Collectivism

punctuality is not highly regarded in India, being kept waiting could also be a result of a conscious act of power execution. Being told that the person you have an appointment with is in a meeting, even though he might not be, is an obvious power demonstration that indicates his high status. It is meant to infer respect. It should be stressed that we do not mean to imply that Indians exercise power whenever possible, but rather that they are, because of their hierarchical society, more inclined to do so than Danes, who do it on a more moderate basis.

There does, however, seem to be a conflict between the Indian reluctance to take responsibility and their readiness to exercise power. We believe that the explanation can be found in the manager‟s fear of losing status, which means that he will avoid taking responsibility for something that is not completely his work. The actual execution of power lies in placing responsibility elsewhere.

Status affects the level of formality. This is true for societies in general, but it is more evident in cultures with a high power distance, such as the Indian culture. It is fair to assume that the level of formality decreases as the level of familiarity increases. Though theory suggests that India has a much higher power distance, and accordingly a higher level of formality, our Danish respondents seem to experience an informal communication style from their Indian counterparts. We find this very interesting, and believe it can be attributed to the Western values, which were discussed earlier.

as applicable today as they were earlier. Thus, the point of a coexistence of individualism and collectivism in Indian culture may be more appropriate. This dualism becomes obvious in the Indian appreciation of networking, a collectivistic trait, and in their aggressive approach to business, an individualistic trait. For that particular reason the Indian business person can be difficult to classify and it may be hard to establish a cultural stereotype⁷³.

Our Danish respondents experienced Indians as being more collectivistic than they were used to. This was evident in the Indians‟ use of back-ups at meetings, their wish to establish a personal relationship with their business partners and especially in the importance of networking. The Danish respondents were unable to understand the necessity of the numerous participants on the Indian side, especially because most of them did not contribute openly and actively to the actual negotiation. While this may be a mere expression of collectivistic behaviour, it may also be a way of intimidating the counterpart by displaying power and status.

Our data showed that sometimes Danes also turn out in large numbers. The straight-forward, individualistic explanation for this would be that they needed different experts to evaluate specific details. Another, more culturally sensitive explanation would be that the Danes have accepted and applied the Indian strategy and employed a geocentric approach in order to show their willingness to cooperate. Relationships and networking are important elements of Indian business, and as exemplified by one of the Indian respondents, what is most important is who you know and how you know them. Both Indian and Danish respondents agreed that this was essential when doing business. This may be where foreign business people will have most difficulties when attempting to do business in India. The criterion of success is having the right network and the challenge lies in finding a person with desirable connections.

Universalism and particularism

As Indians are particularists and therefore relationship-oriented their rationale prompts them to assess each business deal and business person separately, as no two cases are identical. This particularistic view was exemplified by one of the Indian respondents, who explained that it is not the quality of the work that is most important, but rather the in-group relationship. People in an in-group all benefit from mutual exploitation of the established networks. In contrast,

73 In general, stereotypes have negative connotations, and are therefore often avoided. However, when studying culture it is necessary to generalise, and when applied appropriately, they may be helpful in the initial

communication.

another Indian respondent believed that the ideal situation would be if people in your network are qualified to do the job, but if not, it is the qualifications that are most important. This rationale is more task-oriented and similar to Western values where business comes first. We believe that the differences of our Indian respondents‟ opinions may be explained by the generational shift, implying that the respondents are representatives of two different ways of conducting business. This change is turning India towards a more universalistic rationale, leaning against the one we know in the Western world. To Danes, rules are not to be deviated from, and the same rules apply to everyone. As one Danish respondent described it; the outcome of a situation is not determined by personal relationships, but rather by objective reasoning.

Networking

As previously mentioned, Indians are most comfortable with creating relations, while Danes tend to compartmentalise. This was clearly expressed by one of the Danish respondents who did not wish to include his business partners into his personal life. This is a typical individualistic, ethnocentric approach to a foreign culture. While it may be the least demanding strategy for a foreigner in India, it is most likely to also be the least profitable. Theory suggests that Denmark is an individualistic society and thus this method will usually be sufficient in Denmark, because focus is on the task at hand and not the relationships. This corresponds with our findings that Danes wish to separate their private life from their business life. But in India, it is essential to be personally involved in the business as well as in the business partners.

Though it might be boundary-breaking for a Dane to establish numerous close relationships with business partners, it is both necessary and favourable in India, as one of our Danish respondents experienced that he was able to make things happen faster and run more smoothly because of his relationship with a high-ranking Indian government official. This is clear evidence that it is crucial to establish in-group relationships, because Indians are more reluctant to do business with people from an out-group. We assume that Danes, too, prefer dealing with in-groups, but we assume that they are less dismissive of people from out-groups.