Abstract
The current study examines cross-cultural differences in norms for meetings. Following Eisenhardt, we used a broad set of conceptual dimensions for analyzing meetings as a genre of organizational communication (Yates & Orlikowski) to guide a within- and cross-case analysis of meetings in two cultures. Our goal was to discover the possible existence of patterns and interpretations within cultures, and contrasts and explanations across cultures. Data from three different data sets were analyzed encompassing a total of 10 teams each with German and U.S. American subgroups. Findings show that Germans and U.S. Americans have different expectations and practices concerning the purpose, content, structure, and timing of meetings, and the roles of participants. The underlying meaning of these differences is explored. Theoretical and practical contributions of the work are discussed.
Meetings fulfill multiple purposes in organizations. For example, meetings are used to provide team members with an opportunity to communicate about and to coordinate their respective tasks (Sonnentag, 2001; Volkema & Niederman, 1995). Communication and coordination behaviors are embodied in specific meeting activities such as information sharing, decision making, assignments of responsibility, negotiation about the task, and progress reporting. Recent research has found, however, expectations for appropriate communication and coordination behaviors differ across cultures; these culture-driven communication and coordination norms affect team processes in multicultural teams (e.g., Friday, 1989; Köhler, 2009).
Although previous studies highlight the effect of cultural differences in communication and coordination norms on specific aspects of meetings (such as meeting styles or participation), a systematic evaluation of cultural differences in meeting norms is still missing. We examine the extent to which the behavioral norms that constitute a workplace meeting—and even the implicitly understood purpose of a meeting—differ between Germans and U.S. Americans (referred to as Americans throughout the article).
Köhler and Berry (2008) found, for example, that culture-driven norms concerning preferred amounts and forms of autonomy strongly affected the amount of collaboration and the timing and frequency of communication in Finnish-American teams. Köhler (2009) found that differences in culture-driven communication expectations, such as norms for the exchange of personal versus task information or the meaning of quietude in conversations, affected communication frequency, information sharing, and team building in German-American and Finnish-American teams. Similarly, Millhous (1999) concluded that cultural preferences for relationship versus task-related communication created tensions in Russian-American teams. Millhous also found that context cultural norms of businesses influence the format of meetings as well as the timing and format of information sharing. Going one step further, Szabo (2007) showed how cultural differences in the meaning of and need for autonomy had strong effects on participation in meetings. Although both Finns and Germans, for example, highly value autonomy, their preferences for meeting participation differ considerably. Finns expect leaders to provide the team with the big picture, to assign tasks and roles, and to make decisions. Team members then have absolute autonomy to complete their tasks. Active participation in meetings is low. German team members, conversely, often take expert roles within their teams and expect to have input into decision making. Although the final decision is made by the team leader, it is expected that everybody voices their opinion in the course of decision making.
Culturally grounded communication and coordination norms, therefore, are bound to drive expectations and preferences for the way meetings are held. Norms governing when, how and what to communicate can be expected to affect preferences concerning meeting frequency, timing, structure, participation, and decision making (Brannen & Salk, 2000). Using Yates and Orlikowski’s (1992, 2002) conceptualization of meetings as a genre of organizational communication, we provide a comprehensive comparison of key characteristics of German and American meetings based on data drawn from three different data sets. We aim to explore how the meeting genre differs across cultures and how culture affects the way meetings are conducted. Given the dearth of research on meetings in general and on cultural differences in meetings in particular, the current study takes an in-depth descriptive approach.
Meetings as a Genre of Organizational Communication
Yates and Orlikowski (1992) introduced the notion of genres of organizational communication to call attention to the existence of “typified communication actions characterized by similar substance and form and taken in response to recurrent situations” (p. 299). They built the genre view of organizational communication on Giddens’ (1984) structuration theory, which proposes that social rules and norms drive the creation and change of social institutions. Once social institutions are created, they drive individuals’ behavior, yet daily behavior also can change social institutions.
Consistent with this view, Yates and Orlikowski see meetings—and other organizational communication genres such as memos, reports, seminars, e-mails, and business letters—as socially embedded institutions that guide people’s communicative behavior in fulfilling some recognized purpose but that also evolve in the course of daily enactment by individuals in organizations (Im, Yates, & Orlikowski, 2005; Orlikowski & Yates, 1994). Genres serve as templates for social interaction which provide strong norms for communication and coordination (Yates & Orlikowski, 2002). Similarly, Schwartzman (1986), one of the first organizational scholars to call for research on meetings, recognizes meetings as “a social form” regulated by “specific conventions” (Schwartzman, 1986, p. 241).
The two distinguishing factors of genres are the substance of the genre and the form the genre takes (Orlikowski & Yates, 1994). The substance includes the “social motives, themes, and topics being expressed in the communication,” and the form describes “the observable physical and linguistic features of the communication” (Yates & Orlikowski, 1992, p. 301). On the basis of these two factors, Yates and Orlikowski (2002) defined specific genre elements: the socially recognized purpose for the communication activity; the typical participants and their roles; the medium, type of language, and structuring devices used (e.g., agendas or rules of order in the case of meetings); and the typical timing, location, and content. These elements describe the “why, what, who/m, how, when, and where” of the communication activity (Yates & Orlikowski, 2002, p. 16). The framework is useful as an analytic tool “for investigating the structuring of communicative practices within a community” (Orlikowski & Yates, 1994, p. 541).
According to Yates and Orlikowski (1992), genre rules, similar to Giddens’ (1984) social rules, dictate the appropriate substance and form for a particular genre such as meetings. This means that the genre elements outlined in the previous paragraph not only define expectations for the communication activity, but discourage other behaviors and events. What is promoted and discouraged by the genre form, however, often is invisible because of the form’s taken-for-granted quality (Yates & Orlikowski, 1992). Cultural comparison, as offered in this article, is a good way to bring to light the strength of such a genre, the rules embedded in it, and the consequences that flow from its use. Cultural comparison reveals and defines differences in values, norms, expectations, and behaviors between social groups. Because of the socially embedded nature of genres of organizational communication, cultural comparison can aid in uncovering the underlying differences in genre substance, form, and rules. In addition, it can help to understand how specific meeting substances and forms are influenced by larger institutional and cultural notions such as differences in cultural communication norms.
Both Schwartzman (1986) and Yates and Orlikowski (1992) have called for cross-cultural comparisons of the form and function of meetings. This study is one of the first to respond to that call. In this article, we use the framework of genre elements to focus a comparison of German and American meetings across our three data sets.
Differences in Meetings Across Cultures
There have been hints that important cultural differences in meetings exist. In an article published in 2000, DiStefano and Maznevski remark tantalizingly on differences in the “why” of team meetings around the world:
In the United States, a team meeting is held to make decisions. . . . In Japan, a team meeting is held to publicly confirm decisions that were discussed among members in smaller groups as they developed their analyses. . . . In Mexico, a meeting is a time to build relationships and trust with each other. . . . In the Netherlands, a meeting may be a time to identify all the weaknesses and criticisms of a particular approach or plan. (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000, p. 53)
However, organizational meetings are not just held to analyze a proposal or make or confirm decisions. Researching meetings of the polity—a political organization—of the Australian Pintupi Aborigines, Myers concludes that the purpose of Pintupi meetings is to sustain the relatedness of the polity. “Meetings,” he writes, “are a clear expression of Pintupi values and understandings of the polity” (Myers, 1986, p. 433).
Apart from the limited research on differences in the implicit purpose of meetings, much of the published research on meeting differences has focused on communication differences during meetings. Meyer (1993) describes how the Americans in his sample preferred to start conversations with small talk about topics such as sports, the weather, or one’s occupation. Germans and Japanese, conversely, did not like to engage in small talk. Meyer also points out that Germans preferred a direct communication style including linguistic elements such as interruptions, corrections, and direct questions. Americans tended to find this communication style rude and abrasive. Similarly, Friday (1989) finds that Americans use meetings to find out what others feel about them, whereas Germans prefer meetings to lead to a “rigorous logical examination of the history and elements of an issue” (Friday, 1989, p. 437). In addition, German interviewees in Hedderich’s (1999) study found American meetings more goal and action oriented than they preferred. One interviewee thought that “Americans work two to three times faster than Germans, they are very goal oriented, but if the plan does not work, they will completely throw it overboard after three months” (Hedderich, 1999, p. 163). Many of the German interviewees were critical of the strong action orientation displayed by the Americans.
Despite the lack of academic research focused on cultural differences in meetings, there is no shortage of textbooks and practical business guides on the topic. Schmidt (1999) states, for example, that Americans are eager to obtain results and make progress. One common meeting technique in American meetings is brainstorming, during which team members come up with many ideas in a “disorganized and impulsive manner, expecting others to react with instantaneous feedback” (Schmidt, 1999, p. 61). Germans, conversely, prefer to evaluate extensive background information and create solutions from logical deduction. Several other textbooks describe similar stable cultural differences in meeting preferences (e.g., Harvard Business Essentials, 2003; Thompson, 2006). However, in her extensive analysis of six commonly used business English textbooks in the United Kingdom, Angouri (2010) cautions against the superficial statements provided in popular textbooks. She finds that the differences reported in such books are frequently based on overgeneralization, failing to take into account cultural variation and the organizational and cultural context in which the meetings are held.
The Value of a Genre View on Meetings Across Cultures
The purpose of the current study is to conduct an in-depth, systematic analysis of cultural differences in the meeting norms of Germans and Americans. Given the lack of previous research on meetings in general and on meeting differences across cultures in particular, this study is descriptive and exploratory. Using the genre framework as an analytical tool, we aim to assess meeting norms within their larger organizational and cultural context to determine how specific meeting preferences are interlinked with the larger social institutional system in which they are embedded. A genre perspective and analysis elevates the significance of meetings as a focus of research, recognizing meetings as a social form that embodies particular cultural, institutional, and organizational arrangements.
As explained in previous sections, the key characteristics of a genre imply that expectations and practices regarding the meeting form help reinforce existing arrangements by supplying a sense of purpose, behavioral norms, and role descriptions and by discouraging deviation from the form. At the same time, the pervasive influence of the social form is largely invisible, because such forms usually are taken for granted. This suggests the types of repercussions that may occur when people from different cultures, holding different notions of the meeting genre, come together to work. One might see widely different interpretations of the same events and behaviors and struggles for control of the form. In summary, we think it is important to apply Yates and Orlikowski’s (2002) comprehensive framework of the communication genre to guide a comparison and description of the extent to which, and ways in which, the meeting genre might differ across cultures.
Method
Sample
The current study uses archival data from three previous data collections. All three data collections involved teams that were geographically distributed between the United States and Germany. Across samples, the teams’ backgrounds, tasks, and organizational settings differed. Furthermore, data- collection methods differed across the three samples. Using different samples and data-collection techniques is crucial for triangulation of the findings and ultimately, for assessing generalizability of the findings across team types and organizational contexts (Eisenhardt, 1989). It also helps us to tease apart culture-driven meeting norms from organization and team-specific norms. Table 1 summarizes team characteristics, demographics, and sources of data for the three data sets. In the current study teams were defined as groups of three or more people who worked together interdependently on the same task.
Team Characteristics, Demographics, and Data Sources Across the Three Data Sets
Sample 1
The first sample consists of one German-American project team from a large global manufacturing organization headquartered in Germany. This team participated in a training program aimed at increasing intercultural understanding to improve team performance. The training was conducted face-to-face in the United States in 1992 by an experienced cross-cultural trainer. The team members were given two tasks: (a) to create an advertisement and marketing campaign for a fitness monitor and (b) to plan a joint venture between an American and a German organization. The Germans and Americans in the team worked on both tasks as monocultural subgroups. This mirrored their usual work practices. Their task meetings were videotaped so that the team members could subsequently watch the videos together to analyze and reflect on the behaviors of each subgroup and to learn about any cultural differences in the way each group worked on the tasks.
Sample 2
The second data set contains six student teams consisting of members in Germany and the United States who collaborated virtually as part of a course project. Their task was to participate in class exercises and then share and discuss their cultural discoveries with their international counterparts by e-mail throughout the ensuing week. The overarching goal was to learn as much as possible about their respective cultural backgrounds from each other.
Data were collected through observations over the course of 9 weeks. The teams were observed from formation to dissolution. The course instructors were participant observers in the classroom context, and the student teams were aware that their interactions were observed by the instructors. The main sources of information for the current study were the students’ e-mail conversations and individual reflective essays on their experiences during the collaboration.
Whereas the students in Germany were mainly of German cultural background, the students at the American university were more diverse. About half of them were first or second generation Americans with cultural roots in Asian, Latin American, Middle Eastern, Northern African, Southeast Asian, and European countries. Among the American students 21 (81%) stated that they had previous work experience, whereas five (36%) of the German students did.
Sample 3
The third data set consists of three software development teams with members based in Germany and the United States, working for a large international company. These data were collected through onsite interviews with team members and team leaders, week-long observations of teamwork activities and meetings, and follow-up interviews with team leaders 18 months after initial data collection. The interview technique was ethnographic. After an initial open question regarding the role the team member played in their team, follow-up questions depended on where the interviewee was leading the conversation. Where appropriate, interviewees were probed regarding their meeting experiences. The data include examples of predominantly German meetings held in Germany, predominantly American meetings held in the United States, and cross-site German–American meetings held via audio conference.
Advantages of using three data sets
The integration of findings from three data sets enables triangulation across different team types, samples, meeting contexts, and organizational contexts. It also offers an opportunity to go beyond mere replication. Each data set offers a unique vantage point from which to explore cultural differences in meeting norms.
In the manufacturing team sample, we were able to observe the two cultural subgroups of the team separately. This helped us to examine German and American cultural meeting behaviors in a monocultural environment. The videotapes provided the opportunity to observe and repeatedly review interaction patterns and to contrast and compare specific meeting behaviors. From this sample, we were able to derive an initial account of how Germans and Americans conduct and participate in meetings in different ways.
The student and software development samples then helped us to understand the underlying meaning of the cultural differences we observed in the manufacturing sample. From the student teams we were able to get insights into meeting norms within each culture as the students tried to explain them to their respective cultural counterparts. They also discussed broader culture-driven norms for communication and coordination. The software development sample allowed us to observe multicultural, virtual meetings in a real business context. In addition, in interviews about their experiences team members gave us their perceptions and explanations of differences in the ways that Germans and Americans conduct and participate in meetings.
Data Analysis
We combined the three data sets and imported them into NVivo 8, a software program that supports the management and coding of qualitative data from different sources (in our study from text and video files). We used within- and cross-case analysis to explore how the genre framework applies to meetings across cultures (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The case study approach is especially useful to assess the current research question because it “focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 534). Our goal was to understand differences in the norms and interaction patterns of German and American team meetings and to assess the stability of the differences across samples. This approach allowed us to triangulate our findings by deriving cross-cultural meeting patterns from an in-depth analysis of Sample 1 and by comparing these patterns to our findings from Samples 2 and 3. It further allowed us to integrate findings from many different data sources (i.e., video data, interviews, and observations) and across quantitative and qualitative data. Each team was treated as a case and the unit of analysis was a single meeting.
Within-case analysis
We first analyzed the data from Sample 1, the manufacturing team, in their cross-cultural training program. Germans and Americans completed two tasks in their respective monocultural subgroups. The subgroupings allowed us to assess German meeting norms and American meeting norms as they would occur naturally in German and American teams. In this first step, we analyzed cultural differences in meeting norms and patterns, comparing observations of the German team meetings to observations of the American team meetings. We followed Eisenhardt’s (1989) recommendation of using a set of broad dimensions derived from our previous literature review to analyze the meetings, that is, Yates and Orlikowski’s (2002) framework. Using broad dimensions can help focus the analyses to avoid getting lost in the sheer amount of data available. Simultaneously, the dimensions need to be broad enough to avoid creating specific expectations that could bias our perceptions and observations.
Following Yates and Orlikowski’s (2002) framework, we focused on six characteristics of meetings by asking why, what, who/m, how, when, and where. Applying these general questions to the first data set, we identified the types of activities in which the teams engaged. These activities were definition of the product, definition of the task, discussion of the price (all three related to the what question), discussion of roles (related to the who question), coordination, and task work (both related to the how question). Table 2 provides definitions of these activity categories, which were subsequently used for coding. After identifying these different activities, we counted the number of minutes the teams spent on each one (related to the when question).
Definitions of Activity Categories and Total Time Spent on Specific Activities in German and American Meetings on Both Tasks
Given that the specific meeting activities might in part be dependent on the task at hand, we were particularly interested in assessing differences in interaction patterns between the German and American teams while keeping the task constant. In this sample, the German and American team members worked on the same two tasks but within their mono-cultural subgroups. On the one hand, this allowed us to assess cultural differences in their interaction patterns when the team members worked on the same task. On the other hand, it allowed us to compare the interaction patterns observed while working on the first task to interaction patterns observed while working on the second task. This helped us to extract a set of cultural differences that were observed consistently across two different tasks. In the next step, the cross-case analysis, data from samples 2 and 3 were used to triangulate our findings from sample 1.
Cross-case analysis
We assessed whether team members from samples 2 and 3 displayed or reported the same cultural differences in interaction patterns between German and American team members as the teams in sample 1. We also analyzed the data to uncover explanations for these differences (related to the why question of the Yates & Orlikowski, 2002, framework). The interview data from sample 3 and the e-mail communications from sample 2 proved to be especially useful for this.
Data analysis of Samples 2 and 3 first involved scanning of the available data to include only data concerning meetings. These data then were analyzed using a constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to refine the findings from Sample 1 and to assess whether the data in Samples 2 and 3 confirmed the findings from Sample 1. We also used negative case analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1994) to specifically seek out negative examples in Samples 2 and 3 that would refute our findings from Sample 1. To ensure reliability of our findings and interpretations, each data set was coded by at least two coders. Frequent meetings throughout the coding process ensured alignment of the coding process and consensus about the findings. In the spirit of the constant comparative method, two of the authors of the current article then compared data across the samples and extensively discussed their findings in several meetings throughout the coding process. Consensus was built during these discussions.
Findings
Within-Case Analysis in Sample 1: Differences in Meeting Norms
Applying Yates and Orlikowski’s (2002) genre framework to data from the manufacturing sample (Sample 1), we observed cultural differences on five dimensions, namely the purpose of the meeting (why question), the content of the meeting (what question), the roles of participants (who/m question), the structure of the meeting (how question), and the timing of the meeting (i.e., how time is spent during a meeting and what role deadlines play, the when question). Expectations regarding the location of the meeting (where question) could not be observed in this team context. In the following, we summarize our findings with regard to cultural differences between German and American meetings.
Content
Table 2 provides the total time each team spent on specific activities during each meeting. Observations regarding the content of meetings show that the German meetings mainly revolved around the definition of the task, the definition of the product, and the actual task work (which, in the current context, meant preparation for joint meetings with the American team members). The American meetings also revolved around the definition of the product and the actual task work. They differed, however, in that the Americans spent considerably more time than the Germans in their first meeting discussing roles (10% vs. 4.2%) and considerably less time defining the task (7.2% vs. 26.5%). In the second meeting, Americans and Germans spent about the same percentage of total meeting time on definition of the task (59% vs. 59.4%), but still the Germans spent roughly 10 min more of actual time on that. Also, in the second meeting, the Germans spent considerably more time discussing roles (7% vs. 1.5 %).
Timing
In addition to differences in the total time spent on these activities, Germans and Americans differed in the sequencing and patterning of task activities. Americans spent more concentrated blocks of time early in the meeting on defining the product, discussing the roles team members should take on, and discussing the price the product should cost. At the same time, Americans spent relatively little time defining the task at the beginning, but devoted a concentrated block of time on this later in the meeting. German meetings, conversely, were characterized by a repeated cycling among task definition, product definition, and brief discussions of roles. The repeating cycles especially revolved around task and product definition, which seemed to be the core activity of the German meetings. Most of the discussion revolving around the price of the product happened in a concentrated block toward the end of the meeting. Table 3 depicts the amount of time spent on these activities during the first task. Our highlighting of task and product definition activities in this table shows how the patterns differ between the German and American samples.
Time Spent in German and American Meetings During the Design Marketing Strategy Task
Note: Bold highlightes different patterns that Americans and Germans demonstrated when spending time on task definition.
Italics highlightes different patterns that Americans and Germans demonstrated when spending time on product definition.
Observations from the second task mirror observations from the first task. Again, the Germans cycle among types of meeting activities much more than the Americans do, especially with regard to task definition. The Americans spent the most time on task definition at the beginning of the meeting, whereas the Germans interlaced task definition with product definition. Their discussions always returned to and refocused on task definition. During the meetings, both teams spent a considerable amount of time on task work (16.5% of the overall meeting time for the Germans and 18.2% for the Americans), leaving coordination and role definition for the end of the meeting. Table 4 depicts the amount of time spent on specific activities during the second task and highlights the cycles of task definition.
Time Spent in German and American Meetings During the “Joint Venture” Task
Note: Bold highlightes different patterns that Americans and Germans demonstrated when spending time on task definition.
Roles of participants
In the German team, all team members were equally and actively involved in the discussions. There was no apparent leader. Task roles were established quickly as various team members suggested role assignments, which usually were met with acceptance. They only talked about the functional roles that they had to fill, not specific titles or hierarchies between them. The following exchange between the team members highlights this type of discussion:
[ . . .] if you want to develop it, it might be useful even to . . . to distribute the functions before, marketing, sales . . .
Why not, you take sales?
I? (laughing)
[comments from others that cannot be understood]
Good idea. O.k., so I take sales.
[Switch immediately to what the presentation has to be about]
In the American team, two of the team members (American 3 and American 4) were more active than the others. When they talked, everybody else listened. While two more American team members often contributed (but were more frequently interrupted or ignored), the last two team members hardly talked at all. The American team spent much more time discussing the specific title that each role should be given (e.g., medical consultant vs. medical expert, sales manager, director of R&D, project leader). There were also more disagreements about role assignments, which were met by either persuading the person to take on the role or by ignoring their disagreement. The following conversation among the team members highlights this process:
You need a president, you need a sales manager, and you need a director of engineering or design or whatever. Somebody who does that.
We know what it is, we don’t know what it looks like. [silence] These are the functions. [silence] Who is the most technically aware?
You are. (laughing)
Not at these things. [Several team members call out the name of American 2]
Yes, I’ve got one. [referring to the device they are working on]
Right, so our R&D guy is [American 2].
You are the manager of R&D.
So you just gave me this impossible thing. (laughing)
You got to be positive here. You designed it. It’s your baby.
Structure
The Americans started their meetings with jokes and small talk, and joked frequently throughout the meetings. They interrupted each other more often, and each team member generally spoke for a shorter amount of time when compared to the Germans. The American meetings were characterized by distinct high activity–task focused periods, interspersed with periods of joking. By contrast, the Germans started task discussions immediately—eschewing small talk—and made fewer jokes throughout. They also interrupted each other less frequently than the Americans. One person would talk for a stretch of time and the others would listen. When this person had finished talking, somebody else started, and again, all the other team members listened. There were stretches when discussions intensified, team members interrupted each other more frequently, and would speak with louder voices. However, these episodes only lasted for a few minutes. Most of the time in the German meetings, voice volume and pitch were stable. Consistent with the findings concerning the amount of time spent on particular aspects of the meeting and the order in which topics were discussed, task discussions dominated the German meetings. Both German and American teams openly expressed disagreements and clarifications were often requested and provided.
In summary, these observations suggest that relative to Americans, Germans prefer to spend more time reflecting on the task requirements before starting task work. They also return more frequently to task definition to make sure that their task work is in line with the mission. Americans demonstrate a more linear pattern of analytic activity. In addition, German task discussions feature longer speaking turns that are less often interrupted by joking. American task discussions alternate between focused and relaxed episodes.
The next section cross-references observations from Sample 1 with findings from the student and software development samples (Samples 2 and 3). Observations from these two samples also allowed us to explore the meaning of the cultural differences in meeting norms.
Cross-Case Analysis in Samples 2 and 3: Differences in Meeting Norms
Purpose
The findings from the within-case analysis on Sample 1 indicate that meetings fulfill slightly different purposes for German and American teams. The findings of the cross-case analysis support this observation. Overall, findings from Samples 2 and 3 indicate that meetings in the United States involve a large number of people and are held often to exchange ideas and get commitment to a general solution. As a result, American meetings are more episodic and impressionistic. Meetings in Germany, in comparison, are less frequent and require more preparation time so that the meeting can be used for detailed decision making that arrives at firm solutions. The following quote from a U.S.-based German VP and team lead of one of the software development teams highlights this distinction:
Americans tend to be more excited about things. . . . Hey, there is a challenge, let’s make a conference call, let’s have 20 people onboard. And we’ll solve it. And Germans are a little bit different. Oh, we have an issue there. We need to think about it first. And then each and everybody thinks about it, and maybe does a phone call here and a phone call there, and then maybe a week later, two or three get together in a conference call and try to discuss things one more time. So Germans also tend to see more the—I don’t want to say the negative side, but really the issues and the problems, specifically when there is like new ideas. And Americans get more excited and think of it more from—as a challenge, like in sports.
The observation that Americans view problem solving as a challenge, whereas Germans aim to derive a logical solution is consistent with the observation that the American teams in Sample 1 (video data) showed more emotional expression relative to the German teams. As the data show, Americans try to outline a solution, while assessing who feels strongly about the matter. This fleshes out further an American notion of a meeting as a spontaneous, high-activity event that establishes buy-in or commitment. A German meeting, meanwhile, has a sense of being a consensus-building event, during which the characteristics of the best decision are identified and the decision is taken. It is a decision exercise that integrates advanced and real time, detailed problem solving.
Along similar lines, Americans and Germans hold very different norms regarding meeting size and participation. A U.S.-based German VP and team lead in the software development sample provided the following example:
In the United States, there is a tendency to have many people on conference calls . . . I [get] meeting requests where. . . . it’s just about one customer and there’s 15 people on that call. You can’t really make decisions or get contribution from each and every one in these kind of calls.
This corresponds with the findings from the video data (Sample 1) concerning differences in participation. The German VP emphasizes the importance of getting contributions from each and every one, which he finds to be impossible in a large American style meeting. We see in the video data that participation was more uneven in the American team than the German team; hence, meeting size may be considered less of a constraint from an American vantage point.
Role of Communication Norms
These cultural differences in meeting norms mirror differences in culture-driven communication and coordination norms. Communication and coordination norms are a crucial driver of many meeting behaviors. To help explain cultural differences in meetings, this section describes differences in culture-driven communication and coordination norms.
As the video data from Sample 1 showed, Americans and Germans approach their meetings differently: Americans started their meeting with a bit of small talk and joking and maintained an attitude that seemed more relaxed and less formal. In the German meetings, jokes and small talk were much less frequent. American 3 in the student sample describes these differences as follows:
Americans often times open a meeting with a joke in order to attract the attention of the others, but Germans consider business too serious to joke. . . . In general, Germans are more formal in professional settings with meetings beginning with proper introductions and little small talk. Americans, in contrast, often ask questions out of politeness to create small talk both at work and in their personal lives.
Small talk and use of humor are two common strategies that Americans use to loosen a conversation and entertain others, creating an amiable atmosphere and building relationships. Germans, conversely, are particular about keeping emotions and joking separate from business meetings to maintain a strict separation of business and private life. As a consequence, Germans tend to be more critical in meetings, valuing critical assessments of team member ideas. The following quote by a U.S.-based German American team member in the software development sample highlights this point:
I would say here (in the U.S.), more meetings, and I would say in Germany, it’s definitely more direct. They won’t couch things as much. They just—it’s more, you know, if you criticize the piece of work, you know—okay, well it’s just that piece of work. It’s usually not a statement on you.
Although disagreement was observed equally in the video data (Sample 1), its expression differed slightly in American and German teams. In the American team, an expression of disagreement was often met with persuading the team member to change his position or with altogether ignoring the team member. American team members did not force issues as much as the Germans tended to and often packaged their disagreement in jokes. The Germans held on to their position much longer—even if other team members disagreed with them—sometimes defending it vehemently. They got into a more heated discussion about several topics, which was also one of the few times when team members raised their voices, interrupted each other, talked over each other, and physically moved closer to the people with whom they were arguing. They expressed their disagreement more directly and stated what they really thought. A German team member in the software development sample, working in the United States, explains this issue as follows:
Typically you talk straightforward. So you don’t have any like political correctness or let’s say politeness considerations. So if you don’t like something, you pretty much say it straightaway. . . .And also you might use, let’s say slightly more aggressive language. If somebody from here (U.S.) really wants something done there (Germany) and uses the more, let’s say indirect way of expressing that, and talking about how that’s in everybody’s interest and how nice it would be and that stuff, I mean sometimes it just doesn’t happen. Just that’s not the way these people understand you.
Cultural differences in the structure of the meeting reflect a German preference to listen, observe, and think before making a contribution to a discussion and an American preference for developing solutions together and thinking on their feet. In the video data, Germans spoke for much longer time intervals, while their team members listened intently. Their contributions were more complex and always involved several issues or perspectives on a given topic. Americans took much quicker turns and usually discussed a single issue before moving on to the next one. American 23 in the student sample describes the difference as follows:
Americans tend to start talking without figuring out exactly where the conversation is going. If an American were to do this around a German it might be seen as though the person talking isn’t intelligent enough to figure out their argument before starting. On the other side if a German takes awhile before responding to a question or comment it might seem to the American like he or she didn’t understand.
These examples demonstrate the link between culture-driven communication norms and meeting norms and foster an understanding of why meetings differ across the two cultures. This link further emphasizes the socially embedded nature of meetings in the larger cultural context.
Discussion
The current study offers an in-depth, systematic analysis of cultural differences in German and American meeting norms using Yates and Orlikowski’s (2002) genre framework as an analytical tool. While the genre framework has previously been used to study meetings, we are not aware of a study that features cultural comparisons of the substance and form of the meeting genre. We believe that cultural comparisons are especially useful for uncovering the underlying differences in genre substance, form, and rules because of the socially embedded nature of genres of organizational communication.
Findings from the current study show that Germans and Americans have different expectations for the purpose, content, structure, and timing of meetings as well as for the roles of participants. Beyond these differences, we find the differences in interaction patterns most interesting. Identification of German recurring cycles of refinement, particularly around task definition, offers a strong and fresh contrast with an American style that flows in a more impromptu and linear fashion. These differences, strong and significant but difficult to clearly detect and characterize, could cause serious conflict in multicultural teams. Similar to our findings, Friday (1989) concluded that the German obsession with logical, detail oriented, well prepared, and thorough discussion of a topic and the American preference for unstructured, informal, and intuitive discussion of a topic often clashed. We were intrigued by the fact that these patterns were stable across different tasks, meeting types, team types, and organizational backgrounds. This gives us confidence that our findings will generalize to meeting contexts other than the ones included in the present work.
Given our findings, we believe that the current study makes several contributions to the existing literature. First, the study highlights the use of the genre framework as an analytical tool to understand cultural differences in meetings. It takes us beyond assessing key characteristics of meetings to an integrative and comprehensive picture of the meeting form.
Second, through comparative genre analysis across cultures we can gain new insights into how culture affects expectations for the genre in question. Although this study assesses cultural effects on meetings in particular, it is safe to assume that other genres such as memos, resumes, reports, seminars, e-mails, and business letters will also differ across cultures. Future work is needed to assess cross-cultural differences in other types of genres.
Third, we believe that the current study demonstrates how fruitful a focus on behavioral norms is to understand cultural differences. A focus on specific norms goes beyond broad comparisons across countries provided by cultural dimensional systems such as Hofstede’s (1991) or Trompenaar’s (1994). Using these systems, differences between German and American culture are deceptively small. The in-depth qualitative approach applied in this study, however, allowed us to uncover and explain specific meeting norms which can help us make specific predictions for behaviors and anticipate cultural clashes in multicultural meetings. Along similar lines, Angouri (2010) has stated that cross-cultural comparisons of meetings have to go beyond superficial and coarse analyses. Rather, research needs to identify the underlying dynamics of meetings and assess meetings within their cultural and organizational context.
Strengths and Limitations
The current study has several methodological strengths. Triangulation of research methods (i.e., video data, interviews, and observations), of samples and organizational contexts (i.e., manufacturing teams, student teams, and software teams), of researchers to avoid research bias (i.e., data in the three samples was collected by different research teams and data was analyzed by multiple researchers), and of findings provides strong evidence of generalizability of our findings beyond the current study (Eisenhardt, 1989). Furthermore, the study included longitudinal data collected over several weeks and data collected within 2 days. The qualitative approach enabled us to look at the timing of particular aspects of the meetings and to focus on the dynamic interaction patterns between team members, allowing for assessment of specific behavioral meeting norms across cultures.
Our study is limited to two cultures, American and German. Although the focus on these two cultures across three data sets allowed us to conduct an in-depth analysis of the meeting genre, it will be important for future research to assess cultural differences in meetings using different cultures to expand our knowledge of the impact of culture on the meeting genre.
All three samples in our study consisted of geographically distributed German-American teams. However, despite the fact that none of the teams were just German or just American, the team members in each location spent the large majority of their time either in their German or in their American team. Embedded in their own cultural context, we believe that they were most familiar with meetings held in their own national and geographic context. Only once in a while would they have joint meetings via communication technology, and even more rarely face-to-face meetings. In fact, Sample 2 (the student teams) teams never met face-to-face. Even in Sample 3 (the software engineering teams), several team members had never met face-to-face. Based on this scarcity of direct contact, we feel that it is safe to assume that there was little influence of American meeting norms on German meeting norms and vice versa.
A third limitation of the current study is that our in-depth within-case analysis of data on German and American meeting norms (the manufacturing sample) is limited to one particular German-American team. The data do, however, consist of 350 min of team interactions across two tasks. Also, findings from this data set generalize across two other independent samples of teams from different organizational backgrounds with different tasks and different meeting experiences.
Implications for Practice
By providing a deeper understanding of different meeting expectations across cultures, we might offer suggestions for how multicultural meetings can be handled more successfully. Ethnic and cultural diversity in the workplace will likely increase in the years ahead (e.g., Fearon, 2003), and multicultural teamwork is likely to become increasingly common in organizations. Understanding why multicultural meetings often fail can greatly contribute to the design of effective meetings and the improvement of teamwork in multicultural teams. Practitioners may find our study helpful for developing learning processes and trainings that increase the success of multicultural meetings through a better understanding of the cultural norms of each party.
Meetings are also an integral part of international organizational collaboration such as international mergers, joint ventures, and acquisitions. Meyer (1993) describes how cultural differences in communication and meeting norms greatly affected the collaboration between German and American engineers, endangering the project in the early stages. Dutta (2001) describes how differences between Germans and Americans during the Daimler/Chrysler merger hampered relationships. Knowing each other’s cultural preferences for communication and meeting behaviors can effectively reduce conflict and misunderstandings in these international collaborations. For example, understanding that German directness might offend Americans who are used to easing themselves into a conversation with small talk and joking might avoid early conflict. In turn, understanding that the American preference for activity might upset the German need for planning might prevent basic misunderstandings regarding the sincerity and commitment to the collaboration. Understanding that the very structure and patterns of interaction can differ may help team members listen to their colleagues with curiosity and openness rather than a vague sense that something about the meeting is not quite right.
Knowing the communication and meeting preferences of others can often make or break intercultural negotiations. Research has demonstrated how strongly cultural communication preferences affect negotiation behaviors (e.g., Adair & Brett, 2005). The current findings highlight some important differences between Germans and Americans that could strongly affect negotiations between them. For example, the Germans’ preference for extensive prior preparations, discussions of minute details and in-depth negotiations could cause Americans to feel that the negotiations are not progressing fast enough and are not flexible enough to incorporate decisions made in collaboration. In turn, Americans’ impromptu style of discussion, informal demeanor and agreeable attitude might make Germans feel that they do not take the negotiations seriously and are not committed to the negotiations. Understanding these differences will help negotiators better understand the intentions and needs of their negotiation partners, leading to better negotiation outcomes.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We thank the following colleagues for their support of the original data collection in the three samples: Dennis Clackworthy, Alois Moosmüller, Susanne Dietrich, Tsedal Beyene, and Aditya Johri. We also thank Kristbjörg M. Kristinsdottir and Xuejiao Fan for their help with the data analysis of the video data.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The following agencies supported the data collection and analysis of the samples included in the current study: the National Science Foundation (under Grant No. IIS-0219754 and IIS-0220098), George Mason University (College of the Humanities and Social Sciences Dissertation Award), and the University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics (Early Career Researcher Grant, Faculty Research Grant, and International Visitor Scheme). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.