Your Pace or Mine? Culture, Time, and Negotiation Ian Macduff This article explores the impact that different perceptions of time may have on cross-cultural negotiations. Beyond obvious issues of punctuality and timekeeping, differences may occur in the value placed on the uses of time and the priorities given to past, present, or future orientations. The role of time in negotiations involves two key dimensions: differing perceptions and values of time, and the management of time. Both dimensions, the author suggests, need to be on the negotiation table. Time, Culture, and Perception Time talks. It speaks more plainly than words. The message it conveys comes through loud and clear . . . It can shout the truth where words lie. — Edward Hall All practice creates time and the varying combinations of time within a social formation create a temporal structure or style. However, I believe that we should not merely say that social formations have their own temporal styles, but to go a step further and characterize social formations primarily in terms of their temporal styles of life (Gosden 1994: 187, emphasis added). Ian Macduff is the director of the New Zealand Centre for Conflict Resolution and a senior lecturer in law at Victoria University of Wellington in Wellington, New Zealand. He is also a visiting associate professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. His e-mail address is Ian.Macduff@vuw.ac.nz. 10.1111/j.0748-4526.2006.00084.x © 2006 President and Fellows of Harvard College Negotiation Journal January 2006 31 Time was invented to stop everything from happening at once, Albert Einstein is reported to have said. Immanuel Kant saw time as a way of organizing experience. Time is said to be curved when contemplated at a very large scale. Time is given international accuracy and currency according to atomic clocks. For some, time is a commodity that is in limited supply and needs to be fully used; for others, it is less a commodity than an open opportunity. And time, in addition to its formal measurement of events from nanoseconds to eons, is a social construct having meaning and symbolic significance as much as it is a strict marker of the passage of events. In this essay, I will explore cultural differences in both the management and experience of time (Brislin and Kim 2003), focusing on the many ways these differences can affect the negotiation process. This is clearly not all that there is to be said about our immersion in time and its likely impact on our relations with the world and with others. It goes well beyond the scope of this paper to even begin to explore the field of chronemics (although the article does touch on this field briefly below1) or the many ways that disciplines as diverse as psychotherapy, phenomenology,2 management theory,3 and theoretical physics4 have examined time. (In the field of dispute resolution in particular, some scholars have begun to draw on and apply the “mindfulness” traditions of Buddhism,5 examining how altering one’s stance toward presence, the present, and the narratives of events can affect the dispute resolution process.) If any thematic unity of these perspectives on time is possible, it may turn on the relation — and tension — between both the synchronicity and the separation of events. Time, it seems, is a puzzle that has confounded thinkers of the stature of Kant and Carl Jung on epistemology; Ervin Lazlo and Humberto Maturana on systems theory; Einstein, David Bohm, and Wolfgang Pauli on physics and philosophy. At the heart of this puzzle lies the relationship between the perception and reality of time. Negotiators, particularly in intercultural settings, are well-advised to recognize the power of and the difference between their own perceptions of time and the perceptions of others. Examinations of time, especially in studies focusing on business communication and negotiation, have tended to be limited to such issues as punctuality and the likely duration of meetings. Several studies of cultural difference and negotiation have acknowledged time as one dimension of difference, but few have explored it in the same depth as such features as “face” and identity, degrees of hierarchy, power distance, and the balance of individualism and collectivism. But given the extent to which time may shape process, relationships, and the substantive outcomes of negotiations, it may have an even more significant impact on negotiations than any of these other features. Time itself can, indeed, be an implicit or unconscious source of conflict, and conflicts about time may themselves create the need for 32 Ian Macduff Your Pace or Mine? negotiation or cause negotiations to fail. Conflicts may arise expressly about time and timing when parties have incompatible expectations about the “best use” of time, or about the importance of punctuality, or about how to run meetings efficiently. But as important as these tangible differences about time may be, the often unarticulated assumptions that underlie them — about building relationships, the connections between social and taskoriented activities, and the impact of history on current conflicts — may be even more significant. Differing perceptions of time threaten intercultural interactions because they can lead us to attach judgments to time-related aspects of behavior. If people wear watches, then why cannot they arrive at meetings on time? Why do we spend so much time in meetings chatting about irrelevant topics such as our grandchildren? Will this meeting run late and cause me to miss my airplane flight if we continue in this manner? An awareness of time’s many dimensions and functions may not always eliminate the conflicts that time creates, but it could reduce the kind of judgmental thinking and behavior that can inhibit constructive negotiation relationships. Experiencing Time and Its Conflicts My interest in this topic was sparked by an incident that I witnessed in 2004 at an international student negotiation competition. In one round of that event, two teams of students from Asian nations and universities faced each other. All four students were of Asian origin.6 At the end of the negotiation, one of the judges, thoughtful and highly experienced in this competition, observed that he found it both pleasant and enlightening to observe the unusual way in which these four students went about their negotiation, how they devoted more time to establishing personal relationships with each other, how the process seemed more cordial and less adversarial than is typically the case. But, he asked, wasn’t this somehow less “efficient” a negotiation as a result? The judge’s observations intrigued me. It was clear that these teams of Asian student negotiators were perceived as no less competent than other negotiators and that the outcome was seen to be just as balanced and enduring as other negotiation outcomes. But the students’ use of time, their “indirect” approach to getting to the nub of the negotiation, the care they took to ensure the security of the negotiation relationship, and their use of more elliptical language all appeared to contribute to a perceived inefficiency. However friendly the judge’s intentions, his comment nevertheless indicated both how perceptions of the “best use” of time in negotiations can differ significantly and how those unconscious perceptions on the conduct of negotiations can affect negotiations. In 2003, while facilitating a training program in team building and conflict management for a group of Italian election monitors in Tuscany, I had Negotiation Journal January 2006 33 an opportunity to witness how differing interpretations of punctuality can affect the negotiation process. Despite the keen desire of participants to learn as much as they could in a limited time, they consistently arrived for the start of workshops up to thirty minutes after the jointly agreed starting time. Such differences extended to decisions concerning after-hours activities. My colleague from New Zealand and I agreed — or thought we had agreed — that we would meet with the Italian participants for dinner; some negotiation ensued as to what that time might be, and, with the next day’s work in prospect, we thought we had agreed on the “earlier” time of 8:30 P.M., which is somewhat early for dinner by Italian standards. Again, my colleague and I were the first to arrive by some thirty minutes, on each occasion. While this, in practice, was an unimportant gap in timing and it was one treated with great good humor and with references to “Kiwi time” and “Italian time,” it was intriguing in terms of the divergent expectations and assumptions it revealed. It is tempting to reach some simple conclusion relating to the “Asian” preference for “indirectness” in the first example or the “Italian” casualness about punctuality in the second. But these are neither sufficiently empirical to stand as conclusions nor sufficiently useful to allow us to develop any responses.7 It is only in more recent research that we have come to understand that we and our Italian colleagues were negotiating about quite different matters: we were, or thought we were, negotiating literally about a time for meeting; our course participants were, or thought they were, negotiating about an activity: “dinner.” Comments by the participants confirmed that they did not merely misunderstand or fail to hear the words “8:30.” Rather, this goes to the core of what is being invoked and understood by a time-related reference. We might readily attribute lack of punctuality to either a simple failure in communication or to some broadly drawn cultural characteristic. The point, to which I will return later and which I only came to understand some time after the event, is that while most of those with whom we deal are unlikely to have any difficulty in literally telling the time or knowing what “8:30” means, it is likely the activity to which the timing relates that carries a cultural meaning which we, as outsiders, do not immediately share. It is not a miscommunication in the sense of our not literally hearing each other about the time, but it is a misunderstanding about timing, when the activity itself, depending on the cultural context, carries a looser connotation. Understanding this difference allows us to avoid any conclusions that, say, Italians are less reliable timekeepers than others, and to understand that in some contexts, and for some people, the nature of an activity itself carries with it a meaning — and often a timing — that may be different than one’s own. One more example will suffice to provide the framework for the discussion that follows. Some readers may be familiar with the rise of the 34 Ian Macduff Your Pace or Mine? “Slow Food Movement” (http://www.slowfood.com), which exemplifies both a resistance to perceived cultural invasion through global food chains as well as an embedded view of the link between time, quality of life, taste, and tradition. According to the movement’s stated aims as described on its web-site, the qualities of time and pace are intimately associated with protecting the pleasures of the table from the homogenization of modern fast food. The focus is food, but the explicit and qualitative contrast is between “fast” and “slow” cultures. “Slow” is associated with conviviality, the protection of the environment and agriculture, and the preservation, or rediscovery, of taste. Time is quintessentially qualitative and substantive — and the basis for preferences. To that extent it is also firmly attached to the attributes of history and food. It is also interesting that, in one of the columns on that site, time (as in “slow” food) is associated with identity and, less surprisingly, tradition. Time is more than merely temporal: it is, for many, a mark of how we live. It is also, at least in this context, a mark of superiority: in the same way that one person might regard the indirect negotiation style of another culture as inefficient, the “slow food” avatars are likely to regard their passage of time over the dining table as more rewarding and probably more virtuous than that of the “food-to-go” people. Finally, I will make some limited observations drawn from the field of chronemics, which is defined as “the study of temporal communication, including the way people organize and react to time.”8 First, a historical analysis of the changes in cultural and philosophical perceptions of time suggests there has been a shift from a view of time as objective, as something that happens to us or as an absolute, Newtonian framework in which all events happen. Instead, chronemics focuses on time as a dimension of consciousness, as a way of organizing experience, and as a core element of human communication that reflects the ways in which people perceive and respond to (and in) time. Viewed this way, time is not an objective context in which all events happen but is instead one way of organizing not just events but also identities. Studies in chronemics reinforce intercultural studies that have found differences in the polychronic and monochronic perception and uses of time. A “polychronic” perception of time is one in which events are not sharply or sequentially distinguished and multiple events can be seen as happening at the same time. A “monochronic” perception is one that analytically separates and sequences events. The immediate implication is that time is not only a matter of how events are perceived, sequenced, and completed; it is also a matter of how people regard relationships across time. Time may also be more generally associated with the degree to which a culture or society can be described as “slow” or “fast” (see also Levine and Norenzayan 1999) and is sometimes viewed as a commodity that some people have “more” of than others. Time may be compressed by greater Negotiation Journal January 2006 35 urgency of deadlines and obligations, thus, time and urgency have been associated more with individualistic societies in which the combination of fast pace and diminished social support is likely to contribute to higher levels of burnout and stress (see again Levine and Norenzayan 1999). Finally, time is typically organized according to different needs and contexts, all the more so in industrialized societies where clearer distinctions tend to be drawn between leisure time, formal or institutional time, and technical or scientific time. Culture and Negotiation It is tempting to reach generalized and familiar conclusions about cultures, especially cultures other than one’s own. This can take on a larger sweep when we are not merely comparing one national group with another, but rather whole blocs of nations with each other — when, for example, we presume to talk of the impact of cultural characteristics of “the West” when negotiating in “Asia” and make an observation like this one: “The Western nation-state . . . with its emphasis on logic and the rational, contrasts with Asian states where the seemingly irrational often dominates, and where standards of law and religion are different” (Belbutowski 1996). Not only does this kind of overgeneralizing confound culture with nationality and citizenship, but imposes on foreign cultures and nations a uniformity that people resist when such generalizations are applied to their own cultures. This kind of stereotyping can also lead one to measure the cultural practices of the other against our own, where our practice or belief becomes the norm, thus encouraging claims of cultural superiority. (This is one thing when stating a preference for a three-hour dinner over a hamburger, but quite another when asserting that that kind of difference somehow embodies the essence of cultural and national differences.) This is probably, at least informally, inevitable: as travelers and tourists we see the others’ world through our own eyes.9 Obviously, the risks and implications become very serious, however, when perception turns to judgment and that judgment precipitates action, and we then seek to justify that action in terms of the simplicity, folly, or threat of the other’s culture.10 In approaching the relationship between culture and negotiation, we are faced with several options. At one end of the scale is the view that negotiation is a universal phenomenon, that culture is essentially private and only a secondary determinant to negotiation behavior, and that negotiation is a rational strategy. Alternatively, some take the view that culture is relevant to the process of negotiation; that there are cultural differences identifiable as key characteristics, and that intercultural negotiation can be perceived as requiring a range of strategies. Others argue more strongly that culture is central to the shaping of perceptions of conflict and participation in the process and that the strategies offered in books on intercultural negotiation are superficial representations of the “other” culture, 36 Ian Macduff Your Pace or Mine? representing little more than etiquette or recognition. Finally, there are those who would argue that cultural differences convey radically different and incommunicable views of the world and that such differences outweigh the possibility of reaching a common ground. Whereas the first view represents the assumption that communication is always possible and rarely impeded by cultural or identity factors, the fourth represents the argument that differences are incommensurable and that negotiation is always likely to be both affected and inhibited by difference. If the first view minimizes the impact of culture, the fourth maximizes it to the point where communication is impossible (Avruch 2003). Time and Negotiation Time as an aspect of cultural life is of interest both because of the observed variations in the meanings attributed to time across cultures — its speed, passage, and meaning; and our location in the past, present, or future — and because of the relationship between increasingly global time regimes and the persistence of local perceptions of time. The things we have in common, such as the passage of time, aging, seasons, and diurnal rhythms, also separate us by virtue of the ways in which we live as much in the perception of time as in the reality.11 Thus, it seems inevitable that the social practices of bargaining, dialogue, and negotiation are shaped by the actors’ experiences of time. Just as isolating culture as a key variable in shaping negotiations can be risky, seeking to isolate and define the impact of cultural perceptions of time on negotiation poses its own challenges. Although time is just one thread in the web of culture, perceptions of time have been regularly identified in studies of the dimensions of cultural difference; and topics examined have included aspects of time likely to be relevant to Western negotiators, such as punctuality. As Guy Olivier Faure and Jeffrey Rubin wrote, Cross-cultural differences in the understanding of time also may disturb the process of negotiation. In the West time is conceived of as something akin to a commodity in limited supply; just like a good, it can be saved, wasted, controlled, or organized. In contrast, in the Near East time is not a phenomenon characterized by scarcity. As a result, disparate conceptions of time may complicate the important task of respecting the general time frame of the deadlines established for a particular negotiation (Faure and Rubin 1993: 11). Similarly, Richard Brislin and Tomoko Yoshida (1994) also noted differences between cultures in perceptions of punctuality. How time is perceived across cultures is given more substance in the analysis of Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner (1997), who approached the question from the point of view of business management Negotiation Journal January 2006 37 and negotiation. The idea of clock time, which was introduced to the working masses in the industrialized West during the Industrial Revolution, enshrined punctuality as a social value and made the uniform standardization of the length of the paid working day possible. Globalization now seems to be extending that “work day” — technology makes it possible to be “plugged-in” twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week; one is often expected to be available to clients and customers at work in another time zone, even if one is “off the clock” (Goudsblom 2001). Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997) argue, however, that these developments have not completely eliminated nonindustrial perceptions of time and the distinctions we may draw between formal and informal time and between work and leisure time (see also Goudsblom 2001). Time retains certain symbolic and cultural values that still challenge and occasionally subvert the imperatives of globalization. Indeed, the Slow Food Movement may be an indicator of growing resistance to the imperious clock time of the “24/7” and “always-on” world. Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner further distinguish cultural perceptions of time as either sequential or synchronic. In synchronic cultures, time involves the management of multiple activities and interchangeable sequences, and punctuality competes with other cultural values, such as relationships, obligations, and hierarchy. Such cultures tend to be simultaneously more communitarian and particularist. Status tends to be based more on ascription or on collectively conferred or inherited status and “durable characteristics” (1997: 132) such as gender or age rather than of “achieved” or more individually attained status. In sequential cultures, on the other hand, time is metaphorically perceived as a line, the ordering of time is “efficient,” punctuality is given prime value, and time is a limited commodity. Sequential cultures tend to be more instrumental in their attitudes toward relationships; the present activity is viewed as a means of achieving future goals, status is more fragile and performance-based, and connections can be discarded for personal gain. Several points may be taken from this analysis. Bearing in mind the risks of generalizations about national types, influential, (if unconscious) time-related values seem to shape intercultural communications. And these perceptions can be expected to affect relationships. Finally, differences in behaviors related to timekeeping, prioritizing, task completion, and punctuality that can cause actors in negotiation to judge each other negatively may arise from differences in their underlying cultural perceptions of time. Scholars have also drawn a distinction between cultures in terms of the weight given to the past, present, and future — that is, the orientation toward a “time horizon.” One of the difficulties that has arisen, for example, in the ongoing negotiations in New Zealand between the indigenous Maori and the Crown concerning compensation for historical land confiscations is that, according to Maori perceptions, “history” and its obligations are 38 Ian Macduff Your Pace or Mine? not wholly in the past but also in the future. To put it at its simplest, Maori negotiators bring with them the wieght of their perceived obligations not only to future generations (to secure financial redress, for example) but also to their ancestors, to honor tribal and ancestral memory. Time, in this sense, carries the weight of the “presence” of the past and the obligations of that past to the future, with different meanings for the negotiation parties and for their constituencies.12 Time, of course, is often itself an issue to be negotiated or a source of conflict to be resolved, affecting perceptions of what good outcomes might be and of how long the negotiation process should take. This is true not only when the substance of the negotiations concerns matters of history but also when issues of time have a commercial impact (for capitalists, for example, “time is money”). At the very least, the recognition that there may be competing perceptions of the meaning of time and history should alert negotiators to the potentially disruptive impact of these perceptions and to the opportunity to develop common bases for goal setting and task-orientation. Richard Brislin and Eugene Kim (2003) provided an analysis of ten aspects of time in which they distinguished between the perceived flexibility of time and the pace of time. Flexibility encompasses punctuality, clock time versus event time, the overlaps between work and social time, and polychronic/synchronic distinction. These distinctions are typically unarticulated and unconscious: most of us, if asked, would not consciously consider that in making arrangements to meet, for example, there may be a difference between a literal time (“8:30 P.M.”) and a broadly defined event (“dinner”). Under the category of pace, Brislin and Kim (2003) placed attitudes toward waiting and queues; patience or impatience about (perceived) delays; orientations to the past, present, and future; the symbolic or metaphoric value of time; and perceptions about the “efficient” use of time. Interestingly, they also suggested that this category includes an aspect of behavior directly related to the mechanics of negotiation: one’s degree of comfort with long silences. A negotiator’s discomfort with such silences can reveal his or her preference to “use” time efficiently and move the negotiation along in a timely manner rather than accepting that the pace of events is other than — and probably slower than — she or he might prefer. In the Pacific Islands, for example, respect is accorded to a negotiation counterpart if an intervention or suggestion is followed by silence, which indicates that the suggestion is being considered. A negotiator unfamiliar with this convention risks filling the apparent gaps with further explanations or unnecessary verbiage. In a negotiation, implicit attitudes about time can affect the pace of the conversation, the degree to which the apparently available (i.e., “scheduled”) time is filled with activities that are perceived as extraneous or Negotiation Journal January 2006 39 irrelevant (social conversation, meals), and the setting of priorities. Parties with different cultural attitudes toward time will accord different priorities to the kinds of activities and small talk that may be necessary for building a negotiation relationship. Becoming More “Time Sensitive” in Negotiations What, then, can we make of the impact of, and our response to, these differences in the perception of time? Time’s effect on negotiations — crosscultural or otherwise — can, I believe, be broken down into three categories; the first two relate to the process of negotiations; the third one involves substance: • Punctuality and timeliness — the importance or lack of importance placed on being “on time” and getting the negotiations under way. • The use of time — the overall length of the negotiation and how such activities as relationship building, story telling, etc., are prioritized in terms of how much time is allotted for them. • Time as an issue within the negotiation — How far back in history does the discussion of relevant events, conflicts, grievances, etc., go?13 How far into the future do possible remedies extend? How can negotiators better manage conflicts created by actors’ differing perceptions of time? Let’s take punctuality as an example. First, we must acknowledge that perceptions and behaviors related to punctuality are not completely innate, nor are they fixed. If they were, there would be little scope for negotiation about such behavior. Rather, such behavior is more accurately seen as both culturally nuanced and open to choice. Thus, punctuality — or lack of it — is likely to be a shared trait not because it is innate or hard-wired in particular groups but because it is a matter of common practice. It is not immutable, but rather an individual and shared adaptation. Further, at least at an individual level, to be punctual (or not) might also be seen as a choice: whatever the conventions with which someone has lived, there is a degree of autonomy in specific instances.14 But perhaps most importantly, behaviors such as punctuality, like other important elements of a negotiation, can be seen as open to the creation of an equilibrium between the parties (Basu and Weibull 2002). There are at least two aspects to this: one is that time and timing are matters that can be expressly on the table for agreement; the other is that they can be more implicit elements of either party’s leverage, especially if time is, in contractual matters, for example, of the essence to the negotiation. Several options are open to negotiators in situations where punctuality is an issue. First, there is simply value in knowing that time can make a difference, not only in terms of the familiar features of “timekeeping” but also more subliminally in terms of the construction of relationships and 40 Ian Macduff Your Pace or Mine? self-image. This kind of information, particularly the more subtle analyses such as Brislin and Kim’s (2003), provides the first steps toward developing what Michelle LeBaron (2003: passim) refers to as “cultural fluency,” which can be an important negotiation skill in itself. Having that information allows for a greater degree of conscious analysis of the possibility that time shapes a negotiation. A more fully developed understanding of time may both permit negotiators to recognize the extent to which such behaviors as punctuality are culturally predisposed and discourage them from judging the other party inappropriately when the other party’s behaviors do not fulfill the negotiators’ expectations. Once both parties understand that they perceive punctuality differently and accord it different priorities, they can make this understanding explicit, removing it as a subterranean and unpredictable obstacle or source of tension. In naming and acknowledging the differences we may have in the use and perception of time, we diminish the opportunities for misunderstanding. Having made differing perceptions about time more explicit, negotiators may choose to create specific norms for their own conduct. If, as the preceding analysis suggests, time is a social construct, then it is not unrealistic to imagine that negotiators can agree on the norms and expectations that might be time-related. Time, in this respect, becomes a part of the process-oriented aspect of a negotiation. In the first instance, the “visiting” negotiator needs to be familiar with what are likely to be the conventions on the use of time — in social events, scenic visits, and the like — and build this into the allocated time for the negotiation. Second, having become aware of that likely use of time, the negotiator may well need to adjust his or her own expectations as to the “normal” duration of negotiations. Third, the negotiator will need to elicit agreements on procedural issues such as the starting time of meetings — bearing in mind the probable delicacy of such interventions if they are likely to be seen as prescriptions rather than as efforts to coordinate expectations. It may also be advisable to get some help. In the same way that we might need to rely on translators for language purposes, we may also need to rely on “cultural” translators or mediators. This tactic could be risky: the other party might suspect that the cultural mediator or translator is in some way also an agent; and this third party could effectively, if by default, become a party to the negotiation. There are also risks in the “translation” being partial, to the extent that the insider is so embedded in his or her own culture that they cannot fully explain or stand aside from the nuances of what is going on. That said, the assistance of third parties may often be the only practical route to understanding and convergence in intercultural negotiations. Increasingly, for example, it is possible to identity professionals whose work involves the facilitation of communication across cultures.15 Negotiation Journal January 2006 41 Finally, consciously incorporating time-related elements into a negotiation permits participants to engage deliberately in the kind of intercultural adaptation that Stephen Weiss (1994) suggests serves as a constructive alternative to denying or avoiding differences, or to expecting that the other parties can and ought to make the necessary adjustments. Time turns out to be, on closer examination, a more significant if less tangible element of many negotiations than it has been given credit for, especially to the extent that time is wrapped up not only in overt conduct but also in the typically unconscious construction of identity, status, and relationships. By discussing time and our differing perceptions about it more explicitly, we are more likely to avoid the pitfalls, frustrations, and judgments that frequently arise and to create more creative options for satisfying both parties’ interests. Discussions of cultural differences in negotiation frequently focus on the challenges that these differences create and on the strategic tools negotiators can employ to cope with the other parties’ views of the world. Taking the themes identified in the exploration of culture and time, I see two threads to the significance of time in negotiation: one is the experiential dimension, the recognition that time does mean different things not only across cultures but across most aspects of human communication (in the negotiations context this can be heard in the different ways that negotiators refer to the pace of events and the “presence” of the past). The other is the management dimension: the complex of understandings, narratives, and behaviors we share or construct to synchronize our perceptions and activities. Consequently, cross-cultural negotiators must pay attention to two elements of time. First, they must consider that time is not merely or obviously a matter of chronology, it is also a matter of assumptions, interpretations, and expectations shared by others and not always articulated or explicit. Second, they should be aware of the ways in which time is perceived and used in other cultures — the negotiator must literally devote time to gaining agreements and achieving commitments about time. Just as negotiation theory and practice have drawn our attention in recent years to the importance of process in negotiations, so too does the work on time suggest that this may require our specific attention. Left unacknowledged, perceptions of time are susceptible either to becoming inadvertent obstacles or deliberate sources of manipulation — the latter especially if one negotiation party knows that time matters in important ways to the other, not least in knowing that the visiting negotiator has already made a reservation for the flight home and needs to complete the deal within a limited timeframe. Whether we are talking of couples or of cultures who differ in their views of time and timeliness, knowing that time does matter in negotiations, we need to do two things. First, we must understand and acknowledge our and the other’s probable perceptions of time, the weight we give to punctuality, the likely scope of 42 Ian Macduff Your Pace or Mine? time as an agenda issue in the negotiation, the (dis)comfort we have with things “taking as long as they take.” Second, we must address these aspects of the negotiation, at the outset and throughout, as we would make explicit and address other elements of the negotiation process. In the same way that emotions unacknowledged can sabotage a negotiation but recognized ones can provide the core of the process of settlement, so time deliberately addressed is at least brought to the surface and not left as a significant yet subterranean component and potential source of frustration. If we return to the first part of the title of this paper, the time it takes to negotiate will be either “yours” or “mine” if left unstated; or it could be “ours” — and part of the negotiators’ equilibrium — if acknowledged as a component of the negotiation. NOTES 1. See, for example, Walther and Tidwell (1995). 2. See, for example, Ornstein (1969). 3. For example, Rao (n.d). 4. For example, Bohm (1980). 5. See Riskin (2004). See also the Harvard Negotiation Insight Initiative, available from http://www.pon.harvard.edu/research/projects/b_drp.php3 and Fox (2004). 6. Immediately we risk getting into difficulty here, recognizing the span of nations, cultures, ethnicities, and negotiation styles that are encompassed in that one term “Asian.” I use the term simply to avoid identifying the specific students or their national origins at this stage: the specifics of their cultural identity are less important to this story. 7. The risk and the temptation in generic guides to negotiating with other cultures is just this, that we know “Americans” or “Germans” or “the Chinese” have certain cultural characteristics and, as a result, negotiate in particular ways. While we satisfy our cultural stereotypes, we fail to capture the richness of and reasons for behavior as subtly nuanced as the perception of and metaphoric value of time. 8. Chronemics, as a discipline or field of study is not readily dated. It draws, together with studies of cultural differences in spatial relationships and language use, from general studies of cultural patterns in communication. See, for example: http://www.saintmarys.edu/~berdayes/vincehome/courses/comm200/notes/chronemicsf02. html; http://www.nicholaspackwood.com/nonverbal_9.html; http://www.saintmarys.edu/~berdayes/vincehome/courses/comm200/notes/chronemicsf02. html (time and temporal communication); http://www1.chapman.edu/comm/comm/faculty/thobbs/com401/gass/gass9.10/sld009.htm; http://www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/class/languages/teib/unit5b.htm 9. See the work of Clifford Geertz on the perils of “being there and writing here” or of occupying two cognitive and experiential worlds with different degrees of familiarity and fluency. 10. Belbutowski (1996) provides an example of this in commenting on the perception of time in Arab culture: “Time, then, in the Arab culture carries the vacuousness of the Indian yuga.” Whether this was an intentionally well-chosen word or not, the implication is that the other’s perception of time is in some way inferior, especially to the extent that “vacuous” carries the connotation of “unintelligent” or “irrational.” 11. As a brief diversion, pause to think of what you might understand by expressions such as “recently,” “soon,” “in a moment,” or even “tomorrow,” “immediately,” and “a couple of minutes.” Do you also, if asked if you would like a coffee, look at your watch to determine whether it’s “time” for that coffee? On a more serious note, recall also that recent commentators on conflicts such as those in the Balkans and Sri Lanka note that those immersed in the conflicts regard as “recent” those affronts to their people and identity that occurred centuries earlier. Negotiation Journal January 2006 43 12. A colleague in the Crown Law Office, the body responsible for representing the Crown in the negotiations between the state and Maori, comments that time is one of the major sources of tension in the settlement negotiations, where an agency working within proscribed time and fiscal limits meets a tradition that values the opportunity for its people to speak and to be heard without regard for the time it takes. Compare also with Lederach’s comment on “renegotiating history and identity”: “The world view of indigenous peoples suggests that story, place, and identity are linked. They understand that collective narrative and survival are connected. In other words, ‘time’ is not a commodity found in a linear sequence where the remote past and remote future are separated at the extreme ends. Time is best understood, as was written by the physicist Mbiti, as spacetime” (Lederach 2005: 146). 13. Particularly in approaching the resolution of enduring and violent conflicts, it is common that the parties will present narratives of grievance going well beyond immediate and recent events: disputants who are conflict-saturated will also saturate time with the conflict. See, for example, Barkan (2000) and Minow (2002). Counselors and mediators will also be well aware of cases in which disputants are tempted to invoke the whole litany and history of grievances. 14. This may be especially the case where “cultural” norms are used strategically: many negotiators will have found themselves in situations where behaviors presented as cultural imperatives are in fact either personal preferences or more flexible than indicated. 15. Consider, for example, the members of the Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research (SIETAR: http://www.sietar.org/). REFERENCES Avruch, K. 2003. Type I and type II errors in culturally sensitive conflict resolution practice. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20: 351–371. Barkan, E. 2000. The guilt of nations: Restitution and negotiating historical injustices. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Basu, K. and J. W. Weibull. 2002. Punctuality: A cultural trait as equilibrium. Working paper series (WP NO. 02-06). MIT Department of Economics. Available from http://papers.ssrn.com/ 5013/papers.cfm?abstract_id317621. Belbutowski, P. M. 1996. Strategic implications of cultures in conflict. Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly, (Spring): 39–42. Available from http://carlisle.army.mil/usawc/ paramters/96Spring/belbutow.htm Bohm, D. 1980. Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge. Brislin, R. and T. Yoshida. 1994. Intercultural communication training: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brislin, R. W. and E. S. Kim. 2003. Cultural diversity in people’s understanding and uses of time. Applied Psychology 52(3): 363–382. Faure, G. O. and J. Z. Rubin. (eds). 1993. Culture and negotiation, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fox, E. 2004. Bringing peace into the room. Negotiation Journal 20: 461–496. Gosden, C. 1994. Social being and time. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Goudsblom, J. 2001. The worm and the clock: On the genesis of a global time regime. In Time matters: Global and local time in Asian societies, edited by W. van Schendel and H. S. Nordholt. Amsterdam: VU Press. Le Baron, M. 2003. Bridging cultural conflict: A new approach for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lederach, J. P. 2005. The moral imagination: The art and soul of building peace. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Levine, R. V. and A. Norenzayan. 1999. The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30: 178–205. Minow, M. 2002. Breaking the cycles of hatred: Memory, law and repair. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ornstein, R. 1969. On the experience of time. New York: Penguin Books. Rao, V. n.d. How useful is time management theory? Covey’s time management matrix and its internationalization in terms of space-time mandalas. Available from http://www.anu.edu.au/ academicskills/files/VRSpace-time_mandalas_for_time_mgt.doc Riskin, L. 2004. Mindfulness: Foundational training for dispute resolution. Journal of Legal Education 54: 79. Trompenaars, F. and C. Hampden-Turner. 1997. Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. 44 Ian Macduff Your Pace or Mine? Walther, J. B. and L. C. Tidwell. 1995. Nonverbal cues in computer-mediated communication, and the effect of chronemics on relational communication. Journal of Organizational Computing 5: 355–378. Weiss, S. E. 1994. Negotiating with “Romans,” parts I and II. Sloan Management Review 35: 51; 60: 85–102. Negotiation Journal January 2006 45 The Journal of Social Psychology, 2001, 141(4), 477–493 Cultural Values and Happiness: An East–West Dialogue LUO LU Graduate Institute of Behavioural Sciences Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan ROBIN GILMOUR Department of Psychology University of Lancaster, United Kingdom SHU-FANG KAO Graduate Institute of Behavioural Sciences Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan ABSTRACT. Happiness as a state of mind may be universal, but its meaning is complex and ambiguous. The authors directly examined the relationships between cultural values and experiences of happiness in 2 samples, by using a measurement of values derived from Chinese culture and a measurement of subjective well-being balanced for sources of happiness salient in both the East and the West. The participants were university students—439 from an Eastern culture (Taiwan) and 344 from a Western culture (the United Kingdom). Although general patterns were similar in the 2 samples, the relationships between values and happiness were stronger in the Taiwanese sample than in the British sample. The values social integration and human-heartedness had culture-dependent effects on happiness, whereas the value Confucian work dynamism had a culture-general effect on happiness. Key words: British university students, Eastern cultural values, happiness, Taiwanese university students, Western cultural values FOR CENTURIES, scholars in many disciplines have studied happiness, or subjective well-being (SWB), and have defined it in ethical, theological, political, economic, and psychological terms (Diener, 1984; Veenhoven, 1984). Happiness is currently defined (a) as a predominance of positive over negative affect and (b) as satisfaction with life as a whole (Argyle, Martin, & Crossland, 1989; Diener). This research was supported by Grant NSC87-2413-H-037-001 from the National Science Council, Taiwan, ROC. Address correspondence to Luo Lu, Graduate Institute of Behavioural Sciences, Kaohsiung Medical University, No. 100 Shih-Chuan 1st Road, Kaohsiung City 807, Taiwan, ROC; luolu@cc.kmu.edu.tw or luolu@mail.nsysu.edu.tw (e-mail). 477 478 The Journal of Social Psychology In addition, happiness is conceptualized better as a trait than as a transient emotional state (Veenhoven, 1994). SWB researchers have progressed from early survey searches for “objective” external indicators (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Campbell, 1976) and scale development (Andrews & Withey; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) to explanations of psychological mechanisms of happiness (Argyle & Lu, 1990a, 1990b; Headey & Wearing, 1989; Lu & Lin, 1998; Lu & Shih, 1997a; Lu, Shih, Lin, & Ju, 1997) and even to large-scale cross-cultural comparisons (Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995; Veenhoven, 1995). One central issue, however, is that typical psychological research tends to be Western in origin, ideas, and instrumentation. Research in the West may well be culture bound in significant ways: Cross-cultural studies usually involve (a) applying measures derived from Western cultural traditions and (b) comparing results from different nations within a priori Western theoretical frameworks. There is a danger, therefore, of twisting non-Western cultures to create psychological equivalence (Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973). The word happiness did not appear in the Chinese language until recently. Fu, or fu-qi, is perhaps the closest equivalent of happiness in Chinese ancient writings. However, its definition, which is extremely vague, usually means “anything positive and good in life.” Wu (1991) pointed out that longevity, prosperity, health, peace, virtue, and a comfortable death are among the best values in life (i.e., fu-qi). Thus, according to folklore, Chinese people’s conception of happiness roughly includes material abundance, physical health, a virtuous and peaceful life, and relief of anxiety about death. In the Book of Change, one of the oldest and most influential philosophical works in China, everything from the cosmos to human life is viewed as a neverending and cyclic process of change—between good and bad, happiness and misery, well-being and ill-being. According to the ancient Yin–Yang theory, the universe consists of two basic opposing principles or natures, Yin and Yang. The change of relationships between those two forces formed all creations, which are still constantly changing. The ultimate aspiration of the Chinese conception of well-being is a state of homeostasis in nature, human societies, and individual human beings, brought about by the harmonious relationships between Yin and Yang. The ancient Chinese thinking of Taoism echoed such a philosophy of submission to, rather than control over, over the environment. Lao Tzu warned against the endless striving for material accumulation and worldly hedonism and pointed out that good things are inevitably followed by bad things; similarly, misfortune is replaced by blessing. Instead, he preached the natural way of life, which is simple, spontaneous, tranquil, weak, and—most important—inactive (wu-wei)—that is, taking no action that is contrary to nature. In other words, one should let nature take its own course. However, ancient Chinese philosophy is marked by dualism. Two systems represent the wisdom of the laboring masses and the wisdom of the educated elite (i.e., ethics for ordinary people vs. ethics for scholars). The aforementioned folk- Lu, Gilmour, & Kao 479 lore about fu, or fu-qi, exemplifies the former system (i.e., ethics for ordinary people), whereas the Taoism founded by Lao Tzu belongs to the latter system (i.e., ethics for the educated elite), which assumes a cultural and moral higher ground over the former. Adherents of Taoism regard goals and principles such as inactivity (wu-wei) as ideals in human life that only a worthy few can achieve through endless introspection and self-cultivation. In contrast, ideals like fu, or fu-qi, are guidelines for the masses in everyday life. Because researchers of happiness aim to understand the subjective experiences of the general population, the wisdom of the masses and the ethics of ordinary people should be at the forefront, whereas the ethics of the elite and scholars should be regarded as background. The more worldly Confucian philosophy has teachings for both the scholars and lay people and, hence, is undoubtedly the dominant value system in Chinese societies. It has been the most powerful influence shaping the Chinese culture and the conceptions of Chinese people for thousands of years. Confucian philosophy presupposes that the life of each individual is only a link in that person’s family lineage and that each individual is a continuation of his or her ancestors. One can apply the same reasoning to the person’s offspring. Although such teaching does not necessarily take the form of belief in reincarnation, it puts the family or clan in the center of one’s entire life. Unlike Western cultures dominated by Christianity, Chinese culture does not proclaim the pursuit of salvation in the next life as the ultimate concern; rather, it advocates striving to expand and preserve the prosperity and vitality of one’s family: A person must work hard and be frugal to accumulate material resources, to obtain respectable social status, to suppress selfish desires, to lead a virtuous life, and to fulfill social duties. Emphasizing the importance of social interaction, Wu (1992) asserted that one can achieve Confucian-style happiness through “knowledge, benevolence, and harmony of the group” (p. 37). Confucian philosophy stresses the collective welfare of the family or clan (extending to society and the entire human race) more than individual welfare; it emphasizes integration and harmony among man, society, and nature. Confucianism thus provides the most comprehensive framework for understanding the Chinese conception of happiness. Yang and Cheng (1987) conceptualized the Confucian values preserved in Taiwan as four groups. Family variables include family and clan responsibilities and obedience to one’s elders. Group variables include acceptance of the hierarchical structure of society; trust in and obedience to authority; and a commitment to the solidarity, harmony, and norms of the group. Job-orientation variables include education, skills, hard work, and frugality. Disposition variables include austerity, calmness, humility, and self-control. In a similar vein, a group of scholars (The Chinese Culture Connection, 1987) developed the Chinese Value Survey (CVS), which consists of four dimensions of cultural values: social integration, human-heartedness, Confucian work dynamism, and moral discipline. These not only were akin to the Chinese culture but also proved valid in subsequent large-scale cross-cultural studies (Bond, 480 The Journal of Social Psychology 1988; The Chinese Culture Connection). People in non-Chinese societies also experienced those salient Chinese cultural values. Thus, conceiving and developing such an instrument outside a Western cultural tradition has opened up new theoretical possibilities. At the very least, cross-cultural researchers can benefit substantially from the triangulation offered by the simultaneous use of instruments, perspectives, or both from different cultures. As scholars have observed, the Chinese philosophies have a theme parallel to the underlying theme in Western philosophies. The major issues of concern for Western philosophers are “knowledge” and “truth,” whereas those for Chinese philosophers are “action” and “practice” (Hwang, 1995). Chinese philosophy is, in fact, a practical philosophy—the “philosophy of happiness” (Chiang, 1996, p. 1). Of course, happiness here does not mean narrow sensual hedonism; rather, it refers to a tranquil state of mind achieved through harmony with other people, with society, and with nature. As implied in the foregoing review of Chinese philosophical thought, philosophers of every school have prescribed and preached paths to happiness, although they have not clearly defined happiness. In short, the way to happiness is to practice various important cultural values advocated by the philosophers, especially by Confucian philosophers; practicing those values should, then, lead to happiness in life. Cultural values can be a major force in determining the conception of happiness and, consequently, in constricting its subjective experiences. In a qualitative study of sources of happiness among Chinese in Taiwan, researchers found evidence of the distinctive features of the Chinese conception of happiness described earlier—in particular, harmony of interpersonal relationships, achievement at work, and contentment with life (Lu & Shih, 1997b). An alternative approach to the East–West connection (or disconnection) is to examine directly the relationships between cultural values and happiness in different nations. Existing cross-cultural comparisons suggest that individualism is the only persistent correlate of SWB when other predictors are controlled (Diener, Diener, et al., 1995). However, the measures of both cultural values and SWB were, once again, culture bound and Western; not surprisingly, therefore, Western happiness was correlated consistently with the Western value of individualism. To counter this cultural bias, one must incorporate Eastern as well as Western perspectives into cross-cultural studies. Most existing quantitative comparisons of happiness across nations have used materials in two world databases compiled by Veenhoven (1993) and Micholas (1991). The former (Veenhoven, 1993) consists of nationwide surveys conducted in various countries with various measures, mostly single items. Therefore, researchers had to transform the data into a uniform 0–10 rating scale, which may have introduced subjectivity and affected internal validity. The sample in the latter database (Micholas) comprised college students in 39 countries, and the researcher used a uniform battery of instruments. In addition to the concern about cultural nonequivalence expressed earlier, most of those students had back- Lu, Gilmour, & Kao 481 grounds in the social sciences. Therefore, they were not necessarily representative of even the general student populations in their respective countries; furthermore, the sample size in some countries was very small (Ns = 91 for Colombia and 149 for the then Soviet Union, respectively). One problem common to both databases was the overrepresentation of developed Western countries and the underrepresentation of poorer Eastern, African, and South American nations. Despite such methodological concerns, evidence from those databases (Micholas, 1991; Veenhoven, 1993) showed substantial national differences in happiness, especially across the East (Asian)–West (European/North American) divide. Those differences were not due to language problems, familiarity with the happiness concept, or social desirability influences (Veenhoven, 1987). In addition, the happiness differentials among Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and U.S. students were not attributable to Asian modesty, the tendency to appear average, fear of fate, social desirability, or social norms for emotional expressiveness (Diener, Suh, Smith, & Shao, 1995). What, then, might explain those cross-cultural differences in happiness? Veenhoven (1995) suggested livability as a macro-level social indicator of national happiness, whereas Diener and others (Diener, Diener, et al., 1995) asserted that individualism was the only reliable predictor of happiness after they controlled for statistical errors. Unfortunately, those researchers measured individualism as a national average on a single rating scale. An individual measure of culture (e.g., values) may be more appropriate and fruitful for psychological inquiry. Furthermore, researchers should attempt a more direct comparison of the East and the West with equal representation. In light of the foregoing critiques about possible cultural biases in SWB research, we compared a typical Eastern culture with a typical Western one in the present study. Our primary purpose was twofold: (a) to examine the pattern of relationships between cultural values and SWB across the East–West divide and (b) to determine the culture-dependent or culture-general effects of values on experiences of happiness. Our secondary purpose was also twofold: (a) to explore quantitative East–West differences in happiness and (b) to explore whether there are gender differences in happiness within and across cultures (Francis, Brown, Lester, & Philipchalk, 1998). In short, we examined how a Western sample experienced Chinese cultural values and the relationship of those values to happiness in the East and the West. In the present study, we chose Taiwanese and British samples as representatives of the East and the West, respectively, because they have occupied almost polar positions along dimensions of values (The Chinese Culture Connection, 1987; Hofstede, 1980). The most convenient cultural informants are university students, because they are highly literate, self-aware, and capable of articulating inner psychological states as well as fundamental beliefs (e.g., SWB and cultural values). In addition, students may not be very different from their fellow citizens in terms of happiness (Veenhoven, 1995); hence, one may regard students’ levels of happiness 482 The Journal of Social Psychology as representative of those in their respective countries (Diener, Diener, et al., 1995). We recruited both male and female students from different class levels and from the widest possible range of undergraduate majors. In both countries, we chose institutions and departments with similar admission rates, to ensure a basic level of sample comparability. Because Taiwan is ethnically homogeneous with more than 90% of its population Han Chinese, we included only Anglo-Saxon Whites in the British sample. Method Participants The 439 Taiwanese students (230 men, 209 women; mean age = 21.49 years, SD = 4.83) came from three universities in the city of Koahsiung. Their majors were medicine, nursing, literature, management, mechanics, sociology, and environmental sciences. The 344 British students (161 men, 183 women; mean age = 20.44 years, SD = 3.99) came from two universities in the cities of Lancaster and Oxford and were enrolled in 147 degree programs. Measurements Happiness. We used the 48-item Chinese Happiness Inventory (CHI; Lu & Shih, 1997a), which contains 20 “Eastern” items from a qualitative study conducted in Taiwan (Lu & Shih, 1997b), and 28 “Western” dimensions from the Oxford Happiness Inventory (Argyle et al., 1989). From the Eastern items, we formed six subscales: (a) Harmony of Interpersonal Relationships, (b) Praise and Respect From Others, (c) Satisfaction of Material Needs, (d) Achievement at Work, (e) Downward Social Comparisons, and (f) Peace of Mind. From the Western items, we formed seven subscales: (a) Optimism, (b) Social Commitment, (c) Positive Affect, (d) Contentment, (e) Fitness, (f) SelfSatisfaction, and (g) Mental Alertness (one sample item is given for each of the 13 subscales in the Appendix). Every item in the CHI has a group of four statements from which the respondents choose. Each statement represents a different level of subjective experience of happiness, which is then coded as 0, 1, 2, or 3. Such an unusual format of response is modeled (in reverse) after the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Ward, Mendelsohn, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961) to measure the positive skewed nature of the happiness construct (Lu & Shih, 1997a). Thus, the CHI taps subjective experiences pertaining to a variety of life domains and situations, as suggested by the brief titles of its 13 subscales. The CHI has good reliability and validity (Lu & Lin, 1998; Lu & Shih, 1997a; Lu et al., 1997). In the present study, the internal consistency alpha coefficients for the total scale were .94 for the Taiwanese students and .93 for the British students. Lu, Gilmour, & Kao 483 Values. We used the 40-item CVS (The Chinese Culture Connection, 1987), which measures four dimensions of values on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = of very little importance, 5 = of ultimate importance). The corresponding subscales are (a) Social Integration, (b) Human-Heartedness, (c) Confucian Work Dynamism, and (d) Moral Discipline. The CVS has good psychometric properties in cross-cultural studies (Bond, 1988; The Chinese Culture Connection). In the present study, the internal consistency alpha coefficients for the total scale were .93 for the Taiwanese students and .86 for the British students (one sample item is given of each of the 4 subscales in the Appendix). The CVS (The Chinese Culture Connection, 1987) has both Chinese and English versions, as does the Western portion of the CHI (Lu & Shih, 1997a). For the Eastern portion of the CHI, we followed a standardized back-translation process to produce an equivalent English version for use with the British students. For all subscales, higher scores indicate higher endorsement of the measured construct. Results We conducted Pearson correlation analysis between cultural values and happiness (see Table 1). In comparing the correlation matrices for the Taiwanese and British samples, we found that the general patterns were similar and mostly consistent with theoretical predictions. However, there were more pairs of significant correlations in the matrix of the Taiwanese sample. Overall, cultural values were correlated positively with nearly all dimensions of happiness for the Taiwanese students and with a few dimensions for the British students. Subsequent regression analyses provided more support for the pattern of relations between values and happiness for both the Taiwanese and the British samples. Cultural values were generally more predictive of happiness dimensions among the Taiwanese students: Social integration predicted 3, human-heartedness predicted 10, and Confucian work dynamism predicted 3 of the 13 happiness dimensions (average β = .22). Among the British students, social integration predicted 4, human-heartedness predicted 1, and Confucian work dynamism predicted 1 of the 13 happiness dimensions (average β = .21). Human-heartedness also predicted overall happiness among the Taiwanese students (β = .27, p < .01). In the foregoing regression analyses, we noticed that the role of values was varied, although the pattern across happiness dimensions was quite consistent across the two samples. For the Taiwanese sample, most significant relations between values and happiness were positive (81.25%), and only 3 of 16 (18.75%) were negative. In contrast, 50% of the significant relations between values and happiness were negative for the British sample. Could the role of values be culture dependent? Following Bond’s (1998) suggested flow-chart procedure for unpackaging culture at the individual level, we performed another series of hier- *p < .05. **p < .01. Happiness Optimism Social commitment Positive affect Contentment Fitness Self-satisfaction Mental alertness Personal relationships Respect Money Work achievement Downward social comparisons Peace of mind Variable .29** .31** .35** .20** .21** .19** .20** .19** .20** .16** .06 .19** .15** .19** .27** .26** .31** .19** .17** .16** .16** .16** .23** .11* .08 .16** .11* .18** Social integration .05 .10* .18** .17** .24** .09 .15** .12* .09 .13** .14** .06 .03 .13** Taiwanese sample HumanConfucian heartedness work dynamic .04 .15** .18** .16** .18** .12* .18** .12* .11* .15** .11* .09 –.01 .11* –.02 .07 .08 .05 .12* .08 –.01 .09 –.05 –.07 .12 –.06 .11 .00 Moral Social discipline integration –.06 .00 .07 .04 .14** .02 –.02 .06 –.01 .07 .04 –.09 .07 .08 –.06 .02 .04 –.03 .03 –.05 .01 .10 –.01 .08 .00 .01 .17** .13* British sample HumanConfucian heartedness work dynamic TABLE 1 Correlations Between Scores for Values and Scores for Happiness for the Taiwanese and British Samples –.05 .05 .05 –.06 .09 .00 .06 .09 .00 .09 –.05 .01 .15** .09 Moral discipline 484 The Journal of Social Psychology Lu, Gilmour, & Kao 485 archical multiple regressions. For this purpose, we pooled the Taiwanese and the British samples. At Step 1, we regressed a particular value against happiness in the pooled sample; at Step 2, we dummy coded the culture variable (1 = Taiwanese, 2 = British) and regressed it against happiness; finally, at Step 3, we regressed the Value × Culture interaction against the residual. The behavior of these interactive terms could offer clues about the culture dependence or culture generality of the effects of values on happiness. If the Value × Culture interaction was statistically significant, the relationship between values and happiness would be culture dependent. If the Value × Culture interaction was not statistically significant, the relationship between values and happiness would be culture general. Because moral discipline was not related to overall happiness or to any of its dimensions in the previous regression analyses, we repeated the procedure for social integration, human-heartedness, and Confucian work dynamism only (for details of the regression analyses along with zero-order correlations, see Table 2). The results revealed significant Social Integration × Culture (B = –1.65, p < .05) and Human-Heartedness × Culture interactions (B = –1.91, p < .01). However, the Confucian Work Dynamism × Culture interaction was not significant. We revealed the nature of those two significant interactions by plotting the mean scores of different subgroups (Figures 1 and 2). For the British students, there was no difference in happiness between the groups with low and high scores for social integration and human-heartedness, whereas for the Taiwanese students, there were significant differences in happiness between the groups with the low TABLE 2 Predicting Happiness: Unpackaging the Effects of Culture ∆R2 Variable R2 Social integration Culture Social Integration × Culture .04 .06 .07 .04*** .64*** .02*** 5.72*** .01* –1.65* 16.27*** Human-heartedness Culture Human-Heartedness × Culture .04 .06 .04*** .02*** .08 .02** Confucian work dynamism .01 Culture .04 Confucian Work Dynamism × Culture .04 .01** .03*** .00 B F df Zero-order correlation 1, 668 .19*** .16*** –.10** 1.23*** 5.74*** –1.91** .20*** .16*** 18.32*** 1, 674 .50** 6.26*** –1.27 –.11** .10** .16*** 10.15*** 1, 670 –.07 Note. Each variable indicates a new step in hierarchical regression. Bs and Fs were from the final equations. For culture, we coded Taiwanese as 1 and British as 2. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. 486 The Journal of Social Psychology Happiness and high scores, t(386) = 3.58, p < .001, for social integration and t(390) = 5.16, p < .001, for human-heartedness. The effects of social integration and humanheartedness seemed culture dependent: Higher endorsement for both values led to higher scores for happiness among the Taiwanese students but not among the British students. In contrast, the effect of Confucian work dynamism on happiness seemed culture general; higher endorsement of that value led to higher scores for happiness in both samples. We directly compared scores for happiness across cultures by using a 2 × 2 (Culture × Gender) analysis of variance. Results revealed a rather stable main effect Social integration Happiness FIGURE 1. The culture-dependent effects of social integration on happiness among Taiwanese and British university students. Human-heartedness FIGURE 2. The culture-dependent effects of human-heartedness on happiness among Taiwanese and British university students. Lu, Gilmour, & Kao 487 of culture on overall happiness and 6 of its 13 dimensions: With only one exception, the British students had higher scores for happiness than did the Taiwanese students (all ps < .001, two-tailed). There was also a stable main effect of gender on 8 of the happiness dimensions: The women were happier than the men (all ps < .05); however, there was no gender difference in scores for overall happiness. Additional analyses revealed no gender difference in values dimensions for the British sample. However, in the Taiwanese sample, the men scored higher (M = 38.35, SD = 5.25) than the women (M = 36.94, SD = 5.36) on social integration, t(425) = 2.74, p < .01; on Confucian work dynamism (Ms = 26.35 and 25.41, SDs = 4.26 and 4.41 for men and women, respectively), t(431) = 2.34, p < .05; and on moral discipline (Ms = 17.27 and 16.56, SDs = 2.90 and 2.90 for men and women, respectively), t(432) = 2.56, p < .05. However, there was no gender difference in scores for human-heartedness among the Taiwanese students. Discussion Although one can regard happiness as a positive state of mind, its specific meaning is unclear and ambiguous. As suggested earlier, Chinese culture offers rich possibilities to those seeking an alternative approach to exploring and understanding human happiness outside a Western cultural tradition. In the present study, we found that four fundamental dimensions of values consistent with Chinese cultural traditions were connected with happiness among the Taiwanese sample; that finding empirically supports the theoretical position that culture molds meanings and concepts (Bruner, 1990). Three dimensions of the Chinese values—social integration, human-heartedness, and Confucian work dynamism—were also connected to some aspects of happiness among the British students. In responding to the CVS (The Chinese Culture Connection, 1987), the British students had to “cut their feet to fit the shoes,” as an old Chinese proverb puts it. Therefore, when we used that Eastern instrument, cross-cultural evidence of convergence revealed robust dimensions of human happiness. Given that previous cross-cultural studies within a Western cultural tradition identified selfesteem (Diener & Diener, 1995) and individualism (Diener, Diener, et al., 1995) as strong predictors of SWB, a synergistic view of diversity would greatly benefit happiness research. More generally, such an approach would have significant implications for the development of social science beyond the limitations of its predominantly Western cultural origins. In general, cultural values had stronger effects on happiness for the Taiwanese sample than for the British sample. Because the CHI (Lu & Shih, 1997a) has a mixture of both Eastern and Western subscales, a detailed inspection of patterns of relations between values and the Eastern–Western happiness may be informative. In fact, the Western items are individual and internal, whereas the Eastern items are much more relational and, indeed, closer to the wording of values in the CVS. Could this similarity partly explain the results? A closer inspec- 488 The Journal of Social Psychology tion revealed that scores for the Taiwanese values significantly predicted scores for 5 of the 6 Eastern subscales (83.33%) and for 6 of the 7 Western subscales of happiness (85.71%). For the British sample, scores for values significantly predicted scores for 2 of the 6 Eastern subscales (33.33%) and for 2 of the 7 Western subscales of happiness (42.86%). Consequently, we observed no congruence pattern linking the cultural origin of values to the cultural origin of happiness conception. Hence, the emic contributions of Chinese cultural values to happiness research were not restricted to its Chinese aspects. The central aim of cross-cultural psychology is to analyze culture scientifically, or to unpackage at the psychological level culture’s effects on human behavior (Bond, 1998). As results of the present study indicate, Chinese values such as social integration, human-heartedness, and Confucian work dynamism make emic contributions to the study of happiness and help to balance any Western theoretical egocentrism. More unpackaging of culture is necessary to shed light on the debate about cultural universality versus cultural specificity. In the present study, the effects of social integration and human-heartedness on happiness were culture dependent, whereas the effect of Confucian work dynamism on happiness was culture general. According to the authors of the CVS (The Chinese Culture Connection, 1987), social integration reflects a broadly integrative, socially stabilizing emphasis; human-heartedness suggests a gentle and compassionate approach in contrast to a harsh, legalistic approach; and Confucian work dynamism reflects Confucian work ethics. Social integration and human-heartedness were correlated negatively with Hofstede’s (1980) power distance and individualism and were viewed as indicators of an underlying dimension called collectivism (The Chinese Culture Connection). Human-heartedness was also correlated with Hofstede’s masculinity–femininity dimension. Common to both dimensions is the opposition between human-centered and task-centered considerations in collective activities. Human-heartedness was then dubbed cultural compassion. In the present study, there was no gender difference in values dimensions for the British sample. However, in the Taiwanese sample, the men scored higher than the women on social integration, Confucian work dynamism, and moral discipline; there was no gender difference in scores for human-heartedness. In a male-dominated patriarchal society, men are expected to endorse more cultural values, to transmit them more actively, and to defend them more rigorously. Those are exactly the results that we found with the present Taiwanese sample. Taiwan, ranked 44/53 on Hofstede’s (1980) measure of individualism, is undoubtedly a highly collectivistic society, in sharp contrast to Britain (ranked 3/53). Social integration and human-heartedness reflect key themes in the Chinese cultural teachings: interpersonal benevolence and compassion, group solidarity and harmony, hierarchy and stability, holistic integration and homeostasis, and collective rather than individual welfare. Endorsement and daily practice of those values, then, indicate social fitting and undoubtedly lead to higher person- Lu, Gilmour, & Kao 489 al happiness among the Chinese, as we found in the present study. However, the same values may be different from the dominant values in Western societies, which emphasize individualistic striving and achievement, a legalistic approach, control, advancement, and egalitarian social arrangements. Thus, social integration and human-heartedness may not have been good guides to happiness for the British sample. There is corroborative evidence of the culture-dependent effects of values on happiness in a recent cross-cultural study: Kwan, Bond, and Singelis (1997) found that relationship harmony had a greater impact on life satisfaction in collectivistic cultures. However, Confucian work dynamism demonstrated a culture-general effect on happiness across the East–West divide. Confucian work ethics have two main components: (a) the creation of dedicated, motivated, responsible, and educated individuals and (b) the enhanced sense of commitment, organizational identity, and loyalty to various institutions (Kahn, 1979). It is clear that those traits have much in common with the prevailing Protestant work ethic. Both are connected with high achievement motivation and even with national economic growth (Hick & Redding, 1983; Kahn, 1979). Because work occupies a central role in modern living everywhere, it is not surprising that endorsement and implementation of work ethics have a universally beneficial effect on happiness. The men and the women did not differ on overall happiness, but the women scored higher than the men on several dimensions of happiness. In single-culture studies, women have sometimes had a slight advantage in terms of reporting higher happiness than men) (Argyle, 1987; Diener, 1984; Lu, 1995). In a recent study, however, researchers found no gender differences on happiness in four English-speaking nations (Francis et al., 1998). The gender difference seems an unresolved issue, and more research is necessary, both within a single culture and across cultures. For direct comparisons of levels of happiness across cultures, we found a rather consistent difference in the present study: The British students had higher scores for happiness than did the Taiwanese students. This pattern is also consistent with previous findings that people in individualistic societies claim to be happier than their counterparts in collectivistic societies (Myers & Diener, 1995), although such studies suffer from the methodological flaws discussed earlier. Because we used a multi-item, multidimensional instrument to measure happiness across two culturally diverse nations, one cannot easily dismiss as artifacts our results of national differences on happiness. Instead, future researchers must continue to look for convincing explanations of what now appear to be real national differences in happiness. REFERENCES Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York: Plenum. Argyle, M. (1987). The psychology of happiness. London: Methuen. 490 The Journal of Social Psychology Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990a). Happiness and social skills. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1255–1261. Argyle, M., & Lu, L. (1990b). The happiness of extraverts. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1011–1017. Argyle, M., Martin, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Happiness as a function of personality and social encounters. In J. P. Forgas & J. M. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social psychology: An international perspective (pp. 189–203). New York: Elsevier NorthHolland. Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelsohn, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561–571. Bond, M. H. (1988). Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multicultural studies of values: The Rokeach and Chinese Value Surveys. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 1009–1015. Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures: Two ways forward. In J. G. Adair, D. Betanger, & R. L. Dion (Eds.), Advances in social science (Vol. 1, pp. 137–150). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press. Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Wiley. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Campbell, A. (1976). Subjective measures of well-being. American Psychologist, 31, 117–124. Chiang, C. M. (1996). Kuai le de ze xue: Zhong guo ren shen ze xue shi [The philosophy of happiness: A history of Chinese life philosophy]. Taipei, Taiwan: Hong Yie. The Chinese Culture Connection. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143–164. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and selfesteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 653–663. Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851–864. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. Diener, E., Suh, M., Smith, H., & Shao, L. (1995). National and cultural differences in reported subjective well-being: Why do they occur? Social Indicators Research, 31, 103–157. Francis, L. J., Brown, L. B., Lester, D., & Philipchalk, R. (1998). Happiness as stable extraversion: A cross-cultural examination of the reliability and validity of the Oxford Happiness Inventory among students in the UK, USA, Australia and Canada. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 167–171. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 731–739. Hick, G., & Redding, S. G. (1983). The story of the East Asian economic miracle (Pt. 1): Economic theory be damned. Euro–Asian Business Review, 2, 24–32. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hwang, K. K. (1995). Zhi shi yu xing dong: Zhong hua wen hua chuan tong de she hui xin li quan shi [Knowledge and action: A social psychological interpretation of Chinese cultural tradition]. Taipei, Taiwan: Psychological Publications. Kahn, H. (1979). World economic development: 1979 and beyond. London: Croom Helm. Kwan, V. S. Y., Bond, M. H., & Singelis, T. M. (1997). Pancultural explanations for life Lu, Gilmour, & Kao 491 satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1038–1051. Lu, L. (1995). The relationship between subjective well-being and psychosocial variables in Taiwan. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 351–357. Lu, L., & Lin, Y. Y. (1998). Family roles and happiness in adulthood. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 195–207. Lu, L., & Shih, J. B. (1997a). Personality and happiness: Is mental health a mediator? Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 249–256. Lu, L., & Shih, J. B. (1997b). Sources of happiness: A qualitative approach. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 181–187. Lu, L., Shih, J. B., Lin, Y. Y., & Ju, L. S. (1997). Personal and environmental correlates of happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 453–462. Micholas, A. C. (1991). Global report on student well-being. New York: Springer-Verlag. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10–19. Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel. Veenhoven, R. (1987). Cultural bias in ratings of perceived life quality: A comment on Ostroot & Snyder. Social Indicators Research, 19, 329–334. Veenhoven, R. (1993). Happiness in nations. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Risbo. Veenhoven, R. (1994). Is happiness a trait? Tests of the theory that a better society does not make people any happier. Social Indicators Research, 32, 101–160. Veenhoven, R. (1995). The cross-national pattern of happiness: Test of predictions implied in three theories of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 34, 33–68. Wu, J. H. (1992). Nei zai kuai le de yuan quan [Sources of inner happiness]. Taipei, Taiwan: Tong Da Books. Wu, Y. (1991). Shang shu xing ban [The new transcription of shang shu]. Taipei, Taiwan: Shan Min Books. Yang, K. S., & Cheng, P. S. (1987). Chuan tong jia zhi guan, ge ren xian dai xing ji zhu zhi xing wei: Hou lu jia xue shuo de yi xiang wei guan yan zheng [Confucianized values, individual modernity, and organizational behaviour: An empirical test of a postConfucian hypothesis]. Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica, 64, 1–49. APPENDIX The Chinese Happiness Inventory (Lu & Shih, 1997a) Eastern Subscales, Items, and Scale Values Harmony of Interpersonal Relationships Example: Item 29 I do not feel interested in being with family members. (0) I seldom feel interested in being with family members. (1) I often feel interested in being with family members. (2) I always feel interested in being with family members. (3) Praise and Respect From Others Example: Item 34 I am never praised by others. (0) I am seldom praised by others. (1) I am often praised by others. (2) I am always praised by others. (3) 492 The Journal of Social Psychology Satisfaction of Material Needs Example: Item 35 I do not have enough money to do what I like to do. (0) I seldom have enough money to do what I like to do. (1) I often have enough money to do what I like to do. (2) I always have enough money to do what I like to do. (3) Achievement at Work Example: Item 38 My performance is not recognized. (0) My performance is seldom recognized. (1) My performance is often recognized. (2) My performance is always recognized. (3) Downward Social Comparisons Example: Item 40 My fortune is worse than others’. (0) My fortune is about the same as others’. (1) My fortune is good. (2) My fortune is excellent. (3) Peace of Mind Example: Item 48 I do not understand the meaning of life. (0) I seldom understand the meaning of life. (1) I often understand the meaning of life. (2) I always understand the meaning of life. (3) Western Subscales, Items, and Scale Values Optimism Example: Item 2 I am not particularly optimistic about the future. (0) I feel optimistic about the future. (1) I feel I have so much to look forward to. (2) I feel that the future is overflowing with hope and promise. (3) Social Commitment Example: Item 21 I do not have fun with other people. (0) I sometimes have fun with other people. (1) I often have fun with other people. (2) I always have fun with other people. (3) Positive Affect Example: Item 18 I am never in a state of joy and elation. (0) I sometimes experience joy and elation. (1) I often experience joy and elation. (2) I am constantly in a state of joy and elation. (3) Lu, Gilmour, & Kao 493 Contentment Example: Item 7 I never have a good influence on events. (0) I occasionally have a good influence on events. (1) I often have a good influence on events. (2) I always have a good influence on events. (3) Fitness Example: Item 13 I don’t feel more energetic than usual. (0) I feel fairly energetic. (1) I feel very energetic. (2) I feel I have boundless energy. (3) Self-Satisfaction Example: Item 19 There is a gap between what I would like to do and what I have done. (0) I have done some of the things I wanted. (1) I have done many of the things I wanted. (2) I have done everything I ever wanted. (3) Mental Alertness Example: Item 11 I can work as well as before. (0) I find it easier to get started at doing things. (1) I find it no effort at all at doing things. (2) I feel able to take anything on. (3) The Chinese Values Survey Subscales and Items Social Integration Filial piety (obedience to parents, respect for parents, honoring ancestors, financial support of parents) Human-Heartedness Kindness (forgiveness, compassion) Confucian Work Dynamism Thrift Moral Discipline Keeping oneself disinterested and pure Received July 6, 1999 Accepted November 22, 1999 APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2003, 52 (3), 363–382 Cultural Diversity in People’s Understanding and Uses of Time BRISLIN AND KIM Blackwell Oxford, Applied APPS © 0269-994X July 0 1 3 52 Original Understanding 00 International 2003 UK Psychology: Article Publishing and Association Using an LtdInternational Time for Applied Review Psychology, 2003 Richard W. Brislin* and Eugene S. Kim University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaii La mondialisation et les projets commerciaux internationaux mettent fréquemment en relation des personnes relevant de cultures différentes. Hall soutient que la gestion du temps est un ‘langage silencieux’ qui affecte les conduites quiotidiennes. Les auteurs ont retenu dix concepts résumant l’impact de la culture sur les contact interculturels qui sont l’un des aspects des négociations dans les affaires internationales: 1. Le temps de l’horloge et celui de l’événement: respecte-t-on des programmes préétablis ou laisse-t-on l’événement suivre son cours naturel avant de passer à un autre événement? 2. La ponctualité: quel est le degré de sensibilité au non respect des horaires convenus? 3. La relation entre la tâche et le temps social pendant la journée de travail; 4. Se consacre-t-on à une seule activité à la fois ou à plusieurs en même temps? 5. Efficience vs efficacité; 6. Un rythme de vie lent ou accélér; 7. Comment réagiton aux longues périodes de silence? 8. Est-on plutôt tourné vers le passé, le présent ou l’avenir? 9. La dimension symbolique due temps; 10. L’importance respective du temps consacré au travail et aus loisirs. En s’appuyant sur ces dix concepts, les auteurs suggèrent quelques idées aux hommes d’affaires qui voyagent beaucoup dans des environnements culturels différents du leur et qui accepteur des séjours de longue durée dans l’autres pays. The global economy and international business ventures have brought many occasions for the development of interpersonal relationships among people who were socialised into different cultures. People’s use of time, according to Hall, is a “silent language” that affects their everyday behaviors. The authors identify ten concepts that summarise how culture affects intercultural interactions that are part of international business dealings: 1. Clock and event time: Do people follow set schedules or let the event take its natural course before moving to another event? 2. Punctuality: How sensitive are people to deviations from appointed times? 3. The relation between task and social time during the workday; 4. Whether people do one activity at a time or do many at once; 5. Efficiency vs. effectiveness; 6. Fast and slow paces of life; 7. How people deal with long periods of silence; 8. People’s time orientation: past, present and the future; 9. The symbolic meaning of time; 10. Cultural differences in importance * Address for correspondence: Richard W. Brislin, Department of Management and Industrial Relations, University of Hawaii at Manoa, College of Business Administration, 2404 Maile Way, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822. Email: brislinr@cba.hawaii.edu © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 364 BRISLIN AND KIM of work and leisure time. The authors also provide insights based on these ten concepts for business people who travel extensively to other cultures and who accept long-term assignments in other countries. INTRODUCTION Successful long-term international business ventures require the establishment of strong interpersonal relationships among people who were socialised into different cultures. In turn, the development of these relationships is dependent on understanding cultural similarities and differences that can have powerful effects on how people communicate with each other, make joint decisions, and follow through on agreements (Adler, 1997; Osland & Bird, 2000). When international business people are asked about their experiences when living in other countries, various aspects of how time is handled are very often discussed. Meetings were scheduled at a certain time but I was the only one there. I misread the preferences of other decision makers at a meeting and mistimed my suggestions. I couldn’t figure out why people seemed to be spending so much time socializing in the workplace and ignoring tasks that clearly needed attention. (common sojourner complaints analysed by Cushner & Brislin, 1996) We will argue that much cross-cultural research has been done on how people use time that can be applied in programs that prepare people for international assignments. When people (sojourners) are asked about important experiences in other cultures, time issues are very frequently mentioned. This means that time can be a good entry point into people’s thinking about their cross-cultural preparation. One of the first books that dealt with how people from one culture can learn to understand people from another dealt with time, which Edward Hall (1959) called The Silent Language. Since this influential book, various researchers and experienced international business people have written about how people in various cultures perceive, experience, and work with concepts related to time. The research and commentary allows us to provide ten general pieces of advice to business people who travel extensively to other cultures and who accept long-term assignments in other countries. For convenience, we will refer to people who move extensively among cultures as “sojourners”. There is always a danger in developing a list of issues that deal with cultural differences because there will always be individual exceptions. We feel that our list provides a good starting point for understanding cultural approaches involving time, but that the list needs to be modified as sojourners gain extensive intercultural experiences and learn to recognise exceptions to the generalisations. Our list consists of two major clusters and © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003. UNDERSTANDING AND USING TIME 365 within each cluster there are five related issues. The first cluster consists of issues relating to how people differ in their attitudes toward flexibility of time. The issues in the second cluster deal with people’s different attitudes toward the pace of time. WHAT COMES FIRST? DO PEOPLE CONTROL TIME OR DOES TIME CONTROL PEOPLE? The most significant issue from the first cluster of five concepts may be the distinction between clock and event time. A time schedule symbolised as “clock” represents official, formal, and task-oriented temporal concerns. This contrasts with event time, which gives attention to interpersonal relationships among people. The remaining four concepts within the first cluster are highly related to this clock versus event time distinction. 1. Clock and Event Time International business people, as a first step, should determine whether the clock directs behavior or whether behavior is determined by the natural course of events in which people find themselves. If people in a culture behave according to clock time, this means that they are careful about the times of scheduled appointments, make sure that their watches are running on time, and become irritated if others are careless about scheduled meetings. If people in a culture behave according to event time, then they organise their days around various events and participate in one event until it reaches its natural end and then begin another event (Levine, 1997). Again emphasising that people will encounter exceptions, clock time is found in North America, Western Europe, East Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. Event time is often found in South America, South Asia (Singapore may be an exception), and countries with developing economies where the necessity of attention to clock time (e.g. stock market openings and closings) is not yet fully part of people’s work habits (Levine & Norenzayan, 1999). The distinction between clock and event time can be captured in an examination of a workplace dilemma. A well-respected business person from another country, who brings the promise of a profitable joint venture, has a 1:30 p.m. appointment with a company executive. Just before 1:30 p.m., a department head in the company stops by the executive’s office with pictures of her daughter’s new baby. Who has claims on the executive time, the visiting business person or the department head? In a clock time culture, the answer is clear: the visiting business person with the appointment has priority. Given that the department head understands the norms of clock time, she will not be upset if the executive calls attention to his appointment and promises to stop to look at the pictures as soon as possible. In an event © International Association for Applied Psychology, 2003. 366 BRISLIN AND KIM FIGURE 1. Understanding cross-cultural differences in use of time. time culture, the department head has priority. A first time showing of baby pictures is an event! Events take time to run their course. The executive has to look at the pictures, talk about how good looking the baby is, discuss how proud the grandmother must be, call the mother on the phone to see how she and the baby are doing. Once this event ends, another event can start. The executive can then give attention to the 1:30 p.m. appointment. What should the visitor do? He should start another event. He might ask to look at the pictures and also admire them. If the executive leaves the office to call the mother, the visitor can discuss the joint venture with others who may later be involved. Or, the visitor can ask the executive’s secretary for any relevant documents that he might read until the actual meeting starts. The key point is that the visitor should enter the flow of events and not sit in a chair with a frown on his face. Our recommendation for how sojourners should think about their intercultural experiences is summarised in Figure 1. At times, decision makers know about clock and event time and make recommendations reflecting awareness of the distinction. In some competitive sports, there is great emphasis on time and the fastest athlete wins. Swimming is an example. Some swim coaches from event time cultures will send their best athletes to the United States where people talk about time constantly and coaches (and parents, for preteen and teenage swimmers) wear expensive watches around their necks. The goal of these recommended sojourns is to instill an appreciation of clock time, the basis for determining the winners of swim meets. An emphasis on clock time has other important implications. It allows coaches who believe in positive reinforcement to offer encouragin...
Purchase answer to see full attachment