three question

Opening Profile: On Keeping Your Foot Safely Out of Your Mouth

The Communication Process Cultural Noise in the Communication

Process The Culture–Communication Link

Trust in Communication The GLOBE Project Cultural Variables in the

Communication Process Context

Management Focus: Oriental Poker Face: Eastern Deception or Western Inscrutability?

Comparative Management in Focus: Communicating with Arabs Communication Channels

Information Technology: Going Global and Acting Local

Managing Cross-cultural Communication Developing Cultural Sensitivity Careful Encoding Selective Transmission Careful Decoding of Feedback Follow-up Actions

Conclusion Summary of Key Points Discussion Questions Application Exercises Exercise Questions Experiential Exercise Internet Resources Case Study: Elizabeth Visits GPC’s

French Subsidiary

Communicating Across Cultures

Outline

Opening Profile: On Keeping Your Foot Safely Out of Your Mouth

Joe Romano found out on a business trip to Taiwan how close a one-syllable slip of the tongue can come to torpedoing a deal.

Mr. Romano, a partner of High Ground, an emerging technology-marketing company in Boston, has been traveling to Asia for ten years and speaks fluent Mandarin and Taiwanese. Or so he thought, until he nearly blew an important deal when he met the chief executive of a major Taiwanese manufacturer.

“You’re supposed to say ‘Au-ban,’ which means basically, ‘Hello, No. 1 Boss,’” Mr. Romano explained. “But being nervous, I slipped and said ‘Lau-ban ya,’ which means, ‘Hello, wife of the boss.’”

“So I basically called him a woman in front of twenty senior Taiwanese executives, who all laughed,” he said. “He looked at me like he was going to kill me because in Asia, guys are hung up on being seen as very manly. I had to keep asking them to forgive ‘the stupid American’ before the C.E.O. would accept my apologies.”

This is why translators are worth the investment for delicate business negotiations overseas, suggests Heike Estey, who leads cultural-sensitivity training as director of sales for Express Visa Service in Washington.

Even in the same language, communication miscues can occur. Lee Bowden, the managing director of the Sagamore, was staying at a 350-room resort on Lake George in Bolton Landing, New York, where he overheard a British guest ask the desk clerk for “a rubber.” While the clerk hemmed and hawed, Mr. Bowden, having worked in Britain, knew that the guest was requesting an eraser, not

From International Management: Managing Across Borders and Cultures, 6/e. Helen Deresky. Copyright © 2008 by Pearson Education. All rights reserved.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

a condom. The confusion was quickly erased, and the requested device was delivered to the guest.

Stephen Schechter, professor of political science at the Sage Colleges in Troy, New York, and co-director of Civitas, an international civic education group, recalls a bilingual blooper so stark that it could have caused a permanent rift. At the end of a visit to Syracuse in the early 1990’s, Yakov Sokolov, a Russian partner in the organization, raised a glass to his local hosts. “My dear friends, thank you so much for your hostility,” he said, flubbing the word “hospitality.”

“It could have been a terrible diplomatic error,” Dr. Schechter said, “but thanks to good humor it has become a thing of beauty, a metaphor for our ability to overcome cultural misunderstandings.”

It is not just spoken language that can create havoc for those trying to make their way in an unfamiliar culture. Body language can also send out the wrong signals.

Neil Alumkal, an associate vice president of 5W Public Relations, a Manhattan firm, recounted the time he and some associates were in Bangkok taking a motorcycle taxi known as a tuk tuk to the Royal Dragon, a restaurant so large that waiters use roller skates to move around. Giving directions, they tried to demonstrate which establishment they meant by raising their feet toward the non-English-speaking driver and pointing to them, as though they were wearing skates.

He immediately pulled over in a rage and ordered them out of his vehicle. Unbeknownst to them, showing the soles of your feet to someone is a serious insult in Thailand and most other Asian countries as well as in much of the Middle East.

Even ingrained mannerisms that no one would pay attention to at home can make an unfavorable impression abroad. For Stacie Krajchir, who has worked on TV commercial shoots around the world and is a co-author of The Itty Bitty Guide to Business Travel, it was the posture she took when she was engaged in conversations that got her in hot water.

“I have a habit of putting my hands on my hips when I talk,” said Ms. Krajchir, who lives in Venice Beach, California. “But in Bali, it was politely but pointedly noted that when you stand that way it’s seen as a sign of rudeness or defiance.”

She committed an even worse blunder in Thailand. While working on a commercial with children, she affectionately patted one of them on the head. Alas, in that country, she said, the gesture was seen as “a grave offense because the head is considered sacred.” Once again, the cultural gaffe was brought to her attention, and she apologized.

The question of physical contact is one of the great imponderables of international travel. The rules on whom to touch, where, when, why, for how long, and with what degree of enthusiasm vary starkly from country to country.

“With touching, it’s very complicated because it’s so deeply embedded not just as a cultural thing but as an emotional thing,” said Sheida Hodge, the worldwide managing director of the cross-cultural division of Berlitz International in Princeton, New Jersey. “Generally, American culture is not a touching culture, so when we are abroad we just have to watch closely and try to adapt.”

For example, in France, a relationship-oriented culture, good friends greet members of the opposite sex with a peck on each cheek. To the French, a handshake is much more than a simple ritual for saying hello or goodbye but rather a means of making a personal connection, Ms. Hodge said. The Japanese bow to one another at varying angles, depending on their relative social standing, she said, but “because they are familiar with American habits, a handshake is O.K.” Latin Americans like to throw their arms around colleagues’ backs or grab them by the arm to show their friendliness, physical acts that can startle or discomfit Yankee visitors.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

Cultural communications are deeper and more complex than spoken or written messages. The essence of effective cross-cultural communication has more to do with releasing the right responses than with sending the “right” messages.

HALL AND HALL1

Multi-local online strategy . . . is about meeting global business objectives by tuning in to the cultural dynamics of their local markets.

“THINK GLOBALLY, INTERACT LOCALLY,” New Media Age2

As the opening profile suggests, communication is a critical factor in the cross-cultural management issues discussed in this book, particularly those of an inter-personal nature, involving motivation, leadership, group interactions, and negotiation. Culture is conveyed and perpetuated through communication in one form or another. Culture and communication are so intricately intertwined that they are, essen- tially, synonymous.3 By understanding this relationship, managers can move toward con- structive intercultural management.

Communication, whether in the form of writing, talking, listening, or via the Internet, is an inherent part of a manager’s role and takes up the majority of a manager’s time on the job. Studies by Mintzberg demonstrate the importance of oral communication; he found that most managers spend between 50 and 90 percent of their time talking to people.4 The ability of a manager to effectively communicate across cultural boundaries will largely determine the success of international business transactions or the output of a culturally diverse workforce. It is useful, then, to break down the elements involved in the communication process, both to understand the cross-cultural issues at stake and to maximize the process.

In general, she said, people in southern Europe and the Middle East are much more physical than Americans, though in most Muslim countries, social touching never takes place between the sexes.

With so many cultural land mines out there, is there any hope for the untutored American business traveler? Ms. Hodge, who is the author of Global Smarts: The Art of Communicating and Deal Making Anywhere in the World has a reassuring answer. “None of these faux pas are deal breakers,” she said. “People think, ‘Oh, I crossed my legs. There goes the contract.’ It’s not true.”

Ms. Estey suggested that “it behooves anyone doing business in a country that is foreign to them to do some cultural homework.” One source she recommended is a Web site called CultureGrams.com, a primer on the customs and geography of 180 countries ($199 a year for up to five users).

When Americans do make the effort to learn their international colleagues’ communication styles, it can pay off. Donald C. Dowling, Jr.—a senior counsel at Proskauer Rose, a Manhattan law firm—speaks fluent Spanish, but he admits his French “is awful.” So it was all the more surprising when the head of the Paris office, where he was doing a stint, toasted him at a Christmas party, throwing his arm around Mr. Dowling and announcing, “I love this guy because he speaks French.”

“It took me a minute to figure out he wasn’t making fun of me,” Mr. Dowling said. “I think he just appreciated that I tried, unlike one American stationed in that office for two years, who managed to pick up a total of three words.”

SOURCE: Perry Garfinkel, “On Keeping Your Foot Safely Out of Your Mouth,” www.nytimes.com, July 13, 2004. Reprinted by permission of The New York Times Co.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS

The term communication describes the process of sharing meaning by transmitting messages through media such as words, behavior, or material artifacts. Managers commu- nicate to coordinate activities, to disseminate information, to motivate people, and to negotiate future plans. It is of vital importance, then, for a receiver to interpret the mean- ing of a particular communication in the way the sender intended. Unfortunately, the communication process (see Exhibit 1) involves stages during which meaning can be dis- torted. Anything that serves to undermine the communication of the intended meaning is typically referred to as noise.

The primary cause of noise stems from the fact that the sender and the receiver each exist in a unique, private world thought of as her or his life space.The context of that private world, largely based on culture, experience, relations, values, and so forth, determines the interpretation of meaning in communication. People filter, or selectively understand, messages consistent with their own expectations and perceptions of reality and their values and norms of behavior. The more dissimilar the cultures of those involved, the more the likelihood of misinterpretation. In this way, as Samovar, Porter, and Jain state, cultural factors pervade the communication process:

Culture not only dictates who talks with whom, about what, and how the communication proceeds, it also helps to determine how people encode messages, the meanings they have for messages, and the conditions and circumstances under which various messages may or may not be sent, noticed, or interpreted. In fact, our entire repertory of communicative behaviors is dependent largely on the culture in which we have been raised. Culture, consequently, is the founda- tion of communication. And, when cultures vary, communication practices also vary.5

Communication, therefore, is a complex process of linking up or sharing the percep- tual fields of sender and receiver; the perceptive sender builds a bridge to the life space of the receiver.6 After the receiver interprets the message and draws a conclusion about what the sender meant, he or she will, in most cases, encode and send back a response, making communication a circular process.

The communication process is rapidly changing, however, as a result of technological developments, therefore propelling global business forward at a phenomenal growth rate. These changes are discussed later in this chapter.

Communicating Across Cultures

Feedback

Receiver

Decodes Meaning

Sender

Encodes Meaning

Medium

Message

Noise

Culture

EXHIBIT 1 The Communication Process

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

Cultural Noise in the Communication Process In Japanese there are several words for “I” and several words for “you” but their

use depends on the relationship between the speaker and the other person. In short, there is no “I” by itself; the “I” depends on the relationship.

H. C. TRIANDIS, The Blackwell Handbook of Cross-cultural Management 7

Because the focus in this text is on effective cross-cultural communication, it is impor- tant to understand what cultural variables cause noise in the communication process.This knowledge of cultural noise—the cultural variables that undermine the communications of intended meaning—will enable us to take steps to minimize that noise and so to improve communication.

When a member of one culture sends a message to a member of another culture, intercultural communication takes place. The message contains the meaning intended by the encoder. When it reaches the receiver, however, it undergoes a transformation in which the influence of the decoder’s culture becomes part of the meaning.8 Exhibit 2 pro- vides an example of intercultural communication in which the meaning got all mixed up. Note how the attribution of behavior differs for each participant. Attribution is the process in which people look for an explanation of another person’s behavior. When they realize that they do not understand another, they tend, say Hall and Hall, to blame their confusion on the other’s “stupidity, deceit, or craziness.”9

In the situation depicted in Exhibit 2, the Greek employee becomes frustrated and resigns after experiencing communication problems with his American boss. How could

EXHIBIT 2 Cultural Noise in International Communication

Behavior Attribution

American: “How long will it take you to finish this report?” American: I asked him to participate.

Greek: His behavior makes no sense. He is the boss. Why doesn’t he tell me?

Greek: “I don’t know. How long should it take?” American: He refuses to take responsibility.

Greek: I asked him for an order.

American: “You are in the best position to analyze time American: I press him to take responsibility for his actions.

requirements.” Greek: What nonsense: I’d better give him an answer.

Greek: “10 days.” American: He lacks the ability to estimate time; this time estimate is totally inadequate.

American: “Take 15. Is it agreed? You will do it in 15 days?” American: I offer a contract.

Greek: These are my orders: 15 days.

In fact, the report needed 30 days of regular work. So the Greek worked day and night, but at the end of the 15th day, he still needed to do one more day’s work.

American: “Where is the report?” American: I am making sure he fulfills his contract.

Greek: He is asking for the report. Greek: “It will be ready tomorrow.” (Both attribute that it is not ready.)

American: “But we agreed it would be ready today.” American: I must teach him to fulfill a contract.

Greek: The stupid, incompetent boss! Not only did he give me the wrong orders, but he doesn’t even appreciate that I did a 30-day job in 16 days.

The Greek hands in his resignation. The American is surprised.

Greek: I can’t work for such a man.

SOURCE: Adapted from H. C. Triandis, Interpersonal Behavior (Monterey, California Brooks/Cole, 1997), 248; reported in Simcha Ronen, Comparative and Multinational Management (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1986), 101–102.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

this outcome have been avoided? We do not have much information about the people or the context of the situation, but we can look at some of the variables that might have been involved and use them as a basis for analysis.

THE CULTURE–COMMUNICATION LINK

The following sections examine underlying elements of culture that affect communica- tion. The degree to which one is able to effectively communicate largely depends on how similar the other person’s cultural expectations are to our own. However, cultural gaps can be overcome by prior learning and understanding of those variables and how to adjust to them.

Trust in Communication The key ingredient in a successful alliance is trust.

JAMES R. HOUGHTON, Former Chairman, Corning, Inc.10

Effective communication, and therefore collaboration in alliances across national bound- aries, depends on the informal understandings among the parties that are based on the trust that has developed between them. However, the meaning of trust and how it is developed and communicated vary across societies. In China and Japan, for example, business transactions are based on networks of long-standing relationships based on trust rather than on the formal contracts and arm’s-length relationships typical of the United States.When there is trust between parties, implicit understanding arises within communi- cations. This understanding has numerous benefits in business, including encouraging communicators to overlook cultural differences and minimize problems. It allows com- municators to adjust to unforeseen circumstances with less conflict than would be the case with formal contracts, and it facilitates open communication in exchanging ideas and information.11 From his research on trust in global collaboration, John Child suggests the following guidelines for cultivating trust:

• Create a clear and calculated basis for mutual benefit. There must be realistic commitments and good intentions to honor them.

• Improve predictability: Strive to resolve conflicts and keep communication open. • Develop mutual bonding through regular socializing and friendly contact.12

What can managers anticipate with regard to the level of trust in communications with people in other countries? If trust is based on how trustworthy we consider a person to be, then it must vary according to that society’s expectations about whether that culture supports the norms and values that predispose people to behave credibly and benevo- lently. Are there differences across societies in those expectations of trust? Research by the World Values Study Group of 90,000 people in 45 societies provides some insight on cultural values regarding predisposition to trust. When we examine the percentage of respondents in each society who responded that “most people can be trusted,” we can see that the Nordic countries and China had the highest predisposition to trust, followed by Canada, the United States, and Britain, while Brazil, Turkey, Romania, Slovenia, and Latvia had the lowest level of trust in people.13

The GLOBE Project Results from the GLOBE research on culture provide some insight into culturally appro- priate communication styles and expectations for the manager to use abroad. GLOBE researchers Javidan and House make the following observations:14 For people in societies that ranked high on performance orientation—for example, the United States—present- ing objective information in a direct and explicit way is an important and expected man- ner of communication; this compares with people in Russia or Greece—which ranked low on performance orientation—for whom hard facts and figures are not readily available or

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

taken seriously. In those cases, a more indirect approach is preferred. People from coun- tries ranking low on assertiveness, such as Sweden, also recoil from explicitness; their preference is for much two-way discourse and friendly relationships.

People ranking high on the “humane” dimension, such as those from Ireland and the Philippines, make avoiding conflict a priority and tend to communicate with the goal of being supportive of people rather than of achieving objective end results. This compares to people from France and Spain whose agenda is achievement of goals.

The foregoing provides examples of how to draw implications for appropriate commu- nication styles from the research findings on cultural differences across societies. Astute global managers have learned that culture and communication are inextricably linked and that they should prepare themselves accordingly. Most will also suggest that you carefully watch and listen to how your hosts are communicating and to follow their lead.

Cultural Variables in the Communication Process On a different level, it is also useful to be aware of cultural variables that can affect the communication process by influencing a person’s perceptions; some of these variables have been identified by Samovar and Porter and discussed by Harris and Moran, and others.15 These variables are as follows: attitudes, social organization, thought patterns, roles, language (spoken or written), nonverbal communication (including kinesic behavior, proxemics, paralanguage, and object language), and time. Although these variables are discussed separately in this text, their effects are interdependent and inseparable—or, as Hecht, Andersen, and Ribeau put it, “Encoders and decoders process nonverbal cues as a conceptual, multichanneled gestalt.”16

Attitudes We all know that our attitudes underlie the way we behave and communicate and the way we interpret messages from others. Ethnocentric attitudes are a particular source of noise in cross-cultural communication. In the incident described in Exhibit 2, both the American and the Greek are clearly attempting to interpret and convey meaning based on their own experiences of that kind of transaction. The American is probably guilty of stereotyping the Greek employee by quickly jumping to the conclusion that he is unwilling to take responsibility for the task and the scheduling.

This problem, stereotyping, occurs when a person assumes that every member of a society or subculture has the same characteristics or traits. Stereotyping is a common cause of misunderstanding in intercultural communication. It is an arbitrary, lazy, and often destructive way to find out about people.Astute managers are aware of the dangers of cultural stereotyping and deal with each person as an individual with whom they may form a unique relationship.

Social Organization Our perceptions can be influenced by differences in values, approach, or priorities relative to the kind of social organizations to which we belong. These organizations may be based on one’s nation, tribe, or religious sect, or they may consist of the members of a certain profession. Examples of such organizations include the Academy of Management or the United Auto Workers (UAW).17

Thought Patterns The logical progression of reasoning varies widely around the world and greatly affects the communication process. Managers cannot assume that others use the same reasoning processes, as illustrated by the experience of a Canadian expatriate in Thailand:

While in Thailand a Canadian expatriate’s car was hit by a Thai motorist who had crossed over the double line while passing another vehicle. After failing to establish that the fault lay with the Thai driver, the Canadian flagged down a police- man.After several minutes of seemingly futile discussion, the Canadian pointed out the double line in the middle of the road and asked the policeman directly, “What do these lines signify?” The policeman replied, “They indicate the center of the

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

road and are there so I can establish just how far the accident is from that point.” The Canadian was silent. It had never occurred to him that the double line might not mean “no passing allowed.18

In the Exhibit 2 scenario, perhaps the American did not realize that the Greek employee had a different rationale for his time estimate for the job. Because the Greek was not used to having to estimate schedules, he just took a guess, which he felt he had been forced to do.

Roles Societies differ considerably in their perceptions of a manager’s role. Much of the difference is attributable to their perceptions of who should make the decisions and who has responsibility for what. In the Exhibit 2 example, the American assumes that his role as manager is to delegate responsibility, to foster autonomy, and to practice participative management. He prescribes the role of the employee without any consideration of whether the employee will understand that role. The Greek’s frame of reference leads him to think that the manager is the boss and should give the order about when to have the job completed. He interprets the American’s behavior as breaking that frame of reference, and therefore he feels that the boss is “stupid and incompetent” for giving him the wrong order and for not recognizing and appreciating his accomplishment. The manager should have considered what behaviors Greek workers would expect of him and then either should have played that role or discussed the situation carefully, in a training mode.

Language Spoken or written language, of course, is a frequent cause of miscommunication, stemming from a person’s inability to speak the local language, a poor or too-literal translation, a speaker’s failure to explain idioms, or a person missing the meaning conveyed through body language or certain symbols. Even among countries that share the same language, problems can arise from the subtleties and nuances inherent in the use of the language, as noted by George Bernard Shaw: “Britain and America are two nations separated by a common language.” This problem can exist even within the same country among subcultures or subgroups.19

Many international executives tell stories about lost business deals or lost sales because of communication blunders:

When Pepsi Cola’s slogan “Come Alive with Pepsi” was introduced in Germany, the company learned that the literal German translation of “come alive” is “come out of the grave.”

A U.S. airline found a lack of demand for its “rendezvous lounges” on its Boeing 747s. They later learned that “rendezvous” in Portuguese refers to a room that is rented for prostitution.20

More than just conveying objective information, language also conveys cultural and social understandings from one generation to the next.21 Examples of how language reflects what is important in a society include the 6,000 different Arabic words used to describe camels and their parts and the 50 or more classifications of snow used by the Inuit, the Eskimo people of Canada.

Inasmuch as language conveys culture, technology, and priorities, it also serves to separate and perpetuate subcultures. In India, 14 official and many unofficial languages are used, and over 800 languages are spoken on the African continent.

Because of increasing workforce diversity around the world, the international business manager will have to deal with a medley of languages. For example, assembly- line workers at the Ford plant in Cologne, Germany, speak Turkish and Spanish as well as German. In Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand, many of the buyers and traders are Chinese. Not all Arabs speak Arabic; in Tunisia and Lebanon, for example, French is the language of commerce.22

International managers need either a good command of the local language or compe- tent interpreters. The task of accurate translation to bridge cultural gaps is fraught with

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

difficulties, as Schermerhorn discovered in his study of 153 Hong Kong Chinese bilinguals. He found a considerable difference in interpretation and response according to whether the medium used was Chinese or English, even after many experts were involved in the translation process.23

Even the direct translation of specific words does not guarantee the congruence of their meaning, as with the word “yes” used by Asians, which usually means only that they have heard you, and, often, that they are too polite to disagree. The Chinese, for example, through years of political control, have built into their communication culture a caution- ary stance to avoid persecution by professing agreement with whatever opinion was held by the person questioning them.24

Politeness and a desire to say only what the listener wants to hear create noise in the communication process in much of the world. Often, even a clear translation does not help a person to understand what is meant because the encoding process has obscured the true message. With the poetic Arab language—replete with exaggeration, elaboration, and repetition—meaning is attributed more to how something is said rather than what is said.

For the American supervisor and Greek employee cited in Exhibit 2, it is highly likely that the American could have picked up some cues from the employee’s body language, which probably implied problems with the interpretation of meaning. How might body language have created noise in this case?

Nonverbal Communication Behavior that communicates without words (although it often is accompanied by words) is called nonverbal communication. People will usually believe what they see over what they hear—hence the expression, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Studies show that these subtle messages account for between 65 and 93 percent of interpreted communication.25 Even minor variations in body language, speech rhythms, and punctuality, for example, often cause mistrust and misperception of the situation among cross-national parties.26 The media for such nonverbal communication can be categorized into four types: (1) kinesic behavior, (2) proxemics, (3) paralanguage, and (4) object language.

The term kinesic behavior refers to communication through body movements— posture, gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact. Although such actions may be universal, often their meaning is not. Because kinesic systems of meaning are culturally specific and learned, they cannot be generalized across cultures. Most people in the West would not correctly interpret many Chinese facial expressions; sticking out the tongue expresses surprise, a widening of the eyes shows anger, and scratching the ears and cheeks indicates happiness.27 Research has shown for some time, however, that most people worldwide can recognize displays of the basic emotions of anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise, and contempt.28

Many businesspeople and visitors react negatively to what they feel are inappropriate facial expressions, without understanding the cultural meaning behind them. In his studies of cross-cultural negotiations, Graham observed that the Japanese feel uncomfortable when faced with the Americans’ eye-to-eye posture. They are taught since childhood to bow their heads out of humility, whereas the automatic response of Americans is “look at me when I’m talking to you!”29

Subtle differences in eye behavior (called oculesics) can throw off a communication badly if they are not understood. Eye behavior includes differences not only in eye contact but also in the use of eyes to convey other messages, whether or not that involves mutual gaze. Edward T. Hall, author of the classic The Silent Language, explains the differences in eye contact between the British and the Americans. During speech, Americans will look straight at you, but the British keep your attention by looking away. The British will look at you when they have finished speaking, which signals that it is your turn to talk.The implicit rationale for this is that you can’t interrupt people when they are not looking at you.30

It is helpful for U.S. managers to be aware of the many cultural expectations regard- ing posture and how they may be interpreted. In Europe or Asia, a relaxed posture in business meetings may be taken as bad manners or the result of poor upbringing. In

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

Korea you are expected to sit upright, with feet squarely on the floor, and to speak slowly, showing a blending of body and spirit.

Managers can also familiarize themselves with the many different interpretations of hand and finger signals around the world, some of which may represent obscene gestures. Of course, we cannot expect to change all of our ingrained, natural kinesic behavior, but we can be aware of what it means to others. We also can learn to understand the kinesic behavior of others and the role it plays in their society, as well as how it can affect business transactions. Misunderstanding the meanings of body movements—or an ethnocentric attitude toward the “proper” behavior—can have negative repercussions, as illustrated in the opening profile of this chapter.

Proxemics deals with the influence of proximity and space on communication—both personal space and office space or layout. Americans expect office layout to provide private space for each person, and usually a larger and more private space as one goes up the hierarchy. In much of Asia, the custom is open office space, with people at all levels working and talking in close proximity to one another. Space communicates power in both Germany and the United States, evidenced by the desire for a corner office or one on the top floor. The importance of French officials, however, is made clear by a position in the middle of subordinates, communicating that they have a central position in an information network, where they can stay informed and in control.31

Do you ever feel vaguely uncomfortable and start moving backward slowly when someone is speaking to you? This is because that person is invading your “bubble”—your personal space. Personal space is culturally patterned, and foreign spatial cues are a com- mon source of misinterpretation. When someone seems aloof or pushy, it often means that she or he is operating under subtly different spatial rules.

Hall and Hall suggest that cultural differences affect the programming of the senses and that space, perceived by all the senses, is regarded as a form of territory to be pro- tected.32 South Americans, Southern and Eastern Europeans, Indonesians, and Arabs are high-contact cultures, preferring to stand close, touch a great deal, and experience a “close” sensory involvement. On the other hand, North Americans, Asians, and Northern Europeans are low-contact cultures and prefer much less sensory involvement, standing farther apart and touching far less. They have a “distant” style of body language.33

Interestingly, high-contact cultures are mostly located in warmer climates, and low- contact cultures in cooler climates. Americans are relatively nontouching, automatically standing at a distance so that an outstretched arm will touch the other person’s ear.34

Standing any closer than that is regarded as invading intimate space. However,Americans and Canadians certainly expect a warm handshake and maybe a pat on the back from closer friends, though not the very warm double handshake of the Spaniards (clasping the forearm with the left hand). The Japanese, considerably less haptic (touching), do not shake hands; an initial greeting between a Japanese and a Spanish businessperson would be uncomfortable for both parties if they were untrained in cultural haptics.

When considering high- and low-contact cultures, we can trace a correlation between Hofstede’s cultural variables of individualism and collectivism and the types of kinesic and proxemic behaviors people display. Generally, people from individualistic cultures are more remote and distant, whereas those from collectivist cultures are interdependent: They tend to work, play, live, and sleep in close proximity.35

The term paralanguage refers to how something is said rather than the content—the rate of speech, the tone and inflection of voice, other noises, laughing, or yawning. The culturally aware manager learns how to interpret subtle differences in paralanguage, including silence. Silence is a powerful communicator. It may be a way of saying no, of being offended, or of waiting for more information to make a decision. There is consider- able variation in the use of silence in meetings. While Americans get uncomfortable after 10 or 15 seconds of silence, Chinese prefer to think the situation over for 30 seconds before speaking.The typical scenario between Americans and Chinese, then, is that the American gets impatient, says something to break the silence, and offends the Chinese by interrupt- ing his or her chain of thought and comfort level with the subject.36 Graham, a researcher on international negotiations, taped a bargaining session held at Toyota’s U.S. headquar- ters in California. The U.S. executive had made a proposal to open a new production

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

facility in Brazil and was waiting for a response from the three Japanese executives, who sat with lowered eyes and hands folded on the table. After about 30 seconds—an eternity to Americans, accustomed to a conversational response time of a few tenths of a second— the American blurted out that they were getting nowhere—and the meeting ended in a stalemate. More sensitivity to cultural differences in communication might have led him to wait longer or perhaps to prompt some further response through another polite question.37

The term object language, or material culture, refers to how we communicate through material artifacts, whether architecture, office design and furniture, clothing, cars, or cosmetics. Material culture communicates what people hold as important. In Mexico, a visiting international executive or salesperson is advised to take time out, before negotiat- ing business, to show appreciation for the surrounding architecture, which is prized by Mexicans.

Time Another variable that communicates culture is the way people regard and use time. To Brazilians, relative punctuality communicates the level of importance of those involved. To Middle Easterners, time is something controlled by the will of Allah.

To initiate effective cross-cultural business interactions, managers should know the difference between monochronic time systems and polychronic time systems and how they affect communications. Hall and Hall explain that in monochronic cultures (Switzerland, Germany, and the United States), time is experienced in a linear way, with a past, a present, and a future, and time is treated as something to be spent, saved, made up, or wasted. Classified and compartmentalized, time serves to order life. This attitude is a learned part of Western culture, probably starting with the Industrial Revolution. Monochronic people, found in individualistic cultures, generally concentrate on one thing at a time, adhere to time commitments, and are accustomed to short-term relationships.

In contrast, polychronic cultures tolerate many things occurring simultaneously and emphasize involvement with people.Two Latin friends, for example, will put an important conversation ahead of being on time for a business meeting, thus communicating the pri- ority of relationships over material systems. Polychronic people—Latin Americans, Arabs, and those from other collectivist cultures—may focus on several things at once, be highly distractible, and change plans often.38

The relationship between time and space also affects communication. Polychronic people, for example, are likely to hold open meetings, moving around and conducting transactions with one party and then another, rather than compartmentalizing meeting topics, as do monochronic people.

The nuances and distinctions regarding cultural differences in nonverbal communica- tion are endless.The various forms are listed in Exhibit 3; wise intercultural managers will take careful account of the role that such differences might play.

EXHIBIT 3 Forms of Nonverbal Communication

� Facial expressions � Body posture � Gestures with hands, arms, head, etc. � Interpersonal distance (proxemics) � Touching, body contact � Eye contact � Clothing, cosmetics, hairstyles, jewelry � Paralanguage (voice pitch and inflections, rate of speech, and silence) � Color symbolism � Attitude toward time and the use of time in business and social interactions � Food symbolism and social use of meals

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

What aspects of nonverbal communication might have created noise in the interac- tions between the American supervisor and the Greek employee in Exhibit 2? Undoubtedly, some cues could have been picked up in the kinesics behavior of each person. It was the responsibility of the manager, in particular, to notice any indications from the Greek that could have prompted him to change his communication pattern or assumptions. Face-to-face communication permits the sender of the message to get immediate feedback, verbal and nonverbal, and thus to have some idea as to how that message is being received and whether additional information is needed.What aspects of the Greek employee’s kinesic behavior or paralanguage might have been evident to a more culturally sensitive manager? Did both parties’ sense of time affect the communi- cation process?

Context East Asians live in relatively complex social networks with prescribed role rela-

tions; attention to context is, therefore, important for their effective functioning. In contrast, westerners live in less constraining social worlds that stress independence and allow them to pay less attention to context.

RICHARD E. NISBETT, September 200539

A major differentiating factor that is a primary cause of noise in the communication process is that of context—which actually incorporates many of the variables discussed earlier. The context in which the communication takes place affects the meaning and interpretation of the interaction. Cultures are known to be high- or low-context cultures, with a relative range in between.40 In high-context cultures (Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and the Mediterranean), feelings and thoughts are not explicitly expressed; instead, one has to read between the lines and interpret meaning from one’s general understanding. Two such high-context cultures are those of South Korea and Arab cultures. In such cultures, key information is embedded in the context rather than made explicit. People make assumptions about what the message means through their knowl- edge of the person or the surroundings. In these cultures, most communication takes place within a context of extensive information networks resulting from close personal relationships. See the following Management Focus for further explanation of the Asian communication style.

In low-context cultures (Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavia, and North America), where personal and business relationships are more compartmentalized, communication media have to be more explicit. Feelings and thoughts are expressed in words, and infor- mation is more readily available. Westerners focus more on the individual, and therefore tend to view events as the result of specific agents, while easterners view events in a broader and longer-term context.41

In cross-cultural communication between high- and low-context people, a lack of understanding may preclude reaching a solution, and conflict may arise. Germans, for example, will expect considerable detailed information before making a business deci- sion, whereas Arabs will base their decisions more on knowledge of the people involved—the information is present, but it is implicit.

People in high-context cultures expect others to understand unarticulated moods, subtle gestures, and environmental clues that people from low-context cultures simply do not process. Misinterpretation and misunderstanding often result.42 People from high-context cultures perceive those from low-context cultures as too talkative, too obvious, and redundant. Those from low-context cultures perceive high-context people as nondisclosing, sneaky, and mysterious. Research indicates, for example, that Americans find talkative people more attractive, whereas Koreans, high-context people, perceive less verbal people as more attractive. Finding the right balance between low- and high-context communication can be tricky, as Hall and Hall point out: “Too much

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Management Focus

Oriental Poker Face: Eastern Deception or Western Inscrutability?

Among many English expressions that are likely to offend those of us whose ancestry may be traced to the Far East, two stand out quite menacingly for me: “Oriental poker face” and “idiotic Asian smile.”The for- mer refers to the supposedly inscrutable nature of a facial expression that apparently reflects no particular state of mind, while the latter pokes fun at a face fixed with a perpetually friendly smile. Westerners’ perplexity, when faced with either, arises from the impression that these two diametrically opposed masquerading strate- gies prevent them from extracting useful information— at least the type of information that at least they could process with a reasonable measure of confidence— about the feelings of the person before them. An Asian face that projects no signs of emotion, then, seems to most Westerners nothing but a facade. It does not matter whether that face wears an unsightly scowl or a shining ray; a facial expression they cannot interpret poses a genuine threat.

Compassionate and sympathetic to their perplexity as I may be, I am also insulted by the Western insensi- tivity to the significant roles that subtle signs play in Asian cultures. Every culture has its unique modus operandi for communication. Western culture, for example, apparently emphasizes the importance of direct communication. Not only are the communicators taught to look directly at each other when they convey a message, but they also are encouraged to come right to the point of the message. Making bold statements or asking frank questions in a less than diplomatic manner (i.e., “That was really a very stupid thing to do!” or “Are you interested in me?”) is rarely construed as rude or indiscreet. Even embarrassingly blunt questions such as “Senator Hart, have you ever had sexual intercourse with anyone other than your wife?” are tolerated most of the time. Asians, on the other hand, find this direct communicative communication style quite unnerving. In many social interactions, they avoid direct eye con- tact. They “see” each other without necessarily looking directly at each other, and they gather information about inner states of mind without asking even the most discreet or understated questions. Many times they talk

around the main topic, and, yet, they succeed remark- ably well in understanding one another’s position. (At least they believe they have developed a reasonably clear understanding.)

To a great extent, Asian communication is listening- centered; the ability to listen (and a special talent for detecting various communicative cues) is treated as equally important as, if not more important than, the ability to speak.This contrasts clearly with the American style of communication that puts the utmost emphasis on verbal expression; the speaker carries most of the burden for ensuring that everyone understands his or her message. An Asian listener, however, is prone to blame himself or herself for failing to reach a compre- hensive understanding from the few words and gestures performed by the speaker. With this heavier burden placed on the listener, an Asian speaker does not feel obliged to send clearly discernible message cues (at least not nearly so much as he or she is obliged to do in American cultural contexts). Not obligated to express themselves without interruption, Asians use silence as a tool in communication. Silence, by most Western con- ventions, represents discontinuity of communication and creates a feeling of discomfort and anxiety. In the Orient, however, silence is not only comfortably toler- ated but is considered a desirable form of expression. Far from being a sign of displeasure or animosity, it serves as an integral part of the communication process, used for reflecting on messages previously exchanged and for carefully crafting thoughts before uttering them.

It is not outlandish at all, then, for Asians to view Americans as unnecessarily talkative and lacking in the ability to listen. For the Asian, it is the American who projects a mask of confidence by being overly expres- sive both verbally and nonverbally. Since the American style of communication places less emphasis on the act of listening than on speaking, Asians suspect that their American counterparts fail to pick up subtle and astute communicative signs in conversation. To one with a cul- tural outlook untrained in reading those signs, an inscrutable face represents no more than a menacing or amusing mask.

Communicating Across Cultures

SOURCE: Dr. Jin Kim, State University of New York–Plattsburgh. Copyright © 1995 by Dr. Jin Kim. Used with permission of Dr. Kim.

information leads people to feel they are being talked down to; too little information can mystify them or make them feel left out.”43 Exhibit 4 shows the relative level of context in various countries.

The importance of understanding the role of context and nonverbal language to avoid misinterpretation is illustrated in the Comparative Management in Focus: Communicating with Arabs.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

High

Low

(high context/implicit)

(low context/explicit)

Japan Middle East Latin America Africa Mediterranean England France North America Scandinavia Germany Switzerland

Low Explicitness of communication High

Co nt

ex t

EXHIBIT 4 Cultural Context and Its Effects on Communication

SOURCE: Based on information drawn from Edward T. Hall and M. R. Hall, Understanding Cultural Differences (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 1990); and Martin Rosch, “Communications: Focal Point of Culture,” Management International Review 27, no. 4 (1987): 60.

Comparative Management in Focus

Communicating with Arabs

In the Middle East, the meaning of a communication is implicit and interwoven, and consequently much harder for Americans, accustomed to explicit and specific mean- ings, to understand.

Arabs are warm, emotional, and quick to explode:“Sounding off” is regarded as a safety valve.44 In fact, the Arabic language aptly communicates the Arabic culture, one of emotional extremes. The language contains the means for overexpression, many adjectives, words that allow for exaggeration, and metaphors to emphasize a position. What is said is often not as important as how it is said.45 Eloquence and flowery speech are admired for their own sake, regardless of the content. Loud speech is used for dramatic effect.

At the core of Middle Eastern culture are friendship, honor, religion, and tradi- tional hospitality. Family, friends, and connections are very important on all levels in the Middle East and will take precedence over business transactions. Arabs do business with people, not companies, and they make commitments to people, not contracts. A phone call to the right person can help to get around seemingly insurmountable obstacles. An Arab expects loyalty from friends, and it is understood that giving and receiving favors is an inherent part of the relationship; no one says no to a request for a favor.A lack of follow-through is assumed to be beyond the friend’s control.46

Because hospitality is a way of life and highly symbolic, a visitor must be careful not to reject it by declining refreshment or rushing into business discussions. Part of that hospitality is the elaborate system of greetings and the long period of getting acquainted, perhaps taking up the entire first meeting. While the handshake may seem limp, the rest of the greeting is not. Kissing on the cheeks is common among men, as is hand-holding between male friends. However, any public display of inti- macy between men and women is strictly forbidden by the Arab social code.

Women play little or no role in business or entertainment; the Middle East is a male-dominated society, and it is impolite to inquire about women. Other nonverbal taboos include showing the soles of one’s feet and using the left (unclean) hand to eat or pass something. In discussions, slouching in a seat or leaning against a wall communicates a lack of respect.

The Arab society also values honor. Harris and Moran explain: “Honor, social prestige, and a secure place in society are brought about when conformity is

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

Context

Cultural values, expectations, norms

Display Rules

N O I S E

Decoding Feedback medium Encoding

Physical distance/cold

directness; impatience;

monochronic time system

Dissonance in low/high contact and time/logic;

friendship and loyalty not established

Hospitality and honor offended; intended

message cut off

Polychronic time system; hospitality;

open meeting dissonance

Demonstrative flattery/flowery

and indirect language; close contact

Verbal/ nonverbal

incongruence; high-to-low contact; events “if Allah wills”

Misunderstood message

Sender AMERICAN

Receiver

Receiver ARAB Sender

Encoding Medium/message Decoding

Impatience; frustration;

honor misunderstood

EXHIBIT 5 Miscommunication Between Americans and Arabs Caused by Cross-cultural Noise

achieved.When one fails to conform, this is considered to be damning and leads to a degree of shame.”47 Shame results not just from doing something wrong but from having others find out about that wrongdoing. Establishing a climate of honesty and trust is part of the sense of honor. Therefore, considerable tact is needed to avoid conveying any concern or doubt. Arabs tend to be quite introverted until a mutual trust is built, which takes a long time.48

In their nonverbal communication, most Arab countries are high-contact cultures. Arabs stand and sit closer and touch people of the same sex more than Westerners. They do not have the same concept of “public” and “private” space, or as Hall puts it, “Not only is the sheer noise level much higher, but the piercing look of the eyes, the touch of the hands, and the mutual bathing in the warm moist breath during conversa- tion represent stepped-up sensory inputs to a level which many Europeans find unbearably intense.49 On the other hand, the distance preferred by North Americans may leave an Arab suspicious of intentions because of the lack of olfactory contact.50

The Muslim expression Bukra insha Allah—“Tomorrow if Allah wills”—explains much about the Arab culture and its approach to business transactions. A cultural clash typically occurs when an American tries to give an Arab a deadline.“I am going to Damascus tomorrow morning and will have to have my car tonight,” is a sure way to get the mechanic to stop work,” explains Hall, “because to give another person a deadline in this part of the world is to be rude, pushy, and demanding.”51 In such instances, the attitude toward time communicates as loudly as words.

In verbal interactions, managers must be aware of different patterns of Arab thought and communication. Compared to the direct, linear fashion of American communication, Arabs tend to meander: They start with social talk, discuss business for a while, loop round to social and general issues, then back to business, and so on.52 American impatience and insistence on sticking to the subject will “cut off their loops,” triggering confusion and dysfunction.

Exhibit 5 illustrates some of the sources of noise that are likely to interfere in the communication process between Americans and Arabs.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

Communication Channels In addition to the variables related to the sender and receiver of a message, the variables linked to the channel itself and the context of the message must be taken into considera- tion.These variables include fast or slow messages and information flows, as well as differ- ent types of media.

Information Systems Communication in organizations varies according to where and how it originates, the channels, and the speed at which it flows, whether it is formal or informal, and so forth. The type of organizational structure, the staffing policies, and the leadership style will affect the nature of an organization’s information system.

As an international manager, it is useful to know where and how information origi- nates and the speed at which it flows, both internally and externally. In centralized organi- zational structures, as in South America, most information originates from top managers. Workers take less responsibility to keep managers informed than in a typical company in the United States, where delegation results in information flowing from the staff to the managers. In a decision-making system where many people are involved, such as the ringi system of consensus decision making in Japan, the expatriate needs to understand that there is a systematic pattern for information flow.54

Context also affects information flow. In high-context cultures (such as in the Middle East), information spreads rapidly and freely because of the constant close contact and the implicit ties among people and organizations. Information flow is often informal. In low-context cultures (such as Germany or the United States), information is controlled and focused, and thus it does not flow so freely.55 Compartmentalized roles and office lay- outs stifle information channels; information sources tend to be more formal.

It is crucial for an expatriate manager to find out how to tap into a firm’s informal sources of information. In Japan, employees usually have a drink together on the way home from work, and this becomes an essential source of information. However, such communication networks are based on long-term relationships in Japan (and in other high-context cultures). The same information may not be readily available to “outsiders.” A considerable barrier in Japan separates strangers from familiar friends, a situation that discourages communication.

Americans are more open and talk freely about almost anything, whereas Japanese will disclose little about their inner thoughts or private issues. Americans are willing to have a wide “public self,” disclosing their inner reactions verbally and physically. In con- trast, the Japanese prefer to keep their responses largely to their “private self.” The Japanese expose only a small portion of their thoughts; they reduce, according to Barnlund, “the unpredictability and emotional intensity of personal encounters.”56

Cultural clashes between the public and private selves in intercultural communication between Americans and Japanese result when each party forces its cultural norms of com- munication on the other. In the American style, the American’s cultural norms of explicit communication impose on the Japanese by invading the person’s private self. The

For people doing business in the Middle East, the following are some useful guidelines for effective communication:

• Be patient. Recognize the Arab attitude toward time and hospitality—take time to develop friendship and trust, for these are prerequisites for any social or business transactions.

• Recognize that people and relationships matter more to Arabs than the job, company, or contract—conduct business personally, not by correspondence or telephone.

• Avoid expressing doubts or criticism when others are present—recognize the importance of honor and dignity to Arabs.

• Adapt to the norms of body language, flowery speech, and circuitous verbal patterns in the Middle East, and don’t be impatient to “get to the point.”

• Expect many interruptions in meetings, delays in schedules, and changes in plans.53

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

Japanese style of implicit communication causes a negative reaction from the American because of what is perceived as too much formality and ambiguity, which wastes time.57

Cultural variables in information systems and context underlie the many differences in communication style between Japanese and Americans. Exhibit 6 shows some specific differences. The Japanese ningensei (“human beingness”) style of communication refers

Japanese Ningensei Style of Communication U.S. Adversarial Style of Communication

1. Indirect verbal and nonverbal communication 1. More direct verbal and nonverbal communication

2. Relationship communication 2. More task communication

3. Discourages confrontational strategies 3. Confrontational strategies more acceptable

4. Strategically ambiguous communication 4. Prefers more to-the-point communication

5. Delayed feedback 5. More immediate feedback

6. Patient, longer-term negotiators 6. Shorter-term negotiators

7. Uses fewer words 7. Favors verbosity

8. Distrustful of skillful verbal communicators 8. Exalts verbal eloquence

9. Group orientation 9. More individualistic orientation

10. Cautious, tentative 10. More assertive, self-assured

11. Complementary communicators 11. More publicly critical communication

12. Softer, heartlike logic 12. Harder, analytic logic preferred

13. Sympathetic, empathetic, complex use of pathos 13. Favors logos, reason

14. Expresses and decodes complex relational 14. Expresses and decodes complex logos, strategies and nuances cognitive nuances

15. Avoids decision making in public 15. Frequent decision making in public

16. Makes decisions in private venues, away 16. Frequent decision in public at negotiating from public eye tables

17. Decisions via ringi and nemawashi 17. Decisions by majority rule and public (complete consensus process) compromise is more commonplace

18. Uses go-betweens for decision making 18. More extensive use of direct person-to- person, player-to-player interaction for decisions

19. Understatement and hesitation in verbal 19. May publicly speak in superlatives, and nonverbal communication exaggerations, nonverbal projection

20. Uses qualifiers, tentativeness, humility 20. Favors fewer qualifiers, more ego-centered as communicator

21. Receiver/listening-centered 21. More speaker- and message-centered

22. Inferred meanings, looks beyond words 22. More face-value meaning, more denotative to nuances, nonverbal communication

23. Shy, reserved communicators 23. More publicly self-assertive

24. Distaste for purely business transactions 24. Prefers to “get down to business” or “nitty gritty”

25. Mixes business and social communication 25. Tends to keep business negotiating more separated from social communication

26. Utilizes matomari or “hints” for achieving 26. More directly verbalizes management’s group adjustment and saving face in negotiating preference at negotiating tables

27. Practices haragei or “belly logic” 27. Practices more linear, discursive, analytical and communication logic; greater reverence for cognitive than

for affective

EXHIBIT 6 Difference Between Japanese and American Communication Styles

SOURCE: Reprinted from A. Goldman, “The Centrality of ‘Ningensei’ to Japanese Negotiating and Interpersonal Relationships: Implications for U.S. Japanese Communication,” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18, no. 1 (Winter 1994), with permission from Elsevier.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

to the preference for humanity, reciprocity, a receiver orientation, and an underlying dis- trust of words and analytic logic.58 The Japanese believe that true intentions are not read- ily revealed in words or contracts but are, in fact, masked by them. In contrast to the typical American’s verbal agility and explicitness, Japanese behaviors and communica- tions are directed to defend and give face for everyone concerned; to do so, they avoid public disagreements at all costs. In cross-cultural negotiations, this last point is essential.

The speed with which we try to use information systems is another key variable that needs attention to avoid misinterpretation and conflict. Americans expect to give and receive information very quickly and clearly, moving through details and stages in a lin- ear fashion to the conclusion. They usually use various media for fast messages—letters or emails giving all the facts and plans up front, faxes, and familiar relationships. In con- trast, the French use the slower message channels of deep relationships, culture, and sometimes mediators to exchange information. A French written communication will be tentative, with subsequent letters slowly building up to a new proposal. The French pref- erence for written communication, even for informal interactions, echoes the formality of their relationships—and results in a slowing down of message transmission that often seems unnecessary to Americans. Jean-Louis Reynal, a plant manager at Citröen, explains that “it wouldn’t be too much of an exaggeration to say that, until they are writ- ten, until they are entrusted to the blackboard, the notepad, or the flip chart, ideas have no reality for the French manager. You could even say that writing is an indispensable aid to ‘being’ for us.”59

In short, it behooves Americans to realize that, because most of the world exchanges information through slower message media, it is wise to schedule more time for transac- tions, develop patience, and learn to get at needed information in more subtle ways—after building rapport and taking time to observe the local system for exchanging information.

We have seen that cross-cultural misinterpretation can result from noise in the actual transmission of the message—the choice or speed of media. Interpreting the meaning of a message can thus be as much a function of the transmission channel (or medium) as it is of examining the message itself.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: GOING GLOBAL AND ACTING LOCAL

All information is local; IT systems can connect every corner of the globe, but IT managers are learning they have to pay attention to regional differences.

COMPUTERWORLD60

Deploying B2B e-commerce technology [globally] . . . becomes exponentially more difficult because systems must address concerns not germane to domestic networks, such as language translation, currency conversion and even cultural differences.

INTERNETWEEK61

Using the Internet as a global medium for communication has enabled companies of all sizes to quickly develop a presence in many markets around the world—and, in fact, has enabled them to “go global.” However, their global reach cannot alone translate into global business. Those companies are learning that they have to adapt their e-commerce and their enterprise resource planning (ERP) applications to regional idiosyncrasies beyond translation or content management issues; even asking for a name or an email address can incur resistance in many countries where people do not like to give out per- sonal information.62 While communication over the Internet is clearly not as personal as face-to-face cross-cultural communication, those transactions must still be regionalized and personalized to adjust to differences in language, culture, local laws, and business models, as well as differences in the level of development in the local telecommunications infrastructure.Yet, if the Internet is a global medium for communication, why do so many U.S. companies treat the Web as a U.S.-centric phenomenon? Giving preference to some geographic regions, languages, and cultures is “a short-sighted business decision that will

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

result in diminished brand equity, market share, profits and global leadership.”63 With an annual predicted growth rate of 70 percent in non–English-language sites and usage, this soon puts English-language sites in the minority.64

It seems essential, then, that a global online strategy must also be multilocal. The impersonal nature of the Web must somehow be adapted to local cultures to establish relationships and create customer loyalty. Effective technological communication requires even more cultural sensitivity than face-to-face communication because of the inability to assess reactions and get feedback, or even to retain contact in many cases. It is still people, after all, who respond to and interact with other people through the medium of the Internet, and those people interpret and respond according to their own languages and cultures, as well as their local business practices and expectations. In Europe, for example, significant differences in business cultures and e-business technology have slowed e-business progress there. However, some companies are making progress in pan- European integration services, such as leEurope, which aims to cross language, currency, and cultural barriers. Specifically, leEurope is building a set of services “to help companies tie their back-end e-business systems together across European boundaries through a series of mergers involving regional e-business integrators in more than a dozen countries.”65

MANAGING CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Steps toward effective intercultural communication include the development of cultural sensitivity, careful encoding, selective transmission, careful decoding, and appropriate follow-up actions.

Developing Cultural Sensitivity When acting as a sender, a manager must make it a point to know the receiver and to encode the message in a form that will most likely be understood as intended. On the manager’s part, this requires an awareness of his or her own cultural baggage and how it affects the communication process. In other words, what kinds of behaviors does the message imply, and how will they be perceived by the receiver? The way to anticipate the most likely meaning that the receiver will attach to the message is to internalize honest cultural empathy with that person. What is the cultural background—the societal, economic, and organizational context—in which this communication is taking place? What are this person’s expectations regarding the situation, what are the two parties’ relative positions, and what might develop from this communication? What kinds of transactions and behaviors is this person used to? Cultural sensitivity is really just a mat- ter of understanding the other person, the context, and how the person will respond to the context. Americans, unfortunately, have a rather negative reputation overseas of not being culturally sensitive. One not-for-profit group, called Business for Diplomatic Action, has the following advice for Americans when doing business abroad, in its attempts to counteract the stereotypical American traits such as boastfulness, loudness, and speed:

• Read a map: Familiarize yourself with the local geography to avoid making insulting mistakes. • Dress up: In some countries, casual dress is a sign of disrespect • Talk small: Talking about wealth, power, or status—corporate or personal—can create

resentment. • No slang: Even casual profanity is unacceptable • Slow down: Americans talk fast, eat fast, move fast, live fast. Many cultures do not. • Listen as much as you talk: Ask people you’re visiting about themselves and their way of life. • Speak lower and slower: A loud voice is often perceived as bragging. • Religious restraint: In many countries, religion is not a subject for public discussion. • Political restraint: Steer clear of this subject. If someone is attacking U.S. politicians or policies,

agree to disagree.66

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

Careful Encoding In translating his or her intended meaning into symbols for cross-cultural communication, the sender must use words, pictures, or gestures that are appropriate to the receiver’s frame of reference. Of course, language training is invaluable, but senders should also avoid idioms and regional sayings (such as “Go fly a kite” or “Foot the bill”) in a transla- tion, or even in English when speaking to a non-American who knows little English.

Literal translation, then, is a limited answer to language differences. Even for people in English-speaking countries, words may have different meanings.67 Ways to avoid prob- lems are to speak slowly and clearly, avoid long sentences and colloquial expressions, and explain things in several different ways and through several media, if possible.68 However, even though English is in common use around the world for business transactions, the manager’s efforts to speak the local language will greatly improve the climate. Sometimes people from other cultures resent the assumption by English-speaking executives that everyone else will speak English.

Language translation is only part of the encoding process; the message also is expressed in nonverbal language. In the encoding process, the sender must ensure congru- ence between the nonverbal and the verbal message. In encoding a message, therefore, it is useful to be as objective as possible and not to rely on personal interpretations. To further clarify their messages, managers can hand out written summaries of verbal presentations and use visual aids, such as graphs or pictures. A good general guide is to move slowly, wait, and take cues from the receivers.

Selective Transmission The type of medium chosen for the message depends on the nature of the message, its level of importance, the context and expectations of the receiver, the timing involved, and the need for personal interaction, among other factors. Typical media include email, letters or memos, reports, meetings, telephone calls, teleconferences, videoconferences, or face-to- face conversations. The secret is to find out how communication is transmitted in the local organization—how much is downward versus upward or vertical versus horizontal, how the grapevine works, and so on. In addition, the cultural variables discussed earlier need to be considered: whether the receiver is from a high- or low-context culture, whether he or she is used to explicit or implicit communication, and what speed and routing of messages will be most effective.

For the most part, it is best to use face-to-face interaction for relationship building or for other important transactions, particularly in intercultural communications, because of the lack of familiarity between parties. Personal interactions give the manager the oppor- tunity to get immediate verbal and visual feedback and to make rapid adjustments in the communication process.

International dealings are often long-distance, of course, limiting the opportunity for face-to-face communication. However, personal rapport can be established or enhanced through telephone calls or videoconferencing and through trusted contacts. Modern electronic media can be used to break down communication barriers by reducing waiting periods for information, clarifying issues, and allowing instant consultation. Global telecommunications and computer networks are changing the face of cross-cultural communication through the faster dissemination of information within the receiving organization. Ford of Europe uses videoconferencing for engineers in Britain and Germany to consult about quality problems. Through the video monitors, they examine one another’s engineering diagrams and usually find a solution that gets the factory moving again in a short time.69

Careful Decoding of Feedback Timely and effective feedback channels can also be set up to assess a firm’s general commu- nication about the progression of its business and its general management principles. The best means for getting accurate feedback is through face-to-face interaction because this allows the manager to hear, see, and immediately sense how a message is being interpreted.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

When visual feedback on important issues is not possible or appropriate, it is a good idea to use several means of attaining feedback, in particular, employing third parties.

Decoding is the process of translating the received symbols into the interpreted message. The main causes of incongruence are (1) the receiver misinterprets the message, (2) the receiver encodes his or her return message incorrectly, or (3) the sender misinter- prets the feedback. Two-way communication is thus essential for important issues so that successive efforts can be made until an understanding has been achieved. Asking other colleagues to help interpret what is going on is often a good way to break a cycle of miscommunication.

Perhaps the most important means for avoiding miscommunication is to practice careful decoding by improving one’s listening and observation skills. A good listener practices projective listening, or empathetic listening—listening without interruption or evaluation to the full message of the speaker, attempting to recognize the feelings behind the words and nonverbal cues, and understanding the speaker’s perspective.

At the multinational corporation (MNC) level, avenues of communication and feed- back among parent companies and subsidiaries can be kept open through telephone calls, regular meetings and visits, reports, and plans—all of which facilitate cooperation, perfor- mance control, and the smooth running of the company. Communication among far-flung operations can be best managed by setting up feedback systems and liaison people. The headquarters people should maintain considerable flexibility in cooperating with local managers and allowing them to deal with the local context as they see fit.

Follow-up Actions Managers communicate through both action and inaction. Therefore, to keep open the lines of communication, feedback, and trust, managers must follow through with action on what has been discussed and then agreed upon—typically a contract, which is probably the most important formal business communication. Unfortunately, the issue of contract follow-through is a particularly sensitive one across cultures because of the different interpretations regarding what constitutes a contract (perhaps a handshake, perhaps a full legal document) and what actions should result. Trust, future communications, and future business are based on such interpretations, and it is up to managers to understand them and to follow through on them.

The management of cross-cultural communication depends largely on a manager’s per- sonal abilities and behavior.Those behaviors that researchers indicate to be most important to intercultural communication effectiveness (ICE) are listed here, as reviewed by Ruben:

1. Respect (conveyed through eye contact, body posture, voice tone, and pitch) 2. Interaction posture (the ability to respond to others in a descriptive, nonevaluative, and non-

judgmental way) 3. Orientation to knowledge (recognizing that one’s knowledge, perception, and beliefs are valid

only for oneself and not for everyone else) 4. Empathy 5. Interaction management 6. Tolerance for ambiguity 7. Other-oriented role behavior (one’s capacity to be flexible and to adopt different roles for the

sake of greater group cohesion and group communication)70

Whether at home or abroad, certain personal capabilities facilitate effective intercul- tural communication; these abilities can help the expatriate to adapt to the host country and enable productive working relations to develop in the long term. Researchers have established a relationship between personality traits and behaviors and the ability to adapt to the host-country’s cultural environment.71 What is seldom pointed out, however, is that communication is the mediating factor between those behaviors and the relative level of adaptation the expatriate achieves. The communication process facilitates cross-cultural adaptation through this process, expatriates learn the dominant communication patterns of the host society. Therefore, we can link those personality factors shown by research to ease adaptation with those necessary for effective intercultural communication.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

Kim has consolidated the research findings of these characteristics into two categories: (1) openness—traits such as open-mindedness, tolerance for ambiguity, and extrovertedness; and (2) resilience—traits such as having an internal locus of control, per- sistence, a tolerance of ambiguity, and resourcefulness.72 These personality factors, along with the expatriate’s cultural and racial identity and the level of preparedness for change, comprise that person’s potential for adaptation. The level of preparedness can be improved by the manager before his or her assignment by gathering information about the host country’s verbal and nonverbal communication patterns and norms of behavior. Kim explains that the major variables that affect the level of communication competence achieved between the host and the expatriate are the adaptive predisposition of the expatriate and the conditions of receptivity and conformity to pressure in the host environment. These factors affect the process of personal and social communication, and, ultimately, the adaptation outcome. Explains Kim, “Three aspects of strangers’ adaptive change—increased functional fitness, psychological health, and intercultural identity— have been identified as direct consequences of prolonged communication-adaptation experiences in the host society.”73 Explores areas where the firm has responsibility to improve the employee/managerial ability to adapt.

In identifying personal and behavioral specifics that facilitate ICE, however, we can- not lose sight of the whole picture. We must remember the basic principle of contingency management, which is that managers operate in a system of many interacting variables in a dynamic context. Studies show that situational factors—such as the physical environ- ment, time constraints, degree of structure, feelings of boredom or overwork, and anonymity—are strong influences on intercultural communication competence.74

It is this interdependence of many variables that makes it difficult for intercultural researchers to isolate and identify factors for success. Although managers try to under- stand and control up front as many factors as possible that will lead to management effectiveness, often they only find out what works from the results of their decisions.

CONCLUSION

Effective intercultural communication is a vital skill for international managers and domestic managers of multicultural workforces. Because miscommunication is much more likely to occur among people from different countries or racial backgrounds than among those from similar backgrounds, it is important to be alert to how culture is reflected in communication—in particular through the development of cultural sensitiv- ity and an awareness of potential sources of cultural noise in the communication process. A successful international manager is thus attuned to these variables and is flexible enough to adjust his or her communication style to best address the intended receivers— that is, to do it “their way.”

Cultural variables and the manner in which culture is communicated underlie the processes of negotiation and decision making. How do people around the world negotiate: What are their expectations and their approach to negotiations? What is the importance of understanding negotiation and decision-making processes in other countries? Next chapter addresses these questions and makes suggestions for the international manager to handle these important tasks.

Summary of Key Points

1. Communication is an inherent part of a manager’s role, taking up the majority of the manager’s time on the job. Effective intercultural communication largely determines the success of international transactions or the output of a culturally diverse workforce.

2. Culture is the foundation of communication, and communication transmits culture. Cultural variables that can affect the communication process by influencing a person’s perceptions include attitudes, social organizations, thought patterns, roles, language, nonverbal language, and time.

3. Language conveys cultural understandings and social norms from one generation to the next. Body language, or non- verbal communication, is behavior that communicates without words. It accounts for 65 to 93 percent of interpreted communication.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

4. Types of nonverbal communication around the world are kinesic behavior, proxemics, paralanguage, and object language. 5. Effective cross-cultural communication must take account of whether the receiver is from a country with a monochronic or

a polychronic time system. 6. Variables related to channels of communication include high- and low-context cultures, fast or slow messages and informa-

tion flows, and various types of media. 7. In high-context cultures, feelings and messages are implicit and must be accessed through an understanding of the person

and the system. In low-context cultures, feelings and thoughts are expressed, and information is more readily available. 8. The effective management of intercultural communication necessitates the development of cultural sensitivity, careful

encoding, selective transmission, careful decoding, and follow-up actions. 9. Certain personal abilities and behaviors facilitate adaptation to the host country through skilled intercultural communication.

10. Communication via the Internet must still be localized to adjust to differences in language, culture, local laws, and business models.

Discussion Questions

1. How does culture affect the process of attribution in communication? 2. What is stereotyping? Give some examples. How might people stereotype you? How does a sociotype differ from a

stereotype? 3. What is the relationship between language and culture? How is it that people from different countries who speak the same

language may still miscommunicate? 4. Give some examples of cultural differences in the interpretation of body language. What is the role of such nonverbal

communication in business relationships? 5. Explain the differences between monochronic and polychronic time systems. Use some examples to illustrate their

differences and the role of time in intercultural communication. 6. Explain the differences between high- and low-context cultures, giving some examples. What are the differential effects on

the communication process? 7. Discuss the role of information systems in a company, how and why they vary from country to country, and the effects of

these variations.

Application Exercises

1. Form groups in your class—multicultural groups, if possible. Have each person make notes about his or her perceptions of (1) Mexican-Americans, (2) Native Americans, (3) African-Americans, and (4) Americans of European descent. Discuss your notes and draw conclusions about common stereotypes. Discuss any differences and why stereotyping occurs.

2. Invite some foreign students to your class. Ask them to bring photographs, slides, and so forth of people and events in their native countries. Have them explain the meanings of various nonverbal cues, such as gestures, dress, voice inflections, architecture, and events. Discuss with them any differences between their explanations and the attributions you assigned to those cues.

3. Interview a faculty member or a businessperson who has worked abroad. Ask him or her to identify factors that facilitated or inhibited adaptation to the host environment. Ask whether more preparation could have eased the transition and what, if anything, that person would do differently before another trip.

Experiential Exercise: Script for Juan Perillo and Jean Moore

Scene I: February 15, San Juan, Puerto Rico

JUAN: Welcome back to Puerto Rico, Jean. It is good to have you here in San Juan again. I hope that your trip from Dayton was a smooth one.

JEAN: Thank you, Juan. It’s nice to be back here where the sun shines. Fred sends his regards and also asked me to tell you how important it is that we work out a firm production schedule for the next three months. But first, how is your family? All doing well, I hope.

JUAN: My wife is doing very well, but my daughter, Marianna, broke her arm and has to have surgery to repair the bone. We are very worried about that because the surgeon says she may have to have several operations. It is very difficult to think about my poor little daughter in the operating room. She was out playing with some other children when it happened. You know how roughly children sometimes play with each other. It’s really amazing that they don’t have more injuries. Why, just last week, my son . . .

JEAN: Of course I’m very sorry to hear about little Marianna, but I’m sure everything will go well with the surgery. Now, shall we start work on the production schedule?

JUAN: Oh, yes, of course, we must get started on the production schedule.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

JEAN: Fred and I thought that June 1 would be a good cutoff date for the first phase of the schedule. And we also thought that 100 A-type computers would be a reasonable goal for that phase. We know that you have some new assemblers whom you are training, and that you’ve had some problems getting parts from your suppliers in the past few months. But we’re sure you have all those problems worked out by now and that you are back to full production capability. So, what do you think? Is 100 A-type computers produced by June 1 a reasonable goal for your people?

JUAN: (Hesitates a few seconds before replying) You want us to produce 100 of the newly designed A-type computers by June 1? Will we also be producing our usual number of Z-type computers, too?

JEAN: Oh, yes. Your regular production schedule would remain the same as it’s always been. The only difference is that you would be producing the new A-type computers, too. I mean, after all, you have a lot of new employees, and you have all the new manufacturing and assembling equipment that we have in Dayton. So, you’re as ready to make the new product as we are.

JUAN: Yes, that’s true. We have the new equipment, and we’ve just hired a lot of new assemblers who will be working on the A-type computer. I guess there’s no reason we can’t meet the production schedule you and Fred have come up with.

JEAN: Great, great. I’ll tell Fred you agree with our decision and will meet the goal of 100 A-type computers by June 1. He’ll be delighted to know that you can deliver what he was hoping for. And, of course, Juan, that means that you’ll be doing just as well as the Dayton plant.

Scene II: May 1, San Juan, Puerto Rico

JEAN: Hello, Juan. How are things here in Puerto Rico? I’m glad to have the chance to come back and see how things are going.

JUAN: Welcome, Jean. It’s good to have you here. How is your family?

JEAN: Oh, they’re fine, just fine. You know, Juan, Fred is really excited about that big order we just got from the Defense Department for 50 A-type computers. They want them by June 10, so we will ship them directly to Washington from San Juan as the computers come off your assembly line. Looks like it’s a good thing we set your production goal at 100 A-type computers by June 1, isn’t it?

JUAN: Um, yes, that was certainly a good idea.

JEAN: So, tell me, have you had any problems with the new model? How are your new assemblers working out? Do you have any suggestions for changes in the manufacturing specs? How is the new quality control program working with this model? We’re always looking for ways to improve, you know, and we appreciate any ideas you can give us.

JUAN: Well, Jean, there is one thing . . .

JEAN: Yes? What is that?

JUAN: Well, Jean, we have had a few problems with the new assemblers. Three of them have had serious illnesses in their families and have had to take off several days at a time to nurse a sick child or elderly parent. And another one was involved in a car accident and was in the hospital for several days. And you remember my daughter’s surgery? Well, her arm didn’t mend properly, and we had to take her to Houston for additional consultations and therapy. But, of course, you and Fred knew about that.

JEAN: Yes, we were aware that you had had some personnel problems and that you and your wife had had to go to Houston with Marianna. But what does that have to do with the 50 A-type computers for the Defense Department?

JUAN: Well, Jean, because of all these problems, we have had a few delays in the production schedule. Nothing serious, but we are a little bit behind our schedule.

JEAN: How far behind is “a little bit”? What are you trying to tell me, Juan? Will you have 50 more A-type computers by June 1 to ship to Washington to fill the Defense Department order?

JUAN: Well, I certainly hope we will have that number ready to ship. You know how difficult it can be to predict a precise number for manufacturing, Jean. You probably have many of these same problems in the Dayton plant, don’t you?

SOURCE: L. Catlin and T. White, International Business: Cultural Sourcebook and Case Studies (Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western, 1994), used with permission.

Exercise Questions

1. What went wrong for Jean in Puerto Rico? Could this have been avoided? What should she have done differently? 2. Replay the role of Jean and Juan during their conversation, establishing a more constructive communication and manage-

ment style than Jean did previously.

Internet Resources

Visit the Deresky Companion Website at www.prenhall.com/deresky for this chapter’s Internet resources.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

C a s e S t u d y

Elizabeth Visits GPC’s French Subsidiary Elizabeth Moreno is looking out the window from her business-class seat somewhere over the Indian Ocean on Thai Air en route to Paris’s Orly International Airport from the Philippines, where she has just spent a week of meetings and problem solving in a pharmaceutical sub- sidiary of the Global Pharmaceutical Company (GPC).

GPC has the lion’s share of the worldwide market in ethical pharmaceutical products. Ethical drugs are those that can be purchased only through a physician’s prescription. In the United States, GPC has research and manufacturing sites in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The company also has subsidiaries in Canada, Puerto Rico, Australia, the Philippines, Brazil, England, and France. GPC has its administrative headquarters in Pennsylvania.

Because of the geographically dispersed locations of its subsidiaries, GPC’s top scientists and key managers log thousands of jet miles a year visiting various offices and plants. Its top specialists and executives regularly engage in multisite real-time video and telephone con- ferences, and they also use electronic mail, faxes, modems, and traditional mail to keep in touch with key personnel.

Despite these technological advances, face-to-face meetings and on-site consultations are used widely. In the case of the French subsidiary, nothing can take the place of face-to-face consultations. The French manager is suspicious of figures in the balance sheet, of the telephone, of his subordinates, of what he reads in the newspaper, and of what Americans tell him in confi- dence. In contrast, the American trusts all these (Hill 1994, 60). This is the reason GPC regularly sends its scientists and executives to France.

Elizabeth Moreno is one of the key specialists within GPC. Her expertise in chemical processing is widely known not only within her company but also in the pharmaceutical industry worldwide. She has been working at GPC for more than twelve years since finish- ing her advanced degree in chemistry from a university in the Midwest. While working for GPC, she has been given more and more responsibilities leading to her cur- rent position as vice president of chemical development and processing.

From a hectic visit in the Philippines, her next assignment is to visit the French subsidiary plant for one week to study a problem with shelf-life testing of one of its newest anti-allergy capsules. It seems that the prod- uct’s active ingredient is degrading sooner than the expi- ration date. During her stay, she will conduct training for chemists in state-of-the-art techniques for testing and for training local managers in product statistical quality

control. These techniques are now currently used in other GPC locations.

To prepare for her foreign assignments, Elizabeth attended a standard three-hour course given by her company’s human resource management department on dealing with cross-cultural issues. Moreover, she recalls reading from a book on French management about the impersonal nature of French business relations. This was so much in contrast with what she just has experienced during her visit to the Philippine subsidiary. The French tend to regard authority as residing in the role and not in the person. It is by the power of the position that a French manager gets things done (Hill 1994, 58). With this knowledge, she knows that her expertise and her position as vice president will see her through the tech- nical aspects of the meetings that are lined up for the few days she will be in Paris.

French managers view their work as an intellectual challenge that requires application of individual brain- power. What matters to them is the opportunity to show one’s ability to grasp complex issues, analyze problems, manipulate ideas, and evaluate solutions (Hill 1994, 214).

There are a few challenges for Elizabeth on this assignment. She is not fluent in French. Her only expo- sure to France and the language was a two-week vaca- tion with her husband in Paris a couple of years ago. However, in her highly technical field, the universal lan- guage is English. Thus, she believes she will not have much difficulty communicating with the French manage- ment to get her assignment successfully completed.

Americans place high value on training and educa- tion. In the United States, the field of management has principles that are generally applicable and can be taught and learned. In contrast, the French place more emphasis on the person who can adapt to any situation by virtue of his intellectual quality (Hill 1994, 63). Expertise and intellectual ability are inherent in the individual and cannot be acquired simply through train- ing or education.

It appears that Elizabeth will be encountering very different ways of doing business in France. While she thought about the challenges ahead, her plane landed at Orly International Airport. She whisked through cus- toms and immigration without any delays. No limousine was waiting for her curbside at the arrival. Instead she took the train to downtown Paris and checked into an apartment hotel that was reserved for her in advance of her arrival.

After a week in Paris, she is expected back in her home office to prepare reports to GPC management about her foreign assignments.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

CASE QUESTIONS

1. What can Elizabeth Moreno do to establish a posi- tion of power in front of French managers to help her accomplish her assignment in five days? Explain.

2. What should Elizabeth know about high-context versus low-context cultures in Europe? Explain.

3. What should Elizabeth include in her report, and what should be the manner in which it is communi- cated, so that future executives and scientists avoid communications pitfalls? Explain.

4. How can technical language differ from everyday language in corporate communications? Explain.

Case Bibliography

Richard Hill, Euro-Managers and Martians: The Business Cultures of Europe’s Trading Nations (Brussels: Europulications, Division of Europublic, SA/NV, 1994).

SOURCE: This case was prepared by Edwin J. Portugal, MBA, Ph.D., who teaches multinational management at State University of New York–Potsdam. It is intended to be used as a basis for dis- cussion on the complexity of multicultural management and not to illustrate effective versus ineffective management styles. Copyright © 2004 by Edwin J. Portugal.

ENDNOTES

1. E. T. Hall and M. R. Hall, Understanding Cultural Differences (Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 1990), p. 4.

2. E. Wilmott, “New Media Vision,” New Media Age, September 9, 1999, p. 8.

3. Hall and Hall; K. Wolfson and W. B. Pearce, “A Crosscultural Comparison of the Implications of Self-discovery on Conversation Logics,” Communication Quarterly 31 (1983): 249–256.

4. H. Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work (New York: Harper and Row, 1973).

5. L. A. Samovar, R. E. Porter, and N. C. Jain, Understanding Intercultural Communication (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1981).

6. P. R. Harris and R. T. Moran, Managing Cultural Differences, 3rd ed. (Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing, 1991).

7. H. C. Triandis, quoted in The Blackwell Handbook of Cross-cultural Management, eds. M. Gannon and K. Newman (Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers, 2002).

8. Samovar, Porter, and Jain. 9. Hall and Hall, 15.

10. James R. Houghton, Former Chairman of Corning, Inc., quoted in Organizational Dynamics 29, no. 4 (Spring 2001).

11. J. Child, “Trust: The Fundamental Bond in Global Collaboration,” Organizaional Dynamics 29, no. 4 (Spring 2001): 274–288.

12. Ibid. 13. World Values Study Group (1994), World Values Survey,

ICPSR Version (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research); R. Inglehart, M. Basanez, and A. Moreno, Human Values and Beliefs: A Cross-cultural Sourcebook (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998).

14. Mansour Javidan and Robert J. House, “Cultural Acumen for the Global Manager,” Organizational Dynamics 29, no. 4 (Spring 2001), 289–305.

15. Samovar and Porter; Harris and Moran. 16. M. L. Hecht, P. A. Andersen, and S. A. Ribeau, “The

Cultural Dimensions of Nonverbal Communication, in Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, ed. M. K. Asante and W. B. Gudykunst (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989), pp. 163–185.

17. H. C. Triandis, Interpersonal Behavior (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1977).

18. Harris and Moran. 19. Adapted from N.Adler, International Dimensions of

Organizational Behavior, 2nd ed. (Boston: PWS-Kent, 1991). 20. D. A. Ricks, Big Business Blunders: Mistakes in

Multinational Marketing (Homewood, IL: Dow Jones–Irwin, 1983).

21. Vern Terpstra and K. David, The Cultural Environment of International Business, 3rd ed. (Cincinnati, OH: South-Western, 1991).

22. L. Copeland and L. Griggs, Going International (New York: Random House, 1985).

23. J. R. Schermerhorn, “Language Effects in Cross-cultural Management Research: An Empirical Study and a Word of Caution,” National Academy of Management Proceedings (1987): 103.

24. Jiatao Li, Katherine R. Xin, Anne Tsui, and Donald C. Hambrick, “Building Effective International Joint Venture Leadership Teams in China,” Journal of World Business 34, no. 1 (1999): 52–68.

25. R. L. Daft, Organizational Theory and Design, 3rd ed. (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1989).

26. Li et al., 1999. 27. O. Klineberg, “Emotional Expression in Chinese

Literature,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 33 (1983): 517–530.

28. P. Ekman and W. V. Friesen, “Constants Across Cultures in the Face and Emotion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17 (1971): 124–129.

29. J. Pfeiffer, “How Not to Lose the Trade Wars by Cultural Gaffes,” Smithsonian 18, no. 10 (January 1988).

30. E. T. Hall, The Silent Language (New York: Doubleday, 1959).

31. Hall and Hall. 32. Ibid. 33. N. M. Sussman and H. M. Rosenfeld, “Influence of Culture,

Language, and Sex on Conversational Distance,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 (1982): 66–74.

34. Copeland and Griggs. 35. Hecht, Andersen, and Ribeau.

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

Communicating Across Cultures

36. Li et al., 1999. 37. Pfeiffer. 38. Hall and Hall. 39. Robert Matthews, “Where East Can Never Meet West,”

Financial Times, October 21, 2005. 40. Hall and Hall. 41. Matthews, 2005. 42. Hecht, Andersen, and Ribeau. 43. Hall and Hall. 44. R. Axtell, ed., Do’s and Taboos Around the World, 2nd ed.

(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1985). 45. Copeland and Griggs. 46. M. K. Nydell, Understanding Arabs (Yarmouth,

ME: Intercultural Press, 1987). 47. Harris and Moran. 48. E. T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension (New York:

Doubleday, 1966), p. 15. 49. A. Almaney and A. Alwan, Communicating with the

Arabs (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 1982). 50. E. T. Hall, “The Silent Language in Overseas Business,”

Harvard Business Review (May–June 1960). 51. Ibid. 52. Based largely on the work of Nydell; and R. T. Moran and

P. R. Harris, Managing Cultural Synergy (Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing, 1982), pp. 81–82.

53. Ibid. 54. Copeland and Griggs. 55. Hall and Hall. 56. D. C. Barnlund, “Public and Private Self in

Communicating with Japan,” Business Horizons (March–April 1989): 32–40.

57. Hall and Hall. 58. A. Goldman, “The Centrality of ‘Ningensei’ to Japanese

Negotiating and Interpersonal Relationships: Implications for U.S.–Japanese Communication,” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18, no. 1 (Winter 1994).

59. Jean-Louis Barsoux and Peter Lawrence, “The Making of a French Manager,” Harvard Business Review (July–August 1991): 58–67.

60. D. Shand, “All Information Is Local: IT Systems Can Connect Every Corner of the Globe, But IT Managers Are Learning They Have to Pay Attention to Regional Differences,” Computerworld, April 10, 2000, 88 (1).

61. T. Wilson, “B2B Links, European Style: Integrator Helps Applications Cross Language, Currency and Cultural Barriers,” InternetWeek, October 9, 2000, p. 27.

62. Shand. 63. Wilmott. 64. Business Week, February, 1998, 14–15. 65. Wilson. 66. www.Businessfordiplomaticaction.org, retrieved

August 19, 2006. 67. D. Ricks, Big Business Blunders (Homewood, IL: Dow

Jones-Irwin, 1983). 68. Adler. 69. P. G. W. Keen, “Sorry, Wrong Number,” Business Month

(January 1990): 62–67. 70. R. B. Ruben, “Human Communication and Cross-cultural

Effectiveness,” in Intercultural Communication: A Reader, ed. L. Samovar and R. Porter (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1985), p. 339.

71. D. Ruben and B. D. Ruben, “Cross-cultural Personnel Selection Criteria, Issues and Methods,” in Handbook of Intercultural Training, Vol. 1, Issues in Theory and Design, ed. D. Landis and R. W. Brislin (New York: Pergamon, 1983), pp. 155–175.

72. Young Yun Kim, Communication and Cross-cultural Adaptation: An Integrative Theory (Clevedon, England; Multilingual Matters, 1988).

73. Ibid. 74. R. W. Brislin, Cross-cultural Encounters: Face-to-Face

Interaction (New York: Pergamon, 1981).

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

FO R

RE VI

EW O

NL Y

− NO

T FO

R CL

AS SR

OO M

US E

1. first_button:
2. prev_button:
3. zoomout_button:
4. zoomin_button:
5. next_button:
6. last_button: