QUESTION 1:

Why must Project Manager should have good technical skills but also good management skills?

QUESTION 2:

''Communication and Communicator are related''

This quote from the text suppose that the communication process is led by the spokesperson. Do you think is it a ''gift'' to be a good communicator or a skill to improve (use example of your knowledge to answer)?

QUESTION 3:

Look at the text paragraph yellow highlighted, and do you think that in today's world it is still true but less and less because of technologies of communication? (in other word does our ''standardized'' communications ways moderate the impact of communication behavior)

QUESTION 4:

Do you think that the work culture could shape the working environment?Please also give an example of a kind of organization (of your knowledge) where internal culture environment is very strong

QUESTION 5:

Would you say that the choice of team members based on Skills but also on culture would be oriented on the type of Project that you are managing? You may base your answer on the example in the text wit the Swiss approach vs American's one.

SUPPORTING TEXT

MULTICULTURAL COMMUNICATIONS AND MANAGERIAL BEHAVIOR*

The importance of language cannot be overstated. Almost every writer on the subject of managing international projects, or of managing any business in another country, advises the manager to learn the language of the host nation. It is usually not necessary (though it is always helpful) for a project manager to be fluent in the language of the host nation.

When precise communication is required, a skilled translator can be used. It is, however, usually pleasing to the citizens of the host nation when visiting PMs speak their language, even haltingly.

Language is a complex composite of words, signs, symbols, movements and positions of the body, pictures, sounds, equations, and objectsthe things with which we communicate with one another. The ways in which we use the elements of communication, the ways in which we send and receive messages, are integral parts of the communication. The media are a part of the message, to paraphrase Marshall McLuhan's famous statement. Even the source and destination of the message may alter its meaning. Identical words may carry quite different meanings depending on the context within which the words are spoken or on who delivers the words to whom. (Consider the words, "I'll give you a ring" spoken by a young man to a young lady at the end of a date.)

Because the communication cannot be separated from the communicator, the managerial and personal behaviors of the project manager are discussed along with the more commonly mentioned aspects of the communication process.

Structure and Style of Communications

Some years ago the American steel industry supported a training program for young engineers educated in India. The program was one of several responses from the United States to the Soviet Union's gift of steel production plants and equipment to India.

Based on the (accurate) assumption that American management and production methods in the steel business were significantly better than the USSR's, a project was developed to train the engineers on operations by having them work as first-line supervisors in steel mills in Cleveland and Pittsburgh.

At the same time, they attended universities in those cities for academic training in relevant American business practices and techniques. Several problems arose.

All the engineers were reasonably fluent in written and spoken English, so they received training in the in-plant communications methods employed by American steel companies.

It was several months later before an American academic (who had not been involved in planning the program) pointed out that only 17 percent of the workers in an Indian steel mill could read.

This obviated much of the elaborate communication system the engineers were being trained to use, most of which depended heavily on written memoranda and instructions.

It is appropriate to wonder why the Indian engineers did not make this fact known to those teaching the communications courses. The reason is, in Asiatic nations, teachers (and senior officials in general) are held in very high regard. It would be impolite, almost unthinkable, to question or correct them.

Cultural differences caused another problem. In the United States, it is common to train supervisors in the steel industry (and also in other industries) by giving them some "hands-on" experience in production methods. The young Indians felt that it was beneath them to pick up and use a shovel while working on the blast furnace floor.

To convince the engineers to continue in this aspect of their training, without resentment, required an on-site demonstration by a very senior American executive.

These types of multicultural problems are ubiquitous on international projects. In the United States, delegation is a preferred managerial style. When authority is diffused, information moves to the manager from the delegatees. Workers report to supervisors who, in turn, report to middle and senior managers. In cultures where authority is highly centralized, it becomes the project manager's responsibility to seek out information (Smith et al.,1993).

At several different points in this book, we have urged the PM never to let the boss be surprised. This is a fundamental tenet of our approach to project management. The manager of an international project cannot count on being voluntarily informed of problems and potential problems by his or her subordinates.

The Gogal et al. study (1988) and the smallsample survey of Graham et al. (1988) both examine project management as it currently exists in China. They did not examine multicultural projects, but studied projects conducted by Chinese managers and workers in China. They are, nonetheless, instructive. It is clear that management in China is authoritarian, and that the need to negotiatelargely with the stateis just as, if not more, important than it is in the projects of any other culture. The role of negotiation will not decrease for multicultural projects involving China. It will be extended.

Managerial and Personal Behavior

We have already noted the difference in the bottom-up flow of information in American projects and the top-down flow in countries where the management style is authoritarian.

There are other cross-cultural differences that create problems for a project manager whose experience is restricted to the United States.

In a fascinating paper, Grinbergs et al. (1993) compare the managerial characteristics of Swiss and American managers/engineers of the same general age, education, and salary levels, all of whom were working on software projects.

Several of these comparisons illustrate culturally based differences in managerial and interpersonal style. The study revealed that Swiss managers were "much more formal" with each other than Americans. This demonstrates the interaction of interpersonal style and language.

Many languages have both formal and informal modes of addressing other people (e.g., the formal German "Sie" and French "vous" compared to the informal "du" and "tu"). If an American in Germany uses "du" to a German counterpart, it will certainly be understood, but it may also carry overtones of rudeness.

Because we have emphasized planning so strongly throughout this book, we find the differences in the Swiss and American approaches to planning of special interest.

The U.S. respondents did not consider thorough planning and a long-term strategy as

absolute prerequisites for beginning a project.

Though promptness is highly valued in both countries, long-term strategy is considered much more important in the Swiss company. (Grinbergs et al., 1993, p. 24)

In addition to these areas, the Swiss and Americans differed in a number of other ways

of import to the PM. The Swiss showed a stronger work ethic, were more resistant to change, were more risk averse, more accepting of bureaucracy, and more focused on quality.

The Americans were more collegial, more willing to experiment and innovate, had a shorter time horizon, and communicated more openly.

When conducting a project in an Asian nation, an American PM should exercise considerable care while criticizing the work of indigenous subordinates. Loss of face is a serious problem in Oriental cultures. In communist states such as China, the pseudo-egalitarianism* may make criticism completely unacceptable (cf. Gogal et al., 1988 and elsewhere).

In a society with highly structured social classes, it is also difficult to practice participative management. There is, apparently, a built-in assumption that the more educated, higher-class manager's authority will be denigrated by using a participative style. (It is interesting to note that one does not have to leave the United States in order to see this culturally based trait in action. In many U.S. firms, management is quite authoritarian and the social gulf between manager and worker is as wide as in much more class-conscious nations.) The more structured a country's social system, the less direct managerial communication tends to be. In North America, it is common for senior managers to interact with first-line supervisors, and even with blue- and white-collar workers. Communication flows easily across functional lines. In most other areas of the world, the communication will be more indirect, and will tend to follow the lines of authority established on the organizational chart.

Dinsmore et al. (1993) list five factors that they contend require special consideration

by the PM heading a multicultural project. We have already noted some of these factors

(e.g., the importance of language and culture, the need to deal with the politics and politicians in the host nation, the fact that the PM may have to use indigenous staff members, the possibility of input supply and technology problems, and the need to obey local laws andcustoms). In addition, they note two other matters that may cause serious problems for the PM. First, there are additional risk factors such as kidnapping, disease, and faulty medical care.

Of course, in many countries, project workers will face less risk from crime than in

the United States as well as easier access to medical care.

Second, Dinsmore et al. (1993, p. 458) point out that the PM may have to provide for the physical and psychological needs of people who are transferred to the host nation and must live in a "strange land with different customs and way of life." They refer to this as the "expatriate way of life."

The PM is warned, however, not to go too far in accommodating to foreign cultures.

"Going native" is not helpful. An Austrian economist of our acquaintance remarked, "American managers who come over here and wear lederhosen and funny hats are laughable. No one takes them seriously."

Final Comments on Multicultural Projects

The project manager is ill-advised to take on an international project without adequate preparation in the culture and language of the host nation. Lack of preparation is apt to cause cultural shock which results in frustration, usually followed by withdrawal. It is a no-win situation.

If there are no resources inside the organization to prepare those moving into a different culture, outside consultants with appropriate knowledge and teaching skills are needed. (Note: a current employee of the fi rm who happens to be of the right nationality is not a suitable resource for the training.) Lessons in the foreign language are mandatory, even if the language training does not extend to technical language.

In most cases, the willingness to speak in the host nation's tongue on social occasions and for routine businessif not for technical discussionswill be appreciated by the hosts and earn goodwill from the indigenous members of the project team.

Finally, research has shown the importance of the psychosocial aspect of service on project teams. "In practical terms, this fi nding suggests that it is important for project team members to enjoy working with other team members, and to perceive the project as a valuable way to spend their time" (Pinto et al., 1991, p. 17). This is doubly important for multicultural projects, particularly for expatriate team members. They are away from home and depend, for the most part, on their national cohorts to meet psychosocial needs. Given this cultural isolation, the project becomes a critical source of both psychological and social payoffs, and the PM, with a strong tendency to focus only on task outcomes, should make sure that these other needs are met.

Because all people invariably seem to view the values of other cultures in terms of their

own, the process of understanding and working comfortably in another culture requires great effort. But it seems to us that most Americans underestimate their own abilities to manage international projects with skill and sensitivity. Americans seem to feel that being able to speak more than one language, as citizens of many other countries do, implies acceptance and sensitivity to another culture. It takes no more than a quick glance at the Balkans or the Middle East to know that the implication is untrue. If a PM from Toronto can manage a project in Quebec, if a PM from Boston can manage a project in Albuquerque, it is probable that an American Southern Baptist can function in Israel or a Tex-Mex from Corpus Christi can be effective in Berlin. Multicultural management does take effort, but it is do-able.QUESTION 1:

Why must Project Manager should have good technical skills but also good management skills?

QUESTION 2:

''Communication and Communicator are related''

This quote from the text suppose that the communication process is led by the spokesperson. Do you think is it a ''gift'' to be a good communicator or a skill to improve (use example of your knowledge to answer)?

QUESTION 3:

Look at the text paragraph yellow highlighted, and do you think that in today's world it is still true but less and less because of technologies of communication? (in other word does our ''standardized'' communications ways moderate the impact of communication behavior)

QUESTION 4:

Do you think that the work culture could shape the working environment?Please also give an example of a kind of organization (of your knowledge) where internal culture environment is very strong

QUESTION 5:

Would you say that the choice of team members based on Skills but also on culture would be oriented on the type of Project that you are managing? You may base your answer on the example in the text wit the Swiss approach vs American's one.

SUPPORTING TEXT

MULTICULTURAL COMMUNICATIONS AND MANAGERIAL BEHAVIOR*

The importance of language cannot be overstated. Almost every writer on the subject of managing international projects, or of managing any business in another country, advises the manager to learn the language of the host nation. It is usually not necessary (though it is always helpful) for a project manager to be fluent in the language of the host nation.

When precise communication is required, a skilled translator can be used. It is, however, usually pleasing to the citizens of the host nation when visiting PMs speak their language, even haltingly.

Language is a complex composite of words, signs, symbols, movements and positions of the body, pictures, sounds, equations, and objectsthe things with which we communicate with one another. The ways in which we use the elements of communication, the ways in which we send and receive messages, are integral parts of the communication. The media are a part of the message, to paraphrase Marshall McLuhan's famous statement. Even the source and destination of the message may alter its meaning. Identical words may carry quite different meanings depending on the context within which the words are spoken or on who delivers the words to whom. (Consider the words, "I'll give you a ring" spoken by a young man to a young lady at the end of a date.)

Because the communication cannot be separated from the communicator, the managerial and personal behaviors of the project manager are discussed along with the more commonly mentioned aspects of the communication process.

Structure and Style of Communications

Some years ago the American steel industry supported a training program for young engineers educated in India. The program was one of several responses from the United States to the Soviet Union's gift of steel production plants and equipment to India.

Based on the (accurate) assumption that American management and production methods in the steel business were significantly better than the USSR's, a project was developed to train the engineers on operations by having them work as first-line supervisors in steel mills in Cleveland and Pittsburgh.

At the same time, they attended universities in those cities for academic training in relevant American business practices and techniques. Several problems arose.

All the engineers were reasonably fluent in written and spoken English, so they received training in the in-plant communications methods employed by American steel companies.

It was several months later before an American academic (who had not been involved in planning the program) pointed out that only 17 percent of the workers in an Indian steel mill could read.

This obviated much of the elaborate communication system the engineers were being trained to use, most of which depended heavily on written memoranda and instructions.

It is appropriate to wonder why the Indian engineers did not make this fact known to those teaching the communications courses. The reason is, in Asiatic nations, teachers (and senior officials in general) are held in very high regard. It would be impolite, almost unthinkable, to question or correct them.

Cultural differences caused another problem. In the United States, it is common to train supervisors in the steel industry (and also in other industries) by giving them some "hands-on" experience in production methods. The young Indians felt that it was beneath them to pick up and use a shovel while working on the blast furnace floor.

To convince the engineers to continue in this aspect of their training, without resentment, required an on-site demonstration by a very senior American executive.

These types of multicultural problems are ubiquitous on international projects. In the United States, delegation is a preferred managerial style. When authority is diffused, information moves to the manager from the delegatees. Workers report to supervisors who, in turn, report to middle and senior managers. In cultures where authority is highly centralized, it becomes the project manager's responsibility to seek out information (Smith et al.,1993).

At several different points in this book, we have urged the PM never to let the boss be surprised. This is a fundamental tenet of our approach to project management. The manager of an international project cannot count on being voluntarily informed of problems and potential problems by his or her subordinates.

The Gogal et al. study (1988) and the smallsample survey of Graham et al. (1988) both examine project management as it currently exists in China. They did not examine multicultural projects, but studied projects conducted by Chinese managers and workers in China. They are, nonetheless, instructive. It is clear that management in China is authoritarian, and that the need to negotiatelargely with the stateis just as, if not more, important than it is in the projects of any other culture. The role of negotiation will not decrease for multicultural projects involving China. It will be extended.

Managerial and Personal Behavior

We have already noted the difference in the bottom-up flow of information in American projects and the top-down flow in countries where the management style is authoritarian.

There are other cross-cultural differences that create problems for a project manager whose experience is restricted to the United States.

In a fascinating paper, Grinbergs et al. (1993) compare the managerial characteristics of Swiss and American managers/engineers of the same general age, education, and salary levels, all of whom were working on software projects.

Several of these comparisons illustrate culturally based differences in managerial and interpersonal style. The study revealed that Swiss managers were "much more formal" with each other than Americans. This demonstrates the interaction of interpersonal style and language.

Many languages have both formal and informal modes of addressing other people (e.g., the formal German "Sie" and French "vous" compared to the informal "du" and "tu"). If an American in Germany uses "du" to a German counterpart, it will certainly be understood, but it may also carry overtones of rudeness.

Because we have emphasized planning so strongly throughout this book, we find the differences in the Swiss and American approaches to planning of special interest.

The U.S. respondents did not consider thorough planning and a long-term strategy as

absolute prerequisites for beginning a project.

Though promptness is highly valued in both countries, long-term strategy is considered much more important in the Swiss company. (Grinbergs et al., 1993, p. 24)

In addition to these areas, the Swiss and Americans differed in a number of other ways

of import to the PM. The Swiss showed a stronger work ethic, were more resistant to change, were more risk averse, more accepting of bureaucracy, and more focused on quality.

The Americans were more collegial, more willing to experiment and innovate, had a shorter time horizon, and communicated more openly.

When conducting a project in an Asian nation, an American PM should exercise considerable care while criticizing the work of indigenous subordinates. Loss of face is a serious problem in Oriental cultures. In communist states such as China, the pseudo-egalitarianism* may make criticism completely unacceptable (cf. Gogal et al., 1988 and elsewhere).

In a society with highly structured social classes, it is also difficult to practice participative management. There is, apparently, a built-in assumption that the more educated, higher-class manager's authority will be denigrated by using a participative style. (It is interesting to note that one does not have to leave the United States in order to see this culturally based trait in action. In many U.S. firms, management is quite authoritarian and the social gulf between manager and worker is as wide as in much more class-conscious nations.) The more structured a country's social system, the less direct managerial communication tends to be. In North America, it is common for senior managers to interact with first-line supervisors, and even with blue- and white-collar workers. Communication flows easily across functional lines. In most other areas of the world, the communication will be more indirect, and will tend to follow the lines of authority established on the organizational chart.

Dinsmore et al. (1993) list five factors that they contend require special consideration

by the PM heading a multicultural project. We have already noted some of these factors

(e.g., the importance of language and culture, the need to deal with the politics and politicians in the host nation, the fact that the PM may have to use indigenous staff members, the possibility of input supply and technology problems, and the need to obey local laws andcustoms). In addition, they note two other matters that may cause serious problems for the PM. First, there are additional risk factors such as kidnapping, disease, and faulty medical care.

Of course, in many countries, project workers will face less risk from crime than in

the United States as well as easier access to medical care.

Second, Dinsmore et al. (1993, p. 458) point out that the PM may have to provide for the physical and psychological needs of people who are transferred to the host nation and must live in a "strange land with different customs and way of life." They refer to this as the "expatriate way of life."

The PM is warned, however, not to go too far in accommodating to foreign cultures.

"Going native" is not helpful. An Austrian economist of our acquaintance remarked, "American managers who come over here and wear lederhosen and funny hats are laughable. No one takes them seriously."

Final Comments on Multicultural Projects

The project manager is ill-advised to take on an international project without adequate preparation in the culture and language of the host nation. Lack of preparation is apt to cause cultural shock which results in frustration, usually followed by withdrawal. It is a no-win situation.

If there are no resources inside the organization to prepare those moving into a different culture, outside consultants with appropriate knowledge and teaching skills are needed. (Note: a current employee of the fi rm who happens to be of the right nationality is not a suitable resource for the training.) Lessons in the foreign language are mandatory, even if the language training does not extend to technical language.

In most cases, the willingness to speak in the host nation's tongue on social occasions and for routine businessif not for technical discussionswill be appreciated by the hosts and earn goodwill from the indigenous members of the project team.

Finally, research has shown the importance of the psychosocial aspect of service on project teams. "In practical terms, this fi nding suggests that it is important for project team members to enjoy working with other team members, and to perceive the project as a valuable way to spend their time" (Pinto et al., 1991, p. 17). This is doubly important for multicultural projects, particularly for expatriate team members. They are away from home and depend, for the most part, on their national cohorts to meet psychosocial needs. Given this cultural isolation, the project becomes a critical source of both psychological and social payoffs, and the PM, with a strong tendency to focus only on task outcomes, should make sure that these other needs are met.

Because all people invariably seem to view the values of other cultures in terms of their

own, the process of understanding and working comfortably in another culture requires great effort. But it seems to us that most Americans underestimate their own abilities to manage international projects with skill and sensitivity. Americans seem to feel that being able to speak more than one language, as citizens of many other countries do, implies acceptance and sensitivity to another culture. It takes no more than a quick glance at the Balkans or the Middle East to know that the implication is untrue. If a PM from Toronto can manage a project in Quebec, if a PM from Boston can manage a project in Albuquerque, it is probable that an American Southern Baptist can function in Israel or a Tex-Mex from Corpus Christi can be effective in Berlin. Multicultural management does take effort, but it is do-able.