1 | P a g e
RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY AND THE STRUCTURING OF MESSAGES IN INTER-CULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
Abstract
Intercultural communication aims at the process of interaction between two or more people from
different cultural backgrounds and their perception of the concept of power. One also has to understand
that the history of authority is also reflected in the language used by the cultures, their decision making,
approach to technology and education, as well as business. Colonialism has particularly affected the way
power is perceived in today‘s world particularly in the colonized countries. The linguistic markers for respect
and power may be reflected in the choice of honorifics and pronouns in language. Another cultural
preference is consensus for group decisions, while others may prefer orders from the top. Culture also
plays a significant role in determining authority; in some places, women have never been allowed to hold
leadership positions. It is evident that the existing and advanced form of technologies such as social media
and virtual meeting are now problematic to the existing authority across cultures. It also records a signature
about the function of the student/teacher and the radical/subversive displacing of the authority of the
knowledge. When multinationals reach out to different countries, conflicts in leadership behaviors and
bargaining approaches must be managed for efficient business. Thus the intercultural consciousness of
authority should be associated with the linguistic behaviors, and the norms of decision making, gender and
generational roles and historical perceptions of the specific location. The knowledge put into practice can
build the help in regards to how to construct massages when working with other cultures and how not to
offend people. Hence, the constant change in the form of authority is paramount to maintaining intercultural
competency in today‘s world. Non-Western cultures‘ value for hierarchy should be respected to enhance
the general global culture of mutual understanding and interaction.
2 | P a g e
Introduction
These elements involve the ways in which authority is addressed and the formalities that are used
when constructing messages; they differ greatly from culture to culture and directly affect the success of
inter-cultural communication. Specifically, the relative degree of power distance, which is the extent of
acceptance of power inequalities and the distribution of power within a culture, is a primary factor that
affects this type of culture. Hofstede‘s power distance dimension concerns the extent to which people from
a particular culture accept inequality between individuals in a society based on factors such as power,
money, and prestige. These cultures have manifested high power distance and in these cultures,
subordinates respect authority much more compared to cultures with low power distance. As such, the
channels through which the subordinates relate to the superiors are formal and often bureaucratic and
conform to known hierarchies. For instance, Japanese culture in which power distance is relatively high; the
junior employees will show high level of respect to their seniors by addressing them politely, even showing
a healthy gesture of bowing. Such messages tend to be professionally drafted, revised, and approved for
transmission upwards through organizational structures particularly in high power distance cultures with
leadership figures. On the other hand, USA and Australia have relatively lesser values of cultural PD which
suggest that there is relatively lesser Cultural power distance and thus more ease in communication
between the effective levels of an organizational hierarchy. For instance, the young American employees
believe they can freely talk to their supervisors in the ways that would be considered impolite or rude in
Confucian Asia. The above assertion means that the absence of such knowledge may mean that what a
subordinated employee sends to a superior is deemed impudent, impolite and undesirable where the same
message is expected to be prudent, reasoned and necessary in another culture. Therefore, the careful
monitoring of power dynamics in the communication process and the skillful management of the power
dynamics through the modification of the power language used during the communication process facilitate
the attainment of effective communication between two parties who have been brought up in different
cultures and in different orientations towards power. Establishing where potential conflicts may arise in
these realms enables interchanges to be designed in the optimal manner.
Historical Context of Authority in Cultures
Evolution of authority structures in culture globally
Authority is as old as recorded history and is part of the human society across the world and
different civilizations due to the interaction of the number of factors in different societies depending on time
and space. Since ancient period the agrarian societies are seen to have a direct connection between the
3 | P a g e
political and social powers where the authority of the big landlords and the big owners of the arable lands
became dominant over the small workers who were in need of the lands and resources which the landlords
and the big owners were having. The authority of kings and the nobility stemmed from hereditary
possession and control of territories, armies of knights who maintained discipline and order, and religious
and cultural practices that justified the aristocracy and obedience to kings and lords. Civilizations such as
the Egyptians, Chinese, Sumerians and Romans are known to have centralised power in a god-king, or in
imperial dynasties who commanded resources and armies of subjects to enhance their power through
violence, economic extraction, religion, monumental construction, imagery and texts. When societies
became settled and trade increased new commercial groups emerged to challenge old agrarian
aristocracies for power shifts repeated in the transition of the early modern European age of enlightenment.
In the course of the ancient civilizations, people followed the kinship based clans, councils and elders, and
tribal chiefs, whose powers were rooted in the kinship, traditions, experience, and word, as well as the
capacity to appeal to spirits. Each of the major world religions, including Buddhism, Christianity,
Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism contributed to the establishment of authority in distant corners
of the globe; moreover, the leading spiritual practitioners such as priests, monks, ulama and rabbis were
deemed community leaders here, who stressed on the subjects‘ obedience to secular rulers, for instance,
with the help of the mandate of heaven or the divine right of rulers in East Thus, in the premodern society,
authority was somewhat decentralized at least in the peasant‘s agricultural context as they were subjugated
to the local lords and councils though certain large empires were excellent at centralizing authority within
the god-kings and imperial bureaucracy. The progress of science, atheism, republicanism, and
technologies that were developed during the time between the 1500s-1800s shifted the focus of authority
from religious, hereditary, and absolute resources during the Age of Reason, an intellectual period which
encompassed revolutions such as the French Revolution, and transferred the sovereignty to secular laws,
democratic principles, and theories of inherent rights inherent in the people.
Colonial influences on authority perception among cultures
Due to the hierarchical relations and the division of people into masters and slaves that were
inherent in colonialism, the perception of authority in previously colonized societies and cultures has been
changed for the worse due to colonial interference. The social relations in many colonized nations in Asia
and Africa and the systems of power and administration were either dismantled or reformed to suit the
colonial masters and the rulers provided were appointed to facilitate the colonial masters ‗economic and
political gains back home. This factor has informed views about legitimate exercise of authority especially in
4 | P a g e
relation to a central power and who has the right to wield it even after attaining political liberation from
colonial masters. This type of government is still perceived as illegitimate in many post-colonial African
nations where the centralized government was put in place by the former colonial powers and seen by a
portion of the population as continuing to exercise their oppressive rule rather than truly governing for the
sovereignty of the people. In the same way, British colonizers dividing India and other areas that are now
Pakistan and Bangladesh on the basis of religion also perpetuated tension post-colonial legacy of
perceived inequitable distribution of power that persists to this day. Native people in occupied territories
were denied the right to hold positions in the executive and legislative branches decisions, experience
political exclusion and view the central authorities as power that does not belong to them or their
community/ethnic/religious group which shapes the opinion about centralized power today. The European
colonizers also had the effect of dividing conquered lands ethnically or religiously and sowing the roots for
present continuous disputes over political power. In sum, the social and psychological effects of colonial
subjugation left by the structures and institutions of colonial rule in the former colonies undoubtedly evolved
and persistently shaped attitudes toward centralized power and governance as well as visions of legitimate
authority across the cultures with their legacy to the present time despite the fact that colonial rule has been
formally abolished decades ago.
Modern shifts in cultural authority dynamics
Accepting the changes of contemporary culture and the role of technology in the past few decades,
there are certain changes in the culture and sources that have the power to dictate and dominate. In the
past, cultural leaders were confined to certain occupations and organizations such as politics, religion,
education, media and news outlets as they represented the culture, but with the advancement of
technology in especially the use of the internet and social networks the cultural leaders are very many and
diverse. Everyone can express opinions, complain about powers, disseminate news, be it true or fake, with
no need to go through other mass media sources and ranks. This is because the power belongs to those
influencers who have established a mass of followers. Content created by ordinary individuals using tools
such as blogs, vlogs, and social media such as Twitter and Facebook mean that ordinary citizens
determine the message that circulates in the society. Authority has become decentralized which is a faster
dissemination of multimodal content, which creates viral moments. When an untalented person makes a
meme, they disseminate cultural references. Hashtags become so popular that they may even control the
ongoing discussions and debates. Whistleblowers and leakers are middlemen who relay important
information and there is also the case of the algorithms that decide on what is visible and to whom it is
5 | P a g e
made accessible. There is much more freedom of speech with more people involved/but concerns about
quality and sourcing of information/less censorship in written word. It is a clear indication that with
dissemination and consumption shifting online, previous gatekeepers such as newspapers and studies are
dismissed based on suspicion of bias, while online platforms struggle with fake news, propaganda, and
tribalism. It is thus a rather unstable and fragile kaleidoscopic social organization in which traditional culture
media authorities share an unstable and vague position with emergent social media influencers and
subcultures as accuracy, truth and reliability become pluralized.
At the discursive level of culture there is an increase in authorities but in terms of institutions it is
slower so there is always the question of the increase in the noise and the change in policy or social
progress. It has been suggested that gatekeeping and agenda-setting also occur, although in a more
distributed and diffuse manner across the social media platforms, discussion groups and key nodes. It‘s
executives of the large cultural conversation platforms such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and new-age
apps that control the speech and dictate either through undisclosed algorithms or policies but receive the
flak over speech tragedies and fake news. What is at stake, is the private content moderation that engages
with public interest and governance issues that raise concerns about the right cultural power for tech
leaders designed to maximize clicks and sales. In general, contemporary changes show that the discursive
power beyond cultures is not only being given by the old elites but is flowing in many directions involving
new elites as well.
Linguistic Aspects of Showing Respect
Honorific systems in various languages
The honorific systems relates to grammatical or lexical means by which the relative social status of
the speaker, the referent, and the addressee are encoded; the systems may be used for politeness, to
show respect or to mark distance or equal status between the interlocutors. For example, in the French
language, German, Russian, and Spanish languages, people are able to distinguish between formal and
informal ‗you‘. Likewise, the Japanese, Korean, and Javanese languages have strict norms of expressing
the power distance between the speaker and the addressee through verb terminations. Pronominal and
verbal honorification in Indian languages including Hindi and Tamil include the marks of honorification
which in turn depend upon aspects like age, social status/power, intimacy, gender, and context. In
Indonesian, the alternation between registor or speech level is tied to the speaker‘s evaluation of the
interactional scenario between the speaker, the addressee, and the topic. The registers involve such levels
6 | P a g e
as the explicit, straightforward levels of formality all the way up to the polite, polite, and even formally polite
levels of formality that do not mention anything at all about the other person. Similarly, Burmese and Thai
utilize ‗kinship terms as ‗auntie‘, ‗brother‘ or even royal titles to address the addressee depending on their
age and rank. However, English use ‗sir‘ ‗madam‘ ‗your honor‘ or phrases such as ‗would you kindly‘ or
‗would you mind‘ to show politeness or formality. However, here are other ways by which people maintain
relative status in English: using a person‘s title and last name instead of using the first name, using
professional titles like ‗Doctor‘ or ‗Professor‖, or using honorifics, such as ‗His/Her Majesty/Highness‘ if they
are royalty. Though the specifics of lexical and grammatical patterns of honorifics might be different across
languages, the fact that honorific systems exist indicates that interpersonal aspects of power relations,
respect, politeness, and deference are part of language itself.
Pronoun usage and social hierarchy
The linguistic usage of pronouns is connected with the reproduction of social relations based on
gender, race, class, power, and other aspects of identity and domination in a culture and language; ―he‖ is
a typical example of an impersonal pronoun that presupposes the ruling groups in a society. In English for
instance, the pronouns ―he‖, ―him‖, and ―his‖ were understood as gender neutral in the past and were used
to refer to any individual regardless of gender but the male perspective is assumed to be the default neutral
where female-associated terms such as ―she‖ are marked as specifically feminine which is regarded as
problematic by linguists in the light of feminism. In contemporary culture there have been attempts to
employ ―they‖ as an epicene or non-sexualized pronoun for one individual regardless of their gender,
despite this being a contentious issue for traditionalist grammarians. In the context of its political activism,
the members of the LGBTQ prefer non-binary pronouns, such as ‗ze‘ and ‗hir,‘ to challenge and redefine
binary gendered ‗he‘ and ‗she‘ – another example of the strategic use of pronouns to change the linguistic
and, consequently, the philosophic perspectives. Pronoun talk also has class aspect; there are etiquette
books that had recommended using words like ‗Ma‘am‘ and ‗Sir‘ when speaking to someone of higher class
than the speaker. In organization structures, where people from the same profession work, using first
names or calling someone Doctor or using the family name without or with the Doctor title shows intimacy
or power distance. Thus, the relations of raced language are that white Americans are uncomfortable about
identity with ‗we‘ and ‗us‘ when applied to people of color, and instead choose to perceive of them as
other—the race problem is a challenge to unity. In conclusion, although the pronouns that people use to
refer to themselves or the pronouns that people use in the contexts where they implicitly assume that they
are talking about certain people even if it is not stated directly may seem like a minor detail of speaking,
7 | P a g e
such choices and defaults reveal the prejudices and unfairness of the social structures and categorizations
most of the time unconsciously. To seek for more consciousness on how pronouns work in articulating
cultural information and relation of power, inclusion, exclusion and act of othering are can be one of them –
albeit a very intricate piece – of trying to advance egalitarianism from language and discursive practices
point of view.
Politeness strategies across cultures
It is worth mentioning that politeness is an essential virtue in human Interpersonal communication
which may differ with the culture; what may be considered normal and appropriate may be seen as wacky
or rude in another culture therefore making it important to consider cultural variations with regards to
politeness. For instance, while people of the West may freely use first names and take more liberties in
conversation than their East Asian counterparts, due to individualism and lack of ‗face‘ and polite humility
according to the rank and power structure, the opposite is true for the East Asian cultures such as Chinese
or Koreans; this might lead to misinterpretations of intentions as an American is likely to talk more directly
and ask blunt questions than a Korean would when in the In the same way, the cultural appreciation of
community also affects politeness since collectivistic cultures such as those in Latin America and Africa opt
for communication that promotes togetherness as opposed to conflict even if it is in an individual capacity, a
practice that is more acceptable than the direct confrontation that is evident in the individualistic cultures
like Australia or the northern part of Europe though both are seen as appropriate politeness depending on
the situation and culture that For an instance, even personal space, which is an essential consideration in
manners, differs as Latin cultures are comfortable with close contact as compared to Germans or Finns
who are likely to find it impolite to be close; nonetheless, these two are not wrong inherently but any
deviation from what is accepted is likely to appear impolite or odd. Voice volume also affects perception of
politeness since while the loud and intense vocal communication used in Mediterranean or Middle Eastern
cultural area as a sign of involvement may be interpreted as aggressiveness by the Japanese who are
comparatively quiet. Another aspect of cultural etiquette and politeness with a lot of emphasis includes the
gestures as a part of nonverbal communication, for instance, the bowing etiquette in east Asia, the averted
eye contact as a sign of respect among indigenous communities in Oceania, cheek kissing and
handshakes across most of Europe. It is important to learn the observable behavioral expected manners
and rules as well as the culture that is behind the manners and rules that are exhibited and expected in
every culture in the globe in order to be polite and effective in cross cultural communication.
8 | P a g e
Decision-Making Processes and Authority
Top-down vs. consensus-based approaches
The two mentioned methods indicate two completely different paradigms for making policies,
decisions, and for group advancement – the top-down and the consensus-building approaches, the former
of which assumes that all the necessary instructions have to be issued from above and all the key
decisions should be taken at the top level, while the latter implies that all the key stakeholders have to sit
together and discuss the options and select the best of all the available options. Each of them has their
advantages and drawbacks: top-down, for instance, allows making decisions rather fast and executing the
decisions taken as soon as possible as soon as the top official makes a decision; at the same time, it may
lead the group in a wrong direction if the top official is not well informed or makes a bad decision; the
consensus model requires discussions and negotiations before reaching the final decision, but it allows
finding more options and making more informed Most of the organizational theorists would agree that
purely top-down model is not ideal for employee engagement, motivation and loyalty, especially for younger
generations who seek autonomy and participation – yet in designated crisis or emergency situation, the
top-down approach might be the most effective as all the actions are planned and coordinated top-down.
Likewise, approaches that rely solely on consensus are sometimes inconclusive, and lead to lengthy
debates which culminate in compromise solutions or potentially outcomes that lack direction or momentum
due to the inability of the group to agree on the best course of action across the board. Therefore, in reality
many effective leaders and organizations blend the two as appropriate: applying top-down when
disseminating visions, setting limits, and implementing authoritative decisions where necessary and
engaging consensus to gain commitment, encourage collaborative discussions, and get more ideas that
help back up the authoritative top-down direction. The proportions may be different depending on the
organizational culture and priorities, or the leadership style and perceived expertise of those at the top as
well as the environment and timing of the decisions – in crises, people may be ready to accept directives
from above as long as they are not too heavy-handed while in the long term, they may like to discuss and
negotiate. The arguments presented in this paper provide valid rationale for the application of both
philosophies in a situational manner which includes the benefits of the top-down approach whilst also
incorporating the engagement and quality advantages of the consensus-oriented approaches.
Role of age and experience in decision-making processes and authority
As we have seen, age and experience are critical in many situations where decisions are made,
and authority is vested; nonetheless, the relevance and impact in these contexts may not be uniform across
9 | P a g e
societal, organizational, and personal levels. For example, in many career fields and politics, age equals
experience, and as such, older representatives in congress enjoy more power, while young hopefuls from
Silicon Valley are considered Likely to lack the foresight and general perspective that the manager with
years of experience has garnered. However, in other circles for instance in medical residents making life
altering decisions on patient care based on current knowledge from recent completion of medical school or
in start-up entrepreneurs who bring new revolutionary concepts for emerging technologies where older
decision makers may have out-dated assumptions, youth is key. Sometimes, for the first time in one‘s life,
years of accumulated wisdom keep one from making a defective decision, while, in other situations, the
freedom, resourcefulness, and willingness to take a chance that is inherent in youth is beneficial. Limiting
factors of social and organizational character influence the correlation between relative age, experience,
and granting of decision making power in various settings. However, years served or how long one has
lived cannot solely determine his/her ability to face decisions and lead – aptitude, intelligence, interpersonal
skills and experience, as well as domain knowledge, must be considered as key factors. In the end, who
determines which is more or less optimal requires consideration of the circumstances and the goals of the
situation in question rather than by arriving at set comparisons and rankings.
Gender dynamics in authority positions
In the context of the leadership and management in intercultural business environment, there is
evidence of disparities between male and female when it comes to occupation in leadership positions and
the experiences they undergo. Research findings indicate that in some cultures, there is prejudice– both
direct and indirect– on women holding top managerial positions in organizations and assertiveness and
dominance as stereotypically masculine communication that remains appreciated albeit to a certain degree
though this is not universal. Industry, culture, organizational culture and rules, and general societal culture
determine acceptance of women into leadership positions and their chances of promotion to higher
leadership positions. For instance, in a cross-sectional study of over 20,000 firms in 35 European countries,
it was ascertained that some countries have beliefs in their socially constructed culture that women are
incapable of providing leadership as compared to men and that women lack perceived requisite character
traits like competitiveness and control especially at the top management levels. But actually, when the
value of the viewed people is higher in comparison with the stereotypically feminine, which includes caring
for others, including people with homosexual orientation, as well as empathy and desire to accept
everyone, the gap seems to be smaller. There is also usually much disparity between industries for
example, industries such as the finance and technology industries are still likely to encounter some
10 | P a g e
attitudes from some stakeholders that women should not be allowed to join the executive suite while on the
other hand industries such as the consumer goods industries are more receptive to the feminine culture. In
addition to the direct prejudice, authors also observe that indirect prejudice prevails on the approach to the
perception of women ascending through various positions of leadership within international business
organizations. Awareness of how such conscious and unconscious prejudicial attitudes operate through
body language, contact, social and career networking, and mentoring, stereotypical and discriminatory
practices in assessment, and access to resources is crucial. These assert that advance hinges upon
people growing into ‗Savage Superior‘ and preserving bias, culturally appreciating and knowing how to
obtain the attention of the opposite gender. While transition processes are slow in different dimensions of
the culture of international business, there are still hindrances to women‘s promotion to authority positions
that are comparable to the advances made at the entry and middle levels across international contexts, and
thus, there is a need for constant critical appraisal of organizational and communication processes through
gender lens in the different cultural contexts with a view to achieving parity.
Technology's Impact on Authority Communication
Social media and authority perceptions
Most social media platforms have established the inter-cultural communication on global standards
where by people from different cultures can share information instantly. But, these interactions may also
create cultural differences friction based on culture differences in norms and values, communication, and
authority. For example, the cultural perspective on ‗power distance‘ differ significantly from culture to culture
– some cultures accept high power distance meaning that they believe that the world is best understood as
a pyramid where some people have authority over others due to factors such as age, gender, social class,
and the rest while other cultures embrace low power distance meaning that they do not understand the
world as a pyramid of power. Different orientation towards authority can therefore create barriers to
communication and negative attitudes during intercultural social media discourses if not understood and
managed appropriately. An individual from a culture that perceives status as a well-defined system may
consider a dissenting point of view coming from someone of a lower rank as impolite, improper or simply,
stupid while their counterpart with an egalitarian perception of the world will consider such an appeal to
authority as oppressive or non-logical. There are also cultural differences in social media communication:
although such communication can be rather direct in some cultures, it has to be very careful and indirect in
the others as it prevents conflicts undermining group cohesion. Lack of this sensitivity may lead to the
escalation of conflict within the brief social media platform environment given people‘s differing
11 | P a g e
characteristics. The notion of authority is likewise distorted by pseudo-anonymity afforded by social media
interaction – while it is easier to establish the true identity of an interlocutor, his/her status cannot be as
easily checked as in a face-to-face communication, thus giving rise to false perceptions of authority. This
has led to a situation whereby, fake news is emanating from some spurious but seemingly authentic
sources. On the positive side, social media helps to foster cross-cultural communication of ideas, on the
negative side; it increases the risks of distorted authority perceptions in cross-cultural situations. In facing
matters of culture and the possible effects that it presents in intercultural communication, what is needed is
that concept known as culture sensitivity. Cultural self- and other- recognition could help to avoid many of
the problems arising from discrepancies in the authority perception in multicultural networks of social media
communication.
Email etiquette across cultures in business communication
In the current world of business and globalization, business people across the globe communicate
through emails with equal importance placed on the content as that of face-to-face communication; it is
therefore crucial to understand and appreciate the other cultures politeness and impoliteness in emails
when writing emails in an international business context. Among them, it is necessary to mention the choice
of polite address; the choice of the register; the use of the literal and/or colloquial meaning of the words; the
discussion of the power distance; the choice of the language for writing; the careful reading for obscurity
while translating from the foreign language; and the response time expectations which tend to differ greatly
depending on the sender‘s cultural background - for example, while receiving an immediate response might
Other differences in the cultures of the nations - how, for example, they may be more likely to be directly to
the point, or whether it is an acceptable practice to give the background before getting to the point, how
formal they are, whether they require a written confirmation as opposed to an oral word of agreement– are
other aspects that should be investigated prior to spending much time communicating with international
clients and partners via e-mail. Maintaining a cultural sensitivity when communicating via a written medium
such as email is also beneficial to the business functions when one adopts an open-minded, fluid and
accepting attitude when engaging in cross cultural communication. Entering ‗the other‘s matrix‘ creates a
powerful shift. Understanding the nuances of cultural variations in emailing decorum is beneficial in creating
more harmonious and beneficial business transactions in the globalized world which relies heavily on such
a form of communication. Even though it may appear to be rather difficult at the beginning to change one‘s
writing style depending on the culture, it is beneficial when avoiding disconnectedness.
12 | P a g e
Virtual meetings and power dynamics in business communication
One of the most notable effects of remote work and virtual meetings in the last few years concerns
power relations in business communication. With the onset of COVID-19 pandemics and subsequent shift
to remote work, dynamics of most organizations disrupted usual hierarchal and structural norms due to the
absence of direct contacts. There was a lack of visibility in the everyday work output and the burden of
work among the employees by the managers. On the other hand, employees who were working from home
lacked interactions with leadership, colleagues and customers as frequently as before. Various research
has pointed the fairly fast pace of the equalization of video calls as having had a role of making
organizational hierarchies somewhat flattened. Such aspects of status as subordination and domination
that are so important in the face-to-face interactions are significantly eroded by the small box on the screen
that is used to join meetings. However, power is not absent; it is effectuated by other norms of
conversations and presentations in virtual environments. It was learnt that while interacting in a video
conference dominated speakers tend to talk more than the other person. The widespread tradition of
focusing on those people who are actively speaking means that other participants are deprived of the
opportunity to speak for huge intervals of time. Entrenchment can also be occasioned by technological
disparities where for instance, low ranked employees are disconnected due to their poor connections, thus
effectively limiting their contribution. Even in video, subordinate and dominant performances by women and
men are demonstrated through compliance with dressing codes, assertiveness in interrupting, and in
modulating voice to command authority while sharing a presentation with another person. However, the
flexibility of working remotely also helps some achieve an independent status quicker than they could have
in the corporate office setting. Zoom happy hours, coffee meetings, and other forms of mentorship, and a
selection of online employee resource groups create new forms of connection and rapport that transcend
established hierarchy inside and outside of an organization between upper management and staff, directors
and typical employees, and others who can be remarkably lonely in their roles. What, however, cannot be
erased from video meetings is the social hierarchy that is ingrained in the organization and persists in
shaping whose opinions count in making crucial decisions after the faces are aligned in neat grids.
Educational Systems and Authority Structures
Teacher-student relationships across cultures
Learner-teacher relations are considerably different in terms of the level of informality, distance,
and interaction by cultural traditions. In many Asian countries like China, Japan, and Korea, students are
polite to teachers by using formal ways of addressing them, as they perceive teachers as authority figures
13 | P a g e
in their lives; besides, they consider their institutions as places where harmonious interpersonal
relationships, humility, and face-saving are highly valued. Students bow to greet when the teacher arrives,
use the honorable titles when talking to teachers and teachers don‘t like to be looked in the eye as it is
regarded as being defiant. Lack of freedom in the class is also a major practice observed where for
example children are required to listen without interrupting the teacher and ask questions or answer them
only when permitted to do so. However, in countries like Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and
North America, teachers interact with students on more familiar basis with students calling teachers by first
name and not by last or honorifics, discussing information freely, and even, debating ideas and opinions,
and even questioning ideas excellently. These are a sample of informal culture reflecting equality, freedom
of speech and ideas, and students‘ centered learning. Nevertheless, there is variation in the specific
cultural orientations defining teacher-student relationships between the two extremes sketched above.
Some educators use strict discipline and strict conduct in the classroom to set the tone of authority while
others seek to cultivate a friendly understanding with their students and use jokes and relate the content
taught to the lives of the students. Students also differ in their behavior and interaction degrees from shy
students to those who are very interactive, from those who respect their teachers to those who misbehave
in class. It also takes time for both the teachers and the students to adjust to each other and also can lead
to issues of expectation because the teachers and students can come from different cultural backgrounds.
As such, the following scenario may not sit well with the student: An International Asian student studying in
the U.S. or Australia, may feel shy or uneasy, to address a teacher on the first name basis or be as
interested and as engaging in the classroom discussions as expected if the same is not acceptable in the
previous education system. On the same note, Western educators teaching in other parts of the world may
perceive overly compliant behaviors of Asian learners as lethargy or poor problem-solving skills but in
actual sense it is cultural.
Warm teacher-student relationships that afford student learning are those that are culturally
appropriate and reciprocal, and contain clearly communicated expectations that are accommodated for
students‘ cultural backgrounds. Despite the lack of global perfect examples, the teacher should strive to
establish affectionate, approachable, loving personalities and be friend-like while at the same time being a
strict authority figure, loving and friendly but authoritative and strict; teachers should learn as much as they
can about students as individuals and at the same time be aware of the cultural differences that affect
beliefs, expectations, perceptions, and behaviors of both the teacher and the students. Teacher-student
14 | P a g e
relationships across cultures are not easy but must involve a lot of compromise and tolerance, though
planning for education across cultures is very enriching if done carefully.
Questioning authority in academic settings
The use of critical thinking and also the attitude of seeking to be independent in an academic
environment is fully acceptable, but one must be careful to do this in the right manner- for example, one
cannot challenge a professor in the middle of class though the same person can be challenged during
his/her office hours. Students who are able to take the time to critically evaluate the arguments and the
point of view of their teachers instead of passively accepting the knowledge they are given are better
prepared for the world where orders from managers which are as clear as those given in class are rare.
Nevertheless, it is important to realize that not all of the situations in which students challenge their faculties
stem from this desire for knowledge; indeed, sometimes students are simply threatened by authority and
react aggressively because of their own insecurities. It is to this intricate mixture of several layers of both
identity constructions and motivational dispositions that professors are presented with a rather complex
scenario when it comes to addressing such issues. Such student criticisms may be dismissed outright,
which preserves the power hierarchy that hinders the free flow of ideas, but allowing every student to
interrupt lessons to voice their opinion is equally disruptive of the instructor‘s authority and knowledge.
Maybe the best response that any faculty can take is to accept this contention right now yet also tell the
student that such grievances will be further discussed with him or her outside the class setting, while at the
same time asserting that any form of disrespect and failure to follow certain basic class conduct during
limited class time cannot be tolerated. If students instinctively rebel against any kind of professionalism or
guidance from professors, then the whole idea of educational specialization turns into a mockery very fast.
However, professors who would cultivate an intellectual welcoming of good faith student criticisms, while
strictly limiting the time, place, and manner of their expressions, prepare the ground for dissident voices
motivated by genuine curiosity rather than simply anti-authoritarianism à la mode. In that spirit, it is possible
for the Socratic process of question and answer between students and faculty to work hand in hand.
Collaborative learning vs. hierarchical instruction in intercultural business setting
Group and team work with less leadership structure to address problems and to complete tasks is
quite effective in intercultural businesses because it creates pluralism of ideas and amalgamates different
or multiple cultures paradigms; this is in contrast to a Hierarchy of instruction where information and
directives are filtered down from managers to subordinates without much participation of the subordinates,
15 | P a g e
which may restrict bottom up contribution and esoteric synthesis of diverse cultural perspectives leading to
creativity. To support decision making across the cultural diversity a collaborative setting in which self-
organizing teams of employees are created promotes open discussion of issues, appreciation of varied
input, development of rapport across the cultural divide and last but not least the engagement of employees
at all levels in a decision making process; not only does this harness a broad range of knowledge but also
signals a positive attitude towards the multiculturalism that is present in the organization enhancing
intercultural interaction and Hierarchical leadership incorporates the visions and directions set by the top
management as the subordinates are subjected to; this can be culturally sensitive or a blind spot when
applied in a diverse workforce. Powerful systems of organization encourage obedience within individuals,
whereas engaging systems allow every participant to feel that their opinion is valued. Although, leaders are
still involved in setting up the collaborative structures, creating rules for their engagements, and mentoring
the teams; goals and objectives, decisions, work assignments and schedules, and process solutions are
generally defined and resolved in the cross culturally diverse teams cooperatively. Multicultural
perspectives enable the creation of complex and cultural diverse solutions that may fit differently the
cultural demands on the consumer/client side of the business as well. This is in contrast to the more often
standardized decisions made at higher levels in the organization that do not receive much, if any, input
from those with diverse international experiences at the lower levels. In other words, as Hayes and William
(2000) have pointed out, cooperative systems enable organizations to harness cultural diversity into a
powerful resource to compete effectively, while competitive systems limit a multicultural workforce from
bringing in different perspectives that will foster creativity and productivity in other cultures outside and
within the organization.
Corporate Culture and Global Business
Multinational companies and local norms
Big organizations moving into new countries and cultures encounter numerous problems in
understanding and relating with the new culture on one hand while at the same time, ensuring that the
company has cultural homogeneity, but appreciation of cultural differences is the key to success. It is
crucial to examine aspects such as multinationals often experience backlash when they disrespect local
culture and customs regarding food, dress codes, religion, gender, and methods of communication, which
may vary considerably between different areas and can affect such factors as the relations between
employees and management, customer reception of the product and the choice of a brand‘s image. For
instance, to be successful in the Middle Eastern region the firm would have to ensure the setting up of
16 | P a g e
prayer facilities and flexible working schedules to allow for prayer five times a day or if it is an America fast
foods chain going to India, it has to withdraw beef from its menu because of religious beliefs against cow
slaughter which can cost entire business franchises. Furthermore, the ways of expressing the criticism in
the form of direct communication that is typical for the members of the individualistic Western cultures that
appreciate the honesty and straightforwardness of the colleagues in their interactions may be considered
as impolite or demotivating by the members of the collectivistic Eastern cultures. It has proven crucial to
apply changes from marketing to employee feedback, leadership approach, and HR policies. It should be
noted that while, on the one hand, companies have to adapt some subsidiary practices in order to meet the
local requirements on the other hand they cannot sacrifice on the common set of principles that should be
promoted within the company‘s mission, vision and values. Indeed the brands have images that consumers
associate with them which probably drove growth in new markets. Thus, if taken to the extreme, allowing
too much variation undermines the key aspects that made this brand and its products special, and enabled
them to be sought after and successful in the first place. Of course they are not, and there could be no
simple recipes good for all. All these responsibilities mean that multinationals have to invest significant time
and money in making sure that their expatriate leadership understands the cultural intricacies of new
markets and that they develop strong partnership between the global headquarters and the local general
managers with cultural knowledge and connections in the community that is key to offering such insights.
This helps in standardizing the operations to meet local culture but at the same time maintaining ethical and
quality benchmarks expected from consumer Explanation: Consumers have come to trust companies for.
Getting a balance in this is always a question of how best to do it but it is a huge area for development if it
is done with a lot of respect.
Leadership styles in different regions and cultures in relation to intercultural communication
Leadership based on region and culture differs vastly and hence, managing conflicts arising from
cultural differences becomes a very difficult task if the styles are not well understood and or adapted. For
instance, the leadership in western countries is portrayed as more of an individualistic type of leadership
whereby the leader is the one who makes major decisions on strategy while the Asian countries employed
collectivistic type of leadership that puts into consideration the opinion of the people to arrive at a decision.
Likewise, the assertiveness and assertiveness characteristic of the Western managers may be perceived
as arrogance and may demoralize the employees in cultures where it is impolite to confrontations and
where people rather avoid losing face. Organization structure and power too are seen in a very different
way – some Latin and Arab nations look for strict pyramid structures where the superior‘s word is law while
17 | P a g e
some Nordic countries prefer a structure where there is little to no hierarchy between levels. The following
are prime areas that are affected when those differences cause a problem between intercultural
communications: expectations, authority and responsibility, objectives, and relationship problems arising
from the misunderstanding of attitudes, tones and behaviors. An American-executive with a talent for
inspiring people and pulling teams together may stand to benefit significantly from the Japanese model of
taking into account everyone‘s input in order to make them committed. Likewise, the ‗fostering‘ behavior
identified in some female leaders in African societies can offset pushy male counterparts. In total, it is
possible to know the specificities of regional/country leadership and culture, and adopt/select the best ideas
from this knowledge while maintaining the rest of the leadership strategy to ensure that different people
with potential can share a common practice space across cultural differences. This means sensitive
intercultural interactions like when one has to assert power within the cultural context to ensure people
follow instructions while at the same time fostering ideas sharing; not to mention that some cultures do not
promote ideas sharing due to traditional hierarchical structures where the subordinate never questions the
superior‘s idea. In the global climate, multicultural competence, which includes a) understanding of one‘s
own and other people‘s cultures; b) desire to learn the leadership systems of other cultures while offering
one‘s own expertise at the same time; c) active involvement in the processes of leadership across different
cultures with an open-mindedness and respect for different approaches contributes to both business
performance and societal well-being by facilitating cross-cultural common ground in leadership
communications that are effective.
Negotiation tactics and power balance in business communication in intercultural setting
Power dynamics and strategies are relevant in business communication as negotiations and power
may shift during the process of bargaining, particularly if firms from different countries are involved as
culture and expectations of the negotiation and business interactions may differ significantly. Whereas,
matters such as direct/indirect form of making offers or counteroffers, perception concerning compromise,
silence, confrontation, assertive aggression, and initiation of trust and rapport before bargaining are some
of the determinants of the bargaining process. A professional in the art of negotiating appreciates that quick
wins lie in fostering interpersonal relations and honoring the other culture‘s value systems while driving the
negotiation process forward for the attainment of the goals. This means that while dealing with a large
corporation or when representing a large firm with a lot of bargaining power or where offering a product or
service is desirable, the negotiator should avoid behaviors that may be interpreted as domineering or
ignoring the interest of the counterparty – the latter may agree to an unfavorable deal at the meeting due to
18 | P a g e
lack of bargaining power but in the long run, they will have hard feelings towards the capable party. Cultural
sensitivity to the communication mode, paying attention to nonverbal signals as to the discomfort with the
flow of the negotiations, and respect for the other party‘s point of view can effectively prevent the situation
from escalating and create a comfortable environment for the communication of all parties involved.
Affording proper hospitality such as inviting a fellow human to take a meal with him or her also aids in the
establishment of trust. Studying what your counterparts expect in terms of business relationship building,
proper consideration of such factors as seating arrangement, gift giving if necessary, meeting schedule and
format – such actions show that the hosts value their guests as people with personalities and then as
business people. However, what remains residual are difficult negotiations about such areas as the price,
delivery conditions, guarantees, or language of the contract While it is true that such issues may be agreed
without much friction following the establishment of positive affinity in the long run, reflective
communicators always focus on the fact that learning the art of creating positive affinity at this level can pay
off in the future.
