Would you distribute the documentation for a new software product a year after the product had been released? Your first response is likely to be, “No, of course not.” But in the world of workplace learning and performance, companies do it all the time. Global support for employees and their training is usually an afterthought.

ASTD and i4cp’s ad hoc survey, “The Role of Learning in Globally Dispersed Workforces,” showed that only 24 percent of the surveyed companies transitioning to a global operation said the transition was smooth. With respect to preparing their globally dispersed workforce, 35 percent of companies, or less, taught basic job skills in the international operation, conducted orientation/onboarding, or taught industry knowledge to employees. Only 25 percent addressed cultural differences that affect management, and, not surprisingly, only 28 percent felt that learning initiatives in their global operations were successful. Unfortunately, this trend coincides with overall globalization efforts (outsourcing, offshoring, and global product development), where the failure rate has been 70 percent. An important lesson learned from early globalization efforts, however, was that “it needs to be done right the first time!” If not, companies lose money, status, respect, and relationships that were essential to their success. Such is the case with globalized e-learning.

E-learning has become an important tool for training a dispersed workforce because of its relatively low cost, variety of content, and pervasive formats. However, how effective is using e-learning as a solution when unprecedented numbers of employees are from different cultures or countries, and at least 25percent of multinational companies have employees speaking 10 or more different primary languages? To do it right the first time, any global e-learning initiative needs cultural analysis.

Cultural accessibility

Globalized e-learning needs to be culturally accessible, such that all learners are able to achieve the same learning outcomes (the same amount of effort to acquire relevant knowledge and skills), regardless of their country or culture of origin. However, e-learning courses are cultural artifacts, embedded with the cultural values, preferences, characteristics, and nuances of the culture that designed them, and inherently creating challenges for learners from other cultures. These differences range from the obvious, such as language, to more hidden differences, such as learning styles, values, and religious influences. The following cases illustrate the types of cultural adaptation that could or should be done in different situations. Each one describes possible solutions and their variations.

Translation

Translation refers to the simple act of changing vocabulary in an e-learning course to that of another language. The actual process of translation, however, is more complex. An United States–based software company with employees in India and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) planned a large upgrade to their software. The company designed an online course that consisted of screen shots of new features, comparisons of old features to their updated versions, and a live one-hour webinar for questions and answers. Everyone completed the required course, but it took non-Western learners 25 percent longer.

Successes. The course served its purpose well because the content was low-context (no hidden meanings, straightforward, and not likely to be misinterpreted). The learners also had prior knowledge of the content, and, because they worked for a U.S. technology company, they were familiar with e-learning and “American ways.” The linear, low-tech web-based course assured that learners outside of the United States had the bandwidth to take the course.

Challenges. Course designers assumed that the course did not require translation and were unaware of localization practices. The American course contained several idioms, colloquialisms, and other twists of the English language that made it more difficult to understand for the non-Westerners who spoke British English as a second language. Furthermore, whenever learners completed a section successfully, an icon for the “okay” hand-sign was displayed, which is offensive in many countries, not just in India.

Possible solutions. While strict translation into another language was not required in this instance, the use of Globalized English is a form of translation that improves learners’ ability to absorb meaning. A cultural analysis using targeted learners would have revealed these verbal nuances. Globalized English contains no contractions, uses concise language, and has no phrases ending with prepositions such as “make up” or “go over.” A simple glossary might have sufficed as a solution, also. Minor localization, which we will address next, would have eliminated offensive gestures or icons.

Localization

Localization addresses obvious visual and textual differences (user interfaces) found in other cultures. These include icons, symbols, gestures, color preferences, taboos, and others. Facing budget cuts in training and travel, a U.S. corporation designed a finance course for its Brazilian managers in its content management system (CMS). However, after several months, reports revealed that Brazilian learners never completed certain exercises and consequently, they appeared to be misapplying important financial concepts in their work.

Successes. The course designers used an accessible, low-tech platform for providing the course—one that also allowed them to update the course easily when needed. The fairly low-context topic of finance is typically well-suited to the linear interactivity and features of a CMS. However, designers overlooked critical cultural differences in their design and approach to teaching—differences that they could have avoided with analysis and testing.

Challenges. In the course, designers incorporated too many Americanisms and made assumptions about Brazilian financial practices. For example, in one exercise, the course asked Brazilian learners to solve a budget problem based on an example from the U.S. real estate industry that was entirely unfamiliar to them. Designers also referred to several American icons that had no meaning to learners, such as insurance agencies and brand names.

An insult to the Brazilians, who are proud of their Portuguese and African heritage, was to refer to them in the course as “Latin Americans.” The two biggest oversights, however, were related to distinct cultural differences. First, Brazilians typically prefer to develop trusting relationships before putting confidence in businesses as partners. In contrast, Americans are ready to “get down to business” immediately. Thus, using an e-learning course without personal interaction at some level created a trust and relationship gap between the Americans and Brazilians, of which the Americans were unaware.

Second, in Brazil, businesses typically have a caixa 2. This “cash account number 2” contains all money or assets that is kept off the books, hidden from official records and tax authorities. The e-learning course did not address this practical day-to-day scenario encountered by the Brazilian counterparts, which, in turn, threatened to undermine the financial practices of the company.

Possible solutions. A cultural analysis would have identified the issue of unfamiliar names and references, the cultural faux pas, and the irrelevant examples that designers could easily modify in the CMS. However, course creators overlooked the caixa 2 and the serious need for relationship building—both factors that could negatively affect not only learning but also business success. In fact, the caixa 2 challenge avails itself to treatment by modularization, discussed next.

Modularization

Reusable learning objects (RLOs) are alternative activities that accomplish the same learning objective but that use different formats, media, or teaching techniques. RLOs can be plugged in to a course to create variety and to accommodate different groups of learners or environments. Cross-cultural learning objects (XCLOs) are RLOs that specifically accommodate the cultural preferences of different learners, while still achieving the objective of the activity.

Following its assumption that adult learners prefer to resolve problems based on their own experiences, a well-intentioned U.S. training department acquired an off-the-shelf training course on problem solving for the company’s South Korean supervisors.  Learners accessed the course via the company’s learning management system. The learners all completed the course as required, but when a visiting U.S. manager asked them to demonstrate the model they had learned, none of them could do so.

Successes. The company saved money with an off-the-shelf course based on knowledge of Western learning theories. However, the solution only worked for the U.S. employees.

Challenges. The company wasted money with an off-the-shelf course based on knowledge of Western learning theories. A cultural analysis would have exposed several cultural barriers to teaching U.S.-style problem solving to Korean learners. In addition, buying an off-the-shelf course prohibited the course from being adapted to the needs of Korean learners. However, if the company had designed a course in a format that could incorporate RLOs, designers could have culturally adapted the course in a cost effective manner. For example, in this course, the problem-solving model suggested that supervisors gather monthly for a formal meeting with their managers to discuss their problems.

The problem-solving model condoned in the course strongly contrasted with the cultural styles, experiences, and environment of the Korean learners. They were not comfortable with the model’s open and direct approach. In contrast, Koreans would strive to protect group harmony and protect the chaemyon of HR personnel and the manager; in other words, they would not complain to their perceived superiors because they wanted to avoid embarrassing them. Additionally, the hierarchical nature of Korean society prevents lower-level supervisors from confronting or challenging their seniors.

Possible solutions. Assuming the course had been designed on a platform that supported the use of RLOs, the cultural analysis would have indicated the need to adapt the model to fit the style and culture of the Koreans. An XCLO could have been plugged in to accommodate the objective of the model—finding a way in which to expose problems and generate creative solutions—but be adapted to the Koreans’ cultural need for a less intrusive, anonymous approach, such as using a company survey to expose problems. This course, however, borders on the need to be created by Koreans, for Koreans, (a process called origination, discussed next) because the cultural values are so deeply embedded in the content that XCLOs might not adequately address the differences.

Origination

Origination simply means “start from scratch,” but with the full participation of the learners in the targeted culture. A U.S. company has great hopes for its new partnership in China. To get everyone on the same page, the company offered all executives a course on leadership. The course was interactive and media intensive with multiple learning modes. The course producers derived the content from the work of a U.S. expert on leadership skills.

In postcourse feedback, all managers rated the course as excellent. However, during a meeting between the U.S. and Chinese executive teams, the Chinese head of operations, who had worked in the United States, warned that his colleagues would not likely adopt the methods portrayed in the course. He stated, “Well, the principles are the same, but how we practice them is different.”

Successes. The company took the initiative to train executives on leadership, the course was well received, and everyone completed the course.

Challenges. The concepts of leadership, like several others (negotiation and conflict management), are deeply imbedded with the cultural values of those who designed the course. Who leads, and why? Is leadership learned or earned? Does leadership capability equate to role, status, position, or salary? The obvious challenge here is whether the course was at all right for the purpose. In China, a leader’s ability to manage relationships (guānxi) with employees is often valued more than any other leadership skill because the Chinese culture highly emphasizes collectivism.

Possible solutions. In this case, a cultural analysis would have revealed that the members of the two cultures practice leadership entirely differently, and thus, would have required uniquely different training (either by purchasing or creating a new course created in the Chinese culture). One advantage, however, that the company possessed was the executive who had lived in both cultures (a culturally exposed person or CEP). Typically, CEPs are involved in a cultural analysis, along with the targeted learners, because they often can identify the source of cultural differences, explain them, identify those critical to achieving equitable learning outcomes, and propose creative solutions.

Cultural analysis

Cultural analysis does not require country-specific experts. Instead, it requires knowing what to look for and where. In essence, the characteristics of the targeted learners and those of the proposed e-learning course must be compared and contrasted. The Cultural Adaptation Process (CAP) Model illustrates how to research cultural differences, test proposed adaptations, identify the most critical adaptations, and then modify courses to the needs and preferences of the targeted learners.

The advantages of the process are that (a) the research keeps solutions current, (b) the testing elicits feedback from the targeted learners, and (c) only adaptations that are critical to learning are implemented.

Targeted learners. On the learner side, four types of information are particularly relevant. Such differences influence content and instructional design:

1.         Learner environment reveals cultural exposure, motivation, techno-literacy, and other attributes.

2.         Cultural dimensions are researched categories across which cultures can be compared and contrasted; for example, individualism versus collectivism.

3.         Unique characteristics of learners in comparison with the overall population show what learners have in common across work cultures.

4.         Current research on learning and culture reveals styles and preferences of the targeted learners and potential adaptations to accommodate differences.

The e-learning course. To promote equitable learning outcomes, courses are modified depending on content, pedagogical approaches, and types of media used:

1.         Content analysis reveals the extent of cultural influence. Computer courses (Level 1) tend to be culturally neutral. In contrast, leadership courses (Level 4) are deeply imbedded with cultural values, ideologies, and worldviews.

2.         Pedagogical approaches get more complex as the content does.

3.         Media usage also gets more complex with content and pedagogy.

Proposed solutions. Four general types of solutions align with course complexity—translation, localization, modularization (XCLOs), and origination. However, each can be implemented in different ways and to different degrees. The goal of cultural analysis is to find the most critical yet cost-efficient adaptations to achieve equitable learning outcomes.

Testing proposed solutions. Methods for testing solutions include focus groups, surveys, observation, results, etc. Testing teams may include CEPs, country experts, interculturalists, web interface designers, etc. The most important members, however, are the targeted LEARNERS! Proposed solutions are irrelevant unless the learners confirm or verify their validity.

Conclusion

In “Reading the World” (T+D, February 2009) the author proponed “cultural synergetic intelligence,” or “…the ability to work, collaborate, cooperate, and innovate across cultural and linguistic barriers and borders [combining] emotional, social, and cultural intelligence…” For all of us, we often “don’t know what we don’t know” about culture. Members of all cultures assume that everyone else understands theirs. Unfortunately, many characteristics of Americans impede successful globalization—being very independent (with a dislike for seeking assistance), time bound, fact-oriented, and confident that “our way” is best. The business imperatives for training our globally dispersed workforce lie in recognizing the influence of cultural differences and providing a long overdue, supportive investment in cultural analysis. Ignoring cultural differences or maintaining an ethnocentric view is a direct threat to our globalization success.

Andrea Edmundson is the CEO of eWorldLearning Inc., a company specializing in adapting e-learning for use in other cultures; ceo@eWorldLearning.com.