeb (1996, p. 85)

meaning. between questions support

power dependency individual and business, often as to what extent business employees ? and church is itself as an the very

their and

alternative

family this question As

act of asking

in Unitarian

cultures

organisations

. . . tend

to

follow
to whom

a narrow
they are

set of goals, have few stakeholders

accountable, and are less respon

con Trompenaars the have such debates comment, tinually ignored fundamental about the of any question meaning factor or peoples. to people For example, when text to and and German from English translating trans seeks to achieve the translations linguistic In many "perfect do you cases confu ? translations" "pay

culturally specific. and his co-researchers

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

and equivalence. parency sion results even with viz.: at the end even its of meal,

the check the In

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

(U.K.)? But fundamental fail to overcome linguistics of what does it mean? problem famous

in more such individualistic societies, Similarly, as the U.S. it is maintained and U.K., that work and private life are emotionally distinct whereas societies in some communitarian such as Japan is a source of emotional and the organisation (i.e. it has a different meaning). even appears to correlate with National The Chinese the size of the organisation. appear material support culture to have owned whereas larger. a strong businesses SMEs Such preference (as in Taiwan for small family Kong) average much seem to factors (1996) recalls and English a number of samples between and Hong

it is Sony Walkman, marketing is assumed that the product (which technically it is manufactured and identical wherever same has the sold throughout the globe) meaning to customers. they product being disturbed by others, as a in China it is perceived whereas product can use to to music without listen they disturbing to listen to music without Same product, different meaning. Similarly, to different has different meanings "banking" others. peoples; European Writers Banking. to the "law" as rarely point arbiter of ethical matters. the final However, to define and business may prefer practitioners on ethics resolve and this ethics through is particularly in (company) law; changes to international relevant Islamic Banking and American is far different to other Americans However, it as a perceive studies show that can use

in the U.S.

are on

outweigh a matched-pair

culture-specific ones. intra-cultural which study found of

Tayeb Indian that on

organisations measures the differences were Indian consistent with and English

between cultural

the two

differences as a whole.

peoples

Managing business law which has shown some

Cross

Cultural

Business

Ethics

109

1997). But (Carroll and Gannon, of because has a different purpose role deriving from parts of the world. drivers

convergence again, the law its different

to stop, but not so in Taiwan!). (Perhaps yes in Germany, cameras are in some countries accepted Speed (for the greater good), to individual liberties but are considered in others. minimum to managers truth between that these to also The and

its different meaning in different a red traffic light cause Does or pedestrians to not jay walk?

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

B. Meaning

of involvement is, every not even Lewin, a

a threat law, may in terms of how important Regardless privacy culture has a private domain they will Kurt discuss with many other people. German

regarded of providing may not be The only issue source

be

as the moral guidance

the law alone is not the

enough. of universal of differences us reminds of to

cultures. include:

Trompenaars A. Meanings

the Americans, appraising Psychologist, to in "It's the States because wonderful be said, so to tend be people hospitable. They have open can and visitors into personalities, easily get "It's because the concluded, a relatively small domain of which is offand because it's very sealed privacy sealed off, they can have a big public life". as In some this cultures (such American), to just a few is very domain related limited areas - and this leads to lots of relationships have is not privacy therefore SPECIFIC instance means actually involved. These are relationships. Specific that what is shared is determined in this contact". Lewin

rights groups

given

individuals or

Americans

compared B.

(Individualism

Communitarianism) to the degree of involve Meanings given or Diffuse) ment in relationships (Specific to C. Meanings and given body language other D. Meaning non-verbal given given given leakage to status to time to nature (Achieved or

where

Ascribed)
E. Meaning F. Meaning

one

specific

situation

necessary implications Each interaction stands situation of the present A

at a time, without any for the overall relationship. alone in the specific moment. any symbolic between the

A.

Meaning

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

iswithout specific relationship about the meaning relationships individuals'

of

In an INDIVIDUALISTIC comes the individual

is thought Society uals have their freedom In a COMMUNITARIAN of society even Thus what is the Performance? tarianism can

to improve and develop. culture, we take care at the cost to individual freedom. ethical position versus of Pay for Communi

more secret domains of personal What is is privacy. private clearly very different and is separated In specific from what is public. to in that cultures, nothing applies relationships one next situation one. Each relationship its specific roles and costumes. In a DIFFUSE culture is private. everything car is private, The is private. In the refrigerator the beginning of any relationship, you protect little drama with this privacy. Initially this leads to a no-no rela is very polite and deliber tionship. Everything a has distant and "cool" try ately feeling. Don't to do business at this stage of the relationship! Nobody is available being polite. intermixture for anything than yet other in diffuse For people the cultures, a source of private and public is of necessarily event of carries over into the is its own

Individualism

such impact on business policies as "pay for a Consider pay scheme performance". at the Head Office devised of a multinational company scheme would entiate some others one based in an Individualistic Culture. The the individual, differ emphasise individual from another, and show

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

110 Chris J. Moon comfort, confidence, from a specific and pride. But strength culture usually experiences burden. their a

and Peter Woolliams cultures. with insulted For if you and you show were acci

affecting working dentally

person it as a suffocating cultures Specific from their

a team them;

example, of Italians they may

their dis

separate tiny private the accom and enjoy large public, of highly and focused relationships, plishments further the freedom that comes from being able to break differences and the remake two such create a diffuse all kinds cultures. culture relationships. of confusion and alarm When meets a representa an individual These

in Italian pleasure by talking together excitedly out of the room. The and then walking Italians are an especially In if culture. contrast, affecting you a group of Indonesians insulted accidentally not out. They may feel would walk they probably not insulted but probably would show it. You not but even their find be trust aware that you in you would had insulted be damaged. and never failing you express your the more rapidly

between tive from of

might them You

a specific their domains of privacy culture, A German, Italian or Frenchman may see ? an as someone as rude and careless Englishman collide. is pushy and premature ? for instance and understand and them! the is not The in as trying someone to do who

might understand frustration the project

who business doesn't

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

importance very

of business D. Meaning of status orientated

agreements honouring German, arrogant

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

In an ACHIEVEMENT are what is on results

as a business and careful timid unreasonable, as seems someone to want "all and who partner or nothing" impractical. even when the "all" is completely

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

can exhibit and materialistic gains you as proof of your achievement. Competition status. In an and individual effort enhances ASCRIBING virtue culture, you are who you are by Your ascribed of your birth and position. to ability or innate dif status has no reference we when between individuals. ferences Thus, introduce in terms ourselves, of status. we Some are positioning ourselves them introduce may their job (achievement so by reference to their (ascribing).

C. Meaning Trompenaars easily

of body language also reminds us that some and others societies the

to find ways people but each culture has so ? some pri its own sanctioned of way doing cultures and some publicly. Some express vately emotions AFFECTING their continuously. Europeans, easily. The Japanese relatively display because cultures" call these they "transparent their about show their emotion everything emotions material their possessions, ? ideas, beliefs In many other themselves, other people, the you these everything. societies, including never reveal what or In cultures such as Americans and

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

withhold

selves by firstly describing others may do orientated) family and social position

E. Meaning

of time

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

you may Japanese, are feeling, thinking NEUTRAL cultures, considered childish, These differences lead to distrust

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

in displaying emotions may and between neutral and hostility

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

Managing affected Some of by the past and the participants understand others will others

Cross

Cultural

Business science

Ethics

111

about", can use

say, "I now but

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

view of

and technology. The of EXTERNAL control control. Westerners try often

pre-Renaissance to one converted to

INTERNAL on

it tomorrow"

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

Very mechanisms

and participating". the problems that arise when or a to of you try system implement goal-setting that have into cultures management by objectives a small future orientation. like France Cultures and Venezuela the future on may because care the less about future In other for planning has little or no the

just like being here You can imagine

control put have everything. They budgetary to control control finances, they have pay-for to control compensation. performance They have staff appraisals that control, etc.; etc. They now have in the context of this paper ^ethical control"\ don't in societies does not work that approach in control believe and don't allow control. much societies, there. the organistic For model is still in American

This

In eastern very football have can,

cultures, The invented is very handy. Spanish are at For the and it! very "manyana" good evolves time, through Japanese, experience bearing future in the in the distant past and ending starting distant future. Often, they arrange their diagram as concentric circles. Westerners have the idea occurs in a much more that experience discreet to represent in chunks. Another manner, way to note is these extreme that you can perceptions structure time as either SEQUENTIAL or SYN

the present.

or boxing,

an opposing and if you martial

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

Japanese

arts like Karate

principle environment This view

is to take and use help For to

can

it to your advantage. how the Japanese explain

business.

the environment

and they are the environment strive to remain is theirs. They their environment. many Their includes customers, part of the envi take cus companies Relatively is not quality never talk about that are In their if it con

CHRONY.

in harmony with business environment and since customers

are a natural

F. Meaning Nature

of nature

ronment, many Japanese tomers onto their boards unheard of in the West! issue such a big it because, so obvious minds, stantly

of directors. Likewise,

can sound very remote but it is very close in the sense of culture and how it affects business

at large. Look back at the dif and management over nature ferent ways have dealt with people to the Renaissance time. Prior in 15th century
Europe, nature was seen as an organism. Nature

you and have

in Japan. They talk about don't become

things habitual. sick

a society may be seriously talks about quality.

was put

out there

there; by

and Talos, the supreme cultures

pre-Renaissance an environment what was human

of nature, was God. These designer, believed that there was the goal determined to be doing. Nature the locus of external the opposite. this organistic view one. If you picture da Vinci), you you the idea can than

5. Dilemma The norms actors. future

reconciliation for business the ethics should be between to the to

and the environment needed

beings in psychological it controls control The Renaissance into as amachine to realise a reaction

continue

to examine and values Norms

terms, us rather turned

relationships and what these mean is usual and

of nature nature begin cause

a mechanistic that

accepted values are what you would practice whereas prefer. are convergent, we have When values and norms we little difficulty. When have a source of values and norms Ethical disharmony. placed at the centre of on its norms and values these can change are appropriate. values conflict, debate

are what

(like Leonardo if you push here there. Hence developed

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

is rightly to reflect to which debate

inviting society and the degree Constructive and hence the

peoples'

112 Chris J. Moon ? of their groups it is known that although often their behaviour people reluctantly change first (norms) because they rarely address the issues norms and i.e. start to change the way they think (values) to the meaning they give things. is to ignore these differences The first mistake one's own own This ethical norms in different soci alienate and cultures. is a "win-lose" relation

and Peter Woolliams

As a statement of this document aims

aspirations,

to express
behaviour

a world
can be

standard against which

measured. We seek to

business
begin a

reconciles dif process a shared per and values, fering thereby develops on to and business behaviour spective acceptable shared values, honoured Thus, by all. principles studies and can have

that identifies

and maintain eties ship and your

principles may to make your adversary. A second easy mistake is to adopt the uwhen in Rome, do" do as Romans for of the sake Here, (?), or paradigm. harmony a more we to think that close may sale(!), likely our behaviours and (norms) by abandoning adopting we can "fit in" and be accepted. tension caused by trying to act out role and abandon the norms of the destination culture, In practice, the an unfamiliar

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

can contribute self-confi

dence with

perceptions adjustment formance

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

one's own ethical code or prin to is fail as your adversary ciples, likely quickly to mistrust you. This will be a lose-win begins at best is only a lose-lose strategy. Compromise some strategy and still requires you to abandon of your versal position. have Attempts international been code made a uni to produce of ethics (cf. Donaldson 1995; Caux Round of the Caux code based on trying kyosei living to and and

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

which

are estimated to and Mendenhall by Black over be $50?150K and for individual $2 failure, as a whole. The billion per year to U.S. business ethics of international to be for cultural business an essential relationships are thus considered

and Dunfee, Table, suggest include human working human value

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

of component and sensitivity. training understanding a et al. (1988) pointed As Triandis out, giving a step to becoming gift can be an important a gift incorrectly member of a group, and giving could lead to ostracism. gift Japan where an important the giving part of relationship is significant considered has been This in as It is

dignity. together dignity of each

Kyosei for the common is said to mean

ideals is said to mean

good, whereas or the sacredness

this version of However, person. the universalism-particularism dilemma ignores the fact that the nationality profile of stakeholders the original issue. Thus American with share 50% of its shareholders

building. of the gift that (i.e. meaning) interpretation is the critical factor 1986). (Albert, must be able to interpret cultural Managers signals often overlooked through but more selective than this per they in cultural

from may have changed an American company holders from on may the Far East. now have

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

Its business strategy formulated an code may the basis of ethical acceptable on maximising shareholder have been focussed value whereas CEO mulation values The but
process:

and Graham, Thus (Adler 1989). a is first about another culture step; only learning one must cultural recognise heterogeneity. and Nelson be and trained with practices. (1995) They should respect argue that managers to business ethics can not to

Trevino beliefs

itmay team now

be more review

and on

that the appropriate their strategy for

the basis of the changed shareholder in PhD thesis (Dickerson, preparation). Table Caux Round does (1998) web-site a belief their in the statement reconciliation is only the of values start of a

rely on them (Donaldson, 1992) guide the murky waters of dirty tricks, payoffs, through these and bribes Adler, 1992). However, (cf. that the only real authors all miss the basis point intuition solution reconcile and is to recognise then respect these differences (Trompenaars 1998). then and

indicate that

Hampden-Turner

Managing Some business problems organisations conduct with have

Cross

Cultural

Business To

Ethics

113 the work Woolliams of Trompenaars and and Trompenaars to produce diagnostic self tools to

codes of developed for guidelines dealing with

support

Dynamics) ticular cultural and sanctions

and General Xerox, (e.g. Caterpillar, to deal with modified par perhaps contexts. for There complying may be rewards or with breaking these approaches

Hampden-Turner, have been (1998) administered help orientations

concerned based

computer individuals and groups and

company policy. Nevertheless, are highly in origin, ethnocentric developed a full and proper understanding of the without to ethical issues in of meaning given complexity different cultures: nepotism, values, incompatible of business the legitimacy expectations, public and wealth made creation. Noble attempts respecting market have been Ethic national to devise a Transcultural Corporate

to meanings. individual and whole

investigate to clarify the meaning they give In this way, both at the level of the shared exchanges, the through of subjectivity and ethnocentrism

their own

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

(Frederick,

sovereignity, human rights,

1991) based on social equity, but such beliefs.

that this is effective systems and moreover across cultures. in doing business and managing is the "new This has "added that approach" over and above "compromise value" solutions" value outcomes to all and produces acceptable ethically model parties and is based on a new fundamental conceived by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner Hampden-Turner, have now expressed

managers probing moral guidelines, such (1992) may end compromise; international scriptive

attempts is that The danger as drawn up by DeGeorge used as the basis for (1989) fundamental end up as being overly pre

integrity, fall short of

(1998).
is how following and Woolliams Trompenaars a typical dilemma. The

up being or Donaldson's

rights may and hence impractical.

The Letter or the Spirit of the Law? a foreign buyer to buy contract with Six months after the ABC mining company had signed a long-term bauxite in ten annual instalments, the world price of bauxite collapsed. Instead of paying $4 a tonne below world to market price, the buyer now faced the prospect of paying $3 above. The buyer faxed ABC to say it wished
renegotiate the contract. The final words of the fax read: "You cannot expect us as your new partner to carry

alone
situation.

the now

ruinous

expense

of these contract

terms." ABC

negotiators

had a heated

discussion

about

this

Which

view do you support?

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

It is an honest statement of original the underlying intent. Where relationship. terms must to preserve of that the mutual then be contract, spirit renegotiated It means precisely what the terms
consider

relationship. e. A contract is a contract.

be their crying, losses. nor should

say. If the world

contract

price
whose

had risen we would

terms would help

they. We

would,

however,

a second

114 Chris J. Moon Option (win-lose). (lose-win). a is clearly the universalistic option b is the particularistic view c is the compromise solution

and Peter Woolliams be in wide for situations from ranging to business through and projects day-to-day are showing that the

important

Option Option

prospecting managing business. propensity training. models

new

(lose-lose). to reconcile Both options d and e are seeking e an starts the opposing values. from Option to ethical in universalistic takes but viewpoint the opposing value and seeks to recon cile and find a unifying solution. ? is the Option reverse a and commences with particularistic view but still seeks a unified reconciled solution. are Both of these win-win New strategies. evidence an reveals effective behaviour to reconcile that propensity is of high performing New studies confirm high cor account

existing And studies to reconcile The authors

(available to explore and business managers professionals their own value and to identify their systems on various ethical scales. The dilemma position self-sufficiency analysis aids the user in and interpreting their relationship understanding to various and the meaning ascribe they pub resulting lished emerge dealing ethics. and/or ethical codes. What may proposed are new for business global paradigms of cross-cultural with dilemmas business

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

global managers. relation between feedback ness on

such propensity and 360 degree business and managerial effective 1998).

(Hampden-Turner,

Acknowledgements 6. This Trans-cultural competence Arguments demonstrates that paper is needed framework ological can competence a new method that a in order for peer through sented at: The Cross Cultural lOth-llth Conference European Ethics for this paper have been developed to papers pre in relation review on First International Conference Business Ethics held in Tunis, Fourth Annual of the "Business at Christ

manager

and develop acquire and high performance

trans-cultural

managers High-performing more of this trans-cultural competence or compromise who give polarised and Woolliams, (Trompenaars American managers typically first, they say, and East Asian favour region This particularism, are able to trans-cultural the extent put

in the job. exhibit consistently than those responses 1999). While universalism

December, 1998; The of the U.K. Association Business a New Ethics Network Millennium"

held

15th-16th Church, Oxford, April 12th EBEN Annual Conference Challenging for coping business" lst-3rd a References Adler, Business with Ethics. New in The

1999; and The 1999 "Business instruments international Netherlands,

managers usually some managers from each reconcile both approaches. correlates competence of their experience with or working with

diversity at Amsterdam, 1999. September, held

assignments and with diverse workforce, and managers in" overseas dealing with

strongly with international

ratings by both peers on for" and "success "suitability and/or and postings partnerships

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

Dimensions International 1992, of Kent Behaviour (PWS Organizational Publishing

Boston).

N.:

Co.,

to recon and unable severely challenged then these women also show signs of com competence is being shown to

and J. L. Graham: Adler, N.J. 1989, 'Cross-cultural Interaction: The International Comparison Fallacy?', Journal of International Business Studies (Fall), 515-537. Albert, R. D.: 1986, 'Conceptual Framework for the Development Orientation and Evaluation of Cross-cultural Journal of Programs', Intercultural Relations 10, International 197?213.

Trans-cultural

Managing

Cross

Cultural

Business

Ethics

115

H.: 1998, 'Cultural Transfer of Technology Al-Refaei, to Gulf GCC Countries', Ph.D. thesis (University of East, London). 1990, 'Cross-cultural Black, J. S. andM. Mendenhall: and a Theoretical Training Effectiveness: A Review Framework for Future Research', Academy of Management Review 15(1), 113?136. S. J. and M. Carroll, 1997, Ethical J. Gannon: Dimensions Sage Series of International Management. in Business Ethics (Sage Publications, London). Caux Round Table.: 'Business Ethics', The 1996, Business 10(1), Magazine of Socially Responsible
January.

Stouffer,

S. A.

1996, The Management of aMulticultural Workforce. Chichester (John Wiley, U.K.). L. K. and K. A. Nelson: Trevino, 1995, Managing Business Ethics. Straight Talk About How To Do It and Sons, Inc., NY). Right (John Wiley and C. H. Hui: Triandis, H. C, R. Brislin 1988,
'Cross-cultural Training Across the Individualism

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

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

Caux
http

Round
: //www.

Table: R.:

1998,

Principles
org.

for Business:

International Divide', Journal of Intercultural Relations 12, 269-289. F.: 1993, Riding the Waves of Culture Trompenaars, (Economist Books, U.K.).
Trompenaars, F. and C. Hampden-Turner: 1998,

collectivism

cauxroundtable.

De

Financial 1992, 'Ethics and Worse', George, Times, July 3, p. 12. De George, R.: 1985, Competing with Integrity in International Business Press, (Oxford University New York). T.: 1985, 'Multinational Decision-making Donaldson, International Norms', Reconciling Journal of Business Ethics 4, 357-366. T.: 1989, The Ethics Donaldson, of International Press, New York). (Oxford University . . . What? in T.: 'When Rome, Do Donaldson, 1992, in International Business and Cultural Relativism', a P.M. Minus Business in Global The Ethics (ed.), of pp. 67-78. Economy (Kluwer, Boston), T. and T. W. Dunfee: 'Toward 1994, Donaldson, a Unified Business Ethics: of Conception Business Integrative Social Contracts Theory', Academy of Management Review 19, 252-284. 'The Moral Authority of Frederick, W. C: 1991, Transnational Codes', Journal of Business Ethics 10, 165-177. L. T.: 1995, 'Trust: The Connecting Link Hosmer, and between Organizational Theory Philosophical Review Ethics', 20, Academy of Management 379-403. Lewin, K.: 1936, Some Socio-psychological differences between the US and Germany, Principles of Topological Psychology (Wiley Inc., U.S.A). and Extent of Linthicum, D. O.: 1994, The Nature Cultural Values to an Organisations' Culture, DEd Thesis, Temple University, U.S.A.

Understanding
U.K.). Trompenaars, Cultural F.

Cultural Diversity
and P. Woolliams: People

in Business

(Irwin,
Trans U.K.,

1999,

Competence,

Management,

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

Woolliams,

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

Arthur

Chris J. Moon Andersen. Street,

I Surrey

London WC2R 2PS, United Kingdom

E-mail: chris.moon@uk.arthurandersen.com

Peter Woolliams Anglia Anglia Business School, Park, 4AT,

Polytechnic

University,

Danbury Essex CM3 E-mail:

United Kingdom
peterwoolliams@aol.com