Intercultural

communication
Global Public Relations
Is it possible to set up a global PR strategy throughout the world? When we deal with intercultural
communication, it is possible but not easy.

Introducing intercultural communication

1. For ages, there have been borders between villages, cities, There have always been geographical
and political borders. But the spread of culture have never been confined to those borders. Cultures
have always found a way to trespass those borders.
Examples:

the alphabet,
tales (throughout the world, we have the same values that have been promoted, so as being
brave and honest),
Agriculture: the fact that tools have to be found in different part of the world even if we
know that those tools are created in those parts,
Religion: it is a bit different because the elements have meant something supernatural to
different people. Its a belief.

2. Is it possible to define what culture is? Culture is the global way of life of a people ! How
people are, how they think, and how they do. To each specific group of people corresponds a very
specific range of values, beliefs, behaviours, etc. It also means that these typical values, behaviours,
are going to bind the different members of the group. Its going to give them a shared identity.
Culture comes from Latin for cultivate: its a peculiar way of life that has been cultivated and is
still being cultivated. Culture is dynamic. It evolves. This cultivating process has to be taken into
account in a very specific social and geographical context.
This set of values, beliefs, is going to bind people together. And then it is going to be passed from
generation to generation. Culture is not inborn but is learned. People sharing the same cultural
traditions are going to share the same identity. There is an inherent link between culture and
communication.

3. The language is symbolic because its a representation of something. Words are symbols. The link
between the object and the word is arbitrary. There is an abstraction process. For example, when
you think about a table, there is nothing in a table itself that is going to lead you to call this object
table. The symbols and the way we create symbols, those symbols are going to be very different
from people to people. This abstraction process is also different from culture to culture. It might be
another pitfall in cultural communication.

Global society
A global society means that what happens in one part of the world has consequences in the other
parts. ! Interconnectedness. There is a connection between people.
What are the different contributors to globalization, to these interconnections?
-

-
-

Politics: Considering what happened during the WW II in Europe, some countries decided to
create organizations to prevent other world wars to happen. Politicians have decided to build
bonds between countries and to favour connections.
Modern communication technologies, as the Internet: they do not only influence the
quantity. They have also influenced us on the way we use modern communication. In 2006, a
research showed that for the average user, 70% of his time is used for personal relationships.
Economy: we need to deal with relocation (dlocalisation) and immigration, because
production costs. Cost efficiency means that often, the production has been relocated where
the work is cheaper. Economic immigration means that some people are moving out of their
country, hoping for a better future, or at least a better job, better opportunities. Economic
immigration is much more important in terms of figures than political immigration.
Modern transportation: the price to travel by place is cheaper and cheaper. We do travel
more by air. Traveling, moving, is becoming part of our culture.
(Culture)

Are these contributors responsible for a better intercultural society? The contributors should lead
us to a better understanding. But on the contrary, there have never been so many
misunderstandings. The research that took place in Michigan University asked Americans, Europeans,
and native Chinese Students to observe a picture and to describe step by step what they saw and to
be as careful as possible about the eye movements. The conclusion was that the different students
see the world differently. The eye movements are different and thus, the reality is going to be
different. Even if we travel easier and easier, and even if they are contributors, they are different
aspects when we cope with intercultural contexts. They are differences:

Westerners tend to spot a figure at the centre or an outstanding one.

Asians are not going to isolate figures but will describe the whole scene because their eye
movements will move from the very front to the last element at the back and then go back
systematically. They will see the connections between things. What they are going to
conclude according to this picture is the whole scene: a crowded market. It makes sense with
their history because in ancient times, they had to find an agreement about irrigation.
Chinese discovered magnetism the first, to stress the element that Asian people are going to
consider the whole of it, the connection between people and things. While us westerners,
we come from the Greeks. They encouraged people to develop their own point of view. It
puts the stress on personal achievement. Culturally, we are going to act in a different way:
we isolate, they consider the group.

! Even if there are contributors, culturally we are going to act in a different way because culture is
passed from generation to generation and we do not see things the same way. That can lead to
important misunderstandings. Intercultural communication is not a science. You cant predict it
because there are so many aspects that are involved.

! It doesnt make sense to talk about global PR. It would imply reducing all the differences into one
singular powerful mentality. There is nothing like a universal strategy to implement such global PR
strategy. There are still enormous differences between the way we see things and the way
immigrants for example see things. That comes from their culture, etc.

Ethnic competition
= feeling that one culture could dominate another one. Fear of losing control.
We have more and more people moving around the world but at the same time, we have more and
more ethnic competition.
People from the country, when immigrants arrive, can react badly and think: these are
competitors. This can trigger a reaction like: we dont want them. The locals could think they are
going to lose their own country and culture, and end up being dominated by the immigrants. This is
going to provoke a movement of protest.
Contributors have just leaded us to more and more movements but have not solves the different
problems linked to intercultural communication.
Going for an intercultural communication means knowledge. This is an ability that needs to be
learned it is not going to come just like this by doing nothing. Intercultural communication starts with
understanding and understanding means knowledge.

Multiculturalism, ethnocentrism & cultural relativism

Multiculturalism
From a descriptive point of view, multiculturalism means that there are multiple cultures at the same
time in the same group. As an attitude, its linked to tolerance and a kind of acceptance of the same
social participation, for instance by enjoying the same rights.

Ethnocentrism
Were you aware of the way you learned cultural values? When we are confronted to other values,
you become aware of your own. Mostly, cultural values have been learned unnoticed. Cultural
socializing refers to the fact that people tend to socialize with people who share the same cultural
similarities. Its spontaneous, immediate. Because of those two elements (cultural socializing +
unnoticed cultural values), we are led to ethnocentrism: the belief that your own culture is better
than the others.

Cultural relativism
The attitude we need to progress in is cultural relativism even though its the most difficult one.
What is key to a better understanding is knowledge again. It means learning about a culture within its
specific context.

The influence of culture on perception

The human perception is based on our five senses: sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing. We absorb
stimuli by using those senses. We can cope with our environment through our five senses. We select
the items in our environment, we are going to categorize those items by using our past experiences
and then we are going to interpret them. Using our senses, we are going to absorb numerous items
of information and we are going to manage them all.
This is a process (you are active: we are not only receiving information, we are also selecting, etc.)
with 3 steps. Our brains are going to be asked to do a lot of work in a very short time.
There are three steps in this process:
1) Selection
2) Categorization
3) Interpretation

Selection
We are going to select and to do that, we are going to use, for instance, the criteria of necessity (this
is immediately necessary to me) or helpfulness. First, we select just by wondering what is
immediately helpful to you. We need to select because our brains are limited and we can only
absorb/deal with a limited amount of information. There are too many stimuli.
Another tool that we use to select is conformity. We are going to select the stimuli which are easier
to process to us. Those are the ones that we are more familiar with, that are less new, strange, and
aggressive. ! What is closer to our culture.
Culturally speaking, we have three tendencies that help us through this first step of selection (in our
culture):
1. Closure: even if we are perfectly aware that some forms are not closed, we prefer them to
be closed. You can draw a triangle without the three corners but wed still be able to
recognize this is a triangle. We also prefer closed ideas, thoughts We like things to be
explained from A to Z.
2. Familiarity: we tend to favour familiar figures (squares, etc.). For example, instead of seeing
one irregular form, we will split it into two familiar and regular ones that make sense to us.
3. Expectation: the more you are used to an idea and confronted to it, the more you expect it
even though it is not the case. The more you have heard an assertion, the more you are
going to expect it. For example: Rome was not built in a day: if we lose the not, we would
still read Rome was not built in a day.

! We can expect other habits to be used in other cultures. These characteristics belong to our
society.

Categorisation
If you meet a woman with a child in the street, you will think that this is her mother. In our mind, we
have categories (female/male, skin colour, mother/son, age) that we build on experiences. This is
just as if we were using mental economy strategies. We are going to build our categories on
stereotypes and various criteria. Categories are a good way to save our mental energy. It is a
shortcut.
All the members of one category are going to share the same characteristics. Suppose you belong to
category number 1 and there are two other categories. To you, category 1 is the in-group and the
two others are the out-group. The members of the in-group tend to think they are better than the
members of the out-group. Its a kind of homogeneity that is positive. We tend to attribute more
positive characteristics to our group and negative characteristics to the out-groups. When its
positive, we call it the attribution theory. When it is negative (for the out-group), we call it the out-
group homogeneity effect.
We do not consider individuals, we tend to overgeneralise. Its easier to our brains to work like this
(energy saver). Its clearly discriminating in regards to the in-group. Its somehow more dangerous
because we tend to ignore individual characteristics, which leads us to perpetuate stereotypes

Interpretation
To interpret = to give meaning to something. We attach meaning to what we have selected and
categorized. In order to do that, we are going to use all our past experiences and the numerous
stimuli that we have already processed.
We are going to reactivate them to attach meaning. Once those stimuli are selected, categorised and
interpreted, they are saved as products in our mind and we will use them later to process new
stimuli. Its something we are going to keep for the future stimuli we will be confronted to.
A process is active: we arent only receiving information; we are also selecting, categorizing and
interpreting information.
For all those steps, we are going to use economy strategies, etc. ! Its a real work. We become
aware of those tendencies when we are confronted to other cultures and tendencies.
Those stimuli can either be from external sources (to be in contact with other people, walking in the
streets, we are reached by stimuli) or internal sources (pain, feelings,). The whole process of
perceiving the stimuli will be based on an efficient combination of internal and external sources of
information. Whenever we are confronted to external sources of information, we are going to use
internal sources such as memories and past experiences to process them.
From now on, we do already feel the impact that culture causes. Some researchers are going to call
those internal and external sources of information filters. It is bias: elements that will prevent us
from being totally neutral.


! Attribution Theory = more neutral, but also about over-generalization. Categorization is a strategy
to save our mental energy. On the one hand, it is going to be helpful, but on the other hand, we are
going to attribute different characteristics. We are socialized in a very specific way.
! Out-group Homogeneity Effect = clearly discriminatory in regards to the in-group. We ignore
some of the original characteristics. We will keep the negative characteristics for the out-group and
the positive ones for the in-group. Its dangerous because it suggest that by overgeneralizing, we
tend to ignore individual characteristics.

The influence of culture on non-verbal communication

Non-verbal communication is the use of non-spoken symbols. Researchers say that non-verbal
communication is used up to more than 90 percent. They even think that our current language
comes from an original non-spoken form of language. At the origin, people would have been using
non-verbal communication to communicate.
We can use it consciously and unconsciously. All cultures use non-verbal communication but they do
not use the same symbols. If we think about human fears, they are universal but the way we express
them are very specific and different from culture to culture. But at the same time, there are cultural
differences in our way of using non-verbal communication.
Examples of non-spoken communication, non-verbal codes:

Use of touch
Body language
Use of time = Chronemics = How do we consider time and how do other cultures consider
time? Hall made it obvious that the use of time can be very different according to the fact
that you tend to consider time as being monochronic or polychronic (2 ways to consider
time):
o Time = monochronic: this is typically the Occidental way of considering time. We
tend to consider time as linear. There was yesterday, there is today and there will be
tomorrow. In this monochronic vision, you tend to do one thing at a time. Time can
be cut into pieces (ex.: the past five years subdivided in other time divisions, etc.). In
this conception, you can save time. But time is money: its just as if you can buy time.
A schedule is very important.
o Time = polychronic: in a polychronic vision, time is a cycle. During this cycle, you
manage different things at a time. You are going to deal with different things during
a cycle. In this polychronic context, schedule is far less important than relationships.
This is no longer a question of when is your next appointment?. This vision is
typical for African cultures. What is important for them are the cycles of season.
What is important is: what are you going to achieve in a whole cycle? Making people
from a monochronic culture work with people of a polychronic vision is going to
trigger conflicts because they simply dont share the same vision about time.

Proxemics: it deals with the use of space. Years ago, there were researches about: according
to your position, how big is your office. The more important your function is, there biggest
your office is. There is clearly a link between the use of space and how you show your power.
Proxemics is also the use of space between people (a teacher and a student, etc.). There is a
safety space between a student and a teacher, for example. In our culture, it is a request but
in others the distance might be different.
Haptics = the use of touch. In our culture, according to your gender/position/age., you are
not going to use the code of touch the same way. You are not going to behave and to touch
people the same way if youre a girl or a boy,
The physical appearing and way of dressing: the first time you have a meeting with a
potential employer, how are you going to dress? This is quite a specific code in our culture.
When you have your first appointment with a potential employer, the way you dress is going
to communicate whether you care or not.

! Are we aware of those codes? Those codes will become obvious when they are broken.

Mass media, technology and culture change

We tend to be important consumers of mass media. We consume them quite a lot for information
and entertainment. If we think about the impact those mass media have on us, they shape how you
think, are and do. ! Mass media are going to shape our cultures. By offering information and
entertainment, they can trigger a better understanding of other cultures. But of course, it can also
make stereotypes stronger. Thus it can have a positive and/or a negative effect. Mass media is going
to help us build our identity. We are going to use the mass media to develop our identity. In
advertising, we are going to look for models and icons to help us build this identity.
Thanks to technology, people are more and more interconnected. Interconnections are going to go
easier, in a much more flexible way. This can also be negative because one culture can impose its
own standards on other cultures (From the west to the rest). Other cultures could lose their
uniqueness and what makes them different. This phenomenon is called globalization: one culture
is going to impose its standards to other cultures. Alter-globalists tend to use another word for that:
the Americanization, as if one culture was invading the pace of the other cultures. One culture could
impose its own standards to other cultures. We have got signifiers (= something that is going to
mean, a symbol), elements that are going to show that there is something like a globalized cultural
product. All of us tend to consume the same media products (movies, music,). Its the phenomenon
of cultural hegemony. We are going to use the same sources (MTV, CNN). All societies are now part
of a global system and all parts are connected, using a wide range of networks. The consequences
that we tend to have are:

A media globalization
A homogenous media content as well.

Speaking about media globalization, there has been a research about Walt Disney Corporation. Their
films are targeting kids. Parents consider them as positive, quite favourable. Yet there have been
serious considerations about the way they deal with ethnicity. The stereotypes about the cats in The
Lady and the Tramp are clearly showing Asians in a very mean way. In Pocahontas, Indians (Native

Americans) are called savages by white people. We have a globalized media product and this is not
innocent. We have to face it and to realize that through these productions, heavy stereotypes are
being widespread. Those major media corporations are going to spread the same stereotypes. Walt
Disney is a good signifier just like Youtube or CNN.
Because of those global media content, we tend to enjoy the same
culture/music/events/movies/series, Unfortunately, we are going to find too much homogeneity in
our world. We can then speak about hegemony. The culture, values, from one part is going to
invade another societys culture.
The strategy between homogeneity and hegemony is quite different. The media content is
globalized. If it comes from one specific culture and you accept this idea that it is from the west to
the rest, this becomes dangerous.
Example of homogeneity: people who have about the same level of English. We enjoy the same
culture. Hegemony is problematic while homogeneity isnt necessarily a problem. When you speak
about hegemony, there is something about imposing your values because you are powerful. You
have got the dominance of the values of one specific society and this dominance is going to be
implemented all over the world.
In the eighties, we used to have the western part and the eastern part: the dominance of the Russian
culture upon the eastern states and the dominance of American culture upon the other western
countries. Spreading the idea all over the western world that Asian people should not be trusted is a
case of hegemony spread through a Walt Disney movie.

Media globalisation
Every coin has two faces. On the one hand, technology can foster globalisation. This high level of
technology makes it possible to have mainstream media with mainstream media productions. But on
the other hand, this high level of technology can foster a very different aspect which is hybridisation.
Thanks to this high grade of technology, we can also enjoy some kind of heterogeneity. We have got
transnational networks (no longer struck or limited by national networks). It means you are going to
come out of this globalisation. There is room for something else, a hybrid. Hybridisation comes from
a mix: you are going to mix two genes to have a new product. In the mainstream media landscape,
we can spot different signifiers of this media hybridisation: for example, the Internet. We are looking
for sources that are underground and out of control. We have non-globalized information sources.
The TV channel Al Jazeera is definitely out of the mainstream media. It is a transnational television
network. CNN is no longer the unique information source. We have got alternatives.
It also has to do with blogging. The green revolution in Iran: we have got some kind of political power
which tends to be impacted by the religious power. The average age in Iran is quite young. We have
got more and more young people demanding an opening, a different society which would be more
open. At some moment, there was some kind of possibility for a political opponent to bring this new
revolution. It failed. Officially, there was nothing wrong in Iran. Iran didnt communicate anything
about this revolution, just as China doesnt report anything either. But blogging has proved useful to
political revolutions, no longer in control of the political dominant party in a country. So the only
information we had was through blogging. Blogging has proved important in other important
aspects. Blogging is going to provide an open space. Using blogs, we are going to contribute to the

information world; disseminate information. Blogging has made it possible for this mass culture to be
interactive. Instead of having a monologue, blogging has created an open space for dialogue. It is a
way to escape from hegemony quite easily.

Example: An information website called Oh My News

In South-Korea, in 2000, a professional journalist launched this website. The idea was that 20% of the
content was provided by professional journalists whereas 80% was provided by ordinary citizens. The
website was a success, especially among young people. The problem is that this website, which has
had a print version as well, is so successful nowadays that every single day, they have more than 200
articles to deal with. Consequently, the professional journalists cant possibly deal with that
enormous amount of articles. Step by step, Oh My News is losing readers and trustability. They have
more or less 7000 regular contributors around the world who have also been called the netizens.
The expectation was not that journalists would control the netizens, otherwise it wouldn't make any
sense.
What are the achievements and the downfalls of such a corporate website?

Professionalism: on the one hand, we give the possibility to regular people to express
themselves, but on the other hand, are we going to have the same trustability with citizens
than with professional journalists? If there is no control, are we sure the information is
correct? If informing people is going to frighten us, its high time we had this alternative
informing process. If we think Im not sure I can trust it, then we have a problem. The
essential is the agenda. There is an inherent risk in this contribution process.
Citizen journalists: it all started in the US. It was election time and some part of the electors
did feel some kind of manipulation in official newspapers. So they thought they could enjoy
all kind of alternative sources just for fear of manipulation. It happened around the eighties.
Anyone can be a journalist.
There is an upgrade on democracy.
Nowadays, there is a threat to the commercialised ad globalized emporiums.
Symbolic social reality: there is an important difference between the actual events, true
reality, and the mediatised reality (the reality that is going to be put into media). Sometimes,
there might be some kind of interference. When information items have to be located in
prime time stories, they have to be transformed. It might be transformed to be more
attractive or to fit the specific audience of a specific channel. There is a lot to tell about,
there are many information items and we have to select. We should not exceed 30 minutes
(another good reason to transform reality). It is no longer reality; it is a symbol of it.
Mediatise reality means to transform reality. Symbolic reality means construction. This
symbolic social reality could possibly drop items, just because of the prime time story and
the fact that you should not exceed 30 minutes. At the end of the day: to us, not in the news
= not real. The risk is that we behave not according of what truly is, but according to what we
see on the news. The news has a major impact on our stereotypes, on telling us what is
important or not. We just refer to this mediatised reality which is only a symbol of what
reality is truly about. A lot of immigrants coming from everywhere in the world went to

Calais, hoping to go to the UK. Those people from different ethnicities are fighting each
other.
Even if we dont get any happy endings at the Oh My News story, we have to admit that:
1) Oh My news provided ordinary citizens with this open public space. This platform was open
to debate, discussions and contributions. If you can enjoy this platform which is available to
all of us, it means that this is no longer the professional journalist who will say what subject is
important. We can all do it now. The communication process looks like a dialogue.
2) Anyone can be a journalist. These contributors were able to write their own versions, in their
own style. This is highly important: if you can enjoy this open platform and contribute to this
information process, it means that we are able to decide what is important. There is an
agenda. The agenda setting is going to be quite different. The professional journalists, when
they decided what deserved to be talked about, were the decision makers. They used to set
the agenda and to be the keepers of journalistic norms. When Im going to decide what I
write about, I have to decide what I want to inform about. Journalists are not neutral and are
not meant to be neutral. This is a fantastic opportunity to build our own point of view.
3) Oh my News has proved to be a threat to controlled media monopolies but those are
commercial monopolies.
4) Credibility of news: Oh My News, somehow, by offering this open platform, increased the
credibility of news. People dont fear manipulation because they know there are other
information sources.
5) Democracy: the agenda setting is no longer monopolised by professional journalists but by
citizen journalists. Consequently, we will have many subjects that are normally not dealt
with. There is enough space in our society for diversity and heterogeneity. Somehow we
have won something extra in terms of democracy.

Media globalization vs cultural change

Media globalisation is a fantastic opportunity to raise awareness. You can get aware of new subjects,
cultural references, etc.
Media that inform and entertain us globally tend to dominate (manipulate) us globally as well. In this
case, homogeneity can lead to hegemony (from the west to the rest).

Global public relations

Is Global practice possible in PR? Indeed it is and many companies implement it (ex. Dove) and it is a
success. The idea is to design, to pursue and to assess your goals one public at a time. This is the
best way to respect the cultural differences.

Contributors
We have extraordinary contributors but they see the world differently. Potentially, we have more
communication but we cant miss essential cultural differences. How can we go to PR now? We said

that those contributors and those cultural differences had an impact on communication. On one
hand, we have a global strategy but at the same time we dont want to miss proximity so we act
local. This fits as long as they remain coherent. For example, LOreal promotes the same thing all
around the world: Women are lovely. But locally, they are going to use different strategies to reach
their audience (for example, promoting a whitening crme among its black audience).
Transport has become easier and easier for contributors. People will have to deal with intercultural
communication more and more because people move more and more. Unfortunately, people will
have more opportunities but that doesnt mean intercultural communication will actually be easier.
Even if people move more and more and there are more intercultural contacts, there are still more
intercultural differences. That doesnt mean things get better or easier.

Potential issues

No universal methods/strategy: there is no such a thing as a universal PR strategy, a universal

standard for PR. This is just ignorant regarding cultural differences. We can never say that
we are going to use this and this is going to prove successful in every culture because we
all see the world differently. That doesnt mean we cant go global. That means that we have
to design, pursue and assess the goals of one public at a time. So going global makes sense
but the condition for that is to select goals to work for one public at a time. For example,
General Motors launched a specific model of Chevrolet in South America, called Nova. For
Americans, it meant New but for South Americans who speak Spanish, it meant No Va,
It doesnt work. That means that even the name of the car has to be changed in order not
to provoke confusion between two different cultures.
(Mass) media: we have to deal with the mass media within the targeted culture (ex: Dove).
Whats essential whenever it comes to the mass media is the availability (of what?), the
literacy rate of the country (if people cant read, maybe its no use to use newspaper in our
PR strategy), religious aspects, etc. We tend to have huge information empires (ex:
Murdochs) " is it relevant in the targeted country? Speaking of newspaper, journalists cant
do whatever they want in their articles: they have to respect sources and copyrights, human
rights, etc.
Legal vector: In Poland, theres a law called kryptoreclama that tells us that we cant use
the name of the brand in our press releases. What is the use then? We have to take into
account different laws in different contexts. Laws can be different from the culture you are
working in.
Ethics: its a system of values, a set of values we tend to keep and respect. We can expect a
lot of differences between cultures regarding ethics. For example, in some countries, we
could bribe an editor into publishing an article about our brand very quickly. In our culture, it
would provoke a really big fuss so its better to avoid that kind of practices. We have to take
the context into account (cultural relativism). We came to the conclusion that cultural
relativism would be a good idea but wouldnt it be better to talk about ethical relativism? If I
consider the strategy of the company and the targeted campaign, we could come to the
conclusion that within this particular context that bribing wouldnt it be a bad idea. Is there
any other choice than adapt? We tend to describe things to people according to their
context. We describe reality. When we talk about ethical relativism, it doesnt work because

we dont talk about facts but about how things should be. We dont describe actual
behaviours and people as they are, we describe what they should like or look like and this is
why ethical relativism is problematic.

In Bophal in India, there was a contamination due to a chemical explosion. Many people died and
were injured. Nowadays, water is still contaminated. This was a huge scandal. It was thought about
as being a scandal because experts declared that all safety measures had not been taken, because it
was in India and not in the US (and they didnt care about Indian people). The company set up a crisis
communication plan to try to reduce the damage and to try to catch up with
1.

Consumers

2.

Journalists

3.

Suppliers

4.

Stakeholders ( shareholders).

! Different publics = different strategies.

This PR strategy is now used in course books because it is said to be excellent. It is very obvious that
the people they targeted were the shareholders and the American citizens. There are cases in which
the PR strategy is not going to target the right public, the cultural differences unless there is a
commercial advantage to this. PR strategies are going to target different publics. Sometimes, they
target very specific publics. Of course, you can be positive about the fact that in this case, they were
not speaking about intercultural communication. They just wanted to make sure that the shares
didnt fall too much and that the American citizens were going to forgive the company. Targeting the
Indian people was considered unnecessary.
! What are PR relations in an environment where consumer activism is not a popular or viable
concept? Can we really consider ethical public relations in such a context? No one told the company
to set up an ethical PR strategy. The idea was just business and the public targeted was very specific.
The idea was not to catch up with the Indian people but with the business industry.
PR excellence: whenever you set up a PR strategy, you are going to involve the highest values
including ethics, in your strategy. But if indeed there is no commercial advantage, spontaneously,
most companies are not going to think about ethics.
This scandal happened in the 1970s. They would probably be more reactions if it happened now.

Cultural metrics
= instruments.
The ambition of those cultural metrics is as far as possible to anticipate barriers problems. Whenever
you are going to encode or to decode a message that crosses a cultural frontier, the idea is to make
sure to share meanings (as far as possible).

Knowledge: setting up a PR intercultural strategy means that you are going to look for cultural
vectors, the media, the ethical aspects in this culture and that you would anticipate, as far as
possible, issues whenever it comes to share meanings.

! What is the link between a global PR practice and the use of those cultural metrics? You can
expect cultural barriers and so the use of those comparative cultural metrics can help you anticipate
those cultural barriers. The main idea is to share meaning. Thats the ultimate goal.

1. The context (S. Hall) can be a potential barrier, or more specifically the importance you give to
the context. Lets consider the same sentence in two different contexts:
a) a CEO and a manager are in a meeting. The first says: I dont like that idea
B) Family members are going to discuss what theyre going to do next weekend and someone says: I
dont like that idea.
! The context always plays an important part. In some cultures, the context is going to be more
important than in other cultures. The context is who, where, when, who with. = The relationships
that are going to link people together.
Can we reach the conclusion that some cultures are low-context and others are high-context? No.
We need to have a continuum, a spectrum meaning that it will be possible for us to put the curser to
a very specific position. The idea is not to come to the conclusion that one culture is low-context or
high-context but that one culture is rather low or high context. It is certainly not black or white. The
continuum is something like this:

Low-context

High-context

Imagine an American movie. Youve got a character that has been fired. The boss says nothing
personal, its not about you. In our culture, there are all kinds of feeling that are linked to the fact of
being fired. In the American culture, it is just that somehow, your job is not done in an efficient way;
the personal context is not relevant.
Imagine a dialogue in which the most important part is put into words. You need to be explicit, to
translate in language all parts of the conversation. Explicit dialogues are typical of a low-culture
context. It means you cant rely on the context to understand it. Words matter and nothing but
words. The context has very little interest.
On the contrary, the tea ceremony in Japan: we have two partners sitting in a very sober room
enjoying the ceremony. Very few words are going to be exchanged. The context plays the essential
part. Thus Japan is going to attach a very important part to the context ! High-context culture.
Time organization: we are going to mix this metrics with time. If we consider those two types of
culture with time: monochronic = you do everything at a specific time. Its typical of the Western
cultures. Polychronic= the importance is the cycle during which you can do different things. In the

polychronic time, the context and relationships between people are going to be important, while the
focus on the result is typical of a monochronic/low-context culture.
If we consider those two types of culture with silence: we have silence in both kind of cultures, but
it is going to mean something different. If we consider a low-context culture, silence could be
interpreted as someone being embarrassed, while in a high-context culture, it could mean that
people are sharing something. Metrics are going to show a general tendency: a culture is rather low
or high context.

2. In the 1960s, Geert Hofstede considered a company, IBM that was active in more than 50
countries. He could use a sample of more than 160.000 people. He was able to draw up work-
related reactions. The context is professional. Meaning that people are going to show this or that
tendency whenever they are in this or that professional context. The difference with Hall is that in his
research, Hofstede used only work-related tendencies. He has had a fantastic impact. Nowadays, it is
considered as important information resources. He has got a corporate website and is still active. We
are going to discuss four metrics but he went on presenting further data.

Individualism vs collectivism: every culture, for every one of us, has some part of importance
and to some degrees, actions have got an impact on others. Some cultures are going to show
more importance to individualism or collectivism. In an individualist culture, the important
aspect is going to be the outcome. In collectivism, the process is essential.
Example: homelessness. Lets consider the American context. American culture shows a
general tendency of being individualistic. It means that the individuals responsibilities are
enormous. If you are homeless, it is due to your personal choices. Meaning: we are not going
to help you because it is going to prevent you from making the right choice. It doesnt mean
no consideration, it means that it is for you to decide whether you want help or not and if I
help you, it could comfort you in making the wrong choice. It is for you to decide. The
American culture is not pitiless. It is just focusing on the individual responsibilities. But if you
consider the health care program that was suggested by Obama, you can now understand
why there was such a huge opposition. It is up to everyone to make their own choice. The
community doesnt have to help you. Considering the African culture, it is going to be the
other way around. ! Broader sense of solidarity.
Some researchers considered that economic prosperity was synonym with individualistic
cultures. Nowadays, people are much more careful about this. This is definitely not precise
enough. Now, we could consider prosperity as a possible predictor of a rather individualistic
society. Scientifically, it is very difficult to say why.
When you go global, the point is not to know why a culture is rather individualistic or
collectivistic, but to anticipate barriers and to share meanings. Its the best way to ensure
that you dont have cultural differences between countries in your global strategy. This is the
best way to respect those essential cultural differences between two populations.
Power distance: on some cultures, stratification is going to be favoured because its going to
be synonym with order and predictability. The power distance index goes from high to low. If
the culture youre going to work with shows a high power distance index, it means that they
are going to favour this social stratification. Distinct social classes are meaningful to them,
they are expected and appreciated. But if you are working with a low power distance index,

it means that you expect people to work as being interdependent: social classes are more or
less meaningless. Corporation is much more important.
NB: those metrics show general tendencies, no more. ! To what extent is this relevant to
talk about general tendencies? It is a good starting point but only a starting point. In real life,
people tend to behave differently.
Uncertainty avoidance: it is related to change, whats new, etc. We speak about an
uncertainty avoidance index between a high and a low uncertainty avoidance index. Belgians
are said to hate change. Thus they will show a high uncertainty avoidance index. We will try
to avoid changes. If Im considering a monochronic culture, it is linked with a high uncertainty
avoidance index: you will stick to what time means to you (being on time at appointments,
etc.). We have a strict schedule to avoid uncertainty. Within a company, there are social
conflicts. We will try to solve those through negotiations in a low uncertainty avoidance
index: you accept the risk. You try to negotiate and to find a compromise. It can prove
successful or disastrous.
Masculinity vs feminity: considering two cultures. We are speaking about Japan. We are
going to pair Japan with Norway or the Netherlands. Masculinity is going to be linked with
key ideas such as achievement or assertiveness. Feminity is going to be linked to the process.
It doesnt mean that youre not going to look for any result, but what is more important is
how youre going to reach it. Japanese people are considered as being a masculine culture:
being assertive, even if they dont speak a lot, and appreciating achievements. On the other
hand, in Norway, there is a very clear focus on social support, social relations and Norwegian
people are going to be considered as a rather feminine culture. That doesnt mean they
forget about achievement. But the process is the most important thing.

Hofstedes classification means a lot in research and in practice. It doesnt mean that we cant
criticise his work.
The method:
1. The first idea is equivalence. Starting from my culture, I try to set up a tool that is going to
make it possible to compare cultures. But is this so positive that the word I use to describe
precisely an idea is going to be understood the equivalent way in the other culture? Do you
think the word masculine is going to describe the same concept in another culture and
language? To be sure, you have to use back-translations. For example, from French, I want
to translate the concept into German, but I have to use back-translation and so to translate
it once again from German to French. (French ! German ! French). If, as a final result, I
have the same result/word, it is great. But a part of it or whole of it can defer. Thats why I
need to check it with back-translation. This was not implemented in Hofstedes work. This is
the first criticism because this back-translation was not done. There could be some
confusing vocabulary being used in different cultures. In some contexts and cultures, there
might be some differences in meaning for some concepts. Linguistics showed that even if
you can translate a word, it can sometimes mean only a part of what you mean in your
original language. There is a zone of overlap ( mental image).
2. The sample issue: Hofstede decided to concentrate on the staff of the company. What he
has recorded is linked to work-related behaviour. It means how people are going to react in
a professional context. He focused on a sample. Is this sample valid for a whole nation? Can

we use this to predict the behaviours on a national point of view/scale? Hofstede thought it
was enough because it was a very large sample (160.000 people). But can we transpose
those work-related attitudes to everyday life?

Unfortunately, the methods are not the only point of criticism.
Conceptual issues:
1. Continuum spectrum: those metrics work on a continuum basis (ex.: individualism -
collectivism). This is definitely better than saying that a culture is either individualist or
collectivist. It shows a general tendency and makes it possible for everyone to understand
that both extremes can be present within a culture. It is not because the American culture is
rather individualist that Im going to exclude anything related to collectivism in this culture.
Im just going to show a general tendency.
Example: the African-American subculture: because it originates from African culture, this
culture is going to get a high score of collectivism but at the same time, when working in
artistic fields/when dealing with artistic expression, theyre going to show a high score in
individualism. ! Using a spectrum makes it impossible to show a high score in both
extremes; that both extremes can exist at a high degree for a same culture. Spectrums do
not show a large amount of flexibility.
2. Hofstede discovered four metrics. And if there were more? Using those four metrics, can we
be positive about the fact that it is going to be enough to speak about all cultures? NO.
Around the nineties, China became more and more powerful and relevant to the business
world. Chinese researchers went to the conclusion that those four metrics were not relevant
in the Chinese culture, simply because philosophically, the Chinese has been influenced by
Confucianism (mix of religion and philosophy). . Its part of their culture and heritage and the
four metrics of Hofstede do not refer to Confucianism at all. It shows us that things go on.
We have an evolution of cultures because Cultures are not static. It is perfectly possible that
within fifty years, another metric is going to be necessary to show the differences between
cultures. In Confucianism, what is essential is the common success and not your personal
achievements.
3. Lets consider the power distance. Weve got some Latin cultures showing a very big
difference between the way youre going to behave from a religious point of view and from a
professional point of view. Power distance is going to score very low in terms of religion:
proximity is very essential. The connection to God is rather personal (>< all-mighty God very
far from you), he is listening to you, etc. While regarding work, the power distance index is
going to be very high. Youre going to show a very high respect for stratification. ! The
context is going to be very important. Hofstedes cultural metrics do not show the
necessary flexibility to explain all cultures and situations. To give a right efficient picture of
the culture youre going to work with, those metrics are not enough. It only gives an
average position.
Other example: Two cultures can be compared in an efficient way because they proved to
show a high power distance index. The question is: do all cultures show the same cultural
aspects the same way? If two cultures show a high power distance, are we positive about the
fact that what you see or what you hear/read/ can be definitely understood in terms of a
high power distance index? Are they going to express this high power distance the same

way? No of course. They are going to show in difference ways the same high power distance
index. You have to expect that theyre going to show it differently. Those essential cultural
subtleties are not going to be expressed by these comparative metrics.
4. Hofstede said that his metrics constitutes a good tool to compare cultures. Theyre going to
say that Belgians are going to be typically like this or like that. The problem is that there is a
clear association between nations and cultures. One nation is not synonym with one
culture. Can those metrics describe an average Belgian? And is there such a thing as an
average Belgian/American? We can at least make a very distinct difference between the
three different cultures of this nation, not to mention immigrants. Hofstedes point is static
and does not correspond to the fact that subcultures exist. Within one nation, we can
consider several subcultures. Its difficult to admit that just because you are Belgian doesnt
mean youre going to have a predictable behaviour. One nation is not synonym with one
culture. Plus we have to deal with 3 different cultures in Belgium. A culture is never static. It
evolves because people moves; because of contributors. We should admit that this is not
going to impact the countrys culture ! it doesnt make any sense. Hofstedes metrics do
not consider the expected evolution in terms of culture.
5. Individual and subcultural characteristics: Someone from another culture asks you how you
culturally behave. Would you express things like we, Belgians? If so, is this relevant and
complete? Once more, those metrics prove to be inefficient because people have changed
and when it comes to talking about their cultures, theyre going to say we, referring to a
group, and part of it will be I. We miss anything connected to individual characteristics. If
you ignore those subcultures and individual specificities, are these comparative metrics are
still useful? What is the use of describing a general tendency? What if we were missing so
many individual of subcultural differences and in consequence, we were missing the main
part of it? We have to use these metrics carefully and all the comparative tools should
complete them. Those metrics are not enough.