About corruption and lack of trust

People from particularist cultures sometimes want to make exceptions for certain people or circumstances when applying a rule. If people from universalist cultures want to apply rules in a strict manner, that is often seen as too strict, not very human and often unfair. The conclusion from a particularist point of view is that these people cannot be trusted as friends or partners.

But it is extremely important to understand that people from 'rules-first' (universalist) countries will say the same about people from particularist countries. They feel someone that wants to make an exception for a friend is corrupt and cannot be trusted.

This is all about dilemmas

Fons Trompenaars himself makes clear that the type of choices we have spoken about in this lesson are all dilemmas. A dilemma is a difficult choice. Whatever culture you are from, a dilemma is a difficult choice. You don't want to be confronted with a dilemma, whatever culture you are from. It helps if you keep in mind that we all struggle with this kind of choices. The best way to go is to learn from different perspectives. That is exactly what cultures do - they provide us with different perspectives, different approaches.

Recognize the tension

If you are in a situation where you - as a particularist - want to protect a friend but someone else wants to apply a rule (or law) and this is against the interest of your friend, the best thing to do is to acknowledge that there is a dilemma in the first place. When there is a dilemma there is always a difficult choice to make and there is more than one perspective. Should we protect a friend from something bad happening to them or should we respect a rule that they have broken? Most or all people will agree that most rules have some logic and that a world without rules would be pretty chaotic (less safe, not fair etc.). Also, most people will agree that if you can help a friend stay out of trouble, that is a 'logical' and often desirable thing to do.

Reconciliation

There are often creative ways to recognize both perspectives. Maksim could speak to his friend Andrei and suggest he would speak to the Captain and admit that he made a mistake. The Captain might very well understand the situation and not punish Andrei. Also, Maksim could choose to support Andrei afterwards in all kinds of ways. The Captain could choose to speak to everyone involved in person. Then the person that caused the damage can choose to tell the truth themselves. Of course, there is no easy solution. That's why we speak of a dilemma and one thing is certain: we will all be confronted with dilemmas now and then.

Tips as mentioned by Trompenaars

• Consider the merits of consistency and uniform procedures, as opposed to building informal networks and creating private understandings.
• Publicly signal changes (as opposed to pulling levers privately when things change).
• Be prepared for 'rational' and 'professional' (cold) arguments.
• Do not take impersonal 'let's get down to business' attitudes as rude.
• Keep in mind that universalists will often prefer to stick to what has been agreed on in writing, also if circumstances have changed.

Particularist vs. Universalist

Use the table below to understand different views