Return to Home Page 1997 Cross Cultural Differences in Training Strategies Paul Herbig Adequate training has become an essential element in marketing. In the 1950s, some European automakers entered the U.S. market without sufficient consideration of the importance of training. After the initial sales, customers were angered to find they had to wait weeks or months for parts and for finding trained mechanics for their newly purchased cars. Volkswagen, having learned lessons from these prior entrants, entered the market later, invested heavily in parts depots and training and as a result became successful1. Unlike many Americans who grew up owning automobiles and working with tools, mechanics and operators in many foreign companies in undeveloped countries rarely have had such experience before training, for many it is on the job training. Improperly done, poor or no training can lead to disastrous results. A bulldozer operator learns that if he pulls a lever and steps on a pedal, his machine will push whatever is in front of it. When a bulldozer meets an immovable object, the operator will continue to push until the engine fails or a part breaks. In another example, despite careful, detailed instructions concerning cleanliness the ball bearing manufacturers have included in the package, it is not unusual to find a mechanic removing the protective oiled paper to leave the bearing exposed to dust and grime before using it (the mechanic probably being a lowly paid uneducated and illiterate worker). Thorough training programs by such companies as Caterpillar and Allis-Chalmers are meant to overcome such difficulties. Simple instructions with plenty of pictures get the message across to those with low levels of literacy. Having been burned many times in situations like those above, these companies know from Murphy that whatever can go wrong will and, therefore, intend to assume nothing and be as complete as possible in their training courses and manuals. Training strategies must be modified to adapt to cultural preferences. The preferred Japanese training method is that of learning by doing. Training is accomplished by working together in a group. The Japanese evaluate their training and testing experience as members of a group. The group will train together, will be evaluated together, and will be tested together; the group discovers the source of the problem and fixes it as a team. Groups are small, designed for functional harmony. They usually will continue informally after hours. The emphasis is on doing, sharing experiences, having intragroup discussion, and role playing; the orientation is highly visual (including slides, videotapes, samples, and actual hands-on demonstrations). Prereading is not highly valued unless special time is allowed for group discussion of the material. Prior to the formal training session, oftentimes the Japanese may conduct a group orientation in order to build group harmony, giving everyone a chance to get acquainted and build team spirit. A sharing of experience and learning is desired. Each person in the group must contribute to the learning environment and become part of the team. Tests of practical skills are more valuable than written tests on the same material2. The two week training of KFC workers in Japan would be uneconomical in the context of U.S. workers with the high level of labor turnover but is appropriate in Japan given the higher levels of job loyalty and the greater demands of customer service placed upon the Japanese worker in terms of politeness, courtesy, and information demands. Instructions are given, for example, on how to greet people, what tone of voice to use, and how to handle complaints or difficult inquiries (One trainer at KFC claims she knows how to say “thank you” to the customer in over one hundred different ways). Most Japanese stores provide a minimum of two week’s full-time training, the aim being to integrate the staff into a productive and loyal team, the second week being in-store training. Afterward, the staff is inspected daily on the floor in a military fashion to check that their appearance is up to the typical high Japanese standard. Substantial role playing, customer interactions, and videotaping are used in the training process of even the lowest-level employee3. American companies like KFC, McDonald's, and Pizza Hut have mastered this and have had great success in appealing to the Japanese consumer and affecting cultural change in dining habits. The training of customer-contact people is very detailed and important in Japan. Many of the training methods typically used in the West may not be appropriate for other cultural settings. For example, role-playing, a commonly used and effective training method in the West, may not be effective in a culture which is characterized by a high degree of risk avoidance. When role-playing is used in such cultures (the Chinese, for example), the participants usually do not actively participate since they have a difficult time in play-acting another role4. Similarly, techniques used in sensitivity training may require substantial modification to be used successfully in an Asian culture. The Chinese, like most East Asians, expect and demand structure. Therefore, Chinese training programs should be highly structured. Trainers should clearly outline to participants the goals of the course. Participants should receive checklists of what they are supposed to learn so they can measure their progress. Giving clear, immediate and frequent feedback to participants is essential. Chinese managers are thirsty for new ideas, new tools, and new information, so any course should be challenging. Interactive training is a foreign concept to most Chinese, who are accustomed to rote and lecture methods5. Microsoft understands the importance of training in a successful overseas operatiion. Microsoft is spending $2 million annually training thousands of technicians and programmers at centers and universities throughout China. One of its principle purposes in doing so is to alleviate the dearth of Windows applications present in China. It must also train thousands of technicians at Chinese banks, state-owned industries and government bureaucracies to work on Windows. Microsoft has set up training institutes at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, three universities and more than 70 centers employing 32 full-time Chinese instructors, trained in the U.S. The payback is thousands of offices running ten thousands of PCs, most of them running Windows 95 and Windows NT and connected with Microsoft servers. The Chinese government wanted an operating system especially designed for mainland China’s character fonts. Microsoft fully expects to establish Windows as the national platform6 While training is an important element in any service organization, training becomes critical, complex, and the greatest need for an organization in any culture where service is perceived to be synonymous with servitude or unskilled labor. Where this is the case, understanding the concept of marketing and service is difficult and behavioral changes will be a necessary element in the training program, a cultural transition to move the organization and its employees from a traditional unit to a service-oriented unit7. For example, in Eastern Europe, employees were literally trained to have very low levels of self-esteem; management wanted to discourage any behavior on the part of the employees which could lead to a potential rebellion against the system. Obviously, this mentality is completely contrary to what one would want to install in any profit-oriented firm. Furthermore, historically, managers worked for the state and employees learned not to like or trust managers. As a result, teaching employees to believe in themselves, to take pride in their work and trust their management becomes a major cultural change8 and must first be performed before any subsequent training can be effective. Properly implemented, a good training policy can help attract and retain skilled workers as well as improve company productivity and morale. However, cultural differences add complications to the training design process. First, cultural values and norms affect the teaching and learning process because people in different cultures learn in different ways and prefer particular teaching and learning approaches than others. Secondly, resistance to training and development will occur if the contents or activities of the training are not compatible with the inherent culture, and this will cause ineffective training. A cross-cultural trainer’s role should be empathetic to potential cultural differences. Hofstede9 has noted that the core question is one of whether the trainer should learn how to train in a “foreign” culture or whether the trainees should be expected to learn in new ways. At the extreme, the first option is essentially an adaptive or indigenous solution, whereby the trainer becomes more aware of the relevant culture, until he/she is able to operate in a culturally compatible manner 10. The most realistic position lies somewhere between these two extremes. Trainers need to be able to analyze both their own culture and that of the trainees to be able to design a training project objectively. This requires trainers to be aware, sensitive, flexible and willing to question their own models, concepts, and materials. People from different cultures speak different languages and behave differently. If a trainer does not understand the trainees’ characteristics, culture, history, and socio-economic backgrounds, he/she will not be able to create effective training programs. Therefore, it is important to first extract some key themes which portray central aspects of local cultural value orientations and psychological processes, to see how these values can affect training, and what are the rational behind them. Some mutually effective tactics exist as well as tactics that are more effective within each particular culture. References 1. Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage. New York: Free Press 1985. 2.James C. Morgan and J. Jeffrey Morgan, Cracking the Japanese Market, New York; MacMillan 1991. 3.Keitaro Hasegawa, Japanese Style Management, New York: Kodansha, 1986. 4. Irene Chew, Keng Howe, Anthony Tsai-pen Tseng, and Adrian Teo Kim Hong, “The Role of Culture in Training in a Multinational Context,” Journal of Management Development, 9/5 (1995): 51-56. 5. Sheila Melvin, “Off on the right Foot,” China Business Review 23/2 ( March/April 1996): 24 6. Pete Engardio and Dexter Roberts, “Microsoft’s Long March,” Business Week (June 24, 1996): 52-56. 7. Linda M. Ament and Gene Deszca, “Service Challenge of the 1990s,” Industrial & Commercial Training 24/9 (1992): 18-21. 8. Amy W. Gatilan and Kenneth C. Gilbert, “The Central European need for management training and advisory services,” Multinational Business Review 4/1 (Spring 1996): 69-76. 9. Hofstede, Geert, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values; Sage Publications; 1987. 10. Kirkbride, Paul S. “The Possibilities and Limits of Team Training in South East Asia.” Journal of Management Development.