User:Richardn10/Sandbox

Introduction
The Lewis Model of Cross-Cultural Communication was developed by Richard_D._Lewis, Richard Lewis and sets out to improve on other models in providing better treatment of Asian cultures, and being practical and targeted at professional contexts. Richard Lewis' model has received wide acceptance through his best-selling books, coaching at top levels of national government, consultancy to Fortune 500 companies, and through scientific validation.

The core of the model classifies cultural norms into Linear-Active, Multi-Active and Re-Active, or some combination. Broadly speaking, Northern Europe, North America and related countries are predominantly Linear-Active, following tasks sequentially using Platonic, Cartesian logic. Southern European, Latin, African and Middle-Eastern countries are typified as Multi-Active, centred on relationships and often pursuing multiple goals simultaneously. East Asia is typically Re-Active, following harmonising, solidarity-based strategies.

Whilst Lewis' writings recognise these can only be stereotypes, his model provides a practical framework for understanding and communicating with people of other cultures. The model can readily be expanded with other features, such as Hoefstede's cultural dimensions, seen in relation to Lewis' triangular representation.

Previous Cross-Cultural Models and Deficiencies
The growing demand of the multi-nationals in the 1980s for cross-cultural instruction led to the demand for new and practical systems of categorization of national characteristics. Categories, not single country cultures, were needed. How to summarize or simplify were clearly useful goals.

Cross-culturalists had grappled with this problem for years. Writers such as Hofstede chose dimensions. His 4-D model looked at power distance, collectivism v. individualism, femininity v. masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. Later he added long-term v. short-term orientation. Edward Hall classified groups as monochronic or polychronic, high or low context and past- or future-oriented. Trompenaars’ dimensions came out as universalist v. particularist, individualist v. collectivist, specific v. diffuse, achievement-oriented v. ascription and neutral v. emotional or affective. The German sociologist Tonnies dwelt on gemeinschaft v. gesellschaft cultures. Kluckholn saw 5 dimensions – attitude to problems – time, Nature, nature of man, form of activity and relation to one’s cultural compatriots. Samuel Huntington drew fault lines between civilisations – West European, Islam, Hindu, Orthodox, Japanese, Sinic and African.

Lewis' Background and Rationale for a New Model
Richard Lewis's skills as a linguist provided him distinct and strong insights into how cultures work. His recognised expertise and experience are noted on the page Richard_D._Lewis.

He asserts that world-views are often embedded in what people say without them realising it, causing unintentional clashes of values and avoidable misunderstandings. Language in fact constrains the types of things people can talk about and how they may relate to others.

In the 1970s and 1980s Lewis was closely involved in organizing language and culture courses for multi-national companies and government ministries. Their own cultural backgrounds varied considerably; and they were testing a large number of clients from 4 distinctly different linguistic areas:


 * Latin (France, Portugal)
 * Germanic (Germany, Sweden)
 * East Asian (Japan)
 * Uralic (Finland)

Lewis found that former attempts at cultural categorisation proved difficult for company or government training officers to use as tools for assessing the cultural capital that existed among their employees. He says that what they sought was a form of categorisation which would be easily understood, comprehensive in coverage and really succinct.

Lewis did not feel that any of the models described above met the practical criteria required. Tonnies appealed mainly to German audiences. Hall was sound and succinct, but did not dwell on solutions. Hofstede’s idea of judging people by their uncertainty avoidance and reaction to power distance, was novel, but only partly character-descriptive, while few training officers knew what he meant by masculinity and femininity. Trompenaars, having been pre-empted by Hofstede and Hall, compensated with a greater number of dimensions, which did little to provide a distinct definition of traits. Did one have employees who were diffuse, ascriptive, particularist, neutral or affective, and if so, what should one do with them? Huntington, who categorized along civilisation fault lines, did not address national differences.

The Lewis Model
Lewis explains his models starting from the perspective that different cultures have different traits.

Lewis’s model focuses on values and communication and how these affect behaviour, particularly in working life. The model is applied by Lewis to areas such as presentation, meetings, leadership, the language of management, motivation, teams and trust. It was developed as a practical tool which could easily be applied, in order to help employees behave in more productive ways in multicultural situations rather than purely as a means of analysis.

Although the model, as any model, is a simplification of reality, it is always presented as such, in the context of a description of the many and complex layers of culture – regional, educational, professional, gender, class, religious, generational, ethnic, corporate and personal.

Through personal cultural profiling, done by a web-based self-assessment (CultureActive) developed by Lewis, use of the model in practice - in other words during training - starts from each individual’s own profile, thus minimizing the dangers inherent in stereotyping.

The model itself can be illustrated by the table below which outlines the three main cultural categories Lewis uses, and some major characteristics of each:

Certain characteristics are more common in some cultures than others, according to Lewis, as one can see from the placement of countries on the following triangle:

Image goes here of country "tube map" when I get permission to upload.

The dots on the triangle represent the positions of people who have taken the web-based assessment at http://www.cultureactive.com. Individuals’ positions can be affected by any of the other layers of culture mentioned above, as well as by context. For example, one may be Korean, but if you are answering the CultureActive questionnaire in English at a USA business school, you may be primed by the language and the expectations of your environment to come out more linear than a Korean answering at home, in Korean.

The Lewis model explores how different cultures are programmed to view the world differently and behave in diverse ways, as well as offering tools such as ‘Cultural Horizons’ to help trainees focus on common ground:

Image goes here of cultural horizons when I get permission to upload.

It posits that communication is central to getting results across cultures and analyzes different national communication styles and listening habits through diagrams which take one through the different phases of a business negotiation in different cultures. This helps trainees understand their own style, and see where they may need to adapt when trying to get their message across to people from cultures who have different purposes in communication. For instance, linear people tend to communicate to give and receive information. Multi-active people tend to communicate to express opinions and build relationships, whereas reactive people tend to communicate in order to create harmony.

The CultureActive programme is in three main sections: fill in a 40 minute personal questionnaire, and have access to a large number of quizzes on different countries’ cultural characteristics, in general and in business. and trainers to consolidate the data for groups and sub-groups and create graphs and charts containing data which may be useful both for analysis and in training
 * 1) an assessment and feedback section where individuals
 * 1) an interactive database on 80 world cultures
 * 2) an administration area that allows administrators

The World Bank
The World Bank provides a case-study of a highly complex organisation. It uses the Lewis Model as its chosen practical approach for members to learn about self, their team members and clients within the same paradigm and through the same source of reference. The purposes were to enable this highly multi-cultural organisation to effectively teamwork internally and externally, and ensure their activities provided maximum benefit throughout the developing world.

Over five years, the Lewis model and related cross-cultural framework provided more than 3,000 of World Bank staff with a unique opportunity to examine cultural preferences in the work environment and suggest how to work with others in a diverse cultural setting capitalizing on others’ values and beliefs while gaining better insight into others’ behavior patterns. It helped distinguish between appearance and reality in team members’ behavior, identify commonalities and strengthen synergies. Additionally, it provided an opportunity to learn about various cultures and to compare one’s cultural style with a “national cultural profile” of a country or region of interest.

In other words, the Lewis framework provides a learner with a comprehensive paradigm and enough content to ensure a fluid progression from increased cultural awareness to tangible knowledge, and, ultimately, to fully-fledged skills and a refined mindset to be effective and appropriate while communicating and interacting across cultures.

The impact of the framework is reported in a Level 3 evaluation study conducted in 2005-2007. http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/239787/EG07-124%20Developing%20Multicultural%20Perpestives-An%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20World%20Bank's%20Cross-Cultural%20Training.pdf

Scientific Validation
The Lewis Model was subjected to a scientific experiment conducted by the University of Loughborough UK, in which members of countries characterised by the three cultural categories entered into negotiations. Game theory was applied with sophisticated statistical analysis to prove that the different categories of Linear-Active, Multi-Active and Reactive followed strategies consistent with Lewis' predictions.

The cited article uses an intercultural bargaining framework to analyze cooperation and conflict between buyers and sellers in intercultural negotiations. On the basis of game theoretical reasoning, culturally embedded bargaining patterns are transformed into culturally determined strategies in intercultural negotiations.

The cultural differences of the players can be seen in the initial offer, the strategic approach, the valuation of time, the frequency of rejection and the objectives of the negotiation. The clash of cultures is dealt with in nine scenarios to show potential conflicts and cooperation between the players.

Criticisms of the Lewis Model
The main criticism comes from the perceived lack of scientific validation of the Lewis Model. The Lewis model came initially from Lewis' own observations, though it has since been scrutinised as it has grown in popularity.

The model overlays individuals on the cultural triangle to show how their personal beliefs, values and behaviours correspond to different national cultures. However, this is an over-simplification. For example, a westerner may be highly multi-active or reactive but have a strong value not to lie or be misleading, though the model suggests that all reactives and multi-actives will regard truth as either dangerous or highly flexible respectively.