Executive summary
This report takes on a personal, critical incident to illustrate various approaches in understanding cross cultural communications. It aims to explore the communication problems which arise from cultural differences. By way of a narrative inquiry and analysis, the critical incident is related to general workplace miscommunications which happen when verbal and non verbal communications do not cross the same level of understanding between the sender and the receiver. This report applies three specific theories: theory of verbal communications by Mellor (1990), theory of non verbal communications by Ekman & Friesen (1969), and theory of individualism and collectivism by Hofstede (1980) to understand and contextualize the communications problem. Its outcomes reveal that contextualization and clarifications are important to avoid cross cultural communications problems.
Introduction
Cross cultural communications is very crucial in these global business times. This is mainly because people from different countries and cultures see, interpret and assess various events differently. As global employees and managers bring their own national cultures into their workplaces, cross cultural communications occur when they send and/or receive messages from one another (Adler& Gundersen, 2008).
In this paper, the various theoretical approaches in understanding and contextualizing a significant personal incident or experience involving cross cultural miscommunications will be discussed. Specifically, these are the following theories: verbal communication, non-verbal communication, and collectivism and individualism. These theories are very relevant for exploring cross cultural miscommunications. This report will access the three theories to assess the critical incident cited. The major dimensions of the different cultural interpretations and the consequences will be evaluated to bring light to the greater need for cross cultural management in organizations and in general life. Ultimately, this research will provide a powerful illustration of the problems in cross cultural communications and how they can be solved.
Research Process
The personal incident which is going to be analyzed in this paper is the author’s personal incident with a New Zealand bus river. (A complete report of the Critical Incident is written at Appendix 1). The author does not speak English well and it was his first time to travel abroad. It was his first time in New Zealand. He attends a language school in Albany and it takes three various bus rides to go there and return home. The problem arose when the author stayed in the city after school in one Friday afternoon. As he intended to experience an evening in Auckland, he felt cold and exhausted and he decided to go home.
On his way back, he felt asleep inside the last bus going home. He was awakened by the sight of the driver shouting at him. He tried to explain to him that he was a tourist and he got lost, then, the driver became angry. When he started to explain to the driver using his hands, the situation got worse. The driver really became furious and shouted at him, “Leave the bus now!” The author just left the bus and was confused by what he did with his hands that made the driver furious. Luckily, he recognized a man whom he has seen in the Mosque. He spoke to him in their native Arabic language and the man helped him go back to his homestay. On the way home, he was seriously thinking why the bus driver did not want to help him.
Findings and Discussion
The purpose of this report is to explore the cross cultural communication problems which arose from cultural differences. This is linked with the usual miscommunications in the workplace which happen when verbal (lack of the English language facility or the misinterpretation of the receiver) and non verbal (gestures and body actions) communications do not cross the same level of understanding between the sender and the receiver. The report utilizes the author’s three specific theories: verbal by Mellor (1990), non verbal by Ekman & Friesen (1969) and individualism and collectivism by Hofstede (1980) to understand and contextualize the communications problem. A principal limitation of this research process is the potential bias of the author and the summary of the findings.
Cross cultural communications exist when one person from a different culture sends a message to another person from another different culture (Adler & Gundersen, 2008). The major problem in this critical incident can be likened to any ordinary miscommunications between two different employees from a multinational company. There is a communication problem which exists when the supposed receiver from the second culture did not get the sender’s intended message.
Verbal Communication Problem
In terms of verbal communications theory, the sender was misunderstood since he has used the English language very poorly. Thus, he was not able to pass on the intended or the right information to the English speaking bus driver. Verbal communication is defined by some unique features. Its use of the human language enables it to use symbols which may have distinct meanings to various people and institutions (Mellor, 1990). It is also defined by the social environments where the communication situation is rooted.
In the workplace context, misunderstanding can transpire between a Chinese or Arabic employee and an employee who is a Native English speaker (Moran, Harris, & Moran, 2010). As each of them mainly communicate by what they say or fail to say and how they conduct themselves during the conversation, the cultural notions can always intervene to prevent the intended message from being correctly received (Samovar, Porter, & McDaniel, 2010).
Poor command of the English language is a major problem in this respect. Effective communications exist when the sender and the receiver of the message are in the same level of understanding in terms of the language used in communications (Chiu, et. al., 2010). To add, verbal communication may render the sender’s tone of voice as open for misinterpretation (Messner& Schäfer, 2012). When the manager tells an employee that “Hey, I realized you took a long break this morning," this may be misinterpreted as disapproving or criticizing, depending on the way the manager delivered his lines through his specific tone. Aside from the tone, the situation may also be another context. For instance, if the employee had a problem that took him to go back to his work on time, the message may be taken as a friendly inquiry. As such, the verbal cues and the situational and relationship elements may influence the interpretation or misinterpretation of the intended message (Messner & Schäfer, 2012).
Non Verbal Communication Problem
In terms of non-verbal communications theory, the body and sign languages used by the sender may not be understood in the similar way by the receiver (Ekman & Friesen, 1969). Non-verbal communication consists of not only the facial expressions and body gestures; it also includes personal distance (proxemics), seating arrangements, and sense of time (Cheney & Barnett, 2005). A common issue in this respect is the degree of assertiveness used in verbal communications, which often times lead to cross cultural problems in communications. For instance, some white Americans often consider raising their voices to signify their anger (LoCastro, 2003). Meanwhile, this gesture is often considered by Italians and Black Americans as a form of excitement. Hence, this may lead to confusion in terms of a non-verbal signal. For instance, when a Black American raises his voice and engages in an office argument, the co workers might get confused of his true expression.
Non verbal problem also involves a problem of “proxemics” which refers to the distance between two persons (Cheney & Barnett, 2005). Proxemics is a major part of non-verbal communication and this pertains to the personal space which can be violated or validated by the communicators and their situation. As in the case of the lost tourist and the bus driver, the personal space is very crucial since they are strangers to one another and the way the tourist moves near the driver with his made up gestures can be taken negatively by the alarmed driver.
In the workplace context, this can be taken by the cultural contexts of the certain body language or tactile gestures being shown by the sender. For instance, for Latin Americans, beckoning and finger pointing can have different cultural implications. They understand beckoning as a form of subordination and it is often used to call children. Hence, beckoning is offensive for adult Latinos (Rosado, 2005). They are more attuned to finger pointing. On the contrary, beckoning is common in most cultures and finger pointing is offensive to them. Hence, if a Latino employee is beckoned by his boss, he may feel insulted or offended.
Collectivism/Individualism Problem
In terms of collectivism and individualism, it can be said that New Zealanders are individualist just like the North Americans (Tassell, 2004). They tend to encourage and promote autonomy and independence. This can explain why the bus driver left the tourist/author all by himself, to figure out his way back to his homestay while the Muslim counterpart helped him to find his way back home. In the work place context, this can be likened to the more self learner and independent individualist employees (such as the Americans, Australians, British and other Europeans) as compared to the more consultative, cooperative and group spirited Asians and Africans (Hofstede, 1980).
According to Church, et. a. (2012), cultural differences were reflected in the people’s perceptions of the individualism-collectivism. It is also reflected in their concepts of dialecticism and tightness-looseness of their respective cultures. When people are collectively individualistic, they instinctively act according to their beliefs and values on independence as compared with being dependent or group dependent (Trompenaars & Woollaims, 2011).
This may be a primary source of conflict in a work organization in terms of work styles and approaches. A manager may be very consultative while his team members may be very independent and strongly individualized.
Other Cross Cultural Explanations
In addition to the verbal and non verbal aspects, other extra factors determine how the communication takes effect and how it is perceived by the receiver.
Cultural Conformities
Any receiver will take in the new message or information he learns against his previous knowledge or learning. If the message conforms to what he already knows, then, he might likely receive the message. However, if the receiver does not agree with the new information being given, then, he might dismiss the message as something which is unacceptable, wrong or deceptive (Holliday, Hyde, & Kullman, 2004).
Message Clarifications
Another point is that aside from accepting or rejecting a message, clarifying a message is also important (Moran, Harris, & Moran, 2010).This is especially true if the message is ambiguous. Through this way, the receiver is most likely to validate the message in a way that conforms to his own expectations or standards. In the critical incident, the receiver of the message did not, in any way, clarify the message before he worked on his cultural instinct and misinterpretation. In hindsight, the sender did not also clarify his message or if he conveyed his message well. Hence, it resulted into a communications problem.
Cultural Binders
People’s expectations often work as cultural blinders or filters which negatively influence the real meaning and contexts of things being said or done. For instance, the critical incident of the bus driver shouting at the tourist and the tourist was trying hard to convey his message proves that a heightened situation will influence the message. Even when the tourist was just explaining that he was lost and he wanted help, this could be taken as offensively as a stranger is negatively contextualized. The poor English and the ethnicity may also be stereotyped by the receiver and thus, cross cultural communications problem occurs.
There is an instant reaction to things and events and culture is a major influencer in this respect. People often have the tendency to hear what they expect or assume to hear. As such, it is very easy for people in a conflicting situation to intensify their misunderstanding. This is especially true when there are varying cultural contexts to communications. Hence, the prospect for misperceptions and misunderstandings is great.
Cultural Relativity
Intersubjective perceptions are widespread in a given culture (Chiu, et. al., 2010). This refers to the shared perceptions of the psychological characteristics of a group of people. This must enlighten people in a multicultural work setting to work out the cultural differences (and nuisances) and restrained from their long held cultural prejudices and misperceptions. The bus driver has not recognized his own intersubjectivity when he failed to recognize that he was dealing with a non native English speaker and a tourist or a stranger to their own place.
It is also obvious that the more the cultures of the sender and the receiver are varied, the greater is their miscommunications (Adler & Gundersen, 2008). Take for instance, the diversity between the more traditional Arabic or Asian culture and the more cosmopolitan North American culture. This helps us realize why the British employees somehow work better with American and Canadian employees as compared to the Chinese employees being able to work well with their American counterparts.
Conclusion
As others put it, culture is a major point of communications. This report has shown this by the different communications problems brought about by the lack of verbal and non verbal knowledge and understanding between parties of various cultures. By way of language, body actions and gestures and cultural beliefs and values, people from all walks of life deviate from each other’s expectations and assumptions. This evidences their uniqueness in terms of what they know and what they perceive to be true about themselves according to their cultural identities. This requires a greater need to overcome cultural barriers in communications. It necessitates a better understanding of culture in the new, global work place contexts and settings.
Cultural Misunderstanding
Many problems in cross cultural communications occur when the receiver of the message assumes a different meaning or when he misunderstands the sender’s message (or intention). This implies that the receivers must be wary of stereotyping, misperceiving and misinterpreting specific messages from the sender. The best way to overcome the culture and communications barrier between people is to prioritize the difference/s between cultures and never to assume that things are similar unless they are proven to be so.
It is easier to stereotype, misinterpret and misperceive people than take a hard step towards understanding them better. However, this is not productive in work organizations. As more people realize that organizational goals are only realized by enhanced cross cultural communications, they are strongly motivated to go beyond prior misconceptions to deeper contextual understanding.
Cross Cultural Communications Remain an Effective Tool
Cross cultural communications remains the best tool to bridge the gap between people and culture and to enhance their better understanding for better work performance. The facility of using a common language is emphasized at this point. Managers and employees must use verbal and non verbal communications to effectively convey their messages and bring about positive results for their organizations.
This leads us to a preemptive notion about the homogeneity of culture, especially in terms of language, general beliefs and values, among others. More and more people are now attuned to the different ethnic identities and how cultures play a dynamic role in achieving organizational goals. They now acknowledge and respect the important inputs contributed by a more binding cultural acknowledgment and respect among them.
Recommendations
- People in a work organization must speak clearly and slowly. This is most appropriate when speaking to a mixed crowd. This must be done until the message has been clearly translated. The speaker must do it by listening to the pacing of his speech. This can be examined by asking the audience if they have understood the message well. If the receivers make positive feedback, hence, the process is effective.
- When speaking to a foreigner, the speaker must have a background research to know which gestures such as finger pointing are appropriate when talking. Understanding the do’s and don’ts will be a good preliminary point. The speaker can also ask the receiver if his certain body actions and gestures are appropriate or offensive. This will clarify and apprehend the speaker before making a negative effect on the communication process.
- When talking to a person of another nationality, the speaker must not always assume that the receiver of the message knows English well even when he/she speaks of it. This is particularly applicable when the speaker is aware that the listener cannot fluently speak English. If the speaker feels that the receiver has a good grasp of the language, he can further inquire by asking further questions. This is to check the general comprehension and speaking skills of his listener and from there, he can make the adjustments as to how to deliver his queries or message. He can evaluate the answers and proceed from there.
Critical Incident (Full Report)
It was the first time that I have travelled abroad, so travelling to New Zealand was very exciting and thrilling. Despite the fact that I could not speak English very well, I was enthusiastic to meet people from different countries. I stayed in Albany, New Zealand and my language school was in the city. So every morning, I had to ride three buses to reach to the city and return to my homestay when I finished my school in the afternoon.
In my first Friday, I did not directly go back to my homestay like in my usual afternoons. I wanted to have my first experience of Auckland during evening time. I was very happy walking around in the city and taking photos. When the sky became dark, the weather started to become colder than before, thus, I decided to go back to my homestay since I had no jacket. I forgot to bring my jacket and I thought it was enough for the first evening. However, it was time to go back.
I got into the first bus from the city and my long journey back to my homestay started. When I reached the station where I took my last bus, I was exhausted. Once I got into the last bus and satin my bus seat, I unfortunately fell asleep. This was when my problem started. Suddenly, I was awakened by the bus driver as he was shouting at me. The only sentence that I understood from him was that “the bus already reached the last station.” I was trying to explain to him my situation, that it was my first weekend in Auckland and that I slept during the trip since I was exhausted. I did not know why, but when I just started to explain my situation, he suddenly became angry. The bus driver asked me to leave the bus. I was shocked and I thought about the thing I might have said which he got wrong. So, I started to explain to him using my hands. The driver really became furious and he shouted at me by saying, “Leave the bus now!” I left the bus and I was thinking what I did with my hands to make him furious.
I urgently left the bus and walked towards the unfamiliar street without knowing where to go. Luckily, I encountered a man in the street, whom I have seen in the Mosque. I explained my situation to him in the Arabic language, which was easier for me to explain. Then, I asked him to help me. He brought me back to my homestay. On the way home, I was seriously thinking why the bus driver did not want to help me.
References:
Adler, N. J., & Gundersen, A. (2008). International dimensions of organizational behavior (5th ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson.
Chiu, C., et. al. (July, 2010). The Role of Intersubjective Perceptions in Cross-Cultural Research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (4), p. 482-493.
Cheney, G., & Barnett, G. A. (Eds.). (2005). International and multicultural organizational communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc.
Church. A. T., et. al. (November, 2012). Cultural Differences in Implicit Theories and Self-Perceptions of Traitedness: Replication and Extension with Alternative Measurement Formats and Cultural Dimensions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(8), p. 1268-1296.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica, 1, p. 49–98.
Harvey, M., Mcintyre, N., Moeller, M., & Sloan, H. (February, 2012). Managerial Self-Concept in a Global Context: An Integral Component of Cross-Cultural Competencies. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19 ( 1), p. 115-125.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. London: Sage Publications.
Holliday, A., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J. (2004). Intercultural communication: An advanced resource book.London: Routledge.
Kramp, Mary Kay. (2004). Exploring life and experience through narrative inquiry. Chapter 7. Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social Sciences. Contributors: Kathleen DeMarrais and Stephen D. Lapan (Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 103-122.
LoCastro, V. (2003). An Introduction to Pragmatics: Social Action for Language Teachers. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Mellor, D. H. (1990). Ways of Communicating. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Messner, W. & Schäfer, N. (2012), "The ICCA™ Facilitator's Manual. Intercultural Communication and Collaboration Appraisal", London: Createspace.
Moran, R., Harris, P., & Moran, S. (2010). Managing Cultural Differences: Global Leadership Strategies for Cross-Cultural Business Success. London: Routledge.
Rosado, Luis A. (January, 2005). Cross-cultural Communications: A Latino Perspective. Retrieved on January 20, 2013 from,http://www.unco.edu/ae-extra/2005/1/Art-1.html.
Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., & McDaniel, E. R. (2010). Communication between cultures (7th ed.).Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Tassell, N. A. (2004). Individualism/Collectivism, Cultural Identity, and Self- Enhancement: A Study of New Zealand and Maori. Thesis.Massey University. Retrieved on January 21, 2013 from, http://teipuwhakahauaa.co.nz/uploads/tassell/2004/639_Tassell2004.pdf.
Trompenaars, F. & Woollaims, P. (April, 2011). Lost in Translation. Harvard Business Review Web Exclusive. Retrieved on January 20, 2013 from, https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:VUxWlg2ZNIMJ:www.thtconsulting.com/articles/hbr-lost_in_translation-thtconsulting.pdf+&hl=en&gl=ph&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiyPnsY2YvsPLcUjb0p6Bi4luMVMBWVj72hEpjzKA_hizJHPdJAJQmqQ162H2WoItbjfHCGUMPlkMin2vlpoSp32VhNl27fSKsffil2kYVVwt0g6xC8YUFPS4OowKm9hd44QY4y&sig=AHIEtbQA0_ZS9kDevb0BCGwcFUke-pCDQg.
Bibliography:
Browne, N. M., & Keeley, S. M. (2007). Asking the right questions; A guide to critical thinking (8th ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Christian-Smith, Linda K., and Kellor, Kristine S., (Eds.). (1998). Everyday Knowledge and Uncommon Truths: Women of the Academy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. pp. xiv. Retrieved 26 November 2012 from www.Questia.com.
DuPraw, M. & Axner, M. (1997). Working on CommonCross-cultural Communication Challenges. AMPU Website. Retrieved on January 21, 2013 from, http://www.pbs.org/ampu/crosscult.html.
Thomas, D. C., & Inkson, K. (2004). Cultural intelligence: People skills for global business. San Francisco:Berrett‐Koehler.
Ting‐Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
