3.3. DEALING WITH VERBAL AND NONVERBAL ASPECTS OF CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION
Understanding the influence of general cultural orientations is one step in increasing skill in cross-cultural communication. The next step is to recognize and deal with the specific differences in the verbal and nonverbal aspects involved. Even when we speak the same language, transmitting meaning involves more than knowing vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. The tone of one's voice, the look on one's face, or the lengths of our pauses can broadcast volumes. Credibility can be built or lost by using the proper or wrong form of address, asking an appropriate or inappropriate question, or observing or ignoring the necessary social norms before moving to the task at hand. Consider which of these you have found to be most difficult in your global interchanges.
3.3.1. Verbal Aspects of Cross-Cultural Communication
Degree of Directness. Whether we get to the point because not zeroing in on the issue seems like a waste of time or we find that kind of directness rude and off-putting, we all have a preference about degree of directness. Some of us would prefer a clear, direct "no," while others would infer a negative response from "That would be very difficult" or "I'll see what I can do." The range from direct and explicit to indirect and implicit communication is closely tied to high-context and low-context cultural orientations. Those from high-context cultures, such as that of Japan, who prefer less direct communication, depend on the complex web of clues from the history and relationship between participants to nonverbal cues to give them the information they need. Meaning is implied and left to the listener to infer. Those from low-context cultures, such as the Swiss, on the other hand, rely much more on the words, hence communication needs to be specific and explicit.
Differences between these two communication styles can be the source of much frustration and misunderstanding. Europeans are often frustrated by U.S.-Americans' lack of directness, while Japanese might be put off by their lack of subtlety. Americans may be confused by the circular communication of Koreans, wondering when the point will be made, while the Chinese see the unambiguous "No" response from Americans as impolite and confrontational.
Topics. The acceptability of topics for conversation is another area of cultural difference impacting communication. Asking about money is generally considered impolite in U.S. culture. What one earns or how much one paid for a house, for example, is considered private. In China, though, sharing information about salaries and bonuses is common and, in the Philippines, asking how much one paid for something is considered acceptable. Commenting about the weather is generally not done in Muslim countries, as the weather is given by Allah, not to be questioned or criticized by humans.
Forms of Address. A nonprofit executive was surprised at her first meeting in Vietnam when her host immediately asked her age. It was only later she found that he needed to know if she was older or younger than he in order to use the proper form of address for her. One's status, whether from age or position, is dealt with differently depending on the adherence to a hierarchy. Using titles such as Director, Doctor, Mister, or Missus is expected in hierarchical cultures, while addressing someone older or in a position of authority by first name would be the height of disrespect. Titles and first and last names are used not only in introductions but in business communication such as signatures on letters. Communicating on a first-name basis, no matter the level or age, on the other hand, is common in more egalitarian cultures and organizations.
Task/Relationship Balance. While communication involves both task and relationship aspects, the priority we place on one or the other is influenced by culture. Spending time on relationship-oriented communication is seen by some as an essential social lubricant and a trust builder and by others as a time-wasting obstacle that is inappropriate for business communication. Yet research on diverse virtual teams done by Dianne Hofner Saphiere[] revealed that, on the most effective global teams, members had more frequent nonwork-related social communication with one other, in person, on the phone, and via e-mail. Whether at a quarterly meeting that team members fly in for or at a regular weekly teleconferenced staff meeting, beginning with some personal connections is important.
3.3.2. Nonverbal Aspects of Cross-Cultural Communication
While nonverbal aspects are not apparent in written communication, they do impact face-to-face and in some cases voice-to-voice communication.
Eye Contact. When to make and break eye contact is a factor in communication around the world. However, norms differ. Sustained eye contact may be seen as hostility, honesty, attentiveness, or insolence, depending on one's background. Conversely dropping the eyes can be seen as respectful by Chinese and Japanese but self-effacing or deceitful by U.S.-Americans.
Proximity. How close we get to one another when we speak is another arena of cultural programming. Nose to nose or arm's length is a preference we each bring, and differences in these norms can cause discomfort and misunderstanding by Arabs and those from the Mediterranean, who are comfortable with more physical proximity, while Northern Europeans prefer greater distance. Too far can be interpreted as aloofness, coldness, or rejection. Too close, on the other hand, can be interpreted as aggressive, intimidating, or inappropriately intimate, leading to sexual harassment complaints.
Touch. Physical contact is yet another area of difference across cultures. A handshake, a bow, a hug, or even a kiss are all accepted greetings in business, depending on culture. A pat on the arm or shoulder may be reassuring to one person but insulting or an invasion of privacy to another. In addition, male-female physical contact may be directed by religious rules.
Pace. The speed with which we speak is still another arena of difference. A slower pace and pauses can be viewed as the sign of a good listener who is thoughtfully considering the speaker's comments. However, for someone preferring a quicker pace and more rapid-fire response, it may be seen as the sign of a slow wit and a dull mind.
Pitch and Tone. One Swiss banker working in the United States recently asked, "When my boss says something I've done is 'pretty good,' what does that mean?" To answer her question, even a native English-speaking American would need more information. What was the emphasis, tone, and inflection of the "pretty good" comment? "This is pretty good," with the emphasis on good and the voice going up at the end would indicate a positive evaluation. "This is pretty good," emphasizing pretty and the voice going down at the end would mean not so good at all. However, this nuance might not be apparent to someone speaking English as a second or third language.
Silence. Language systems and individuals differ in their use of silence in conversation. For the Japanese it is respectful to pause before responding, showing that the speaker's words and ideas are being given consideration and thought. However, for those who find it acceptable to interrupt or respond immediately, silence may be disconcerting and a sign of lack of interest, enthusiasm, or intelligence. It is said that many Japanese find U.S.-Americans' habit of responding immediately rude because it indicates that the individual is not listening and giving thought to what is being said. In addition, the amount of information expressed openly varies among cultures and personalities. Some "hold their cards close to the vest," keeping thoughts to themselves, while others "wear their hearts on their sleeves," disclosing their thoughts freely. The Expressed Speech and Thought chart displays examples of this variation among national cultures; the more above the water line, the greater the degree of disclosure.
The "Cross-Cultural Communication Style Inventory" will give you an opportunity to examine your own style and compare it to the style of one of your co-workers.
3.3.3. Suggestions for Using the "Cross-Cultural Communication Style Inventory"
To increase understanding of cultural factors influencing communication
To analyze one's own cultural "software" regarding communication
To identify cultural differences that may present obstacles in global communicating with co-workers in a global workgroup
Intended Audience
Managers and employees in multinational workgroups
HR professionals coaching managers of multinational groups
Employees working with clients or customers from other countries
Time
60 minutes
Materials
Copies of the "Cross-Cultural Communication Style Inventory"
Directions
Explain or discuss the differences in cultural software that influence communication.
Ask participants to follow directions, marking their own preferences and profile, then that of a co-worker, boss, staff member, or customer/client of another cultural background.
In pairs, staff members discuss their own and a co-worker's, boss's, staff member's, or client's profile, focusing on similarities and differences and challenges.
Discuss insights, learning, and application.
Questions for Discussion/Consideration
What similarities and differences are there in the two profiles on your worksheet?
Cross-Cultural Communication Style InventoryDirections: Consider your own style of communicating at work and indicate your preferences on each of the continua by placing an X on the line. Then connect your Xs, forming a profile. Then think of an individual from a different culture with whom you work. Put a check mark on each line representing that person's style. Draw a dotted line to connect the check marks to form that person's profile. Then compare profiles to analyze the interaction of your two styles.
|
How do the two profiles reflect national preferences?
Where does your own profile help and hinder you as a communicator?
What are your cross-cultural "hot spots," those preferences or behaviors of others that are difficult for you to deal with in communicating with them?
What do the two profiles tell you about your communication with each other?
What challenges do you see?
What style shifts can you make to reconcile differences and communicate more effectively with this person?
What style shifts can you help the other person make in order to reconcile differences?
Cultural Considerations
Employees from more collectivist backgrounds may find the focus on the individual awkward. In such cases, ask the group to draw the preferred organizational communication style, then discuss advantages and disadvantages of that style.
Caveats, Considerations, and Variations
If staff members know each other and work together, they can give each other feedback about their styles.
This can be done as a team activity with team members sharing their answers by posting them and giving each other feedback. They can also post answers without names and guess the owner of each.
Team members can have rotating rounds, meeting in pairs to share profiles and give and receive feedback from one another about their styles.
On a multinational team have members draw their profiles, each using a different colored marker, on an enlargement (18″ × 24″) of the inventory. Then conduct a discussion about team communication patterns and challenges.
On a team that has groups of employees from different national cultures, have each culture use a specific colored marker (for example, Italians use green, Chinese use blue) and have each employee draw his or her profile on a transparency. Stack transparencies of each culture together and show on the overhead, one culture at a time. Then stack all profiles and show together. Discuss intracultural and intercultural similarities and differences. (Adaptation suggested by Mila Hernán Alvarez, business communication consultant, Madrid, Spain.)
Again, it is important to remember that cross-cultural knowledge is necessary but not sufficient in communicating effectively in a global organization. As one former global manager who currently works as an international business consultant pointed out, "What I found to be the most important thing is that people feel that they are valued and respected as individuals, their opinions and their objectives, and as organizations, and that in that sense they are treated as equal."