Behavior Prescriptions versus Professional Identities in Multi-cultural Corporations: A Cross-cultural Computer Simulation

There is a strong focus on cognitive, language based, information processing in organizations. Acknowledging the gut decision of managers, this article introduces a symbolic interactionist framework that allows the investigation of organizational behavior based on affective meaning. Unlike most symbolic interactionist approaches, affect control theory is based on rigorous mathematical formalization that allows precise empirical methodologies. The effectiveness of this affective model is demonstrated in a multicultural setting where cultural differences and language differences make the communication within the organization difficult. Computerbased simulations of interaction address the problem of managers following culture-centric behavior prescriptions instead of using the affective meaning of their professional identities as guidance for their behavior. Descriptors: computer simulation, authority, cross-cultural, meaning, symbolic interactionism Andreas Schneider. 2002 Draft of “Computer Simulation of Behavior Prescriptions in Multi-cultural Corporations.” 1 Behavior Prescriptions versus Professional Identities in Multi-cultural Corporations: A Cross-cultural Computer Simulation In today’s international markets, problems typically arise if international corporations develop behavior strategies locally and try to implement them globally. One might argue that this is justified since advances in transportation and communication homogenized the middle class culture to an extent that cultural differences can be neglected in international management. In contrast, this work argues that even though cultural differences might not be apparent in many domains, they can be pronounced in specific areas. One systematic cultural difference lies in the authority concept (Hofstede 1980; 1991; Inglehart 1977; 1990; 1997; Inglehart & Baker 2000; Schneider 1999a; 1999b), which is central for problems of global strategies in international corporations. To identify and overcome potential problems caused by cultural differences, we should concentrate on affective meaning, which might differ even if management objectives are perfectly translated linguistically. The argument will be tested, that if the affective meaning of professional identities differs cross-culturally, it is more efficient for the maintenance of professional identities, if professionals act upon the affective meaning of their identities, than to follow culturally uniform behavior prescriptions. In the global perspective employed here, culture is not treated as a utilitarian tool for the achievement of organizational goals as it is seen by the rationalist perspective of culture (Peters & Waterman 1982). Neither is culture defined as a functionalist product of survival achieved by successful external adaptation and internal integration (Parsons 1951; Schein 1985). Andreas Schneider. 2002 Draft of “Computer Simulation of Behavior Prescriptions in Multi-cultural Corporations.” 2 Instead, culture is seen in the symbolic tradition, as a pattern of socially constructed symbols and meanings (Geertz 1973/1993; Turner 1990). However, the concern is not about organizational culture, the beliefs, values and meanings that members of an organization use to grasp the uniqueness of their organization (Hofstede 1991; Schultz 1994), but about more widely shared cultural differences in sentiments that, independent from the organization, have an effect on behavior in organizations. If global strategies are transformed into operatives and implemented globally, local professional actors are confronted with culture-centric operatives. In international corporations with multiple local languages, culture-centrism of management strategies is not the only problem. In most contemporary organizations, strategies are presented in form of written guidelines or policies that either explicitly or implicitly convey behavior prescription for employees and/or associates. If multinational corporations use multiple languages, translations of strategies add another potential for cultural misunderstandings. Although two cultures might agree on a lexical categorization, the language translation or denotation of identities and behaviors that describe an event, the connotation or affective meaning of these identities and behaviors might still differ. Some current management theories define affect as a temporary shift in moods (Baron 1993). Affective states, or moods, are seen as emotion-like states (Kraiger & Billings 1989). Affect is also addressed as emotional labor, the display of expected emotions (Ashforth & Humphrey 1993). In this work, affect is not just another term for traits, emotions, or emotion work. Affect is a central mode of information processing. Affective meaning or connotative meaning, can be contrasted to cognitive meaning, language, lexical Andreas Schneider. 2002 Draft of “Computer Simulation of Behavior Prescriptions in Multi-cultural Corporations.” 3 categorization, or denotative meaning. As David Heise (1987:6) states: “Classifications of places, people, objects and behavior get transformed into a domain of feelings, where things lose their qualitative uniqueness, become comparable to one another, and begin obeying quantitative principles. This is analogous to observing that Sun, Earth, Mars, Saturn etc., are identifiable by their unique characteristics, but the dynamics of the solar system are governed by the distances, masses, and velocities of these bodies and the operation of physical laws.” Affect and cognition describe two parts of the same coin, a sentiment (Osgood 1974). Affect is general, cognition specific. Affect allows rapid processing of information and eases decisions, whereas cognition enables rational justification and formal communication. Within a symbolic interactionist approach, elements of events can be seen as affectively represented. Working with affective meaning allows using general principles of information processing. These general principles are generated empirically in the form of impression formation equations, the basic dynamic in computer simulation of human behavior. Affective Meaning In one of the largest social science research projects ever conducted, Osgood, May and Miron (1975) found evidence for the cross-cultural universality of the evaluation (E), potency (P), and activity (A) dimensions (EPA dimensions) of affective response. Semantic scaling on EPA dimensions allows valid and reliable measures of affective meaning of sentiments (Osgood 1962; Osgood et al.1975). The fundamental work of Osgood established the principle of affective representation and the three dimensional semantic scaling of affective meaning as a Andreas Schneider. 2002 Draft of “Computer Simulation of Behavior Prescriptions in Multi-cultural Corporations.” 4 cultural universal. It also demonstrated that ratings on these scales are highly discriminate measures of cultural specific meanings. Both properties, the cultural universality of the instrument and the cultural particularity of the measurements are core prerequisites for valid cross-cultural comparisons. It is the affective meaning of an identity, not only its cognitive representation, which is central for the fast processing of information. Matching affective meaning in two cultures, ‘we are thus applying the psycholinguistic definition of similarity of meaning -similarity in distribution of usage -across languages’ (Osgood 1974: 244). The quality or ease of translation-equivalence of identities (linguistic definition) does not imply similarity in the affective definition (psycholinguistic definition). The example used here is an Anglicism, such as the term manager. In the remainder of this article, italicized identities refer to empirical examples. On a scale that reaches from -4.33 to 4.33, the affective representation of a U.S. manager can be described as +0.6 evaluation, +1.3 potency, and +0.1 activity. Following the standard of Heise and Lewis (1988), these EPA profiles will be indexed as (0.6, 1.3, 0.1). The affective meaning of the U.S. manager stands very much in contrast to the German manager (0.3, 1.6, 1.7). It is striking that in Germany, managers do not carry such high status as in North America. The second professional identity chosen to interact with the manager in the simulations is cross-culturally more similar. The German Berater (1.3, 0.8, -0.5) is the linguistic translation equivalent of the U.S. advisor (1.0, 1.3, -0.7). The advisor is chosen as a professional identity that can be seen as a direct subordinate that might complement the manager in a corporate context. Andreas Schneider. 2002 Draft of “Computer Simulation of Behavior Prescriptions in Multi-cultural Corporations.” 5 Symbolic Interactionism Both concepts, behaviors and identities, are central to the symbolic interactionist perspective (Cooley 1922; Mead 1934) that sees them as essential components of events. Events can include multiple identities, their behaviors, emotions, trait attributions and the setting of their interaction. Here the focus lies on minimum events established by two persons, each holding one specific identity, and the interpersonal behavior. One person, the actor, initiates an interpersonal behavior. The other person, the object, is acted upon. Accepting events as the minimum unit of analysis, symbolic interactionism developed in two directions: the Chicago school of processual symbolic interactionism (Blumer 1969; Turner 1962; 1973) and the Iowa school of structural symbolic interactionism (Kuhn 1964/1972). The extreme processual approach doubts that social structural influences guide the interaction and assumes that the meaning of each situation is negotiated each time we enter the event. The processual or construction approach of the Chicago School focuses on qualitative descriptive analysis, and cannot account for stability and predictability of behavior. In contrast, the extreme structural approach of the Iowa school, just like role theory (Darendorf 1965; Heiss 1981; Merton 1973; Turner 1962; 1972), sees identities as fixed structural entities. Role theory addresses the constraints of society, but does not account for the dynamics introduced by the negotiation of culture-specific meaning in the interaction. What is used here, is a relatively new strain of symbolic interactionism (Burke 1980; Burke and Reitzes 1981), that acknowledges the negotiation of meaning in the situation while Andreas Schneider. 2002 Draft of “Computer Simulation of Behavior Prescriptions in Multi-cultural Corporations.” 6 integrating the more structural concepts of identity theory (Stryker 1980; 1992; McCall&Simmons 1978). This approach, also referred to as the Indiana school of symbolic interactionism, integrates culture structure and social structure as the main determinants of human behavior. The integrative perspective of symbolic interactionism is most suited for cross-cultural comparisons of structural constraints like management strategies while allowing the construction of culture-specific behavior. Cultural differences in the affective meaning of professional identities and behaviors are critical factors when top managers have to decide on the global implementation of management strategies. This problem will be investigated with the latest theoretical development of the Indiana school, the only symbolic interactionist theory with rigorous mathematical formalization: Affect Control Theory (ACT). Affect Control Theory (ACT) ACT (Heise 1987; 2000; MacKinnon 1994; Smith-Lovin 1987; Smith-Lovin and Heise 1988; Schneider & Heise 1995) integrates attribution theory (Heider 1958) with the Indiana school of symbolic interactionism. It adds a quantitative focus on the affective representation of meaning (Osgood 1962; 1975) and the processing of meaning (McPhail; Powers &Tucker 1992; Powers 1980). This allows ACT to operationalize the symbolic interactionist approach to an extent that enables computer simulations of human interactions. Interactions change the affective states of the participants who will account for this change with attributions like labeling or behavior. Andreas Schneider. 2002 Draft of “Computer Simulation of Behavior Prescriptions in Multi-cultural Corporations.” 7 Processing of Meaning Rational choice assumes that people use elaborated cognitive selection mechanisms for their behavior. Another inventory model, role theory, assumes that information about appropriate behavior is stored with the cognitive information about roles and their relations. In the generative model of ACT, the choice of behavior is not guided by tedious selection mechanisms, or learning minute behavior descriptions and contingencies that overburden our cognitive system. Instead, there are general affective rules that help to confirm an identity. The affective decision within an event is faster and subjectively more reliable than any cognitive construction of behavior. This is reflected in the statement of many managers that their decisions come from their guts. Successful management of an identity is contingent upon other people in the event (Goffman 1959; 1967). Once the event is established and context is added, the components of the event will change their affective representations. A manager who shouts at his advisor will change his own affective representation in the context of this disturbing event. In ACT terminology these in-context-ratings are called transient impressions because they are temporary in nature. Once in context, dynamic social principles change the static representation of the components of an event into their transient impressions. Persons compare their transient impressions, achieved in the event, with their initial identities, their fundamental sentiment. These differences are called deflections. Deflections can be conceptualized as a form of stress. Minimizing deflections or stress, participants of the event create normative Andreas Schneider. 2002 Draft of “Computer Simulation of Behavior Prescriptions in Multi-cultural Corporations.” 8 events. ACT suggests that: ‘People try to experience events that generate transient impressions optimally close to fundamental sentiments, and when events generate incongruous impressions, people initiate restorative actions and cognitive revisions to bring transient feelings back into line with established sentiments’ (MacKinnon and Heise 1993: 64). Actor, behavior, and object constellations that define minimum events in the symbolic interactionist tradition are represented affectively. The operationalization of the dynamics within an event is rooted in the impression-formation research, or more generally, the attitude change tradition (Gollob 1968; 1974; Gollob and Rossman 1973; Osgood and Ferguson 1957; Triandis and Fishbein 1963) that extends basic balance theory assumptions (Heider 1958, 1967). This tradition of research has been focusing on estimating the weights in impressionformation equations and on researching which additional terms improve accuracy of predictions (e.g., Heise 1969; 1970; Heise and Smith-Lovin 1981; Britt and Heise 1992, SmithLovin 1979; 1987; Smith, Matsuno, and Umino 1994). Impression-formation equations contain the empirically generated rules that we use to produce normative events. Following the early balance theoretical tradition (Heider 1967), simple rules would be, for example: good people do good things to good people, or good people do bad things to bad people. Impression-formation equations, using not only the dichotomous variable of good versus bad, but continuous measurements on the three EPA dimensions of affective meaning, are much more refined in their predictions. People use language to communicate information, while their responses are processed Andreas Schneider. 2002 Draft of “Computer Simulation of Behavior Prescriptions in Multi-cultural Corporations.” 9 affectively. This problem can be exemplified by comparing the effect of psycholinguistic translation with linguistic translations. Even if the language of management objectives is perfectly translated, the translation of meaning of these objectives will still be subject to systematic culture-specific flaws. Cross-cultural computer simulations based on affective meaning indicate the problems that arise with linguistic translations of behavior prescriptions. Two hypotheses are generated: (1) If the affective meaning of identities differs cross-culturally, interactants are able to choose behavior that stabilizes their professional identities as long as they rely on their identities. (2) If the affective meaning of identities differs cross-culturally, behavior prescriptions that support interactants in one culture will disturb the maintenance of their professional identities in another culture.