Chapter 12

Intercultural Communication Styles

Introduction

Based on the concept of context, Hall explained that, in a high-context (HC) culture, people usually establish their communication styles dependent on contextual factors such as what, why, when, who, and how to communicate with another person. Yet, in a low-context (LC) culture, one’s communication styles are independent of contextual factors, as mentioned earlier in this section. Instead, it is dependent on a contentbased factor in which words that are either verbally said or written are considered significant when collaborating with others such as in the global virtual team (GVT) work structure (Zakaria et al. 2012). If that is the case, people and organizations need to explore the impact of culture on one’s communicative behaviors.

In order to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation, it is important to comprehend the meaning in what a person says and how things are said—i.e., the communication style that one uses for generating ideas, exchanging opinions, sharing knowledge, and expressing ideas. In a similar vein, the way people arrive at a decision varies significantly from one culture to another since conflict is viewed differently based on the cultural context. Cultural differences may also impact the decision-making process, with individuals from LC cultures responding in a direct, confrontational way and expecting quick answers, whereas HC participants respond in an evasive and nonconfrontational manner, leading to an indirect, less active approach to resolution. Thus, the discussions in the following sections will detail out the distinctive differences between HC and LC communication styles.

Intercultural Communication Style: Indirect versus Direct

According to Hall (1976), he predicted that people from HC cultures would generally use an indirect style of communication. People in HC cultures are also more likely to be silent about their feelings and thoughts (Hall 1976). For HC people, one must read between the lines in order to understand the true meaning of a message (Deresky 2000). The concept of saving face, examined by Ting-Toomey (1999), theorizes that HC people are often cautious or ambiguous in their speech out of a desire to avoid causing embarrassment or humiliation to others. In this type of culture, conflicts are avoided at any cost. Conversely, LC participants expressed their opinions and intentions more freely and more often said exactly what they meant and what they wanted people to understand. They expressed themselves in a more explicit manner that supplied all the situational elements that are needed to understand their message (Hall 1976). In an LC culture, individuals tend to convey important messages through the use of explicit verbal codes.

HC people approach decision making holistically. The process requires complete information and a discussion of all the alternatives before making a decision (Takayama 1972).

Because of this elaborative discussion, the decision-making process is slower than for LC people. HC people tend to take their time in thinking through a matter and only then make a decision. They are considered be-ers, a culture that focuses on being (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 2000), allowing change to occur at its own slow pace. They do not rush things and view time as generational (Adler 1997). Our study of Civil Society list participants found an evidence of such behavior; for example, when arriving at a decision, HC participants used phrases like “after thinking about this…” showing that they have given their decision some thought and that their decision was made based on all considerations. In messages written using an HC communication style, “…information is less contextual, with less detail, more general references to the overall situation, and often more politeness strategies” (Thomas 1998, p. 13). LC participants, on the other hand, would straight away inform of their decision, and no indication was given of how long they considered the matter or how they arrived at a decision.

HC people also tend to remain silent in meetings; as a result, they are often very good observers and listeners. LC people, on the other hand, prefer to discuss alternatives in a preplanned sequence and make incremental decisions for each alternative that is discussed. They desire quick decisions, so attending a meeting with LC people means jumping into the matter right away. (Trompenaars’ metaphor for HC is the chief listener, while, for LC, it is the dauntless decision maker.)

Again, our Civil Society study found evidence of such behavior; in one particular incident, an LC Civil Society member jumped into a discussion and said, “I think that this issue is raging on and on. I know that people need to have the opportunity to choose and express opinions. I think that there also comes a time when the additions have to stop and we have to look at the list we have and choose,” and then went on to state what they thought is needed to be done.

LC people are apt to keep their focus on the agenda and get frustrated if the agenda is abandoned during a meeting, in contrast to meetings among HC people where matters may be repeatedly revisited or remain unresolved. According to Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (2000), LC people are the do-ers, action oriented and focused on doing, who believe that setting agendas can help them be more focused. LC people typically have plans carefully outlined, with specific deadlines and required progress reports. The exception to this is that, sometimes, LC people may prefer to have shallow information exchanges prior to a meeting so that, during the meeting, they can focus on making decisions and can exchange ideas, express opinions, and state their positions by presenting their arguments.

Bresnahan et al. (2002) also noted that HC communication styles use a nonassertive approach; they place less value on talk and emphasize more on the nonverbal aspects when presenting their ideas. Messages are sent in a subtle manner wherein the meanings are buried in their nonverbal cues as they tend to rely on fewer words—making it hard to comprehend or interpret its meanings. On the other hand, LC communication styles are direct and assertive as they value straightforward talk. Following from that, Bresnahan et al. observed that HC communication styles have two different underlying assumptions. When a communication takes place with the in-group* members, there is a shared understanding among the members.

The form of a message that HC individuals send to the in-group members is thus terse, containing restricted codes (Gudykunst et al. 1996). Restricted code means that a message does not contain verbose words; rather, the message is composed using shortened words, phrases, and sentences (like a secret code). The messages rely more on nonverbal elements such as tone of the message, the nature of relationship, social context, and the use of silence. Only the receiver or possibly another in-group member would be successful in decoding or interpreting the meaning of the message.

Similarly, when an HC communication takes place with an out-group* member with whom the message sender has no strong or prior relationship (for example, an acquaintance or a stranger), an individual does not usually provide a lot of personal information; his or her message is written at a superficial level, again producing a short message where no details are included. Because of this, the stranger receiving the message may have difficulty interpreting the message. Also, openness is not a key characteristic of HC communication. As such, an HC individual rarely discloses a large amount of personal information (Gudykunst & Kim 2002) to strangers. On the other hand, group-based information such as group memberships, status, and background are likely to be disclosed in such conversations (Gudykunst & Nishida 1986). Both assumptions mentioned earlier in this section explain the terse and short messages that are used in the HC communication style, whether written or spoken.

HC participants were not comfortable expressing their concerns forthrightly, which made their emails longer than those of LC participants. The participants had to read such email closely in order to understand the main concerns. Sometimes, a message contained many concerns, and, as a consequence, the messages failed to address the main, urgent problems that required actions or solutions.

Intercultural Communication Style: Ambiguous versus Detailed

In some other situations, during the WSIS participation, HC people do produce messages that are lengthy, inexact, and ambiguous. This is strongly evident in situations where an individual wants to avoid telling the truth about some situation for the fear of hurting someone’s feelings, embarrassing a person or himself or herself, or confronting a conflicting situation (Ferraro 2003; LeBaron 2003; Ting-Toomey 1999; Hall 1976). The ambiguous style is also used to protect the feelings of people whom an individual is in contact with, especially his or her in-group members or the group that he or she belongs to (Triandis 1994). In such cases, people will camouflage their meaning or bury their true intentions in long-drawn-out messages. HC people are also more comfortable with subtle, uncertain, and qualifier words such as maybe, perhaps, and probably (Okabe 1983, p. 34) embedded in the long texts to avoid giving an assertive or forceful impression to their message receivers. As Hall (1976) says, “…she will talk around and around the point, in effect putting all the pieces in place except the crucial one. Placing it properly—this keystone—is the role of his [or her] interlocutor” (p. 98).

Under some circumstances, HC people often intend to protect the feelings of their in-group members (Triandis 1994), or, when they want to avoid confrontation, they will write long messages, to the point that the messages can be incomprehensible to the LC audience who considers the message to be without substance or quality. But, because of their strong need for a harmonious environment and avoidance of conflict, HC people can also produce extremely effective, diplomatic, and tactful messages through their politeness strategy (Ferraro 2003; Okabe 1983).

In contrast, participants from LC cultures are more apt to separate issues from people (“don’t take it personally”), whereas the participants from HC cultures are more likely to blend the two and may take personal affront to a professional disagreement. Work and personal issues are integrated, and, thus, oftentimes, work disagreements are perceived as personal conflicts. The consequence for Civil Society participants is that the participants from LC cultures are more apt to view disagreements as an integral part of knowledge sharing—not only acceptable but also even a positive activity that encourages creative discourse—whereas HC participants may perceive open disagreement and confrontation as highly insulting and as causing both parties to lose face (Zakaria et al. 2004; Ting-Toomey 1999).

For the LC communication style, they often presented a detailed message to their members when collaborating. A detailed message contains extensive, elaborate explanations and descriptions and/or is full of instructions, procedures, or steps to be taken on the subject under discussion. Furthermore, the LC communication style—verbal or written—relies on the heavy use of words. Hence, LC communication is content dependent where words are the primary strategy to effective communication (Gudykunst & Kim 2002; Hall 1976). The conversational maxim introduced by Grice (1975) offers four elements of social interaction:

1.  Quantity maxim: The contribution should be as informative as possible.

2.  Quality maxim: The contribution should be truthful.

3.  Relevancy maxim: The contribution should be relevant.

4.  Manner maxim: The contribution should be brief and orderly.

These maxims are applicable to LC communication style (LeBaron 2003; Gudykunst & Kim 2002). Supporting these maxims, Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) identified four distinct verbal interpersonal communication styles: (1) direct, (2) elaborated, (3) instrumental, and (4) personal. By integrating Grice’s four-point maxim with Gudykunst’s four verbal styles, the key aspects of LC communication become the following: (1) LC communication puts the emphasis on directness because LC people believe that information should be straight to the point, and accurate, and that people should not contribute to others more or less information than necessary, (2) LC communication is based on sufficient evidence and facts and is consistent with the participants’ feelings (Hall 1976), (3) LC people only contribute information in the context of the conversations, and (4) LC people avoid any ambiguity, excessiveness, and verbosity in their communication.

It is well established that LC people send a short, succinct, and terse message when they express their opinions or state their feelings. LC people value openness. Speaking their minds and telling the truth are some of their key communication characteristics, in unison with the quality maxim. The terse messages are often used in situations when they want to assert a point, without the fear of hurting the feelings of others because they believe in truth (Gudykunst & Nishida 1986; Grice 1975). LC people value individualism and base their behavior on true feelings (Frymier et al. 1990). They are also more inclined to express bluntly and talk freely than HC people. Although the truth might hurt, this strategy is useful in being precise and accurate. Sometimes, HC audience views this strategy as lack of tact or diplomacy; hence, the message is interpreted as harsh, rude, or blunt (Zakaria et al. 2004).

However, in some situations, LC people do send long messages when they communicate, but they do this for different motivations from the HC people. The purpose of sending detailed and accurate information is to provide explanations, support their intention or arguments, and give instructions. LC people are often seen as providing the fine details of a subject matter because they are task-oriented people (Triandis 1994). They base their communication on the task first, and then the relationship; therefore, they provide detailed instructions to explain to people how to proceed with a task. In this case, LC people emphasize the quantity maxim, which is to be as informative and resourceful as possible. Conversely, HC people base their communication on relationship-oriented purposes; hence, the long message is written for the purpose to maintain and protect the relationship built.

The differences between the terse and lengthy messages for HC and LC are thus rooted in the motivations of producing such messages, as illustrated in Table 12.1.

As mentioned in the “Introduction” section and under Chapter 5 for Hall theoretical framework, context alludes to what, why, how, when, and to whom a message is sent. In essence, HC communication is context dependent. The decision on how much information is disclosed (amount of information, short or long messages) in HC communication depends largely on the receiver of the message (who) and the topic of the message (what is to be disclosed and what is to be kept private or confidential), whereas LC communication is content dependent, which places strong emphasis on words, either verbal or written. Establishing common ground between and among Civil Society participants is challenging because it requires that people take the differences in communication styles into consideration in accordance with each member’s cultural preferences; only then can participants successfully ground their communication and effectively engage in collaborative efforts or activities.

In conclusion, the study showed that the direct communicative behavior belonging to LC cultures had three parts: (1) an assertive statement, followed by (2) a body of text that explains, clarifies, or justifies the assertion, and, finally, (3) a conclusion that wraps up one’s view. Whereas, for HC cultures, people not only displayed politeness and tactfulness in their messages but also sometimes apologized excessively—a key sign of not wanting to offend other participants. Sometimes, this causes conflict—at worst, HC cultures may view the straightforward messages and explicit words of LC cultures as attacking, rude, outspoken, or unacceptable.

Table 12.1 Types of Messages Based on HC and LC Dimension: Ambiguous vs. Detail

References

Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

Bresnahan, M.J., Shearman, S.M., Lee, S.Y., Ohashi R. & Mosher, D. 2002. Personal and cultural differences in responding to criticism in three countries. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 5(2), 93–105.

Deresky, H. 2000. International Management: Managing Across Borders and Cultures, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ferraro, G.P. 2003. The Cultural Dimension of International Business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Frymier, A.B., Klopf, D.W. & Ishii, S. 1990. Japanese and Americans compared on the affect orientation construct. Psychological Reports, 66, 985–986.

Grice, H.P. 1975.Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

Gudykunst, W.B. & Kim, Y.Y. 2002. Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication, 4th ed. London: McGraw-Hill.

Gudykunst, W.B. & Nishida, T. 1986. Attributional confidence in low- and high-context cultures. Human Communication Research, 12, 525–549.

Gudykunst, W.B. & Ting-Toomey, S. 1988. Culture and Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Gudykunst, W.B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K. & Heyman, S. 1996. The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construal, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22(4), 510–543.

Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books/Doubleday.

LeBaron, M.L. 2003. Bridging Cultural Conflicts: New Approaches for a Changing World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Okabe, R. 1983. Cultural assumptions of East and West: Japan and the U.S. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural Communication Theory (pp. 28–40). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Takayama, S. 1972. Group decision making in Japanese management. International Studies of Management and Organization, 2(2), 183–186.

Thomas, J. 1998. Contexting Koreans: Does the high/low model work? Business Communication Quarterly, 61(4), 9–22.

Ting-Toomey, S. 1999. Communicating Across Cultures. New York: Guilford.

Triandis, H.C. 1994. Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Triandis, H.C. 1988. Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptualization of basic concept in cross-cultural psychology. In G. Verma & C. Bagley (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Studies of Personality, Attitudes, and Cognition (pp. 60–95). London: Macmillan.

Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. 2000. Building Cross-Cultural Competence: How to Create Wealth from Conflicting Values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Zakaria, N., Cogburn, D.L., Khadapkar, P.S. & Lois, C. 2012. Examining cultural effects on distributed decision-making processes using keyword analysis and data mining techniques. International Journal of Business and System Research, 6(3), 313–335.

Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A. & Wilemon, D. 2004. Working together apart? Building a knowledge sharing culture for global virtual teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 15–29.

*  In-group is a term that is used to signify a group of people with whom a person is familiar and has a strong relational bond. The in-group is considered the trusted group, and its members are often spouse, family, and close friends (Triandis 1988).

*  Out-group members, on the other hand, are people to whom a person is not close to or known of, whom they considered as their acquaintance or total strangers (Triandis 1988). The Japanese society often used a term called one of us or one of them to signify the distinction between in-group and out-group members (Ferraro 1998). This form of distinction also determines which conversational greeting will be used.