Assignment 2: Risk Analysis

1

Running head: CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION

CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION 4

Cross Cultural Communication

Cross Cultural Communication

With globalization, today’s workplace is increasingly becoming vast and businesses are expanding their environments into different geographical locations and across different cultures. The state-of-the-art technology being developed today means that we can no longer expect to communicate only with people around us and in our communities (Perdue.edu, n. d). The explosion of information technology and the use of internet have made many businesses now wired for both internal and external communication (Dop, 2001). With the internet and modern technology, it has become easy to remotely work with people just as it is to work face to face. However, what has become a challenge is how to effectively communicate with individuals of other cultures while embracing the advancement of technology.

According to Olaniran, Rodriguez, & Williams (2010), organizations that use internet communications technology (ICT) and employ people from different parts of the world face the challenges of designing and implementing technology such that cross-cultural communication and increase in productivity are fostered without affecting the unity of the organization. As an example, the use of internet for collaborative learning is recently seen to be increasing at an alarming rate. Olaniran, Rodriguez, & Williams (2010) noted that there are both technical and socio-cultural challenges to its implementation. According to Schneckenberg (2009), the structural peculiarities of the universities and cultural barriers are the challenges to the acceptance and implementation of e-learning in higher education.

A case Demonstrating Pitfall in Cross Cultural Communication

A case that demonstrates pitfalls in cross-cultural communication using technology is that of Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management (DISAM) as provided by Dop (2001). DISAM teaches more than 350 students each year in their course offerings. Upon graduation, each student is provided opportunity to access their faculty members unlimitedly through telephone, fax, or through e-mail for follow-up questions, problems with research, or even advice on security cooperation issues. According to Dop (2001), the opportunity to use internet and emails has greatly increased the number of questions from their former student, at the same time, the number of communication errors have also risen. When a former student has a question, the person sends an email to a DISAN faculty member. This faculty member can also send query to several other faculty members at one time on that same issue. This increases the chances of misconception or misunderstanding. Dop (2001) stated that there are several situations when former DISAN students have used this function and the outcome was that the individuals become upset with the response that they received because their feeling was that the faculty member misunderstood their question or did not make time to research the question fully.

The reality of the problem according to Dop (2001) was that since the faculty member cannot hear or see the international students, they cannot pick up their body language, or hear the inflections in their words while asking the question. Since the faculty member was not able to read the cultural pointers in the student’s body language and spoken language, the student’s question was not fully understood, and so, researched the question just the way it was perceived. The overall result was that at times, DISAN faculty appears to be less than capable when responding to the requests from their international students.

Recommendations to Avoid Such Communication Problems

Study by Armstrong and Cole (2002) found that while distributed groups con over time become integrates sometimes, they however experience problems because of distance. The distance creates lack of face to face communication which reduces the establishment of trust. Olaniran, Rodriguez, & Williams (2010) sated that such problems can include misunderstandings and confusion from fragmented communication between members of a group. The recommendation to avoid such problems should be in the design of the technology and not avoidance of the technology. Olaniran, Rodriguez, & Williams (2010) stated that organizations that implement web-based instruction within the organization or virtual teams should incorporate appropriate cultural understandings in their design so that members are not excluded and/or reject the technology. Another recommendation is to develop culture specific training and tools for learners and users of the technology in different geographical regions.

References

Armstrong, D. J., & Cole, P. (2002). Managing distances and differences in geographically

distributed work groups. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed Work (pp.167 – 186).

Boston, MA: MIT Press

Dop, T. (2001). Unexplored territory or a cross-cultural communications nightmare: The internet

and business communication. The DISAM, Journal, Spring. Retrieved from

http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/v.23_3/Dop_Cross_Cultural.pdf

Olaniran, B. A., Rodriguez, N. B., & Williams, I. M. (2010). Cross cultural challenges in web-

based instruction. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 2(4),

448 – 465.

Purdue.edu (n. d). Lecture 9: The benefits and challenges of intercultural communication.

Retrieved from http://ag.purdue.edu/ipia/iec/Shared%20Documents/Module%201/1.7.S7.pdf

Scheneckenberg, D. (2009). Understanding the real barriers to technology-enhanced innovation

in higher education. Educational Research, 51(4), 411 – 424.