Engagement of Intercultural Project Customers: A Relational Model (Contributions to Management Science) 3030394840, 9783030394844

Citation preview

Contributions to Management Science

Patrick Lückmann

Engagement of Intercultural Project Customers A Relational Model

Contributions to Management Science

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/1505

Patrick Lückmann

Engagement of Intercultural Project Customers A Relational Model

Patrick Lückmann FOM University of Applied Sciences Dortmund, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

ISSN 1431-1941 ISSN 2197-716X (electronic) Contributions to Management Science ISBN 978-3-030-39484-4 ISBN 978-3-030-39485-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39485-1 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

“So, let us not be blind to our differences—but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. [. . .] For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.” John F. Kennedy, June 10, 1963

Abstract

This dissertation proposes and confirms a relational model for intercultural project customer engagement (ICPCE). Inspired by the professional experience of the author, the study assesses what current research and international project management standards prescribe for engaging project customers in general and intercultural customers in particular. The emerging ICPCE model (Fig. 2.14) bridges an identified research gap and builds on two recognitions: first, that cultural differences affect project customer management in complex ways and, second, that the creation of a shared project culture should have a positive effect on intercultural project success (Daim et al., 2012; Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Javed, Maqsood, & Durrani, 2006; Kupla, 2008; Plum, 2008; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). The model hypothesizes a unique set of capabilities required from project managers to appropriately and effectively engage the customer (H1). This unique set of capabilities is defined by those personal characteristics and attitudes (or “catalysts”) that are required by the intercultural environment (H2) and the cognitive and behavioral adjustments that are facilitated by these “catalyst” factors (H3). The qualitative analysis was informed by the above hypotheses. The three-staged qualitative approach included a secondary case study analysis and primary empirical research through semi-structured in-depth interviews with 23 professional intercultural project managers from 11 different nationalities, leading to more than 1700 min of audio recordings and 470 pages of full transcripts. The material was analyzed in an iterative process that allowed combining standardized analytical processes and coding techniques with existing theory. It resulted in a revised and complemented ICPCE model including 45 single impact factors along the model components “Cultural Differences,” “Effects,” “Catalysts,” and “Adjustments” as shown in Fig. 3.8. Based on the 45 single impact factors in the different model components, 32 factor relationships were hypothesized operationalizing the model relationships into measurable questionnaire statements. These statements were assessed on a seven-point Likert scale in a two-round Delphi study. The study used a 39-person expert panel

ix

x

Abstract

covering 13 nationalities and combining more than 630 years of professional experience and 358 years of international project experience. After two Delphi rounds the panel confirmed 24 of the 32 initially proposed statements, leading to the acceptance of H1 and H2 fulfilling very high requirements of at least 80% agreement with low SD of < 1.2 and a rejected null hypothesis of equal distribution (with α ¼ 0.01). The remainder of eight statements was assessed in a combined Delphi/Focus Group workshop with 16 experienced project managers from the Netherlands and Finland who assisted an M.Sc. program in project management. Ultimately, three of 32 statements remained inconclusive due to conceptual and sematic fuzziness. These were assessed in Focus Group discussions which confirmed their importance for intercultural project customer engagement. Overall, the ICPCE model received broad support by two independent expert groups. It informs scholars with regard to potential future research, and it helps practitioners to better understand those factors that impact intercultural project customer engagement.

Resumen

Esta tesis propone y confirma un modelo relacional para obtener el compromiso adecuado y efectivo del cliente en proyectos interculturales (modelo ICPCE). Inspirada en la experiencia profesional del autor, este trabajo doctoral analiza las publicaciones científicas y estándares internacionales para conocer como mejor integrar clientes de proyectos en general y en concreto clientes interculturales. El emergente modelo ICPCE (Fig. 2.14), contribuye a cubrir el déficit de investigación identificado, y está basado en dos reconocimientos: primero, que las diferencias culturales afectan a la gestión de proyectos de manera compleja y, segundo, que la creación de una “cultura común de proyecto” afecta de manera positiva al éxito de los proyectos interculturales (Daim et al., 2012; Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Javed, Maqsood, & Durrani, 2006; Kupla, 2008; Plum, 2008; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). El modelo plantea como hipótesis que para conseguir el compromiso adecuado y efectivo del cliente a nivel intercultural el director del proyecto debe poseer una combinación única de habilidades (H1). Tal combinación de habilidades está definida por las características personales y su actitud (catalizadores) in entornos interculturales (H2), y por los ajustes cognitivos y de comportamientos que están facilitados por tales factores catalizadores (H3). El análisis cualitativo se basó en estas tres hipótesis. La metodología incluyó tres fases, con la primera dedicada a un análisis secundario de 31 estudios de casos internacionales seguido por una investigación primaria basada en 23 entrevistas profundizadas semiestructuradas incluyendo 11 nacionalidades y generando más de 1700 minutos de grabación y 470 páginas de transcripción. El análisis cualitativo se realizó mediante una combinación entre procesos y métodos de codificación estándar y la teoría previamente desarrollada. El análisis dio como resultado la extracción de 45 factores de impacto que se pueden añadir a los componentes del modelo ICPCE “Diferencias Culturales”, “Efectos”, “Catalizadores” y “Ajustes” en Fig. 3.8. En base de estos 45 factores se plantearon 32 relaciones factoriales hipotéticas entre los componentes del modelo, que permitieron desarrollar afirmaciones

xi

xii

Resumen

operacionales para su inclusión en un cuestionario Delphi. Las 32 afirmaciones fueron subministrados a 39 expertos de 13 nacionalidades diferentes, que acumulaban y con más de 630 años de experiencia profesional, de los cuales 358 se realizaron en proyectos internacionales. Después del segundo Delphi, los expertos confirmaron 24 de las 32 afirmaciones, permitiendo la confirmación de las hipótesis H1 y H2. Estos criterios se confirmación con valores muy significativos, con un 80 porciento de acuerdo, sujeto a una desviación estándar < 1,2. Las ocho afirmaciones restantes fueron propuestas durante un taller combinado (Delphi/Grupo Focal) a 16 directores de proyectos holandeses y finlandeses con experiencia intercultural que asistieron a un programa Máster en Dirección de Proyectos. Por último, tres relaciones factoriales fueron tematizadas en Grupos Focales porque aún no recibieron confirmación. En resumen, el modelo ICPCE recibió una amplia confirmación de dos grupos de expertos independientes. El modelo sirve como referencia para futuros investigadores científicos y prácticos en gestión de proyectos para mejorar la integración adecuada y efectiva de clientes en proyectos interculturales.

Acknowledgements

This dissertation would not have been possible without the help and support of my family and many colleagues and friends. The past 4 years have been a truly unique and revealing experience for which I owe great gratitude to Marcus Laumann, who contracted me at the Münster School of Business (MSB), funded by research, and who has been a continuous source of inspiration and motivation for finishing this project. Equally important for this dissertation was the support I received from Carlos Cuervo-Arango of Nebrija Business School who inspired my thesis many times over the course of the project. Without the knowledgeable, conceptual, and methodological support of these two this dissertation would not have taken off, let alone brought fruits or conclusive results. Without William Orr, who improved my English immeasurably, reading this text would be much less of a pleasure than is today. Torben Bernholt of MSB and Daniel Magaña of Nebrija Business School supported this work by providing IT and web support and thus dramatically facilitated a flawless workflow throughout the project. Gilbert Silvius, whom I knew at the first conference I attended, allowed me to use his classroom as a testing ground for ideas and was a rich source of “practical perspective” in intercultural project management. David Serbin reflected with me different analytical questions and offered important insight into the feasibility of different statistical procedures. Last but no least, it is my family that carried the major burden by having to do without spouse, papa, brother, and son so many weekends and evenings in which this text and scientific contribution was produced. Without their continuous emotional, financial, and logistical support, this research project would not have borne fruits. I owe the deepest gratitude to my loving wife, Irene, who believed in me all the way, nurtured my thoughts, reflected my ideas, pushed me toward the end, and gave me three children, two of which were born in the time this dissertation was produced. Thank you!

xiii

A Word on Gender. . .

The author of this dissertation strongly and unconditionally supports awarding equal rights to people of all ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations. Whenever the personal pronouns he or she are used without referring to a specific person, the selected pronoun should be seen as interchangeable. In instances in which the author refers to “the project manager” and then continues with “he,” the personal pronoun must be seen as a placeholder for all genders. For better readability and comprehension, it was decided to use either “he” or “she,” but not “he/she” or “he or she.”

xv

Contents

1

Introduction to Intercultural Project Customer Engagement . . . . . 1.1 Problem Statement and Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Objectives and Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Preliminary Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Structure of the Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

1 1 2 3 3 5

2

Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Introduction to Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Project Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.4 Project Stakeholder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.5 Stakeholder Engagement/Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.6 Project Customer, Owner, User and Sponsor . . . . . . . . . 2.1.7 International Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.8 National Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.9 Intercultural Competence and Cultural Intelligence . . . . . 2.1.10 Intercultural Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.11 Intercultural Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Role of Project Management Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Project Management According to IPMA . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Project Management According to APM . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Project Management According to GPM . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.5 Project Management According to PMI . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.6 Project Management According to PRINCE2 . . . . . . . . . 2.2.7 Synthesis Project Management Standards . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects . . . . . 2.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Project Stakeholder Management As a Framework . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 7 7 8 8 11 12 13 15 17 18 20 21 22 22 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 29 30 xvii

xviii

Contents

2.3.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

3

Project Customer Management in Project Management Standard Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Agile Project Management and Scrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5 Summary: Project Customer and Stakeholder Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Introduction to Cultural Differences and Intercultural Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Models of Cultural Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 Models of Intercultural Competence and Cultural Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.4 Synthesis: Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement . . . 2.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Structured Literature Review Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3 Process of Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.4 Findings of Literature Review: Impact Factors . . . . . . . . 2.5.5 State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Relational Model for Intercultural Project Customer Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 Models, Theories and Impact Factors to Be Included . . . 2.6.2 Model of Impact Factors for Intercultural Project Customer Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.3 Hypothesis That Inform the Qualitative and Quantitative Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

46 62

. .

67 68

. .

68 69

.

91

. . . . . .

107 108 108 112 114 117

. 129 . 130 . 130 . 133 . 137

Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement . . . 3.1 Introduction to Qualitative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Secondary Case Study Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Deductive Category Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Inductive Category Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Synthesis of Published Case Study Research . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Methodological Approach and Selection of Interviewees . 3.3.2 Development and Testing of Interview Guide . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Category Development and Preliminary Findings . . . . . . . 3.3.4 Category Application and Integration with Model . . . . . . 3.4 Synthesis: Qualitative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Proposal of Relational Model with Impact Factors . . . . . . 3.4.3 Reassessment of Preliminary Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . .

139 139 140 140 145 153 158 161 161 163 168 182 190 190 191 192

Contents

xix

4

Delphi Survey: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction and Selection of Factor Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Delphi Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Methodology and Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Selection and Description of Expert Panel . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.3 Process and Results of Delphi Rounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Summary of Delphi Results and Focus Group Workshop . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

195 195 199 199 201 206 222

5

Intercultural Project Customer Engagement: Conclusions . . . . . . . 5.1 Summary of Qualitative and Quantitative Results . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Contributions to Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Practical Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Limitations and Critical Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Research Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

227 227 228 229 230 232

Annex: Expressions of Cultural Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Abbreviations

APM CI CQ GPM IDV IT IVR IPMA LTO MAS Mgr Mgt PD PM PMI PMgr PMBoK PRINCE2 SD UA

Association of Project Management Cultural Intelligence according to Plum (2008) Cultural Intelligence according to Early and Ang (2003) Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement (German Society for Project Management Individualism (Cultural Dimension) Information Technology Indulgence vs. Restraint (Cultural Dimension) International Project Management Association Long Term Orientation (Cultural Dimension) Masculinity (Cultural Dimension) Manager Management Power Distance (Cultural Dimension) Project Management Project Management Institute Project Manager Project Management Body of Knowledge by PMI PRojects IN Controlled Environments—UK-based PM Standard Standard Deviation Uncertainty Avoidance (Cultural Dimension)

xxi

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1

Methodology of this work. Source: Compiled by author . . . . . . . . . .

Fig. 2.1

Stakeholder management process—summary. Sources: Author’s compilation based on summary of literature (APM, 2012; Ellmann et al., 2015b; Englund, 2014; Eskerod & Huemann, 2014; IPMA, 2015; Kerzner, 2013; Mepyans-Robinson, 2011; OGC, 2009; Patzak & Rattay, 2014; PMI, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stakeholder management in process groups—summary. Sources: Author’s compilation; based on (APM, 2012; Athayde, 2014; Bradley, 2014; Crawford, 2014a, 2014b; Dinsmore & Rocha, 2014; Ellmann et al., 2015b; Elswick, 2014a; Englund, 2014; Eskerod & Huemann, 2014; Kerzner, 2013; Levin & Ward, 2014; Maltzman, 2014; Morris, 2014; OGC, 2009; Pells, 2014; PMI, 2013; Pohl & Thyssen, 2015; Rocha & Tavares, 2014; Silvius & Schipper, 2014; Tuman, 2011; Turner, 2014b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Four dimensions of cultural intelligence. Sources: Ang and Van Dyne (2008) and Livermore (2010) . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . Cultural intelligence according to Plum. Source: Plum (2008) . . . Intercultural competencies according to Bolten. Source: Compiled by author, based on (Bolten, 2012) . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . Relational model of intercultural competence. Source: Imahori and Lanigan (1989) and Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) . . . . . . . . . Intercultural competence model for strategic human resource management. Source: Kupla (2008), and Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Process model of intercultural competence. Source: Deardorff (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-cultural-leadership-model. Source: Grisham and Walker (2008, p. 440) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knowledge area intersections. Source: Compiled by author . . . . . . Literature review process. Source: Compiled by author . . . . . . . . . . .

Fig. 2.2

Fig. 2.3 Fig. 2.4 Fig. 2.5 Fig. 2.6 Fig. 2.7

Fig. 2.8 Fig. 2.9 Fig. 2.10 Fig. 2.11

4

35

40 94 96 97 102

103 104 111 114 115 xxiii

xxiv

Fig. 2.12 Fig. 2.13 Fig. 2.14 Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 Fig. 3.7 Fig. 3.8 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3 Fig. 4.4

Fig. 4.5 Fig. 4.6 Fig. 4.7 Fig. 4.8 Fig. 4.9 Fig. 4.10

List of Figures

Relationships IPC impact factors. Source: Compiled by author . . . . 123 Impact factors from literature review. Source: Compiled by author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Preliminary relational model of intercultural customer engagement. Source: compiled by author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Methodology of secondary case study analysis. Source: Compiled by author . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . Qualitative content analysis—general process. Source: Mayring (2015, p. 62) . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . Deductive category application—generic process. Source: Mayring (2015, p. 98) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deductive category application—content structuring. Source: Mayring (2015, p. 104) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . Inductive category development. Source: Mayring (2015, p. 86) . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . Impact factors (inductive) in Hall’s iceberg model. Source: Lückmann and Färber (2016) . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . Process of deductive transcript analysis. Source: Compiled by author . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . Detailed relational model of intercultural project customer engagement. Source: Compiled by author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Academic education of Delphi panel. Source: Compiled by author . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . Project management training of Delphi panel. Source: Compiled by author . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . Age distribution of Delphi experts. Source: Compiled by author . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . Nationalities of Delphi panel experts. Explanatory note: Countries abbreviated with ISO country codes (DE-Germany; ES-Spain; IT-Italy; FR-France; US-United States of America; UK-United Kingdom; BE-Belgium; CH-Switzerland; NL-Netherlands; NG-Nigeria; VE-Venezuela; HU-Hungary). Source: Compiled by author . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . Frequencies of standard deviations—Delphi first round. Source: Compiled by author . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . Self-assessment of expert’s intercultural competence. Source: Compiled by author . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . Competence self-assessment for questions. Source: Compiled by author . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . Hypotheses with dependencies. Source: Compiled by author . . . . . Delphi summary H2 “Require”. Source: Compiled by author . . . . Delphi summary H3 “Facilitate”. Source: Compiled by author . . .

140 141 146 147 154 157 182 192 203 203 204

205 209 210 211 222 223 224

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 2.8 Table 2.9 Table 2.10 Table 2.11 Table 2.12 Table 2.13 Table 2.14 Table 2.15 Table 2.16 Table 2.17 Table 2.18

Stakeholder management approaches—standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stakeholder management approaches—handbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Customer’s role in standard texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Owner’s role in standard texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . User’s role in standard texts . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . The sponsor’s tasks during planning and controlling . . . . . . . . . . . . Sponsor’s role in standard texts .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . Summary of Hall’s cultural dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Trompenaars’ cultural dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of GLOBE’s contribution to cultural dimensions . . . . Summary of Meyer’s cultural scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural dimensions summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Keywords and synonyms . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . Knowledge area intersections—results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact factors IPC—cultural differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact factors IPC—cultural intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact factors IPS . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. . .. . ..

31 34 52 54 57 59 61 73 77 78 85 89 92 116 118 119 121 124

Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 3.10 Table 3.11

Studies included in case study analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact factors (deductive) by cultural category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Impact factors (inductive) with text examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary interview findings “Cultural Incidents” . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary interview findings “Customer Relationship” . . .. . . .. Codes and frequencies—cultural differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Codes and frequencies—intercultural competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Codes and frequencies—adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Codes and frequencies—others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Category system—cultural differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Category system—effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

143 148 155 169 170 173 175 178 180 184 185

xxv

xxvi

List of Tables

Table 3.12 Table 3.13

Category system—catalysts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Category system—adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table 4.6 Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 Table 4.10 Table 4.11 Table 4.12 Table 4.13

Factor relationships “Require” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factor relationships “Facilitate” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delphi-panel experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First-round Delphi results—H1 “Customer Relationship” . . . .. . . First-round Delphi results—H2 “Require” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First round Delphi results—H3 “Facilitate” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Second round Delphi results—H1 “Customer Relationship” . . . Second round Delphi results—H2 “Require” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . Second round Delphi results—H3 “Facilitate” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Combined Delphi results—H1 “Customer Relationship” . . . . . . . Combined Delphi results—H2 “Require” . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . Combined Delphi results—H3 “Facilitate” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expert workshop—H3 “Facilitate” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

196 197 202 206 207 208 212 212 213 214 214 215 220

Chapter 1

Introduction to Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Abstract Since project success depends ultimately on the project customer and the project customer is ever more likely to come from other cultures, it is indispensable to engage these project customers across cultural boundaries. The first chapter establishes this problem and describes the approach of this study.

1.1

Problem Statement and Justification

At the beginning of this research project stood the empirical observation of the author that cultural differences between project managers and their customers can have significant impact on the quality of their relationship and consequently on project success. The initial observation was made in the context of an international logistics service contract between a global logistics service provider and a global provider for IT-server solutions. Further first-hand experiences include customervendor relationships in European research consortia and the management of crosscultural consulting projects in the combined transport industry. Therefore, the initial research interest is deductive in the sense that intercultural project customer engagement was perceived as a problem, and that it is different from managing culturally diverse teams. When looking at the current state of project management, it becomes evident that the question of engaging project customers across cultural boundaries finds itself at the center of two recent developments in project management. The first is the sustained trend to intercultural projects due to global business ties and the migration of the work force (Binder, 2007; Grisham, 2010; Köster, 2010). The second development is the growing recognition that customer integration increases the likelihood of project success. This is manifested by the trend towards agile project management methods (Beck et al., 2001; Rubin, 2013; White, 2014), stakeholder integration (PMI, 2013), and a growing recognition that it is ultimately the customer who decides whether a project is successful or not (Kerzner, 2013; Turner, 2014b; Wysocki, 2014). The Literature review of this work will reveal that project managers are exposed to two contrasting expectations. The first is to engage with ever larger numbers of © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 P. Lückmann, Engagement of Intercultural Project Customers, Contributions to Management Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39485-1_1

1

2

1 Introduction to Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

external and internal stakeholders, and the second is that customer should be more integrated and therefore require more attention. Furthermore, contemplating the project customer relationship against the background of cultural differences is important because national culture influences the criteria according to which project success is defined (Anantatmula & Thomas, 2010). For example, Arab customers might consider the creation of a long term relationship as an important project outcome (Chen & Partington, 2004), and while for Israeli project customers appreciate superior product performance, Japanese customers emphasize cost performance as an essential criterion (Zwikael, Shimizu, & Globerson, 2005). Furthermore, the customer’s culture will influence the preferred way to achieve project goals. Thus, the degree to which risk taking in projects is appreciated (Liu, Meng, & Fellows, 2015; Muriithi & Crawford, 2003) depends on the cultural background of the actors and even the success of applying standard project management techniques depends their cultural compatibility (Ika, 2012). From the above it can be concluded that intercultural project customer engagement is an important question because (1) customer integration is becoming more important, (2) cultural diversity is of growing concern in international projects, (3) cultural differences influence the perception of project success, and (4) cultural differences influence preferences of how best to achieve project success.

1.2

Objectives and Research Questions

Research in international and intercultural questions of project management is still relatively scarce (Turner, 2014a) and the question of intercultural project customer engagement has received even less attention from project management researchers. The research question of this dissertation can therefore be formulated as follows: Which factors impact intercultural project customer engagement? This question can be translated into the following objectives: 1. To identify impact factors for intercultural project customer engagement from existing bodies of knowledge in project management and intercultural management; 2. To contribute to the understanding of the relationship between these impact factors and how they impact the customer-vendor relationship; 3. To synthesize the identified impact factors into a relational model considering personal capabilities of both project managers and client representatives; 4. To validate the model with project management scholars and practitioners and to improve their understanding of intercultural project customer engagement. The above objectives are based on a number of assumptions that have yet to be validated. It is therefore indispensable to formulate some initial hypotheses that shall inform the theoretical part of this dissertation.

1.4 Methodology

1.3

3

Preliminary Hypothesis

At the outset of this research endeavor it is useful verbalize the initial working hypotheses that shall serve as guidance throughout the course of the literature review and its documentation. These preliminary hypotheses can be verbalized as follows: 1. There is a significant difference between managing culturally diverse project customers and managing culturally diverse project teams in terms of importance and collaboration. 2. There is a research gap on intercultural project customer engagement in the terms of qualitatively understanding relational impact factors and quantitatively assessing their relevance. 3. A model of impact factors in intercultural project customer engagement needs to be informed by published research in project management, stakeholder management, and intercultural management. 4. Successful intercultural project customer engagement requires personal attitudes of the actors that facilitate adjustments on the personal level as well as of project management behaviors. Addressing these hypotheses will require an exhaustive literature review covering the following. First it will be necessary to explain how project customer and stakeholder management is conceptualized today in theory and in practice. Secondly it is required to review the literature on cultural differences and their impact on project management. Third, it is important to understand concepts of cultural intelligence (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Plum, 2008) and intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2006; Kupla, 2008; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009) in order to derive requirements for the actors. And eventually it is also important to review the state of the art in intercultural project management, identifying factors that impact the relationship between project customer and project vendor.

1.4

Methodology

The research presented in this dissertation is investigating questions of subjective perceptions of project managers and their customers. It is, therefore, interpretivist rather than positivist when it comes to the question of what counts as acceptable knowledge (epistemology), and constructionist rather than objectivist when determining whether there is an objective meaning outside the actors or whether actors re-construct, interpret or negotiate meaning depending on the context (ontology) (Bryman & Bell, 2011, pp. 15–23). From a methodological perspective, this dissertation will combine qualitative and quantitative research methods. This will allow the researcher to first understand which factors impact the appropriate and effective engagement of project customers,

4

1 Introduction to Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Literature Review (Chapter 2)

Preliminary Model

Case Study Analysis

Qualitave Interviews

Qualitave Analysis (Chapter 3)

ICPCE Model

Delphi Study (Chapter 4)

Validated Model

Fig. 1.1 Methodology of this work. Source: Compiled by author

and how these factors interact with each other before validating these factors in a quantitative Delphi survey. The methodology is visualized in Fig. 1.1. The foundation of this research is, an exhaustive literature review covering project management and intercultural theory as well as a structured database review that aims at identifying the state of the art in the field. The extracted impact factors were synthesized in a preliminary relational model based on intercultural competence theory. The literature review will inform the qualitative part of the work by proposing a preliminary model of impact factors. As a precursor for the qualitative interviews, the author conducted a qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2015) of published empirical research in the field, which was dedicated at extracting potential impact factors from published qualitative case study reports in intercultural project management. Together with the results of the literature review, this analysis informed a semi-structured qualitative survey that was administered to 22 project managers with significant experience in international projects. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using selected techniques of the Grounded Theory framework (Birks & Mills, 2015; Saldaña, 2016). The impact factors extracted from the interviews corroborated and complemented the relational model that emerged from the literature review. The single factors that emerged through this analysis allowed operationalizing the various components of the model into a Delphi survey. The Delphi study was chosen because it allows the assessment of a rather complex subject by a number of experienced project managers and scholars and provides feedback on disputed variables. The Delphi technique has been successfully employed by various researchers in the area of intercultural competence and project leadership (Deardorff, 2006; Grisham, 2009). This survey was administered to 43 international project managers from various cultural backgrounds and industry branches. The Delphi study validated the model in two iterations achieving high approval rates of over 80% for almost all proposed

1.5 Structure of the Work

5

relationships. Those variables that did not achieve at least 80% approval were subject to a focus group discussion that was able to explain critical issues with these variables and how to deal with them in practice. Overall this methodology elicits, synthesizes and validates a relational model of impact factors for intercultural project customer engagement.

1.5

Structure of the Work

As presented in Fig. 1.1, the following Chap. 2 will provide the theoretical foundation of this dissertation. After providing the necessary definitions in 2.1 the chapter will continue to review the bodies of knowledge of project management in Sect. 2.2 through 2.3. The Sect. 2.4 is dedicated to understanding culture and intercultural management before 2.5 reviews the state of the art in intercultural project stakeholder and project customer management. Preliminary results of this literature review were presented at ProjMan Conference 2015 and published in Procedia Computer Science (Lückmann, 2015). Ultimately, Sect. 2.6 is dedicated to deriving a preliminary model of impact factors of intercultural project customer engagement. Chapter 3 will describes the quantitative analysis as presented in Fig. 1.1, how the literature review informed a qualitative content analysis of published empirical case study research (3.2), and how this was used to develop a semi-structured qualitative interview guide. The results of the case study analysis were published separately in a double-blind peer-reviewed conference and proceedings (Lückmann & Färber, 2016). The interviews were conducted with 23 international project managers either in person, by video conference or by phone interview. The results of a preliminary analysis of the interview data was published separately in a double-blind peerreviewed international conference in Oporto (Lückmann & Laumann, 2016). The results of these interviews are presented in Sect. 3.3. Building on that, Chap. 4 describes the process of developing, conducting and analyzing the Delphi survey. The chapter shows how the Delphi survey validates the emerging model and which questions were critical during the process. The chapter concludes with a discussion of critical points and a synthesis of the most important findings. The last chapter is dedicated to summarizing the findings of this dissertation, discussing and validating the results, and proposing potential future research. A critical reflection is dedicated to highlighting the limitations of the presented dissertation.

Chapter 2

Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Abstract After introducing the theoretical groundwork for this dissertation, Sect. 2.1 delivers the most important definitions. Section 2.2 reviews the most important international project management standards to assess how these standards consider differences in national culture. The following Sect. 2.3 analyzes how project stakeholder and customer management is addressed in project management standards, methods and handbooks. It will be shown that customer management is largely addressed within the framework of project stakeholder management, and that there is no unified, coherent approach on how to manage project customers. Section 2.4 introduces the relevant theory on cultural differences and cultural dimensions. The second part of this chapter will address concepts of cultural intelligence and intercultural competence, to establish an understanding of how to deal with cultural differences and improve intercultural communication. Building on this, Sect. 2.5 presents the process and results of a structured literature review in the field of intercultural project customer engagement. This aims at identifying impact factors for the appropriate and effective intercultural engagement of project customers. It leads to the proposal of a relational model for intercultural project customer engagement in 2.5. This model will conclude this chapter and completes the theoretical framework of this dissertation.

2.1 2.1.1

Definitions Introduction to Definitions

The terms project, project management, culture, intercultural management, stakeholder, customer, client and user need to be defined in order to avoid misunderstandings and to explicitly show the perspective taken by the author of this work. This section will therefore deliver the following definitions: – Project – Project Management – Project Stakeholder © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 P. Lückmann, Engagement of Intercultural Project Customers, Contributions to Management Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39485-1_2

7

8

– – – – – – –

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Stakeholder Management Project Customer, Client and User International Project National Culture Cultural Dimensions Intercultural Management Intercultural Competence

The sequence has been selected to allow to progressively build comprehension of the evolving concepts. The early definitions are basics and the later definitions build upon the earlier ones.

2.1.2

Project

Most scholars and practitioners agree on the following characteristics that distinguish a project from normal operations in an organization: – It is a temporary organization. So, it has a clearly defined time for start and end. – It creates and delivers a unique product, result or organizational change for an internal or external project customer. – Projects contain an interdependent series of activities or project work. – Often, they are cross-functional and multi-disciplinary and employ specialized resources and knowledge from different sub-units of organizations. – They are constrained by time, cost, quality requirements and the project scope. – They’re often complex in nature and therefore subject to an increased amount of uncertainty. These requirements summarize the definitions of “a project” delivered by various authors (IPMA, 2015; Kerzner, 2013; OGC, 2009; PMI, 2013; Turner, 2014b; Webster & Knutson, 2011; Wysocki, 2014).

2.1.3

Project Management

As homogeneously as scholars and standardizing bodies define the project, their perspective on what project management is tends to be heterogeneous. An important reason for this certainly is that every author proposes a slightly different approach to project management, which is manifested in the respective publication. Below the most important project management standards, their definition of project management and their approach and framework will be presented before the most important project management scholars are analyzed.

2.1 Definitions

2.1.3.1

9

Project Management Defined by Project Management Standards

IPMA (2015) defines project management as being “. . . concerned with the application of methods, tools, techniques and competences [own emphasis] to a project to achieve goals. It is performed through processes and includes the integration of the various phases of the project lifecycle.” And they continue to emphasize the benefits of project management with “. . . a greater likelihood of achieving the goals and ensures the efficient use of resources, satisfying the differing needs of the project’s stakeholders” (IPMA, 2015, p. 36). PMI defines project management as “. . . the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques [own emphasis] to project activities to meet the project requirements” and they continue with describing the PMI approach with “Project management is accomplished through the appropriate application and integration of 47 logically grouped project management processes, which are categorized into five Process Groups” (PMI, 2013, p. 5). APM defines project management briefly but quite concisely as “The application of processes, methods, knowledge, skills and experience [own emphasis] to achieve the project objectives” (APM, 2012, p. 241). The German Society for Project Management (GPM) defines project management according to DIN 69901-5: “Project management is the totality of leadership tasks, organization, techniques and means [own emphasis] for initiating, defining, planning, controlling and closing of projects” (Wagner, Roeschlein, & Waschek, 2015, p. 29). In “Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2” the Office for Government Commerce (OGC, 2009) defines Project Management as “. . . the planning, delegating, monitoring and control [own emphasis] of all aspects of the project, and the motivation of those involved, [own emphasis] to achieve the project objectives within the expected performance targets for time, cost, quality, scope, benefits and risks” (OGC, 2009, p. 4). The above collection of definitions of project management shows that there seems to be large agreement that project management is about applying . . . – – – – –

processes; methods; techniques; tools; knowledge, competences and skills

. . . to project activities. IPMA (2015), PMI (2013) and APM (2012) offer widely compatible definitions of project management in this regard. The definitions of GPM and PRINCE2 (2009) contribute different perspectives to the discussion. – GPM in that it adds a leadership perspective to the tasks, organization, techniques, and means of project management (Wagner et al., 2015, p. 29). – PRINCE2 in that it emphasizes managerial tasks like planning, delegating, monitoring and control in project management (OGC, 2009, p. 4).

10

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Proposition: Summarizing the position of international standards, project management can therefore be defined using the following components: The (1) leadership tasks associated with (2) the application of processes, methods, knowledge and competences, (3) to the planning, delegating, monitoring and control to projects, (4) throughout their life cycle, (5) motivating and engaging external and internal stakeholders.

2.1.3.2

Project Management Defined by Scholars and Handbooks

Apart from international project management standards there are several influential handbooks and textbooks covering project management and how to approach it. In “Project Management—A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling” Kerzner (2013) defines project management as “. . . planning, organizing, directing and controlling of company resources for a relatively short-term objective that has been established to complete specific goals and objectives.” For him “. . . project management utilizes the systems approach to management by having functional personnel (the vertical hierarchy) assigned to a specific project (the horizontal hierarchy)” (Kerzner, 2013, p. 4). This definition features two new components when compared to the definitions further above. The first is that Kerzner (2013) recognizes in his definition that company resources are committed to a short-term goal, apart from functional hierarchy. The second is that he distinguishes between the short-term project objectives that help to achieve other organizational objectives. This second aspect is developed in Turner’s (2014b) chapter on “Projects and Their Management” in the “Gower Handbook on Project Management”. When defining project management Turner argues that projects turn resources into a beneficial change or output. His “results-based view of projects and project management” (Turner, 2014b, p. 21) describes the project as part of the implementation process. The output of the project constitutes the outcome for the project owner, who ultimately is responsible for exploiting or operating the outcome, thereby realizing the expected benefit from the project. For Tuner projects should be “. . . governed on behalf of all stakeholders, including the owner and contractor” (Turner, 2014b, p. 32). Ultimately Wysocki delivers a definition of project management that extends the idea of managing for the benefit of stakeholders to the customer relationship. “Project management is an organized common-sense approach that utilizes the appropriate client involvement in order to meet sponsor needs and deliver expected incremental business value” (Wysocki, 2014, p. 29).

2.1.3.3

Definition of Project Management

For the purpose of this dissertation it seems appropriate to build on international project management standards because they are often explicitly or implicitly applied

2.1 Definitions

11

in intercultural projects. At the same time is seems advisable to include the ideas offered by Turner (2014a, 2014b) and Wysocki (2014) since the research interest focuses on the customer relationship. The following definition for project management, therefore, is proposed: Project management is the collection of leadership practices that apply processes, methods, knowledge and competences to the planning, delegating, monitoring and controlling of project activities throughout the life cycle, appropriately engaging the project customer to meet his and the sponsor’s needs for improved business value. This definition involves some terminology that is yet to be defined in the following paragraphs. Of particular interest is the definition of project stakeholders, customers and clients and how they are managed.

2.1.4

Project Stakeholder

Project customer management is considered as part of stakeholder management by most academics and project management standards. Freeman defined stakeholders as “. . . any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of a corporation’s purpose” (Freeman, 2007). This definition was complemented by Cleland (1986) by adding that stakeholders have a “vested interest” in the project outputs (Cleland, 1986). More recently it was shown by Eskerod, Huemann, and Ringhofer (2015) and Eskerod, Huemann, and Savage (2015) that the conceptual construct of “stakeholder” originated in Scandinavia, and was first coined by Eric Rhenman in a book titled “Industrial Democracy”, published in 1968. This conceptualization describes a stakeholder as a person with an interest in the organization or project at hand and points to the mutual dependencies between owners, employees and customers of a company (Eskerod, Huemann, & Savage, 2015; Rhenman, 1968; Strand & Freeman, 2015). Littau, Jujagiri, and Adlbrecht (2010) show that in more than 30 years after the introduction of the stakeholder perspective research on project stakeholders has been rapidly increasing with a particular increase after in the year 2000 (Littau et al., 2010). This trend can be assumed to be continued considering the increased importance of project stakeholders in complex environments. Summarizing the definitions of APM, GPM, PMI and PRINCE2 the stakeholder is (1) a person, group or organization, (2) that has an interest, a role or claim in the project, and (3) influences, is affected or feels affected (4) by the project’s activities or outputs. All four standards have adopted definitions that are quite similar, with APM, PMI and PRINCE2 being almost identical and GPM standing a little apart because the text is in German (APM, 2012, p. 243; Ellmann, Behrend, Hübner, & Weitlaner, 2015b, p. 72; PMI, 2013, p. 563; OGC, 2009, p. 313).

12

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

For the rest of the work this summarized definition will apply whenever the term stakeholder is used. In general, the idea is to limit the usage of the term stakeholder for reasons of precision and talk about sponsor, client or user instead.

2.1.5

Stakeholder Engagement/Management

As with many terms in project management, the term stakeholder management and stakeholder engagement are used differently from author to author. The most generic and broad definition that provides a good introduction to the topic is the one found in “Gower Handbook of Project Management” by Eskerod and Huemann (2014): “. . . all purposeful stakeholder-related activities carried out in order to enhance project success.” And they continue by defining mainly two kinds of activities: First, “stakeholder analysis” and second, to purposefully “interact with the stakeholders” (Eskerod & Huemann, 2014, p. 219). PMI offers a somewhat narrower definition: “Project Stakeholder Management includes the processes required to identify the people, groups, or organizations that could impact or be impacted by the project, to analyze stakeholder expectations and their impact on the project, and to develop appropriate management strategies for effectively engaging stakeholders in general and customers in particular in project decisions and execution” (PMI, 2013, p. 391). This process oriented definition of project stakeholder management is also reflected in the shorter definition by APM (2012): “The systematic identification, analysis, planning and implementation of actions designed to engage with stakeholders” (APM, 2012, p. 243). The definition of stakeholder management offered by GPM folds in with the process oriented view delivered by APM and PMI. These approaches are built on Cleland (1986) who brought who brought stakeholder management to projects and proposed that stakeholders should be identified, classified, analyzed and managed (Cleland, 1986). PRINCE2 (2009) uses the term stakeholder engagement to define “. . . the process of identifying and communicating effectively with those people or groups who have an interest or influence on the project’s outcome. [. . .] All projects need to have some level of some stakeholder engagement, particularly if not part of a programme” (OGC, 2009, p. 41). This definition focuses on identifying and communicating, which is only a part of the stakeholder management definition offered by PMI and APM. This allows the conclusion that stakeholder engagement is something related more closely to interacting with the key stakeholders. This view is also supported by others (Kerzner, 2013) who provides insight into both terms. Kerzner (2013) distinguishes between what he calls “Stakeholder Relations Management” and “Stakeholder Engagement”. The former being the process of (1) identifying, (2) analyzing, (3) engaging, (4) informing, (5) negotiating with and (6) debriefing stakeholders, and, hence, including “stakeholder engagement”, which he defines as physically meeting, creating a common understanding of the

2.1 Definitions

13

needs, expectations, opinions and problems and winning their support (Kerzner, 2013, p. 480–483). Following the distinction offered by Kerzner, and the previous definitions offered by the project management standards, this dissertation will continue considering the following definitions as applicable: Stakeholder Management The process of identifying, analyzing, planning, engaging and disengaging the interactions with those individuals, groups or organizations that can affect, are affected or feel themselves affected by the project, in order to ensure the achievement of the project’s goals. Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder Engagement is part of the stakeholder management process. It describes the process of interacting with the project’s key stakeholders in order to improve the understanding of the stakeholder’s needs, expectations, problems and feelings towards the project and to ensure the desired level of involvement and a professional disengagement. The above definitions are a summary drawn from the previously quoted authors and attempt to clearly distinguish between stakeholder management and stakeholder engagement.

2.1.6

Project Customer, Owner, User and Sponsor

2.1.6.1

Introduction Project Customer

In project management the terms customer, client, user, owner or sponsor have been assigned to different roles in the various standards and handbooks. This is so because each author proposes a different approach to project management and assumes a different perspective. One thing that applies to all texts is that all of the abovementioned roles might be considered either internal or external project customers. The following lines will briefly review the different prevailing definitions of the roles and then propose clearly distinguishable definitions for the purpose of this work.

2.1.6.2

Project Customer or Client

According to PMI customers are “. . . the persons or organizations who will approve and manage the projects product, service or result” (PMI, 2013, p. 32) and PRINCE2 (2009) does not define customers or clients as key stakeholders but uses the term customer “. . . in the context of a commercial customer/supplier relationship. ‘Customer’ can usually be interpreted as the collective term for business and user interests.” This definition is problematic when users or clients are from a different company than the sponsor. PRINCE2 suggest for this to represent the client, e.g., through the sales or marketing department (OGC, 2009, p. 32).

14

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

APM mentions clients mainly in the context of externally contracted projects where the customer is an external company and the project delivers negotiated deliverables based on a contract between client and contractor (APM, 2012). The first role that Turner (2014b) defines in his introduction to projects and their management is what he calls the “owner”. The owner is defined as the one “. . . who buys the project’s output and receives the benefit from its operation” (Turner, 2014b, p. 24). In this regard, the owner role is the one that comes closest to the definition of project customer by the other authors. Supporting Turner’s perspective, Wysocki (2014) defines customers as “. . . the person or department that will own the deliverables from the project” (Wysocki, 2014, p. 114). When it comes to the project customer the above definitions are not contradictory but rather complementary. Therefore, it makes sense to present a summary definition that will apply for the rest of this work. The project customers shall then be defined as those (1) key stakeholders, (2) internal or external to the project manager’s organization, (3) who buy the outputs of the project, (4) approve and own the deliverables and (5) receive the benefits from its operation. Project customers and clients shall be used synonymously for the rest of this dissertation. In order to avoid confusion with the term “Product Owner” from agile project management the term “owner”, as proposed by Turner, will not be used.

2.1.6.3

Users

As with the definition of project customer, the role of the user is not contested. In summary, the users can be defined as (1) persons or organizations, (2) external or internal to the project manager’s organization that (3) use or operate the project’s deliverables (4) on behalf of the project customer. The user may also be the project customer or part of the customer’s organization (OGC, 2009; PMI, 2013; Turner, 2014b; Wysocki, 2014).

2.1.6.4

Project Sponsors

There is broad consent that the project sponsor is a key stakeholder and an important factor for project success. According to PMI (2013) the project sponsor has three responsibilities: 1. She provides the resources for the project; 2. She is accountable for enabling success of the project; 3. She may be internal or external to the project manager’s organization (PMI, 2013, p. 32). This definition folds in with other descriptions of the role of the sponsor. The sponsor can be seen as being accountable for ensuring that the project fulfills its objectives (APM, 2012, p. 243) and that the sponsor provides funds (Wysocki, 2014, p. 114).

2.1 Definitions

15

Turner partially agrees with Kerzner and PRINCE2 in that the sponsor is in charge of making sure that the project budget is wisely spent. Kerzner additionally emphasizes the role as an information broker. This is reflected in three additional responsibilities: 4. She identifies the objective and necessary outcomes (or benefits) and the required project outputs (or deliverables/assets); 5. She makes sure that the value gained from the project is worth the costs; 6. She is a member of senior management and maintains client-contractor contact in order to ensure adequate information flow. All of the above sources agree that the sponsor is an executive or senior management member of the project (Kerzner, 2013, pp. 464–467; Müller, 2014, p. 481; OGC, 2009, p. 313). The six characteristics developed above summarize the role of the project sponsor as defined by the most important international project management authors (GPM/Müller, 2014; Kerzner, 2013; OGC, 2009, PMI, 2013). They will be handled as the defining features of project sponsor throughout this work board.

2.1.7

International Project

For Turner, an international project is characterized by either the client organization or the contractor organization being wholly on their home territory or overseas. If both organizations remain in their home territories, the project would not qualify as an international project (Turner, 2014a). This view is complemented with the perspective that a project can be single or multi-site and happen in one organization or between two or more organizations (Evaristo & van Fenema, 1999). The resulting project categories are: – – – –

international or multi-site projects in one organization; international or multi-site organizations between two or more organizations; national or single-site projects in one organization; national of single-site projects in two or more organizations (Evaristo & van Fenema, 1999).

The distinction between single and multi-site could be extended into a third standalone distinguishing feature. It is important in order to identify whether a project depends on virtual project management techniques or not. This way there could be national multi-site projects where stakeholders interact in virtual ways (Turner, 2014a). For the purpose of this dissertation, however, Turner’s distinction between international and national projects combined with customer/contractor organization should suffice.

16

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Jean Binder coined the term ‘global projects’ for those projects that combine geographically distributed virtual and international challenges to project management. He proposes measuring the complexity of those projects by mapping out different contributors to complexity: – – – – –

the number of distant locations; the number of different organizations; involved country cultures; number of different languages and the; number of different time zones (Binder, 2007, p. 3).

Complex global projects, according to Binder (2007), are potentially multi-site, multi-organization, intercultural, multilingual projects in multiple time zones. Complexity would depend on how many locations, organizations, cultures, languages or time zones are involved (Binder, 2007, p. 3). According to Kathrin Köster (2010) international projects distinguish themselves from merely national project in purpose, scope, the main stakeholders and risk intensity. She identifies the following main purposes of international projects: – Search for new geographical presence or new international stakeholders; – Increase of global market share, market power, global political power, of global effectiveness; – Realization of efficiency gains; – Access to scarce and unique resources; – Reduction of risk (Köster, 2010, p. 14) Risk is interesting in this context since international projects aim at reduction of risks but, at the same time, are riskier than standard projects. Regarding stakeholders Köster states that “. . . international projects will typically involve non-domestic stakeholders, especially customers who are very often non-domestic and heterogeneous regarding their nationality” (Köster, 2010, p. 15). Köster characterizes an international project as being more diverse, complex, dynamic and risky. Furthermore, international projects are unique in terms of purpose, organizations involved and international context. As national projects, international projects are subject to limited resources. The characteristic feature in this regard is that international projects have potentially higher costs due to higher coordination, transport and recruitment costs. Building on the above, Köster (2010) identifies the following critical success criteria for international project management: – – – – – –

Goal commitment of project team and initial clarity of goals; Establishment of smooth communications and supporting infrastructure; Adequate project team capabilities; Consideration of context Right balance between common methodology and flexibility; Supportive project culture. (Köster, 2010, p. 23)

2.1 Definitions

17

In summary, Köster identifies differences on international projects compared to standard projects in terms of purpose, scope and stakeholders, according to their international characteristics and according to the factors that determine their success (Köster, 2010, pp. 12–23). These critical success factors are of particular importance for the purpose of this dissertation and will be taken into account in the subsequent sections.

2.1.8

National Culture

There is little agreement on a definition of culture among scholars and practitioners. The concept has been studied by a wide range of scientific fields including, but not limited to, anthropology, psychology, sociology, economics and management sciences and educational studies. Approaching the nature of culture some authors have used metaphors in order to make the concept more tangible to the reader. Two of these statements shall be quoted as an introduction to the topic. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2012) formulates the following thought: Our own culture is like water to a fish. It sustains us. We live and breathe through it. [. . .] a fish only discovers its need for water when it is no longer in it (Trompenaars & HampdenTurner, 2012, p. 27).

This statement focuses on the property of culture that is invisible as long as an individual stays within the particular social group. Elisabeth Plum complements this by emphasizing possible difficulties that come along with this when she writes: Culture is like a tailwind on a bicycle path. We don’t notice it until we change direction and find it going against us (Plum, 2008, p. 52).

Plum further defines culture as “. . . a practice shared by people within a community. Culture is the filter through which we interpret our existence and orient ourselves in order to direct our actions.” And she continues to describe culture as a verbalized rule for judging what is the right or the wrong thing to do or say in different situation. Furthermore she indicates that culture may originate from workplace, profession, country, ethnic group or family (Plum, 2008, p. 55). Plum’s definition largely builds on the earlier definition offered by Carrol who summarizes that culture is. . . – – – –

shared by members of a group passed from older to younger group members a social construct that shapes the behavior or an internal frame that structures the perception of the world (Carrol, 1982, p. 19)

Also, Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov (2010) include the group aspect when they define culture as “. . . the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.” But he furthermore introduces elaborates that: “Culture is learned, not innate. It derives from one’s

18

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

social environment rather than one’s genes” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 6). Hence, culture is not only passed from old to young, but also within other social relationships. In addition to the above definitions the GLOBE project examines culture as practice and values. Practice in the sense that things are done differently from culture to culture. Values in the sense that they are human made judgments about how things ought to be done (House, 2004). In summary, a definition of culture for the purpose of this work must therefore entail the following aspects: – – – – – –

Culture is shared by social groups such as nations, professions or organizations; It is not visible to those who remain within their cultural community; It is learned from parents, teachers, peers, during the process of socialization; It is evident in shared behaviors and practices within the group; Cultural values determine what is appropriate to say or do in certain situations; Therefore, changing from one culture to the other may involve difficulties;

This thesis focuses on national culture only. Organizational, professional, family, gender or ethnical cultures are important factors in project management, but could not be included because this would exceed the scope of this work. The terms intercultural and cross-cultural will be used synonymously.

2.1.9

Intercultural Competence and Cultural Intelligence

People respond differently to the exposure to cultural differences. Some project managers seem to effortlessly immerse themselves into other cultures and effectively achieve project results, while others result ineffective because they confront constant intercultural misunderstandings, confusion and frustration. Investigating cultural intelligence or intercultural competence aims at explaining these differences. Cultural intelligence and intercultural competence are not synonymous though and even within the two areas there is disagreement regarding what the concepts should include or exclude. The following sections will briefly define both concepts. Intercultural Competence Spitzberg and Changnon define intercultural competence as “. . . the appropriate and effective management of interaction between people who, to some degree or another, represent different or divergent affective, cognitive and behavioral orientations t the world” (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009, p. 7). They continue in identifying common components that authors in the area of intercultural competence include in the concept. Thus, at least since the 1950s conceptualizations of intercultural competence are consisting of the following components:

2.1 Definitions

– – – – –

19

Motivation (affective, emotion) Knowledge (cognitive) Skills (behavioral, action) Context (situation, environment, culture, relationship, function) Outcomes (perceived appropriateness/effectiveness, satisfaction, understanding, attraction, intimacy, assimilation, task achievement) (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009, p. 7)

Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) continue to identify more than 21 models of intercultural competence in four categories: compositional models, co-orientational models, developmental models, adaptational models, and causal path models (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). The behavior in intercultural situation is, according to Bolten (2012), determined mainly by previous intercultural experience, the degree of familiarity between the actors, and also by the language that is spoken in common. Such situations require behavior based competencies such as empathy, tolerance, flexibility, reflectivity of one’s own role, and the ability to deal with ambiguity (Bolten, 2012, pp. 46–47). This definition, is in line with Spitzberg & Changnon’s definition offered, especially looking at the context in which Bolten delivers this definition. So, in summary of both Spitzberg & Changnon’s (2009) and Bolten’s (2012) approaches, Intercultural Competence focuses on the actor’s capability to behave appropriately and effective in situations of cultural diversity. Appropriateness being defined according to Spitzberg (1989) as not violating cultural rules and effectiveness as achieving culturally appreciated values (Spitzberg, 1989). Cultural Intelligence Cultural intelligence was proposed as a concept in order to predict intercultural success (Early & Ang, 2003). Ang and Van Dyne present a different framework of cultural intelligence (CQ). For them “. . . CQ is conceptualized as a specific form of intelligence focused on an individual’s ability to grasp and reason correctly in situations characterized by cultural diversity” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 4). Building on Early and Ang (2003), they explain individual differences in functioning in diverse cultural environments. According to these authors CI is a multidimensional construct that includes the following dimensions: – Metacognitive CQ: ability to question one’s cultural predisposition, reflect and adjust cultural knowledge; – Cognitive CQ: knowledge about cultural particularities in different countries which can be learned by experience in school; – Motivational CQ: capability and interest to learn from intercultural encounters; – Behavioral CQ: capability to act appropriately both verbally and non-verbally when interacting with people from other cultures; CQ is measured on these four dimensions and used as a predictor of an individual’s success in intercultural settings (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). An alternative approach to assessing cultural intelligence is offered by Elisabeth Plum. For her, cultural intelligence (CI) is better conceptualized as “. . . the ability to

20

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

act appropriately in situations where cultural differences are important, and the ability to make yourself understood and to establish a constructive partnership across cultural differences” (Plum, 2008, p. 19). For her the focus of CI should be on the results of the encounter and on creating a shared understanding across cultures—enabling the parties to collaborate effectively. Also, Plum’s model is a multidimensional concept with three dimensions: 1. Engagement/Heart/Emotional 2. Understanding/Mind/Cognitive-Rational 3. Communication/Muscle/Action CQ and CI do not only contrast each other by having slightly different dimensions. The focus of CQ is mainly on national culture while CI considers all kinds of culture. CQ proposes that cultural intelligence can be measured and used as a predictor while CI sees it as a complex process that can only be assessed through dialog and interaction with other actors (Plum, 2008, pp. 49–51). The aim of this dissertation is not to measure cultural intelligence, nor is it to apply concepts of cultural intelligence to the research questions. Cultural competence and intelligence will, however, have an important role when identifying impact factors for intercultural project customer engagement.

2.1.10 Intercultural Management Investigating intercultural project customer engagement is an endeavor firmly located in the area of international management in general an intercultural management in particular. Therefore, it is necessary to deliver a short definition of what intercultural management means for the purpose of this work. In order to do this, three diverse definitions were selected from which the applicable definition will be derived. The terms intercultural and cross-cultural have different conceptual roots, but will be used synonymously in this dissertation, since both refer to interactions involving actors from different cultures. Nancy Adler defines cross-cultural management as describing and comparing organizational behaviors within and across cultures. The most important aspect, however, is that cross-cultural management “. . . seeks to understand and improve the interaction of coworkers, managers, executives, clients, suppliers, and alliance partners from countries and cultures around the world” (Adler, 2007, p. 13). In their standard textbook on international management Mead and Andrews take a boarder stance and define cross-cultural management as “. . . the development and application of knowledge about cultures in the practice of international management, when the people involved have different cultural identities” (Mead & Andrews, 2009, p. 16).

2.1 Definitions

21

Both of the above definitions highlight learning about and understanding cultural differences and applying this to human relationships in the organization. The definition that will apply to this study will be the one offered by Jürgen Rothlauf (2014) in his recent textbook on intercultural management: Intercultural Management can be described as the combination of knowledge, insights and skills which are necessary for adequately dealing with national and regional cultures and differences between cultures at several management levels within and between organizations. It is not a separate subject but an integral part of general and international management (Rothlauf, 2014, p. 9).

This definition unites the earlier definitions and includes the knowledge and skills component, the adequacy requirement and places it into a managerial context. This is why, the rest of the work will take this view on intercultural management.

2.1.11 Intercultural Communication Intercultural management as defined previously includes the appropriate and effective communication across cultural boundaries. According to Adler (2007) communication can be defined as “. . . multilayered, dynamic process through which we exchange meaning” (Adler, 2007, p. 70). Meaning this context should be understood as one party’s understanding of what the other means and it is transferred via verbal messages and non-verbal means. Cross-cultural communication is prone to misunderstanding due to three factors: – Misperception: culturally determined selective and inaccurate perception of the message the other party sends (Adler, 2007, pp. 73–75); – Misinterpretation: categorization and stereotyping due to subconscious cultural blindness, lack of self-awareness and projected similarities (Adler, 2007, pp. 75–86); – Misevaluation: culturally conditioned evaluation of a behavior as bad, lazy, unreliable or indulgent (Adler, 2007, pp. 86–92). For her, the key in successful cross-cultural communication lies in not assuming similarity and suspending judgment (evaluation) of the communication situation (Adler, 2007, pp. 73–94). Rothlauf’s (2014) explanations of intercultural communication are compatible with those of Adler (2007). Additionally he elaborates on the concept of “noise” in communication, which was earlier introduced by Gibson (Gibson, 2002; Rothlauf, 2014, p. 142). According to the above authors intercultural communication shall therefore be defined as a multilayered dynamic process of transferring meaning between persons from different cultures in which culture may create noise that leads to misperception, misunderstanding and misevaluation.

22

2.2 2.2.1

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

The Role of Project Management Standards Introduction

International project management standards have become more important for the management of international projects in recent years. This is reflected by an increasing number of certifications issued by the large international project management standards organizations (Lehmann, Mikulaschek, & Oestereich, 2013). Their standards have become a popular tool for responding to national differences by promoting a standard vocabulary and process toolbox. Due to this, the following paragraphs will briefly summarize the principle differences between the most important project management standards APM, GPM, IPMA, PMI and PRINCE2. Following the argumentation of Lehmann et al. (2013), Scrum (a popular agile project management technique proposed by Schwaber & Sutherland, 2013) is not considered a project management standard because it does not cover all project management disciplines and is therefore rather a toolbox of agile project management techniques (Lehmann et al., 2013). Agile project management and Scrum are very important concepts, however, especially when it comes to the integration of project customers. Attention will be paid to them when the management of project customers is addressed later in this chapter.

2.2.2

Project Management According to IPMA

The International Project Management Association (IPMA) offers different certification levels for project managers and with roughly 170,000 certificates is among the three largest certifiers worldwide. IPMA is of European origin and most of the certificates are awarded in Austria, Germany, Switzerland and China. IPMA is organized in federal member associations for each country (Lehmann et al., 2013). The Association of Project Management and Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement (Society for Project Management) are the British and the German member associations of IPMA but since they offer different approaches to project management and certification, they will be explained separately. IPMA’s Individual Competence Baseline in its latest version (ICB4) focuses on three groups of competences that should be developed when training project managers: 1. Perspective Competence 2. People Competence 3. Practice Competence (IPMA, 2015)

2.2 The Role of Project Management Standards

23

Within these groups the ICB4 distinguishes competence elements that describe the areas in which project managers should be competent. This includes among other things the following: – The “power and interest” and the “culture and values” perspective in Perspective Competences; – The “self-reflection” and “self-management”, “conflict and crisis” and “negotiation” elements in the People Competences; – The “time”, “risk and opportunity” and “stakeholder” elements from the Practice Competences. (IPMA, 2015) The above are just a selection of examples that may have particular relevance for the purpose of this work. In total the ICB4 provides 29 competence elements that are developed in detail for project, program and portfolio management. Where relevant this work will reference them work for the purpose of explaining intercultural project customer engagement (IPMA, 2015).

2.2.3

Project Management According to APM

The Association of Project Management (APM, 2012) is the Member Association of IPMA in the UK. In their lead publication, the APM Body of Knowledge, the core components of project management are as follows: – defining the reason why a project is necessary; – capturing project requirements, specifying quality of the deliverables, estimating resources and timescales; – preparing a business case to justify the investment; – securing corporate agreement and funding; – developing and implementing a management plan for the project; – leading and motivating the project delivery team; – managing the risks, issues and changes on the project; – monitoring progress against plan; – managing the project budget; – maintaining communications with stakeholders and the project organization; – provider/vendor management; – closing the project in a controlled fashion when appropriate. Responsibility for these components lies with a project sponsor and a project manager (APM, 2012, p. 12). The role of the project manager is further described as managing the operational project business, being competent in scope, time, financial, risk, quality and resource management. For this the APM Body of Knowledge develops the tools and techniques necessary for project management along four sections:

24

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

– Context: with governance and project settings being discussed; – People: with interpersonal skills and professionalism being the building blocks; – Delivery: with the classical project management tools in project management such as project integration, scope, schedule, budget, risk, quality and resource management; – Interfaces: where the project manager needs to interact with other disciplines such as accounting, health and safety, HR, law, security and sustainability. Tools, processes and methods are presented under these headings (APM, 2012). With regards to suggested tools most of the standard texts propose similar techniques for project management in the different areas.

2.2.4

Project Management According to GPM

The “German Society for Project Management” (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Projektmanagement) is the German association member of IPMA and publishes the German language standard for project management. The seventh edition of “Competence Based Project Management” (Kompetenzbasiertes Projektmanagement), currently based on ICB3, covers all IPMA competence elements and provides comprehensive insight into the related project management tools and processes in four volumes and 2540 pages. Oriented towards qualification and competence development in project managers, volume one covers projects and their management processes. Topics covered are: – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Project management success; Interested parties; Project requirements and objectives; Risk and opportunity; Quality; Project organization; Teamwork; Problem resolution; Project structures; Project scope and deliverables; Project phases; Time management; Resources management; Cost and financial management; Procurement; Contracting and contract law; Change and configuration management; Project controlling and reports; Information and documentation; Communication; Project Start-up and close-out; (Gessler, 2015)

2.2 The Role of Project Management Standards

25

The second volume is concerned with power and authority in projects and the relationship between projects and corporate strategy. Power and authority covers the following areas: – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Leadership; Engagement and motivation; Self-control; Assertiveness; Relaxation; Openness; Creativity; Results orientation; Efficiency; Consultation; Negotiation; Conflict; Crises; Reliability; Values appreciation; Ethics; (Gessler, 2015)

In summary, these are those factors contributing to project management success that are normally described as sift skills or personal traits of the project manager (Gessler, 2015). The second part of volume two discusses the relationship between corporate strategy and projects. Therefore, it covers the following topics: – – – – – – – –

Project/Programme/Portfolio orientation and their implementation; Permanent organization; Business; Systems, products and technology; Human resource management; Health, security, safety and environment; Finance; Legal aspects; (Gessler, 2015)

Volumes three and four provide students the opportunity to deepen knowledge and understanding of project management tools and processes. They are structured similarly to the first two volumes and deliver additional value in terms of cases and tool/process descriptions (Gessler, 2015). The volume of this standard and the fact that it is published in German make this project management handbook stand apart in terms of international standards. While in the German speaking world (AT, CH, DE) this text represents the standard approach to project management qualification and certification, on an international level it requires translation and adjustment to other idiosyncratic standards. The purpose of an international project management should be to provide project management with a common vocabulary and toolset. GPM covers the latter, but due to a certification process in the German language only, the vocabulary provided is in

26

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

German and hence requires translation when discussing project management issues with non-German native speakers.

2.2.5

Project Management According to PMI

With roughly 724,000 certifications since 1969 probably the most widespread international project management standard is Project Management Institute’s (PMI), “Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge” or, in short, “PMBoK Guide” (Lehmann et al., 2013). The PMBoK approach to project management is a process-based view on project management and all processes can be systemized in a matrix with process groups in the columns and knowledge areas. Process groups collect process according to their importance to the project during the project management life cycle. These groups are: – – – – –

Initiating Process Group; Planning Process Group; Executing Process Group; Monitoring & controlling Process Group; Closing Process Group; (PMI, 2013)

Along these PMI (2013) project management process groups the project manager typically (1) identifies requirements, (2) addresses stakeholder requirements and concerns during planning and executing, (3) sets up and maintains project communication with and among stakeholders, (4) manages stakeholder towards creating acceptable project deliverables, and (4) balances competing projects constraints such as scope, quality, time, costs, resources and risks (PMI, 2013. p. 53). Throughout the PMBoK the project management processes are presented in knowledge areas, which means that they are sorted according to their homogeneity regarding content of work and required skills. The ten knowledge areas are the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Project Integration Management Project Scope Management Project Time Management Project Cost Management Project Quality Management Project Human Resource Management Project Communications Management Project Risk Management Project Procurement Management Project Stakeholder Management (PMI, 2013)

2.2 The Role of Project Management Standards

27

One of the advantages of the PMBoK approach to project management is the conceptual cohesiveness and comprehensibility of the process group/knowledge area matrix. According to PMI, project management consists of applying a customized selection of 47 project management processes along 5 process groups and 10 knowledge areas. So each of the processes can be assigned clearly to one process group and one knowledge area (PMI, 2013, p. 423).

2.2.6

Project Management According to PRINCE2

PRINCE2 is an acronym for Projects in Controlled Environments and has become the most common project management method for projects in the UK. Historically it was introduced in order to professionalize project management in projects that were funded by public administration or the UK government. Until today the standard text on the PRINCE2 method is authored by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and published by The Stationary Office, the official publisher and distributor of UK-government publications. Therefore, this standard will be cited with reference to the OGC. The PRINCE2 project management method rests on defined principles and project management themes. The principles can be summarized as follows: – – – – – – –

continued business justification for the project; learning from experience; defining roles and responsibilities; managing projects by stages; manage project operations by exception; focus on the project’s products; tailor project management to the project environment. (OGC, 2009)

These principles lay the basis for the seven PRINCE2 themes that must be addressed continually during the project in order to manage a project professionally. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Business Case: continually assess the value of the project for the organization; Organization: assign roles and responsibilities; Quality: understand and ensure the quality requirements of project’s product; Plans: proceed on the basis of approved plans, complementing quality; Risk: how uncertainties are managed; Change: react to issues with potential impact on baselines; Progress: decision making processes assessing ongoing viability of plans. (OGC, 2009)

PRINCE2 and PMI’s PMBoK Guide share a process view on project management. In PRINCE2 this in manifested in the proposition of seven PRINCE2 processes.

28

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

1. Starting up a Project: “Do we have a viable and worthwhile project?” (OGC, 2009, p. 121); 2. Directing a Project: “enable the Project Board to be accountable for the project’s success” (OGC, 2009, p. 135); 3. Initiating a Project: “. . . enabling the organization to understand the work that needs to be done . . .” (OGC, 2009, p. 149); 4. Controlling a Stage: assign and monitor work, deal with problems and report progress (OGC, 2009, p. 167); 5. Managing Product Delivery: “. . . placing formal requirements on accepting, executing and delivering project work.” (OGC, 2009, p. 185); 6. Managing the Stage Boundary: inform Project Board so that it can review and approve planning and confirm continued business justification and acceptability of risks (OGC, 2009, p. 193); 7. Closing a Project: “. . . acceptance for the project product is confirmed [. . .] objectives set out in the original Project Initiation Documentation have been achieved . . .” (OGC, 2009, p. 205). Similarly, to PMI, PRINCE2 requires adjusting, or tailoring, the project management processes and tools to the project environment. Unlike PMI, PRINCE2 provides the project manager with an additional chapter of what to consider for tailoring project management methods to the project requirements.

2.2.7

Synthesis Project Management Standards

The previous pages aimed at providing an overview of important international project management standards. In summary, the following conclusions can be drawn from this chapter. 1. IPMA provides with the ICB4 a Europe-centric approach to project management that is adapted by the national member associations. This may result in very different national standards. The British standard, the APM Body of Knowledge, covers 245 pages and the German “Kompetenzbasiertes Projektmanagement (PM3)” with 2540 pages in 4 volumes. 2. IPMA has therefore to be considered on a national, or language, level and in a European context. The “culture and values” competence element of ICB4 is one of the very few considerations of culture in project management standards. The small global dissemination of this standard is therefore lamentable. 3. PRINCE2 is a UK-based de-facto standard that gained popularity also in other countries. There are not official statistics on the number certifications which makes it difficult to quantitatively assess this claim. The PRINCE2 standard textbook mentions culture exclusively in organizational terms which neglects international aspects of project management. The customer-centric approach

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

29

proposed in this methodology makes it interesting for the purpose of this study, however. 4. Based on number of certifications worldwide the PMI standards seems most advisable when it comes to international project management certifications. The PMBoK promotes a process-based view on project management and provides a comprehensive and coherent framework of process groups and knowledge areas. 5. At the same time the PMBoK underexposes competence and the human side of project management when compared, e.g., to the IPMA standard. This process and tool-based view on project management may be counterproductive when it comes to intercultural project management. For the remainder of this work the PMI framework of process groups and knowledge areas will be used as a frame of reference when it comes to project management standards. It will be complemented with the competence-based view of IPMA where necessary.

2.3 2.3.1

Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects Introduction

After delivering the definitions in the previous section, this section will provide an overview of how the different project stakeholder management approaches work as a framework for customer management. For this purpose, the various stakeholder management approaches need to be analyzed, the role of the customer in projects needs to be described in detail, and Agile Project Management will be reviewed in order to determine different stances on how to manage the project for the customer. This section is therefore divided into three parts, aimed to enhance understanding of the following questions: 1. What knowledge can project stakeholder management contribute to the management of the project customer? 2. How do the most influential project management standard texts suggest engaging with the project customer? 3. How is the project customer engaged in Agile Project Management Approaches? In order to answer these questions, this study will look at the most important project management standard texts, recent stakeholder management research, and the emergent knowledge from Agile Project Management movements.

30

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

2.3.2

Project Stakeholder Management As a Framework

2.3.2.1

Introduction

The analysis will focus on the previously identified international project management standard texts offered by the standards IPMA, APM, GPM, PMI and PRINCE2 as well as the handbooks provided by Dinsmore and Cabanis-Brewin (2011), Kerzner (2013) and Turner (2014a, 2014b). Since customer management belongs firmly into the area of stakeholder management, the first section will summarize how the various standards approach stakeholder management.

2.3.2.2

Stakeholder Management in Standard Texts

All of the customer roles are approached within the project stakeholder management framework that is proposed by the respective authors. Building on the definition of stakeholder and stakeholder engagement offered in Sects. 2.1.4 and 2.1.5, this section aims at reviewing similarities and differences between the stakeholder management approaches by the different standard texts. Customers, users, owners and sponsors are engaged within this process and the respective role descriptions need to be framed against this background. The analysis will unfold in two sections. The first will compare the different stakeholder management processes suggested by the texts. The second will analyze roles and responsibilities along the process groups of project management, namely Initiating, Planning and Organization, Monitoring and Controlling, Executing and Collaboration, Closing. These process groups were inspired by the PMI process groups and complemented in order to accommodate processes from other frameworks. The Process View of Stakeholder Management When analyzing the stakeholder management process, it makes sense to distinguish between project management standards and project management handbooks. The so-called standards delivered by APM, GPM, IPMA, PMI and PRINCE2 aim at providing a coherent set of processes that can be applied to all kinds of projects and therefore serve as an agreed-upon standard for project participants in various settings. In this sense, these standards are closed systems that do not lend themselves to being interpreted or changed by project participants. Handbooks, however, may be better conceived as an offer that a prescription. The focus here lies on delivering recommendations and good practices, rather than conveying a standard that ought to be followed. Project management standards and project management handbooks will therefore be treated separately. Table 2.1 summarizes the stakeholder management steps prescribed by the five standards that are analyzed in this work. The first step in this process in all discussed

4. Engage with users, partners, suppliers and other stakeholders to gain their cooperation and commitment

3. Engage with the executives, sponsors and higher management to gain commitment and to manage interests and expectations 3. Manage stakeholder engagement 3. Define stakeholder engagement strategy (How?)

4. Control stakeholder engagement 4. Plan the engagements (When?)

4. Engage and influence stakeholders 4. Monitoring

3. Develop communication management plans 3. Action planning

Sources: APM (2012), Ellmann et al. (2015b), IPMA (2015), OGC (2009) and PMI (2013)

1. Identify stakeholders (Who?)

1. Identify stakeholders

PMI BoK (2013, p. 391) Prince2-OGC (2009, p. 42)

2. Plan stakeholder management 2. Create and identify stakeholder profiles (What?)

Stakeholder management steps 1. Identify stakeholders 2. Assess their interest and influence 1. Identification 2. Information and analysis 1. Identify stakeholders 2. Develop and mainand analyze their inter- tain a stakeholder stratests and influence egy and communication plan

Quoted standard APM BoK (2012, p. 116) GPM-PM3, (Ellmann et al., 2015b. p. 78) IPMA-ICB4 (2015, p. 145)

Table 2.1 Stakeholder management approaches—standards

5. Organize and maintain networks and alliances

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects 31

32

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

standards is the identification of project stakeholders. There the previously delivered definition will deliver the criteria for identifying the relevant individuals and organizations. In the early steps, all approaches have similar steps. Differences in stakeholder management processes start to emerge in the second step of the approaches. APM, PRINCE2 and GPM propose an analytical step as the second step in project stakeholder management. APM calls this an assessment of interest and influence (APM, 2012, p. 116). GPM simply calls this step “Information and Analysis” and describes how to collect and analyze stakeholder information (Ellmann et al., 2015b). PRINCE2 prescribes the creation and identification of stakeholder profiles in order to answer the question: “What do customers want?” (OGC, 2009, p. 42). PMI and IPMA propose the establishment of a stakeholder management and communication plan. This plan incorporates the tasks of identifying stakeholder profiles, requirements and interests (IPMA, 2015, p. 145; PMI, 2013, p. 391). Stronger variation among the standard processes starts with the third step of the stakeholder management approaches. APM and PRINCE feature further preparatory steps with defining a stakeholder strategy (PRINCE2) and the development of communication management plans in the APM process (APM, 2012, p. 116; OGC, 2009, p. 42). GPM proposes “Action Planning” as another preparatory step before monitoring the stakeholder management in the fourth step (Ellmann et al., 2015b) and PMI puts “managing the stakeholder engagement” in third place before controlling the stakeholder engagement (PMI, 2013, p. 391). In this regard both the German and the global standard feature comparable steps in their four-step approach to stakeholder management. The most detailed conceptualization of a stakeholder management process is provided by the IMPA Body of Knowledge. This standard proposes to distinguish between engaging internal and external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders like executives, sponsors and higher management are engaged in the third step, while external users, partners and suppliers are engaged in the fourth step. IMPA is the only standard that proposes a five-step approach to stakeholder management. After engaging internal and external stakeholders (step three and four), this standard foresees to organizing and maintaining networks and alliances (IPMA, 2015, p. 145). With this the IPMA standard differentiates itself from the other frameworks. Maintaining networks and alliances clearly integrates a systemic view on stakeholder management and on influencing key stakeholder’s views, requirements and expectations for the benefit of the project. Alongside the so-called project management standards there are important project management handbooks that offer complementary insight into how to manage project stakeholders. These texts are directed as much to project management practitioners as to academics. Based on international circulation, academic citations relevance for the European cultural background the following works were selected:

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

33

I. Gower’s Handbook of Project Management (2014a, 2014b), edited by Rodney Turner II. Harold Kerzner’s “Project Management: A Systemic Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling” (2013) III. The “AMA Handbook of Project Management” (2011 and 2014), edited by Paul C. Dinsmore and Jeanette Cabanis-Brewin IV. Gerold Patzak’s and Günter Rattay’s “Projektmanagement” (2014) as a German language standard handbook In Table 2.2 the stakeholder management processes proposed by different authors in these handbooks are collected. The first column features the reference of the corresponding handbook, as indicated above. As in the project management standards that were summarized in Table 2.1, all handbooks propose the identification of stakeholders as the first step. One work features “Project Stakeholder Analysis” as the first step, but the identification step is included as the first step in analysis (Eskerod & Huemann, 2014). Two approaches display a very strong focus on planning and preparation activities. For these authors stakeholder management is mainly a planning activity at the beginning of the project, while stakeholder management during the execution phase is mainly subject to project communications management. The planning steps of these approaches are very detailed though, as they offer an insight into different questions that need to be addressed during planning (Englund, 2014; Patzak & Rattay, 2014, p. 96). As to the second step the handbooks display some variance in different approaches. Most authors propose an analysis or planning step in second place after identifying stakeholders (Kerzner, 2013, p. 480; Mepyans-Robinson, 2011; Englund, 2014; Patzak & Rattay, 2014, p. 96). The only approach that does not have analysis as the second step is the aforementioned framework, which starts with this activity, and continues with the phases of stakeholder engagement and stakeholder disengagement (Eskerod & Huemann, 2014). This is one important distinctive feature of the approaches proposed in the handbooks. A successful disengagement and debriefing of project stakeholders is seen as an important part of stakeholder management by two authors (Eskerod & Huemann, 2014; Kerzner, 2013, p. 480). From the third to the fourth edition of the AMA Handbook of Project Management, stakeholder management now is awarded its own section. The focus of the fourth edition is now stronger on successfully creating and maintaining stakeholder relationships and achieving successful closure with the stakeholder (Crawford, 2014b; Englund, 2014). After analyzing and planning stakeholder engagement, or communication, the various approaches highlight different tasks, activities and processes of stakeholder management. Stakeholders are engaged (Eskerod & Huemann, 2014; Kerzner, 2013, p. 480), information is distributed, expectations are managed, and performance is reported against project agreements (Kerzner, 2013, p. 480; Mepyans-Robinson, 2011). The approaches that are presented in the selected project management handbooks, hence, complement the frameworks offered by the project management standards in

3. Stakeholder Engagements 2. Plan Communications 3. Distribute Information

2. What are the stakeholder’s expectations? 2. Structuring of Impact Factors into Social and Technical

1. Who are the stakeholders?

Source: Summary table, sources in table

3. How does the project/product affect the stake-holder? 3. Evaluation of Social Environment and Detailed Analysis

2. Stakeholder Analysis

3. Project Stakeholder Disengagement

1. Identify the Stakeholders 1. Identify Stakeholders

Stakeholder management steps 1. Project Stake- 2. Project Stakeholder holder Analysis Engagement

IV. Patzak and Rattay 1. Identification (2014, p. 96) of Stakeholders

Handbook I. Eskerod and Huemann (2014, p. 221) II. Kerzner (2013, p. 480) III. MepyansRobinson (2011, p. 174) III. Englund (2014b, p. 168)

Table 2.2 Stakeholder management approaches—handbooks

4. Development of Provisions and actions

4. What information do stakeholders need?

4. Stakeholder Information Flow 4. Manage Stakeholder expectations

5. Abide by Agreements 5. Report Performance

6. Stakeholder Debriefings

34 2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

35

so far as they are more detailed and include steps of stakeholder disengagement. They are important complementary sources for understanding today’s body of knowledge in project stakeholder management. An attempt to synthesize the various propositions for a stakeholder management process will necessarily fail to appreciate the detail and idiosyncrasies of each of the proposed processes. However, the above discussion revealed that each proposition on its own appears to be incomplete. Therefore, the stakeholder management process displayed in Fig. 2.1 is proposed as a high-level summary covering all process steps that are relevant for the following sections of this work.

Planning

Phase

Process Stakeholder Identification Stakeholder Analysis

Closing

Collaboration

Stakeholder Mgt. Planning Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder Expectations Mgt. Stakeholder Satisfaction & Performance Reporting Stakeholder Debriefing Stakeholder Disengagement & Emotional Closure

Acvity (Examples) • Identify all relevant stakeholder in workshops with sponsor and team • Analyze power, intentions, motivations and importance of stakeholders • Document stakeholder management strategy & plan • Engage key stakeholders to the desired degree of involvement • Communicate with stakeholders, re-define & review requirements, highlight project’s impact on various stakeholders • Report current status and constraints in terns of scope, budget, time, quality and risk • Get support/commitment • Get stakeholder approval for project’s product or deliverables if necessary • Elaborate a roadmap for benefits realization • Formal closure • Celebrate success with team and key stakeholders

Fig. 2.1 Stakeholder management process—summary. Sources: Author’s compilation based on summary of literature (APM, 2012; Ellmann et al., 2015b; Englund, 2014; Eskerod & Huemann, 2014; IPMA, 2015; Kerzner, 2013; Mepyans-Robinson, 2011; OGC, 2009; Patzak & Rattay, 2014; PMI, 2013)

36

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Figure 2.1 shows how the stakeholder management process can be described as consisting of eight sub-processes throughout the project management life cycle, ranging from “Stakeholder Identification” to “Stakeholder Disengagement and Emotional Closure”. On the left of the process steps some representative project management activities have been added for better comprehension. They describe activities that fall into the responsibility of the project manager. These activities do not claim completeness nor are they representative of the tasks, tools or complexity of the single steps. The Process Group View on Stakeholder Management The phases indicated in Fig. 2.1 already give an indication as to which processes may fall primarily into which process groups. There are five project management process groups that were identified for this work: Initiating, Planning and Organization, Monitoring and Controlling, Executing and Collaboration, and Closing. In the following, roles and responsibilities in stakeholder management shall be described alongside the project management process groups. Initiating The initial identification of project stakeholders is the starting point for stakeholder management and should be elaborated during project planning (PMI, 2013, p. 54). If appropriate, stakeholders can already be classified into champions, participants (of the project or the larger project community) or “Parasitic Participants” in this early phase (Tuman, 2011). In order to identify stakeholders it is recommended to look for individuals who pay for the project, benefit or profit from it, use the project output, are for or against it, are helpful or not and who may influence the project outcome (Levin & Ward, 2014). It is important to identify project stakeholders during initiation because project stakeholders determine the project requirements, the business case of the project and, hence, the economic feasibility (APM, 2012, p. 53; OGC, 2009, p. 21; PMI, 2013, p. 112). A good mutual understanding between stakeholders and project management concerning the project’s raison d’être will lead to better understanding and collaboration throughout the project (Morris, 2014). Furthermore, identifying the key stakeholders during initiation will allow recruiting important team members from those entities that are impacted or have an interest in the project (OGC, 2009, p. 126). Planning and Organizing For planning of the project stakeholder management all selected works propose a stakeholder management process to be followed. This process has been presented in the previous section and should be considered the basis for planning and organizing the project. One key objective of planning the stakeholder management is to enable the alignment of those internal or external stakeholder interests that govern the project (APM, 2012, p. 8; OGC, 2009, p. 61; PMI, 2013, pp. 30–34). The role of the project manager is essential in this regard, which is why in some cases the selection process for this position is already influenced by the stakeholders (Kerzner, 2013, p. 6). If the expectations of the different stakeholders are understood and proactively managed, this will improve collaboration and the creation of shared results (Dinsmore &

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

37

Rocha, 2014). Conflict among stakeholder expectations and requirements is often inevitable though. Therefore, conflict resolution is a very important skill for the project manager. Success factors for conflict resolution are defining clear project success criteria, authentic leadership by project management and sponsorship, and the efficient application of persuasion tools (Englund, 2014). Aligning stakeholder interests becomes more complex with more individuals involved in the projects and requires better risk and opportunity planning (Kerzner, 2013, p. 61; Pells, 2014). Considering sustainability and environmental concerns is an additional requirement on project management and increases the number of project stakeholders significantly (Maltzman, 2014; Silvius & Schipper, 2014). An important event during the planning and organization of the project is the requirements workshop that allows eliciting the expectations and needs of the key project stakeholders (Elswick, 2014b; PMI, 2013, p. 114). This workshop might be facilitated by an external party and will be the foundation for the development and implementation of tools like the stakeholder register, stakeholder maps and social network analysis, which in turn support the development of a project communications plan (APM, 2012, p. 116; Ellmann, Behrend, Hübner, & Weitlaner, 2015a; Elswick, 2014a; PMI, 2013, p. 391–402; OGC, 2009, p. 156). When assessing the current and desired level of stakeholder engagement, PMI proposes to distinguish between unaware, resistant, neutral, supportive, and leading stakeholders (PMI, 2013, p. 402). To achieve changes in the engagement level the GPM standard proposes employing either repressive, discursive, cooperative or democratic strategies for stakeholder management (Pohl & Thyssen, 2015). Early stakeholder involvement during project planning, combined with open and realistic communication of beneficial and negative effects has been shown to improve the development of long term trust among stakeholders (Rocha & Tavares, 2014). Executing and Collaboration Stakeholder management is part of integrative project management along with managing the business case, information, planning and organization throughout the project (APM, 2012, p. 92). Stakeholder engagement must be most intensive toward the end of the project for benefits realization management to ensure the project’s product delivers upon the business case requirements (Bradley, 2014). Methods for stakeholder management include, but are not limited to, information materials, workshops with stakeholders, and integrated project organizations including stakeholder representatives (Eskerod & Huemann, 2014). Engaging stakeholders also means to share the project management plan and to get agreement for the quality management plan (APM, 2012, p. 111). Negotiation and influencing is important for keeping external stakeholders committed to the project (APM, 2012, p. 50). Sometimes, therefore, it is necessary to keep members of the project team co-located to the most important key stakeholders and integrate them through the usage of virtual team organizations (PMI, 2013, p. 277). Stakeholder requirements may change and lead to change requests by the stakeholders (APM, 2012, p. 77). A change control process should include the five steps,

38

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

request (1), review (2), assessment (3), decision (4), and implementation (5) (APM, 2012, p. 128). Throughout this process stakeholders may be an important source of project risk (APM, 2012, p. 182; Ellmann et al., 2015b). Frequently and openly communicating threats and opportunities to the stakeholders becomes an important success factor for mitigating risks (OGC, 2009, p. 87). There are several workshop and software tools that support stakeholder and risk management throughout project execution (APM, 2012, p. 182; Ellmann et al., 2015a). It is important to recognize that in international projects, project risks are predominantly human risks originating from interpersonal or cultural differences (Turner, 2014a). Since stakeholders and stakeholder requirements change over the course of the project, it is important to continually analyze stakeholders, their requirements and how to engage them. Methods for continuous stakeholder analysis include, but are not limited to, an inclusive stakeholder definition, stakeholder analysis workshops, explicit mutual expectations, and scenario techniques (Eskerod & Huemann, 2014). Meeting key stakeholders in person to understand their expectations and needs, appreciate their opinions, and win their support requires early identification and continuous revision of key stakeholders (Kerzner, 2013, p. 483), but it will increase the chances for successful stakeholder engagement. Monitoring and Controlling Stakeholder identification and understanding are essential requirements for monitoring and controlling the project (Athayde, 2014). This is important because, e.g., risk monitoring is an activity on behalf of the stakeholders who are exposed to project risk and uncertainty (APM, 2012, p. 178). Throughout the project the stakeholder’s risk preferences and tolerances may be revised (PMI, 2013, p. 318). This is very relevant for the present study, because risk tolerances are subject to cultural differences (Hofstede et al., 2010; Köster, 2010; Meyer, 2014). Therefore, it is crucial that the project manager understands the view of stakeholders on the risk items in the risk register (OGC, 2009, p. 81). The monitoring and controlling function provides stakeholders with reports that should contain resolved issues, approved changes and the project status (PMI, 2013, p. 93). Aside from this regular reporting function, monitoring and controlling a project also means that project and product quality are traced. The process of controlling quality is necessary to ensure that the requirements specified by the key stakeholders are met, which is necessary for final acceptance (PMI, 2013, p. 248). Project and product quality is inspected by project stakeholders such as customers or future users (OGC, 2009, p. 56). But project management is not only reporting to the stakeholders, it is also dependent on reports and information it receives from internal and external stakeholders who are contributing to the project. These reports from the project stakeholders will sometimes be inaccurate. Open and honest communication that focuses on resolving problems may be a remedy against such inaccurate stakeholder reports (Athayde, 2014). In crisis situations, the monitoring and controlling function of the project becomes crucial. The project team must identify all stakeholder interests and assess how these stakeholders deem the crisis should be resolved (Kerzner, 2013, p. 1134).

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

39

Closing In the project closing process group more than one group of stakeholders may have to accept the project deliverables (OGC, 2009, p. 57). Therefore relevant stakeholders need to be engaged to track the objectives, scope, and criteria for completion, which is important for building a sound basis for closure (Crawford, 2014a, 2014b). This is important because project stakeholders will evaluate the project as a failure if project costs exceed the expected benefits, the project is behind schedule, or it no longer satisfies stakeholder needs anymore (Kerzner, 2013, p. 1157). Eventually, when ending the project the project stakeholders should be disengaged professionally. Disengaging stakeholders includes thanking all stakeholders for their contributions, having a celebrating event, and a future-oriented evaluation in order to leave a good lasting impression (Crawford, 2014a, 2014b; Eskerod & Huemann, 2014). Figure 2.2 shows a summary of the above discussion of stakeholder management along the project management process groups. It can be seen as an attempt to unite the various stakeholder management approaches in one framework. In those cases where a decision had to be made, the original source was reassessed in order to determine where the activity would fit best into these process groups. The above sections aimed to provide and overview of stakeholder management as prescribed by international project management standards and influential handbooks. The stakeholder management processes and activities have been shown along the project life cycle and the project management process groups defined for this study. The two perspectives complement and support each other. Together they represent those activities that should be covered in stakeholder management according to standards and handbooks. This knowledge informs practitioners and is integrated into the bodies of knowledge that are relevant for becoming a certified project manager. These processes are therefore what is currently applied by professional project management practitioners around the world. These standards do not, however, represent the more recent scientific discourse. Therefore, the next section aims as reviewing more recent contributions to stakeholder management.

2.3.2.3

Project Stakeholder Management as a Framework: State of the Art

The previous sections have shown that project customers are engaged within the framework of project stakeholder management. In order to improve understanding on project stakeholder management it is, therefore, necessary to review scientific contributions to project stakeholder management. Even when only looking at project stakeholders, the research field of stakeholder management is ample and very diverse.

- Stakeholder analysis, register, map - Communications plan - Align internal & external interests - requirements identification workshop - Define success criteria - Manage expectations - Risk & opportunity planning

Planning & Organizing - Engage stakeholders (inform, communicate, workshops, integrate) - Get stakeholder agreement for project planning - Manage change requests to plan - Mitigate risk through communication - Review stakeholder strategy & engagement plan

Execution & Collaboration - Risk monitoring on behalf of the stakeholders - Revise stakeholder’s risk tolerances - Provide project status reports - Control and inspect quality - Receive status from stakeholders - Focus on problem & crisis resolution

Monitoring & Controlling

Collaboration

- Track objectives, scope & completion criteria - Constantly review business case & expectations - Get final stakeholders acceptance - Professionally disengage stakeholders

Closing

Closing

Fig. 2.2 Stakeholder management in process groups—summary. Sources: Author’s compilation; based on (APM, 2012; Athayde, 2014; Bradley, 2014; Crawford, 2014a, 2014b; Dinsmore & Rocha, 2014; Ellmann et al., 2015b; Elswick, 2014a; Englund, 2014; Eskerod & Huemann, 2014; Kerzner, 2013; Levin & Ward, 2014; Maltzman, 2014; Morris, 2014; OGC, 2009; Pells, 2014; PMI, 2013; Pohl & Thyssen, 2015; Rocha & Tavares, 2014; Silvius & Schipper, 2014; Tuman, 2011; Turner, 2014b)

- Identify stakeholders (Who is paying, benefits or is affected?) - Analyze & classify stakeholders - Identify requirements - Understand business case(s) - Scan stakeholders for potential team members

Initiation

Planning

40 2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

41

Littau et al. (2010) surveyed 25 years of stakeholder theory in project management by looking at the four major project management journals and extracting three types of information: 1. The frequency of stakeholder issues in articles, sources, origin and industry sectors from which empirical contributions were made; 2. Understanding of stakeholders in projects by looking at various definitions of stakeholders in project management; 3. The areas of project management that drive stakeholder theory by either applying or contributing to stakeholder theory. The frequency of articles mentioning stakeholder management was found to having increased strongly since 2000, especially in the International Journal of Project Management, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business and the Project Management Journal, so stakeholder management can be deemed to have increased in importance since then. Contributions were in large majority case studies and empirical data and contributions were in large part from the Englishspeaking world, with the UK, Australia, and the US contributing 49% of all articles (Littau et al., 2010). In 116 reviewed articles Littau et al. (2010) identified 22 unique definitions for the term “stakeholder”, all of which go back to only three types of definitions. Type I definitions go back to Cleland’s (1985) definition of “being interested in” or “having a vested interest in” the project (Cleland, 1985). These definitions were popular between 1986 and 2007 (Littau et al., 2010). Type II definitions are those that can be tracked back to Freeman’s 1984 definition according to which stakeholders “can affect and may be affected by” the project. Type III definitions are combined forms of the two previous definitions, which can be found, e.g., in the PMBoK (PMI, 2013, p. 536). Type II and type III definitions became popular after 2002 (Littau et al., 2010). The most important drivers of project stakeholder management are project evaluation and project strategy. Between 1984 and 2009, 82 articles were found within those two contexts. The 44 articles from the project evaluation context are concerned with success criteria, risk and performance. The project strategy group contains 38 articles that are concerned with project management concepts, strategic frameworks and management processes. Other important drivers were the “Social Context”, focusing on topics such as trust, communication and leadership (17 articles), and the “Environment Context”, contributing 15 articles on project roles such as clients, sponsors, users, and other external factors (Littau et al., 2010). In summary, it can be said that Littau’s review reveals that stakeholder management in projects is an increasingly important field of research with ample empirical relevance. The mainstream view is that stakeholders are those with a vested interest in the project and that can affect or are affected by the project. Project stakeholder management is investigated in order to answer questions with regard to the evaluation of project success and performance, management frameworks and processes, trust, communication and leadership and the roles of external or internal stakeholders.

42

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Between 2008 and 2011 Aaltonen (et al.) published a number of articles on stakeholder management in international projects throughout the process of her doctoral dissertation (Aaltonen, 2010, 2011; Aaltonen, Jaakko, & Tuomas, 2008; Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010; Aaltonen, Kujala, Lehtonen, & Ruuska, 2010; Aaltonen, Murtonen, & Tukiainen, 2009; Aaltonen & Sivonen, 2009). This work builds on stakeholder theory and stakeholder salience (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997) and how to deal with stakeholder influence and pressure throughout the project life cycle. The research employs single and multiple case study methods to contribute to stakeholder management in international projects. For her there are four major research streams addressing different managerial challenges of international projects: first, concerned with risk and performance in international projects, the ‘planning and control’ research stream; second, research that is concerned with the implications of cultural differences on project management; third, project marketing in international networked projects; and finally, fourth, the international implications of large projects (Aaltonen, 2010). In her research, Aaltonen aims at answering the following research questions: 1. What kind of strategies do external stakeholders use in order to shape their salience? (Aaltonen, 2010, p. 85; Aaltonen et al., 2008) 2. How do external project stakeholders take action and influence the project management’s decision-making during the different phases of the project lifecycle? (Aaltonen, 2010, p. 85; Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010) 3. What kind of strategies do focal projects enact as responses to demands presented by external stakeholders in the context of global projects? (Aaltonen, 2010, p. 85; Aaltonen & Sivonen, 2009) 4. How, through what kinds of practices, do project management teams analyze and interpret their external stakeholder environment in the context of international projects? (Aaltonen, 2010, p. 86; Aaltonen, 2011) 5. How are a focal project’s local stakeholder relationships associated with the emergence and management of unexpected events in international projects? (Aaltonen, 2010, p. 86; Aaltonen et al., 2010) The focus of this work is clearly on external stakeholders which are defined as those stakeholders who “. . . are not formal members of the project coalition, but may affect or be affected by the project” (Aaltonen et al., 2008, p. 510). By definition, this excludes the project customers. There are, however, some important insights offered by the above research. It reveals how secondary stakeholders compete over influence in projects and which strategies external and internal stakeholders and project management employ to shape project outcomes. The timely engagement of external stakeholders is found to increase the project’s chances of success because it may reduce the amount of resistance and generate support for the project. The most interesting findings for the purpose of this work, however, are the following:

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

43

1. External stakeholders influence project success alongside primary stakeholders, like project customers, sponsors and team members, and they compete with primary stakeholders for the project manager’s attention (Aaltonen & Kujala, 2010; Aaltonen & Sivonen, 2009). 2. The success of response strategies to stakeholder demands depends on contextual factors that the project manager needs to understand (Aaltonen & Sivonen, 2009). These contextual factors include cultural differences. 3. Salient external project stakeholders are a source of unexpected events in international projects even if there is a good relationship with local salient stakeholders, so establishing stakeholder relationships is important but may be the source of other unexpected events (Aaltonen et al., 2010). This is another area where differences in national culture are relevant. Even though Aaltonen’s research focuses on external stakeholders, these three findings provide an overview of the way in which stakeholder management theory in project management is conceived. The focus is often on external stakeholders that have to be identified early and engaged proactively in order to avoid problems throughout the project life cycle. The project customer is clearly a primary stakeholder. Without the customer, there is no project and therefore the stakeholder analysis might be reduced to acknowledging that the customer is the principal stakeholder. Stakeholder management remains an indispensable part of project management nevertheless. This is underlined not only by the inclusion of stakeholder management chapters in the major project management bodies of knowledge (APM, 2012; IPMA, 2015; PMI, 2013), but also, most recently, by a special issue on stakeholder management by the Project Management Journal in 2015/2016. This special issue provides an overview of past and present research, and some examples of current research directions in project stakeholder management (Gemünden, 2015). In the introductory review of stakeholder theory in project management Eskerod, Huemann, and Ringhofer (2015) and Eskerod, Huemann, and Savage (2015) provide the most recent literature review in the field of stakeholder management and comprehensive account of the development of stakeholder management in projects. Other than many mainstream publications this article argues that the term ‘stakeholder’ as a theoretical concept was introduced by Rhenman in his 1968 book ‘Industrial Democracy’. When looking into more recent publication the work outlines the divide between the normative view of ‘managing for stakeholders’ (Freeman, 2007) and the, earlier, instrumental view of ‘managing of stakeholders’. It is argued that the two approaches might be combined through employing stakeholder analysis techniques and differentiating between primary and secondary stakeholders. Current international project management standards (IPMA, 2015; OGC, 2009; PMI, 2013) are found to not to be suited for the requirements that complex projects represent for project managers. The authors subscribe to the network view of project stakeholder management and propose an issue-centric stakeholder management using rich pictures (Walker, Steinfort, & Maqsood, 2014) for better project stakeholder understanding. The review continues to introduce the articles covered by the

44

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

special issue in project stakeholder management (Eskerod, Huemann, & Savage, 2015). Turkulainen, Aaltonen, and Lohikoski (2015) develop the stakeholder ‘salienceposition-matrix’, which combines stakeholder salience (Mitchell et al., 1997) with approaches that are asking whether the position of stakeholders towards the project is supportive or not. The proposed model is then applied for the analysis of stakeholder dynamics in complex, large scale construction projects and the management of their front-end. The authors conclude that the model helps to assess stakeholder dynamics and to identify a viable project coalition of salient and supportive stakeholders in order to shape stakeholder influence (Aaltonen, Kujala, Havela, & Savage, 2016). The further articles in this special issue include case study research covering issues such as stakeholder inclusiveness (Eskerod, Huemann, & Ringhofer, 2015), legitimacy and internal stakeholder commitment (Hooge & Dalmasso, 2015), stakeholder communication and salience (Turkulainen et al., 2015), and an application of Social Network Analysis to stakeholder interactions concerning a megaproject (Williams, Ferdinand, & Pasian, 2015). One relevant insight from these articles are that engaging a broad number of stakeholders will increase the likelihood of stakeholder engagement and satisfaction while also increasing the danger of losing focus of important stakeholders and disappointing stakeholders (Eskerod, Huemann, & Ringhofer, 2015). Another insight is that stakeholder salience can explain how communication modes are selected and how stakeholder communication develops throughout the project’s life cycle (Turkulainen et al., 2015). For adequate engagement and disengagement of stakeholders it is therefore indispensable to continuously assess stakeholder salience (Hooge & Dalmasso, 2015; Turkulainen et al., 2015). The above discussion aims to provide an overview of current research in the area of project stakeholder management. A complete review of the field of stakeholder management in projects is not intended, since such an exercise would not be justified by the scope of this work. The most important insights offered by this review are the following: 1. Research in stakeholder management distinguishes between external and internal stakeholders, with the latter being formal members of the project coalition and generally assumed to be supportive to the project. The primary project customer would usually fall into this definition, regardless of whether the customer is internal or external to the focal organization. 2. External stakeholders, like governments, NGOs, journalists, or concerned citizens, influence on the project’s success and compete with internal stakeholders for project management attention. 3. Since internal and external, primary and secondary, stakeholders mutually influence each other, it is recommended to assume a network approach to stakeholder management and to continuously assess stakeholder salience and position to the project. 4. With more stakeholders influencing the project’s chances of success, project management must pay attention to not losing focus on the primary stakeholders who provide resources or receive the product.

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

45

In summary, it can be affirmed that current research in stakeholder management recognizes an increasing number of project stakeholders that affect the chances of success of any given project. Research focus is often on external stakeholders who have to be assessed according to their salience and position towards the project. Adequately engaging relevant project stakeholders is critical for project success but it requires project managers to shift attention towards stakeholder identification, analysis, and the development of stakeholder-specific communication strategies. While project customer management clearly falls into the area of project stakeholder management, current stakeholder research is rather concerned with external or secondary stakeholders.

2.3.2.4

Synthesis: Project Stakeholder Management as a Framework

The above two sections provide an overview of how project stakeholder management is taught to and practiced by project managers and the directions of more recent research in project stakeholder management. The stages of project management throughout the project are stakeholder identification, analysis, planning, engagement, expectations and satisfaction management, debriefing and disengagement (APM, 2012; IPMA, 2015; Kerzner, 2013; OGC, 2009; PMI, 2013). For identification and analysis of stakeholders Freeman proposes the distinction between primary and secondary stakeholders (Freeman, 2007). Other proposals to distinguish between stakeholders include external versus internal (Freeman, 2004; Ward & Chapman, 2008), opponents versus proponents of projects (Olander, 2007), their power, influence, and impact in the project (Johnson, Scholes, & Whittington, 2008; PMI, 2013), or according their salience in terms of power, legitimacy and urgency (Mitchell et al., 1997). These stakeholder classifications have led to a number of different ways to categorize stakeholders along two dimensions in a stakeholder management matrix. Most recently, Aaltonen proposes combining the stakeholder salience criteria with an assessment of the stakeholder’s position towards the project (Aaltonen et al., 2016). From the above it can be concluded that project stakeholder management theory is strong regarding the identification and analysis phase of the stakeholder management processes proposed above. The aim of identifying and adequately engaging all relevant stakeholders has diverted attention away from primary stakeholders, such as the customer, towards other external or secondary stakeholders that impact the success of the project. Concrete and specific proposals on how to plan and operationalize stakeholder engagement and disengagement, let alone expectations management, are vague and scarce. So, at the same time project managers are expected to cater to the needs of more external and internal stakeholders on one hand, and on the other to improve the customer engagement and satisfaction. Considering the considerable challenges in recognizing and understanding the customer’s (and other primary stakeholder’) needs and requirements in complex projects, this appears to be a development that has to be seen critically. But, how are

46

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

standards and standard handbooks proposing to approach the customer? This is what shall be answered in the following section.

2.3.3

Project Customer Management in Project Management Standard Texts

2.3.3.1

Introduction

The respective standard texts or bodies of knowledge have been scanned for quotations that contain one of the following synonyms for “project customer”: – – – –

Client/Customer Owner Sponsor User

The term “consumer” is used, in the case of consumer goods, for the final customer of the project’s product. It has therefore not been considered relevant for the purpose of this work. This is not to say that the consumer does not have a significant impact of the project success. But the value for the consumer results from the operation of the project’s product and it is therefore only partially within the span of control of the project manager. The following paragraphs will be structured according to the roles that customers can assume in projects. This will allow establishing a conclusive picture of how these roles are conceived by the particular author.

2.3.3.2

Clients or Customers

Since all of the standard texts mentioned above have different approaches to project management, it is important to use a common framework to structure the role of customers in the various approaches. For this purpose, the process groups offered by PMI are selected because they are easily integrated with the knowledge areas of project management (PMI, 2013, p. 423) and because the PMBoK is the most widely used standard globally. The following analysis will therefore be structured according to the five progress groups as previously defined. Initiating This process group contains all processes that are necessary in order to get started by defining and authorizing a new project or phase (PMI, 2013, p. 54). In this stage all standard texts agree that customer requirements need to be identified and understood by the project manager and project organization (APM, 2012, p. 140; IPMA, 2015, p. 78; Kerzner, 2013, p. 36; PMI, 2013, p. 536; Shenhar & Patanakul, 2014; Streun, 2014). This is so important because many projects fail to identify customer needs

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

47

during initiation or fail to determine how stakeholders shall be engaged (Kerzner, 2013, p. 36). The customer may be from the same organization as the project team, or from an external organization (OGC, 2009, p. 32), whereas an external customer always adds an additional layer of complexity to project management (APM, 2012, pp. 2, 94). Project documents need a higher amount of detail and other processes due to the fundamental differences in initiating projects with external customers (OGC, 2009, p. 150; Scheuring, 2015). The reason behind this is that in projects with external customers the two parties may have different business cases, interests and risk appetites (APM, 2012, p. 183; Tan, 2014) and may not necessarily share that information with the other contractual party (OGC, 2009, p. 225). In these kind of projects, the contract is the basis for the development of the project charter (PMI, 2013, p. 70). During this initial stage it is recommended to develop a quality management strategy for the project in order to meet customer expectations (Streun, 2014). More generically, quality management aims to understand and manage requirements in order to meet customer expectations. It is therefore important to install these processes during project initiation (PMI, 2013, p. 228). Building on a solid understanding of customer requirements and needs, project value management is proposed to focus on maximizing the benefits the customer can generate from the project’s output (APM, 2012, p. 141). For this purpose, the customer is advised to produce four documents at the beginning of each project: 1. Client’s business case: Defined as the financial raison d’être for the project; 2. Project specific statement of need: an outline of what is required to fulfill the previously define business case; 3. Strategic project brief: That refers to the statement of need and outlines how the project will fulfill this statement; 4. Project definition: A document setting out the exact details of the project, especially the project scope. These documents shall facilitate focusing project activities on customer value and throughput (Simister, 2014). In an external customer/contractor relationship changes that may result from such value orientation may lead to contractual changes (IPMA, 2015, p. 139). Planning and Organization These are processes that define the project scope and refine the project objectives by developing a project management plan (PMI, 2013, p. 55). One question that needs to be answered during planning is how to integrate the customer into the project organization. The PRINCE2 method considers projects from the customer perspective. The project manager is expected to be from the customer organization. Project managers from contractor or supplier organizations are considered team leaders in the project organization (OGC, 2009, p. 225). Employees from the customer organization may be integrated as part of the project team (PMI, 2013, p. 36; Wright, 2014) or, if the customer is external,

48

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

engaged by the project sponsor (APM, 2012, p. 104). Depending on the situation of the project, having external clients on the decision board may not always be advisable (OGC, 2009, p. 187), but having an in-house client representative may, on the other hand, support the project and avoid problems due to a lack of communication (Kerzner, 2013, p. 477). Agile project management techniques put customer requirements at the center of project planning and engage the customer intensively (Patzak & Rattay, 2014, p. 666). In conclusion, so far, the role that customers may assume in project management depends on the circumstances of the project. The client may be part of the project team of the decision board or not; she may be engaged by the project sponsor or the project manager; a representative from the customer organization may or may not be seconded to the project team, and this may or may not lead to improved communication and better project support from the customer. Factors impacting the decision of how to engage the customer in the project include, but are not limited to: – – – – –

Industry branch (e.g., construction, IT, logistics services, consulting, etc.) Contractual setting (e.g., internal or external customer) Knowledge gaps (e.g., experts vs. generalists, technical vs. business view, etc.) Cultures (e.g., national, organizational, professional, etc.) Personality traits (e.g., openness, curiosity, empathy, etc.)

In some project settings the customer may insist on a particular project manager for the project (Kerzner, 2013, p. 186) or otherwise refuse to approve the project team plan (OGC, 2009, p. 187). In external customer-contractor relationships the contractor’s or client’s project team plan may often not be visible to the other party, nor be up for approval (OGC, 2009, p. 187). In any event and project setting it seems advisable to involve the customer when it comes to prioritizing deliverables and understanding how these deliverables are going to be used (Eskerod & Huemann, 2014; IPMA, 2015, p. 108). Ensuring that quality meets customer requirements is part of quality planning. During project planning it is therefore important to understand that the customer’s quality expectations define acceptance criteria and to document this transparently (OGC, 2009, p. 50). If the customer organization owns a majority share in the project, quality and safety standards may be imposed by the customer (Turner, 2014a). In order to facilitate later collaboration, the contractor has to carefully consider the project constraints of their customers and manage the project accordingly (APM, 2012, p. 7). Also procurement choices and routes should be fitted to the long term interest of the customer organization (IPMA, 2015, p. 132). Risk is particularly interesting in projects involving more than one organization, since the propensity to incur risk during a project is subject to cultural factors, among other things. Therefore, contractors are recommended to use emotional literacy techniques to assess the risk appetite of customers and to develop a shared risk attitude (Hillson, 2014). In summary, the question of whether a customer is external or internal appears to be important from a planning and organizational point of view. In external relationships, contractual insecurity, opaqueness, cultural factors, different interests and

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

49

business cases, opportunistic behavior and higher risk may emerge. Internal clients are often also called sponsors or users, terms that will be discussed later. Projects delivering to internal customers may still have to cope with cultural issues if the customer business unit is from another cultural background and there may be internal procedures that regulate transfer prices, acceptance procedures and customer roles. These internal procedures fulfill the same function as the contract in external projects and may lead to similar problems. Executing Within this process group the defined work is carried out and integrated with the project plan and this requires coordination of resources and stakeholders (PMI, 2013, p. 56). Here the most important task of the project manager is to engage the customer and maintain contact (Patzak & Rattay, 2014, p. 654). One occasion for contacting the customer is the regular project cost and progress reports in larger projects (Lock, 2014). These reports may be, e.g., monthly and contain detailed cost and performance data on the project (Lambert, 2014). These monthly interactions are a good opportunity to meet the customer in person or during a conference call, when a physical co-location is not possible (Mepyans-Robinson, 2011). Customer meetings in this context are of increased importance and need better preparation than other project meetings (Kerzner, 2013, p. 275). During execution the customer can be involved in the project management to different degrees, ranging from early sales/delivery of the project’s product to a development partnership (Smith, 2011). If the customer wants to be considered a partner in the project, there are certain responsibilities that have to be assumed. The customer organization then needs to speedily pay valid claims, diligently avoid unnecessary change requests and give approvals without delay, while generally appreciating the problems faced by the contractor (Lock, 2014). Altering behavior might lead to mistrust which may lead to three communication traps: 1. More documentation in order to be protected against potential claims; 2. More interchange with project stakeholders in order to keep everyone happy; 3. Potentially, customer representatives on the project site which require his attention. These traps will result in a severe work overload of the project manager (Kerzner, 2013, p. 308). In summary, during project execution it is important to keep the customer informed and engage him according to the appropriate level of involvement defined during project initiation and planning. This requires empathy and diplomatic skills from the project manager. Monitoring and Controlling (M&C) This process group fulfills three main tasks; first, the tracking and reviewing of project progress; second, the identification of gaps compared to the project plan; and third, the initiation of required changes that result from those gaps (PMI, 2013, p. 57). M&C is an important process group because it accompanies all process groups and spans the project from beginning to the ending. Project performance is usually

50

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

expressed along the most important project constraints: time, cost, quality and risk. Objective data like scope, cost and schedule information is usually the content of project reports. These reports have to be adjusted to the needs of internal or external customers (APM, 2012, p. 163; Crawford, 2014a, 2014b). Monitoring and controlling project risk will be more difficult in commercial customer-contractor relationships. The organizations may keep two risk registers, one for internal usage and another one for external use in order not to reveal the own risk exposure to the client or contractor (OGC, 2009, p. 226). Quality is monitored and controlled by the project manager but also by the project customer (Kerzner, 2013, p. 1016). External customers may perform quality audits in order to ensure process and product quality of the project (IPMA, 2015, p. 121). One difficult aspect with project quality is that it may, at times, be difficult to measure quality because it reflects the customer’s overall quality experience (Wright, 2014). Customer satisfaction must, therefore, be part of monitoring and controlling. PMI puts customer satisfaction firmly into the area of quality management as the degree to which customer needs are met or exceeded (PMI, 2013, p. 247). Customer satisfaction may be considered as a non-financial project benefit. Since the customer validates the project outcome and success (IPMA, 2015, p. 121), customer satisfaction is among the most important success criteria for project management success alongside goal achievement, and should be requested in the form of surveys (Burghardt, 2015; Ellmann et al., 2015b; Möller, 2015). Lessons learned from customer satisfaction surveys may therefore be useful to improve the chances of project success (Delisle & Rowe, 2011). Customer satisfaction may be misleading and subjective and should be complementing the other, more objective project reports (Lombard, 2014). In summary, the role of the customer during monitoring and controlling is to receive reports on project performance including cost, schedule and scope information. Depending on the project environment and contractual setup, the customer may intervene based on these reports. The most important role of the customer is to conduct quality audits regarding project outputs and processes. The quality experience and satisfaction with the results should be subject to customer satisfaction surveys. These are a good complement to the data-based reporting surrounding cost, schedule, scope and quality. How risk is treated during monitoring and controlling depends on the project environment and contractual setting again. Transparency may be desirable from both the customer and the contractor side, but sometimes is not achievable due to different business cases and interests. Closing It comprises those processes necessary to close all project activities, formally completing the project, phase or contractual agreement (PMI, 2013, p. 57). This process group is of high importance since it establishes project success or failure. The customer validates the outcome by formally accepting project deliverables and the project manager ensures that project objectives have been achieved and customer expectations are met (IPMA, 2015, p. 122). Not meeting customer requirements will have serious negative consequences (PMI, 2013, p. 228) while achieving

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

51

customer, user or owner satisfaction can be seen as an investment into future business and the contractors’ résumé (Doloi, 2014). The customer may have different levers at the end of the project or project stage. The customer may be the owner of the acceptance records as part of a staged handover (OGC, 2009, p. 57) and customer payments may be contingent on the valuations of project or phase output (APM, 2012, p. 171). Therefore, it is indispensable to assess customer satisfaction as part of project closure (Patzak & Rattay, 2014, p. 488). The customer, eventually, determines the success of the project and the feasibility of potential future projects. Meeting customer requirements and achieving customer satisfaction is insured through the project manager and the customer in acceptance and review meetings. A customer satisfaction enquiry should be included in the project closure processes in order to learn from the concluding project and enable continued business. Table 2.3 summarizes how international project management standard texts describe the customer’s role in project management. The above paragraphs reviewed the role of customers and clients in the main project management bodies of knowledges and handbooks. Alongside the term ‘customer’, project management literature uses expressions such as ‘owner’, ‘user’ and ‘sponsor’ to describe the individuals or organizations receiving, using or paying for the project output. These roles offer different perspectives on project customers and will therefore be reviewed for additional insight into the particular role.

2.3.3.3

Owner

The standard bodies of knowledge that mention project owner as a variation of the client role are the IPMA-ICB4, Gower Handbook on Project Management, The AMA Handbook of Project Management and Patzak and Rattay’s handbook on project management. The analysis will unfold along the five project management process groups Initiation, Planning and Organization, Execution and Collaboration, Monitoring and Controlling, and Closing. These are the PMI adapted process groups that allow a clear sorting of the statements into the groups. Initiation During the initiation of the project it is important to consider that the two parties getting value out of a project are the project owner and the contractor: the contractor in terms of payment and the project owner in terms of the benefits received from the project (Turner, 2014b). In this sense, it can be argued that the project customer and project owner are largely the same. Depending on the author this can be said for both internal and external project clients. According to IPMA (IPMA, 2015, p. 106), the project sponsor and the project owner can largely be considered as synonyms. The sponsor in turn can be considered as an internal customer. Patzak and Rattay propose the internal project owner to be considered the same as an internal customer, which is the same as the project sponsor, which in turn is sometimes called top management (Patzak & Rattay, 2014, p. 147). Tan describes an instance where the external customer is considered the project owner in a construction project (Tan, 2014).

Emphasize the responsibilities of the customer in project partnership Manage customer expectations Build trust in order to avoid communication traps

Adjust risk planning when dealing with external clients

Develop a shared risk attitude for collaborative planning

Provide regular project and progress reports

Determine how customer is integrated in project organization Decide how intensive customer needs to be engaged Determine the adequate level of transparency towards the customer Device quality plan according to customer’s quality expectations Consider customer’s project constraints for planning Try to meet customer when delivering reports

Prepare and conduct customer meetings

Executing Engage with customer and maintain contact

Planning and organization Assess which organization is driving the project?

Use customer satisfaction to complement other reports

Conduct customer satisfaction reviews and use lessons learned

Adjust reports to the needs of the project customer throughout project life cycle Determine the degree of risk transparency with external customers Conduct quality audits with customers

Monitoring and controlling Collect progress information, and time, cost, quality and risk data

Assess customer satisfaction as part of project/phase closure Collect lessons learned for next phase/project involving that customer

Get formal customer acceptance of deliverables

Closing Meet customer requirements and expectations

Source: Authors compilation; based on (APM, 2012; Burghardt, 2015; Crawford, 2014a, 2014b; Delisle & Rowe, 2011; Doloi, 2014; Ellmann et al., 2015a; Eskerod & Huemann, 2014; Hillson, 2014; IPMA, 2015; Kerzner, 2013; Lambert, 2014; Lock, 2014; Lombard, 2014; Mepyans-Robinson, 2011; Möller, 2015; OGC, 2009; Patzak & Rattay, 2014; PMI, 2013; Scheuring, 2015; Simister, 2014; Smith, 2011; Streun, 2014; Turner, 2014b; Wright, 2014)

Determine how stakeholder should engaged Assess additional complexity if customer is external Assess additional amount of necessary detail Assess different business interests and risk tolerances Develop quality management strategy with client Consider contractual limitations and adjustments

Initiating Understand customer requirements (business case) Define project scope as detailed as possible

Table 2.3 Customer’s role in standard texts

52 2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

53

So, in those instances where the role or a project owner is part of project governance, the rights and responsibilities should be considered as being similar to those of the internal or external project customer. Planning and Organization During project planning the project owner should therefore be considered as the customer since he buys the product and receives the benefits from its operation (Turner, 2014b). There is agreement that the project owner is responsible for the continued adequacy, the realization and achievement of the project’s benefits (Bradley, 2014; IPMA, 2015, p. 232). The owner should be considered an integrated customer, however, this role may approve the project charter and nominate the project team (Patzak & Rattay, 2014, p. 136). Execution and Collaboration Throughout the project the project manager engages the owner for project marketing purposes (IPMA, 2015, p. 98). This may even be expected or required by the customer. Especially in international projects the owner organization takes an active role in the management of their projects (Dinsmore & Benitez Codas, 2014). Again, in this process group the role of the project owner resembles that of an integrated project customer. During initiation and planning this role may be granted different rights and responsibilities that will affect the project during execution and collaboration. Monitoring and Controlling Regarding monitoring and controlling the project sponsor and owner will hold the project manager accountable for the overall project risk (Hillson, 2014). Project audits regarding all project constraints should usually include interviews with the project owners and clients in order to assess the project from more than one perspective (Huemann, 2014). Closing Responsibilities need to be transferred from the contractor to the project customer during closure, especially when there is a formal contract (IPMA, 2015, p. 140). This is the basis for ensuring that the project is closed, a responsibility shared by owner and project team (Doloi, 2014). Ultimately, though, the project manager is responsible for transferring the components to the new owner (IPMA, 2015, p. 260). Again, the owner appears to be endowed with the same responsibilities that a project customer would have. Table 2.4 provides an overview of the owner’s role and responsibilities. In summary, the project owner is the person benefitting from the project’s product. This puts the owner firmly into a client role. The owner might be internal or external and more or less intensively engaged by the project manager. Building on the literal meaning of the world owner, it can be concluded that its usage has the purpose to focus on the role of owning the project outcome and being responsible for reaping benefits from it. The role will therefore be intensively involved with the next role to be analyzed, the user.

54

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 2.4 Owner’s role in standard texts Initiating Owner owns project output and pays contractor Receives benefits from operating the project’s output Should be considered as external or internal customer Determine specific role during planning and initiation

Planning and organization Should be considered during planning as integrated customer May approve project charter and nominate project team Responsible for benefits realization management

Executing Owner is engaged for project marketing purposes Active role especially in international projects

Monitoring and controlling Holds project manager accountable for project risks Participates in auditing all project constraints

Closing Owner receives project’s output

Assumes responsibility for benefits after project closure

Source: Summary table (Bradley, 2014; Dinsmore & Benitez Codas, 2014; Doloi, 2011; Hillson, 2014; Huemann, 2014; IPMA, 2015; Patzak & Rattay, 2014; Tan, 2014; Turner, 2014b)

2.3.3.4

User

The role of users or ‘end users’ is not defined in some of the works that were analyzed for this section (Dinsmore & Cabanis-Brewin, 2011; Gessler, 2015; Kerzner, 2013; Patzak & Rattay, 2014). For other authors the user or end user is seen as the person or group that will use the project’s product in order to achieve the benefits on behalf of the owner or customer (APM, 2012, p. 244; IPMA, 2015, p. 148; OGC, 2009, p. 24; PMI, 2013, pp. 32, 36). The user role shall be described below, along with the earlier defined process groups. Initiation When setting up a project the project manager should ask himself how important user integration is for achieving project success. Some authors find that user satisfaction comes second after project team satisfaction as a success factor for project management. This would mean that satisfied users are more important than satisfied customers for project success (Turner, 2014b). Also in the PRINCE2 framework the user is considered a primary project stakeholder. More specifically, users are considered one of the three main project interests along with business interests and supplier interests (OGC, 2009, pp. 12, 36). The responsibility of the user during initiation is to review and approve the project’s product description (OGC, 2009, p. 127). This is important because it is usually the project manager and the project team who define project requirements and to turn noisy and unstructured information from many stakeholders into measurable and testable user requirements (Dalcher, 2014). During initiation, therefore, it is important to consider the users of the project’s output as key stakeholders with strong impact on project success, to use their input for requirements definition, and to seek user approval of these requirements.

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

55

Planning and Organization Planning and organizing a project requires determining the role of the user in the project and the degree of user involvement. The reviewed project management texts offer a broad array of options to include users in project planning and organization. In general, users generate requirements against the background of legal and regulatory requirements (APM, 2012, p. 140). On some occasions users and clients may be treated as synonyms, on others it is important to distinguish between them (PMI, 2013, p. 32). User stories in a product backlog are one way of documenting requirements, whereas user stories may be conceptualized as work packages in iterative or agile project management approaches (IPMA, 2015, p. 108). Organizationally, user interest should be represented in the project board or steering committee (APM, 2012, p. 234; IPMA, 2015, p. 148). Alternatively, users and customer may be assigned representatives to the project, and advise on requirements, ensure coordination and validate the project results (PMI, 2013, p. 36). As a customer-centric approach, PRINCE2 prescribes the role of a Senior User. The Senior User is the principle project customer, who defines the benefits and follows up on progress. In this function, the Senior User is part of the project team, representing users and beneficiaries of the project’s output. The product description depends on user input and project planning should be done in collaboration with users and suppliers. Trainings requirements regarding the project’s product need to be considered right from the start of the project. The Senior User should be considered for specifying user needs, liaising with the project management team and monitoring project outcome and usability in accordance with the business case’s constraints (OGC, 2009, pp. 24, 35). Senior User’s responsibilities are as follows: – – – – –

Specifying the benefits upon which the Business Case is approved; Ensuring the desired outcome of the project is specified; Ensuring that the project produces products which deliver the desired outcomes; Ensuring that the expected benefits are realized; Providing actual versus forecast benefits statements at the benefits reviews. (OGC, 2009, p. 28)

For project planning this means that the Senior User must ensure the project plans and stage plans remain consistent from the user’s perspective and that user resources need to be committed to the planning task (OGC, 2009, p. 73). For planning user involvement in project management, the PRINCE2 framework offers the most complete approach by introducing the Senior User role with rights and obligations throughout the project. In general, during planning, the user provides feedback on requirements, needs and expected benefits of the project deliverables. In this role the user may, or may not, be synonymous with the customer role. Executing and Collaboration Early and thorough user involvement throughout the project is a prerequisite for project success. Users may also provide resources to the project management team. Users will describe what the requirements are, how the product is going to be used, and they will be responsible for realizing the project benefits after handover of the deliverable (IPMA, 2015, p. 148; OGC, 2009, p. 43).

56

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

PRINCE2’s Senior User may provide user resources for defining and verifying user requirements and expectations during the project. This is especially important for the management of change requests. In order to ensure compatibility with the customer’s business case, the project manager seeks the Senior User’s advice and the Senior User may escalate issues concerning the business case and project benefits (OGC, 2009, p. 97). So, throughout the project execution the users should be consulted whenever requirements need to be understood for initial scope or additional change requests. Depending on the workload of these activities, users or their managers may be requested to provide resources to the project management team. Monitoring and Controlling The involvement of customers in monitoring and controlling appears to be mainly reserved to client, sponsor or owner roles. The user’s responsibility is mainly to ensure usability of the project’s deliverables. In this sense, the Senior User from the PRINCE2 framework assumes the role of monitoring progress in terms of user benefits. The same role is also considered when it comes to risk identification, assessment and controlling (OGC, 2009, p. 88). PRINCE2’s Senior User can, however, not be compared to the user roles prescribed in other standard texts. The Senior User, within the PRINCE2 methodology, is a key representative of user interests in a project that is customer driven. PRINCE2 is a customer-centric approach and it assumes that project management is fulfilled on the customer side. Having a key representative of user interests from the same organization is considerably different than dealing with user representatives from external customer organizations. In most cases, monitoring and controlling tasks are therefore fulfilled by customers, sponsors, or owners representing the user’s interest. Closing Also during closure the user involvement in terms of formal authority is limited. In most cases it is the sponsor or customer who accepts the deliverables on behalf of the users (APM, 2012, p. 28). Again, the Senior User role in PRINCE2-governed projects needs to be considered a key stakeholder. He or she is accountable towards corporate or program management for post-project realization of benefits. This responsibility, however, also includes the operative user, and is not only left to the Senior User (OGC, 2009, p. 110). Table 2.5 summarizes the user role throughout the project management process groups. Senior User responsibilities are underlined where applicable.

2.3.3.5

Sponsor

The project sponsor can be defined as a “. . . group or person who provides resources and support for the project, program or portfolio and is accountable for enabling success” (PMI, 2013, p. 563). This definition focuses on the two most important aspects of the sponsor’s role in project management: first, to provide resources and support and, second, to enable

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

57

Table 2.5 User’s role in standard texts Initiating Determine user impact on project success Consider users of project output and seek input for requirements User reviews and approves product description

Planning and organization Determine user role and degree of involvement

Executing Users may be continuously involved in project work Implement a product Users may proback log with user- vide resources to stories the project team

User interest should be represented in project board or steering committee Users and customers may be assigned as team members to the project team (Senior User) User provides feedback on requirements, needs and expected benefits

Monitoring and controlling User’s ensure usability of project output

Closing Sponsor or customer accept deliverables on behalf of users. Senior Users Senior Users (PRINCE2) (PRINCE2) are monitors proaccountable for gress in terms of post-project realiproject benefits zation of benefits

Users define, explain and verify requirements and expectations Senior User assesses compatibility of change request with the business case

Source: Summary table (APM, 2012; Dalcher, 2014; IPMA, 2015; OGC, 2009; PMI, 2013; Turner, 2014b)

the project success. The following section will expose what this means for the previously identified process groups. Initiation Throughout all project management scholars there seems to be agreement that the sponsor should be appointed during initiation, and the project manager, too, if possible (APM, 2012, p. 27). In this circumstance the project manager sells business justification to sponsors and owners (IPMA, 2015, p. 164). This is important because the sponsor needs to make sure that the project portfolio is aligned with the strategic direction of the organization, which is a key requirement for receiving funding and resources (APM, 2012, p. 37). For this purpose, sponsor, managers and external customers determine the priorities at the beginning of the project but also during project execution (IPMA, 2015, p. 108). The sponsor leads the project through the initiation phase (PMI, 2013, p. 32). The sponsor is an important part of project management right from the start, because she is interested in the achievement of the business case and responsible for senior level commitment. The preparation of the business case, however, may be delegated to the project manager or another stakeholder (APM, 2012, pp. 12, 61). If the project takes place in a contractual setting, the sponsor may be from the client organization, which adds complexity because there are different commercial

58

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

objectives (APM, 2012, p. 37; Patzak & Rattay, 2014, p. 120). In these settings the project manager and sponsor must be aware of terms and conditions of funding and manage the funders as key stakeholders (APM, 2012, p. 170). Patzak and Rattay describe the tasks of the sponsor during project initiation as follows: – The sponsor explains the project vision to key stakeholders; – The sponsor defines goals in accordance with that vision and the necessary budget to achieve those goals; – The sponsor approves goals with the project manager. (Patzak & Rattay, 2014, p. 677) Since the project sponsor provides funding for the project he might be conceptualized as an internal or external project customer. The sponsor pursues a business interest, hence a benefit, from the project and will therefore act as a customer towards the project manager or project team. An important additional requirement for the sponsor is that he ensures senior management support as long as project and corporate goals are aligned. Planning and Organization When it comes to planning the project the sponsor is involved in setting the objectives, requirements and the scope of the project, and deals with incompletely formulated requirements and unrealistic expectations. The sponsor provides financing throughout the project, approves quality and communication plans, and can decide whether to abandon or continue a project throughout the lifecycle and should therefore be intensively involved during project planning (IPMA, 2015, p. 115; Kremer & Rohde, 2015). Ensuring adequate project governance is a key responsibility of the project sponsor. The sponsor is integrated into the project as part of the project team or he may be a representative of the customer organization, the owner or a decision body like the steering committee, the project board or corporate management (APM, 2012, p. 240; Ellmann et al., 2015a; Müller, 2014). Lists of planning tasks of the project sponsor are offered by various authors. Table 2.6 gives an overview of four of these lists in order to show similarities and differences. From the above it becomes evident that the sponsor has an important role to play during project planning. The sponsor’s tasks need to be determined and considered during planning. Executing and Collaboration Collaboration between project manager and sponsor during the execution phase requires special attention. From a project manager’s perspective, communication will be adjusted when it is directed to the project sponsor (IPMA, 2015, 115). The project sponsor, on the other hand, helps to overcome resistance to change through communication and influencing other organizational stakeholders (APM, 2012, p. 37). Thus the project sponsor works as a middle man between the project organization and the client and ensures that the right information reaches the client (Kerzner, 2013, p. 467).

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

59

Table 2.6 The sponsor’s tasks during planning and controlling GPM • Provide budget • Direct/control the project • Approval of closure • Project signoff • Release PM after the project • Alignment with corporate goals • Escalation of problems

Kerzner • Objective setting • Priority setting • Project organization • Policies • Executive client contact • Master plan • Up-front planning • Key staffing • Monitoring execution • Conflict resolution

Patzak & Rattay • Ordering project • Selection of project manager • Convey corporate culture • Align org. Goals • Strategic project decisions • Representation of project interests towards external stakeholders • Ensure org. Learning Approves project plan • Assigns sufficient resources • Defines coordination milestones

Kremer and Rohde (2015, p. 196)

Kerzner (2013, p. 467)

Patzak and Rattay (2014, p. 147, 677)

PMI • Provides resources and support • Accountable for enabling success • May be internal or external • Promotes the project • Leads through initiation phase • Significant role in determining scope and project charter • Is part of the escalation path • Ensure smooth transfer of deliverables into business PMI (2013, p. 32)

Source: Summary table, sources in table

The project manager is usually responsible for promoting the project to sponsors and defining finance structure. Therefore, the project manager keeps close contact in order to get funding from sponsor (IPMA, 2015, p. 125). Commitment from sponsors, and a good working relationship with the project manager is a success factor for projects. If sponsors are adequately engaged and their expectations are managed they might be good ambassadors for the project (APM, 2012, p. 36; IPMA, 2015, p. 148). This is also important because the project manager is supposed to challenge the project’s assumptions, which might lead to conflict between project sponsor and project manager (Kerzner, 2013, p. 475). Other reasons for a good relationship are that the project manager needs the sponsor to agree to change requests and that he might be in a position to require administrative support from the sponsor (APM, 2012, p. 20). So, during execution and collaboration the project manager and sponsor enter into a mutually beneficial relationship that allows the sponsor to promote the project within the organization and enable project success with senior stakeholders. The project manager needs a trustful relationship because, depending on the mode of project governance, there may be many situations where approval or feedback is required from the project sponsor. Monitoring and Controlling Concerning monitoring and controlling the role of the sponsor is characterized by receiving reports, corrective actions and approving changes. The project sponsor receives the project’s progress reports (Patzak & Rattay, 2014, p. 677) and is an escalation point for project controlling, agrees corrective action or decides whether to continue with remaining work (APM,

60

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

2012, p. 96). Change requests that originate from cost, time or scope controlling, as well as any other change request, may be subject to sponsor approval (Patzak & Rattay, 2014, p. 677). The sponsor and the project manager make sure that security goals meet stakeholder requirements (APM, 2012, p. 228). The sponsor uses deadlines and the budget to control the project strategically (Patzak & Rattay, 2014, p. 677). When communicating the progress to his stakeholders the sponsor might use the results of quality assurance processes to instill confidence in the project (APM, 2012, p. 193). For monitoring and controlling is therefore not only important to keep the sponsor satisfied, but also to provide him with content that he needs to promote the project. Closing During closing the similarities of the sponsor and the client role become evident. At the end of the project the sponsor approves the project presentation (Patzak & Rattay, 2014, p. 677) and accepts the project deliverables on behalf of the users (APM, 2012, p. 28). As the client, the sponsor will work for the realization of the projects benefits after project closure (APM, 2012, p. 29). Building on the relationship developed during the project, the sponsor and the project manager may work together to achieve project closure, in any case where this might be required (APM, 2012, p. 74) (Table 2.7). So, the internal or external project sponsor fulfills tasks that are similar to those of an internal project customer role. This is not surprising, since the sponsor pays for the project and approves the deliverables or benefits on behalf of the future users.

2.3.3.6

Synthesis: Client and Customer Roles in Project Management Standards

The above four sections summarize the knowledge on the various project client roles provided by the most influential project management standard texts. Comparing the summary tables, it can be concluded that Owners, Users, and Customers/Clients can be described as project customers in the narrow sense of the work, while the Sponsor can be considered as project customer in a board sense. Owners and Users represent customer roles with varying degrees of integration and levels of engagement. The Sponsor can be clearly distinguished from that by having an additional component of hierarchy as this role deals with escalations to senior management. This view is corroborated by the following arguments: – The Project Owner may be an internal or external customer, receiving the project deliverable, responsible for realizing the business benefits. In this regard, this role is a classical customer role. He or she is, furthermore, tightly integrated into project management tasks since the role includes approval, marketing and auditing tasks throughout the project. This is especially true for international projects. Whist the details of the role have to be determined during initiation, it can be concluded that the owner should be conceived as an integrated project customer (external or internal) with high levels of engagement.

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

61

Table 2.7 Sponsor’s role in standard texts Initiating Leads project through initiation phase and conveys org. culture Sponsor explains project vision to key stakeholders and defines goals

Planning and organization Sponsor is part of project team and may be customer representative Needs to be intensively involved during planning

Executing Is the primary executive client contact

Monitoring and controlling Is accountable for results of project monitoring

Continuously Receives project determines priori- reports, correcties of project tive actions and approves changes. Sponsor provides Issues high-level Assesses and Ensures organiresources and master plan and approves/declines zational learning enables project delegates detailed change requests success project planning Sponsor and PM Sponsor approves Escalates and Is part of the should be project planning resolves problems escalation path appointed at prowith senior mgt. for monitoring ject beginning or customer and controlling issues Ensures alignment Could decide Represents and Sponsor uses with strategic whether to aban- promotes project reporting to direction don the project interests to exter- instill confidence nal stakeholders in project Interested in Responsible for achieving the taking strategic business case decisions during execution Is responsible for Good, trustful senior level working relationcommitment ship between Sponsor and PM is key Approves objecProject manager will adjust comtives and priorities munication to with project sponsor’s needs manager

Closing Sponsor accepts deliverables on behalf of the users Ensures smooth transfer of deliverables to business Formally closes the project with project mgr. Approves closure and releases project manager after project end

Source: Summary table (APM, 2012; IPMA, 2015; Kerzner, 2013; Patzak & Rattay, 2014; PMI, 2013)

– The User is an external or internal customer role that serves the project by increasing the understanding of customer requirements and, hence, improving usability of project deliverables. It is clearly a customer role since it determines project success by providing input regarding the requirements and by informing other roles concerning the acceptability of deliverables. Users should be integrated into project management as subject matter experts, as soon as there are considerable knowledge gaps between operational users, clients, contractors and project management. The role of the Senior User in PRINCE2 stands apart here

62

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

since PRINCE2 is a customer approach of project management and prescribes this particular role. – The Project Customer role includes the roles of Users and Owners. The Customer describes all those roles, external or internal to the executing organization, that buy, receive, approve and make use of the project deliverables. The role can therefore be integrated and engaged with different levels of intensity. No standard texts prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution or an optimal state of customer integration. The consensus appears to be that the more complex a project is and the higher the risk, the better it is to intensively engage the project customer in it is different roles. – The Project Sponsor is a role that can be construed as a customer role in the broad sense. Client attributes of the role are clearly that the sponsor provides the necessary resources for the project, that he accepts the project deliverables on behalf of the users, and that he formally closes the project with the project manager. These client attributes are complemented with a distinctly hierarchical component. The Sponsor promotes the project with senior management and serves as an escalation point for the project organization. This hierarchical component and the high involvement is project initiation, planning, monitoring and closing reveal that the sponsor is predominantly an internal key stakeholder for project management. Although there are some examples of where the sponsor is external to focal organization, the sponsor role should be seen as an internal project customer in the large majority of the cases. The above conclusions of the sponsor’s role could serve as an indication of where efforts of customer engagement could lead to in an extreme case. If there was blind trust between contractor and client, and if both parties wanted to intensively integrate the project customer into the management of the project, the customer would assume something very similar to the role of the project sponsor. Customer issues and user involvement are critical success factors at least in IT projects (Lynch, 2015). Considering the above discussion and the level of professionalization of project management in the IT industry, it is therefore not surprising that agile project management is rooted in here. Overall, it turns out that engaging customers with agile project management methods increases the chances of success in projects of all sizes (Lynch, 2015). The increasing strain of managing a broad stakeholder base and intensively engage the project customers seems to have led to project managers to adopt agile management techniques and re-focus on customer value throughout the project. This is why the below section is dedicated to identifying how customers are engaged in this relatively new project management approach.

2.3.4

Agile Project Management and Scrum

As a response to increasingly complex projects, many organizations are starting to employ “lean”, “agile” or “extreme” project management methodologies. Over the

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

63

course of the past 3 years, it has become clear that agile project management approaches will continue to play an important role in the further development of project management in practice and academia. The sustained success of SCRUM and PMIs introduction of the certification “Agile Certified Practitioner” (PMI-ACP) are evidence for the continued importance these approaches have in project management. Since these methodologies claim to put customer value at the center of project management, it is justified to briefly review the core ideas behind these relatively new approaches. The “Manifesto for Agile Software Development” can be seen as the starting point of the current agile movement in project management. It postulates values and principles that find reflection in agile project management models within and outside of the software development industry. Starting point is the appreciation of four foundational statements: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following the plan (Beck et al., 2001)

The authors explicitly state that they do not dismiss the items on the right side, but that in case of conflict they value those on the left more. The principles underlying these value statements have been included in Agile Project Management Models to varying degrees. They read as follows: – Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software. – Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive advantage. – Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale. – Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project. – Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done. – The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation. – Working software is the primary measure of progress. – Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely. – Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility. – Simplicity—the art of maximizing the amount of work not done—is essential. – The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams. – At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly. (Beck et al., 2001) As visible from the above principles, customer focus is the first and most important principle. Customer satisfaction is considered the most important success

64

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

criterion. Changes are embraced as an opportunity to improve the customer’s business case. Business representatives work together with developers to create a solution that creates customer benefits. The team continuously seeks improvement opportunity to deliver customer value more effectively. A sort summary of the current state of Agile Project Management Methods is offered in the latest edition of the AMA Handbook of Project Management (White, 2014). For White the most important reasons for agile projects are uncertainty in requirements, new information technology with short life-cycles, shortened time-tomarket, and the flexibility that is required to respond to rapid shifts in the customer’s environment. The agile manifesto principles translate into the following features of agile project management: – – – – – – –

Customer collaboration; Collective ownership for the project results; Validation of whether the product is valid instead of verification of the process; Continuous improvement through frequent feedback; Consensus building with key stakeholders, especially the customer; Daily stand-up meetings to create transparency and remove road blocks; Breaking the product into sustainable time intervals, called timeboxing.

These are components of all major agile project management approaches including Scrum, Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM), Extreme Programming (XP), and Agile Project Management Modell (White, 2014). But how does the agile project management approach distinguish itself from traditional plan-driven project management? Traditional ‘life-cycle’ based project management approaches and agile ‘evolutionary-delivery’ models distinguish themselves in several ways. The fundamental assumption of traditional project management approaches is that the project’s product can be specified, is predictable, and will be built to detailed and extensive planning. Agile approaches assume small teams that use principles of continuous improvement, rapid testing and feedback (White, 2014). The management style in traditional methodologies is one of command and control while agile approaches build on strong leadership and collaboration. Knowledge is managed explicitly and communication formal in traditional approach while agile approaches assume tacit knowledge and informal communication. Traditional frameworks assume mechanistic and bureaucratic organizations while agile presupposes flexible and organic, smaller organizations. Heavy quality planning and control with late and heavy testing in standard project management is compared to a continuous quality control of requirements, re-designing and continuous testing (Dybå & Dingsøyr, 2008). Scholars and practitioners agree that both agile and traditional project management approaches are their merits for different types of projects. For answering the question, when to use agile project management methods, it is possible to refer to two concepts that allow classifying projects in terms predictability and complexity, the Cyenfin framework and Wysocki’s four quadrants of the project landscape. The Cynefin (welsh: pronounced ku-nev-in) framework was developed to enable leaders to deal with complexity by sorting issues into one of five categories

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

65

according to the prevalent cause-and-effect relationship. The five categories are “simple”, “Complicated”, “complex”, “chaotic”, and “disorder”. The first four are defined categories that require diagnosis and contextually adequate action from the project manager. The fifth describes a situation where it is not clear yet how the project should be classified. Each of the categories can be characterized in terms of context and allows good practices in terms of the project managers job, danger signals, and responses to those danger signals. The fifth category is difficult to recognize and may become the most dangerous. To resolve this it is recommended to break the problem down into its constituent parts and see whether these fit into one of the other frames (Snowden & Boone, 2007). The Cynefin framework is used to decide if a project should be addressed with the Scrum methodology of agile project management. For chaotic and simple problems, the Scrum approach is inadequate. If the environment of the issue seems to be in disorder, the focus should be on leaving this domain, so Scrum is not a good approach. For complicated projects, Scrum can be a feasible approach but there may be better approaches like, e.g., Six Sigma. If the project is located in the complex domain, however, Scrum is considered to be a well-suited methodology (Rubin, 2013). Another way to asses if it is adequate to employ agile project management techniques is to ask whether the project’s goal is clear from the start and whether the solution, the way to achieve the goals, is clear. By distinguishing between projects with clear and unclear goals and projects with clear and unclear solutions it is possible to form four categories of projects—the four quadrants of the project landscape: – Q1—goal clear and solution clear: Traditional projects that lend themselves to plan-driven project management – Q2—goal clear and solution not clear: Agile projects that should be handled with agile project management methods – Q3—goal not clear and solution not clear: Extreme (R&D-type) projects that require either an agile or so called “extreme: project management approaches – Q4—goal not clear and solution clear: where, e.g., a researcher is searching for applications of an existing solution, hoping to find an application (goal) that can be achieved by modifying the solution. This kind of project also requires agile or extreme project management approaches. (Wysocki, 2014, p. 312) For this dissertation, it is important to recognize that all of these approaches aim at integrating the customer and focusing on value creation of the customer. The most important difference between agile and extreme project management life cycles (PMLC) is that in extreme models the next project phase starts with re-defining the scope, while in agile, i.e. iterative or adaptive, approaches the next phase stars with planning the next cycle or iteration (Wysocki, 2014, p. 358). In summary Cynefin framework (Snowden & Boone, 2007) and the four quadrants of the project management landscape (Wysocki, 2014, p. 8) conclude that agile project management methods are usable for projects in complicated and complex environments in which either the goal of the project and/or the solution are not

66

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

entirely clear. Furthermore, in some circumstances with very high uncertainties “extreme” project management approaches might be adequate (Wysocki, 2014, p. 422). With projects becoming more international, with more dispersed and specialized knowledge to be integrated and more internal and external stakeholders, it is safe to say that projects tend to have a higher degree of complexity due to ongoing globalization and digital transformation. While agile project management originated in the software development industry, its application today extends into many other industry branches and professions. A number of authors conclude that it is possible and useful to employ agile project management tools of frameworks on non-software environments (Conforto & Amaral, 2015; Conforto, Salum, Amaral, da Silva, & de Almeida, 2014; Sutherland, Sutherland, & Hegarty, 2009). Agile project management is becoming more popular because it offers a framework to better respond to changing customer requirements in complex project settings (Serrador & Pinto, 2015). Organizations adopting agile project management principles face a number of challenges, depending on organizational and project circumstances. Observed challenges and required changes range from changes in management style and organizational culture to questions regarding the adequacy of IT-processes and tools (Lee & Yong, 2009; Misra, Kumar, & Kumar, 2009; Nerur, Mahapatra, & Mangalaraj, 2005; White, 2014). Reported challenges and organizational changes for the implementation of agile project management include, but are not limited to the following: – Empowerment may be perceived as a threat by some team members. – Accepting, in fact embracing, uncertainty may be difficult, since plans traditionally aimed at reducing risk and providing control. – With the product owner, a customer role becomes integral part of project team. This requires a change in stakeholder’s personal characteristics and changes in customer attitude. – The project manager role has to shift towards a facilitator and enabler who removes roadblocks for the project. – The requires a change in overall management style, organizational form and culture, incentives and reward systems. – The customer relationship must be conceived differently in terms of getting customer commitment, sharing knowledge, maintaining proximity, mutual respect and trust. – Process management focus needs to shift from managing the process to managing product features and stakeholders. – Project managers, team members and the customer roles need to acquire new technical and management skills. (Misra et al., 2009; Nerur et al., 2005; White, 2014) The above list shows that many of the problems associated with adopting agile project management are related to project stakeholders in general and to project customers in particular. In summary, agile project management and Scrum are putting customer value at the center of project management (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2013; White, 2014;

2.3 Project Stakeholder and Customer Management in Projects

67

Wysocki, 2014). The project customer’s role is represented by the product owner, who, in Scrum manages (or grooms) the product backlog and is responsible for realizing the benefits of the project (Rubin, 2013; Schwaber, 2004). This function is comparable to that of a project sponsor or customer, user or owner as discussed above. The difference is that the product owner is an integral part of the team and included in all important decisions. Whether the customer is only involved or committed to the project team, and whether he should be involved is an ongoing discussion and might depend strongly on the particular circumstances of the project (Rubin, 2013). Perhaps it is due to its origins in the software development industry that agile project management methods consider the product owner as the project’s customer and primary stakeholder. All attention is on how to align the project’s progress to the changing requirements of the customer. The management of larger stakeholder groups, as proposed, e.g., by PMI, APM or PRINCE2 appears to be of secondary importance in agile projects.

2.3.5

Summary: Project Customer and Stakeholder Management

The above section aims at providing an overview of stakeholder management as a framework for project customer management and review current direction for stakeholder research in project management (2.3.2), identify how customer roles are represented in current project management approaches (2.3.3) and to describe agile project management as a customer centric approach to project management (2.3.4). The sections can be summarized in the following four statements: First: Project customers have to be considered primary stakeholders that might be external or internal to the project manager’s organization. Whether the customer is part of the project organization depends on project organization and governance. Project customers have to be considered highly salient because they have a legitimate claim on the project results, their requests should be treated with urgency, and they usually except power over the project since they pay for the deliverables or benefit from the project outcomes. Second: Recent stakeholder theory is moving into the direction of inclusively engaging all relevant stakeholders that may have an impact on the project’s success. This includes, but is not limited to, external stakeholders, such as governments, local communities, human rights and environmentalist groups. The recognition that projects are becoming more complex and that in complex projects these stakeholders are critical to success, diverts the attention of the project manager towards stakeholder management and may divert attention away from the project customer.

68

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Third: The project customer may assume customer, sponsor, owner and user roles. While ‘customer’ or ‘client’ are generic terms, which do not have a particular role description, the other roles represent different customer attributes. Sponsors can be considered internal customers, due to their interest in project completion and deliverables. Owners may be internal or external and the focus is on receiving the benefits of the project’s output. Users have to be considered because they work with the project’s product in order to generate the benefits on behalf of the owner or sponsor. Fourth: The lack of a dedicated comprehensive customer management framework in projects, and the growing need to inclusively manage all important project stakeholders, are conducive to the development of project management methods that focus on the customer without straining the restricted project management resources. Agile project management promises to re-focus project management attention on customer requirements and to reduce obsolescent project planning and reporting in order to better confront increasing project complexity. In agile project management approaches the customer is a vital part of the project management team and participates on weekly or event daily project meetings. Agile approaches have been shown promising results in recent years. Section 2.3 provides a better understanding of the customer role in project management. For the purpose of this work it is also important to gain an understanding of differences in national culture and their impact on project management. This will be the focus of the following sections.

2.4 2.4.1

Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies Introduction to Cultural Differences and Intercultural Management

Building on the definitions delivered earlier, it is now necessary to see how national culture might differ, how people think about this and what can be done to help project managers to recognize cultural differences and work with them. For this it is very important understand how researchers have conceptualized cultures, beyond the definitions that were discussed earlier. Early conceptualizations of culture describe cultures as layered, with visible and invisible components. In this way culture can be seen as three layered basic assumptions at the lowest, invisible, layer. These assumptions are taken for granted and preconscious the nature if things and the relationship with the environment. Greater awareness about one’s own culture exists on the values layer, which is the middle layer. The third, and visible, layer is about behaviors, art and technology. These ‘artifacts and creations’ are visible but often not decipherable. This model by Edgar H. Schein was developed for organizational culture but also reflects the basic patterns of national culture (Schein, 1984).

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

69

Another layer-model of culture was developed by Hall (first published in 1976) in his book ‘Beyond Culture’, and is referred to as the iceberg model of culture. This model also distinguishes between the visible components of culture, like behaviors or customs, and the invisible below-the-surface components, which include, attitudes, perceptions, believes and values (Hall, 1989a). More recent concepts of culture subscribe to the notion of visible and invisible components of culture, but visualize these components in circular form. Hofstede’s ‘onion-concept’ of culture, for example, shows values at the invisible core of the circle surrounded by rituals, heroes, and symbols as visible and observable components of culture (Hofstede et al., 2010, pp. 7–10). Another circular model of culture is offered by Trompenaars and HampdenTurner (2012). In this model, implicit basic assumptions constitute the core of the circle, surrounded by norms and values, which are also invisible. The third, outside, ring is the explicit component of artifacts and products, the observable components of culture (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012, pp. 28–32). So, culture seems to have visible layers, consisting in observable behaviors and artefacts and heroes, and at least two hidden layers, one of norms and beliefs, and another inner layer consisting in basic assumptions and values. To improve the understanding of how these layers are different, how this affects intercultural projects and how to manage these differences is the aim of this section. To explain how cultures are different, the next section will review cultural dimensions. How intercultural actors deal with these differences is assessed in section thereafter, before the final section will synthesize the most important elements for the purpose of this dissertation.

2.4.2

Models of Cultural Dimensions

2.4.2.1

Introduction to Cultural Dimensions

Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) are widely credited with postulating one of the first ‘dimensional’ approaches to identifying differences in cultural values among social groups. Their five value orientations and the postulated ranges find reflection in almost all later studies of cultural differences. Their ‘dimensions’ refer to (1) assumptions about the human nature, which can be good, evil, neutral/mixed, (2) the relationship man-to-nature, i.e. whether humans are subjugated to or masters of nature, (3) time-orientation, postulating past-, present, or future-orientation, (4) how activity is perceived, i.e. as being, becoming, or doing, and (5) referring to how people relate to each other, which can be in linear, collateral or individualist fashion. Even though their study was not based on national cultures, but on US-American sub-cultures, it lays out some of the fundamental cultural differences between social groupings (Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961, p. 12). Since then, cultural dimensions have been used by several authors to conceptualize cultural differences. Approaches of describing cultural differences along

70

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

cultural dimensions became popular because of their anecdotal potential and the ability to grasp the complexities of culture in a limited number of dimensions. Proponents of cultural dimensions have been heavily criticized for reducing the complexities and riches of cultural particularities into simplistic categories and preparing the ground for misleading stereotypes and generalizations (Bolten, 2012, p. 140). Nevertheless, studying cultural dimensions has been very influential and can be considered an analytical approach to intercultural management that provides a framework for analysis and, hence, an opportunity to postpone judgment (Adler, 2007, pp. 73–95). This is the reason, why it is worth to reviewing existing frameworks of cultural dimensions for the purpose of identifying potential pitfalls for project management later on.

2.4.2.2

Edward T. Hall’s Work on Cultural Difference

US anthropologist and communication scientist Edward Twitchell Hall is an early proponent of studying intercultural communication. He is often credited with creating the scientific field of cross-cultural or intercultural communication. Over the course of his career, Hall published several books that summarize his findings of cultural differences along cultural dimensions. For Hall “culture is communication” (Hall, 1990a, pp. 1–6; Hall, 1990b, pp. 94–101), and the impact of culture is mainly on non-verbal aspects of communication. Already in The Silent Language, which was first published in 1959, Hall lays out the principles on cultural differences he is studying, non-verbal communication, context in communication, different conceptions of time, and differences in space and distance (Hall, 1990b). Physical Distance In his book The Hidden Dimension, which was first published in 1966, Hall introduces the science of proxemics in animal and man. After a detailed description of the physiological foundations in animals and man, the work continues to introduce human perceptions of distance and space and their implications for language art and architecture. Cross-cultural examples include comparisons of the US perspective with those of Germans, English, French, Japanese and Arabs. Hall proposes a system of different distances consisting of Intimate, Personal, Social and Public Distance. Later he discusses implications for personal space requirements, office and work spaces, the meaning of doors and internalized privacy mechanisms and the appropriate loudness of voice in different national cultures (Hall, 1990a). While presenting very detailed observations on the way in which animal and man communicate through physical distance, the intercultural analysis remains anecdotal and is limited to differences in Germany, France, UK, Japan and Arabia. Hall’s work must be considered the groundwork for the scientific discussion of cultural differences. Context The difference between high-context and low-context communication is introduced and discussed in Hall’s book Beyond Culture, which was first published in 1976. Hall argues that the high- or low-context continuum is interdependent with

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

71

the perceptive filters that we use to selectively perceive important information. These filters of selective perception are learned during the process of socialization. Depending on one’s culture, contextual information may be of higher or lower importance for conveying the message. High-context communication can be defined as a “. . . message in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message” (Hall, 1989a, p. 91). For the case of low context communication, this would just be the opposite. While high-context communication can be faster, more economical and satisfying, it is necessary to pay attention to the contextual part of the message, which is only possible by learning the selective perceptual filters, by ‘programming’ as Hall calls it (Hall, 1989a, p. 101). Hall uses the example of legal systems to describe differences in the amount of context that is necessary to assess a situation or an incident. Hall regards the US to be a low-context culture with a preference for yes-or-no answers in judicial trials. The French culture contains components of both high- and low-context cultures while the Japanese judicial system displays many examples of high-context situations. In business situations it is argued that high-context people take much more into account and that, since in high-context cultures individuals expect more from each other, managers personally assume responsibility for the actions of their subordinates, all of which is quite different in the US (Hall, 1989a). With the identification of differences in national culture concerning high-context and low-context communication Hall introduced a cultural dimension that proves useful for practitioners and will also be used in the present study. Understanding differences in the amount of context necessary for effective communication is an important precursor for understanding differences in the understanding and conceptualization of time. Time In The Dance of Life, first published in 1983, Hall identifies cultural differences along a continuum ranging from ‘Monochronic’ to ‘Polychronic’ conceptualizations of time. The distinction is based on the observation that there are at least two different ways of organizing time: The Northern-European ‘one-thing-at-a-time’ and the Southern European ‘several-things-at-a-time’. Doing several things in parallel is dubbed ‘polychronic’ or P-Time. Following a sequential approach to organizing time is called ‘monochronic’ or M-Time (Hall, 1989b, p. 46). Polychronic cultures are described as having the following characteristics: – – – – – – –

Time is not experienced as being wasted. Time is rather a point than a ribbon or line. Squeezing-in time for a person is expected. People are deeply immersed in each other’s affairs. P-Time individuals gain deep knowledge of each other’s lives. It is important to have a friend or be an insider in order to get things done. Scheduling tasks for subordinates will be perceived as a violation of individuality. – Organizations proliferate bureaucracies, are limited in size, and slow when facing new situations because they are people-centric.

72

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Monochronic cultures are described in the following ways: – – – – – –

There is only a limited number of events within a given time period. Concentrate on one thing at a time, but it also reduces the context. Time might be saved, spent, wasted, killed, made-up, and so on. M-Time intensifies relationships by sealing off one or two persons from others. Squeezing-in time for another person may be seen as rude or egocentric. M-Time individuals do not tend to see their actions in the context of the larger whole. – Organizations grow larger, combine bureaucracies, but might become antihuman conglomerate super-departments. As a result, M-Time individuals in a P-Time environment may feel disappointed and frustrated because, e.g., at the hairdresser, time for friends or family will be squeezed-in which leads to waiting (Hall, 1989b, pp. 46–54). Repercussions of these differences are explained comparing the German, M-Time, system with the French polychronic concept of time. In France, managers will exercise control over employees’ time, even after office hours or on weekends, while this would be less permissible in a German context. Agendas and time tables are indispensable in German organizations, while in France, agendas must be more fluid, to accommodate adjustments to the respective context (Hall, 1989b, pp. 117–122). Information Flow Another distinct feature between cultures described by Hall and Hall (1990) is the way in which information is spreading through organizations. Countries with fast and free information flow, high-flow countries, are typically high context communication countries with close physical involvement. Examples of such countries are Japan and Spain. Low-flow, countries with slow information flow, are monochronic and low context countries in which information is compartmentalized and can not flow freely between departments and actors. Examples for low-flow countries are the US and Germany. In summary, Hall’s work reveals four dimensions in which national cultures can be distinguished. Table 2.8 summarizes these dimensions, describes the main differences, and gives some examples. The definitions and examples are a summary of Hall’s descriptions and explanations. The countries should be seen as examples only. They do not necessarily represent the extreme ends of the respective continuum, nor are they representative for the other countries. They were included only for demonstrative reasons to facilitate understanding of the cultural dimensions. Influenced by Hall’s research, there have been several authors that further developed the idea of cultural dimensions. The following sections will therefore focus on the most important, and more recent, approaches to measuring differences in national cultures in cultural dimensions.

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

73

Table 2.8 Summary of Hall’s cultural dimensions Cultural dimension Physical distance

Context

Time

Information processing

Continuum of each dimension Close: National cultures where the distance between two interlocutors is relatively close. (E.g., France, Spain, Costa Rica) High context: National cultures where the physical, situational, or personal context is a significant part of the message. (E.g., Japan, France, Italy) Polychronic: A concept of time in which many things are done in parallel, relationships prevail over schedules and the context determines appropriate timing. (E.g., France, Italy, Brazil) Fast information flow: Information moves across people and departments rabidly. It is very important to stay in touch and connected to informal communication cycles. (Japan, Spain)

Far: National cultures where the appropriate distance between two interlocutors is relatively far. (E.g., Germany, China) Low context: National cultures where the message is rather independent from the physical, situational or personal context. (E.g., Germany, UK, US) Monochronic: A concept of time in which things are done one after the other, schedules organize the days and time tables are usually followed. (E.g., Germany, Switzerland) Slow information flow: Information is focused, compartmentalized and can not flow freely through organization. This is associated with low context and monochronic time. (US, Germany)

Source: Hall (1989a, 1989b, 1990a, 1990b) and Hall & Hall (1990)

2.4.2.3

Hofstede’s Model of Cultural Dimensions

One of the most influential contributions to the study of cultural differences is the work of Hofstede et al., which is based on empirical research conducted with IBM employees worldwide in the 1970s and was complemented with a Chinese Value Survey, conducted with students in 1985. Most recently an analysis of the World Value Survey was included with data collected during the early 2000s. The original analysis empirically corroborated earlier work (Inkeles & Levinson, 1969) and common social problems and how different societies find different sets of answers to them. The cultural dimensions established by this early work are Power Distance (high/low), Collectivism vs. Individualism, Femininity vs. Masculinity, and Uncertainty Avoidance. Recognizing the Western cultural bias the Chinese Value Survey was introduced which eventually led to the inclusion of a fifth dimension, Long Term Orientation. Most recently, based on the empirical data on the World Value Survey another dimension has been added, called Indulgence versus Restrained (Hofstede et al., 2010). Each dimension will be briefly introduced below: Power Distance The survey items that are included in this dimension are ‘fear to express disagreement with the boss’, ‘percentage of actual paternalistic or autocratic decision style of the boss’, and ‘percentage of preferred/desired decision style of the boss’, identified according to their correlation with each other. Based on these variables Power Distance is defined as “. . . the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that

74

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 61). In the workplace, for example, high Power Distance would mean that centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and a high salary between the top and the bottom of the organization would be acceptable (Hofstede et al., 2010). Collectivism vs. Individualism For measuring this dimension the researchers eventually used six variables from the survey and their correlations among each other. It was discovered that countries in which individuals wanted “. . . to have a job that leaves you sufficient time for your personal or family life” by tendency also wanted “. . . to have considerable freedom to adopt your own approach to the job” and “. . . to have challenging work to do—work from which you can get a personal sense of accomplishment” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 92). Together these three variables were used to measure Individualism. Furthermore, it was discovered that these countries, by tendency displayed a lower desire to “. . . have training opportunities”, “. . . have good working conditions”, “. . . fully use your skills and abilities on the job”, which were considered variables to measure collectivism (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 93). In individualist societies “. . . everyone is expected to look after him of herself and his or her immediate family” and in collectivist societies “. . . people from birth onward are integrated in strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetimes continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 92). Direct individual feedback is considered inappropriate in collectivist, and appropriate in individualist, environments. In one society management is always considered as managing groups, in the other it is managing individuals (Hofstede et al., 2010). Femininity vs. Masculinity This dimension was extracted from the same set of ‘work-goal-questions’ than the above Individualism-Collectivism dimension. Except for the “challenging work” variable, mentioned above, they do not overlap in what was measured, however. Relevant work goals for the masculine extreme of the dimension are earnings opportunities (1), personal recognition (2), career advancement (3), and challenging work (4). Those for the feminine extreme are good relationship with superiors (5), quality of cooperation (6), living in a desirable area (7), and secure employment (8). The dimension received its name since it was the only dimension where the researchers could find consistent differences between male and female respondents on the above variables 1–3 and 5–6. A masculine society is therefore defined as one in which “. . . emotional gender roles are clearly distinct: men are responsible to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with quality of life” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 140). In the extreme end of feminist societies, it was not possible to observe the distinct differences between men and women. Therefore a society is considered feminine “. . . when emotional gender roles overlap: both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 140). Implications for business and the workplace include, but are not limited to whether management requires intuition and consensus building (feminine) or decisiveness and

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

75

assertiveness (masculine), whether more leisure time or more money is a motivator, or whether career progress is considered compulsory or optional (Hofstede et al., 2010). Uncertainty Avoidance This dimension deals with the question “. . . to which extent the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 191). This dimension is based on consistent, correlated differences of country means on the following variables: stress levels or feeling nervous at work, rule orientation (or whether rules should be broken if it is convenient for the company), and the desire of employees to stay with IBM for a long time. For the work environment, this might lead to higher employee turnover in societies with weak uncertainty avoidance, and to a preference for experts and technical solutions in high uncertainty environments over generalists and common sense in weak uncertainty avoidance cultures. Weak uncertainty avoiders, by tendency, would be better at invention and worse at implementation, and strong uncertainty avoiders vice versa (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 208–217). Long Term Orientation Originally this dimension was introduced to the model based on the Chinese Value Survey (CVS) after recognizing that some differences between Western countries and eastern Asian countries could not be explained with the initial four dimensions. In order to avoid a Western cultural bias, the survey was developed by researchers at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, translated, and administered to students in 23 countries around the world in 1985. From the results the research team was able extract one additional dimension that was not found previously because the right questions had not been asked. The decision to include it into the model was corroborated by the finding that this dimension correlated with economic growth. Long term orientation is defined as “. . . the fostering of virtues oriented towards future rewards—in particular, perseverance and thrift”. Short term orientation, on the other hand, is defined as “. . . the fostering of virtues related to the past and present—in particular, respect for tradition, preservation of ‘face’, and fulfilling social obligations” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 239). Management implications of cultural differences on this dimension of the CVS are, among others, that in short term oriented societies the bottom line results are much more important than the process or the qualitative market position of the company. In long term oriented societies, it is important to invest in lifelong personal networks while in short term oriented economies loyalty often changes with business needs. While in long term oriented societies wide economic and social differences are not desired, the meritocratic argument justifies these differences in the short term oriented economies (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 251). The Chinese Values Survey was corroborated and extended by Hofstede et al. (2010) analysis of the World Value Survey (WVS) (Hofstede et al., 2010). The WVS is conducted by a global network of social scientists, administering a common questionnaire to currently almost 400,000 respondents. The surveys are conducted in waves of 4–5 years each since 1981. Currently data is available for six waves, the latest data being collected between 2010 and 2014. It is the world’s largest

76

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

non-commercial long term investigation into human beliefs and values and it covers all of the world’s major cultural zones (WVSA, 2017). From the WVS three items were used to calculate a WVS-based Long Term Orientation index, which offered the advantage of covering significantly more countries that the 23 country Chinese Values Survey. The three variables identified were ‘thrift as a desirable trait for children’, ‘national pride’, and ‘the importance of service to others’. The results were not identical, and six countries noticeably changed their relative position on the list: Pakistan, Germany, and the UK showed stronger long term orientation, while Australia, Brazil, and Hong Kong moved towards short term orientation. Implications for business and (project) management include but are not limited to national pride in short term oriented countries and the openness to learn from other countries in long term oriented countries. Also, the tendency to attribute failure or success to either luck (short term oriented societies) or one’s own efforts (in long term oriented societies) can be explained by this dimension (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 252–275). Indulgence vs. Restraint The most recent addition to Hofstede’s model is the Indulgence vs. Restraint dimension. While Long Term Orientation is partially based on the WVS, the IVR dimension is completely extracted from that survey. Three items from the survey were selected for this dimension of cultural differences. Happiness, i.e., the overall percentage of respondents stating that they feel very happy, is the first variable that was measured. It can be predicted by two other variables which are: Life Control, i.e., the percentage of people who feel they have free choice over their lives, and the Importance of Leisure (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 280–281). Based on this Indulgence is defined as “. . . a tendency to allow relatively free gratification of basic and national human desires related to enjoying life and having fun” and Restraint as “. . . a conviction that such gratification needs to be curbed and regulated by strict social norms” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 281). Practical implications of cultural differences on this cultural dimension in business and management include, e.g., the importance of thrift, which is higher in restrained societies, the impression of being able to determine your own fate, which is higher in indulgent societies, or even the use of e-mails for private purposes which is higher in restrained countries (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 296–297). A summary of the cultural dimensions according to Hofstede is provided in Table 2.9. The descriptions are extracted directly from Hofstede et al. (2010) and the countries/regions are added with the purpose of showing examples form different geographical surroundings.

2.4.2.4

Trompenaars’ and Hampden-Turner’s Cultural Dimensions

Another perspective on cultural differences and cultural dimensions is offered by Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hamden-Turner in Riding the Waves of Culture, which was first published in 1993 (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012).

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

77

Table 2.9 Summary of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions Cultural dimension Power Distance

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Masculinity vs. Femininity

Uncertainty Avoidance

Long Term Orientation

Indulgence vs. Restraint

Continuum of each dimension Low: Unequal distribution of power and salaries is not desired. Ideal boss is ‘resourceful democrat’. (Denmark, New Zealand, German Switzerland, Sweden) Collectivist: Individuals are members of strong cohesive groups, which protect them and demand loyalty. (Guatemala, Panama, Colombia, Pakistan, Costa Rica) Feminine: Societies that appreciate monetary earnings, recognition career advancement, and challenging work. (Scandinavia, Baltic States, Slovenia, Costa Rica, Chile) Weak: Members of the society no not easily feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations. (Singapore, Jamaica, Sweden, Denmark, China, Ireland, UK) Long Term: Values that emphasize future rewards like, e.g., perseverance and thrift. (East Asian Countries, Ukraine, Germany) Indulgent: Society that allows relatively free gratification of needs. (Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Nigeria, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia)

High: Unequal distribution of power and salaries is accepted. Ideal boss is ‘good father’. (Guatemala, Russia, Philippines, Arab countries) Individualist: Ties between individuals are loose and people look after themselves and their immediate family. (USA, Australia, UK, Netherlands, Italy) Masculine: Societies that favor good work relationships, cooperation, living environment, and employment security (Slovakia, Japan, German Switzerland, Italy, Mexico) Strong: Members of the society feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations more easily. (Greece, Portugal, Guatemala, Belgium, Russia) Short Term: Value that emphasize past and present, like, e.g., traditions, keeping ‘face’ and social obligations. (Puerto Rico, Egypt, Nigeria, Colombia) Restraint: Society that such gratification needs to be curbed and regulated. (Pakistan, Egypt, Albania, Lithuania, Hong Kong, Burkina Faso)

Source: Hofstede et al. (2010)

The authors present three categories on how different culture find varying solutions to problems. These three categories are: how human beings relate to each other, to time and to the environment. Five of the presented categories fall into the first category, the other categories have one dimension each (Trompenaars & HampdenTurner, 2012). Each dimension will be presented and summarized briefly below, before Table 2.10 summarizes these dimensions. Universalist vs. Particularist This dimension, proposed by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2012), is part of the category that deals with how human beings relate to each other. It can also be expressed as ‘rules versus relationship’. The dimension rests on the recognition that there are some societies in which rules apply equally to all members and across all situation, and other societies that need more

78

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 2.10 Summary of Trompenaars’ cultural dimensions Cultural dimension Universalist vs Particularist

Individualism vs. Communitarianism Affective vs Neutral

Specific vs Diffuse

Achievement vs Ascription

Sequential vs Synchronic Time Past-Present-Future Oriented

Internal vs External Locus of Control

Continuum of each dimension Particularist: The application of rules should consider the situation and the personal relationship. Communitarianism: People in these cultures regard themselves primarily as part of a group. Affective: Members of these cultures show emotions openly altering speed and tone of voice and non-verbal communication. Diffuse: In diffuse cultures people get involved deeper into each other’s lives. Once two people become involved, they tend to be involved in many diffuse areas. Achievement: Societies that confer status to people based on their achievements. Achieved status is based don ‘doing’. Synchronic: Time allows for several tasks and works to be done in parallel. Past: Focus on tradition family and history. Motivated by restoring past glory.

External: Members of these cultures see nature and the environment as given, hence human beings have to adapt. There is little control over the own fate.

Universalist: Rules should be applied equally to all members of society, regardless of your relationship or the situation. Individualist: People in these cultures regard themselves primarily as individuals. Neutral: Members of these cultures do show emotions openly and maintain neutral verbal and non-verbal communication. Specific: In specific cultures people do not usually get involved in each other’s private lives. People get involved on specific issues and not further. Ascription: Societies that accord status in function of, e.g., age, class, gender, or education. Ascribed status is based on ‘being’. Sequential: Time is thought of as a series of events one after the other. Present: Focus Future: Focus on on the ‘here-and- potential, prosnow’, on relapects, aspirations. tionships and Use present & contemporary past for future impact. advantage. Internal: it is always worth trying to control natural, or external forces. What happens to one, is his/her own doing.

Source: Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2012)

flexibility in applying such rules to the particular relationship or situation at hand. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2012) operationalized this dimension by asking variations of the question whether individuals believe that friends have a right to expect false testimony from a friend to avoid punishment. The combined answer scores and rankings of countries changed considerably, depending on how the question was framed and which kind of implications a false statement would have for the friend or other involved parties. Examples for management implications for this dimension include when contracts are needed or to which degree they are

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

79

changeable, based on which criteria trust is awarded, and to which degree ‘getting down to business’ or ‘getting to know each other’ is recommendable when dealing with business partners (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012, p. 39–63). Individualism vs. Communitarianism This is the second cultural dimension included in Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s (2012) work. It explains how people in different cultures relate to each other differently. On this dimension, the continuum spans from cultures in which the persons consider themselves primarily as part of an interdependent group, or as an independent individual. The dimension is operationalized by asking, e.g., whether personal freedom improves the quality of life or mutual caring for each other, even if it obstructs individual freedom. Other variables that are used to explain differences are whether individuals or teams are credited for successes or should be held responsible for errors. Implications of this cultural dimension are, e.g., that in communitarian cultures decisions often have to be referred back to management or other parts of the organization. While negotiators from individualist cultures can commit their organization, their communitarian counterparts may agree tentatively at first and must consult with their superiors. Employee turnover and job mobility should be expected to be higher in individualist societies. Identifying excellent performers and giving them special rewards works in individualist societies, but less so in communitarian environments (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012, p. 65–86). Affective vs. Neutral In this dimension Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner describe different ways in which members of a culture communicate differently. It involves verbal and non-verbal communications patterns and is operationalized by asking whether the respondents would show their feelings openly if they are upset by something in their working environment. Differences include different styles ad rhythms of communications, the tone of voice, and non-verbal communications, which might all differ quite strongly among countries. Practical management implications of this are that it is important to interpret ‘emotional outbreaks’ or ‘uncomfortable silence’ on side of members of other cultural environments. Members of affective cultures dealing with neutral cultures should try to be as specific as possible, put as much as possible on paper and understand the focus on the business proposition. For members of neutral culture societies it would be good advice to prepare for tolerating emotional scenes, greet their goodwill warmly and try to understand the personalities involved in the business proposition (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012, p. 87–99). Specific vs. Diffuse For the introduction of this dimension Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2012) uses Kurt Lewin’s model of G-type (for German) and U-type (for US) circles of life-spaces (Lewin, 1936). In diffuse cultures people get involved deeper into each other’s lives. Once two people become involved, they tend to be involved in many diffuse areas. In specific cultures, people do not usually get involved in each other’s private lives. People get involved on specific issues and not necessarily further. The dimension is explained with two empirical variables. One in which respondents are asked whether the superior can ask a subordinate to help him

80

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

paint is private house. The other question is concerned with whether a company should provide housing for its employees. Practical repercussions of cultural differences on this dimension include that in diffuse culture a proper appreciation of title, age and background connections of the other person is expected, while in more specific environments these things are less important. Meetings in diffuse cultures may be less structured and more flexible regarding the content than in specific cultures. Private and business relationships overlap in diffuse countries and in specific countries colleagues only seldom become friends. In order to avoid misunderstanding it is recommendable to start a meeting or a presentation with an executive summary and end it with an overview of conclusions (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012, p. 101–124). Achievement vs. Ascription This dimension is Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner’s (2012) fifth dimension concerned with how people relate to each other in different cultures. In this case, the differences that are described address how status is awarded to members of a culture. The dimension ranges from achievement oriented cultures, in which status is achieved through performance, to ascription oriented cultures, in which status is awarded based on, e.g., age, education in earlier life, class, or gender. Achievement vs Ascription is explained by two variables that respondents were asked. The first was related to whether it is important to be true to oneself even if nothing is achieved and the second related to the respect a person earns only by belonging to the ‘right’ family. Examples for business implications for these differences are the importance of having older, senior management members in your team and people with formal titles when dealing with members from ascription oriented societies. When dealing with achievement oriented business partners it is important to ensure a high level of data, technical expertise, and experienced people. The use of formal titles will matter more in ascription oriented countries than in achievement oriented countries. Management by objectives and performance oriented pay will be less effective in ascription oriented societies (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012, p. 125–145). Sequential vs. Synchronic Time This dimension falls into the category of how human beings relate to time. The two ends of this continuum are labeled Sequential Time and Synchronic Time. The former relates to societies in which time is seen as a series of events after another, and the latter as many different activities or tasks at the same time. The difference between sequential and synchronic is no further operationalized. The authors refer to Hall (discussed above) for explanation. Effects on business and management are, e.g., that the meaning of appointments and schedules might vary between different cultures and that in synchronic countries relationships trump schedules (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012). Past, Present, Future Orientation Another distinction between cultures is that they emphasize the past, the present, and the future differently. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner present empirical findings for Long- vs Short Term orientation based on how the respondents evaluated when their personal past, present, and future started and ended. The subjects could choose between the words years, months,

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

81

weeks, days, hours, minutes and seconds. Practical implications for working with these cultural differences are, e.g., that in past oriented cultures planning should be routed in traditions and history and motivated by replicating past achievements. For present oriented cultures, planning does not have great importance, while future oriented environments will plan and generate strategies for future growth more enthusiastically. External vs. Internal Locus of Control To what degree do members of different cultures perceive that they have control over their lives, organization, environments? That is the question that lies behind the seventh of Trompenaars’ and HampdenTurners’ dimensions. The dimension is measured by asking members of different cultures two sets of questions. The fist is directed to whether it is worthwhile trying to control natural forces, the second deals with the ability to determine one’s own fate. The authors found a wide range of variance among national cultures which led them to develop some practical recommendations for business. Cultures that emphasize an internal locus of control tend to expose more aggressive, assertive behavior in business. Conflict is a sign that people are committed and disagreements are discussed openly. Individuals with an internal locus of control favor maintaining a relationship and harmony over open disagreement and conflict. Persistence, politeness and patience will get more sustainable results that assertive approaches (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012, p. 173–191). A summary of the dimensions of Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner is provided in Table 2.10. The dimensions are briefly explained and exemplified. Example countries are not listed since the different variables produced very different results and were not always comparable.

2.4.2.5

Cultural Dimensions of the GLOBE-Study

Among the largest and more recent works on intercultural management and leadership is the GLOBE study which is published in ‘Culture, Leadership, and Organizations—The GLOBE Study on 62 societies’. The study is based on data collected between 1994 and 1997 and includes from about 17.000 middle managers from 951 organizations in 62 societies. The study identifies and quantifies nine cultural dimensions as independent variables of the research project: Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance, Institutional Collectivism, In-Group Collectivism, Gender Egalitarianism, Assertiveness, Future Orientation, Performance Orientation, Humane Orientation (House, 2004; House & Javidan, 2004). Six of these dimensions, i.e. ‘Power Distance’, ‘Uncertainty Avoidance’, ‘Institutional and In-Group Collectivism’, ‘Gender Egalitarianism’, and ‘Future Orientation’ were inspired by Hofstede’s earlier studies. GLOBE corroborates Hofstede’s empirical findings with regards to relevant cultural differences and dimensions. Hofstede’s Individualism dimension is split into ‘Institutional Collectivism’ and ‘In-Group Collectivism’. The ‘Masculinity vs. Femininity’ dimension becomes ‘Gender Egalitarianism’, ‘Long Term Orientation’ becomes ‘Future Orientation’

82

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

and is measured differently. Performance Orientation, Gender Egalitarianism, Assertiveness, the two types of collectivism, and Humane Orientation are those dimensions that differ significantly either in conceptual terms or in measurement form Hofstede (House & Javidan, 2004). This section will therefore focus on those factors that are different from those mentioned by Hofstede’s framework. This is because the aim is to identify ways in which cultures are different and can be described along different analytical dimensions conceptually. How single countries score on these variables and what these scores mean is not considered relevant for the purpose of this work. Performance Orientation For the GLOBE study the definition of performance oriented cultures can be summarized as those societies that “. . . tend to value those individuals and groups that produce results and accomplish their assignments” (Javidan, 2004, p. 245). Qualitative descriptions of a highly performance oriented society are, e.g., that individuals expect challenging targets, require feedback for improvement, value direct and explicit communication, tend to have a monochronic time concept and value individual monetary performance rewards. In less performance oriented societies, individuals appreciate loyalty and harmony, view critical feedback as disruptive, value traditions, and tend to have a polychronic understanding of time (Javidan, 2004). The dimension is measured with two sets of questions regarding the respondent’s society and organization asking for the status quo and how the situation ought to be. For this dimension in particular, the questions are whether continuous performance improvement is/should be encouraged in society and organization. The ‘as-is’ question is taken as an indicator for ‘Practices’ and the ‘should be’ question as an indicator for ‘Values’. Examples for countries with highly performance orientated practices are Switzerland, Singapore, South Africa, Iran, and USA. Examples for societies with highly performance oriented values are El Salvador, Zimbabwe, Colombia, Slovenia, and Namibia. The correlation between the two variables is found to be weak, supporting the argument that, independent from the current practices, high performance orientation is desired as a basic human attribute (Javidan, 2004). Gender Egalitarianism The reason why Hofstede labeled his Masculinity/Femininity dimension this way was that it was the only dimension in which male and female respondents significantly differed from each other. The dimension was measured as a combination of a societies preference for ‘masculine’ values, such as opportunity for career advancement or high earnings, or for ‘feminine’ values such as cooperation and good working relationships (Hofstede et al., 2010). The GLOBE researchers found it advisable to differentiate between the different components and to try to measure ‘Assertiveness’, ‘Performance Orientation’, and ‘Gender Egalitarianism’ in distinct dimensions. A high tendency for equality between the genders would therefore score towards ‘High Gender Equality’ and lower societal preferences for equality would score closer to “Low Gender Equality’. By tendency societies that score higher on Gender Egalitarianism tend to have more,

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

83

and better educated women in the workforce, in positions of authority in community and businesses (Emrich, Denmark, & Den Hartog, 2004). As with the other dimensions, Gender Egalitarianism was measured with eight questions, four for organizational and four for societal scores and within these groups a distinction was made as to ‘as-is/practices’ and ‘should be/values’. The questions for the societal scores were whether boys are/should be encouraged more than girls to get higher education, whether men or women are/should be more likely to serve on a position of high office. Countries that exposed high gender egalitarian practices include Hungary, Poland, Denmark, Namibia, Sweden and Colombia. Kuwait and South Korea score low on this scale, meaning that, as a tendency, boys are encouraged more than girls to get higher education and men are more likely to serve in high positions. On the values scale, measuring what should be, countries like England, Sweden, Portugal, Australia, Colombia, and Brazil are scoring high on egalitarian attitudes. This means that in these countries respondents tended to state that boys should not be encouraged more that girls to get higher education and that leadership opportunities should be more available to women than to men. The opposite is true for Kuwait, Qatar, and Egypt. Most of the countries score The results on the value and practice scales are weakly correlated, which means that many countries that are relatively gender egalitarian also tend express the desire that women and men should have equal education and opportunity (Emrich et al., 2004). Assertiveness As mentioned previously, this dimension was inspired by the Masculinity vs. Femininity dimension of Hofstede. Assertiveness as a cultural dimension can be defined as a shared believe that individuals are or ought to be assertive, tough, or even aggressive. The other pole of this dimension would be characterized as nonassertive, nonaggressive, or tender. Members of assertive societies will tend to value dominant and tough behavior, sympathize with the strong, appreciate competition, success and progress, and believe that success is a function of hard work. Members of nonassertive societies, on the other hand, will tend to have sympathy with the weaker members of society, prefer cooperation and warm relationships, and appreciate modesty. For societies and organizations this dimension is operationalized through four questions asking relatively direct if people are (as is/practice) or ought to be (should be/values) assertive/nonassertive or tough/ tender. The study shows that there is a weak, but significant negative correlation between the country scores of values and practices. This means that peoples values and wishes for assertiveness in their societies and the currently perceived levels are modestly related. For many countries, it is evident people would prefer lower levels of assertiveness than the amount currently perceived. Examples for countries that were found to have high levels of assertive practices are Albania, Nigeria, Hong Kong, Germany, and El Salvador. Countries that exposed high assertiveness values, stating that people should be encouraged to be assertive and to be tough are Japan, China, Iran, Hong Kong, and India (Den Hartog, 2004). Collectivism To achieve a differentiated analysis of collectivism or individualism across various cultures, the GLOBE study divided the individualism-collectivism

84

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

dimension into In-Group Collectivism and Institutional Collectivism. In-Group collectivism refers to family integrity and was inspired by Triandis and colleagues (Triandis et al., 1986). Institutional Collectivism refers to non-kin collectivism as proposed by other authors (Realo, Allik, & Vadi, 1997; Rhee, Uleman, & Lee, 1996). As for the other dimensions, collectivism was measured on societal and organizational level and on values (should be) and practices (as is) level. For the In-Group Collectivism dimension questions were asked if children/parents are/should be taking pride in the achievements of their parents/children. For the Institutional Collectivism dimension was operationalized by questions if leaders in the society are/should be encouraging group loyalty even at the expense of individuals and if the economic system is/should be designed to maximize individual or collective interests. The data form the In-Group Collectivism (practice) dimension is found to correlate strongly with Hofstede’s individualism/collectivism dimension and other studies. This indicates the collectivist traits in societies are very stable over time. Countries that score highest on this dimension are Philippines, Georgia Iran, India, Turkey, Zambia, Ecuador and China. The results from the Institutional Collectivism (practices) dimension seem to measure something different though. A relationship between countries that score high on this dimension and future and performance orientation combined with low assertiveness is suggested. Countries that score very high on this dimension are, e.g., Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark and Finland, countries that at the same time score very low on In-Group Collectivism practices (Gelfand, Bhawuk, Hisae Nishii, & Bechtold, 2004). Humane Orientation Humane Orientation as a cultural dimension is associated with encouraging fairness, altruism, friendliness, generosity, caring, and kindness (House & Javidan, 2004). On the societal level this dimension is operationalized by asking if the members of the society are, or should be, generally concerned for, or sensitive towards, others. The same questions are asked for members of an organization in those societies for the organizational part of the analysis. Countries that score high on the societal values dimension are Nigeria, Finland, Singapore, and Austria. Countries in which societal Humane Orientation is perceived at high current levels are Zamia, Philippines, Ireland, Malaysia, Thailand, and Egypt. It is noteworthy that eight of the ten countries that score low on this indicator (Germany, Spain, Greece, Hungary, France, Switzerland, Poland, Italy) are European countries. Values and practices, i.e. the ‘as-is’ situation and the desired ‘should-be’ state, are modestly and negatively correlated, which means that those countries scoring low on Humane Orientation practices tend to desire higher levels of Humane Orientation for their societies (Kabasakal & Bodur, 2004). Table 2.11, above, summarizes the dimensions that the GLOBE study contributed to the discourse of measuring and describing cultural differences in dimensions. Those dimensions that did not explain new differences or phenomena were eliminated, because they have been explained and defined earlier in this section. As opposed to the other sections of this chapter, example countries have not been mentioned because countries varied significantly when comparing the value scores with the practice scores. This aim of this work is to identify in which ways cultures

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

85

Table 2.11 Summary of GLOBE’s contribution to cultural dimensions Cultural dimension Performance Orientation

Gender Egalitarianism

Assertiveness

Institutional Collectivism

In-group Collectivism Humane Orientation

Continuum of each dimension High performance orientation: Societies that feature high levels of orientation towards achievement and improvement, or that value attitudes. High gender equality: Boys are/should not be encouraged more that girls to get higher education. Men are /should not be preferred for higher positions. Nonassertive: Societies with a tendency of their members to be nonassertive, nonaggressive, or tender in social relationships. High: Leaders do or should encourage group loyalty, even at the expense of the individual. The economic system is or should be maximizing the collective interest. High: Parents and children are and should be taking pride in their kin’s individual achievements. High: Members of the society tend to be concerned for, and sensitive towards, other members of that society.

Low performance orientation: Societies that expose lower levels of achievement orientation, or appreciation of such attitudes. Low gender equality: Boys are/should be encouraged to get better educations than girls. More men are/should be in positions of high office. Assertive: Societies with a tendency of members being, or desiring to be assertive, aggressive, or tough in social relationships. Low: Leaders do not or should not encourage group loyalty and the economic system is or should be maximizing individual interests. Low: Parents or children are not and should not be taking pride in their kin’s individual achievements. Low: Member of these societies tend to be less concerned for, and sensitive towards, others.

Source: Summary table (Den Hartog, 2004; Emrich et al., 2004; Gelfand et al., 2004; Javidan, 2004; Kabasakal & Bodur, 2004)

can be differentiated and how this has been measured. The individual country rankings can be neglected here because it is not intended to make country specific comparisons.

2.4.2.6

Dimensions of Meyer’s Culture Map

One of the most recent contributions to describing cultural differences in cultural dimensions is Erin Meyers’ (2014) publication of ‘The Culture Map’. This publication is not an academic publication since it is directed at a global, non-academic, managerial readership. It is anecdotal when it comes to explaining the different dimensions (or scales as Meyer calls them), and it lacks the statistical detail that is offered by Hofstede or the GLOBE study, for example. It exposes a deep understanding of intercultural management questions, however, and is built upon sound academic and practical intercultural experience. Meyer’s proposal is that global executives need to keep in mind eight scales in which cultures differ significantly. These scales are the following:

86

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Communicating On the communication scale, low-context and high-context communication are distinguished. This distinction is inspired by Hall (Hall, 1989a), and was explained in an earlier section here, so, it is not necessary to explain where this concept comes from. Here, low context communication is described as “. . . precise, simple and clear. Messages are expressed and understood at face value. Repetition is appreciated if it helps clarify the communication” and high context communication is described as “. . . sophisticated, nuanced, and layered. Messages are both spoken and read between the lines. Messages are often implied but not plainly expressed” (Meyer, 2014, p. 39). Countries with the lowest context communication are the US, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, and Germany. Countries on the high context end of this scale are Japan, Indonesia, Korea, China, and Kenya (Meyer, 2014, pp. 29–60). Evaluating This scale is about the degree to which a culture appreciates or despises direct negative feedback. Previous research has treated this as an effect of cultural differences on, e.g., the dimensions Power Distance (Hofstede et al., 2010), Collectivism (Gelfand et al., 2004; Hofstede et al., 2010; Trompenaars & HampdenTurner, 2012), or Assertiveness (Den Hartog, 2004). Considering the effect that these differences might have on cross-cultural interpersonal relationships, it seems reasonable to consider this a separate cultural scale relevant at least for practical considerations. The direct negative feedback pole of this scale describes cultures in which feedback is given frankly and perhaps bluntly and is not softened by accompanying positive statements. Individual feedback in front of a group is not unusual. Indirect negative feedback societies entail those countries in which more subtle or diplomatic ways are found to convey negative feedback. The negative message is usually wrapped into positive messages and criticism is given in private. Countries that score high on the direct negative feedback scale are Israel, Netherlands, Russia, and Germany, while countries that convey indirect negative feedback are Japan, Thailand, and Indonesia (Meyer, 2014, pp. 61–88). Persuading Meyer argues that when it comes to the critical management task of persuading people, there are differences between Applications-First and PrinciplesFirst. Applications-First cultures are those societies in which individuals are trained to begin an argument or a presentation with a fact, or summary statement and thereafter add theories, models and evidence to support the conclusion, if necessary. These cultures tend to begin with an executive summary and discussions focus on practical issues while theoretical or philosophical discussions are avoided. Members of Principles-First societies are trained to explain basic assumptions and theory before presenting a fact, statement, or opinion. There is a trend to construct the theoretical argument before presenting the conclusions and that conceptual principles underlying the arguments are valued by the audience. Principles-First countries include Italy, France, Spain, Russia, and Germany. Applications first societies are the US, Canada, Australia, the UK and the Netherlands. Asian countries do not appear on this scale because, due to the holistic perspective assumed by many of these societies, it is recommendable during the presentation to go back and forth

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

87

between the specific issue at hand and peripheral implications (Meyer, 2014, pp. 89–114). Leading This scale is strongly influenced by Hofstede’s Power Distance dimension but includes additional data from Meyer’s work. The extreme ends are named ‘egalitarian’ and ‘hierarchical’. In a society described as egalitarian individuals prefer a low distance between subordinates and their boss. Organizations tend to be flatter and their members skip organizational levels when communicating. Hierarchical societies tend to be characterized by high hierarchical distances, bosses who lead from the front, and communication happens along steep organizational structures. Egalitarian countries are, e.g., Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Examples for very hierarchical countries are Japan, Korea, and Nigeria (Meyer, 2014, pp. 115–142). Deciding For Meyer, it makes sense to decide between the Leading Scale and whether decisions are made consensual or top-down. The scale that presents these differences is called the Deciding Scale. It is insightful because in some countries, like Japan or Germany, decisions tend to be made consensually, while organizations tend to be hierarchically steep. On the consensual pole of this scale decisions tend to be made in groups through unanimous agreements and on the top-down end of the scale it is usually the boss who decides. Examples for societies in which decisions are made by consensus are Japan, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Nigeria, China, India, and Russia are countries in which decisions are usually made by the boss (Meyer, 2014, pp. 143–160). Trusting With this scale, Meyer approaches the question on what basis different societies award trust to other individuals. The scale shows societies along a continuum from task-based, rather cognitive, trust basis to a relationship-based, rather affective, trust basis. In task-based trust societies trust is created when business relationships deliver to expectations and promises. Relationships are created around the purpose and may be dropped afterwards. Trust means considering a person reliable and consistently delivering good work. Countries in which trust tends to be awarded based on tasks and cognition are the US, Netherlands, Denmark, Australia and Germany. In relationship-based trust countries trust is built around informal activities and shared interests and believes. Work relationships are built slower and require sharing private time. People trust each other because they know how the other works and because persons share mutual trustful relationships. Countries in which trust is awarded on this basis include Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, India, and China (Meyer, 2014, pp. 163–194). Disagreeing On this scale Meyer presents her findings on whether members of different societies tend to disagree confrontationally or not. In confrontational cultures conflict and disagreement are seen as positive for team and organizational development. Open confrontation will not impact the relationship negatively. In cultures whose members avoid confrontation, open disagreement is inappropriate and will damage the relationship. Countries on the confrontational end of the scale are Israel, France, Germany, Russia and the Netherlands. Countries that avoid open

88

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

disagreement are Indonesia, Japan, and Thailand. The extreme ends of this scale are very similar to those of the Evaluation Scale presented earlier, which appears comprehensible since negative feedback could be interpreted as a form of disagreement with the way things currently are (Meyer, 2014, pp. 195–218). Scheduling This scale resembles Hall’s Polychronic vs. Monochronic dimension and Trompenaars’ and Hampden-Turner’s Sequential vs. Synchronic dimension. The extremes on this scale are labeled ‘Linear-Time’ and ‘Flexible-Time’. Also, the ways in which Meyer operationalizes these two extremes are similar to those offered by Hall and Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner. They add a practical project perspective, though, which is why they shall be mentioned here. In Linear-Time cultures project steps should be completed one at a time and one after the other without being interrupted. The primary goal is to meet the schedule and good organization, not necessarily flexibility. Exemplary countries are Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and Sweden. In Flexible-Time societies this is the other way around. The sequence of steps in a project are subject to changing priorities, interruption and usually approached in parallel. Adaptability and flexibility are valued higher than organization and deadlines. Examples of this time concept are Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Kenya, and India (Meyer, 2014, pp. 219–241). Table 2.12 shows the summary table for Meyer’s scales of her Culture Map tool. The table shows a brief explanation of the scale and a few examples of countries on the extreme poles of the scale. All scales were mentioned, even if they were very similar to those offered by other authors, due to the practical explanations and implications for managing international projects.

2.4.2.7

Cultural Dimensions and Project Management Behaviors

In an attempt to identify relevant implications of cultural differences for project management and the integration of project customers, the author of this dissertation reviewed 683 expressions or cultural dimensions on the value and behavioral level. These expressions were excerpted from the authors that established the cultural dimensions (Ashkanasy, Gupta, Mayfield, & Trevor-Roberts, 2004; Carl, Gupta, & Javidan, 2004; Den Hartog, 2004; Emrich et al., 2004; Gelfand et al., 2004; Hall, 1989a, 1989b, 1990a, 1990b; Hofstede, 1983; Hofstede et al., 2010; Javidan, 2004; Kabasakal & Bodur, 2004; Meyer, 2014; Sully de Luque & Javidan, 2004; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012), but also from other authors that used these dimensions and applied them to project management (Binder, 2007; Köster, 2010; Zein, 2015). The expressions were collected and listed and are available in Annex: Expressions of Cultural Differences. The expressions were sorted into 18 categories based on whether they claimed to measure the same, or similar, cultural effects. For that purpose, the original link between author, dimension and cultural expression was not broken. The examples each author gave for cultural differences remain under the dimension that he or she mentioned. Working through the list of expressions of cultural differences, it became

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

89

Table 2.12 Summary of Meyer’s cultural scales Cultural dimension Communicating

Continuum of each dimension Low context: Precise, simple and clear communication; no implied messages; repetition if required (US, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Germany)

Evaluating

Direct negative feedback: Frank, and blunt, stand-alone negative feedback, perhaps in front of the group. (Russia, Israel, Netherlands, Germany)

Persuading

Principles-first: Deductive reasoning, delivering the theoretical model first then empirical evidence and then the application and benefit of solution. (Italy, France, Russia, Spain) Hierarchical: High Power Distance, boss is considered a strong director of subordinates, organizational structures are steep. (Japan, Korea, Nigeria) Consensual: Decisions tend to be made in groups, unanimously and decisions tend to be fixed and final. (Japan, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany) Relationship-based: Affective trust, based on shared interests and spending time together. Stable network of trusted relationships. (Saudi Arabia, India, Nigeria, China) Confrontational: Conflict and open disagreement are good for better results and do not harm the relationship. (Israel, France, Germany, Russia, Netherlands) Linear: Task are confronted in linear fashion, one at a time and one after the other. Deadline is more important than flexibility. (Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Sweden)

Leading

Deciding

Trusting

Disagreeing

Scheduling

High context: Sophisticated, nuanced, and layered communication; part of the message is not said but implied (Japan, Korea, Indonesia, China, Kenya) Indirect negative feedback: Subtle, and diplomatic feedback, wrapped into positive messages, never in front of the group. (Japan, Thailand, Indonesia) Applications-first: Inductive reasoning, delivering the application or specific benefit first and then deliver theoretical basis and empirical evidence. (US, Canada, Australia) Egalitarian: Low Power Distance, boss is facilitator among equals, there’s a flat organizational structure. (Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden) Top-down: Decisions tend to be made by the boss and may be changed afterwards. (Nigeria, China, India, Russia) Task-based: Cognitive trust developed by fulfilling tasks and contracts. Relationships might end with end of contract or task. (US, Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Germany) Non-confrontational: Conflict and open disagreement are inappropriate and will damage the relationship. (Indonesia, Japan, Thailand) Flexible: Tasks are approached more fluidly, several at a time, and in parallel. Flexibility and improvising is valued over meeting the schedule. (Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Kenya, India)

Source: Meyer (2014)

apparent that the examples referred to underlying values and beliefs but also to behaviors. It was also discovered that sorting the examples into underlying values/ beliefs and behaviors is not in all cases possible because for many examples it depends on how the example was framed. For many behaviors, more than one belief or value could be identified, depending on cultural dimension and author.

90

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

To determine whether other project managers and scholars encounter the same challenges, selected expressions of cultural differences were presented to various groups of Dutch post-graduate students in a Master of Science program in project management in a workshop on the 2nd of April 2016. The students were asked to sort statements for 11 cultural dimensions into one of three categories; underlying values, beliefs, and behaviors. During the group discussion, many participants reported that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to allocate the examples clearly into one field. This indicates that project managers and scholars find it hard to determine the relationship between cultural differences in values and beliefs and behavioral observations. This ‘diffuseness’ between multiple dimensions of cultural differences and their combined effects on individual behavior has also been other researchers and practitioners in intercultural management (e.g., Hofstede et al., 2010, pp. 3–20). The understanding of differences along cultural dimensions, however, will improve intercultural interactions insofar, that the actors know what to expect and have a framework that they can refer to for explaining different behaviors.

2.4.2.8

Cultural Dimensions Synthesis

The above models of cultural dimensions have not been without criticism. The authors of the various models have criticized each other extensively throughout the development of the several editions of their work. Examples for these critiques are Hofstede’s 2010 critique of the GLOBE study (Hofstede et al., 2010, pp. 40–44), and the criticism Hofstede received from various of the GLOBE contributors (Den Hartog, 2004; Gelfand et al., 2004; House & Hanges, 2004; Javidan, 2004; Kabasakal & Bodur, 2004). Examples for these discussions include, but are not limited to a lack of face validity in Hofstede’s dimensions of Individualism and Masculinity (Den Hartog, 2004; Emrich et al., 2004; Javidan, 2004), or Hofstede’s critique of the values-practices divide and the academic jargon of the questions asked for the GLOBE study (Hofstede et al., 2010). But criticism also came from outside the context of dimensional models (Bolten, 2015). Another observation that can be made from the analysis above is that each model measures cultural differences on different levels, of aggregation but also conceptually. Hofstede’s ‘Masculinity’ dimension, for example, can be regarded as an aggregate of the two GLOBE dimensions, ‘Assertiveness’ and ‘Performance Orientation’, and, other than the name might suggest, it is conceptually different from ‘Gender Egalitarianism’ in that it measures a different thing. Another example would be how Hofstede’s and GLOBE’s ‘Power Distance’ dimension is reflected in Meyer’s ‘Leading’ and ‘Deciding’ scale, a distinction that contributes to better understanding countries like Japan in which hierarchy tends to be high, but decisions are usually taken unanimously. Overall, it appears that Meyer’s scales are closest to delivering actionable help when dealing with project partners from other cultures. For the purpose of summarizing the differences in cultural dimensions, all dimensions have been collected and reviewed. Those dimensions covering the same cultural differences have been united in order to avoid repetition. Afterwards

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

91

the dimensions have been grouped into the four categories that are visible in Table 2.13. ‘Competitiveness’ related dimensions are those that have an influence on how competitive individuals of a certain culture tend to behave. Performance orientation, for example, or accepting direct negative feedback can be associated with improving competitiveness. The category ‘Philosophy and Emotionality’ collects those differences that are learned in school or through social interaction or that are based mainly on philosophical or religious beliefs. Those cultural dimensions for which context was an important underlying factor are collected in the ‘Context Related Differences’ column and the ‘Vertical Relationships’ column holds those dimensions that are related to hierarchy, power distance or the vertical position in society. The cultural dimensions that are collected and grouped in Table 2.13 are still interdependent and overlapping and for some of them (e.g., Collectivism or Uncertainty Avoidance) their sorting might be challenged, but from the perspective of this work there have been good reasons for each sorting decision. According to Hall’s 1976 iceberg model (Hall, 1989a) or Schein’s three-layer model of culture (Schein, 1984), there are observable patterns of culturally informed behavior and there are underlying values, norms or basic assumptions. The models of cultural dimensions presented above aim at explaining the underlying assumptions and values. The relationship between these values is complex and diffuse, however. Intercultural communication challenges like ‘vendor silence’ (Jain, Simon, & Poston, 2011), or cultural preferences for ‘bella figura’ or ‘keeping face’ are the result of a complex interplay between cultural preferences and the specific intercultural context (Aapaoja, Haapasalo, & Söderström, 2013; Jetu, Riedl, & Roithmayr, 2011; Pheng & Leong, 2000; Swierczek, 1994). Due to this complexity, it is not only important to understand possible differences in values, norms and basic assumptions but to use that knowledge to make sense of the observable behavioral differences when working with members of other cultures. This cognitive aspect of intercultural management is at the center approaches to intercultural competence (CI) or cultural intelligence (CQ). This is why, the next section will be dealing with these aspects.

2.4.3

Models of Intercultural Competence and Cultural Intelligence

2.4.3.1

Introduction to Intercultural Intelligence

Projects in intercultural working environments always bear the risks of cross-cultural misperception, misinterpretation, and misevaluation, because how a message is perceived, interpreted and evaluated depends very strongly on the cultural background of the recipient. It is therefore recommended to (1) be aware of what you do not know in terms or similarities or differences between the communicators, (2) try describing what actually was said and done instead of interpreting or evaluating it, (3) try to see the situation through the eyes of the other, and (4) to treat the own

Source: Prepared by the author

Collectivism (Gelfand et al., 2004; Hofstede et al., 2010; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012) Conflict vs. Consensus (Den Hartog, 2004; Köster, 2010; Meyer, 2014) Gender Egalitarianism (Emrich et al., 2004) Humane Orientation (Kabasakal & Bodur, 2004)

Direct vs. Indirect Negative Feedback (Meyer, 2014)

Competitiveness External vs. Internal Locus of Control (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012) Performance Orientation (Hofstede et al., 2010; Javidan, 2004)

Close/Affective vs. Distant/Neutral (Hall, 1990a; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012)

Long Term Orientation (Ashkanasy et al., 2004; Hofstede et al., 2010; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012) Indulgence vs. Restraint (Hofstede et al., 2010)

Philosophy and emotionality Principles First vs. Applications First (Köster, 2010; Meyer, 2014)

Table 2.13 Cultural dimensions summary

Specific vs. Diffuse (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012)

High Context vs. Low Context (Hall, 1989a; Meyer, 2014)

Task vs. Relationship Based Trust (Köster, 2010; Meyer, 2014)

Context related differences Particularist vs. Universalist (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012) Sequential vs. Synchronic (Hall, 1989b; Meyer, 2014; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012)

Uncertainty Avoidance (Hofstede et al., 2010; Sully de Luque & Javidan, 2004) Top-Down vs. Consensual Decision Making (Meyer, 2014)

Vertical relationships Equality vs. Hierarchy (Carl, Gupta, & Javidan, 2004; Hofstede et al., 2010; Meyer, 2014) Achievement vs. Ascription (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012)

92 2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

93

explanation of what is happening as the ‘best guess’ until the hypothesis can be confirmed or rejected (Adler, 2007, pp. 69–92; Berry, Poortinga, Breugelmans, Chasiotis, & Sam, 2011, pp. 201–219; Bolten, 2012, pp. 51–58). These four recommendations show very clearly that successful intercultural communication relies on the cognitive capacity to postpone judgment, change the perspective and to deal with ambiguity. These capacities on the other hand strongly relate to concepts of Intercultural Competence or Cultural Intelligence. The ability to understand and reason correctly in intercultural situations and to act in a way that is effective and adequate is crucial for intercultural project management. In intercultural management there are two schools of thought that are concerned with these questions, Cultural Intelligence (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Plum, 2008) and the Intercultural Competences (Bolten, 2012; Deardorff, 2006). Both perspectives improve the understanding of required managerial capabilities and are relevant for the topic of this work. Therefore, the following sections will review recent contributions in both fields.

2.4.3.2

Frameworks of Cultural Intelligence

Cultural Intelligence (CQ) has been conceptualized as a four factor construct consistent of these components: – Metacognitive CQ, “. . . the individual’s level of conscious cultural awareness during cross cultural interactions” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 5), – Cognitive CQ, reflecting “. . . the knowledge of norms, practices, and conventions in different cultures that has been acquired from educational and personal experiences” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 5), – Motivational CQ, reflecting “. . . the capability to direct attention and energy toward learning about and functioning in situations characterized by cultural differences” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 6), and – Behavioral CQ, which “. . . reflects the capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions when interacting with people from different cultures” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 6) The validity of the above four factor has been supported by subsequent studies which also revealed that language acquisition is related to cognitive CQ and that international work experience is positively related to behavioral CQ (Shannon & Begley, 2008). CQ has also been proposed as a predictor for expatriate success, which us useful when selecting personnel for expatriate assignments or assignments in intercultural settings (Shaffer & Miller, 2008). It has been shown that cultural diversity, or differences of cultural background between two persons, affects trust building negatively (Ajmal, Hussain, & Saber, 2012; Locker, Vos, & Boonstra, 2016). But individuals with higher levels of metacognitive, cognitive and behavioral CQ have been found to positively influence the trust level in intercultural relationships (Rockstuhl & Ng, 2008).

94

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Livermore (2010) complemented Ang and Van Dyne’s model of CQ by adding empirical cases and turning the concept into actionable advice on how to improve cultural intelligence. The four components of CQ (meta-cognitive, cognitive, motivational, behavioral) were molded into a four step process (Livermore, 2010). Figure 2.3 shows how the first step for improving one’s CQ is to assess the own confidence and motivation levels for a cross-cultural assignment. In order to be successful in an intercultural assignment, motivation and an interest in the different culture is very important. If the individual is not motivated or excited about the new culture or doesn’t show an elevated interest in learning the culture, this could become a significant shortcoming. Motivational CQ might be improved through, being honest about the chances of increased ‘drive’, assessing the confidence level for the assignment, experiencing the cuisine and company of people of the other culture, and by looking at the benefits of the assignment (Livermore, 2010, 41–62). QC Knowledge is about learning, through education or experience, what is necessary to be successful in the cross-cultural assignment. This is the ‘cognitive CQ’ in Ang and Van Dyne’s model. To become more knowledgeable, it is recommended to reflect one own’s cultural predisposition, to read about the fundamental cultural systems and values of the different culture and to make a (visible) effort to develop an understanding of the other language. The description of cultural differences along cultural dimensions, as discussed above, is a good starting point for learning about the other cultures (Livermore, 2010, pp. 63–111). CQ Strategy is about taking a step back, develop a conscious level of cultural awareness, revise previous assumptions, and to develop a strategy of cultural learning, also called meta-cognitive cultural intelligence. To become better in terms of CQ Strategy, it is recommended to increase cultural awareness, plan the

“…capability to exhibit appropriate verbal and nonverbal actions when interacting with people from different cultures.” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 6) ”What behaviors should I adapt for this cross-cultural assignment?” (Livermore, 2010, p. 136)

“…an individual’s level of conscious cultural awareness during cross-cultural interactions.” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 5)

“…capability to direct attention and energy toward learning about and functioning in situations characterized by cultural differences.” ( Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 6)

4. “CQ Action” Behavioral CQ

1. “CQ Drive”

3. “CQ Strategy” MetaCognitive CQ

2. “CQ Knowledge”

”What do I need to plan [in terms of awareness, interaction & reflection] in order to do this cross-cultural assignment successfully?” (Livermore, 2010, p. 115)

Motivational CQ

Cognitive CQ

”What’s my level of confidence and motivation for this cross-cultural assignment? If it is lacking, what can I do to improve it?” (Livermore, 2010, p. 45)

“…knowledge of norms, practices, and conventions in different cultures […] from educational or personal experiences.” (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008, p. 5)

”What cultural understanding do I need for this cross-cultural assignment?” (Livermore, 2010, p. 66)

Fig. 2.3 Four dimensions of cultural intelligence. Sources: Ang and Van Dyne (2008) and Livermore (2010)

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

95

intercultural incidents in a way to be able to learn from them, and to constantly check whether one’s own hypotheses about the different culture still hold. Livermore called this category QC Strategy, because it is about developing and revising a cultural learning strategy in order to successfully complete the intercultural assignment (Livermore, 2010, pp. 113–132). QC Action, or Behavioral CQ, is about knowing which verbal and nonverbal behaviors need adjustment in each cross-cultural situation and how to adjust them. Improving Behavioral CQ is about converging the previous three CQs in order to adapt communication and negotiation styles, develop a repertoire of different culture-contingent behaviors, and know when mimicking the different culture if it is appropriate and effective and when not. The best way to improve in CQ Action is to improve in the other three CQ areas, i.e. to genuinely be interested in the other culture and its members, to improve your knowledge about the culture, and to question one’s own assumptions and adjust the intercultural strategy (Livermore, 2010, pp. 133–160). The above paragraphs introduced the concept of cultural intelligence, using the example of Ang & Van Dyne’s four dimensions of CQ and Livermore’s process of leading with cultural intelligence (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Livermore, 2010). An alternative approach to cultural intelligence is offered by Plum (2008). Just as Livermore, Plum suggest s a more action-oriented approach to cultural intelligence, which she abbreviates with CI. CI is conceptualized as a process, or complex process, and not so much as a descriptive concept that is measurable on different scales. Plum’s focus is on appropriate actions, generating a shared culture, flexibly reacting to situations’ contexts instead of trying to predict behaviors, and it is more about assessing and building CI than measuring cultural intelligence (Plum, 2008, pp. 50–51). Plum’s concept of CI is a three-dimensional consisting of (1) intercultural engagement, (2) cultural understanding, and (3) intercultural communication. The three dimensions reinforce and support each other, but they may also disrupt or hamper each other. Figure 2.4 summarizes the meaning of the three dimensions and their interplay. The “Intercultural Engagement” component describes those factors that have to do with the motivation of a person to turn the intercultural experience into a success, the attitude towards other cultures and with the courage to change the own behavior in intercultural encounters. Being culturally intelligent in this area requires handling one’s own emotions and controlling one’s reactions and those of others, which requires emotional maturity and mental flexibility. The ability to change perspective and not to take oneself too seriously, to question one’s attitude and to tolerate uncertainty are other indicators for this dimension of cultural intelligence (Plum, 2008, pp. 23–26). “Cultural Understanding” as a component of cultural intelligence is the ability to understand one’s own culture and to understand people from different cultures. This is based on the general knowledge of what culture is and how it affects communication and the specific knowledge of the cultural differences at play in an

96

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

-

Intercultural Engagement

-

Movaon, atude, & courage to change Movaon to results in intercultural situaon v Ability to handle emoons Emoonal maturity & reflecvity Tolerate uncertainty

’heart’ or ‘emoonal’ -

Know the own cultural predisposion and consequences Know cultural differences in general Know specific cultural differences of the other culture Understand intercultural situaons Train eyes for seeing paerns & significance & make sense of it

Cultural Understanding

Intercultural Communicaon

’mind’ or ‘raonal’

’acon’ or ‘muscle’

-

Brings other two dimensions into acon Stop & adjust the own cultural rounes, expressions, reacons Adjust body language Experiment, & take new approaches Persistence

Fig. 2.4 Cultural intelligence according to Plum. Source: Plum (2008)

intercultural encounter. “Cultural Understanding”, as a component of CI includes learning how to see, or detect, underlying patterns and the meaning of jargon and habits, and to make sense of it. In this sense It is the cognitive component of CI that enables us to interpret the situation from various angles and to assess unexpected events against the background of cultural differences (Plum, 2008, pp. 26–29). The third component of CI, “Intercultural Communication” brings the other two dimensions into action. It is about postponing the automatic cultural routines, expressions and reactions that worked in one’s own culture, and then to experiment with new approaches to interpersonal interactions. Persistently adapting and experimenting with approaches to cultural differences enables better cultural understanding, which supports the appropriate adjustment of verbal communication and also nonverbal aspects like body language and adequate space usage (Plum, 2008. pp. 29–33). The above sections introduced two conceptualizations of cultural intelligence, one with four components that emphasizes cultural intelligence as a measurable concept (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008) and was molded into a process of cross-cultural learning for better applicability (Livermore, 2010), and one model, composed of three categories of CI, that emphasized the complexities and the process of the process of developing intercultural intelligence (Plum, 2008). All conceptualizations share that they are multidimensional concepts including more cognitive aspects of cultural intelligence, motivational aspects and actionable components that facilitate the application of the other components in situations of intercultural communication. These concepts also share that they see cultural intelligence as one element in the landscape of multiple intelligences, somewhat related to concepts such as cognitive intelligence, emotional intelligence, social intelligence.

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

2.4.3.3

97

Frameworks of Intercultural Competence

The cultural intelligence discussion is not the only discourse concerned with improving cross-cultural interpersonal communication though. The framework of Intercultural Competence has established itself as a more behavior- and outcomeoriented approach to intercultural communication effectiveness than cultural intelligence. In his conceptualization of intercultural competence, Bolten (2012) issues eight recommendations on how to integrate several components and perspectives on the topic. Figure 2.5 shows an overview of these recommendations. Since these eight components together make up the conceptualization of intercultural competence per Bolten, it is worthwhile to explain the different components in more detail: 1. Consider the fuzziness of culture: Cultures are products of intercultural, migratory processes. They overlap and are fuzzy at the frontiers, which does not allow for a ‘containerization’ or generalization of national cultures (Bolten, 2012, p. 44). 2. Try to avoid categories and stereotypes: Categorization into, e.g., masculine, hierarchical or context-oriented, may lead to the creation of stereotypes. The micro-perspective will reveal much greater insight while the macro-perspective tends to stereotype (Bolten, 2012, pp. 44–45).

1. Fuzziness of Culture 8. Cauon with Generalizaons

7. Movaon

6. Tolerance for Ambiguity

2. Categories & Stereotypes

Intercultural Competence

3. Inventory of cultural products

4. Intercultures 5. Important Competencies

Fig. 2.5 Intercultural competencies according to Bolten. Source: Compiled by author, based on (Bolten, 2012)

98

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

3. Recognize culture as an inventory of societies’ cultural products: cultural products that result from thousands of years of communicative processes which determine what we see as normal, plausible or purposeful. They are constantly defined and re-defined through communication by their members (Bolten, 2012, p. 45). 4. Consider ‘intercultures’ a process: ‘Intercultures’ are dynamic incidents between members, characterized by process rather than geographic categories. They represent synergy potential, although the realization of these potentials is hard to predict (Bolten, 2012, p. 46). 5. Focus on important competencies: important competences are primarily behavior based like empathy, tolerance, flexibility or tolerance of ambiguity. They can be attained in intercultural sensibility trainings (Bolten, 2012, pp. 46–47). 6. Emphasize tolerance for ambiguity: Mistakes in interpreting intercultural situations often are due to a lack of tolerance for ambiguity, to question and re-interpret situations from another angle. These capabilities are enhanced by making more different and new experiences, because it will avoid that schemes and schematic perception become narrow and inflexible (Bolten, 2012, p. 72). 7. Consider motivation for intercultural experiences: The willingness to make such new experiences depends very much on the combined inventory of cultural knowledge of a society. This inventory is, both, foundation and product of the process of restricting or enabling opportunities to make new experiences through, e.g., travelling or consuming media. It thereby shapes the array in which situations can be interpreted differently (Bolten, 2012, p. 73). 8. Practice caution with Generalizations: In times of international connectedness and globalization the obligation to obey these combined cultural inventories decreases. This is why it is important to apply caution when generalizing about cultural groups (Bolten, 2012, p. 73). After emphasizing foundational elements of intercultural competence, Bolten continues to issue recommendations for the development of intercultural competence. This offers an insight into how to operationalize this model in terms of competencies. 9. Increase cultural awareness: Ignoring the strange or new situation, out of inertia or fear, is undesirable because it will inhibit innovation due to lack of creative input. Engaging with different and new culture will lead to more experiences and, hence, to better interpretation of new situations in the future (Bolten, 2012, p. 90). 10. Reflect own cultural predisposition and stereotypes: Every initiative to improve cultural competence, including trainings, should include a critical reflection of one’s own cultural predisposition. The use of stereotypes and prejudices in this context it is unavoidable, since it reduces complexity and increases the communicability of intercultural situations and processes (Bolten, 2012, p. 91). 11. Accept heterogeneity: Stereotypes and prejudices will have consequences in the they may impede a more differentiated view on the culture. Regardless of whether the actors accept the other behavior, it is important to accept the

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

99

difference in behavior and then to try to make sense of the situation (Bolten, 2012, pp. 91–92). Accommodate heterogeneity: The process of accommodation in the host culture should be regarded as a guided dialogue in which actors recognize the differences and learn how to accommodate this heterogeneity (Bolten, 2012, p. 92). Negotiating integration: Multicultural scenarios should enable the possibility of a mono-cultural retreat, but offer ample opportunity for intercultural activity. Integration is not imposed, but the result of mutually negotiating acceptable behaviors (Bolten, 2012, p. 117). Enablers and disablers: Disablers of cultural integration are long time in the home culture, low variance of different experiences, cultural or ethnic isolation in mono-cultural (living among equals), and high pressure for assimilation. Enablers are curiosity, willingness to learn new things, recognizing the benefits of intercultural experiences, willingness to negotiate acceptable behaviors, tolerance, and language skills (Bolten, 2012, pp. 117–118). Avoid ignorance and indifference: For this, it is important to consider the differences when setting common goals. This process is supported by empathy, the ability to reflect upon the own role, metacommunication, and the ability to defend the own position and to say no if necessary (Bolten, 2012, p. 118). Key competencies: Intercultural competence is not a key competence in itself, rather it combines a number of key competences for the adequate and effective handling of intercultural tasks. Key competencies include, but are not limited to tolerance for ambiguity and conflict, empathy, flexibility, (meta-) communication and language skills, the willingness to learn about cultures, polycentrism, the ability to reflect the own role, and others (Bolten, 2012, pp. 165–167). Learning process: Intercultural training should be structured in established processes and consider the cultural context. Intercultural competence is a culture specific competence (Bolten, 2012, pp. 167–168). No standard process of learning: There is no standard for improving intercultural competence. It needs to be adjusted to the involved cultures and to whether it is ‘off the job’ or ‘on the job’ (Bolten, 2012, p. 168). The intercultural trainer: The teachers or coaches it is important to assess strengths and weaknesses of the own personality. For teachers, it may be more important to convey knowledge in an engaging and entertaining way. For coaches, it is often better to listen, to consult, and to take a step back (Bolten, 2012, p. 168). Inward and outward orientation: Depending on the context of the intercultural training it will be recommendable to focus inward situations, in which migrants are engaged, or outward situations, in which actors are prepared for assignments in other cultures (Bolten, 2012, p. 169).

Bolten’s 20-recommendations for conceptualizing intercultural competences can be re-framed into four attributes related to the intercultural actor. These four categories are (1) personal attitudes, (2) motivational attributes, (3) skills and knowledge, and (4) behaviors. Here are the items that fall into these categories:

100

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

1. Personal attitudes: – – – – – – –

Tolerance Tolerance for ambiguity and dissent Empathy Reflectivity Persistence Flexibility Self-discipline

2. Motivational attributes: – Willingness to make new intercultural experiences – Willingness to learn, and perhaps from, about new cultures – Willingness to negotiate culturally acceptable behaviors, i.e. to adjust 3. Skills and knowledge: – – – –

Cultural knowledge and awareness Language skills Communication skills Ability to structure and broach intercultural issues

4. Behaviors: – Try to avoid ‘containerization’ cultures because cultures are blurred/fuzzy at their ends – Try to avoid categories and stereotypes because that leads to oversimplification – Try not to generalize, since in a globalized and interconnected world the individual there is less obedience to cultural standards – Recognize intercultural synergy potential and benefits of the different culture – Reflect upon own cultural predispositions – Reflect upon the own role from outside – Accept cultural differences, make sense of them and learn – Accommodate cultural heterogeneity – Negotiate culturally acceptable bandwidth of behaviors – Search contact with different cultures – Meta-communicate if necessary (Bolten, 2012) The interdependencies between these categories is such, that the first three mutually enforce each other and collectively enable the behaviors listed under (4). Furthermore, reflecting upon these behaviors and their effects will enable the intercultural actor to persistently keep re-evaluating and improving all four categories. The above distinction into categories the four categories personality, motivation, skills, and behaviors is complemented by a more comprehensive review by Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) who reviewed 325 components of intercultural

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

101

communication competence and assigned them to into 11 categories: motivation, knowledge, higher order skills (behaviors), macro-level skills (competencies), skills (attentiveness, composure, coordination, expressiveness. contextual), outcomes, and context. This comprehensive review offers several additions in that it features several sub-categories for skills and includes outcomes and contextual factors (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). In the same review Spitzberg and Changnon (2009) categorize 22 contemporary models of intercultural competence into (1) compositional models, (2) co-orientational models, (3) developmental models, (4) adaptational models, and (5) causal models (Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). These models have been reviewed considering their applicability in the context of this work and three approaches were selected that can help to explain success factors for intercultural project customer integration. The earliest model selected for review is Imahori & Lanigan’s visualization of a relational model of intercultural competence. Figure 2.6 shows an adapted visualization of the model excerpt from various sources (Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). It shows how in, both, sojourner and host-national motivation, skills and knowledge interact and affect their goals, experiences and the desired outcomes. Motivation, in this model can be specific to the other culture, e.g., the person regards the culture as positive, but it can also have general character, e.g., general open-mindedness for foreign cultures. The motivation will also depend upon the specific personal attitude of the partner, e.g., anxiety, assertiveness or degree of attraction. Skills in this context include, e.g., the ability to display respect, empathy, tolerance for ambiguity, or the individual linguistic skills. Knowledge refers to things like knowing about the rules of interaction, general or specific cultural knowledge, or language knowledge. Knowledge, skills and motivation combine to achieve goal related outcomes, but also relational outcomes. Examples for outcomes are communication effectiveness, relational satisfaction, commitment, and uncertainty reduction (Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). Another model with relevance to the aim of this work is Kupla’s (2008) model of intercultural competence for strategic human resource management. Figure 2.7 shows the model which was excerpt from Spitzberg & Changnon’s review for the lack of access to the original dissertation. Like other authors Kupla proposes an approach that features members from two cultures. Unlike other approaches, this model postulates that the motivator, the basic human needs of the involved actors, are relatively common across cultures. Based on these needs the actors will interchange and adjust the perceived world (perceptas) through the process of action and reaction. This will lead to enhanced understanding and learning (conceptas) and the creation of overlapping areas among the actors with shared symbols. The interaction between members of different cultures happens against different forms, e.g., environmental or semantic, background noise. The concept of ‘interculture’ and the distinction between perceptas and conceptas are shared components with Bolten’s approach, discussed earlier in this section (Bolten, 2012). While there is no outcome component in this model, referring to effectiveness and appropriateness and adjustment of behaviors, this is implicit in the overlapping of meaning systems, symbols and understanding (Kupla, 2008; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009).

Knowledge Interacon rules Cultural specific Cultural General Linguisc

Goals

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Knowledge Interacon rules Cultural specific Cultural General Linguisc

Experience

Skills ‐ Display respect ‐ Interacon posture ‐ Knowledge orientaon ‐ Empathy ‐ Role‐flexibility ‐ Interacon management ‐ Ambiguity tolerance ‐ Linguisc skills ‐ Speech accommodaon ‐ Affinity speaking

Host‐Naonal Movaon ‐ Specific toward other culture (social distance, posive regard) ‐ General toward foreign culture (ethnocentrism, open‐mindedness) ‐ Specific toward partner (anxiety, asserveness, aenveness, aracon, atude similarity)

‐ Relaonal sasfacon ‐ Relaonal commitment ‐ Relaonal stability ‐ Uncertainty reducon

Outcomes ‐Intercultural effecveness ‐Communicaon effecveness ‐Relaonal validaon ‐Inmacy

Goals

Skills ‐ Display respect ‐ Interacon posture ‐ Knowledge orientaon ‐ Empathy ‐ Role‐flexibility ‐ Interacon management ‐ Ambiguity tolerance ‐ Linguisc skills ‐ Speech accommodaon ‐ Affinity speaking

Relaonal Outcome

Fig. 2.6 Relational model of intercultural competence. Source: Imahori and Lanigan (1989) and Spitzberg and Changnon (2009)

Experiences

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Movaon ‐ Specific toward other culture (social distance, posive regard) ‐ General toward foreign culture (ethnocentrism, open‐mindedness) ‐ Specific toward partner (anxiety, asserveness, aenveness, aracon, atude similarity)

Sojourner

102 2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Culture A Intercultural Perceptas Percepon of cultural distance Skills Contextual Relaonships Foreign language competence Nonverbal communicaon competence

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

103

Noise Environmental Situaonal Physiological Psychological Semanc

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Culture B Member

Culture A Member

Culture A Intercultural Conceptas Self‐awareness Knowledge Movaon Appropriateness Effecveness Affinity

Interculture; Shared symbols; Mutual understanding

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Culture B Intercultural Perceptas Percepon of cultural distance Skills Contextual Relaonships Foreign language competence Nonverbal communicaon competence

Culture B Intercultural Conceptas Self‐awareness Knowledge Movaon Appropriateness Effecveness Affinity

Basic Human Needs

Fig. 2.7 Intercultural competence model for strategic human resource management. Source: Kupla (2008), and Spitzberg and Changnon (2009)

Another approach to conceptualizing intercultural competence is Deardorff’s (2006) publication of a Grounded-Theory-informed Delphi-Study involving 23 internationally known scholars from the area of intercultural communication. This study was aimed at determining an agreed definition of intercultural competence and methods of how to assess this competence (Deardorff, 2006). Her findings are synthesized in two visualizations containing the following components: 1. Prerequisite attitudes: This component contains those attributes of intercultural actors which can be described as personal attitudes. Respect for other cultures and cultural diversity falls into this category, as well as openness to intercultural learning and people of other cultures and curiosity and discovery. 2. Knowledge and Comprehension: This category is about the cultural knowledge and self-awareness necessary in intercultural situations. It includes knowledge regarding the own culture and other cultures. It also includes the awareness of interdependencies of language and culture, the sociolinguistic component. 3. Skills: Skills and Knowledge and Comprehension are highly interdependent. The skill to listen, to observe, to interpret, to analyze, evaluate and relate is crucial for improving knowledge and comprehension. In the same way, existing knowledge and comprehension will increase the ability to listen, observe and evaluate effectively.

104

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

4. Desired Internal Outcome: Internal outcomes that increase intercultural competence are an increased adaptability and flexibility regarding different communication styles and behaviors, and to adjust to new cultural environments. 5. Desired External Outcome: A desired external outcome is the effective and appropriate communication or behavior that enables achieving the actors’ goals and is based on intercultural knowledge, skills and attitudes. (Deardorff, 2006) These five components were first visualized as a pyramid with ‘(1) Prerequisite Attitudes’ building the foundation. The ‘(2) Knowledge and Comprehension’ and ‘(3) Skills’ components are interdependent parts of the second layer. The two outcome oriented components ‘(4) Desired Internal Outcome’ and ‘(5) Desired External Outcome’ are the third and fourth layer respectively. Each of the layers enhances the components of the above layers. Later in the same publication Deardorff transfers these components into the process model visible in Fig. 2.8. While containing the same categories of the pyramid model, the process model emphasizes the process of obtaining intercultural competence. Initiating the cycle with the right attitudes, the process might well lead directly to the desired external outcome. But the process from attitudes, motivation will enhance knowledge and skills, which in turn will facilitate an informed frame of reference shift as internal

Atudes Respect (valuing other cultures); Openness (withholding judgement); Curiosity and discovery (tolerang ambiguity)

Individual

Knowledge and Comprehension Cultural self‐awareness, deep cultural knowledge, sociolinguisc awareness Skills To listen, observe and evaluate; To analyze, interpret and relate

Process Orientaon

Desired External Outcome

Desired Internal Outcome

Effecve and appropriate communicaon and behavior in an intercultural situaon

Informed Frame of Reference Shi (adaptability, flexibility, ethnorelaveview, empathy)

Interacon

Fig. 2.8 Process model of intercultural competence. Source: Deardorff (2006)

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

105

outcome. This learning process will then facilitate the desired external outcome through an interactional process. The ‘long way’ through motivation, knowledge, skill, and an internal informed frame of reference shift will enable the building of intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2006; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). Deardorff’s research-based visualizations provide a succinct summary of those factors that are described in almost all other texts. Literature review shows that four behavioral capabilities are key to acting effectively and appropriately in an intercultural situation: (1) The ability to manage psychological stress; (2) the ability to communicate effectively; (3) the ability to create synergies from differences in cultures and knowledge; (4) the ability to manage change in multicultural environments (Pusch, 2009). Another author who divides intercultural competences into motivation, knowledge and skills is Gudykunst (2004). Motivation in this context results from the need for forecast behaviors, to avoid anxiety and sustain one’s self-conception as a result of high anxiety. Knowledge refers to information gathering techniques, group differences and personal similarities, and knowing alternative interpretations of a situation. The shortlist of skills provided by Gudykunst folds in with the previously discussed authors and provides an additional way of synthesizing intercultural abilities. – Ability to be mindful: This is considered the most important factor. It means to be aware of one’s communication and to overcome the tendency to assess other’s behaviors through one’s own frame of reference. – Ability to tolerate ambiguity: This is described as the ability not to feel threatened by a lack of information and to effectively communicate and work in new cultural environments. – Ability to manage anxiety: This factor consists aims at establishing control over (1) physiological symptoms of anxiety and (2) worrying thoughts or cognitive distortions. – Ability to empathize: This ability involves listening, understanding feelings, being interested, being sensitive to the other actor’s needs, and understanding the other’s point of view. – Ability to adapt communication: This ability requires, (1) the ability to perceive and adapt, (2) not only adapting behavior but also the goals of interaction, and (3) adapting to different contexts of communication. – Ability to forecast and explain: This ability is about managing uncertainty by gathering necessary information and mindfully assess them. Based on this it possible to describe, assess and interpret the other’s behavior, learn from this and predict and explain their behavior in the future. (Gudykunst, 2004, pp. 253–269; Pusch, 2009) Beyond knowledge, skills and motivation, common themes emerging throughout the literature on intercultural competence are the importance of relationships, especially in non-western countries, the security and inclusiveness of identity, and the historical, political or social context in which the intercultural activity takes place (Deardorff, 2009).

106

2.4.3.4

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Synthesis Cultural Intelligence and Intercultural Competence

Cultural Intelligence Even considering the procedural approach to cultural intelligence offered by Livermore (2010) and Plum’s (2008) model emphasizing CI-development and appropriate action, cultural intelligence remains a concept that is associated with measurement and determining the cultural intelligence of individuals. This becomes evident in how the four components of cultural intelligence—Motivational, Cognitive, Meta-Cognitive, and Behavioral—are described. Cultural intelligence assesses the level of conscious awareness (meta-cognitive), the inventory of knowledge about cultures (cognitive), the capability to direct attention (motivational), and the capability to exhibit certain behaviors (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Early & Ang, 2003). Compared to this, approaches of intercultural competences, distinguish themselves through a stronger focus on the interaction between two actors and the outcome of such interaction. Both, Livermore (2010) and Plum (2008) consider improvements in cultural intelligence as learning outcomes, but intercultural competence approaches still offer a broader perspective on intercultural interaction the resulting internal and external adjustments. For this dissertation, both approaches provide valuable insight, but intercultural competence appears to be better suited for explaining questions of project customer engagement. Intercultural Competence Considering all the approaches to intercultural competence that have been presented above allows drawing the following conclusions. 1. Shared Culture: The outcome can be relational and lead to the creation of a shared culture, symbols, values and to mutual understanding across cultural boundaries. Relational satisfaction, stability and commitment are outcomes that should improve collaboration between project stakeholders, especially on the clientvendor relationship (Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Kupla, 2008; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). 2. Abilities and skills: While the internal outcome refers to successfully adjusting skills, there are also prerequisite abilities that support appropriate and effective behavior in intercultural situations. Examples for these are communication and linguistic skills, to listen, observe, evaluate, analyze, and interpret, to take different perspectives and to display respect. Experiences from this component will add to the knowledge component of intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2006; Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Kupla, 2008; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). 3. Knowledge: This component includes those memorial and procedural cognitive items that support intercultural abilities and skills. It includes general knowledge about culture, like how cultures are different and similar in general, but also specific knowledge about different cultures. It also includes general and specific knowledge of one’s own cultural predisposition and the political, social and historic context of the other’s culture. This knowledge might be gained through academic training or experience (Deardorff, 2006; Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Kupla, 2008; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009).

2.4 Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

107

4. Motivation: The motivation component is the one that drives actors to gaining intercultural knowledge, skills and abilities. It includes the willingness to satisfy intercultural curiosity, for example, or the interest in using the intercultural challenge to grow personally and professionally. Also, the willingness to adjust the own behavior and to negotiate appropriate behaviors is part of this. This component is facilitated by the personal attitudes the actor brings to the intercultural situation (Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Kupla, 2008; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). 5. Attitudes: These are those components of intercultural competence that are prerequisite for all the other components and the hardest to adjust. Examples for attitudes are respect for other cultures, openness to withhold judgment, curiosity, tolerance (-for ambiguity), empathy, reflectivity and (cognitive-) flexibility (Deardorff, 2006; Kupla, 2008; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). 6. Outcome: Intercultural Competence approaches are outcome oriented. This means that there is an external outcome, involving, e.g., behavior that is perceived as appropriate and effective, and an internal outcome, involving, e.g., cultural learning, increased flexibility and adaptability, higher cultural awareness, improved self-awareness and ability to take another perspective. The outcome component of cultural competence is related to adjustments within and between the intercultural actors to bridge the cultural differences (Deardorff, 2006; Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Kupla, 2008; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009). The above list is the attempt to summarize and unite the different approaches to intercultural competence that have been presented before. The allocation of single items into one category might be contested, as it is the case with tolerance for ambiguity, for example. Tolerance for ambiguity may be regarded both as an attitude or as the ability to tolerate ambiguity. In this fashion, many of the items can be assigned to different areas. The attitude ‘reflectivity’ may become the ‘ability to reflect the own role’, or ‘openness to withhold judgment’ translates into the internal outcome ‘withhold judgment’. These examples show that the frontiers between the component categories are fuzzy, but at the same time it allows tracing how attitudes translate into abilities and outcomes.

2.4.4

Synthesis: Cultural Differences and Intercultural Competencies

Section 2.4 aimed at establishing the theoretical groundwork for assessing cultural differences and their management in international projects. The introduction has shown that models of culture distinguish between hidden, invisible, layers of cultural values and norms, and external, visible, layers of behaviors, heroes, artefacts and customers. To address this divide between visible and hidden components of culture, intercultural communication scholars refer to explaining the differences in values,

108

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

believes and behaviors and explaining how individuals can effectively and appropriately address these issues. For explaining the differences frameworks of cultural dimensions were presented, for explaining how to address these cultural differences the cultural intelligence (CQ and CI) and intercultural competence approaches were presented. In Sect. 2.4.2 it was found that cultural differences from can be described in 20 distinct dimensions from 6 different frameworks (see Table 2.13). It has also been shown that these dimensions are strongly interdependent and influence behaviors in a complex way, with different combinations of cultural differences leading to different, not always predictable, behaviors. Knowing cultural differences in these dimensions, therefore, increases understanding and cultural awareness in intercultural situations, but does not necessarily allow to fully explain observed behavior. Cultural awareness and knowledge are components common in approaches to cultural intelligence and intercultural competence in Sect. 2.4.3, however. Within these concepts factors of motivation, cultural knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors are combined in various conceptualizations. It was found that, while cultural intelligence approaches (CQ) offer ample conceptual insight into how the cultural component of intelligence can be conceptualized, measured and compared, they are less powerful when trying to explain interaction processes and behavioral adjustments. This shortcoming was partially addressed by Livermore (2010), and Plum (2008) by complementing the model with a procedural view (Livermore, 2010) and offering a more action oriented view of cultural intelligence (Plum, 2008). The emphasis on internal and external behavioral adjustments in approaches of intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2006; Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Kupla, 2008) offers more explanatory power, however. Approaches of intercultural competence offer 5 distinguishable features: (1) internal and external outcome, (2) shared culture, (3) motivation, (4) knowledge, (5) abilities and skills, and (6) personal attitudes. While being constituting the theoretical bases for this dissertation, none of the above frameworks or models explicitly addressed the question of how to engage project customers. This is why, a structured literature review was undertaken in order to identify existing knowledge that refers to intercultural project customer engagement. The process and the results of this effort are presented in Sect. 2.5.

2.5 2.5.1

State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement Introduction

As discussed above, intercultural project customer engagement is located at the intersection of project stakeholder management and intercultural management. Intercultural project teams can be very successful if they are able to reap the benefits

2.5 State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

109

of diversity, and might fail of they are not (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000). For a global project leader it is indispensable to integrate project management knowledge with the capability to influence stakeholders across cultural boundaries and without formal authority (Moran, Youngdahl, & Moran, 2009). Developing a project story that epitomizes the project vision in a comprehensible way for all team members, will help to increase informal authority and alignment across cultural differences (Moran & Youngdahl, 2014). Customer integration and successful and trustful stakeholder management across cultures are regarded as important success factors for intercultural projects (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Eberlein, 2008; Fortune & White, 2006; Giesche, 2010; Shaffer & Miller, 2008). Global project teams face typical challenges that arise from interaction in (1) a different language with different levels of proficiency, (2) diverse cultural backgrounds exhibiting diverse norms, values and behaviors, (3) physical distance which results in less trust and an information gap, and (4) different companies with different strategic interests and expectations (Barczak, McDonough, & Athanassiou, 2006; Moran et al., 2009). For bridging this divide in international projects, Moran et al. (2009) recommend project managers to consider three strategies, initially issued by Mintzberg (1983), for organizations. These strategies are (1) to stipulate to all members that they have to adjust to each other, (2) apply direct supervision when necessary, and (3) develop a standardized process that reinforces interdependencies and collaboration (Mintzberg, 1983; Moran et al., 2009). A cultural due diligence for competent project leaders should encompass the 10 following aspects: 1. Sense of Self and Space: How much personal space is appropriate and which how much self-appreciation and identity? 2. Communication and Language: How good is the knowledge of language and differences in culture specific verbal and non-verbal expressions? 3. Dress and Appearance: How aware is the project manager with culturally distinct garments and adornments? 4. Food and Feeding Habits: How members of different cultures eat and which animals are food/pets. 5. Time: What are the habits with regards to scheduling and punctuality? 6. Relationships: Are private and professional relationships established in function or age, qualification, hierarchy, wisdom or family ties? 7. Values and Norms: How do differences in values lead to different norms and behaviors? 8. Beliefs and Attitudes: Which philosophical and religious beliefs and customs should be considered? 9. Mental Process and Learning: How do members of other cultures think and conceptualize differently? How should an argument be structured to be convincing? 10. Work Habits and Practices: What is the meaning of work? What to people see in work and what’s the primary purpose for it? This may differ strongly between cultures. (Moran, Abramson, & Moran, 2014, pp. 11–13; Moran et al., 2009)

110

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

For assessing and comparing the complexity of international projects Binder (2007) proposes five dimensions of complexity. The first dimension is the number of different locations that are involved in the project. This is important because it determines how team members collaborate. Second is the number of different organizations, which is important because different organizations imply different organizational cultures, professional backgrounds, and strategic interests in the project. The third dimension is about considering the diversity of national cultures involved in the project. Fourth is the number of different languages involved in the project. Varying degrees of English proficiency can be problematic not only in task based communication, but also when it comes to social activities and trust building. The fifth dimension covers the question of how many time zones are involved. Working across time zones enables ‘working around the clock’ but it limits the amount of direct-, phone-, or video-conferencing (Binder, 2007, pp. 1–6). Once the diversity and complexity of the global project is determined, it becomes important to understand the specific intercultural challenges and how to bridge them. For this, Binder (2007) recommends a 360-degree analysis, using cultural dimensions to assess team member’s perspective on their own and the other’s cultures. The dimensions used for this approach are Hofstede et al.’s and/or Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner’s dimensions. Knowing the differences will enable team members and project managers to harness cultural differences (Binder, 2007, pp. 34–38). Cultural dimensions are also used by Köster (2010) to describe cultural differences in her cultural gap tool. Like Binder’s (2007) 360-degree tool the culture gap tool is inspired Hofstede et al.’s and Trompenaars & HampdenTurner’s dimensions (equality vs. hierarchy, embracing vs. avoiding risk, individual vs. group, universal vs. circumstantial, achievement vs. standing/status, and sequential vs. synchronic). Those dimensions are complemented by three additional ones which are relevant for project managers and included for practical reasons (task vs. relationship, conflict vs. consensus, and theoretical vs. pragmatic). As a tool that helps project managers to assess intercultural project complexity Köster (2010) proposes a checklist that allows scoring a project high, medium or low on a number of criteria (Köster, 2010). Turning the knowledge of cultural differences and intercultural project complexity into effective and appropriate intercultural management requires further capabilities though. For that purpose, Grisham (2010) applied the idea of cultural intelligence to project leadership. Recognizing that project managers in intercultural projects must be able to adjust to the intercultural environment, this wheel is proposed as a guidance as to how such ability can be built and put into practice. Figure 2.9 shows how these components are conceptualized as a wheel, with trust and conflict management at its hub (Grisham, 2010). The XLQ-Model prescribes six dimensions: Trust, conflict management, empathy, communication, power, and transformation. Conflict management in this context, is described as the ‘lubricant’ between the four spoke-dimensions and the hub (Trust) (Grisham, 2010, pp. 102–107).

2.5 State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Empathy

Fig. 2.9 Cross-culturalleadership-model. Source: Grisham and Walker (2008, p. 440)

111

Trust

Power

Transformation

Communication

Conflict Management

– Trust: This component is considered critical for project success. It is easily lost and it takes time to create. In contract-relationships, e.g., with an external customer, trust might be difficult to establish. It is therefore important to establish a project culture that emphasizes transparency, mutual respect and honesty among the team members, including the project customer (Grisham, 2010, pp. 107–111). – Conflict Management: Conflict, like change, should be embraced in intercultural projects, because it provides an opportunity to learn from each other. This learning process moves from knowing the other culture, through diagnosis, intervention, learning, anticipating future conflict, and eventually to turning these learnings into better understanding and knowledge (Grisham, 2010, pp. 111–120). – Power: For project managers power only seldom arises from a hierarchical position. Therefore, descriptors of power also include power from having and sharing knowledge, power distance as culturally determined, referent power and power from the ability to reward or punish. These descriptors shape the ability to align behaviors with the project goals (Grisham, 2010, pp. 120–125). – Empathy: The ability to see and feel a situation form the other’s perspective is a function of cultural intelligence, compassion and consideration of humane factors, and a leadership style that emphasizes self-sacrifice and empowerment (Grisham, 2010, pp. 125–128). – Transformation: Transformative leadership encompasses the achievement of change through inspiring team members, applying charisma, providing safety for venturing change, and providing a guiding vision for change (Grisham, 2010, pp. 128–131). – Communication: Effective communication considers that communication is only an approximation of the intended meaning. Good intercultural communication requires more time and dedication. It is recommended to paraphrase to synchronize understanding through active listening and applying patience (Grisham, 2010, p. 140).

112

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Cross-Cultural Leadership Intelligence (XLQ) describes the interdependent relationships between the six different components that allow for better intercultural project management. These relationships will contribute to better project performance if applied to creating a collaborative project environment (CPE) with a strong project culture (Grisham, 2009; Grisham, 2010). The above is a review of current applications of intercultural management theory to the management of international, global or intercultural projects. The focus if these contributions is to improve cultural understanding and to improve the management of culturally diverse project teams by improving the intercultural competencies of the project managers. All of these capabilities have a crucial role in understanding how to engage project customers from other cultural backgrounds. None of these approaches specifically addresses the peculiar project-customer relationship in international projects. This is why, a structured literature was undertaken to identify relevant scientific contributions in the area and then to synthesize impact factors for intercultural project customer engagement.

2.5.2

Structured Literature Review Framework

Literature reviews can take be approached of a narrative account of what is known in a scientific field or of a systematic review. Systematic reviews aim at enabling a transparent, scientific, and replicable approach to reviewing literature that allows the researcher to comprehensively review and summarize all existing information in an unbiased way (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009). Systematic reviews can be described in a process that has at least 4 steps. 1. Define purpose and scope: Based on a research question the scope and purpose of the study is defined and what kind or studies should be included based on which keyword search; 2. Identify relevant studies: Based on a defined search strategy, the process of finding studies and articles must be defined in a replicable and transparent manner. Not only peer-reviewed articles should be included but also books, and unpublished work like dissertations or conference papers; 3. Assess studies: In this step, the reviewer restricts the search results, e.g., in terms of years included or methodology used, and defines inclusion or exclusion criteria. This is an iterative filtering process that narrows down the number of relevant studies for the in-depth analysis; 4. Analyze and synthesize studies: This step includes using a protocol including a track record of database searches and data-collection methods. If qualitative and quantitative studies are combined in the search, a report will often take the form of a summary table exposing the key findings. The research report should include the purpose of the review, methods and findings and conclusions (Bryman, 2012, p. 103; Bryman & Bell, 2011, pp. 95–98; Denyer & Tranfield, 2009).

2.5 State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

113

Earlier propositions on how to conduct a systematic literature review include Tranfield et al.’s adoption of an approach originating in the medical science. They outline the opportunities and challenges in applying a three-staged approach in nine steps (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). – Planning: This stage includes the identification of the need for a review, preparing the proposal, and development of the review protocol. – Conducting: In this stage research studies are identified, selected, their quality is assessed, and the relevant data is extracted and synthesized. – Reporting and Disseminating: This is about reporting the results and recommendations and giving scientific evidence back to the practice. (Tranfield et al., 2003) Tranfield et al. (2003) recommend a systemic review because it enables a comprehensive understanding based on a transparent and replicable process (Tranfield et al., 2003). However, approaches of applying systematic literature reviews in social sciences and the field of management and organizational science have been criticized for several reasons. The additional benefits of carrying out a systematic review are limited in cases where it is impossible to define the research in terms of a particular variable, or when the boundaries of the surveyed subject are fluid or fuzzy. Furthermore, if the researcher becomes more concerned with the technical, procedural and documentation aspects, it may lead to a bureaucratization of the review process. A third limitation is that in qualitative studies it is sometimes hard to define neat inclusion criteria and summarize the findings across a number of different studies. Researchers with a interpretivist epistemological position also tend to find the approach problematic, since it is difficult to collect the subjective meaning of social action through a systematic review (Bryman, 2012, pp. 108–110; Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 17; Denyer & Tranfield, 2009). For researchers aiming at generating understanding rather that accumulating knowledge, for those research approaches that are inductive rather that deductive, interpretivist rather that positivist, qualitative rather that quantitative, it might be recommendable to pursue a narrative literature review rather than a systematic review (Bryman, 2012, p. 111). Therefore, studies in communication, leadership or (cultural) identity lend themselves to a narrative literature review process (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 102; Rhodes & Brown, 2005). While allowing for a higher degree of adaptability to the subject matter, narrative literature reviews can still benefit from the inclusion of some aspects of systematic reviews. A clearly formulate research question at the outset of a review, defined and re-iterated searchterms, formulated selection/quality criteria and a structured presentation in summary tables with the original sources will increase transparency and reproducibility if included in non-systematic reviews (Bryman, 2012). This review will not be a systematic review in the sense that is describe above because it will emphasize peer reviewed and published works from academic journals. Other notable differences to systematic review include the review panel and the review protocol, which are components of systematic reviews in medicine,

114

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

but have to be adjusted for the application in management and organizational science (Tranfield et al., 2003). The following section with therefore illustrate how these elements were combined for the literature review process of this dissertation.

2.5.3

Process of Literature Review

The previous sections of this chapter have introduced three major knowledge areas that contribute to understanding intercultural project customer engagement: (1) project management, (2) stakeholder and customer management, (3) intercultural management. In the following, attention is going to be dedicated to the intersections of these knowledge areas, namely intercultural project stakeholder management and intercultural project customer management. They are visualized in Fig. 2.10. Therefore, this structure literature review that aims at answering the following review question: “What are scientific contributions in the area of intercultural project customer engagement and what do they reveal in terms of impact factors for successful customer engagement?” For answering these questions the review process involved four distinguishable, yet interrelated, iterative stages. Figure 2.11 visualizes the four-stage process of this literature review. It describes the iterative process in which the studies relevant to this dissertation have been identified and included into analysis. Stage 1: At the beginning of this review stood the review question that was formulated above. The areas of scientific knowledge that must be inquired for this purpose are visualized in Fig. 2.10. It is important to recognize that applicable knowledge for this dissertation comes primarily from the intersections of the different knowledge areas. These knowledge area intersections are highlighted in red (Intercultural Project Customer Management—IPC) and blue (Intercultural Project Stakeholder Management—IPS) in Fig. 2.10.

Project Management

Intercultural Project Stakeholder Management

Stakeholder Management

Intercultural Management Customer Management

Intercultural Project Customer Management

Fig. 2.10 Knowledge area intersections. Source: Compiled by author

2.5 State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

115

Formulaon of review queson Inial determinaon of knowledge areas

Stage 1

(Re)assessment of knowledge areas Creaon of key-words & synonyms based on knowledge areas Generaon of search strings using Boolean operators Assess/filter search results

first database search cycle

Conduct database search

Collect & document search results

Stage 2 Inial set of idenfied research studies

Assess/filter search results

’snow-balling’ & second database search cycle

Conduct snowball & further database search

Collect & document search results

Stage 3 Comprehensive set of idenfied & relevant research studies

Analysis | Summary | Synthesis

Stage 4 Fig. 2.11 Literature review process. Source: Compiled by author

Stage 2: Based on stage one, lists of keywords and synonyms were identified, to facilitate the database search. This exercise is the starting point for an iterative process involving building search stings (using Boolean operators) from different keyword combinations and conducting database searches. The search results were then assessed in order to decided how to adjust the search strings and/or keywords. Table 2.14 shows the list of keywords and synonyms that emerged after a number of iterations with various revisions of the synonyms list. Stage two of the literature identified 152 articles based on a ‘AND’ combination of client/stakeholder synonyms, with culture and project in a full text or abstract search (were applicable). The search engine that was used is the disco search tool of WWU-Münster (http://disco.uni-muenster.de). It gives access to more than 3.5 million books, 200 million articles, and more than 100,000 scientific journals. It covers to all the important scientific databases relevant for intercultural project management, including Springer, WoS, JSTORE, Wiley, Elsevier, and many more (ULB-Münster, 2016). Out of these 152 studies, only 16 studies were selected based on analyzing titles and abstracts according to the following criteria:

116

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 2.14 Keywords and synonyms Customer/stakeholder management Customer Customer/client integration Customer/client management Customer/client involvement Customer/client relationship Client-vendor integration Client-vendor management Client-vendor involvement Client vendor relationship Stakeholder

Intercultural management Intercultural International Cross-cultural Cross-country trans-national Foreign cultures foreign countries Culture, cultural Diverse, diversity,

Project management Project management Project planning

Source: Compiled by author

– Does the study really include intercultural or international management questions? – Is it a study that contributes to the area of project management or project stakeholder management? This result led to the decision that an additional analysis of standard literature and the found studies should be undertaken. Stage 3: In the third stage of the review a snowballing technique was applied to identify complementary literature relevant to the research question. For this standard textbooks and the already identified studies were explored and complementary database research was conducted. In this exercise, a total of 248 studies were identified. All identified works were filtered again considering quality criteria, whether the study contributed to the review question or if they offer transferable knowledge from other scientific areas, e.g., organizational culture. At the end of stage 3, 103 relevant studies (including books, peer reviewed articles, conferences papers, and PhD dissertations) were identified that contributed to one or more of the intersections in Fig. 2.10, or that offered transferable knowledge from other areas. Stage 4: The 103 relevant studies that were selected on the basis of title and abstract analysis were analyzed with regards their findings and scientific contribution. This allowed to eliminate another 35 studies for two general reasons: (1) they were concerned with international projects but did not contribute to cross-cultural topics, (2) They covered other forms of culture, such as organizational or professional culture and couldn’t offer transferable knowledge. The articles that were excluded from further analysis are: (Aaltonen et al. 2008, 2010, 2016; Aaltonen & Sivonen, 2009; Aapaoja et al., 2013; Beldi, Cheffi, & Dey, 2010; Bryde & Robinson, 2005; De Long & Fahey, 2000; Doloi, 2011; Gu, Hoffman, Cao, & Schniederjans, 2014; James He & Sheu, 2014; Jarkas, Radosavljevic, & Wuyi, 2014; Jepsen & Eskerod, 2009; Jun, Qiuzhen, & Qingguo, 2011; Kujala & Ahola, 2005; Lee, Wang, Liu, & Lin, 2007; Liinamaa & Gustafsson, 2010; Nooteboom, 2006; Nwakanma, Asiegbu, Njoku, & Tech, 2013; Olander & Landin, 2005; Peled & Dvir, 2012; Sharma, Apoorva, Madireddy, & Jain, 2008; Sharma, Stone, & Ekinci, 2009; Souder

2.5 State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

117

& Jenssen, 1999; Sunindijo & Zou, 2013; Voss & Kock, 2013; Walker et al., 2014; Ward & Chapman, 2008; Wiewiora, Murphy, Trigunarsyah, & Brown, 2014; Yan & Dooley, 2014; Yang, Shen, Ho, Drew, & Xue, 2011; Zou, Zillante, & Coffey, 2002). A remnant of 68 publications were subjected to an in-depth analysis investigating impact factors of intercultural project customer engagement and approaches to the management of these factors. When looking only at the studies that contribute directly to intercultural customer management (IPC—the smaller red intersection in Fig. 2.10), 19 studies from different research streams were identified. Recognizing that project customer management is part of project stakeholder management, and searching for transferable knowledge from that knowledge area, the scope of analysis was widened to include 49 publications concerned primarily with project stakeholders. The studies that are included in both the IPC and IPS can be sorted into two categories: – Studies that deal with identifying and describing cultural differences and how they affect project management; this category was labelled ‘cultural differences’ – Studies that inquire into how project managers, team members, clients or other stakeholders can adapt cognitive processes or behavior in order to deal with cultural differences; this category was labelled ‘cultural intelligence’ Table 2.15 shows how the articles fall into the four categories that are defined above. The table underlines that intercultural stakeholder management that focuses on cultural differences and their effect is the largest category of scientific contributions. This is not surprising, since project stakeholder management and culturaldimensions-theory are large research areas with many sub-categories and, hence, they create a large intersection. The emphasis of this dissertation is on the IPC intersection, however. Therefore, in the following section attention will be directed on questions of project customer management first. This analysis is going to be complemented by impact factors that result from the stakeholder management areas analysis.

2.5.4

Findings of Literature Review: Impact Factors

The initial aim of this literature review was to identify studies that fall into the intersection of Intercultural Project Customer Management (red in Fig. 2.10) and to identify impact factors from these studies. Therefore, in this section the primary focus will be on presenting the identified impact factors extracted from intercultural project management that explicitly mention project customers or clients. These factors are shown in Table 2.16. The articles that primarily identify and describe cultural differences in in project customer management can be sorted into three research directions. The first of these directions, and most important for this dissertation, is ‘Customer Relationship. The articles describe differences along cultural dimensions such as Individualism (IDV), Power Distance (PD), Uncertainty Avoidance (UA), Long-

39 Studies: Ajmal et al. (2012), Anantatmula and Thomas (2010), Binder (2007), Bredillet, Yatim, and Ruiz (2010), Breth and Drechsler (2014), de Bony (2010), de Camprieu, Desbiens, and Feixue (2007), DeLone, Espinosa, Lee, and Carmel (2005), Gleich, Schneider, and Müller (2010), Hofstede (1983), Hongmin (2009), Horii, Jin, and Levitt (2005), Ika (2012), Jetu et al. (2011), Kedia and Bhagat (1988), Kohlbacher and Krähe (2007), Köster (2010), Liu, Meng, and Fellows (2015), Mahalingam and Levitt (2007), Meyer (2014), Mohammed, White, and Prabhakar (2008), Moran and Youngdahl (2014), Mueller, Riedel, and Simon (2008), Muethel and Hoegl (2010), Muriithi and Crawford (2003), Ochieng and Price (2010), Pant, Allinson, and Hayes (1996), Ranf (2010), Rees-Caldwell and Pinnington (2013), Schneider (1995), Shore and Cross (2005), Souder and Jenssen (1999), Swierczek (1994), Wang and Huang (2006), Watson, Kumar, and Michaelsen (1993), Weir and Hutchings (2005), Yavas and Rezayat (2003), Žegarac and Spencer-Oatey (2013) and Zein (2015)

IPS—Intercultural Project Stakeholder Management

Source: Compiled by author

Cultural differences 9 Studies: Chen and Partington (2004), Daim et al. (2012), Damian and Zowghi (2003), Haried and Ramamurthy (2009), Javed, Maqsood, and Durrani (2006), Locker et al. (2016), Pearson and Stephan (1998), Pheng and Leong (2000) and Zwikael, Shimizu, and Globerson (2005)

Intersection IPC—Intercultural Project Customer Management

Table 2.15 Knowledge area intersections—results Cultural intelligence 10 Studies: Deng, Mao, and Wang (2013), Gregory (2010), Gregory, Prifling, and Beck (2008), Jain, Poston, and Simon (2011), Jain, Simon et al., (2011), Mahadevan and Klinke (2012), Mao, Lee, and Deng (2008), Peled et al. (2013), Vlaar, van Fenema, and Tiwari (2008), Vogt, Beck, and Gregory (2010) and Yitmen (2013) 10 Studies: (Behfar, Kern, and Brett (2006), Böhm (2013), DiStefano and Maznevski (2000), Durnell Cramton and Hinds (2004), Eberlein (2008), Grisham (2010), Khan (2014), Loosemore and Muslmani (1999), Molinsky (2013) and Yasin, Martin, and Czuchry (2000)

118 2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

2.5 State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

119

Table 2.16 Impact factors IPC—cultural differences Culture component Cultural differences

Research directions Customer relationship

Collaboration

Virtual teams

Source: Compiled by author

Impact factors Differences affecting customer relationship: – IDV, PD, UA, LTO, – Internal vs. external locus of control, – Relationship vs. contract orientation – Concept of time (polychronic vs. monochronic) Effects: – Concept of customer (boss/provider/colleague) – How to measure success – Aim of negotiations – Misunderstandings – Disrupted trust – Disappointment Chen and Partington (2004), Damian and Zowghi (2003), Pearson and Stephan (1998) and Zwikael et al. (2005) Trust/respect factors: – Respect for client’s or vendor’s top management (Power Distance & Collectivism) – Inhibited feedback, face-keeping, yes-saying, (Collectivism, Femininity) – Suspicious attitude towards client/vendor (Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism) – Non-suspicious attitude (Collectivism, Femininity) – Relationship orientation, family business orientation (Collectivism) Management factors: – Indifferent Management Culture (Power Distance) – Involved (Power Distance) – Imposing (Uncertainty Avoidance, Power Distance) Conflict management factors: – Conflict avoidance (Uncertainty Avoidance) – Conflict seeking (Uncertainty Avoidance, Individualism, Masculinity) Haried and Ramamurthy (2009), Locker et al. (2016) and Pheng and Leong (2000) Effects of cultural differences: – Trust – Interpersonal relations – Leadership – Technology – Communication breakdown – Low effect on cost management in projects with distributed clients (Javed et al., 2006) Adaptation: – Development of strong project culture can moderate effects Daim et al. (2012) and Javed et al. (2006)

120

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Term-Orientation (LTO), internal vs. external locus of control, relationshipvs. contract-orientation, and polychronic vs. monochronic time concept. These differences lead to different perspectives on the customer role (is he the boss or rather the provider of resources?), and diverging ideas on what establishes project success. These are crucial differences project managers have to consider when preparing negotiation, if they want to establish trust and avoid disappointments (Chen & Partington, 2004; Damian & Zowghi, 2003; Pearson & Stephan, 1998; Zwikael et al., 2005). The second research direction that can be identified are studies that investigate questions of ‘Collaboration”. These studies provide insight into the collaborative nature of the customer relationship. Impact factors include mutual respect, inhibited feedback through face-keeping or yes-saying behaviors, the degree of suspiciousness in the relationship and the degree of importance that is given to either the contract or the personal relationship. PD and UA influence the way in which the relationship is managed, this management can take different forms; indifferent, involved or imposing character traits. Another important question is whether the participants in the relationship are comfortable with openly addressing, or even seeking conflict, or if they prefer conflict avoidance. These preferences are influenced by UA, IDV and MAS cultural dimensions (Haried & Ramamurthy, 2009; Locker et al., 2016; Pheng & Leong, 2000). The third research direction is concerned with customers in virtual teams. The articles show that cultural differences in customer engagement if virtual team give rise to problems with trust and communication breakdown in interpersonal relations, the perception of leadership, and the adaptation of IT tools. Cultural differences have been shown to have rather small effect on costs in projects with distributed clients. The effects of culture can be moderated by the creation of a strong project culture, shared by clients and vendors (Daim et al., 2012; Javed et al., 2006) (Table 2.17). Cultural differences, which are described in the upper half of Table 2.16, can be moderated by cultural intelligence. The second half of Table 2.16 shows research directions and impact factors that resulted from the analysis of articles covering cultural intelligence of intercultural competences questions. The largest research direction in this area is research on ‘IT-Offshoring and Outsourcing’ projects. Problems that are reported in this category include a lack of knowledge sharing, untimely problem reporting, yes-saying, face-saving, and tendency-to-please behaviors, and their misinterpretation. These factors lead to interpersonal conflict, disrupted trust and disappointment in the customer-vendor relationship. These problems require adaptations in communication, expectations management, cultural awareness, which can lead to the creation of a shared, or negotiated project culture. This can also foster trust, which might be further supported with information sharing and communication quality. In such an environment of cultural blending, goal setting can lead to better control of the customer over the project. Success factors for this are cognitive flexibility and the capability to understand the cultural preferences at play and to adapt the project management style to them (Deng et al., 2013; Gregory, 2010; Gregory et al., 2008; Jain, Poston et al., 2011; Jain, Simon et al., 2011; Mao et al., 2008; Vogt et al., 2010).

2.5 State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

121

Table 2.17 Impact factors IPC—cultural intelligence Culture component Cultural intelligence

Research directions IT offshoring and outsourcing

Intercultural sense-making

Leadership and organization

Impact factors Impact factors: – Knowledge sharing – Untimely problem reporting – Fear of penalty leading to ‘vendor silence’ – Yes-saying behaviors (face-saving, tendency to please) – Misinterpretation – Interpersonal conflict – Disrupted trust – Disappointment Adaptation: – Communication, expectations and awareness – Negotiated culture through learning and adaptation – Information sharing, communication quality and interfirm adaptation should lead to increased trust – Goal setting and cultural blending should lead to better control – Cognitive flexibility moderates conflict – Understand cultural differences and adapt PM-style Deng et al. (2013), Gregory (2010), Gregory et al. (2008), Jain, Poston et al. (2011), Jain, Simon et al. (2011), Mao et al. (2008) and Vogt et al. (2010) Impact factors: – Different conceptions of time/quality – Inadequate implementation of project controlling – Misinterpretation of behaviors through own values/ norms-filters – Direct communication perceived as impolite – Assessment of project success depends on cultural filters Adaptation: – Interpretation through own cultural filters precludes learning and usage of customer knowledge – Breaking and re-negotiating sense improves communication Mahadevan and Klinke (2012) and Vlaar et al. (2008) Impact factors: – Cross-cultural coordination – Cross-cultural managerial, structural capability – Cross-cultural experience and flexibility (of uses) – Factors of organizational CQ show positive relationship with international strategic alliances Yitmen (2013)

Source: Compiled by author

Another research direction is concerned with how actors in international projects create sense across cultural boundaries. Project managers need to be aware of and adjust their cultural filters to avoid misinterpretation of being perceived as impolite. The aim is to learn from intercultural incidents and make better use of customer

122

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

knowledge. Between project stakeholders this is a process of breaking with existing sense and perceptions and negotiate new, common, sense, norms and values. This requires dealing with different conceptions of time and quality, confronting the degree of implementation of project controlling, and the assessment of project success (Mahadevan & Klinke, 2012; Vlaar et al., 2008). The study of Yitmen (2013) doesn’t fit into any of the above categories because it is concerned primarily with organizational culture. It emphasizes components of cultural intelligence, however, which are important for dealing successfully also with national culture differences. Project managers in intercultural projects need to show the capability to use their experience and flexibility in order manage across cultural boundaries. It is also shown that organizational cultural intelligence shows a positive relationship with projects in international strategic alliances (Yitmen, 2013). Summarizing Table 2.16 it becomes evident that cultural differences in the customer-vendor relationship can be described along existing cultural dimensions. Cultural differences affect the customer relationship in at least five ways: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The perception of project success The perceived role of the project customer and vendor The quality and timing of knowledge and information sharing The building of trust between client and vendor The intercultural competence (or intelligence) of the actors involved

These factors are interdependent in that cultural intelligence affects trust, and vice versa. Trust enables timely knowledge and information sharing, which, in turn, would increase trust. Culturally appropriate behavior, i.e. cultural competence, should enable the appropriate and effective involvement of the customer. Trustful and timely information and knowledge sharing positively affects the actor’s perception of project success and is based on appropriately perceiving and defining the role of the customer. These relationships are visualized in Fig. 2.12. These impact factors have been extracted from only 19 articles that contributed to the area of intercultural project customer engagement. It should be expected that additional impact factors can be extracted from studies concerned with intercultural project customer engagement. Therefore, an additional 49 studies from the intercultural stakeholder management (IPS) field (see Table 2.15) have been analyzed to identify complementary impact factors. A summary of these factors is available in Table 2.18. Similar to Table 2.16 the IPS articles were divided into those that emphasize cultural differences and those focusing on cultural intelligence or intercultural competence. The effects of cultural differences can be assigned to seven research directions. Articles in the ‘Collaboration’ category are concerned with describing how cultural differences affect collaboration within the project team, which might be extended to include the project customer. Differences along cultural dimensions’ impact, e.g., to which degree project employees engage in shared leadership (Muethel & Hoegl, 2010), project monitoring and controlling activities (de Bony, 2010), or on which basis they confer trust (Ajmal et al., 2012; Locker et al., 2016;

2.5 State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Cultural Competence

Cultural competence helps to define adequate client role. Feedback improves cultural competence

123

Adequate Client Concept

Adequate percepon of client role facilitates trust building.

Intercultural competence helps how/when to confer trust. Feedback leads to development of competence

Adequate client role percepon supports perceived project success.

Trust

Trust improves percepon of success.

Perceived Project Success

Lack of trust inhibits knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing improves trust.

Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge sharing improves percepon of success.

Cultural Differences Fig. 2.12 Relationships IPC impact factors. Source: Compiled by author

Ochieng & Price, 2010). Goal congruence might be impaired by cultural differences, because cultural preferences determine what is appreciated in the outcome and process of a project (Ajmal et al., 2012; Kohlbacher & Krähe, 2007; Ochieng & Price, 2010). This is an issue with potentially very high impact on the customer relationship which was also highlighted in other studies and research directions. Another large category is composed of those articles covering Human Resource (HR) management related factors. These factors emphasize team work and motivational issues in international projects which might affect the relationship between project team and the customer. Many factors, like trust are similar to those identified earlier in other research directions. This includes conflict management (Mohammed et al., 2008) and trust building in project teams (Ochieng & Price, 2010). This area contributes to questions of diversity management in teams and how to improve team performance (Jetu et al., 2011; Ochieng & Price, 2010). A number of good practices are identified to achieve better performance in diverse teams and including emphasizing trust and honesty, building a collectivist team culture (Jetu et al., 2011; Ochieng & Price, 2010). The research directions ‘Communication’, ‘Knowledge Transfer’ and ‘Risk/ Quality’ yield impact factors that are comparable with those offered earlier. In the ‘Overall Project Management’ category there is a strong emphasis on requirements towards the capabilities and behavior of the project manager. The authors stress that the project manager should show a high degree of intercultural competence and transformational leadership and that he or she needs to be capable of adjusting the communicative style, be tolerant and respectful confronting different ways of doing things, and adjust project planning to incorporate enough time for resolving communication and decision issues (Anantatmula & Thomas, 2010; Binder, 2007;

124

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 2.18 Impact factors IPS Culture Research component directions Cultural Collaboration differences

Impact factors – Cultural miscommunication and misunderstanding – No blending leads to poor planning, and cooperation – Perceived lack of leadership, strategy, vision – Lack of harmony – Stronger need for team-building – Conflict and different ways to deal with it – Different preferences for organizational styles (resulting from differences in PD and UA) – Different perceptions of project success (e.g., relational success, or ‘Guanxi’, in China) – Conflicting aesthetic views (e.g., in construction industry) – Conflicting contracting practices (in construction industry) – Shared leadership behavior of project employees resulting from different levels of learning orientation, performance orientation, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, assertiveness, institutional collectivism, humane orientation – Task- and contract-orientation with monochronic time (e.g., NL) conflicts with relationship- and goal-orientation with polychronic time (e.g., France) – Lacking implementation of controlling tools – Cultural differences are impediments to trust building – Reliable behavior (erratic behavior) – Goal congruence (goal divergence) – Integrity (treachery) – Competence (ineptness) – Reaching milestones (failure in attaining milestones) – Good communication (poor communication) – Commitment (disloyalty) – Sincerity (Insincerity) – Benevolence (malevolence) Ajmal et al. (2012), de Bony (2010), Horii et al. (2005), Mahalingam and Levitt (2007), Muethel and Hoegl (2010), Swierczek (1994) and Wang and Huang (2006) Communication – Different communication preferences (context, face-2-face, reporting detail, phone follow-up) – Self-orientation in communication might lead communication failure Ranf (2010) and Žegarac and Spencer-Oatey (2013) HR – Competitive conflict management (IDV & MAS) vs. conflict management avoidance (UA) – Diversity might hamper performance in the short term – Diverse teams should outperform homogeneous groups in finding alternatives and including different perspectives. – Homogeneous teams should outperform diverse teams in terms of quality of solution – Power Distance influences preferences for management structure & geographic work distribution (continued)

2.5 State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

125

Table 2.18 (continued) Culture Research component directions

Overall project management

Impact factors – Uncertainty Avoidance affects geographic work distribution budgetary commitment and family- and education orientation – Individualism affects management structure & geographic work distribution, family- and education-orientation and preferences for pay equity – Future Orientation influences budgetary commitment – Performance Orientation impacts pay equity – Humane Treatment influences family- and education-orientation – Miscommunication leads to wrong expectation – Miscommunication leads to misalignment with project goals – Different concepts of value – Lack of trust leads to insufficient knowledge transfer – Negative stereotypes & assertiveness hamper trust building – Different networking patterns in teams – Mental rigidity, self-centeredness, defensiveness hampers intercultural learning – Team work is hampered by externalization (external locus of control), opportunism (IDV), conformism (IDV, PD), risk aversion (UA) Good Practices: – Clear lines of responsibility – Emphasize team spirit – Establish trust & honesty – Introduce cultural empathy – Utilize value management techniques – Try to build a collectivist team culture Jetu et al. (2011), Mohammed et al. (2008), Ochieng and Price (2010), Shore and Cross (2005) and Watson et al. (1993) Impact factors & effects: – Along cultural dimensions PD, IDV, UA, MAS, – Communication – Leadership & Trust – Planning, execution, control – Stakeholder & customer satisfaction – Success/failure of standardization – Importance of project management, planning, scheduling, quality, technology orientation – Köster (2010) shows impacts on planning, organizing, monitoring, leading, communicating, cooperating, and learning – Meyer (2014) shows impact on communication, evaluation, persuasion, leading, deciding, trusting, disagreeing and scheduling Remedies towards project manager: – Project Manager’s intercultural competencies – The higher the degree of transformational leadership, the higher the chances of project success (continued)

126

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 2.18 (continued) Culture Research component directions

Knowledge transfer

Risk/quality

Standardization

Impact factors – Show tolerance for different approaches to a solution – Adjust to required level of detail in communication – Dedicate time to relationship building – Plan with time buffers for consultation and group decision making – Show respect for other culture and way of working – Negotiate a way in which hierarchy and status are respected Anantatmula and Thomas (2010), Binder (2007), Breth and Drechsler (2014), DeLone et al. (2005), Gleich et al. (2010), Hofstede (1983), Hongmin (2009), Köster (2010), Meyer (2014), Moran and Youngdahl (2014), Mueller et al. (2008), ReesCaldwell and Pinnington (2013), Souder and Jenssen (1999) and Zein (2015) Impact factors: – Technology transfer facilitated by low UA, IDV is high or low IDV combined with achievement orientation – In Arab and Chinese cultures, establishing a relationship network with mutual obligations comes first—relationship over task orientation – Differences in emphasizing quality of knowledge transfer or timely execution – Focus on ‘the goal’ vs. ‘the way’ – Cultural and language barriers impact time requirements in knowledge transfer – Established trusted networks (family ties) might be preferred for local knowledge transfer Kedia and Bhagat (1988), Kohlbacher and Krähe (2007) and Weir and Hutchings (2005) – PD, UA, and IDV influence how process and product quality is perceived, i.e. whether a certain process or product is acceptable or not – Project risk assessments differ e.g., between China and Canada, in terms of risk factors and probability of impact – Cultural differences influence which risks are perceived and/or deemed important – Knowledge of cultural differences impacts the perception and management of risks de Camprieu et al. (2007), Liu et al. (2015) and Yavas and Rezayat (2003) Impact Factors: – Standardization impacted by. . . . . .different rhythms of life, . . .significance of time as performance criterion . . .divide and organize vs. atomize and multitask . . .information density—the amount of contextual information required for learning – Bureaucracy will hamper project standardization (continued)

2.5 State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

127

Table 2.18 (continued) Culture Research component directions

Impact factors

– Standard’s assumptions of objectivity, flexibility, risk attitude, independent decision making, low conformity and low PD and rule orientation do not apply in many developing countries – Uncertainty avoidance influences the importance and implementation of cost control measures – The importance of a contract depends on cultural differences (e.g., IDV, Diffuse vs. Specific, high vs. low context) – Low PD and UA lead to better formal project management deployment – In low GDP countries, high IDV leads to better formal project management deployment. Good Practices: – Goal setting needs cultural adjustment – Task planning and organization – Dividing and planning responsibilities – Information processing and decision making – Selection criteria for team members Bredillet et al. (2010), Ika (2012), Muriithi and Crawford (2003), Pant et al. (1996) and Schneider (1995) Cultural Communication Differences: intelligence – Verbal and non-verbal communication – Religious believes – Internal vs. external locus of control – uncertainty avoidance – polychronic vs. monochronic time concept – Power Distance – Individualism/Collectivism – Masculinity/Femininity Effects: – Increased level of conflict – Increased importance of cultural sensitivity – Requires cultural adaptation – Cultural negotiation process in early stages of the project Loosemore and Muslmani (1999) HR Effects: management – Neglecting cultural differences leads to less effectiveness and productivity – Cultural differences lead to incomprehensive understanding, misunderstanding and misinterpretation – Source of ridicule and embarrassment – Source of offence and broken personal relationship – Leads to lost economic opportunity – Inauthentic behavior may lead to distrust Remedies: – Map-Bridge-Integrate Approach (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000) – Adaptation should not be perceived authentic and genuine and not as fake or show Böhm (2013), DiStefano and Maznevski (2000), Durnell Cramton and Hinds (2004) and Khan (2014) (continued)

128

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 2.18 (continued) Culture Research component directions Overall project management

Impact factors Cultural challenges: – Team building – Project communication – Direct vs indirect confrontation – Norms for problem solving and decision making – Time urgency and pace – Differences in work norms and behavior – Violation of respect and hierarchy – Inter-Group prejudices – Lack of common ground (language and credit) – Fluency (accents and vocabulary) – Implicit vs. explicit communications Requirements: – Intercultural communication capability – Cultural awareness – Respect for cultural differences – Empathy – International experience improves cultural knowledge and awareness, integration management, leadership by example and customer management – Devise a cultural adaptation strategy – Use structural and managerial interventions – Evaluate and prepare an exit strategy – Adjust directness of communication – Adjust enthusiasm to expectations of others – Adjust degree of formality, deference, respect – Adjust degree assertiveness to appropriate level – Adjust degree of self-promotion – Adjust degree of personal disclosure Behfar et al. (2006), Eberlein (2008), Grisham and Walker (2008), Molinsky (2013) and Yasin et al. (2000)

Source: Compiled by author

Breth & Drechsler, 2014; DeLone et al., 2005; Gleich et al., 2010; Hofstede, 1983; Hongmin, 2009; Köster, 2010; Meyer, 2014; Moran & Youngdahl, 2014; Mueller et al., 2008; Rees-Caldwell & Pinnington, 2013; Souder & Jenssen, 1999; Zein, 2015). One research direction that complements the factors identified previously is the one dealing with ‘Standardization’. These studies deal with the question of transferring standard project management processes to other cultures. In summary, the usefulness of project management standards may be impaired by differences in time conception, contract- vs. relationship-orientation, levels of bureaucracy, and the degree of Uncertainty Avoidance. In general, countries with low PD and low UA should be expected to adopt standard project management rather easily. In low GDP countries, formal project management is better adopted if IDV is high. In many

2.5 State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

129

African countries, the implicit assumptions behind project management standards are not always met. In general standard implementation might be facilitated by clear goal setting and task planning, and adequately selecting team members considering information processing and decision making (Bredillet et al., 2010; Ika, 2012; Muriithi & Crawford, 2003; Pant et al., 1996; Schneider, 1995). Concerning Intercultural Competence and Cultural Intelligence it is important to be aware that cultural differences might lead to higher levels of interpersonal conflict. Dealing with this requires the project managers and clients to develop cultural sensitivity, adapt their views and behaviors and to negotiate a project culture in the early stages of the project (Loosemore & Muslmani, 1999). Regarding ‘HR-Management’ and team management the selected articles show that cultural differences may result in misunderstandings, ineffectiveness and lower productivity. Cultural differences can be the source in ridicule, embarrassment, offense and result in broken personal relationships. Addressing these issues, it is important to be aware of the cultural differences, being able to shift perspective and create a common ground based on shared values and norms. Culturally adapted behavior should be effective and appropriate and it should be perceived as authentic and genuine (Böhm, 2013; DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000; Durnell Cramton & Hinds, 2004; Khan, 2014). The studies that were sorted into the ‘Overall Project Management’ category expose a number of requirements concerning the actors’ intercultural competence. These include cross-cultural awareness, respect, empathy, and experience, which will facilitate adaptation. Concrete areas that would need adjustment are the directness of communication, the enthusiasm that is shown, the degree of formality, deference and respect, the level of assertiveness that is appropriate, the allowable degree of self-promotion and personal disclosure (Behfar et al., 2006; Eberlein, 2008; Grisham & Walker, 2008; Molinsky, 2013; Yasin et al., 2000). With the help of the above impact factors it is possible to extend the model that was presented in Fig. 2.12. Integrating IPC and IPS factors into one visual representation will be the focal point of the next section.

2.5.5

State of the Art in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

After analyzing the 49 studies listed in Table 2.18 and extracting impact factors of cultural differences and cultural intelligence, Fig. 2.12 can now be complemented by two additional components, (6) the role of standardization in intercultural projects and (7) the importance of aligning goals across cultural boundaries. The question of whether using, or imposing, project management standards in intercultural projects adds value, is closely related to intercultural competence and trust. On the one hand, it takes intercultural competence to know which parts of a project can be standardized in a cross-cultural relationship. Furthermore, failure or

130

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

success of this attempt can increase cultural competence if the actors are sufficiently reflective and culturally aware. Project management standards might also be imposed for lack of trust among project stakeholders. In this way a project customer, or a powerful vendor or service provider, could try to force the other parties into complying with the preferred project management standard. Following McGregor’s Theory X, this could lead into a vicious circle of enforcing and re-enforcing standards and a continuous destruction of trust (McGregor, 2005). Alternatively, complying with the standard that is carefully adjusted to cultural differences, might contribute to the creation of trust and ultimately render the standard a formality of little regard. The perception of project success does not solely depend on whether knowledge sharing took place, trust was build, or a client who was appropriately engaged during the project, but also on whether the project goals were met. Therefore, eliciting and aligning project goals across cultural boundaries and between project stakeholders is a crucial impact factor for intercultural project customer engagement. Determining project goals of the client and other stakeholders in international projects, negotiation their priorities and managing the expectations throughout the project is a task that requires intercultural competence. The above Sect. 2.5 described the process and results of a structured literature review. From an in-depth analysis of 103 selected articles in the area of intercultural project customer and stakeholder management, impact factors for intercultural project customer engagement have been extracted and presented in Tables 2.16 and 2.18. These comprehensive lists of impact factors were then analyzed for common themes and interdependencies. For Table 2.16 which was covering the core-area Intercultural Project Customer—IPC these themes were visualized in Fig. 2.12. Based on this the extracted impact factors in Intercultural Stakeholder Management—IPS were analyzed for additional contributions. Eventually, Fig. 2.13 emerged as a comprehensive visualization of all impact-factor-themes that had been identified and their relationship with each other. This figure allows seeing how the different themes of impact factors are interrelated. While this graphical representation does not include all of the impact factors that were previously identified, it covers all relevant areas and appears to be a functional compromise between level of detail and comprehensibility. The identified themes will be the basis for the upcoming chapters of this thesis.

2.6 2.6.1

A Relational Model for Intercultural Project Customer Engagement Models, Theories and Impact Factors to Be Included

Until now, this chapter has been concerned with explaining the theoretical framework necessary to answer the research question of this dissertation. After Sect. 2.1 provided an introduction and the definitions that are necessary for understanding the

Knowledge sharing improves perception of success.

Trust improves perception of success.

Adequate perception of client role facilitates trust building.

Cultural competence helps to define adequate client role. Feedback improves cultural competence

Fig. 2.13 Impact factors from literature review. Source: Compiled by author

Knowledge Sharing

Lack of trust inhibits knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing improves trust.

Trust

Cultural Competence

Require and enhance each other

Lack of trust could lead to forced standards. Complying with standard might improve trust.

Standardization

Cross-cultural standardization requires intercultural competence. Feedback will competence

Intercultural competence helps to align goals among stakeholders

Aligned goals improve perceived project success

Perceived Project Success

Cultural Differences

Adequate client role perception supports perceived project success.

Adequate Client Concept

Aligned Project Goals

2.6 A Relational Model for Intercultural Project Customer Engagement 131

132

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

rest of this dissertation, Sect. 2.2 summarized the most important international project management standards. It became evident that the impact of cultural differences is underexposed in standards like PRINCE2 and PMBoK, especially if considering that these are bodies of knowledge aimed at international collaboration. Section 2.3 reviewed standard project stakeholder management approaches and the state of the art in project stakeholder management in order to establish a framework for project customer management. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 are summary tables of the various proposed stakeholder management approaches. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show the combined stakeholder approaches along a project management life cycle (Fig. 2.1) and the project management process groups (Fig. 2.2). In the second half of the chapter, the prescribed role of the project customer is analyzed across various project management standard texts and mapped along the project management process groups. Since project customers come in various roles, and with varying responsibilities, the roles were summarized separately for Customers/Clients (Table 2.3), Owners (Table 2.4), Users (Table 2.5), and Sponsors (Table 2.7). Section 2.3 showed that project customer management is not addressed as a specific topic and distilled management approaches for a variety of different project customer roles. While agile project management moves the customer value at the center of project management it fails to deliver a holistic project management approach, and should rather be considered a customer integration approach. As such it informs this dissertation in terms of viable approaches to better customer engagement. The section also showed that intercultural project stakeholder or project customer management have not found adequate reflection in international project management standards. Project managers seeking advice in intercultural questions have to refer to other bodies of knowledge. Section 2.4, therefore, introduces approaches of how to identify and deal with cultural differences. Cultural differences are usually described along cultural dimensions. For this dissertation, the author reviewed 683 expressions (values, believes and behaviors) of differences in national culture along 20 unique and interdependent dimensions from more than seven studies and authors. Some of these dimensions correlate positively or negatively and combinations of different scores on the dimensions lead to very different norms and behaviors in specific national cultures. For the purpose of project customer management, the predictive value of these dimensions is impaired by the cultural complexities and the interplay between hidden layers of culture and visible behaviors (Hall, 1989a; Schein, 1984). The influence of organizational and professional culture further increases the amount of cultural complexity. Therefore, awareness and comprehension of cultural differences along these dimensions needs to be complemented with the project manager’s capability to perceive and learn from cultural differences and to demonstrate culturally appropriate and effective behaviors, i.e. cultural competence. The second half of Sect. 2.4, therefore, reviewed concepts of cultural intelligence and intercultural competence for their applicability to the problem of project customer management. Cultural Intelligence was introduced as a multidimensional concept, presenting the CQ approach (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008), which was complemented by Livermore (2010), and the alternative CI concept (Plum, 2008).

2.6 A Relational Model for Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

133

For this dissertation, however, it is important to consider approaches that emphasize outcome orientation and the capability to adapt behaviors to effectively and appropriately manage intercultural projects. Also, conceptualizations of Intercultural Competence (ICC) are multidimensional constructs, but they comprise such outcome orientation. In order to demonstrate different approaches to ICC various models and approaches of different authors have been presented (Bolten, 2012; Deardorff, 2006; Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Kupla, 2008; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009) which allow to summarize ICC in the six dimensions: (1) outcome orientation, (2) shared culture, (3) abilities and skills, (4) intercultural knowledge, (5) motivation, and (6) attitudes. When conceptualizing impact factors for intercultural project customer engagement, these dimensions should be considered to have significant influence in dealing with cultural differences. After laying out the theoretical foundations in the previous sections, Sect. 2.5 was dedicated to analyzing applications of intercultural management to project management. An exhaustive literature review was conducted in order to identify impact factors for intercultural project customer management. The in-depth analysis of 103 publications yielded extensive lists of factors impacting intercultural project customer management. These factors were summarized in Tables 2.16 and 2.18. The single factors that were identified and listed in these tables were then further synthesized in seven interdependent clusters of impact factors visualized in Fig. 2.13: – – – – – – –

Cultural competence of the involved actors Trust in the relationship between the involved actors Knowledge sharing between client and vendor organizations The role of standardization as a means to neutralize cultural differences Aligned project goals across cultural boundaries An appropriate and shared conceptualization of the client role Shared criteria regarding what constitutes project success

These combined impact factors were extracted form articles that do not necessarily focus on the customer relationship in projects or customer engagement. The literature review showed that there is a lack of a coherent approach to customer engagement in intercultural projects. Therefore, the identified factors should be considered when trying to identify impact factors for successful intercultural project customer engagement. They are the foundation for the proposed model of the following section.

2.6.2

Model of Impact Factors for Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

A model that integrates impact factors for intercultural project customer engagement should therefore incorporate the above theories and findings. In order to do this the following requirements can be formulated:

134

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

1. The model should be based on a model of intercultural competence that allows the relational aspects of the customer-vendor relationship to be expressed. 2. It should be capable of integrating those impact factors that have been identified during the literature review process described in Sect. 2.5 and in Fig. 2.13. 3. As a consequence, the model should be able to integrate internal factors, such as ‘tolerance’ and ‘trust’, and external factors, like adjustments in behavior or project management. The model presented in Fig. 2.14 aims at integrating the three requirements that are formulated above. It is inspired by, both, relational models of intercultural competence (Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Kupla, 2008; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009) and the process model of intercultural competence (Deardorff, 2006). In the following this model will also be referred to as the ICPCE-Model as an abbreviation for Intercultural Project Customer Engagement. The model was conceived to be a relational model inspired by Imahori and Lanigan (1989) in the sense that the relational outcome must be considered as an important component. Relational validation, intimacy, satisfaction, commitment and stability are desired outcomes for Imahori and Lanigan’s (1989) model as well as for the model proposed in Fig. 2.14. Different from Imahori and Lanigan’s model is that the ICPCE model does not aim at explaining sojourner problems. To address this, it makes sense to integrate the two different cultural perspectives of vendor project manager and client project manager. Here Kupla’s (2008) model offers a relational perspective that allows members of different cultures to interact based different sets on perceptual and conceptual influence factors, which are culture dependent. Kupla’s (2008) model allows the actors to develop something that he calls the “interculture”, enabling shared symbols and mutual understanding based on common basic human needs. This model provides the theoretical foundation for the Customer PM

Vendor PM

Internal Atudes: enabling or inhibing intercultural adjustment (Early & Ang, 2003; Plum, 2008; Deardorff, 2009; Bolten, 2012; …)

Adjustments: external or internal adjustment to the intercultural environment

Adjustments: external or internal adjustment to the intercultural environment

Internal Atudes: enabling or inhibing intercultural adjustment (Early & Ang, 2003; Plum, 2008; Deardorff, 2009; Bolten, 2012; …)

“Shared Project Culture” (Swierczek, 1994; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Damian & Zowghi, 2003; Muethel & Hoegl, 2010; R. W. Gregory, 2010; Daim et al.,2012)

supports

Outcome: appropriate & effecve engagement of project customer Cultural differences & their effects require from actors

complicates Effects: - Behaviors - Preferences

Diffuse v relaonship

Cultural Differences: - Along cultural dimensions

Cultural differences & their effects require from actors

Fig. 2.14 Preliminary relational model of intercultural customer engagement. Source: compiled by author

2.6 A Relational Model for Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

135

“shared” or “negotiated” project culture component in Fig. 2.14. Furthermore, those factors that Kupla (2008) lists under “Conceptas” and “Perceptas” are the same on both sides of the model and contribute factors that can be reflected under the “Internal Attitudes” or “Adjustments” labels in the ICPCE model. Showing members of different cultures on opposing sides of the model is another feature that was included into the model in Fig. 2.14. Deardorff’s (2006) model provides a procedural view on the workings of intercultural competence that was lacking from the two previous models presented above. This procedural perspective finds reflection in the ICPCE model in that effects of cultural differences “require” certain internal attitudes, which in turn “facilitate” intercultural adjustments. Deardorff’s (2006) model components “Attitudes”, “Knowledge and Comprehension” and “Skills” can be represented in the “Internal Attitudes” component of the ICPCE model in Fig. 2.14. Her “Internal Outcome” and “External Outcome” components can be related to the “Adjustments” component in Fig. 2.14. All the impact factors that were identified during the literature review and visualized in Fig. 2.13 can be integrated in the components of this model. Knowledge sharing and trust can be seen as affected by cultural differences and therefore enter the model as lack of trust or lack of knowledge sharing. At the same time, these factors could also be seen as possible adjustments when formulated as actions. In this sense awarding trust or sharing knowledge could be things that project managers decide to change in the intercultural setting. Trust can furthermore be conceived as an internal attitude, since being trustworthy or trustful can be described as a personal characteristic too. Standardization can be reflected the ICPCE model at different levels too. The use of standardization can be adjusted to intercultural to a particular intercultural setting which would be recorded under “Adjustments”. A preference for standardization on the other hand could also be an effect of cultural differences. Cultural competence in Fig. 2.13 would be a part of “Internal Attitudes” in the ICPCE model, since it reflects knowledge, skills and attitudes. Outcome oriented components of Intercultural Competence should he assigned to the “Adjustments” section in Fig. 2.14. The impact factors “aligned project goals”, “appropriate client concept”, and “perceived project success” are best reflected in the outcome section of the ICPCE-model. They are impacted as an effect of cultural differences too, but the way they are formulated in Fig. 2.13 suggests that they better fit into the outcome section of the ICPCE model. Thus, for many of the factors identified in Fig. 2.13, their reflection in Fig. 2.14 depends on how exactly they are formulated. In the following the components of the model presented in Fig. 2.14 shall be presented in more detail. Cultural Differences and Their Effects The model described in Fig. 2.14 starts with recognizing cultural differences, their relevance for project management and their effects on the project customer relationship. Cultural differences have been conceptualized along various models of cultural dimensions described in Sect. 2.4.2.

136

2 Theory in Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

The effects of differences on these cultural dimensions are difficult to predict due to the combined effect of the dimensions. Furthermore, cultural impacts from differences in professional or organizational cultures make for a diffuse relationship between cultural differences and their effects, in terms of observable behaviors and references. Internal Attitudes Cultural differences, therefore, require from the actors a set of internal personal attitudes from the actors like respecting and trusting members of other cultures, recognizing and acknowledging cultural differences, and being motivated and curious about the other’s culture. Of the seven impact factors identified in Fig. 2.13, this category would contain initial levels of general trust, and cultural competence in terms of pre-existing levels of intercultural knowledge, the motivation of achieve intercultural results, and personal attitudes like tolerance, respect and curiosity for other cultures. The degree to which these attitudes are available in the intercultural actors will impact the ability to adjust to the intercultural situation. Adjustments Figure 2.13 also includes some adjustments that project managers or vendor managers use when dealing with intercultural issues. These can be internal or external. Examples for internal adjustments would be adjustments to intercultural knowledge, a component of intercultural competence, deciding to award trust in the other actor, or to be more tolerant or open minded. The perception of project success (Wang & Huang, 2006) could also be regarded as an internal adjustment since it involves adjusting the expectations and appreciation of other success variables. External adjustments can affect the use of standardization in intercultural projects, sharing knowledge, aligning project goals with members of the other cultures, or to change the way in which the customer is approached over the course of the project. The process of adjusting internal posture and external behaviors can be described as the creation of a negotiated or shared project culture (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Gregory, 2010; Muethel & Hoegl, 2010) that supports an appropriate and effective relational outcome. Outcome The appropriate and effective intercultural engagement of the project customer in project management is subject to cultural differences and their effects (Chen & Partington, 2004). Knowing about cultural differences and adjusting to intercultural situations will create a negotiated project culture, which in turn facilitates that the project customer perceives his engagement in the project as being appropriate and effective. The outcome component of the model in Fig. 2.14, therefore, includes internal and external features. Internal in terms of meeting the expectations of the customer or vendor, and external in terms of taking organizational means to integrate the customer in an appropriate way. The model was developed from the literature review only and is based on a number of hypotheses that have to be ascertained through further research. Therefore, the following sections aim at complementing and refining the model through qualitative and quantitative empirical research.

2.6 A Relational Model for Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

2.6.3

137

Hypothesis That Inform the Qualitative and Quantitative Study

From the above model (Fig. 2.14) it is possible to derive some preliminary hypotheses that shall inform the qualitative survey of this dissertation. These hypotheses refer to the general character of intercultural customer management in projects (H1) and the relationship between the different components of the model proposed in Fig. 2.14 (H2–H3). How a negotiated, or shared culture can lead to better outcomes was explained theoretically by the presented models of Intercultural Competence in Figs. 2.6 and 2.7 (Imahori & Lanigan, 1989; Kupla, 2008; Spitzberg & Changnon, 2009) and received empirical support by studies in the area of project management which were presented in Table 2.16 in Sect. 2.5 (Daim et al., 2012; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Gregory, 2010; Javed et al., 2006; Muethel & Hoegl, 2010). This relationship in the model will therefore be regarded as sufficiently supported by empirical research, and will not be the subject of hypotheses or further qualitative or quantitative inquiry in this dissertation. H1 Successful project customer engagement across cultural boundaries requires a unique set of capabilities from both vendor project managers and client project managers. H2 Cultural differences and their effects require a set of internal characteristics (or attitudes) from project clients and project managers in order to create a successful customer relationship. H3 These internal characteristics (or attitudes) may facilitate or impede the actors to adjust internally and externally to the intercultural situation. The qualitative analysis aims at better understanding and complementing the list of impact factors and the relationship between them. Better understanding will create a better foundation for the model in Fig. 2.14 and it allows refining the hypotheses in preparation of the quantitative Delphi survey in Sect. 4.2.

Chapter 3

Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Abstract The qualitative analysis of this dissertation aims at establishing a preliminary model for the engagement of project customers across cultural boundaries. For that purpose the introduction is followed by a secondary qualitative data analysis of existing and published case studies in the field of intercultural project management. The preliminary input factors resulting from this analysis are used as the foundation for the development of an Interview guide for semi-structured expert interviews conducted in Sect. 3.3. The qualitative analysis of these interviews reveals the building blocks of a relational model for intercultural project customer engagement. Section 3.4 provides a synthesis and a description of the model and formulates hypotheses that shall be tested in the Delphi survey in Chap. 4.

3.1

Introduction to Qualitative Analysis

The aim of this qualitative inquiry is to better understand what project managers and project clients perceive to be impact factors for appropriate and effective intercultural project customer engagement. The aim here is for subjective assessments and interpretation of the actors, not objective and provable truth. In qualitative research measurement is not of major concern and therefore the quality criteria of reliability and validity are more difficult to achieve. Validity refers to the integrity of conclusions from a study while reliability is concerned with the repeatability of a study’s result (Bryman, 2012, pp. 46–47). The reason for this would be that quantitative research originates from the natural sciences yielding measurable quantitative data, while qualitative research methods were developed in the social sciences dealing with human constructs (Myers, 2013, pp. 7–9). Consequently, qualitative inquiry tends to be interpretivist (epistemologically) and constructivist (ontologically), while quantitative research is often positivist (epistemologically) and objectivist (ontologically). Alternative criteria for assessing qualitative research could be trustworthiness (consisting in credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability) and authenticity (Bryman, 2012, pp. 388–393). In order to improve reliability, trustworthiness and authenticity, this dissertation will use various

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 P. Lückmann, Engagement of Intercultural Project Customers, Contributions to Management Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39485-1_3

139

140

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

qualitative methods to ‘triangulate’ the findings and see if they corroborate each other (Bryman, 2012, p. 392; Bryman & Bell, 2011, pp. 397–398; Myers, 2013, pp. 9–11). The qualitative analysis of this dissertation is divided into two parts, using three distinct qualitative research methods. The literature review revealed that many of the articles in intercultural project management are using the case study method. Therefore, the first part of the qualitative analysis is a secondary analysis of published empirical case studies employing two different approaches to content analysis, which are concerned with intercultural project management. The second part of this chapter is concerned with describing the process and results of a primary empirical study that was based on both the literature analysis and the results of the secondary qualitative analysis. Both parts collectively aim at delivering empirical evidence that can be used to improve the understanding of impact factors in intercultural project customer engagement and to corroborate the results of the literature review.

3.2 3.2.1

Secondary Case Study Analysis Methodology

This analysis follows the methodology represented in Fig. 3.1. Based on a structured literature review (described above), and the selection of articles from this review, empirical case studies were identified that provided the qualitative empirical data for this analysis. The case studies were then subjected to a deductive qualitative content analysis following the general process indicated in Fig. 3.2 and, in parallel, an inductive analysis was conducted by a different researcher in order to improve validity and reliability and to reduce researcher’s bias (Maxwell, 2013, Fig. 3.1 Methodology of secondary case study analysis. Source: Compiled by author

I. Structured Literature Search Idenfying Case Studies in Intercultural Project Stakeholder Mgt. II. Parallel Research Approaches

Inducve Category Development

Deducve Category Applicaon

III. Synthesis: “Comparing and compiling the results”

3.2 Secondary Case Study Analysis

141

Determination of type of qualitative data

Analysis of origin of qualitative data

Formal characteristics of qualitative data

Research streams and directions

Theoretical discussion of question

‐ Selection of adequate analysis technique (summary, explanation, structuring) or a combination ‐ Definition of specific process model ‐ Determination and definition of categories/category system

Determination of unit of analysis

‐ Analytic process according to process model using the category system ‐ Verification of category system through theory and data ‐ if changes, then new iteration

Composition of results and interpretation against the background of question

Application of content analysis quality assessment criteria

Fig. 3.2 Qualitative content analysis—general process. Source: Mayring (2015, p. 62)

pp. 121–138). The findings of both approaches were found to be corroborative and combined in a final summary, indicating the direction for further qualitative interviewing. The results of this research were published separately as a peerreviewed international conference paper (Lückmann & Färber, 2016).

142

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Structured Literature Review During the literature review for this dissertation it became evident that a large amount of published research in this area follows the case study methodology. Since these case studies describe qualitative empirical cases of intercultural project stakeholder engagement, the author decided to initiate the qualitative inquiry based on these cases. Published case studies were deemed to offer valuable qualitative insight into empirical cases, without collecting primary empirical data. The aim was to use these reports to preliminarily identify critical factors and mechanisms and to sharpen the eye of the researcher for the collection and analysis of primary qualitative data. The first step of this analysis was the identification of relevant case studies. This was based on the literature review presented in Sect. 2.5.2, applying an additional filter for studies using the case-study methodology or reporting empirical intercultural project cases. In the next step the search was extended using snowballing techniques to identify additional case study reports. In a final step the identified articles were scrutinized in order to eliminate those studies that did not offer a clear relation to national culture, stakeholder or project customer management or that were not concerned with project management problems. Thus, it was possible to limit the number of relevant articles to 66. The second selection filter was to identify and analyze published empirical case studies in the field of interest. For that purpose, all articles that contained case study components or that specifically followed a case study research design were selected. A total of 24 articles that fulfilled these criteria could be identified. These articles contained 31 empirical cases in the field of international or intercultural project stakeholder management. The publications included in this case study analysis are listed in Table 3.1. The selected 24 case studies were published between 1990 and 2014. They include contributions from the IT and outsourcing/offshoring industry, construction, chemical industry, economic development and publicly funded research projects. They comprise stakeholders from both private and public sectors and focus on a wide array of specific issues in intercultural stakeholder management. Geographically, the case studies cover the US, and countries in South America and Europe, the Middle East and Africa, India, China, Australia and stakeholders from other Asian economies. The spread over various industries, countries and project types is embraced by the author since the aim of this dissertation is to inform project managers and scholars on cultural impact factors without focusing on a particular industry or national culture. Parallel Research Approaches Analyzing qualitative data sources, such as case studies or interviews, always bears the risk of subjectivity since two researchers reading the same text may not necessarily come to the same conclusions. Qualitative research is also criticized for being difficult to replicate, that insights are difficult to generalize, and that the qualitative research process is often not transparent enough (Bryman & Bell, 2011, pp. 408–409). Addressing these issues, a number of qualitative text or content analysis techniques have been proposed, including Grounded

3.2 Secondary Case Study Analysis

143

Table 3.1 Studies included in case study analysis Year 1990 1994 1995

2000

2000 2003

2003

2005

2007

2007

2008 2008

2009 2009

2010 2010

2011

Title and bibliographical reference International construction contracts in Tanzania; International Journal of Project Management Culture and conflict in joint ventures in Asia; International Journal of Project Management Project management in international teams: Instruments for improving cooperation; International Journal of Project Management Cross-cultural project management for international construction in China; International Journal of Project Management Creating value with diverse teams in global management; Organizational Dynamics An insight into the interplay between culture, conflict and distance in globally distributed requirements negotiations; Proceedings 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Approaches to project management in Africa: Implications for international development projects; International Journal of Project Management Exploring the role of national culture in the management of large-scale international science projects; International Journal of Project Management Institutional theory as a framework for analyzing conflicts on global projects; Journal of Construction Engineering and Management Knowledge creation and transfer in a cross-cultural context—Empirical evidence from Tyco flow control; Knowledge and Process Management Stakeholder salience in global projects. International Journal of Project Management Managing cross-cultural dynamics in IT offshore outsourcing relationships: The role of cultural intelligence; Proceedings of the Second Global Sourcing Workshop Response strategies to stakeholder pressure in global projects; International Journal of Project Management Evaluating the success in international sourcing of information technology projects: the need for a relational clientvendor approach; Project Management Journal Project management and national culture: A Dutch-French case study; International Journal of Project Management A stakeholder network perspective on unexpected events and their management in international projects; International Journal of Managing Projects in Business An empirical investigation of client managers’ responsibilities in managing offshore outsourcing of softwaretesting projects; IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management

References Mansfield (1990) Swierczek (1994) Schneider (1995)

Pheng and Leong (2000)

DiStefano and Maznevski (2000) Damian and Zowghi (2003)

Muriithi and Crawford (2003) Shore and Cross (2005)

Mahalingam and Levitt (2007) Kohlbacher and Krähe (2007) Aaltonen, Jaakko, and Tuomas (2008) R. Gregory, Prifling, and Beck (2008) Aaltonen and Sivonen (2009) Haried and Ramamurthy (2009) de Bony (2010) Aaltonen, Kujala, Lehtonen, and Ruuska (2010) Jain, Poston, and Simon, (2011)

(continued)

144

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 3.1 (continued) Year 2011

2011

2012

2012

2013

2013 2014

Title and bibliographical reference Mitigating vendor silence in offshore outsourcing: An empirical investigation; Journal of Management Information Systems Cultural patterns influencing project team behavior in sub-Saharan Africa: A case study in Ethiopia; Project Management Journal Towards a contingent approach of customer involvement in defense projects: An exploratory study; International Journal of Project Management Project Management for development in Africa: Why projects are failing and what can be done about it; Project Management Journal Achieving mutual understanding in intercultural project partnerships: Cooperation, self-orientation, and fragility; Intercultural Pragmatics Early stakeholder involvement in the project definition phase: Case renovation; ISRN Industrial Engineering Effects of cultural assimilation on the performance of a construction project—evidence from UAE; Benchmarking: An International Journal

References Jain, Simon, and Poston (2011) Jetu, Riedl, and Roithmayr (2011) Peled and Dvir (2012)

Ika (2012)

Žegarac and Spencer-Oatey (2013) Aapaoja, Haapasalo, and Söderström (2013) Khan (2014)

Source: Compiled by author

Theory (Birks & Mills, 2015; Bryman & Bell, 2011, pp. 577–584; Gibson & Hartmann, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Cobrin, 1998) and other approaches to extracting meaning from qualitative data (Bryman & Bell, 2011, pp. 584–590; Mayring, 2015; Saldaña, 2016). Figure 3.2 describes the generic process of qualitative content analysis proposed by Mayring (2015). This approach was selected because some basic requirements of Grounded Theory could not be fulfilled in process of this study. Specifically, the Grounded Theory approach postulates a concurrent data generation (or collection) and analysis through a process called theoretical sampling (Birks & Mills, 2015, pp. 64–71; Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 45). Following such an approach was not possible nor desirable. It was not possible because the data that was collected during a structured literature process and was therefore not subject to concurrent data collection (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Saldaña, 2016; Strauss & Cobrin, 1998). It was not desirable because Grounded Theory is a bottom-up technique for theory generation from qualitative data and the theory for this dissertation has largely been established in the previous sections. Therefore, the theoretical categories already exist and may merely be refined and extended through this qualitative content analysis. For these reasons, it was decided to follow a process that allows for a more deductive approach to qualitative content analysis Fig. 3.2. This process is proposed by Mayring (2015). After determining the type, origin and formal characteristics of the qualitative data at hand, the generic model

3.2 Secondary Case Study Analysis

145

prescribes an analysis and subsequent description of research stream and direction, followed by a theoretical discussion of the research question. The selection of an adequate analysis technique is contingent to a defined question of qualitative inquiry. Mayring (2015) distinguishes between techniques of summarizing and explaining of structuring, which all come with specific process model prescriptions. An initial definition of the categories used for the analysis is a necessary preparatory step before starting to process the data. The following steps consist in the determination of the unit of analysis, the processing of the data (including refining the category system) and summarizing the results and assessing the quality. These steps vary in detail depending on the specific analytic method selected (Mayring, 2015, pp. 61–64). In the following sections, these methods will be introduced briefly, followed by a description of the findings.

3.2.2

Deductive Category Application

The generic approach for structuring qualitative data through the deductive application of theory based categories is depicted in Fig. 3.3. The first of the eight generic analytical steps is the definition of the unit of analysis. It is concerned with determining the smallest and largest text portion that might constitute a code and the sequence in which these are processed. This step is similar to the step “determination of unit of analysis” in Fig. 3.2 (Mayring, 2015, p. 97). The following steps consist of the theory-based determination of the structural dimensions, the characteristics of the categories, and the compilation of the category system. This category system is refined through an iterative process in which parts of the data are processed and coded. This iteration is followed by the final coding run, extracting and processing quotations and eventually the results are going to be interpreted and documented (Mayring, 2015, pp. 97–99). The methodology offered in Fig. 3.3 is described by Mayring (2015) with four variants. The first one, called formal structuring, is concerned with identifying a formal structure in the qualitative data at hand. The second, content structuring, aims at extracting and summarizing certain thematic contents from the texts. The third is typifying structuring, which aims at identifying and describing single characteristics in the material. The fourth is the scaling structuring, dedicated to defining characteristics of the text on scales and to assess the data in this regard (Mayring, 2015, p. 99). Figure 3.4 shows the second of these techniques, the content structuring method, in detail. It becomes evident that this is a variant of the generic process of Deductive Category Application in Fig. 3.3. The blue steps in Fig. 3.4 are those that distinguish the process of content structuring from other approaches of Deductive Category Application. The second step specifies the determination of structural dimensions (Fig. 3.3) as the theory-

146

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

1st step: definion of unit of analysis

‐ Coding unit: smallest text unit to be analyzed and categorized ‐ Context unit: largest text unit to be analyzed and categorized ‐ Unit of Analysis: determines which text units are analyzed sequenally

2nd step: determinaon of structural dimensions

‐ Derived from research queson ‐ Based in exisng theory

3rd step: determinaon of characteriscs (theory based) & selecon/definion of categories and category system

‐ Further differenaon of categories and their characteriscs ‐ Compilaon of category system

4th step: definion of categories & coding rules 7th step: revision of category definions and category system 5th step: coding text material (referencing of quotes)

6th step: extracon & processing of quotaons from material

8th step: documentaon & interpretaon of results

‐ Definion of rules when a text unit falls into which category ‐ ”Anchor examples” per category ‐ Creaon of coding rules in cases of ambiguity

‐ Highlighng excerpts ‐ Labeling text parts/quotaons

‐ Inially test runs, used to refine the category system

‐ Conngent to selected structuring and interpretaon technique

Fig. 3.3 Deductive category application—generic process. Source: Mayring (2015, p. 98)

based determination of main categories (Fig. 3.4). The iterative process of developing and refining the category system is the same as in the generic model. The category system should be considered satisfactory as soon as processing the data does not require new codes or code categories. Since this method aims at extracting and summarizing thematically relevant content from qualitative data, the last three steps are about paraphrasing and aggregating the extracted data into main categories (Mayring, 2015, pp. 103–104). The initial theory-based category system was based on cultural differences along cultural dimensions and their effect on project customer engagement. The categories and sub-categories defined in Sect. 2.4.2.8 and summarized in Table 2.13. were

3.2 Secondary Case Study Analysis Fig. 3.4 Deductive category application— content structuring. Source: Mayring (2015, p. 104)

147

1st step: definion of unit of analysis

2nd step: theory based determinaon of main categories

3rd step: determinaon of characteriscs (theory based) & selecon/definion of categories and category system

7th step: revision of category definions and category system

4th step: definion of categories & coding rules

5th step: coding text material (referencing of quotes)

6th step: extracon & processing of quotaons from material

8th step: paraphrasing of extracted material

9th step: summary per category

10th step: summary per main category

therefore the starting point for the iterative process refining the category system. During the iteration cycles of the analytic process the four categories of cultural dimensions and their sub-categories (presented in Table 2.13) were used as a starting point. Impact factors that can be associated with cultural differences are represented in the four columns in Table 3.2. Throughout the process of analyzing the case studies it became evident that that there was additional information that would be lost if not recorded in some ways. One of these categories was found to be the impact of cultural differences on project

148

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 3.2 Impact factors (deductive) by cultural category Competitiveness Lack of selfdetermination and confidence may hamper collaboration

Philosophy & emotionality Preference of shortterm profits over longterm relationship may lead to disappointment

Context related differences Preference for connected tasks over small workable WPs may lead to inefficiencies or ineffectiveness Readiness to face complexity and improvise may increase effectiveness and efficiency

Vertical relationships Low uncertainty avoidance (UA) require latest technology while high UA stick to legacy features Imposing central culture or standards due to higher UA or Power Distance will damage trust and mutual respect Selecting requirements depends on PD and decision making style which may lead to mistrust

High individualism leads to better knowledge transfer, which might create trust

Preference of modesty over salesmanship may lead to mistrust

Collectivist family ties lead to many subcontractors, which increases complexity and leads to intransparency and inflexibility Open disagreement and resistance lead to conflict which might disrupt collaboration & trust Western incentives and rewards will not work in collectivist environments

Lack of common understanding of where requirements come from leads to mistrust

Contract needs adjustment to social condition and relationship, which may lead to mistrust

Need to holistically understand and learn may delay the project schedule, which leads to frustration High employee turnover in short term oriented cultures compared to long term oriented stakeholders may lead to difficulties in knowledge sharing Focus on contract and output may impede good understanding of project results and lead to mistrust & disappointment

Opportunistic exploitation of personal relationship may disappoint affective trust

High PD leads to scope creep if PM is facing superior

Lack of common context leads to misinterpretation of actions and words, which leads to lack of trust

Fear of losing control might lead to not accepting help (UA)

Yes-saying patterns and communication between the lines lead to misunderstandings and mistrust

Brainstorming might not work with high PD, only in homogenous groups

Social activities build up common context and lead to holistic understanding, which increases trust Constant exceptions and adjustments lead to delays and frustration

Low UA cultures might have difficulties convincing others that benefits are worth the risk Higher regulation/ formality in high UA leads to frustration

Salary inequality is less tolerated and lead to mistrust

Collectivist knowledge transfer needs time and may lead to delays Inappropriate direct negative feedback or evaluation will damage relationship and trust

(continued)

3.2 Secondary Case Study Analysis

149

Table 3.2 (continued) Competitiveness Face-saving behavior may lead to mistrust

Philosophy & emotionality

Context related differences Different scheduling patterns might lead to delays and mistrust

9 articles; 14 references

19 articles; 35 references

Family, school or community ties may outweigh project relationships

15 articles; 27 references

Vertical relationships Protecting one-self with contract is normal in high UA countries, which might lead to mistrust Saying yes and saving face are more important in high PD cultures this leads to few escalations and requires high specificity Top down decisionmaking might lead to motivational issues in consensual cultures 13 articles; 39 references

Source: Compiled by author Lückmann and Färber (2016)

management and project success. Another is related to trust as an important impact factor in intercultural collaboration and the third one focuses on different types of adjustments that are required by the actors. The Impact This category collects those references that describe how cultural differences affect projects and project management. Twelve of the identified studies contributed to this category, and 23 references can be extracted from them. The impact factors that were identified can be summarized in the following list: – Intransparency, the perception that one party does not know what is going on (Damian & Zowghi, 2003; Jain, Poston, et al., 2011; Mansfield, 1990); – Additional workload (Mahalingam & Levitt, 2007; Mansfield, 1990); – Disrupted communication and knowledge transfer (Damian & Zowghi, 2003; Mansfield, 1990; Gregory et al., 2008; Jain, Poston, et al., 2011); – Incomplete understanding (Damian & Zowghi, 2003; Jain, Poston, et al., 2011); – Different priorities concerning requirements (Damian & Zowghi, 2003), – Lack of team spirit (Damian & Zowghi, 2003; Gregory et al., 2008; Khan, 2014); – Lack of motivation to be flexible (Shore & Cross, 2005); – Inadequate long-term funding (Shore & Cross, 2005); – Low attractiveness of project proposal due to higher Uncertainty Awareness (Shore & Cross, 2005); – Hostility and resistance (Mahalingam & Levitt, 2007), – Frustration and interpersonal conflict (Gregory et al., 2008); – More escalations (Aaltonen et al., 2010);

150

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

– More unexpected events/changes (Aaltonen et al., 2010); – Higher uncertainty (Damian & Zowghi, 2003; Khan, 2014); – Higher levels of stress (Khan, 2014); In terms of project management success, these undesirable effects of differences in national culture lead to delays in deliverables (Kohlbacher & Krähe, 2007; Mahalingam & Levitt, 2007; Pheng & Leong, 2000) and payments (Mansfield, 1990), additional costs (Kohlbacher & Krähe, 2007; Pheng & Leong, 2000), the inability to deliver or benefit from the results (Khan, 2014; Pheng & Leong, 2000), frustrated client managers (Jain, Poston, et al., 2011) and less project success in general (Khan, 2014). Trust Thirteen of the selected articles contained indications that trust mechanisms in intercultural projects are an important category when it comes to impact factors for project customer engagement. These articles delivered 23 references that were extracted from the text. An early contribution mentioned the lack of supervision, a lack of enforcing specifications, unfair profit distribution, and one project partner trying to dictate terms as important success factors that are result from trust related issues (Mansfield, 1990). It has been shown that culture impacts trust, a lack of trust leads to conflict in projects, and that more frequent informal interactions lead to improving trust (Damian & Zowghi, 2003). For example, high Uncertainty Avoidance seems to have an impact on whether delegation takes place, and without delegation there is no trust building (Muriithi & Crawford, 2003). In international projects, national stereotypes and fears for job security complicate collaboration (Shore & Cross, 2005). Knowledge transfer, a key success factor for project management, should be expected to be contingent on trust and a shared culture of the team members (Jain, Poston, et al., 2011), while at the same time a large difference in knowledge will lead to less trust (Kohlbacher & Krähe, 2007). Trust can be impacted by stereotypes and prejudices towards the capabilities of the other team members (Mahalingam & Levitt, 2007), and not receiving and understanding critical information in a timely fashion will lead to a disruption of trust in projects (Gregory et al., 2008). Project partners from one national culture pushing for one particular technical or managerial standard might result in a lack of trust (de Bony, 2010; Mahalingam & Levitt, 2007), as well as differences in planning and sticking to the project schedule (Aaltonen et al., 2010). If client managers in technical disciplines do not understand how their contractors work, this may lead to more frequent site visits at the contractors’ facilities and this, in turn, might lead to the impression of a lack of trust and a vicious circle disrupting mutual trust (Jain, Poston, et al., 2011). Ultimately this might lead to the impression that the client has to check everything and effectively micro-manage the vendor (Jain, Simon, et al., 2011). Cultural selfawareness might be a good starting point for project managers from vendor or client organizations. This will improve awareness of how one’s own culture affects openness, selfishness and work ethics, and how this might be perceived from the other cultural perspective (Jetu et al., 2011). Considering the above, the identified mechanisms of trust in intercultural projects can be summarized in the following manner.

3.2 Secondary Case Study Analysis

151

Mistrust might be induced by tight supervision, insisting or forcing standards, unequal salaries or profit distribution, a lack of delegation, high Uncertainty Avoidance as a cultural attribute, large differences in power or knowledge among project partners, a lack of experience or cultural knowledge, a lack of transparency by either client or vendor, and a tendency to protect face and the relationship by not delivering bad news. Trust can be improved by seeking more frequent informal contact with project partners from the other organization. Knowledge sharing is considered an important component for the creation of trust in at least two ways. The first is that effective knowledge sharing requires trust, since an actor would be reluctant to share important knowledge if she does not trust the project partner. So, sharing knowledge requires trust, and can be understood as a sign of trust towards the other project partners. Therefore, the second way in which knowledge sharing affects trust is that transparent and effective knowledge sharing creates trust. Internal and External Adjustment In addition to the above explained effects of cultural differences, cultural impact factors, and trust mechanisms, it became evident that also adjustments to culture and the way in which they unfolded had a significant impact in successfully engaging project stakeholders and customers. These adjustments can be distinguished into internal adjustments of actors’ attitudes, knowledge or motivation and external adjustments to communication and behavior (Deardorff, 2006), including project management processes, tools and methods. Examples of identified references to internal adjustments include the following: – Knowledge about the other culture can be linked to better project performance. Building cultural knowledge through, e.g., training might therefore be considered a worthwhile internal adjustment (Khan, 2014). – Cultural adaptation has been shown to be positively related to improving communication, mitigating vendor silence and project success (Jain, Simon, et al., 2011). – Successfully dealing with cultural differences in general requires recognizing cultural differences (Mahalingam & Levitt, 2007). Creating such awareness can be described as a necessary internal adjustment. – Negative stereotyping may impact collaboration success in projects and requires postponing judgment, openness and respect from the actors (Bolten, 2012; Damian & Zowghi, 2003; Deardorff, 2006). – A tendency to hidden agendas may result from cultural differences and can be addressed by aligning project goals and establishing a shared project culture (Damian & Zowghi, 2003; Köster, 2010; Swierczek, 1994). – Adopting shared values and beliefs throughout the project team is an internal adjustment that may result from actively managing towards such shared project culture (Swierczek, 1994). – In some project settings, the vendor might be expected to culturally adapt. In these cases project team members need to be trained in the culturally appropriate and effective way of collaborating (Haried & Ramamurthy, 2009).

152

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

– Little intercultural experience of one or more actors might lead to an ethnocentric view and defensiveness in behavior. This requires a mental shift of perspective (Kohlbacher & Krähe, 2007). The author also identified references that represent external adjustments to the way in which people interact and project management is set up. – Depending on the cultural characteristics of the actors involved differences in salary, profit distribution, or training opportunities might not be tolerated or desired and could lead to mistrust (Mansfield, 1990). – In terms of project management there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ standard. This is a common trap in intercultural projects. So the project management standard, accountabilities or team members and project management capacity needs adjustment to accommodate intercultural challenges (Ika, 2012). – Actively working towards building a strong project culture is an external adjustment, even though shared beliefs and values could be described as internal adjustments (Swierczek, 1994). – Reserving time for slower decision making processes and dispute settlement, as well as developing clear communication plans and dispute settlement procedures, is an external adjustment responding to cultural differences (Pheng & Leong, 2000). – Recognizing and dealing with cultural differences takes time, which needs to be set aside in the project schedule (Mahalingam & Levitt, 2007). – Adjusting the project management processes of prioritizing requirements, reporting guidelines, and communication to cultural differences will lead to more trust and better cultural adaptation among the actors (Jain, Simon, et al., 2011). The above two listings offer insight into internal and external adjustments of project management actors. These adjustments were exctracted from a deductive content analysis of the case studies and they fold in with the other categories mentioned earlier. It has become evident that impact factors for intercultural project customer engagement can be identified in at least seven categories: cultural differences (four categories Table 3.2), the effect that cultural differences may have, mechanisms of trust in intercultural projects, and the way in which actors adjust internally (attitudes/posture) and externally (communication/behavior). The above approach yielded impact factors to intercultural project customer engagement in seven categories. Four of them were described by groupings of cultural dimensions labeled ‘vertical relationship related’, ‘context related’, ‘philosophy and emotionality’ and ‘competitiveness related’ cultural differences. Trust was identified as another category of factors impacting customer collaboration and engagement. Adjustments made by the actors to either their internal posture and attitude or the way they interact and manage the project are collected in another category. The ‘impact’ category collects all kinds of effects that differences in national culture may have on projects. These categories result from a deductive qualitative analysis of the selected texts. They are therefore subject to the assumptions, biases and theoretical preconceptions

3.2 Secondary Case Study Analysis

153

of the author. This has been addressed by following a transparent procedure and by adopting pre-defined selection criteria following Mayring’s proposed processes (Mayring, 2015). In order to minimize researchers’ bias further and to improve the validity of the results, the data was subject to an additional inductive analysis, which was executed by a different researcher. The following section presents the process and the results of this analysis.

3.2.3

Inductive Category Development

The process of deductive category application that was described above was accompanied by a complementary analysis of the same data by a second researcher. This approach, described in this section, was inductive in nature and aimed at validating the results of the deductive approach. Inductive Category Development is described as a process in which the researcher defines the selection criteria based on the research interest. Analytical categories are developed by working through the texts and an iterative process of category revision, which starts after some qualitative data has been processed. After saturated categories have been identified, the material is eventually analyzed in full with the developed category system and the findings can be interpreted. Saturation is reached when the category system does not need further revision in order to answer the research question and also new categories fit this purpose (Mayring, 2015, pp. 85–87). Figure 3.5 shows the process of Inductive Category Development as proposed by Mayring (2015). This process promises a naturalist approach to qualitative data analysis in which the researcher is not biased by theoretical pre-conceptions (Mayring, 2015, p. 86). The process is comparable with the ‘initial’ or ‘open’ coding step in the Grounded Theory framework (Mayring, 2015, p. 86; Saldaña, 2016, p. 55; Strauss & Cobrin, 1998). The process that is proposed in Fig. 3.5 offers the additional advantage of a systematic description and the ability to apply the same reductive processes that were described in the previous section for the deductive approach (Mayring, 2015, p. 85). In the first stage of the inductive qualitative content analysis, the 24 selected articles and 31 cases were screened for possible codes including relevant details and explanations about the case studies. In the second stage text passages were identified and paraphrased. The content of these paraphrases was used to translate the data into a generalized form. In the next step, the author made use of reduction methods like striking and bundling. Eventually this led to the creation of the inductive category system (Mayring, 2015, pp. 85–90). The analysis reveals that many international projects struggled with managing stakeholders or customers from different cultural backgrounds leading to a number of negative outcomes. One of the major issues mentioned explicitly in 12 out of 31 cases was project delay. For this reason, researchers (Aaltonen & Sivonen, 2009; Kohlbacher & Krähe, 2007) strongly recommend calculating enough buffer time. Apart from additional time requests, high costs owing to additional resources or

154 Fig. 3.5 Inductive category development. Source: Mayring (2015, p. 86)

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Definion of subject, type of data, and the aim of the inquiry

Definion of selecon criteria and level of abstracon

Processing of material, inial formulaon of categories, creaon of new categories Revision of categories aer processing 10-50% of the material

Final run of processing text material

Interpretaon and analysis

unexpected events affect project success negatively. As an example, Aaltonen and Sivonen present an industrial facility project where the site was closed for more than one month causing high costs. In addition to financial losses and project delays, court actions and reputational decline led to project failure (Aaltonen et al., 2008). Cultural differences were identified and described in cultural dimensions by various authors analyzing the negative impact on project success. Table 3.3 shows the findings providing examples from the 24 articles. Cultural differences along cultural dimensions were reflected in the following observable beliefs and behaviors: trust and fears, lack of participation and commitment, insufficient communication, transparent objectives/tasks/roles/expectations, knowledge and information sharing. – Fear and trust issues of project stakeholders were mentioned several times in the analyzed case studies. This might be due to the choice of communication method, physical distance, fear of losing their jobs, or their power or influence might impact trust (Damian & Zowghi, 2003; Gregory et al., 2008; Muriithi & Crawford, 2003; Schneider, 1995; Žegarac & Spencer-Oatey, 2013). – Lack of participation and commitment may result from a lack of trust in an intercultural setting. Especially the case study dealing with a conflict between Uruguay and Argentina illustrates the power of initially even small opposition groups (Aaltonen et al., 2010; Aaltonen & Sivonen, 2009; Jetu et al., 2011)

3.2 Secondary Case Study Analysis

155

Table 3.3 Impact factors (inductive) with text examples Cultural dimension Communication/ Context

Characteristics or expression Direct vs. indirect High vs. low-context

No. of cases 8

Yes-saying pattern Tendency to please

2

Face-saving behavior

5

Power Distance

High vs. low

8

Individualism

Self- vs. group orientation

6

Examples Evaluation of the tone of a complaint letter to a Cantonese manager: While Australian experienced it as too soft, for the Singaporean it was too rude (DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000) IT offshore outsourcing project involving a German bank und an Indian service provider. As Indians did not report any problems and always said ‘yes’ even though they meant ‘no’, the Germans were not able to interpret it correctly (Gregory et al., 2008) Relevant almost in each project with Asian participants. However, the cases from Ethiopia (Jetu et al., 2011) and Sino-UK with stakeholders from UK and China (Žegarac & Spencer-Oatey, 2013) prove that avoidance of losing face does not only hold truth for Asian cultures Italian leader asks his project members for feedback: While the Australian subordinate reacted within five minutes, communicating clearly her disagreement (¼low power distance), the Singaporean hesitated and gave feedback only after urgent request (¼high power distance). (Žegarac & Spencer-Oatey, 2013). In general, Project members with African (Ika, 2012; Muriithi & Crawford, 2003) or Asian background (Ika, 2012; Shore & Cross, 2005; Žegarac & Spencer-Oatey, 2013) prefer high power distance, while Western cultures prefer low power distance (Žegarac & SpencerOatey, 2013) (a) German bank and Indian IT service provider: Germans were upset when they observed that Indians left important meetings for personal family reasons. In collectivistic cultures like the Indian, family and friends are of highest priority, while individualistic cultures strictly separate private and business sphere (Gregory et al., 2008) (b) Level of individualism depends on situation: While in private situations the African project members were group-oriented, it changed when it came to business. Their attitude to retain information in order to benefit personally shows rather individualist traits— even if Ethiopian culture is seen as collectivist (Muriithi & Crawford, 2003) (continued)

156

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 3.3 (continued) Cultural dimension Uncertainty Avoidance

Characteristics or expression High vs. low

No. of cases 3

Concept of Time

Monovs. polychronic

3

Examples (a) In general, Arabic cultures are known for high uncertainty avoidance. But the managers’ reluctance towards using methods to reduce uncertainty do not necessarily underpin their high uncertainty avoidance level (Khan, 2014) (b) German bank and Indian IT service provider: cultures with high uncertainty avoidance like the German put a lot of effort to mitigate risks: Their high expectations towards documentation and quality assurance can be taken as examples (Gregory et al., 2008) Case one is a project between Dutch and French (de Bony, 2010), Case 2 between French and German (Schneider, 1995). Both case studies demonstrate that French people follow a polychronic perspective while Germans and Dutch are monochronic oriented. As Germans and Dutch managers prefer doing only one activity very precisely, they experience the interruptions made by French colleagues as disturbances

Source: Lückmann and Färber (2016)

– Insufficient communication is exemplarily displayed by Swierczek (1994) who shares an incident where collaboration was damaged because people do not communicate enough with each other (Swierczek, 1994). – There is a need for transparency regarding objectives, tasks, roles and expectations in intercultural projects. This becomes evident among other cases in a Dutch-French case study concerning, e.g., regulatory issues (de Bony, 2010). – Knowledge and information sharing resulted as one of the leading issues in intercultural stakeholder management. In nine out of 31 cases this point was mentioned explicitly. It has been identified to be critical for task achievement in Ethiopia (Jetu et al., 2011) as well as requirement conflicts in Germany and France (Schneider, 1995), among other countries. Project delays and financial losses are the challenges that may result and consequently lead to project failure. For visualization purposes, the identified impact factors resulting from this analysis can be sorted into Hall’s iceberg model of culture as displayed in Fig. 3.6. Figure 3.6 shows how the identified impact factor can be associated with cultural dimensions hidden below the surface. They form the basis for stakeholders’ beliefs and their behavior. As a result, the impact of cultural differences on stakeholder and relationship management can be found in the behavioral part of the model (Hall, 1989a).

VISIBLE

Tendency to please and say ‚yes‘ even though meaning ‘no‘ Disrupted communication Interpersonal conflict Insufficient communication

Losing face is humiliating Fears (losing job, control, upset someone) Attitude towards trust

Time orientation (polychronic vs. monochronic, long-term vs. short-term) Hierarchy & power distance Uncertainty avoidance

• • • •

• • •

• • •

• • •

VALUES

• • •

BELIEFS

• • • •

Individualistic vs. collectivistic Communication: high vs. low-context cultures Masculinity vs. feminity

Relationship building is necessary for future business Written agreements/contracts are important foundation for business relationship Documentation/monitoring are necessary for quality assurance

Lack of participation & commitment, reluctance Team work Clear communication of goals/tasks/roles Knowledge management & information sharing

Fig. 3.6 Impact factors (inductive) in Hall’s iceberg model. Source: Lückmann and Färber (2016)

NOT VISIBLE

BEHAVIOR

3.2 Secondary Case Study Analysis 157

158

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Both parts of the above secondary case study analysis were informed by the models developed in previous sections and represented in Figs. 2.13 and 2.14. How the above findings relate to this model is the subject of the synthesis in the next section.

3.2.4

Synthesis of Published Case Study Research

Both the deductive and the inductive approach identified cultural dimensions as the underlying factors. This is not surprising, since cultural differences are usually described in dimensional terms. In addition, both approaches delivered behavioral issues and mechanisms that connected underlying values with stakeholder behaviors. – Trust: Trust was identified in both approaches as an overarching concept that is impacted by differences in national culture. This is because misunderstandings on any hierarchical level, or in between client and vendor organizations, lead to disappointment, re-work or fear. – Information and knowledge sharing: Strongly related to trust is the area of sharing information and knowledge. Be it in form of communicating specifications or requirement, or be it with regards to bad news or escalations that are not communicated effectively. – Relationships: One of the most prominent sources of misunderstandings is the way in which project relationships are conceived. Whether a relationship is deemed to be built around project tasks or personal relationships determines significantly how trust is awarded and how effectively and efficiently teamwork is done. – Standards: An additional typical failure is the perception of being pushed or forced into a particular process, or standard. This was expressed as a lack of questioning the prevailing logic in some cases, and an unwillingness to compromise in others. A key issue behind this seems to be tolerance for ambiguity in international projects and expressions of uncertainty avoidance paired with power distance. – Communication: The amount of communication necessary when engaging stakeholders from other cultures is significantly higher than in projects with homogeneous stakeholder groups. A failure to not communicate sufficiently with international stakeholders will almost certainly lead to problems. – Cultural adaptability: The readiness to question one’s own cultural predisposition and adapt to other cultures seem to be a crucial starting point for successful intercultural collaboration. Stakeholders that fail in this regard tend to upset others or disappointed by other stakeholders. While not yielding entirely similar results, the two approaches corroborate and complement each other. Different levels of detail, both regarding process and output, should be expected when different qualitative research approaches are applied. The

3.2 Secondary Case Study Analysis

159

identified issues and mechanisms are similar though, which allows assuming reasonable plausibility and consistence in the research approaches and minimized researchers’ bias. The seven impact factor clusters that were identified during the literature review and displayed in Fig. 2.13 can be linked to the results of qualitative content analysis of case studies that was conducted in this section. Trust in intercultural relationships, effective knowledge sharing and the appropriate use of standardization are three components that surfaced from the above case study analysis. All of the three can also be found, with similar descriptions, in the model presented in Fig. 2.13. Cultural adaptability is another category that surfaced from the case study analysis. The ability to adapt behavior to different cultures is a component of intercultural competence and enables culturally appropriate and effective behaviors (Deardorff, 2006; Livermore, 2010, p. 151). Therefore, this category is reflected by the cultural competence component in Fig. 2.13. Two categories emerged from the case study analysis and do not have a direct literal representation in Fig. 2.13. In these areas the link between the results of the case study analysis and the literature review is indirect. The first category is concerned with the role of relationships in intercultural projects. It is concerned with the importance of relationships for project success and the concept of relationships in projects. This issue can be linked to the adequacy of the relationship to the client, which is important for establishing an appropriate client concept in intercultural projects. Another category in which relationship issues are important is in the area of perceived project success in Fig. 2.13. A trusted relationship as outcome of a project might be a success criterion in its own right, depending on the culture. Furthermore, a trustful customer relationship, combined with effective and frequent communication, can be seen as an enabler for higher transparency, realistic expectations and consequently a perception of project success. Communication is the last category that emerged from the analysis in this section. The qualitative analysis of the case studies in this section showed that a lack of communication was reported to be an important factor. Concerning the model in Fig. 2.13, project communication can have various effects. More effective and appropriate communication can among other things lead to a better alignment of project goals. When combined with relationship orientation, communicating more frequently may also increase the likelihood of perceived project success. The model that emerged from the literature analysis and that is the starting point of this chapter is represented in Fig. 2.14, however. The model combines the categories that emerged from the literature review with aspects of intercultural competence. The model offers four categories of factors that contribute to the creation of a shared project culture that would enable an appropriate and effective collaboration between client and vendor actors in a project. The first of these categories are the cultural differences, which can be expressed along cultural dimensions. The second are the effects of these differences on project success. The relationship between cultural differences and their effects in projects are manifold

160

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

and complex. It is impossible to make meaningful predictions of how the project will be impacted based on differences along cultural differences. The third component of the model in Fig. 2.14 are internal attitudes. These can be described as enablers or inhibitors. Enabling factors can be described as those that support intercultural learning and adjustment, such as respect, openness and curiosity (Deardorff, 2006). Inhibiting factors could be those that have the opposite effect, such as national pride, ethno-centrism, or parochialism (Adler, 2007). These internal attitudes, or enablers and inhibitors will affect the ability of an actor to internally or externally adjust to an intercultural situation. Such internal adjustments could be that the actors learn about the other culture, adjust their expectations or learn to deal with cultural differences and ambiguities. External adjustments should include the ways in which the actor communicates and interacts with project partners from other cultures and the degree in which the project manager adjusts project management to the intercultural situation. Several examples of impact factors emerged from this section’s case study analysis for each of these components of the model for intercultural project customer engagement in Fig. 2.14: – Observed cultural differences: Both category systems that emerged from the two approaches described in this section include cultural differences along dimensions such as hierarchy, time, context or collectivism. Table 3.2 shows those factors that were theoretically derived and then tested through the iterative application to the data and revision of the categories. Various cultural dimensions were collected under the four headings in this table. The inductive approach yielded cultural differences whose dimensions are presented in Table 3.3. High vs. low Power Distance, context in communication, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Polychronic vs. Monochronic concepts resulted as categories from the iterative category development. – Effects of cultural differences on projects: Project delays and financial losses leading to project failure were identified in the inductive category development in Sect. 3.2.3. The deductive category application approach identified a proper category of effects. Effects that result from cultural difference include perceived intransparency, additional workload, disrupted communication and knowledge sharing leading to incomplete understanding of requirements, different priorities, a lack of team spirit and other effects. The complete list of impacts identified in this analysis is available in Sect. 3.2.2. The identified impacts can each be attributed to a combination of different cultural dimensions. – Attitudes enabling or inhibiting adjustment: This category from the model in Fig. 2.14 is perhaps the least strongly supported by the results of the inductive and deductive approaches in this section. Some factors enabling or inhibiting intercultural adjustment were identified in the ‘beliefs’ section of Fig. 3.6. They include fear of losing face or job-loss, loss of control or the fear to upset someone from another culture. They also include implicit assumptions about the basis of trust and relationship building. This component of the model needs to be re-assessed in further qualitative and quantitative research in the following sections.

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

161

– Internal and external adjustments: Adjustments to the way in which actors perceived cultural differences (internal) and changes to their behavior and project management style (external) were identified as a category that emerged from the deductive category application process. Furthermore, the inductive approach identified some impact factors that fall into this component of the model of intercultural project customer engagement developed in Sect. 2.6 (Fig. 2.14). Examples include the adjustment of communication styles, standards and tools, transparency and information sharing and advancing trust. The above summary has shown how the factors and categories that were identified during the inductive and deductive analysis approaches of this section are reflected in the model that was developed in Sect. 2.6. More specifically, it was shown how the factors fold in with the components of the mechanisms in Fig. 2.13 and the relational model for intercultural project customer engagement in Fig. 2.14. The qualitative data sets that were the subject of this chapter’s analytical approaches were secondary case study data published in international journals. The fact that these case studies had a variety of different research questions and methodological approaches is problematic for qualitative analysis because the research question and methodology influences the results that ultimately are documented and published. This is the reason why the analysis presented in this section is merely the preparatory study for a more focused qualitative analysis based on semi-structured qualitative interviews and computer aided-coding exercise. The following section will present the methodology, process and results of this study. Parts of the results of this case study analysis that are presented above have previously been published by the author in international peer reviewed conference proceedings (Lückmann & Färber, 2016).

3.3 3.3.1

Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews Methodological Approach and Selection of Interviewees

In order to elaborate on whether the preliminary factors from the case study analysis are deemed important by project management practitioners, it was decided to embark on an empirical qualitative survey. For that purpose, a semi-structured interview guide was developed. A structured interview would not have allowed asking the kind of open-ended questions that are necessary to see how national culture impacts the relationship between project and client. An unstructured interview would have lacked the focus that is necessary to investigate the specific question that is the topic of this study. The semi-structured interview gives the interviewer the possibility to follow new directions and ideas during the interview and, consequently, to uncover additional information regarding the integration of project customers (Bryman, 2012, pp. 471–472; Bryman & Bell, 2011, pp. 467–473; Myers, 2013, pp. 121–123).

162

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

The interview guide was designed around two sets of focal questions. The first focused on the identification of intercultural incidents and the learning from that. These questions aimed at identifying impact factors in intercultural project customer management in general (H2 and H3). The second aimed at understanding the particularities of the customer relationship. The aim of this question was to steer the conversation towards talking about the unique intercultural features of the project customer relationship (H1). – 1a: Can you recall one or more specific incidents in which you experienced intercultural problems or challenges with your project clients? – 1b: What did you learn from this incident? What would you do differently today? – 2a: How are the cultural challenges in the customer relationship different from those in other project relationships? – 2b: Which behaviors of project managers would you see as critical for the success of intercultural project client/customer engagement? During the interview the above focal questions were complemented by deepening and probing questions. For a detailed discussion about the development of the interview guide please refer to the next section. With the aim of reducing the risk of misunderstanding, the interviews were conducted with the richest medium available. This included face-to-face interviews, video and phone conferencing. The interview guide included questions that eased the entry into the conversation so that both parts shared personal information before the formal interview started. This was in order to improve trust among the conversation partners, which was additionally fostered by assuring all interviewees that their information would be recorded for scientific purposes only. Project managers are usually among the busiest employees in companies; therefore, the author had to ensure that the interview would not exceed 90 min. The interviewees were selected from the author’s extended professional networks on networking platforms like Xing and LinkedIn or resulted from ‘snowballing’ techniques. The selection criteria for finding suitable respondents were as follows: – Work experience in project management: This was either more than 5 years working in or managing international projects, or in two cases less than 5 years but with large cultural project scope in a multinational project; – Significant international work experience either working co-located abroad or in virtual international teams; – Experience in dealing with international project clients or customers (internal and external); – Fluency in either English, Spanish or German; – Willingness to record the interview for transcription purposes; – Availability for an interview of 60–90 min; The author contacted 43 candidates that fulfilled the above selection criteria by email, phone or via professional networking platforms. Eventually, it was possible to conduct interviews with 23 project managers from varied national, professional and industry backgrounds. Nationalities included German, Italian, French, Belgian,

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

163

US-American, Nigerian, Spanish, Dutch, Swiss and Portuguese project managers. Nine of them were German nationals, two French and two Italian. The other nationalities were once in the sample. According to the preferences of the interviewees, three interviews were conducted in Spanish, ten interviews in English and ten in German. The interviewed project managers were between 25 and 70 years old and had between 2.5 and 30 years of international project management experience. Many of the interviewed project managers had lived or studied in foreign countries for longer than 6 months. Participants were selected from a wide range of industries. All interviewees hold academic degrees ranging from Bachelor level to Master or PhD level. Eight participating project managers are female. The interviews had a duration of between 51 and 109 min, they were audio recorded, and detailed interview notes were created during the interview. Full verbatim transcripts were created based on the audio recordings. For reasons of comprehensibility, repetitions and pauses were left out from the transcripts and dialects or slang were converted into plain English, Spanish or German. For data analysis, it was decided to follow a two-step-approach. The first was dedicated to an open coding exercise resulting in the development of codes and categories and preliminary results. The second step was dedicated to applying the category system to the full transcripts to test theoretical saturation of the system and to synthesize the findings with the relational model of intercultural project customer engagement proposed in Fig. 2.14. Before describing the data analysis process, however, it is necessary to understand how the interview guide was developed and tested. Therefore, the next section will be dedicated to this topic.

3.3.2

Development and Testing of Interview Guide

The semi-structured interview format was selected because the purpose of the interviews was to better understand impact factors that affect intercultural project customer engagement. Structured interviews would not have allowed for the level of flexibility that was required to create understanding. The un-structured interview form was rejected because it would not allow for the necessary focus to answer the research question (Bryman, 2012, pp. 470–472; Myers, 2013, pp. 121–123). Typical problems that need to be addressed when preparing an interview guide for a semi-structured interview are as follows: – Artificiality of the interview situation refers to the lack of familiarity between interviewer and interviewee and creating opinions and answers under time pressure; – Lack of trust is a problem that stems from not knowing to which degree the interviewer can be trusted. Consequently, the interviewee could decide to hide or distort information; – Lack of time is problematic because it can lead to unreliable or incomplete data;

164

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

– Level of entry refers to the problem that the researcher may not achieve access to the decision makers and higher management ranks of an organization; – Elite bias can become problematic when the research only interviews people of high status in an organization. This could distort the conclusions; – The Hawthorne effect describes how the interviewer may change the situation because he is not invisible nor neutral and the interview situation may be perceived as intrusive; – Constructing knowledge refers to the role of the interviewer and how interviewees want to appear knowledgeable, rational and logically consistent. Therefore, the interaction between interviewer and interview constructs knowledge; – Ambiguity of language is particularly important in situations where the actors do not have the same level of knowledge or expertise. Definitions, words and concepts may become fuzzy as a result; – Interview failure should be considered a real threat because the interview situation involves all of the above problems, fears and pitfalls, especially in an intercultural setting (Myers, 2013, pp. 125–126). For the development of the interview guide the author considered the potential problems above by employing various phases and question types throughout interviews. Several forms of interview questions are available for this purpose. – Introducing questions: Are good for easing the way into the interview. They may be broader and less specific. – Follow-up questions: Are needed to get further elaboration and can be formulated by asking ‘What do you mean?’ – Probing questions: Are employing direct questioning as a technique to find out more about a situation explained by the interviewee. – Specifying questions: These questions ask for further specification by asking ‘What did you do then?’ or “How did he react?’ – Direct questions: Are proposed to be left to the end of the interview to avoid directing the interview to a certain direction. – Indirect questions: Are questions that allow the interviewee to project his own attitude to other people. ‘What do most people think about this?’ could be an example. – Structuring questions: Are used to move to another topic or further in the interview guide. – Silence: Using silence gives the interviewee the opportunity to reflect upon what has been said. – Interpreting questions: This means proposing an interpretation or summary to the interviewee and asking his opinion about it (Bryman, 2012, pp. 476–478). To effectively address pitfalls in the development of the interview guide, and later during interviewing, it is recommended to give the interview a story line or narrative thread. According to Myers (2013) each interview should therefore have four components. First, each interview should be prepared by gathering information about the interviewee and adjusting the main questions to the circumstances of the

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

165

interviewee. Second, during the introduction the first impression is generated. It is important to introduce oneself to build trust and rapport and then to explain the purpose of the interview. This is an opportunity to explain the research project concisely and enthusiastically. It is also an opportunity to make the expected results interesting to the interviewee. During the third phase, the conversation, the information is collected from the interviewee. Before concluding the interview, the fourth phase, it is important to show gratitude and ask whether the interviewee can recommend any other potential interviewee (Myers, 2013, p. 133). The above challenges were addressed by combining different types of questions along the four components of interviews proposed by Myers (2013) in the following way. Artificiality: This problem is not entirely resolvable. The interview situation will remain in part artificial for the interviewee. For weakening the effect of this artificiality the interviews were conducted in person if possible, or by the richest means possible. Additionally, the introduction and ‘small-talk’ phase of the interview was extended trying to build a context for the interview. Extending the introduction phase was also aimed at increasing the level of trust that the interviewee awards to the interviewer. This was combined with assuring the interviewee that all audio recordings and transcripts were completely confidential and for analytical purposes only. The lack of time was addressed by testing the interview guide and by transparently communicating to the interviewees a realistic time estimate with the invitation. Entry level problems were addressed by adjusting the selection criteria for respondents to internationally experienced project managers. Thus, a well defined respondent’s profile allows selecting those interviewees with a high capability of contributing knowledge to inquiry. Elite bias in another problem that can be addressed by selecting the respondents according to their experience and role. Attention was paid to selecting project managers with varying degrees of intercultural experience and training. Hawthorne effects and the construction of knowledge problem were addressed by including probing questions and direct questioning and offering interpretations to interviewees during the sections of the interview that concerned the focal questions. In this way, the interviewees had the opportunity to reflect on their answers and refine them if necessary. The ambiguity of language problem was addressed by passing the draft version of the interview guide through several tests and revisions and requesting feedback from trusted supervisors and colleagues. Eventually the initial draft underwent four revisions which were informed by supervisor feedback and initial test interviews with students in the field of project management. Another two revisions were included after the first three interviews were conducted at the ProjMan Conference in Portugal in 2015. During the development of the interview guide the interviewer took great care not to introduce any theoretical concepts able distort the replies of the interviewee. All of these measures aimed at reducing the probability of the interview going wrong. Especially the revisions after the first three interviews were very valuable to

166

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

adjust the interview guide to the real interview situation. Eventually the following components and questions entered the final version of the interview guide. Notes for the interviewer are included in parenthesis: Introduction and Warm-Up This section included personal data such as names, gender, age, nationality, years of project management experience, years of experience abroad, years of working in international projects, current position held, educational background, and open questions regarding he employment history of the interviewee. Partially this data was already available online. During the interview, the interviewees were presented with the data and asked to confirm and correct where necessary. Warm-up questions included questions referring to the industry and branches in which experience was collected and how the interviewee got in contact with international and intercultural projects. The aim of this section was to set a pleasant tone for the interview, to build initial trust by finding shared interests and perspectives between interviewer and interviewee. The aim was to establish a relationship that would allow addressing more difficult topics later in the interview. Starting Questions 1. Why were you selected to work in your first international project? (Was that based on international experience or technical expertise?) 2. Which aspects of your project work are international/intercultural? (specify: communication with colleagues/co-workers/suppliers/bosses/partners; which tasks, work packages, planning, . . .) 3. Can you tell me who your customer was in the international project? (Define Customer if necessary! Specify: internal customers, external customers, client, sponsor?) 4. In which kind of client-supplier relationship have you been? (specify: timing, client or contractor, industry/branch, balance of power, . . .) This section aimed at assessing the nature of the intercultural project experience and customer relationship that the participant experienced. In practice this section provided the opportunity to address some important definitions and concepts that would be used throughout the interview. Focal Questions: Direct, Indirect and Probing Questions 1. Can you recall one or more specific incidents in which you experienced intercultural problems with your project clients? If no—continue with question eight! (specify: organizational setting, specific problem; effect of problem, origin of problem) 2. What did you personally learn from this incident? 3. Is there anything you would do differently today? 4. If he/she does not recall issues in client relation: Did you experience intercultural problems that would also apply to the client-contractor relationship? (specify: organizational setting, time, volume of business, power distribution)

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

167

5. Focus on Client Relationship: How are the cultural challenges in the customer relationship different from those in other project relationships? (specify and follow-up questions) (Interpretive questions: would it be safe to say that. . .; Do you mean that. . .; is it fair to say that. . .) 6. Which behavior of PMs would you see as critical for the success of intercultural project client engagement? 7. What hinders PMs from doing that? Why, do you think, is this not always done (if it were so simple)? This section aimed at identifying incidents in which cultural differences between managers from project vendor and project client organizations were experienced and how this is dealt with. These incidents were further elaborated in the next set of focal questions. Indirect and Contextual Questions 1. Based on your experience . . . what are the biggest challenges or difficulties that project managers experience in engaging project clients from other cultures than your own? (specify and follow-up questions) (Interpretive questions: would it be safe to say that. . .; Do you mean that. . .; is it fair to say that. . .) 2. Which strategies do you or others employ to mitigate these problems/difficulties? (Interpretive questions: would it be safe to say that. . .; Do you mean that. . .; Is it fair to say that. . .) 3. Was your project team culturally a rather homogeneous group? How was the cultural composition? Which nationalities were present in your project group? 4. What was the impact of cultural diversity within the team on the external relationships? 5. Was the customer team composed of more than one national culture? Did you perceive this as being helpful or rather not? The aim in this section was to assess the earlier mentioned factors, finding the most important ones and trying to identify good practices of how project managers deal with cultural differences. In addition, the author wanted to see whether participants saw any relationship between cultural diversity within the project organization and the relationship to project clients from other cultures. Questions were asked both directly and indirectly, so that participants could report other practices than their own, or use the other as ‘avatars’ for their own experience. Concluding Questions 1. Does Stakeholder Management help you to cope with intercultural problems with project clients? Did you do Stakeholder Management (Identify/Plan/Manage/ Control)? (specify: HOW, if no answer time, quality, costs, or else?!) 2. What could your organization/management do to support you in this kind of difficult situation? 3. How should college/university education or professional training help to mitigate these problems?

168

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

4. Do you know anyone who would be an interesting interviewee for this study? (Anyone with experience in cross-cultural projects or perhaps with clients from other cultures?) The last section aimed at assessing traditional ways in how to deal with cultural diversity in projects and identifying what organizations do to help in these situations. Additionally, it was asked whether the participants saw any potential for college or professional training to improve intercultural competence. The interview guide was applied to 23 project managers with varying degrees of professional and international experience in between October 2015 and April 2016. Detailed notes of the interviews were documented. The interviews were audio recorded and full transcripts were produced with the aim of enabling qualitative data analysis. The process and results of this analysis will be detailed in the following section.

3.3.3

Category Development and Preliminary Findings

3.3.3.1

Overview and Initial Data Review

In order to become familiar with the interview notes, a preliminary analysis was conducted focusing on the focal questions of the interview guide and the answers of participants. The following presents the findings of this analysis with the aim to provide a first indication towards an emergent coding exercise. The first set of focal questions of the interview guide was concerned with intercultural incidents and lessons learned from them. The second focused on the particularities of the intercultural customer relationship and successful behaviors. Since the responses given were rather unstructured, the information from the interview notes can be grouped into four categories presented in Tables 3.4 and 3.5: – Impact of culture: specific incidents, challenges or problems project managers reported when managing project customers with diverse cultural backgrounds – Lessons learned: techniques that practitioners reported to employ in order to accommodate cultural differences with their project customers – Particularities of customer relationship: Particularities that make the intercultural customer relationship special compared to other stakeholder relationships – Behavioral success factors: Critical behaviors for the project manager to be successful in dealing with intercultural customers Table 3.4 summarizes the findings for the first set of focal questions regarding intercultural incidents. The columns are populated with excerpts from the interview notes. Factors that were mentioned various times have been summarized. The lessons learned have been re-sorted in such way that they correspond to the impact factors in the left column. Thus, the impact of “perceived impolite behavior due to different cultural norms” may be mitigated by “try not to be judgmental and accept ambiguity”. The two

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

169

Table 3.4 Preliminary interview findings “Cultural Incidents” Impact of culture Transparency issues due to cultural preferences Mistrust due to timing, scheduling and deadline problems Disappointments due to lack of comprehension for local context Problems with indirect, high-context communication Problems with perceived impoliteness due to directness of project client or vendor Barriers to collaboration due to different decision styles in customer/vendor organization Perceived impolite behavior due to different cultural norms Problems with following plan or procedure vs. flexibility for adjusting to environment Power games and punishments when faced with unhappy customers Perceived lack of required skills due to negative stereotyping against national cultures Perceived incapability to adjust to new information due to misunderstandings

Lessons learned Communicate and document more specifics and in more detail Assuming similarity can be dangerous Assume responsibility for comprehension at receiving side Communicate more using more and richer channels Build a relationship or create a common context before getting down to business Be open to question your own logic and adjust it to the environment Try not to be judgmental and accept ambiguity Schedule for longer meetings and more time for communication and coordination Use titles where expected and where they are relevant for the task Emphasize technical expertise during the early stages of the project Let partner paraphrase their perspective on what is discussed and ask open questions

Source: Lückmann and Laumann (2016)

questions were asked separately. Therefore, the participants did not directly relate the cultural impact and the lessons learned. Each lesson learned may therefore apply to more than one impact factor. Table 3.5 shows the summarized replies to the second set of focal questions. As above, similar expressions have been merged and the identified successful behaviors were matched to the particular challenges in the left column. Thus, to “adjust your expectations, accept differences, work with them and exploit them if possible” was mentioned as a critical behavior for mitigating cultural differences in getting positive or negative feedback. During the interviewing process, and during the analysis, there was a significant saturation effect with regards to new findings. Towards the end of the interviews there were only very rarely new insights or new knowledge revealed. This is considered a positive sign in that the questions asked and the selection of interviewees constitute a good representation of the real challenges project managers are facing when dealing with project clients or vendors. Based on these initial findings and considering the findings of the literature and case-study review a two-staged approach to qualitative data analysis was chosen to ensure iterative code and category construction and saturated categories. The first stage was an open coding exercise based on the interview notes and serves to

170

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 3.5 Preliminary interview findings “Customer Relationship” Particularities of customer relationship Customers have much higher importance when they pay for project or product Getting positive or negative customer feedback is subject to cultural interpretation Technical skills and components are more important at the beginning of relationship Being visibly from another culture might help to break the ice in some high context cultures Differences in the customer’s socio-cultural environment may affect the project negatively

Respecting the cultural code of the client’s country becomes imperative even if sometimes the customer adjusts On timing issues the sequential cultures tend to set the tone In relationship issues the less task-oriented cultures set the tone Project customers or vendors may be disappointed due to intercultural misunderstandings and time-consuming communication

Behavioral success factors Dedicate 80% of your customer management effort to psychology, diplomacy, communication and politics Adjust your expectations, accept differences, work with them, exploit them if possible In the beginning, volunteer information and advance trust by being as transparent as possible Try to exploit the multicultural project culture for the benefit of the customer relationship but avoid pitfalls (incompatibilities) Check whether your customer volunteers personal information, use it to better understand his perspective and create opportunity to get to know your customer and his colleagues Adjust your behavior to respect the local cultural code and customer expectations Discuss expectations and preferences with client/customer Show genuine curiosity and real interest in customer’s culture and language and family Listen actively and listen more. Talk less and ask for clients for their understanding and perspective. Use rich communication and face-toface meetings whenever possible

Source: Lückmann and Laumann (2016)

develop the category system; the second was dedicated to applying and refining the category system based on the full interview transcripts. The methodology, process and findings of the first stage are going to be presented in the following.

3.3.3.2

Coding Methodology

For the first stage of data analysis a wide range of coding methods are proposed, depending on the purpose of the analysis and the type of data. Elemental coding approaches that would fit the purpose of this analysis of the textual material at hand are Structural Coding, Descriptive Coding and Initial Coding (Saldaña, 2016, pp. 97–124). Structural Coding can be used to categorize textual content in function of an inquiry or research question by labeling larger text sections and framing an interview transcript to such purpose (MacQueen, McLellan-Lemal, Bartholow, & Milstein, 2008, pp. 124–125). Structural coding might be applied, among other data, to semistructured interviews, and it aims at providing labels and indices in order to quickly

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

171

access the data (Namey, Guest, Thairu, & Johnson, 2008, p. 141). Structural coding is recommended as an initial coding approach for transcript data, rather than for field notes (Saldaña, 2016, p. 98). Since this first analytic step is based on researchergenerated interview notes, which are already summarized in function of focal research questions, it was decided to pursue other coding techniques, keeping the possible benefits of this particular approach in mind (Saldaña, 2016, pp. 98–101). Descriptive Coding, sometimes called “topic coding”, is an approach to coding that assigns brief summaries of the content of a text section as codes to the material (Saldaña, 2016, p. 102; Tesch, 1990, p. 119). This technique is recommended for virtually all kinds of qualitative data, except case studies of small group interviews (Saldaña, 2016, p. 102). Assigning noun-based descriptive codes it lays the foundation for later second cycle coding (Saldaña, 2016, p. 104; Wolcott, 1994, p. 55). A disadvantage of this coding technique is that it focuses strongly on ‘what’ has been said or recorded, and less on the meaning of it for the involved social actors (Saldaña, 2016, p. 102; Wolcott, 1994, p. 412). This coding technique is attractive because it provides a transparent and straightforward approach to coding especially for novice researchers (Miles, Hubermann, & Saldaña, 2014; Saldaña, 2016, p. 102). It will therefore be considered as a potential way of coding the interview notes and transcripts. Initial Coding, or sometimes called “open coding”, is a coding approach from the toolbox of Grounded Theory. It is called “open coding” because one goal is for the research to stay open to all kinds of theoretical directions during the coding process and it proposes to assigning codes quickly and spontaneously (once the researcher is familiar with the material) (Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 2015, pp. 70–72). This approach enables the researcher to reflect theory and observation before continuing the coding and analytical exercise (Glaser, 1978, p. 56; Saldaña, 2016, p. 115). So, while offering a theory-informed, and open ended coding approach, Initial Coding is anchored in the Grounded Theory framework, which prescribes concurrent data analysis and data generation (Glaser, 1978). Another advantage of this approach is that it can include other coding techniques, such as, e.g., Descriptive Coding. The approach, therefore, needs to be adjusted to the task at hand, where the all the data is available before the coding exercise started. For the purpose of this dissertation the author decided to follow the Initial Coding approach as described above (Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Saldaña, 2016; Strauss, 1987), accepting the limitation that there is no concurrent data generation and data analysis. Descriptive Coding will be used initially for assigning initial noun-based codes to text sections. These codes were iteratively developed further by using more detailed elaborate codes that do not have to be noun-based. Through a theory-guided iterative process codes were clustered into categories. Coding was computer supported by using the “ATLAS.ti” software package. This tool prescribes an analytical process including data upload, code creation and definition, coding qualitative data, memo creation and additional analytical tools including frequency analysis, word crunch/cloud, managing codes into categories and sub-categories.

172

3.3.3.3

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Presentation and Discussion of Findings: Stage 1

The code system that emerged from this first step analysis of the interview notes is presented in the four tables below. The codes have been collected under different ‘headings’ so that they could be presented and described within the text part of this dissertation. These headings have merely presentation purposes and do not constitute categories yet. Within the tables the codes are sorted according to the frequency in which they occurred during the analysis of the interview notes. In the following, examples of participants’ reports during the interviews will be quoted. Since various interviewees requested confidentiality, no reference to participant names will be made. Table 3.6 presents those codes that describe cultural differences along cultural dimensions. They represent cultural differences that interviewees mentioned when asked for cultural incidents or impact factors they experienced when dealing with the project customer relationship. The two codes that stand out in terms of their frequency are RELATIONSHIP and CONTEXT. RELATIONSHIP refers to cultural differences and the importance that stakeholders assign to the relationships between project stakeholders. Quotations that are representative for this code are, e.g., “. . .you need to create an after-hour relationship with them—they need to know you in order to trust you. . .” or “. . .you might have to go to a soccer game with a Brazilian guy. . .”. These examples show that the word “relationship” was not an exclusive selection criterion. Also instances in which the respondent explained how to build relationships or complained about the lack of informal relationships were selected into this category. The CONTEXT code collects quotations from interviewees that can be attributed to cultural differences regarding the amount of context that is required for effective communication. Examples of text excerpts that entered this code are “. . .and the French like to address points indirectly, to talk more. . .” or “. . .and then you often end up talking on the meta-level and on the subject matter there is no progress. . .”. Other examples are “. . .Chinese do not request/expect meeting minutes, Americans do. . .” and “. . .small hints and subliminal pieces of information might actually make a difference. . .”. These examples show that in collaborating with project customers from other cultures there are different expectations towards what should be said or even fixed in writing and what is understood without doing so. This turned out to be a recurring topic throughout the analysis. Other codes that were applied more often are DIRECTNESS, TIME, HIERARCHY, STRUCTURE/PLAN and UNCERTAINTY. The DIRECTNESS code was applied on those cases where participants mentioned that they experienced the other party to be more/less direct in disagreeing, addressing conflict or providing negative feedback. Examples include “. . .the Dutch are sometimes more blunt [sic.] than you would expect from Flemish—Belgians sometimes more diplomatic. . .” and “. . .German clients are much more direct in stating their requirements that, e.g., the Spanish clients. . .”. It was often stated that too direct communication could be offensive and that it is important to translate a direct/indirect message into a language

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

173

Table 3.6 Codes and frequencies—cultural differences Name RELATIONSHIP

Frequency 54

CONTEXT

49

DIRECTNESS

26

TIME

23

HIERARCHY

20

STRUCTURE/ PLAN

16

UNCERTAINTY

14

COLLECTIVISM

9

PHILOSOPHY

6

DIFFUSENESS

5

Definition Definition: Quotations that reveal differences in valuing an established relationship between stakeholders Definition: Quotations that describe cultural incidents that can be attributed to Hall’s distinction between high and low context communication Definition: Quotation that describe a cultural incident referring to differences concerning the right level of directness in feedback and communication Definition: Quotations that reveal cultural differences in how time is managed. Polychronic vs. Monochronic and whether schedules are subject to particularist interpretation or a universal value Definition: Quotations that describe cultural incidents that can be attributed to Power Distance (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010) Achievement vs. Ascription (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012) or top-down vs. consensual decision making (Meyer, 2014). The customer-contractor relationship is here considered a hierarchical relationship. Seniority is considered a hierarchy component Definition: Quotations that reveal a preference for structured work and planning, e.g., by Germans or Swiss and the incompatibility of this with other cultures Definition: Quotations that describe cultural incidents that can be attributed to differences in dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty Definition: Quotations that reveal differences between collectivistic and individualistic cultures Definition: Quotations that describe cultural incidents that can be attributed to differences in Long Term Orientation or Indulgence vs. Restraint (Hofstede et al., 2010) or theoretical vs. pragmatic problem-solving (Meyer, 2014) Definition: Quotations that reveal a mixing between professional and private sphere. Job relationships diffuse into the private life and vice versa

Source: Compiled by author

that is acceptable for the other party. The TIME code is about the Polychronic/ Monochronic divide offered by Hall (1989b). Quotations that mentioned differences in long-term-orientation were collected under the PHILOSOPHY code. The HIERARCHY code was assigned for instances that referred to differences in Power Distance (Hofstede et al., 2010), how status and power is achieved (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012) and whether decisions are made by consensus or top-down (Meyer, 2014). An example of this is that of a European engineer describing his Brazilian contractor culture with these words: “. . .thinking is left to the higher ranks and they devise rules and procedures. . .”. Another example is a German project manager describing her IT-vendor’s behavior with “. . . the Turks

174

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

called us a baby-team because we were rather young. . .”. The code STRUCTURE/ PLAN resulted from statements of interviewees that referred to the preferences of some project partners (mainly Germans/Swiss) to develop detailed plans and stick to them as much as possible. This code can be linked to the CONTEXT code in that detailed plans are preferred by low-context cultures (Köster, 2010) and also to TIME, RELATIONSHIP and DIFFUSENESS because cultures that emphasize relationship over task orientation tend to have a polychronic time concept and a more diffuse concept of the work relationship, which will render detailed planning a futile exercise (Köster, 2010; Meyer, 2014). Less frequently assigned codes are COLLECTIVISM, PHILOSOPHY and DIFFUSENESS. COLLECTIVISM was assigned as a code in instances where the interviewee reported that being part of a national, social or ethnic group was important for project success. The PHILOSOPHY code was assigned for a collection of issues that represented cultural differences in Long Term Orientation and Indulgence vs. Restraint (Hofstede et al., 2010), and practical vs. theoretical approaches to problem solving (Köster, 2010; Meyer, 2014). This code was named PHILOSOPHY, because it refers to values that are acquired from parents or in school and influenced by philosophical or religious beliefs. The DIFFUSENESS code was used when interviewees talked about how professional relationships transcended into private ones and vice versa. Examples are quotes like “. . .you need to create an after-hour relationship with them—they need to know you in order to trust you. . .” which was reported by an American working in Japan or a European in South America who reported that “. . .it is hard to draw a line there and judge on what is job and what is private. . .”. The codes in Table 3.6 refer to cultural dimensions from various authors, which means that they are overlapping and descriptive. The codes were chosen based on the reviewed data and which code fits the example best. Table 3.7 presents all those codes that can be summarized under the heading “Intercultural Competence” in a broader sense. The most frequently observed factors under this heading were misunderstandings due to cultural differences and the quantity or quality of communication. Quotations referring to such problems were assigned the code COMMUNICATION. Examples include, but are not limited to, expressions like “. . .with Japan there was a high potential for misunderstanding. . .” or “. . .understanding is not a consequence of telling them, it’s the responsibility of sender and receiver. . .” or also references to the importance of “. . .interpreting the message of customer/vendor. . .” because “. . .‘great’ might mean that he believes that he has a solution. . .”. Communication under this heading can be seen as an overarching code, with other codes specifying or detailing the specific type of communication challenges or remedies. The CULTURAL COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT code collects those quotations extracted from the interview notes that reveal instances in which stakeholders develop or employ intercultural competence. Exemplary quotations that entered this code were “. . .with more experience it becomes clear that communication is not all but cultural adjustment in three phases. . .” or “. . .international experience and character play a big role there and may compensate the impact of national

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

175

Table 3.7 Codes and frequencies—intercultural competence Name COMMUNICATION

Frequency 57

CULTURAL COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT

30

CULTURAL AWARENESS

25

REFLECTIVITY

24

TOLERANCE

23

MUTUAL RESPECT

19

STRANGE BEHAVIORS

18

COMMUNICATION CHANNELS

17

LANGUAGE

17

OPENNESS

15

CULTURAL COMPLEXITY

13

WORK AND LIFE STYLE

12

CURIOSITY

10

NEGATIVE FEELINGS

8

PREUDUCE

6

PRIDE/HONOR

6

Source: Compiled by author

Definition Definition: Quotations that—reveal cultural differences, in communicating among project stakeholders, or that reveal problems or misunderstandings in intercultural communication Definition: Quotations that reveal how participants developed or used cultural competence in intercultural projects Definition: Quotations of participants that reveal the development and importance of the awareness of cultural differences in intercultural projects Definition: Quotations that reveal reflecting thoughts of the participant regarding their own cultural pre-disposition Definition: Quotations that reveal tolerance or acceptance towards other cultures Definition: Quotations in which participants mentioned the importance of respecting each other for intercultural project customer management Definition: Quotations that reveal experiencing unfamiliar cultural or religious norms/behaviors Definition: Quotations that make a reference to the use of different means of communication, or their effectiveness Definition: Quotations that refer to communication problems in terms of language proficiency Definition: Quotations that reveal the openness of the participant to other persons or cultures. Is different that TOLERANCE because it is not only about tolerating behaviors or persons but openly approaching issues or persons Definition: Quotations that reveal issues to grasp the complexity of intercultural affairs, e.g., where expectations/stereotypes were not met even though they could be expected or where different cultural affiliations made it impossible to predict behaviors Definition: Quotations that reveal perceived cultural differences regarding the way in which people live, work and deliver results Definition: Quotations that reveal how curiosity of the interviewee towards culture Definition: Quotations that reveal negative feelings like, e.g., fear or stress on the side of the participant, resulting from cultural differences Definition: Quotations that reveal prejudices held by either the interviewee or project partners/clients of the participant Definition: Quotations that reveal the behaviors and impact of national pride or honor on contractor or client side

176

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

culture. . .”. This code focuses reports of interviewees on ways in which stakeholders develop ways to become better in intercultural situations. CULTURAL AWARENESS, REFLECTIVITY, TOLERANCE and MUTUAL RESPECT are four codes that were assigned to data excerpts in which interviewees reported or showed these four factors: awareness of cultural differences and their effects, reflectivity concerning their own cultural predisposition, tolerance towards new and unfamiliar circumstances or behaviors, and respect for members of other cultures. A good example of how CULTURAL AWARENESS was mentioned by interviewees is that of a seasoned US project manager with ample intercultural experience who stated “. . .when you dive into it you don’t realize culture to be an issue in the early stage. . .” and then went on explaining how for him it took some time to discover cultural patterns. Regarding REFLECTIVITY it were quotations like “. . .first: to take yourself back and try not to project your own expectations on others. . .” as a response to the question what participants learned from cultural incidents with project customers. An example for an instance in which the TOLERANCE code was assigned is “. . .accepting that there are other ways of doing stuff— being non-judgmental is very important. . .” or “. . .I tried to accept these things as a reality without judging it. . .” which was mentioned by a Dutch project manager with ample intercultural experience in defense and development projects. MUTUAL RESPECT was assigned for quotations where people mentioned respect as a success factor. This can be exemplified by one participant recommending to “. . .listen well, treat him with respect, expect respectful treatment. . .”, or where project managers experienced a lack of mutual respect, “. . .I also had the impression that I was not taken serious because I am young and a woman. . .” reported by a younger project manager from the fashion industry. STRANGE BEHAVIORS was a code assigned to situations in which interview partners reported behaviors by their counterparts that they experienced as being strange. A German industrial engineer who implemented a machine in eastern Turkey reported that for the go-live party the customers brought two living whether that were then butchered and later eaten. Other examples are an Italian project manager reported that “. . .working with ES was difficult because they were always in ‘siesta’. . .” or a US-American reporting that “. . .one Japanese stakeholder was sitting in meeting with eyes closed. . .”. All the quotations that entered this code reveal that the participant experienced the situation as unusual or even strange. COMMUNCATION CHANNELS and LANGUAGE codes were assigned in quotations where respondents referred to the use of different means of communication and their effectiveness in intercultural situations and also to problems of language proficiency in the intercultural relationship. Examples include project managers proposing to meet in person initially to improve later communication or one German project manager who stated the opinion that good language proficiency ‘automatically’ improves cultural adequacy because one adopts, e.g., English ways of expressing concern or disagreement. The OPENNESS code is different from the TOLERANCE code because it is not only about tolerating different behavior but openly engaging intercultural situations. One respondent reported, for example, “. . .there are people who like going abroad

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

177

and learn from that and others who don’t. . .”. Another project manager reported that “. . .being open to change is a personal trait that is important. . .”, which also was assigned the OPENNESS code. The CULTURAL COMPLEXITY code was assigned in those instances in which respondents reported a difficulty to grasp the intercultural dynamics of an incident. An example would be a situation in which the project manager prepared for cultural differences and then her expectations or stereotypes were not met by the other actor. One Belgian project manager with ample intercultural experience reported, for example, that during a meeting with his project customer “. . .the English behavior was much more demanding and rude than expected. . .”. Another example is a German development project auditor who reported about the German project managers in the countries that “. . .they were difficult to evaluate since they often were very much members of the host culture. . .” due to cultural adjustment. WORK AND LIFE STYLE was assigned as an overarching code for instances where respondents made general remarks about differences in which people live their lives and approach project tasks. CURIOSITY was used for coding all those instances where interviewees reported this to be an important factor for intercultural project customer engagement. For example, one project manager from Nigeria reported the following: “I realized that it helps if you have to show interest in their lives and appreciate their culture. . .” when asked for good practices. NEGATIVE FEELINGS, PREJUDICE and PRIDE/HONOR were codes that were used to identify inhibitors of appropriate and effective intercultural project customer interaction. NEGATIVE FEELINGS were used to collect negative feelings like disappointment, stress or fear in relation to intercultural situations. Examples include quotations like “. . .partners claim to do things and then don’t. . .”, “. . .learned not to expect too much. . .”, or “. . .keep calm since anger makes things worse. . .”. PREJUDICE was a code assigned to quotations that revealed clichés or negative stereotyping including statements like, e.g., “. . .in India it is extremely difficult to find knowledgeable people. . .”. The code PRIDE/HONOR was used where situations were described that displayed this kind of feelings or behavior. An example for this is a German client project manager engaging with a Turkish IT service vendor reporting the following: “. . .I believe the reason was a kind of national pride or honor in the sense that ‘we are professionals, we know what to do’. . .”. All three codes lead to less effectiveness in the intercultural relationship between project customer and project vendor. Table 3.8 presents those codes that were assigned to adjustments that were made by either client or vendor project managers in response to cultural differences (Table 3.6) and in function of their intercultural competence (Table 3.7). ADJUSTMENT must be understood as the code that was initially applied to all kinds of cultural adjustments that were recorded in the interview notes. In later iterations during the coding process, the data was coded with more detailed codes describing which adjustments were made and how. From the data at hand and the frequencies that different codes were assigned, it seems that adjustment to the culture of the project client might be the norm. This code was assigned 21 times. An example for such adjustment could be the

178

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 3.8 Codes and frequencies—adjustments Name ADJUSTMENT (GENERAL)

Frequency 49

Adjustment to client culture Adjust interaction with client or contractor

21 17

Adjust to host culture

15

Adjust openness

11

Adjust communication

8

Adjust expectations

7

Adjust posture

7

Adjust to guest culture

7

Adjust cultural knowledge Adjust to contractor culture Adjust planning

5 4

Adjust work/life style

3

Adjust explicitness

2

3

Definition Definition: Quotations that reveal behaviors of cultural adjustment of some stakeholders to the other cultural norms Definition: Quotations that reveal examples where stakeholders adjust to the project client's culture Definition: Quotations that reveal behaviors of cultural adjustment to the interaction with the project client/ vendor Definition: Quotations that reveal examples where stakeholders adjust to the host country's culture Definition: Quotations that reveal how stakeholders adjust their internal attitude to being more/less open towards the other culture Definition: Quotations that reveal behaviors of cultural adjustment of communication between some stakeholders Definition: Quotations that reveal behaviors of adjusting expectations to cultural norms by some stakeholders Definition: Quotations that reveal how stakeholders adjust their posture towards the other culture Definition: Quotations that reveal examples where stakeholders adjust to the guest country’s culture Definition: Quotations that reveal behaviors of adjusting cultural knowledge (learning) of some stakeholders Definition: Quotations of incidents where stakeholders adjust to the project contractor’s culture Definition: Quotations that reveal behaviors of adjusting the project planning to cultural differences between some SHs Definition: Quotations that reveal behaviors of cultural adjustment of work/life style between some stakeholders Definition: Quotations that reveal behaviors of stakeholders adjusting their communication to be more/less explicit

Source: Compiled by author

recommendation of a vendor project manager stating, “You need to adjust your behavior to every client.” Examples in which the client adjusted to the vendor culture were only found four times. Another distinction that was made was between excerpts that reveal adjustments to the host country or adjustments to the guest’s culture. Here, the tendency is not as stark as with the client/vendor distinction. There were 15 examples in which the actors adjusted to the hosting national culture and seven instances in which adjustments in direction of the guest’s culture were made. Examples for adjustments to the guest’s national culture include a French project manager trying to adjust to a

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

179

visiting Japanese stakeholder, or an Italian project coordinator trying to adjust to Arab customs and cultural norms. The code “Adjust interaction with client or contractor” was assigned for instances in which specific reference was made to particularities of the client/customer relationship. Here for example, one interviewee reported that there is “. . .no way of approaching all [customers] the same way. . .”. The other adjustments that were mentioned and recorded in the interview notes were either internal adjustments to the way actors think or feel, or external adjustments to the way actors behave and interact. Adjusting cultural knowledge, openness, expectations and posture would be examples of the former. Adjustments to the way project managers plan, communicate or to the way in which they approach work and life style are examples of the latter. Explicitness was recorded as a separate code here because the data revealed two instances where project managers referred to being explicit and low context as separate impact factors. Table 3.9 presents a collection of those codes that could not be incorporated under either of the previous tables’ headings. Quotations that received a TRUST related code are by far the most frequent ones. The TRUST IN code (assigned 23 times) collects data that refers to trust given to the interviewee, and quotations assigned to the TRUST OUT code (assigned 13 times) describe situations in which the interviewee awards or withholds trust to/from others. Examples for text parts that were assigned the TRUST IN code are “. . .also, people seemed to be skeptical whether this guy can handle a project ‘German style’. . .” or “Getting their trust is essential— not for bringing them your new ideas but to better understand their requirements and ideas for developing something together. . .”. Typical TRUST OUT reference would be “. . .if you don’t know the guys you are working with its difficult to develop trust—but sometimes you just need to trust them. . .” or “I trust them in the sense in what they deliver and that they are reliable—with them it’s more on the professional relationship—the way I build trust”. Another group of codes included in this table are COMMITMENT TO PROJECT, BUREAUCRACY, FORCING OWN STANDARD, TRANSPARENCY, and CORRUPTION. A common theme among these codes is that they describe effects of cultural differences. For example, a perceived lack of COMMITIMENT to the project could be caused by differences in the degree of individualism or by different levels of diffuseness, among other things. High levels of perceived BUREAUCRACY can be the outcome of differences in collectivism or hierarchy orientation. STANDARDIZATION could be a means for uncertainty avoiders trying to control cultural complexity and perceived CORRUPTION could be influenced by differences in collectivism and power distance. Perceived TRANSPARENCY might be impacted by different levels of context in communication. Differences in the typical ROLE OF WOMEN can also be attributed to differences in culture. All of these possible effects were shown by a wide array of authors (Hall, 1989a; Hofstede, 1983; Hofstede et al., 2010; Köster, 2010; Meyer, 2014; Trompenaars & HampdenTurner, 2012; Zein, 2015). Other codes in this category refer to differences in professional and organizational culture. These are concepts of culture that are not part of this dissertation, but they

180

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 3.9 Codes and frequencies—others Name TRUST IN

Frequency 23

CLIENT UNDERSTANDING COMMITMENT TO PROJECT

20

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

14

TRANSPARENCY

13

TRUST OUT

13

FORCING OWN STANDARD OR SOLUTION

12

18

ROLE OF WOMEN

9

NO IMPACT OF CULTURE

7

CLIENT RELATIONSHIP NOT PARTICULAR

5

DIFFERENCES IN PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND BUREAUCRACY

4

STANDARDIZATION

2

CLIENT IS DIFFICULT

1

CLIENT IMPORTANCE

1

CORRUPTION

1

Source: Compiled by author

3

Definition Definition: Quotations that reveal (a lack of) trust given to the interviewee Definition: Quotation that states the importance or difficulty of understanding the customer Definition: Quotations that reveal instances where partners had higher priorities than the project at hand, e.g., networking or pleasing more important stakeholders Definition: Quotations that reveal an impact of organizational culture. Either alongside of or apart from national culture Definition: Quotations that reveal a lack of transparency between project stakeholders with expressions like “don’t know what they are doing” Definition: Quotations that demonstrate (a lack of) trust awarded by the stakeholder Definition: Quotations that reveal the behavior of forcing standards, processes or solutions on project partners from other cultures Definition: Quotations that reveals differences in the role that women normally assume in different cultures Definition: Quotations that reveal that the participant does not regard culture as a relevant impact factor Definition: Quotations that reveal the opinion of the participant that client relationships are not or not strongly affected by cultural differences Definition: Quotations that reveal differences in professional culture and the effect this has on stakeholder relations Definition: Quotation that reveals differences in the experienced bureaucracy both with public administration and within the company Definition: Quotations that reveal how project managers or companies are trying to use standardization for coping with intercultural project stakeholder/client management Definition: Quotations where participants state that they found it more difficult to engage intercultural clients Definition: Quotation that reveals that the participant considers the cultural problems with the customer more important than cultural problems with other stakeholders Definition: Quotations that reveal problems with perceived corruption

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

181

were nevertheless a confounding factor in the eyes of some of the respondents. Therefore, they were recorded and entered the code system in order to show the interdependencies among impact factors. Examples for the ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE code are “. . .internal politics play a role too—sometimes they just ignore us because we are HQ. . .” or comparisons of cultural aspects like “. . .a Turk from our team and a Turk from the customer team may have very little in common. . .”. An example in which a participant mentioned DIFFERENCES IN PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND is “. . .collaboration was difficult also because German engineers needed to collaborate interculturally. . .”. In another instance an Italian software engineer mentioned problems in dealing with a German psychologist as part of one project. The remaining codes in Table 3.9 can be sorted into two groups, the first one concerning the client (including CLIENT UNDERSTANDING, CLIENT DIFFICULT, and CLIENT IMPORTANCE). Those codes that refer to quotations in which the interviewee expressed doubts toward the impact of culture in general (CULTURE NO IMPACT) and also towards whether the customer relationship is special when it comes to the impact of national culture (CLIENT RELATIONSHIP NOT PARTICULAR). CLIENT UNDERSTANDING collects those expressions that describe problems in understanding the customer and his requirements in an intercultural project environment. Interviewees mentioned things like “. . .compared to the French [client], I didn’t understand the requirements of the Japanese [client]. . .” or “. . .you need to understand very quickly the customer expectations and the cultural setting. . .”. These are representative examples for this code. CLIENT DIFFICULT and CLIENT IMPORTANCE were assigned only once each. They represent general remarks about the client relationship in projects. In five instances the interviewed project managers made remarks that implicated that the customer relationship is not so particular from a cultural point of view. These were assigned the code CLIENT RELATIONSHIP NOT PARTICULAR. Quotations that exemplify these remarks are “. . .I think customers, wherever they live have the same expectations—you should’t treat customers differently on basis of where they come from. . .” or “. . .many times it depends more on the personality of the client than on his/her geographical location. . .”. Another type of difficult statement for the purpose of this dissertation is the assertion of some project managers that culture has a negligible impact. These statements were assigned the code CULTURE NO IMPACT. An example would be “One thing I have learned is that you can achieve more with small groups of like-mined people—personality and technical knowledge is here more important than culture”. Taken by themselves these codes are problematic because they indicate that the respondents do not believe that cultural differences between project customer and project vendor are particularly problematic. However, in previous chapters, sections, and tables ample evidence has been provided that many project managers perceive cultural factors as problematic in the client relationship. The above codes can be described as saturated in the sense that no new codes were needed during the final stages of the analysis and all new data could be assigned to existing codes. Recognizing that the codes are collectively exhaustive turns the

182

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

attention to whether they are also mutually exclusive. The preliminary answer to this question is that the codes overlap semantically and conceptually. Refining the codes and shaping them into a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive category system shall is aim of the following section.

3.3.4

Category Application and Integration with Model

3.3.4.1

Methodology and Initial Iteration

Since the preliminary analysis of the interview notes already established an applicable set of codes and even tentative categories, it was decided not to engage in a bottom-up open coding exercise for an analysis of the interview transcripts. Instead, the author decided to modify the deductive qualitative content analysis presented in Fig. 3.4 so that it can corroborate and refine the code system in line with the aim of this dissertation. Figure 3.7 shows this modified approach that is based on Mayring’s (2015, p. 104) process but additionally allows using empirically developed categories from the analysis of interview notes as input. Thus the emerging category system can be iteratively re-calibrated with the ICPCE model presented in Fig. 2.14.

1st step: empirical determinaon of codes and main categories based on interview notes.

2nd step: coding interview transcripts (referencing of quotes) 5th step: comparison and calibraon using the ’theorecal model’ from literature & case study analysis

4th step: revision of category definions and category system 3rd step: extracon & processing of quotaons from material

6th step: documentaon of new category system with category & code summaries.

Fig. 3.7 Process of deductive transcript analysis. Source: Compiled by author

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

183

The process steps highlighted in blue are those that provide empirical or theoretical input to the emerging category system (step one and five) or represent the output of the process in the form of an empirically and theoretically refined category system containing impact factors for intercultural project customer engagement. Steps two, three, four and five describe an iterative cycle in which the initial category system is applied to the transcript data and then calibrated by comparing it with the theoretical findings. The process began by applying the codes from interview notes analysis to the interview transcripts. The aim was to exploit the more detailed and comprehensive texts of the full transcripts and see if they yielded any new data that would require additional codes or adjustments to existing ones. After analyzing the first transcripts there were three key insights that led to the first iterative cycle as described in Fig. 3.7: 1. The density and the amount of data in the full transcript made it difficult to select codes from the list of 55 codes that resulted from the analysis of the interview notes. 2. This was not because there were no codes that would fit the data in the full transcripts, but because there were too many codes with too little structure to make the coding practicable. 3. Some of the codes unnecessarily widened the array of assignable codes because they lacked focus on the research question. These insights led to the first iteration and to the decision to streamline the codes into a category system that focused on the research question and considers the results of the previous analysis. From there on, the iterative process consisted in using the emerging category system by applying codes (step 2), reviewing the coded data material and how the code/category regarding focus, coherence and completeness (step 3) and then calibrating and re-calibrating the category system using the relational model for intercultural project customer engagement (step 4 and 5). In the final run of this iterative process 14 full transcripts were coded extracting 334 quotations which could be assigned to the latest version of the category system. Since no new codes were needed and the coding exercise was guided by a category system that reflected the research question, the coding exercise was stopped. At this point the category system had received 24 revisions in terms of creating, uniting, deleting, or structuring codes and categories.

3.3.4.2

Presentation and Discussion of Category System

The category system that emerged from this iterative process is shown in the four tables below. The category or group is visible from the title of the tables. Each table lists sub-groups, the codes that constitute the sub-group and category, and the definition of the code. The terms category or group should be understood as synonymous. Table 3.9 presents the codes that describe cultural differences along

184

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 3.10 Category system—cultural differences Sub-group Cultural dimensions

Codes D-COLLECTIVISM

Cultural dimensions

D-CONTEXT

Cultural dimensions

D-DIFFUSENESS

Cultural dimensions

D-DIRECTNESS

Cultural dimensions

D-HIERARCHY

Cultural dimensions

D-PHILOSOPHY

Cultural dimensions

D-RELATIONSHIP

Cultural dimensions

D-TIME

Cultural dimensions

D-UNCERTAINTY

Definition Definition: Quotation that reveals how differences in individualism and collectivism impact intercultural project customer management Definition: Quotation that reveals how differences between high- and low-context communication impact intercultural project customer management Definition: Quotation that reveals how differences diffuse and specific cultures impact intercultural project customer management Definition: Quotation that reveals how differences in directness of communication impact intercultural project customer management Definition: Quotation that reveals how differences in hierarchical distances impact intercultural project customer management Definition: Quotation that reveals how differences— long vs. short term orientation-theoretical vs. pragmatic arguing- indulgence vs restraint oriented impact intercultural project customer management Definition: Quotation that reveals how differences in relationship or task orientation impact intercultural project customer management Definition: Quotation that reveals how differences in monochronic or polychronic time conceptions impact intercultural project customer management Definition: Quotation that reveals how differences in uncertainty avoidance impact intercultural project customer management

Source: Compiled by author

cultural dimensions. These codes can, therefore, be assigned to the category “cultural differences” (Table 3.10). This category contains almost the same codes that were identified in the analysis of the interview notes. The only thing that changed is that the STRUCTURE/PLAN code was changed and moved to the “Effects” category (Table 3.11). This change was due to the recognition that a cultural preference for structure and planning rather is the result of cultural differences than a cultural difference in itself. In this fashion a preference for structure and planning would result, e.g., from difference in uncertainty avoidance, time concept and other factors (Köster, 2010, p. 131). Table 3.11 shows all codes that can be regarded as “effects” that cultural differences have on project customer management. With 22 codes that are collected in this category, the effects category is the largest of the presented categories. The table below describes how “effects” is separated into the four sub-groups “Communication Effects”, “Project Management Effects”, “Relationship Effects” and “Social Effects”. Each of these sub-groups collects codes that fit the sub-group’s definition.

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

185

Table 3.11 Category system—effects Sub-group Communication Effects

Codes EC-LACK OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING

Communication Effects

EC-MISUNDERSTANDINGS

Communication Effects

EC-YES-SAYING BEHAVIOR

Project Management Effects

EP-BUDGET OVERRUNS

Project Management Effects

EP-PREFERENCE FOR PLANNING/STRUCTURE

Project Management Effects

EP-QUALITY PROBLEMS

Project Management Effects

EP-RISK EXPOSURE

Project Management Effects

EP-DELAYS

Project Management Effects

EP-SCOPE CREEP

Project Management Effects

EP-FORCED STANDARDS

Relationship Effects

ER-FEAR OF PUNISHMENT/ FACE-SAVING/COMM. BREAKDOWN

Relationship Effects

ER-LACK OF COMMITMENT TO PROJECT AND MOTIVATION ER-LACK OF FLEXIBILITY

Relationship Effects Relationship Effects

ER-LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

Relationship Effects

ER-LACK OF TRUST

Definition Definition: Quotation that reveals how a lack of knowledge sharing resulted from cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how misunderstandings resulted from cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how yes-saying-behavior results from cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how budget overruns result from cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how the degree of structure and planning was perceived as inappropriate due to cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how quality problems resulted from cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how the risk exposure was impacted by cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how schedule delays result from cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how scope creep (added scope throughout the project) results from cultural differences between PM and client/contractor Definition: Quotation that reveals how a management standard/process has been forced due to cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how fear of punishment, or face-saving, or vendor silence results from cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how cultural differences result in a lack of commitment to the project Definition: Quotation that reveals how a lack of flexibility is perceived as a result of cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how a perceived lack of transparency resulted from cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how a lack of trust resulted from cultural differences (continued)

186

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 3.11 (continued) Sub-group Relationship Effects

Codes ER-OFFENCE TAKEN/GIVEN

Social Effects Social Effects

ES-INADEQUATE RISK TAKING ES-BUREAUCRACY

Social Effects

ES-CORRUPTION

Social Effects

ES-ROLE OF WOMEN

Social Effects

ES-STRANGE BEHAVIORS

Social Effects

ES-WORK ETHICS

Definition Definition: Quotation that reveals how a behavior was perceived as offensive due to cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how risk perception is culturally determined Definition: Quotation that reveals how bureaucracy is an effect of cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how perceived corruption results from cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how the role of women in the workplace is subject to cultural differences Definition: Quotation that reveals how culturally dependent “strange behaviors” result in irritation during the project Definition: Quotation that reveals how differences in work ethics result from cultural differences

Source: Compiled by author

The “Communication Effects” sub-group collects those codes that reveal intercultural problems in communicating between project customers and vendors. This includes a lack of knowledge sharing, misunderstandings in general and yessaying-behavior as one particular factor. “Project Management Effects” collects codes that are concerned with culture’s impact on project management constraints or project planning in general. Project constraints according to PMI (2013) are time, budget, quality, scope and risk. The codes BUDGET OVERRUNS, QUALITY PROBLEMS, DELAYS, RISK EXPOSURE and SCOPE CREEP can, therefore, be assigned to these constraints sub-group. The two codes PREFERENCE FOR PLANNING/STRUCTURE, and FORCED STANDARDS can be related to the “Project Management Effects” subgroup, because they represent how project planning and management are approached in more general terms. “Relationship Effects” collects those codes that impact the relationship between project customer and vendor. Cultural differences and misunderstandings can lead to fear of punishment, vendor silence, yes-saying-behavior, lack of motivation/commitment, a perceived lack of flexibility/transparency/trust, or actors to involuntarily give offence and feel offended. Since these impact factor codes are referring to relationships, they are strongly interdependent. Yes-saying-behavior or vendor silence might lead to a perceived lack of transparency and result in a lack of trust, for example. Furthermore, the effects that were found and coded in the transcripts may be caused by various combinations of differences along the cultural dimensions that were presented in Table 3.9.

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

187

In addition to factors of communication, project management and relationship, Table 3.11 lists some factors that were mentioned by the interviewees and that need to be seen as societal factors. These factors have a strong impact on intercultural project relationships. They factors are collected in sub-group “Social Effects” and include RISK TAKING, BUREAUCRACY, perceived CORRUPTION, ROLE OF WOMEN, WORK ETHICS and overall STRANGE BEHAVIORS or customs that were reported by interviewees. The adequacy of risk taking can be linked to the cultural dimension of Uncertainty Avoidance (Hofstede et al., 2010) and has therefore a clear relation to the cultural differences that cause it. STRANGE BEHAVIORS is a code that was used for all kinds of instances in which interviewees reported unfamiliar behavior. This ranges from someone blowing their nose in front of others, or spitting something out, to butchering life stock in preparation of a company party. Just like with the other codes mentioned above the cultural workings behind these observed effects is complex in nature and diffuse when related to the cultural dimensions in Table 3.9. Table 3.12 summarizes those factors that were described in the data as supporting or obstructing intercultural adjustments in projects. This category was dubbed “Catalysts” because the impact factors that were coded here are, like catalysts in chemistry, causing or accelerating a reaction that leads towards (or away from) intercultural adjustments. The two sub-groups are “Enabler” factors which were reported to facilitate adjustment and “Inhibitor” factors which interviewees described as obstructing adjustment. Table 3.12 Category system—catalysts Sub-group Enabler

Codes CE-CULTURAL AWARENESS/REFLECTIVITY

Enabler

CE-CURIOSITY/OPENNESS/TOLERANCE/ RESPECT CE-INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE

Enabler

Enabler

CE-TRUST-GIVE/RECEIVE

Inhibitor

CI-NEGATIVE FEELINGS AND PRIDE

Inhibitor

CI-PERCEIVED COMPLEXITY

Source: Compiled by author

Definition Definition: Quotation that reveals how cultural awareness and being reflective about one’s own cultural predisposition helps intercultural client interaction Definition: Quotation that reveals how curiosity/ openness/tolerance/respect about other cultures and persons helps intercultural interaction Definition: Quotation that reveals how intercultural competence helps intercultural interaction. Either where Intercultural Competence was mentioned directly or where the other codes did not apply Definition: Quotation that reveals how advancing/ getting trust is an important factor in the intercultural situation Definition: Quotation that reveals how negative feelings like stress, anger, or frustration, impact the intercultural interaction negatively Definition: Quotation that reveals how PMs assess the increased complexity of intercultural projects and customer/contractor management

188

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

In the sub-group of enabling factors there are two codes that unite several codes that were previously identified during the analysis of the interview notes. The first of these codes is CULTURAL AWARENESS/REFLECTIVITY and it was assigned to quotations in which the actors show cultural awareness and knowledge about their own cultural predisposition or the other actor’s culture. The two codes that were united here are conceptual siblings because one refers to being culturally aware of the own culture and the other refers to the same but for the other culture. The second enabling factor unites those factors that describe the posture that an intercultural actor should have according to the respondents, and which was coded in four different codes during the interview notes analysis. CURIOSITY, OPENNESS, TOLERANCE and RESPECT are internal to the actors and describe attitudes are traits that the interviewed project managers recommended for successful intercultural project customer engagement. The third enabling factor is INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE, and hence it is based on a concept that has been introduced in Sect. 2.4.3. Intercultural Competence as a concept includes attitudes like CURIOSITY, OPENNESS, TOLERANCE and RESPECT and components referring to knowledge and comprehension like CULTURAL AWARENESS and REFLECTIVITY. When applied during the coding of interview transcripts, this code was assigned either to quotations in which the interviewee specifically mentioned intercultural competence, or for those instances that did not fall into the other codes. The last code of the “Enabler” sub-group is TRUST-GIVE/RECEIVE. This code combines the two trust codes from the interview notes analysis. This is based on the recognition that advancing trust and receiving trust are interdependent and have a strong relationship with control and pressure (Noteboom, 2006, pp. 247–248). This code, therefore, describes the ability to award trust and build trusted relationships across cultural boundaries, which was mentioned by interviewees. This is impaired by cultural differences because trust mechanisms might differ in function of national culture (Köster, 2010; Meyer, 2014; Noteboom, 2006). Inhibiting factors collect those codes that were assigned to participants mentioning NEGATIVE FEELINGS AND PRIDE or that PERCEIVED COMPLEXITY in terms of cultural interdependencies. Negative feelings that were reported by interviewees to be relevant in dealing with customer in intercultural projects include increased stress levels, anger and frustration. When not controlled, these might lead to a deteriorating project customer relationship and less intercultural adjustment. The other code in the “Inhibitor” sub-group is PERCEIVED COMPLEXITY, which refers to those instances in which project managers reported complex cultural interdependencies with unforeseeable consequences. In line with Cooke-Davies’ definition of complexity, this code was conceptualized as PERCEIVED COMPLEXITY, because the whether a person perceives a situation as complex depends also on the understanding of the person (Cooke-Davies, 2011). In this way, complexity can also be linked to cultural awareness and intercultural competence in the sense that a lack of intercultural awareness or competence could lead to the perception of complexity.

3.3 Semi-Structured Qualitative Interviews

189

Table 3.13 Category system—adjustments Sub-group Cognitive

Cognitive

Codes AC-CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPECTATIONS AC-INNER POSTURE

Interpersonal

AI-COMMUNICATION

Interpersonal

AI-EXPLICITNESS

Interpersonal

AI-ADJUSTMENT TO CLIENT/HOST CULTURE AM-CONTRACTOR/ CLIENT INTERACTION

Management

Management

AM-PROJECT PLANNING

Management

AM-STANDARDIZATION/ TRANSPARENCY

Definition Definition: Quotation that reveals how PMs adjust their knowledge about client/contractor cultures Definition: Quotation that reveals how PMs adjust their inner posture to the intercultural situation Definition: Quotation that reveals how PMs adjust their communication to customer or contractors/suppliers Definition: Quotation that reveals how PMs adjust their communication to being more explicit Definition: Quotation that reveals how PMs adjust to the client/host culture Definition: Quotation that reveals how PMs adjust their interaction with their clients/ contractors Definition: Quotation that reveals how PM adjust project planning to the intercultural situation Definition: Quotation that reveals how PMs use standardization to overcome intercultural challenges

Source: Compiled by author

Following Deardorff’s (2006) model of intercultural competence, the catalysts described in the above Table 3.12, can be seen as conducive to the intercultural adjustments presented in Table 3.13. The category “Adjustments” can be divided into the three sub-groups: “Cognitive”, “Interpersonal”, and “Management”. The sub-group for cognitive adjustments collected all those codes in which the participants reported their way of thinking, their knowledge about a culture, and their expectations. These quotations led to the construction of the CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPECTATIONS code. Furthermore, the code INNER POSTURE collects instances were interviewees talked about how they are (or try to be) more open, curious, tolerant, or respectful with project customers/vendors from other cultures. “Interpersonal” adjustments collect those codes that are concerned with COMMUNICATION in general and EXPLICITNESS in particular. These two codes overlap since adjusting how explicit a message is delivered necessarily is a component of intercultural communication. The codes were separated because this allows collecting the quotations that refer to communication in general under the COMMUNICATION label and those quotations that are concerned with the level context in messages under the EXPLICITNESS code. The third code in this sub-group covers all those references in which the interviewee reported that an adjustment took place to either the client or the host culture. Adjustments to

190

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

vendor or guest culture were reported very rarely and only in very special circumstances. In the “Management” sub-group codes are collected that reveal how project managers reported to adjust project management processes and tools to the intercultural situation. The first code, CONTRACTOR/CLIENT INTERACTION, was allocated to quotations that described changes in how the client was integrated into the project. Client interaction was reported to take the form of face-toface meetings instead of phone-calls, for example. Another example was that of an American who needed to adjust his style of organizing requirements workshops with customers when working in Asia. PROJECT PLANNING is a code that used to code all those instances in the planning and organization of projects was adjusted to meet intercultural requirements. This includes instances such as planning with more time for defining requirements and getting buy-in, but also topics of project governance like the level or customer involvement and incentives. The third code in this sub-group combines two codes that were identified in the analysis of the interview notes into STANDARDIZATION AND TRANSPARENCY. Both factors could be influenced strongly by level of trust in the customer/contractor relationship, which was described as an enabling factor in the “Catalyst” category. There was a tendency of participants recommending to avoid or adjust standardization in intercultural projects and to increase transparency when interacting with project customers/vendors from other cultures. The tables that were described above provide a summary of the category system the resulted from analysis of the interview transcripts. In an iterative process (described in Fig. 3.7) this analysis was informed by the model presented in Fig. 2.14, the case study analysis in Sect. 3.2, and the qualitative content analysis based on the interview notes. How these different components corroborate and complement the preliminary model that was developed during the literature review, and how this can be the basis for a subsequent quantitative Delphi study, will be subject of the synthesis in the following section.

3.4 3.4.1

Synthesis: Qualitative Analysis Summary of Findings

In this section three distinct processes of qualitative analysis were applied to see whether the results of the literature review in the previous section could be corroborated and complemented. The analysis started with secondary qualitative case study data in intercultural project management in Sect. 3.2. Methodologically this analysis combined an inductive category development approach with a deductive category application approach which were applied separately to 31 published case descriptions of international projects. This combined approach provided a list of impact factors of

3.4 Synthesis: Qualitative Analysis

191

intercultural project customer engagement containing trust issues, problems in information sharing, differences in the importance of relationships, differences in the appropriateness of management standards, communication problems and issues of cultural adaptability. Thus, this combined secondary approach was able to corroborate the model of impact factor mechanics that was proposed at the end of the literature review in Fig. 2.13. Furthermore, it was possible to link these factors to the preliminary ICPCE model that was presented in Fig. 2.14. The results of the case study analysis informed the creation of the semi-structured qualitative questionnaire that was aimed at identifying impact factors of intercultural project customer engagement and consolidating these impact factors into a theoretically saturated category system. The questionnaire was applied to 23 project managers with experience in intercultural projects, producing more than 1700 min of audio records and 471 pages of full interview transcripts. The analysis of the interview data was conducted in two stages presented in 3.3. The first was dedicated to an Open Coding exercise analyzing the detailed interview notes that were produced by the author of this dissertation. The second step aimed at refining the codes and category system by iteratively coding and re-calibrating the codes/categories with the results of literature review, case study analysis, and the initial coding exercise. The initial “Open Coding” analysis of the interview notes yielded 425 quotations to which 56 codes were assigned, leading to a preliminary code system that was presented in the four tables in section 0. Here, the codes were collected somewhat loosely under headings which, in hindsight, could be interpreted as preliminary categories. The iterative processes of calibrating the category system based on empirical transcript data and theory was presented in Fig. 3.7. This process yielded a code and category system that can be described along the categories “Cultural Differences”, “Effects of Cultural Differences”, “Catalysts for Intercultural Adjustments” and “Intercultural Adjustments”. These categories can be linked to the preliminary model that was developed throughout Sect. 2.6. Based on these results the Preliminary ICPCE model presented in Fig. 2.14 can be complemented with specific factors that resulted from the three-legged qualitative research approach that was the subject of this section. This shall be approached in the following section.

3.4.2

Proposal of Relational Model with Impact Factors

The previous sections presented the process and the results of secondary qualitative data analysis and primary empirical data collection and analysis. The codes and categories that resulted from this can be described as impact factors for intercultural project customer engagement. Figure 3.8 shows how these factors can be integrated into the proposed Relational Model of Project Customer Engagement. The main components of the model are “Cultural Differences”, the “Effects” of those cultural differences, “Calatysts”, and “Adjustments”. By replacing the term “Internal Attitudes” from Fig. 2.14 with “Catalysts”, the model’s components are

192

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement Customer PM

Vendor PM Adjustments: (external or internal adjustment to

-

Cultural Awareness/Reflecvity Curiosity, Openness, etc. Intercultural Competence Trust-Give/Receive

the intercultural environment)

Cognive: - Cultural Knowledge & Expectaons

Interpersonal: Management:

-

Cultural Awareness/Reflecvity Curiosity, Openness, etc. Intercultural Competence Trust-Give/Receive

Inhibitors:

- Client Interacon - Project Planning, Standardizaon, Transparency

Negave Feelings Perceived Complexity

Catalysts: Enablers: -

- Communicaon & Explicitness

Inhibitors: -

facilitate

-

facilitate

Catalysts: Enablers:

-

Negave Feelings Perceived Complexity

“Shared Project Culture”

supports

Outcome: appropriate & effecve engagement of project customer

require

require

complicates Effects: - Communicaon Effects - Project Management Effects - Relaonship Effects - Social Effects

Cultural Differences: Diffuse v relaonship

-

Collecvism Context Diffuseness Directness Hierarchy

-

Philosophy Relaonship Time Uncertainty

Fig. 3.8 Detailed relational model of intercultural project customer engagement. Source: Compiled by author

semantically stronger rooted in the qualitative analysis of this dissertation and less related to Deardorff’s (2006) model (Fig. 2.8). The strong resemblance is, of course, not a coincidence, since the preliminary model was used as input to (re-)calibrate the category system during the iterative process presented in Fig. 3.7. Consequently, the cultural differences listed in Fig. 3.8 have been identified as being relevant for intercultural project customer engagement and are presented in more detail in Table 3.9. The “Effects” can only be represented superficially in the model, since the qualitative analysis yielded 22 items that are affected by differences in national culture. Therefore, Fig. 3.8 only lists the sub-groups for this category, while Table 3.11 provides more detail. The “Catalysts” category that came up during qualitative content analysis and replaced by the term “Internal Attitudes” that was based on Deardorff’s (2006) model. Details of this component can, therefore, be found in the “Catalysts” category presented in Table 3.12. The “Adjustments” component of the model has been united for presentation purposes. More detail is available in the “Adjustments” category presented in Table 3.13. The listed impact factors apply to both client and vendor actors.

3.4.3

Reassessment of Preliminary Hypotheses

Populating the model with the identified impact factors allows us to better describe and comprehend the components of the model. The fact that these factors are

3.4 Synthesis: Qualitative Analysis

193

grounded in primary empirical research and calibrated based on established theoretical contributions increases the practical relevance and scientific rigor of the proposed model. The description of impact factors of the model components allows operationalizing the model’s components into empirically observable variables. The attention can now turn to the hypothesized relationships between the model’s components and their impact factors. Hypotheses H1—H3 that were proposed in Sect. 2.6.3 focused on these relationships. It is now possible to assess these relationships in the form of scaled items on a structured questionnaire. Due to the complexity of the proposed model and the required insight into intercultural issues, it makes sense to consider research instruments that utilize expert assessments like, e.g., the Delphi method. Before embarking on such a survey, it is worthwhile, however, to review the preliminary hypothesis and assess them with the gained knowledge from the qualitative analysis. H1 Successful project customer engagement across cultural boundaries requires a unique set of capabilities from both vendor project managers and client project managers. This hypothesis has received ample empirical support from a variety of statements of the interviewees as represented in section 0 and the discussion of Table 3.9. For a conclusive assessment, this hypothesis will be assessed as part of a quantitative Delphi survey. H2 Cultural differences and their effects require a set of internal characteristics (or catalysts) from project clients and project managers in order to create a successful customer relationship. This hypothesis is concerned with the relationship between the model components “Effects” and “Catalysts”. These model components can now be described in terms of sub-groups and impact factors. Doing so would make it possible to assess which effects of cultural differences would require certain catalysts, or internal attitudes, from the actors involved. The hypothesized relationship between those factors is called “require” and could be proposed to a group of experts in intercultural project management as part of the Delphi survey in Sect. 4.2. H3 These “catalysts” may facilitate or impede the actors to adjust internally and externally to the intercultural situation. Similar to the relationship between “Effects” of cultural differences and “Catalysts”, H3 hypothesizes a relationship between “Catalysts” and intercultural “Adjustments”. The model proposes a “facilitate” relationship which can now be described with concrete factors. Thus, enabling factors like openness or cultural awareness can facilitate cognitive, interpersonal and project management adjustments to deal with cultural differences. With the availability of detailed impact factors for each model component a practical problem emerges. If the aim is to test the “require” relationship between 22 effects that were reported and six enabling or inhibiting attitudes, there are potentially 132 single relationships between all “Effect” factors to all “Catalyst”

194

3 Qualitative Analysis: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

factors. From six “Catalyst” factors to eight “Adjustment” factors there would be an additional 48 factor relationships. Testing 180 relationship items on structured survey would be impractical and an unreasonable imposition to any potential participant. For this dissertation, it was therefore decided to select a limited number of representative factor relationships. These can then be used as examples to validate the mechanisms of the proposed model when administered to selected intercultural project management experts. The methodology, process and results of this survey shall be presented in the following chapter.

Chapter 4

Delphi Survey: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Abstract The following chapter presents the Delphi Study that was conducted during the Development of the Relational Model for Intercultural Project Customer Engagement (ICPCE). Section 4.1 introduces the factor relationships of the ICPCEmodel that will be used as test items in the Delphi questionnaire. Section 4.2 describes the methodology, execution and results of the Delphi Study. The last section (4.3) presents the results of the Delphi rounds and an additional Expert workshop. The ICPCE-model can be regarded as largely confirmed by the Delphi Study and the complementary expert workshop, given that they comply with very rigid requirements for approval in terms of approval rate and standard deviation.

4.1

Introduction and Selection of Factor Relationships

Considering the relationships between the model components in Fig. 3.8, two were hypothesized in H2 and H3. The model proposes a “require” relationship between the effects of cultural differences and “Catalysts” that either enable or inhibit intercultural adjustment (H2). Between these catalysts and the intercultural adjustments, a “facilitate” relationship is proposed. Considering all 22 reported “Effect”, “Catalyst” and Adjustment factors would lead to 180 single relationships, which makes it necessary to select a smaller number of factor relationships that are representative for the model component and can be tested in a survey administered to a panel of experts. With this aim in mind, the author decided to select four factors from each model component, resulting in a total of 32 factor relationships across the two model components relevant for H2 and H3. Furthermore, it was decided to look for commonalities and intersections between the single factors of one component and check if these could be combined for the purpose of the this study. Table 4.1 summarizes those relationships that were selected for the “Require” link between the model components “Effects” and “Catalysts”. Table 4.2 does the same for the link between “Catalysts” and “Adjustments”. The first column of both tables list the factors that requires (Table 4.1) or facilitates (Table 4.2) and the second column lists those factors that are required (Table 4.1) or that are facilitated © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 P. Lückmann, Engagement of Intercultural Project Customers, Contributions to Management Science, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39485-1_4

195

196

4 Delphi Survey: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 4.1 Factor relationships “Require” “Effects” component Misunderstanding

“Catalyst” component Awareness

Misunderstanding

Curiosity

Misunderstanding

Competence

Misunderstanding

Trust

Communication Breakdown Communication Breakdown Communication Breakdown Communication Breakdown Flexibility

Awareness

Flexibility

Curiosity

Flexibility

Competence

Flexibility

Trust

Transparency

Awareness

Transparency

Curiosity

Transparency

Competence

Transparency

Trust

Curiosity Competence Trust Awareness

Proposition that . . . . . . avoiding intercultural misunderstanding between client and vendor is requires cultural awareness from the PM . . . avoiding intercultural misunderstanding between client and vendor requires curiosity for other cultures form PM . . . avoiding misunderstanding between client and vendor requires Intercultural Competence from the PM . . . avoiding misunderstanding between client and vendor requires a trustful relationship between PMs . . . avoiding yes-saying behavior or a lack of knowledge sharing requires cultural awareness form PM . . . avoiding yes-saying behavior or a lack of knowledge sharing requires curiosity for other cultures from PM . . . avoiding yes-saying behavior or a lack of knowledge sharing requires Intercultural Competence form PM . . . avoiding yes-saying behavior or a lack of knowledge sharing requires trustful relationship between PMs . . . avoiding perceived lack of flexibility requires cultural awareness from the PM . . . avoiding perceived lack of flexibility requires curiosity for other cultures from the PM . . . avoiding a perceived lack of flexibility requires Intercultural Competence from the PM . . . avoiding a perceived lack of flexibility requires a trustful relationship between PMs . . . achieving transparency and sensibly employing standardization requires cultural awareness from the PM . . . achieving transparency and sensibly employing standardization requires curiosity for other cultures from the PM . . . achieving transparency and sensibly employing standardization requires Intercultural Competence from the PM . . . achieving transparency and sensibly employing standardization requires a trustful relationship between the PMs

Source: Compiled by author

(Table 4.2). Thus, it is possible to read the tables in lines by connecting the fist and the second column by either “requires” or “facilitates. The third column in the tables formulates the proposition that can be made to a panel of experts. Table 4.1 shows four different “Effects” factors on the left column. Considering that 22 effects of national culture on project customer management were identified during the qualitative interviews and analysis, this appears to be quite a small selection. This was mitigated, however, by choosing those factors that have small conceptual intersections and by combining several factors into one.

4.1 Introduction and Selection of Factor Relationships

197

Table 4.2 Factor relationships “Facilitate” “Catalyst” compoment Awareness

“Adjustment” component Knowledge

Awareness

Explicitness

Awareness

Planning

Awareness Curiosity

Transparency/ Standardization Knowledge

Curiosity

Explicitness

Curiosity

Planning

Curiosity Competence

Transparency/ Standardization Knowledge

Competence

Explicitness

Competence

Planning

Competence Trust

Transparency/ Standardization Knowledge

Trust

Explicitness

Trust

Planning

Trust

Transparency/ Standardization

Proposition that . . . . . . cultural awareness facilitates adjustments in cultural knowledge (learning) and expectations . . . cultural awareness facilitates being more/less explicit with the customer/vendor . . . cultural awareness facilitates adjusting the project planning to the cultural setting . . . cultural awareness facilitates to achieve transparency and adequately employ standardization . . . curiosity for other cultures facilitates adjustments cultural knowledge (learning) and expectations . . . curiosity for other cultures facilitates to adjust the level of explicitness in communication with the customer/vendor . . . curiosity for the other culture facilitates adjusting the project planning to the cultural setting . . . curiosity for other cultures facilitates to achieve transparency and adequately employ standardization . . . Intercultural Competence facilitates adjustments in cultural knowledge (learning) and expectations . . . Intercultural Competence facilitates to adjust the level of explicitness in communicating with the customer/vendor . . . Intercultural Competence facilitates to adjust project planning to the cultural setting . . . Intercultural Competence facilitates to achieve transparency and adequately employ standardization . . . a trustful relationship between customer and vendor PMs facilitates adjustments in cultural knowledge (learning) and expectations . . . a trustful relationship between customer and vendor PMs facilitates to adjust the level of explicitness in communication . . . a trustful relationship between customer and vendor PMs facilitates to adjust the project planning to the cultural setting . . . a trustful relationship between customer and vendor PMs facilitates to achieve transparency and adequately employ standardization

Source: Compiled by author

“Communication Breakdown” combines those factors that lead to a breakdown of critical information or knowledge sharing. The impact factors that are summarized here are knowledge sharing, face-saving and yes-saying behaviors, and vendor silence effects that were reported in some case studies. This is different from misunderstanding, because messages, e.g., “bad news”, are not sent. Misunderstanding collects those instances in which culture shapes communication styles in a way that makes it difficult to understand the other actor.

198

4 Delphi Survey: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

“Transparency” collects those instances in which the actors reported problems with transparency in intercultural customer relationships. This includes those cases in which participants reported problems with the application of management standards. These standards were sometimes forced to create transparency, reduce complexity and enhance predictability, which is reflected in the “Transparency/ Standardization” factor in the “Adjustment” component of the model. Therefore, at this point Transparency features as a single factor. Codes that described “Social Effects” or “Project Management” effects were excluded from further analysis because the in the ICPCE-model relational factors are emphasized and the impact factors of these categories did not represent relational factors. “Social Effects” like “BUREAUCRACY”, “CORRUPTION” or “ROLE OF WOMEN” are unlikely to change because they represent deeper rooted values of a society. Therefore, they must be dealt with by living with them and accommodating them in the project. This was reported by several experts during the qualitative interviews too. “Project Management Effects” can be seen as resulting from effects of national culture on communication and the relationship. Thus, problems like “BUDGET OVERRUNS”, “DELAYS” or “SCOPE CREEP” can be linked to cultural misunderstandings or communication breakdown. The “Project Management” factors “PREFERENCE FOR PLANNING/STRUCTURE” and “FORCED STANDARDS” will find further reflection in the “Transparency/Standardization” factors. The “Catalyst” factors that were selected for further analysis are the enabling factors. This is so, because it can be argued that the inhibiting factors are those inverse to the enabling factors. Table 4.2 fulfills the same function as the previous table, but for the relationship between the model’s “Catalysts” and the “Adjustments”. The relationship, hypothesized in H3, is described with the verb “facilitate”. For the reading of Table 4.2 this means that, for example, cultural “Awareness” is proposed to facilitate the adjustment of project “Planning” to cultural differences. The table features the same “Catalyst: factors that were collected in the previous table and combines them with a selection of four intercultural “Adjustment” factors. These four factors are adjustments of cultural “Knowledge” and actors’ expectations, “Explicitness” in communication, project “Planning”, and the adjustment of “Standardization” and “Transparency” to the intercultural context. Eliminated from further analysis were those factors that were coded with “INNER POSTURE”, “COMMUNICATION”, and adjustment to client/contractor or guest/host culture. This selection was based on two criteria: first the testability and complexity of the concept (INNER POSTURE and COMMUNICATION) and, second, the relevance for the purpose of the ICPCE-model (adjustment to client/contractor or guest/host culture). With the above selection of four impact factors per model component, it was possible to limit the amount of relations, and hence variables, for further analysis to 32 relationships over the two model component relations that were subjects of H2 and H3. This enabled the author to propose the hypothesized factor relationships to a panel of experts in intercultural project management. This process shall be the subject of the following section.

4.2 Delphi Study

4.2 4.2.1

199

Delphi Study Methodology and Questionnaire Development

The Delphi Method is a scientific method that builds on expert knowledge and is used for a variety of purposes. The name has historical roots and refers to the Delphi oracle in ancient Greece. The oracle provided advice, mostly in form of verses or rhymes, to those who needed counsel. The priestess, called Pythia, was said to convey the wisdom of Apollo the god of music, truth, prophecy (among other things). The priestess, who was allegedly in a state of stupor when she received her wisdom, was interpreted by a council of priests who translated the priestess into a prophecy that was then given from the priestess to the counsel seeker. The prophecy was often ambiguous and delivered long after the inquiry was made (Häder, 2014, p. 15). In modern times the name Delphi Study was applied to a technique employed by the US military for forecasting potential nuclear targets of the Soviet Union, as part of the RAND-Corporation-Project. More recently it has become an important method for forecasting complex developments over long time-horizons (Häder, 2014, p. 15) but also in the area of intercultural management (Deardorff, 2006) and intercultural project leadership (Grisham, 2009; Grisham & Walker, 2008). Delphi studies usually entail a formalized questionnaire, expert assessment, anonymity of experts, the calculation of a statistical group answer, feedback from the group response, and a repetition of the survey in rounds. Häder (2014) describes at least four types of Delphi Studies that can be distinguished according to their aim and outline: idea generation, determination of facts, eliciting expert judgment, and consensus building (Häder, 2014, p. 37). The aim of the Delphi Study in this dissertation is to corroborate the proposed ICPCE-model by achieving a high degree of expert agreement on the hypothesized component relationships. Therefore this study would fall into the “consensus building” group. According to Häder (2014, p. 37) this requires a strong operationalization of the topic, a standardized evaluation and criteria for the selection of experts. A qualitative assessment is not necessary, but not excluded either, and the monitoring team has an important role in collecting and re-distributing data through at least two Delphi rounds. This Delphi Study can therefore be classified as a quantitative group survey method. (Döring & Bortz, 2016, p. 401; Häder, 2014, p. 37) The process of a Delphi study typically entails four phases: 1. During the first the researchers develop a standardized questionnaire, which might be complemented with open question, and which will be sent to a larger group of experts of different specialties. The selection of these participants has high impact on the validity of the Delphi study (Dalkey, Rouke, Lewis, & Snyder, 1972; Döring & Bortz, 2016, p. 420; Häder, 2014, pp. 97–114). 2. In the second phase the researchers analyze and evaluate the results of the first round and build a new questionnaire based on these results. The second-round

200

4 Delphi Survey: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

questionnaire is sent to the experts again and additionally informs the participants about the reasons and ideas delivered during the first round. Thus, each participant can reflect on his or her own contribution based on the results and contribution of the (anonymous) others. 3. In addition to the second round there might be a third round, if the results remain inconclusive. 4. Based on the results delivered during the two-round or three-round Delphi process, the researchers develop a comprehensive solution or summary of the results. The result should deliver better forecasting results that each single statement and be more efficient that other prognostic methods (Döring & Bortz, 2016, pp. 420–421). For the purpose of this dissertation the Delphi Study was selected as a quantitative research method for two main reasons. The first reason stems from the complexity of the subject matter. In order to understand the involved concepts and implications, the participants need a thorough understanding of the project management discipline and at least a good grasp of what cultural differences and Intercultural Competence are conceptually and in practice. To ensure this, it is indispensable to assemble a panel of experts that have a minimum level of formal education and/or (project) management training, experience in project management and a significant amount of experience in dealing with other national cultures. Since intercultural experience can be gathered living abroad and working with people from other cultures, both of these criteria were included. The second reason is one of practical research. The question here is whether the Delphi method can deliver the desired results for this dissertation, whether it is an adequate research tool for the question at hand. The claim that it is can be supported by two influential, peer-reviewed publications in the fields that attain to this dissertation. The first study is Deardorff’s (2006) Delphi Study that introduced the Process Model of Intercultural Competence presented in Fig. 2.8. Deardorff assembled a panel of 23 international and highly influential intercultural scholars that were willing to participate in a three-round Delphi study. Throughout her study, she identified Intercultural Competence elements, at first in open-ended questions and later by asking for agreement regarding 11 items on a four-point Likert Scale. Agreement rates of 80% and more, with standard deviations between 1.2 and 0.4 were considered satisfactory for presentation in her study (Deardorff, 2006). The second study is Grisham and Walker’s (2008) publication of the CrossCultural Leadership Model, which was presented in Fig. 2.9 and results from his doctoral dissertation in project management. Grisham composed a Delphi panel of 22 participants with more than 20 years of either academic or professional experience. This two-round Delphi study included 156 questions and Grisham used a seven-point Likert scale for assessing his variables. As criteria for confirming or rejecting his statements Grisham used means of at least 5.0 and changes in means between the first and the second round as criteria in combination with standard deviations. Building on this study the author later published a methodological article

4.2 Delphi Study

201

proposing the use of the Delphi technique for testing multifaceted and complex topics in general (Grisham, 2006, 2009; Grisham, 2010; Grisham & Walker, 2008). Both articles above use the Delphi technique to confirm hypotheses or to validate complex constructs in Intercultural Competence or Cross-Cultural Leadership. For the purpose of this dissertation it was therefore decided to embark on a Delphi study in order to validate the 32 factor relationships that pertain to the ICPCE-model components and which were hypothesized in H2 and H3. Hypothesis one, about the particularity of the intercultural project customer relationship was also included, following the personal data questions that the participants were asked to supply. Personal data (13), some introductory questions (3), questions about the intercultural project customer relationship (2), the questions concerning the 32 factor relationships, and one additional ending question led to 51 items that were asked in the first Delphi Round. Initially it was planned to use a five-point Likert scale to be applied to the 32 relationship statements. But as the number of potential participants in the expert panel increased to above 30, it was decided to use a seven-point scale instead to get a more nuanced feedback on the single statements. For the construction of a Likert scale it is required that all items must be statements (not questions), they must treat the same object (i.e., the model), and the scale items should be interrelated for internal consistency (Bryman, 2012, p. 166). All three requirements can be regarded as fulfilled for the questionnaires of this Delphi study. The construction of survey questions depends on the constructs that need to be investigated and need to be adjusted to the panel participants. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the final version of the survey questions was finalized only after the expert panel was composed. The selection and description of panel participants shall therefore be explained in the following section.

4.2.2

Selection and Description of Expert Panel

The quality and validity of any Delphi study depends strongly on the experience and expertise of the persons that enter the expert panel. To ensure practical relevance and academic rigor of the Delphi results the following selection criteria were developed in preparation of the first Delphi round: 1. All participants should have some experience in living and working/studying abroad in order to demonstrate some level of intercultural exposure. 2. Participants who do not fulfill criterion one should have at least 4 years of experience in working in culturally diverse international projects to compensate for the lack of experience living abroad. 3. All participants must have at least 5 years of professional work experience in project management environments in order to guarantee sufficient insight into practical project management challenges. 4. All participants must hold an academic degree at least at Bachelor level or higher in order to grasp the conceptual complexity of the proposed items.

202

4 Delphi Survey: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

The purpose behind these criteria was to verify whether academically trained practitioners would agree with the factor relationships proposed by the ICPCEmodel. It is important to recognize that scholars or practitioners who elected to study Intercultural Management or Communication may be biased concerning the role of culture in the project customer relationship. Once “indoctrinated” by the study of cultural differences or Intercultural Management, a participant may find it easier to agree with the proposed items. This is why this was specifically not a selection criterion for the expert panel of this study. The above list of criteria was applied to searching potential panel participants among personal and business contacts of the researcher and his colleagues or supervisors, the extended LinkedIn and Xing business networks of the researcher, previous participants of the qualitative interviews, and “snowball-contacts” of any of the previously mentioned sources. Eventually this led to the agreement of 39 experts to participate in a two-round or possibly three-round Delphi study. The selected experts had a combined professional experience of 632 years, with an average of 16.2 years of experience per person. The least experienced participant had 5 years of experience; the most experienced reported more than 40 years of professional experience. Precisely 358 of these 632 years were obtained in international projects, working with stakeholders from other cultures. So, the average participant in this study had more than 9 years of international project management experience, ranging from 5 to 16 years. All but four participants had lived abroad either studying or working in another country for at least one semester or had a migratory or expatriate background in various countries for decades. Overall the panel contains 232 years of experience living abroad, with an average of almost 6 years. Table 4.3 summarizes the professional and international experience of the 39 panel experts that contributed to this Delphi study. In terms of academic education, the panel fulfills and exceeds the requirements formulated above. All contributing experts hold at least a Bachelor degree, but most panel members obtained Master degrees or higher. Figure 4.1 shows the highest academic degrees that the Delphi panel contributors obtained. Eight members of the panel fulfilled the minimum requirement for entering the panel by having obtained a Bachelor degree and 24 experts obtained a Master degree or an equivalent to a Master degree in their national education system. Seven experts were awarded a doctoral degree. The scientific disciplines covered by the panel vary greatly and include social sciences, economics and business, the natural sciences and engineering.

Table 4.3 Delphi-panel experience Type of experience Professional experience Experience living abroad Experience in international projects Source: Compiled by author (n¼39)

Total number of years 632.0 232.5 358.0

Mean (in years) 16.20 5.96 9.17

Range (in years) 5–40 0–30 4–16

4.2 Delphi Study

203

Educaonal Profile of Panel in number of experts (n=39) 30 25

24

20 15 10 5

8

7

0 Bachelor

Master (equiv.)

PhD/Doctorate

Fig. 4.1 Academic education of Delphi panel. Source: Compiled by author

Fig. 4.2 Project management training of Delphi panel. Source: Compiled by author

With regards to project management know-how the participants show large differences too. Figure 4.2 shows the numbers of participants and their respective level of project management training.

204

4 Delphi Survey: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Fig. 4.3 Age distribution of Delphi experts. Source: Compiled by author

Fourteen participants reported to not have received formal project management training after graduation. Also, those who reported to have received informal training on the job entered this category. Thirteen experts received some degree of internally or externally provided project management training. Examples of such trainings are organizational project management standards of SIEMENS, BOSCH or the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ), or training provided by external agencies such as chambers of commerce or commercial training providers. Twelve experts reported being certified with one or more international project management standard providers such as IPMA, PRINCE2, or PMI. Furthermore, certifications such as Scrum or Six Sigma were counted here, since they provide a standardized approach to managing projects. The participants are heterogeneous with regards to their age and nationality. The average age of the panel expert is roughly 41 years, ranging from 31 to 71 years. Figure 4.3 shows how the age distributes over bins of 5 years. While most experts who were selected for the panel are in their late forties or older, there are about 13 experts that are in their early thirties, which must be considered relatively young. In terms of nationality, experts were recruited from 12 different mostly European countries. Non-European nationals in the panel are three US-Americans, one Nigerian, and one Venezuelan. As shown in Fig. 4.4 a majority of participants has German nationality, followed by Spain (10%), France (8%), the US (8%) and Italy (8%). British, Belgian, Swiss, Dutch, Nigerian and Hungarian nationals account for 2% each, which corresponds to one expert. This German/European focus is owed to the personal and professional reach of the author and his institutional background. Recruiting more candidates with non-German or non-European backgrounds was attempted by snowballing based on existing partners and exploiting professional and social networks (LinkedIn, Xing and Facebook). The high requirements regarding the intercultural project

4.2 Delphi Study

205

Fig. 4.4 Nationalities of Delphi panel experts. Explanatory note: Countries abbreviated with ISO country codes (DE-Germany; ES-Spain; IT-Italy; FR-France; US-United States of America; UK-United Kingdom; BE-Belgium; CH-Switzerland; NL-Netherlands; NG-Nigeria; VE-Venezuela; HU-Hungary). Source: Compiled by author

management experience and the time demanded for participating in an iterative survey process further contributed to a limited number of culturally diverse panel members. The incidents that were reported by many of the panel members include interaction with Arab, Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Turkish and US clients or service providers (vendors). Therefore, they cover a larger cultural scope than suggested by Fig. 4.4. In terms of gender participation, the panel is unbalanced with only 28% female and 72% male project managers. Industry branches that are represented in the panel are very diverse and include, e.g., IT and logistics services, automotive and aeronautic industries, but also engineering and construction or financial services. Non-profit organizations such as the UN-World Food Program are included as well as health care and education providers. In terms of business functions and hierarchy the panel includes project managers, directors, vice-presidents, heads of project management or functional departments but also independent interim managers, consultants or retired project/program managers who dedicate themselves to teaching as a professor or independent coach. It is important to recognize that all branches and functions can be characterized by a high degree of project based work. Consulting, logistics, construction and economic development are project-based and require a high degree of project management capability. This is reflected by the very high amount of international project management experience that the panel represents. With the panel completed, it was possible to finalize the Delphi questionnaire and embark on the first round of the study assessing the validity of H1 and the proposed factor relationships of H2 and H3.

206

4 Delphi Survey: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

4.2.3

Process and Results of Delphi Rounds

4.2.3.1

First Delphi-Round

The first round of this Delphi study was conducted between the 7th of August 2016 and the 21st of September 2016. All 39 participants were briefed by e-mail concerning the purpose and process of the Delphi and the first round. The invitation including link and password to the online-survey was sent on August 7th giving all experts access to the questions and statements. By September 21st all 39 panel members had provided their input and concluded their sessions. In the following the results of the first round will be structured along the hypotheses formulated for the ICPCE-model. Table 4.4 presents the resulting statistical means, agreement rates and standard deviations (SD) for this questionnaire items that lay the foundation of the model and are represented in H1: “Successful project customer engagement across cultural boundaries requires a unique set of capabilities from both vendor project managers and client project managers.” Experts strongly agree on the statement that the customer is the most important stakeholder and that his requirements must be understood. Also, the statement regarding the impact of cultural differences received more that 80% agreement with a SD of 1.07. The third statement was inverted, so that the participants would have to disagree in order to confirm the hypothesis. The agreement rate was 38.5%, which corresponds to 61.5% support for the hypothesis with a large SD of 1.61 and the mean being 3.67. These results for the third item were deemed unsatisfactory and therefore the statement was later selected for resubmission to the experts. This is also the reason why they are underlined in the table. Table 4.5 shows the results of statements that reflected the factor relationships between “Effects” of cultural differences and whether they require “Catalysts” like cultural awareness, Intercultural Competence or trust. These statements, if confirmed, shall support H2: Cultural differences and their effects require a set of

Table 4.4 First-round Delphi results—H1 “Customer Relationship” ID 1a

2a 3a

Factor relationship The client is the most important stakeholder of the project. Understanding customer needs and requirements is indispensable Engaging the project customer is more difficult when there are cultural differences Language barriers are the most important challenge. If project manager and project client can communicate in a common language (e.g., English), cultural differences have only little impact

Source: Compiled by author

Mean 6.41

Agreement (%) 100.0

SD 0.71

5.77

82.1

1.07

3.67

38.5

1.61

4.2 Delphi Study

207

Table 4.5 First-round Delphi results—H2 “Require” ID 6a 7a 8a 9a 10a 11a 12a 13a 14a 15a 16a 17a 18a 19a 20a 21a

Factor relationship Misunderstanding – Awareness Misunderstanding – Curiosity Misunderstanding – Competence Misunderstanding – Trust Communication Breakdown – Awareness Communication Breakdown – Curiosity Communication Breakdown – Competence Communication Breakdown – Trust Flexibility – Awareness Flexibility – Curiosity Flexibility – Competence Flexibility – Trust Transparency – Awareness Transparency – Curiosity Transparency – Competence Transparency – Trust

Mean 6.13 6.18 6.10 5.74 5.86 5.77 5.92 5.61 5.97 5.86 5.66 5.74 5.76 5.92 6.03 5.84

Agreement (%) 94.9 97.4 89.7 87.2 89.2 85.7 94.4 86.1 92.1 89.2 81.6 81.6 89.2 91.9 91.9 86.5

SD 1.04 0.87 1.03 1.06 1.12 1.12 0.86 1.19 0.99 1.07 1.34 1.14 0.88 0.85 0.91 1.00

Source: Compiled by author

internal characteristics (or catalysts) from project clients and project managers in order to create a successful customer relationship. All proposed statements received very high approval rates between 81.6% and 94.9% with a relatively narrow span of SDs between 0.85 and 1.19, with one notable exception. While item 16a received satisfactory approval rates (81.6%) the standard deviation fell out of the normal range with 1.34. The statement proposed that a culturally induced perceived lack of flexibility requires the project managers to show Intercultural Competence. During the first Delphi round it was phrased as follows: “Intercultural competence describes a person’s capability to reason and act correctly in intercultural situations. A culturally perceived lack of flexibility requires the project manager to be interculturally competent.” Due to the relatively high SD this item was selected for further analysis and therefore is shown as underlined in the table. The other items were later deemed as satisfactory, based on an analysis that was done in preparation of the second Delphi round. Table 4.6 shows means, SDs, and agreement rates for the statements that were proposed to the panel regarding the third hypothesis H3: The proposed “catalysts”, or internal characteristics of the project manager may facilitate or impede the actors to internally and externally adjust to the intercultural situation. As stated above, only the facilitating factors were selected for the construction of factor relationships, which form the basis for this Delphi study. Overall the agreement rates for this component of the ICPCE-model were significantly less supportive than for the previous relationships presented in Table 4.5.

208

4 Delphi Survey: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 4.6 First round Delphi results—H3 “Facilitate” ID 22a 23a 24a 25a 26a 27a 28a 29a 30a 31a 32a 33a 34a 35a 36a 37a

Factor relationship Awareness – Knowledge Awareness – Explicitness Awareness – Planning Awareness – Transparency/Standardization Curiosity – Knowledge Curiosity – Explicitness Curiosity – Planning Curiosity – Transparency/Standardization Competence – Knowledge Competence – Explicitness Competence – Planning Competence – Transparency/Standardization Trust – Knowledge Trust – Explicitness Trust – Planning Trust – Transparency/Standardization

Mean 6.06 5.91 5.80 5.06 6.23 5.77 5.46 5.00 6.20 5.86 5.66 5.00 6.03 5.51 5.30 4.77

Agreement (%) 91.4 88.6 91.4 68.6 100.0 85.7 77.1 70.6 97.1 88.6 82.9 63.6 88.6 77.1 72.7 62.9

SD 1.04 1.18 1.45 1.51 0.64 0.99 1.40 1.53 0.82 0.96 1.35 1.74 1.06 1.34 1.42 1.66

Source: Compiled by author

For H3, nine out of 16 factor relationships achieved an agreement rate below 80% or a standard deviation higher than 1.2. After the analysis of the first round was concluded these items were later selected to be part of the second Delphi round. The selection of statements that were to be resubmitted to the panel in the second Delphi round requires the formulation of criteria of satisfactory approval. Deardorff (2006) used a four-point Likert scale and considered approval rates of greater than 80% to be satisfactory, with SDs ranging between 0.4 and 1.2. Grisham and Walker (2008) used a seven-point Likert scale and regarded means with at least 5.0 and a positive tendency in the second round as “confirmation” of his statements. The reported SDs in this study ranged from 1.75 to 0.53 for those items that he considered confirmatory of his hypothesis. The Delphi study reported in this dissertation used a seven-point Likert scale, like Grisham and Walker (2008), but for the formulation of conformation criteria it was decided to use the more cautious criteria used by Deardorff (2006) and complemented by an assessment of the distribution means. During the analysis, it turned out that the distribution means picked up with the agreement rate, which led to means of well above 5 for those items that had 80% approval. To find a satisfactory standard deviation the author also decided to follow those that were reported by Deardorff (2006), which are smaller and therefore imply a smaller amount of disagreement among experts. This decision received further support through an analysis of the frequencies of SDs of all item distributions. Figure 4.5 shows how frequent standard deviations appeared across all item distributions of

4.2 Delphi Study

209

Fig. 4.5 Frequencies of standard deviations— Delphi first round. Source: Compiled by author

the first Delphi round. It shows that all of the surveyed statements have an SD that is higher than 0.9 and that the number decreases with increasing SDs. Between 1.2 and 1.3 the number of items remains stable at ten. This can be interpreted as the point in which lowering the quality of the criterion will not help to further reduce the number of resubmitted items. This, in combination with the Delphi results reported by Deardorff (2006) and Grisham and Walker (2008) led to the decision to use >1.2 as the limit. In summary, the criteria for resubmitting an item to the panel could be reduced complying with both of the two following requirements: 1. Agreement among panel experts of 80% or higher. 2. Standard deviation (SD) that is higher than 1.2. The items that were selected when applying these criteria are highlighted in Tables 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 by underlining the value that did not fulfill one of the defined criteria. In summary, one item concerning H1 was selected to be re-submitted (3a), one item concerning H2 (16a) and nine items regarding H3 (24a, 25a, 28a, 29a, 32a, 33a, 35a, 36a, 37a). For re-submitting two different approaches were used. The first one is the classical Delphi approach of delivering the same question, describing the results and giving the experts an insight into the reasons the other experts provided for their assessment. The second approach consisted in re-formulating parts of the statement in order to improve understanding. The decision of which approach was chosen was contingent on the qualitative analysis of the comments and reasons the experts delivered for their assessment. If the reasons indicated that many experts did not understand the question in the sense that it was asked, the statement underwent some change before re-submitting it to the Delphi panel. In those cases in which a

210

4 Delphi Survey: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

statement was changed, a new item number was introduced in order to highlight that the new measurement refers to a changed statement.

4.2.3.2

Second Delphi-Round

The second round was initiated on 15th of October 2016 and ended on 4th of November 2016. In preparation, a new online-survey was compiled that included the following items: – – – –

The unsatisfactory statements; A summary of the reasons that led to the expert’s agreement or disagreement; The opportunity to re-assess the question on a seven-point Likert scale; The opportunity to explain the assessment in a free-text field similar to the first Delphi round.

All participants were informed that the presented statements were those that receive conflicting assessments by different experts, and were asked to re-assess the items considering the qualitative comments that were provided beside each item. By November 4th a total of 34 experts had submitted their online surveys. Despite several reminders by phone or e-mail there was no prospect of additional contributions from the five experts that had not provided their assessment yet. Therefore, the second Delphi round ended that day and the data was extracted from the online tool. In addition, the experts were asked to assess their own Intercultural Competence at the beginning of the survey on a scale between 0% and 100%. This question was introduced in order to assess how confident the participants felt in answering

Self-Assessment Intercultural Competence in percent Frequency Distribuon (n=33) 16

14

14 12 10

8

8

6

6

4

4 2

1

0

Fig. 4.6 Self-assessment of expert’s intercultural competence. Source: Compiled by author

4.2 Delphi Study

211

Frequency Distribuon Expert Competence n = 34 1 = notcompetentatall 7 = perfectlycompetent 18

16

16 14 12 10

7

8

7

6

3

4

1

2 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Fig. 4.7 Competence self-assessment for questions. Source: Compiled by author

questions regarding Intercultural Competence in general. On average the respondents assessed their own Intercultural Competence at 75% with a range between 40 and 90%. The standard deviation for this series is 10.54. Figure 4.6 shows the frequency distribution of this self-assessment in bins of size 10. The figure reveals that the large majority of experts assess their own Intercultural Competence relatively high between over 50% and 90%. Another addition to the first-round Delphi was a competence assessment with regards to the questions of the survey. At the end of the second round the participants were asked how competent they felt answering to the presented questions. For answering this, they were offered a seven-point scale from “not at all competent” to “perfectly competent”. Figure 4.7 shows the results of this self-assessment as a frequency distribution. The mean for this distribution is 5.70 and the SD is 1.07. This indicates that the large majority of panel experts felt competent in relation to the assessment that they were asked to give. Overall, both self-assessments indicate that the panel experts felt interculturally competent and felt also capable of assessing the statements that were proposed to them. A more objective assessment of the participants’ Intercultural Competence would have exceeded the time limitations of the panel experts. However, the combination of both questions, regarding Intercultural Competence in general and competence regarding the survey in particular, allows the conclusion that the panel experts were capable of assessing the proposed statements. With this asserted, attention can be dedicated to the experts’ assessment of the hypothesized factor relationships in the second round. Regarding H1 it was decided that the 3a statement would be re-submitted including reasons for agreement and disagreement, but that the statement would also be re-phrased into a positive statement to see whether there was any change in expert assessment if the topic is framed differently.

212

4 Delphi Survey: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

Table 4.7 Second round Delphi results—H1 “Customer Relationship” ID 3a

3a.2 (new)

Statements second Delphi-round Language barriers are the most important challenge. If project manager and project client can communicate in a common language (e.g., English), cultural differences have only little impact If the language barrier can be overcome by e.g., English as a common language, culture remains a major obstacle for project customer integration

Mean 3.71

Agreement (%) 44.1

SD 1.67

5.65

91.2

1.03

Source: Compiled by author Table 4.8 Second round Delphi results—H2 “Require” ID 16.a 16a.2

Factor relationship Flexibility – Competence (first-round) Flexibility – Competence (second-round)

Mean 5.66 6.06

Agreement (%) 81.5 94.1

SD 1.34 0.91

Source: Compiled by author

Table 4.7 shows that for statement 3a, the original one, the approval rates improved from 38.5% to 44.1%. For the hypothesis that culture has a significant effect apart from language differences, this means that there was even less support for this that in the first Delphi round. Statement 3a.2 was introduced to phrase the same hypothesis in a simpler and direct way. For this item, the results are not inverted, so that a high approval rate supports the hypothesis formulated under H1. The idea behind this new statement was to make it easier for the participants to read the statement, and to make answering more intuitive. Comments of the participants had indicated that the initial question was not easy to understand. With over 90% approval and a SD of only 1.03 the statement can now be seen as satisfactorily approved, which also allows considering H1 as confirmed. Table 4.8 shows the results of rephrasing statement 16a and presenting the new statement 16a.2 to the expert panel for re-assessment. In this case the old statement was not presented to the participants again. The statement is concerning the factor relationship “Perceived lack of flexibility requires Intercultural Competence” as part of H2 and was initially phrased as follows: “Intercultural competence describes a person’s capability to reason and act correctly in intercultural situations. A culturally perceived lack of flexibility requires the project manager to be interculturally competent.” The idea was to explain the concept or Intercultural Competence and then see how this relates to a perceived lack of flexibility. However, feedback of the participating experts indicated that the critical question really was why “inflexibility” can result from cultural differences. Consequently, the statement was rephrased in the following way: “Cultural differences may lead to the perception that the other party is inflexible (e.g., sticking to outdated plans or contractual agreements). This requires the project

4.2 Delphi Study

213

Table 4.9 Second round Delphi results—H3 “Facilitate” ID 23.5a 24a 25a 28a 29a 32a 33a 35a 36a 37a

Factor relationship Awareness – Planning (new) Awareness – Planning Awareness – Transparency/Standardization Curiosity – Planning Curiosity – Transparency/Standardization Competence – Planning Competence – Transparency/Standardization Trust – Explicitness Trust – Planning Trust – Transparency/Standardization

Mean 5.65 5.56 4.94 5.59 4.82 5.79 4.79 5.97 5.26 5.03

Agreement (%) 85.3 85.3 67.6 85.3 61.8 88.2 61.8 91.2 73.5 70.6

SD 1.26 1.56 1.19 1.33 1.40 1.16 1.45 0.98 1.46 1.34

Source: Compiled by author

manager to show intercultural competence (i.e., to be capable of reasoning and acting correctly in intercultural situations).” The results of this change are visible in Table 4.8. The statement now received one of the highest approval rates with 94.1% and very little variation expressed in the standard deviation of 0.91. With this rephrased statement receiving very high agreement, all factor relationships concerning the “Effects require Catalysts” relationship of the ICPCE-model can be regarded as confirmed. The largest portion of the second-round Delphi survey was dedicated to items regarding H3, however. Table 4.9 shows the results of the second round that refer to the “Facilitate” relationship between the ICPCE-model components “Catalysts” and “Adjustments”. For the second round one additional question was introduced besides the original question 24a: “Adjusting project planning to the cultural environment requires the project manager to be aware of the cultural differences.” Statement 24a in the first round received a very high approval rate with 91.5%, but there was a considerable amount of variety in the answers leading to a standard deviation of 1.45. Therefore, the question was re-submitted to the expert panel accompanied by a new statement 23.5a that stated: “Good project planning will consider the cultural differences between the customer and the contractor.” The results of these changes are shown in the first rows of Table 4.9. Agreement rates declined from the first to the second Delphi round and now show the exact same agreement level of 85.3%. In terms of SD the result now also shows higher variance changing from 1.45 to 1.56. Also, the new statement fails to achieve the 1.2 SD threshold selected by the author. So far this item remains unconfirmed. The other statements that are represented in Table 4.9 were re-submitted to the experts without re-phrasing or changing them. Only two of them were able to reach the acceptance threshold of 80% and SD smaller than 1.2. The results presented in Table 4.9 do not represent the assessment of all 39 panel members, however. The five members that did not contribute to the second survey

214

4 Delphi Survey: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

nevertheless delivered a valuable assessment of the variables. In order to consider all results from the first and the second Delphi round, the data was combined into one data set, providing a new assessment for those who participated in the second round and showing the old assessment for those who did not. The results of this exercise are presented in the following section.

Table 4.10 Combined Delphi results—H1 “Customer Relationship” ID 1a

2a 3a

3a.2

Factor relationship The client is the most important stakeholder of the project. Understanding customer needs and requirements is indispensable Engaging the project customer is more difficult when there are cultural differences Language barriers are the most important challenge. If project manager and project client can communicate in a common language (e.g., English), cultural differences have only little impact If the language barrier can be overcome by e.g., English as a common language, culture remains a major obstacle for project customer integration

Mean 6.41

Agreement (%) 100.0

SD 0.71

5.77

82.1

1.07

3.69

43.6

1.67

5.56

91.2

1.03

Source: Compiled by author Table 4.11 Combined Delphi results—H2 “Require” ID 6a 7a 8a 9a 10a 11a 12a 13a 14a 15a 16a 16a.2 17a 18a 19a 20a 21a

Factor relationship Misunderstanding – Awareness Misunderstanding – Curiosity Misunderstanding – Competence Misunderstanding – Trust Communication Breakdown – Awareness Communication Breakdown – Curiosity Communication Breakdown – Competence Communication Breakdown – Trust Flexibility – Awareness Flexibility – Curiosity Flexibility – Competence Flexibility – Competence (16a rephrased) Flexibility – Trust Transparency – Awareness Transparency – Curiosity Transparency – Competence Transparency – Trust

Source: Compiled by author

Mean 6.13 6.18 6.10 5.74 5.86 5.77 5.92 5.61 5.97 5.86 5.66 6.06 5.74 5.76 5.92 6.03 5.84

Agreement (%) 94.9 97.4 89.7 87.2 89.2 85.7 94.4 86.1 92.1 89.2 81.6 94.1 81.6 89.2 91.9 91.9 86.5

SD 1.04 0.87 1.03 1.06 1.12 1.12 0.86 1.19 0.99 1.07 1.34 0.91 1.14 0.88 0.85 0.91 1.00

4.2 Delphi Study

215

Table 4.12 Combined Delphi results—H3 “Facilitate” ID 22a 23a 23.5a 24a 25a 26a 27a 28a 29a 30a 31a 32a 33a 34a 35a 36a 37a

Factor relationship Awareness – Knowledge Awareness – Explicitness Awareness – Planning (new) Awareness – Planning Awareness – Transparency/Standardization Curiosity – Knowledge Curiosity – Explicitness Curiosity – Planning Curiosity – Transparency/Standardization Competence – Knowledge Competence – Explicitness Competence – Planning Competence – Transparency/Standardization Trust – Knowledge Trust – Explicitness Trust – Planning Trust – Transparency/Standardization

Mean 6.06 5.91 5.65 5.66 5.05 6.23 5.77 5.61 4.92 6.20 5.86 5.84 4.82 6.03 5.92 5.34 5.00

Agreement (%) 91.4 88.6 85.3 86.8 71.1 100.0 85.7 86.8 65.8 97.1 88.6 89.5 60.5 88.6 92.1 76.3 68.4

SD 1.04 1.18 1.26 1.51 1.19 0.64 0.99 1.27 1.36 0.82 0.96 1.11 1.47 1.06 0.96 1.42 1.41

Source: Compiled by author

4.2.3.3

Combined First and Second Round Results

The combined results after the second Delphi round are shown in Table 4.10 for those items that refer to H1, Table 4.11 for those that are dedicated to H2 “Require”, and in Table 4.12 for the “Facilitate” relationship proposed in H3. Since only the items 3a and 3a.2 of Table 4.10 were proposed in the second, they are the only ones affected by the consolidation. Statement 3a remains controversial, while 3a.2 receives strong support. This is why H1, that intercultural project customer engagement requires a unique set of capabilities from both vendor project managers and client project managers, can be regarded as confirmed when the results in Table 4.10 are combined with the results from the other Delphi statements referring to H2 and H3. So, for satisfactorily confirming H1, it is also important to look at the combined final results of H2 and H3, which is done in the following. The main change in Table 4.11 regarding the first Delphi round is that it now includes statement 16a.2, which offers a different phrase for assessing the relationship between “Lack of Flexibility” and “Intercultural Competence”. The new statement reads as follows: “Cultural differences may lead to the perception that the other party is inflexible (e.g., sticking to outdated plans or contractual agreements). This requires the project manager to show intercultural competence (i.e., to be capable of reasoning and acting correctly in intercultural situations).” By adding some explanatory text and examples, the intention was to improve the respondents’ insight and understanding regarding the aim of the statement. The

216

4 Delphi Survey: Intercultural Project Customer Engagement

results show 94.1% agreement with a standard deviation of 0.91, which is considered satisfactory. In conclusion, H2, which summarizes the relationship between “Effects” of cultural differences and required the personal attitudes in terms of “Catalysts”, can be confirmed. Even if the SD of item 16a remains above 1.2, the strong agreement with 16.2 is regarded as sufficient for confirming the relationship. The results regarding H3, about the “Adjustments” that are facilitated by the “Catalysts”, remain somewhat less conclusive. Nine items in Table 4.12 do not comply with the high confirmation requirements formulated by the author (80% approval; SD