According to Schein (1993, p. 40) dialogue is necessary because it is a vehicle for understanding cultures and subcultures and because organisational learning will develop to a stage where it will depend on a cultural understanding made possible by dialogue. However, Schein (1993) does not explain the role of non-verbal communication in dialogues. As a general rule, communication is simultaneously non-verbal and verbal. Both aspects are equally important because when non-verbal and verbal communications are incoherent, people may receive mixed messages and fail to understand each others’ motivations, viewpoints, values, and aims.
I find it impossible to agree with Schein (1993) because of the exclusion of the non-verbal component of dialogues from the discussion and because the arguments hold improper dialogue accountable for the lack of understanding rather than the underlying determinants of successful communication. By attributing communication problems and cultural misunderstandings to various tensions between nations, such as the Arab relations or the issues between the nations of former Yugoslavia (Schein, 1993, p. 40), a lot of important factors are eliminated, so it is not possible to gain a complete understanding of contemporary issues between cultural groups and subcultures by isolating dialogue as the main source of social issues. There are several ways to define dialogue. In organisations, dialogue is a way of communication that aims to build a common understanding of a problem rather than discussing and debating as the means of a false consensus (Schein, 1993, p. 47). Another definition is that dialogue is a central element of organisational transformation and its practical application is universal across different theoretical models (Schein, 1993, p. 40). Furthermore, Schein (1993, p. 41) argues that dialogue facilitates new possibilities in terms of improving communication.
According to Eisberg, Goodall, and Trethewey (2010, p. 41), dialogue is a form of communication that is characterized by mindfulness, equitable transaction, real meeting, and empathic conversation, and it is a process that should work both ways in terms of allowing individuals to both hear others and be heard. Another definition explains that dialogue is an activity that is both meaningful and strategic at the same time (S. Goodall, H. L. Goodall, and Schiefelbein, 2009).
When all definitions and descriptions are taken in account, it is possible to conclude that dialogue is a form of interaction among people that aims to eliminate individual cognitive filters that may interfere with receiving information from the environment. Furthermore, the aim of communication is to reach an understanding rather than a consensus when dealing with differences in opinions and beliefs. Most importantly, dialogue can be both verbal and non-verbal because both types of communication send messages to the environment that are interpreted and affect interpersonal relationships.
However, as Schein (1993) describes dialogue it becomes apparent that the non-verbal aspects of communication are omitted from the arguments presented to establish dialogue as the central element of promoting understanding. It is also difficult to consider dialogue as the determinant for successful understanding among groups and cultures because aiming to resolve misunderstanding by resolving dialogue issues does not necessarily address the underlying causes of misunderstandings in communication.
For example, Schein (1993, p. 45) argues that people should be able to be mindful of their own thought processes and filters they use in communication with others that may prevent them from receiving proper input and understanding others. A study by Krasner et al. (2009, p. 1292) found a positive correlation between learning mindful communication and higher empathy levels among primary care physicians, but because the study was not a randomized controlled trial, the researchers are unable to make definite conclusions. It is possible that mindfulness is associated with positive outcomes in communication, but it is also not possible to consider dialogue as a method for understanding cultures and subcultures when other determinants influence the quality of dialogue.
Another example would be the explanation that normal social relationships occur when people communicate in a manner that preserves a person’s self-worth instead of wearing it down, even though their statements may be inaccurate (Schein 1993, p. 41). As a contradictory statement, Schein (1993, p. 41) argues that truthful communication is critical for effectiveness in problem-solving groups.
However, people are always communicating because their behaviour always sends messages to the environment through non-verbal means, such as facial expressions, posture, and gestures (Eisberg, Goodall, and Trethewey, 2010, p. 29). Although Schein (1993, p. 42) concluded that dialogue is critical for improving understanding among people with different viewpoints and cultural backgrounds just because it can affect interpersonal relationships and stimulate problem-solving groups, the arguments failed to address the implication of non-verbal communication methods in those relationships.
Dialogue can promote understanding of cultures and subcultures, but it is possible to argue that psychological processes and personality traits from people involved in the communication process are more important for understanding than the dialogue because they directly influence the quality of the dialogue. As Schein (1993, p. 43) explains, personal attitudes and beliefs may interfere with receiving information from the environment, so personal perception plays an important role in successful understanding. In other words, dialogue as a theoretical concept should be able to influence the understanding, but in practice, the contexts of actions depend on psychological processes and social factors (Nonaka and Von Krogh, 2009).
While dialogue can be considered a tool for communicating ideas and promoting understanding between cultures and subcultures, it should not be confused with understanding because empathy and similar traits determine understanding more than verbal communication skills (Badea and Pana, 2010, p. 71). It is also known that 90 percent of people express their emotional states exclusively through non-verbal methods of communication (Badea and Pana, 2010, p. 71).
With that in mind, it is possible to conclude that dialogue can be a method for understanding cultures and subcultures better. However, only proper dialogue can facilitate understanding and clear communication, but proper dialogue requires open-mindedness and empathy. Unlike Schein’s (1993, p. 41) argument that dialogue promotes understanding, it is possible to notice that empathy and similar traits, rather than dialogue skills obtained through education, can facilitate understanding by improving an individual’s ability to engage in constructive dialogues.
Again, when it comes to explaining the differences between subcultures and cultures, Schein (1993, p. 49) places too much emphasis on verbal communication and explains that subcultures create psychological boundaries by creating their own jargons, which forces people to form attachments with their language and attitudes that may interfere with open communication with others and reaching understandings.
While blaming jargon for psychological barriers may not be grounded in empirical evidence, it is possible to notice that psychological barriers created by concepts and attitudes created by groups to give people a sense of belonging and identity may interfere with the ability to engage in dialogue and improve understanding.
In some cases, dialogue may hinder understanding, and that aspect of Schein’s (1993) arguments is correct. For example, in a developed conversation, certain reactions and misunderstandings may arise from personal cognitive filters that misinterpret the information provided by the speaker, so the inaccurate perception of the information received from others may be the reason for many misunderstandings (Schein, 1993, p. 45-46).
That is especially true for organisational communication because the flow of downward and upward communication between various levels of management is often filtered and inhibits internal processes. For example, employees in companies may purposefully filter upward information when they expect negative reactions from the managers (Downs and Adrian, 2004, p. 55). Instead, the point of dialogue is to go beyond self-consciousness and try to comprehend how personal attitudes affect others (Marchiori, Contani, and Buzzanell, 2011, p. 9).
It is also evident that strategic control is relevant to communication, so people are driven by social and ethical motivators when they communicate and may potentially ignore honesty or clarity when they are opposed to their self-interest (Eisberg, Goodall, and Trethewey, 2010, p. 30). However, in organisational communication, strategic ambiguity is an important concept because it allows people to accomplish goals even when communication is potentially unclear (Eisberg, Goodall, and Trethewey, 2010, p. 30).
Of course, understanding cultures and subcultures is important for organisations because it will allow them to grow, evolve, and maintain their processes rather than become obsolete and degrade. If organisations don’t understand cultures and subcultures, they will experience several problems in both internal processes and external relationships. In terms of internal processes, people are the central element of any organisation because they share a common mental model through organisational memory (Kim, 1993, p. 45).
Another way of harming internal processes when organisations fail to understand cultures is by restricting the participation of employees in decision-making processes when current social trends indicate that people want to experience a sense of belonging by participating in shaping the organisation (Li and Bernoff, 2011, p. 235). Promoting a culture based on values and visions that all members have in common and empowering them with more self-management in decision-making are critical factors in enhancing organisational performance (Jing and Avery, 2011, p. 72).
Finally, leaders in organisations who fail to develop empathy that will help them understand the feelings and attitudes of their employees will not be able to effectively resolve conflicts when they arise, implement problem-solving strategies for inter-personal communication, or form reliable and efficient teams (Badea and Pana, 2010, p. 71).
Effective communication would mean listening and understanding the employees who have the potential to transform the organisation with their suggestion. However, a lack of trust or empathy may result in a lack of dialogue between the management and employees, so the internal processes will most likely be damaged as communication will continue to suffer in the future.
When working with external relationships, organisations will be able to effectively communicate and use communication as a method for achieving strategic control if they fail to understand subcultures and cultures. For example, research shows that leadership paradigms have a direct effect on various organisational performance outcomes, including customer satisfaction (Jing and Avery, 2011, p. 69).
Furthermore, understanding cultural behaviour and its origins allows organisations to understand how people develop their consumption habits. For example, the demand for services varies in different countries because cultures do not evaluate the same service equally (Gilbert, 1999). It is also possible to notice that product popularity varies across cultures because women have different roles, because families have different structures, and because some products are homemade rather than mass-produced (Gilbert, 1999).
Understanding subcultures also impacts various processes, such as marketing to subcultures. Various differences in cognitive processes and perception account for finding products or services attractive, and several barriers should be addressed, such as language, motives for purchase, and communication methods preferred by the subculture, before making attempts to build relationships with subcultures.
Understanding cultures and subcultures is important for organisations because cultural traits are learned through social interactions with the environment and are not universal. However, because globalisation is taking place, multiculturalism and cultural pluralism are becoming more prevalent (Craig and Douglas, 2006) and affecting the way organisations work because ethnic backgrounds are important factors for planning product development and marketing campaigns (Burton, 2002, p. 442).
Without understanding cultures and subcultures, it is difficult for organisations to implement strategies to build relationships with customers. However, understanding the acculturation of subcultures may help organisations determine how they should communicate with their targeted subcultures and whether they should target them in the same manner as the general population (Burton, 2002). Future research will also have to explore how subcultures can affect cultural changes that may affect organisations (Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010, p. 365), so organisations will be able to implement that understanding in their internal and external processes.
References
Badea, L., and Pana, N. A., 2010. The role of empathy in developing the leader’s emotional intelligence. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 2(543), pp. 69-78.
Burton, D., 2002. Incorporating ethnicity into marketing intelligence and planning.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 20(7), pp. 442-451.
Craig, C. S. and Douglas, S. P., 2006. Beyond national culture: implications of cultural
dynamics for consumer research. International Marketing Review, 23(3), pp. 322-342.
Downs, C.W. and Adrian, A.D. 2004, Assessing organizational communication: strategic communication audits. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Eisenberg, E. M., Goodall, H. L., and Trehewey, A., 2010. Organizational communication: balancing creativity and constraint. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Gilbert, D., 1999. Retail marketing management. London: Prentice Hall.
Goodall, S., Goodall Jr, H. L., and Schiefelbein, J., 2009. Business and professional communication in the global workplace. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
Jing, F. F., and Avery, G. C. (2011). Missing links in understanding the relationship between leadership and organizational performance. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 7(5), pp. 67-78.
Linnenluecke, M. K., and Griffiths, A., 2010. Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45(4), pp. 357-366.
Kim, D. H., 1993. The link between individual and organization learning. Sloan Management Review, Fall Issue, pp. 37-50.
Krasner, M. S. et al., 2009. Association of an educational program in mindful communication with burnout, empathy, and attitudes among primary care physicians. JAMA, 302(12), 1284-1293.
Li, C. and Bernoff, J., 2011. Groundswell: winning in a world transformed by social technologies. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Marchiori, M. R., Contani, M. L., and Buzzanell, P. M., 2011. Dialogue as a possibility for knowledge in organizations. In: 13th Conference, Dialogue and Representation (IADA 2011). Quebec, Canada.
Nonaka, I., and Von Krogh, G., 2009. Perspective: tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), pp. 635-652.
Schein, E. H., 2003. On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), pp. 40-51.
