Here is a straightforward, everyday dialogue between Hong Kong businessman, Mr Lau, and his Australian counterpart, Mr Clarke.
Mr Clarke: G’day mate. I’m Robert Clarke. My friends call me Bob. Here’s my card.
Mr Lau: Hullo Mr Clarke. I am William Lau. Very glad to meet you. How was your trip? (exchanges business cards)
Mr Clarke: Call me Bob. Good thanks. (reading card: “Lau Wing-Leung”). Oh it’s Wing-Leung! Nice to meet you. I’ll call you tomorrow Wing-Leung, ok?
Mr Lau (smiling): Yes, I will expect your call. (both men depart)
(Adapted from Scollon and Scollon , 2001)
Meetings like these take place every day all over the world in offices, airports, restaurants, and in the street. But this apparent ordinary communication between members of different cultures is often full of unforeseen problems, which create tension and uneasiness, ultimately leading to intercultural miscommunication. According to Scollon and Scollon (1995), the reasons for this lie in the rules and regulations of the participants’ own culture.
Mr Lau prefers initial business meetings to be formal and polite, thus the use of “Mr Clarke” and “Mr Lau” would be a natural sign of respect for the occasion. The Australian, Mr Clarke is uncomfortable with using formal titles, and also wishes to show his friendship by using first names. Mr Clarke correctly distinguishes Mr Lau’s surname on his business card and then rashly uses his given name. In Chinese culture, use of given names is a complex process based upon kinship, past relationships and situations. Mr Lau feels uncomfortable at being addressed as Wing-Leung and so smiles (an acceptable form of displaying embarrassment). Mr Clarke however, feels secure in his cultural sensitivity and his egalitarian gesture of goodwill. Mr Clarke also wants to show he is considerate of the Chinese culture and so avoids the English name in favour of the Chinese name. He is surprised when his follow-up telephone call is colder than he anticipated.
There are at least two intercultural problems in this short dialogue. The first concerns understanding the very real cultural differences involved in any intercultural communication exchange, while the second concerns how to deal with these issues successfully. In the above case, both parties make intercultural ‘mistakes’ even though both men try to be culturally sensitive. Mr Clarke’s partial knowledge of Chinese culture leads to him making the situation more awkward, and if Mr Lau wished to be addressed as William Lau, then perhaps his business card should have indicated this. Both men’s expectations of the other was coloured by their own cultural norms, which they could not escape.
Many consultants, distinguished authors and textbooks talk about the need to understand other cultures because of the fact that we live in a global village. From last century’s challenge of Jules Verne’s, Around the World in 80 Days, astronauts can now make the trip in under 80 minutes, while the Internet user takes a mere 8 seconds. The media has given us a taste for other countries, and the cost of modern air travel is within the budget of many Western people so we are travelling overseas more regularly than ever before. Holiday travel, business trips, family reunions and overseas conferences to other parts of the world are now commonplace events for professionals and ordinary people alike, with the big trip overseas, a rite de passage for many young people. The closeness of South-East Asia means that Indonesia, Thailand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia are favourite destinations for many Australians and New Zealanders. We need to understand each others’ cultures because we are increasingly visiting other cultures and interacting with them.
But there is another reason why intercultural communication is important. Australians live in one of the most multicultural societies in the world. Officially, Australia’s population comprises a large mixture of ethnicities, with 23.3% (from 1999 census) of Australians born overseas. If you add second and third generation migrants, who were born in Australia, and the large number of tourists, overseas students and visitors for short periods, then this figure is much higher. We are thus constantly communicating with fellow Australians whose culture originates from other parts of the world. Moreover, many of us are totally unaware of our own uniquely different cultural backgrounds when we, ourselves communicate. Our deeply-held cultural norms or attitudes may not be conscious ones – the only time we know about them is when other people break certain rules, disappoint us or even offend us. The situation is similar with sub-cultures within the one culture: football fans, teenagers, senior citizens, company managers and ‘yuppies’ have their own ways of communicating and behaving.
Thus, we think that probably the most important task is to recognise when we are involved in an intercultural communication exchange. If we can do this, then that seemingly rude tone of voice, or late report, or inappropriate use of a given name causes less annoyance and becomes more acceptable to us.
The study of intercultural communication is a relatively young field, which forms a part of communication research. The starting point is usually said to be the book, The Silent Language (1959) by the anthropologist, Edward T. Hall, who studied Hopi and Navajo Indians, as well as other cultures. Hall discussed several key concepts that attempted to explain the problematic nature of non-verbal communication in non-Western cultures. In particular, Hall popularised the field of proxemics, or the study of interpersonal distance and its effects upon communication in different cultures. Hall’s main contribution to the field was to highlight the role that culture plays in influencing human behaviour.
By the 1970’s intercultural communication was firmly a part of the communication scene, with specialised courses, numerous books and special divisions established by the International Communication Association, and the Speech Communication Association in the US. In 1983, Gudykunst and Kim edited the first theoretical book, Intercultural Communication Theories, which was then followed by several key chapters in communication handbooks of the time. Modern research into intercultural communication is still very descriptive of the processes involved rather than attempting to develop any general theory. One of the field’s major tasks, which is still continuing to be answered is defining the term, “intercultural communication”. An equally difficult task for communication researchers has been to define what is meant by “culture”.
Culture is one of the most used but misunderstood concepts of recent times. It is used by politicians, academics, managers, schoolteachers, and students all the time, usually as an explanation for some other behaviour. Many people have unsuccessfully tried to define it. Linguists, anthropologists, sociologists and organisational theorists have varyingly attempted to define, “culture”, and the lesser term, “sub-culture”. While we all seem to know what is meant by culture and intercultural communication, pinning it down precisely is the problem. Informally, the word, “culture” seems to refer to a way of thinking and acting, which is somewhat related to people who speak a common language (but not always), and encompasses things like traditions, family roles, expectations, attitudes, and non-verbal-communication. An exception is the English-speaking cultures of the UK, USA and Australia, which have distinct cultures, while speaking the same language.
There is also another meaning of “culture”, which should not be confused. Culture can also refer to activities of a sophisticated or supposedly intellectual nature, such as attending the ballet, the opera or an art museum. This meaning of culture is summoned when academics discuss artifacts of high culture and low culture such as chamber music versus pop songs. However, this second meaning of culture is seldom used when discussing intercultural communication.
Many researchers break culture up into a series of constituent, sometimes overlapping parts in order to better understand how culture affects communication and also vice-versa, how communication can affect culture. One of the overlooked aspects in such typologies is the impact that communication technologies such as the Internet have had upon intercultural communication (see Box 2). We are not going to define “culture” at this point in time, however, we believe culture can be best understood if it is broken up into four main dimensions:
1. History and worldview, including values, beliefs and religion
2. Socialisation, including education, enculturation and personal growth
3. Language
4. Non-verbal communication
We take the view that it is these (and other) aspects of specific cultures that affect the quality and outcomes of intercultural communication. We will focus on the effects of these four dimensions upon intercultural professional activities between Westerners and other cultures. In particular, many of our examples will compare Asian and Western cultures, since many Western researchers view Asian cultures as the most dissimilar to ourselves.
All of us have a worldview. This is our perspective on how we stand in relation to everyone else. Australians seldom ask, “Who am I as an Australian?” or “Where do I stand as an Australian with respect to other races?” Instead, Australians (and most other cultures) usually display ethnocentrism by evaluating other cultures from their own culture's value system. Almost every other culture acts the same. Past evidence of our own ethnocentrism can be found in the so-called, White Australia Policy and our unfortunate history of racism. Overseas, many young Australian tourists seem to have acquired the label, “the ugly Australian” mainly due to the fact we are so protected within the Australian worldview, that when we travel, we forget some of our commonsense and behave in rather crude, obnoxious ways.
In terms of cultural differences, many cultures respect their history, some more than others. Australians are not very mindful of their convict past, preferring to concentrate on sporting prowess, beaches, the comfortable climate and relaxed way of life. Asian cultures on the other hand, have a deep regard for their country's heritage and past. This is seen in their religion, their art and their respect for ancestors, elders and families. If an Australian visits Korea, he or she will almost certainly be told that Korea has a 5,000 year-old history. Even in Westernised countries such as Hong Kong, an astute businessmen may talk about the glory of ancient China to emphasise a conservative position. This long and continuous history forms an important part of the worldview of most of the Asian cultures, much of the Middle East, Russia and many European nations.
In professional situations, Westerners, in general are probably not going to stress their lineage from the Celts or Greece or Rome. Rather, the Australian or American is likely to wish for a short negotiation, a quick decision, and emphasise expediency as being necessary in order to keep up with political, social and technological change. Work happens now, and the organisation needs a decision in order to move on to the next project. Work is linear, and tied to the immediate present or not-too distant past. We are talking here of last week. In comparison, the historically-centred Asian professional is likely to need a slower-paced meeting, or series of meetings. Work is an ongoing part of a person’s social life, family and employment, and decisions are likely to be weighed against a person’s reputation, and the good for the company, including its future growth potential. Thus, the Westerner views the Japanese manager as ponderously slow and overly careful; while the Easterner views the Australian as rushing headlong into a decision and being too inconsiderate of a range other factors.
Socialisation is the process by which we learn, are educated and grow into socially responsible human beings. Beginning at birth we develop ways of behaving from our parents, our siblings, our friends, our teachers and the media. In totalitarian countries, the government also plays a part in dictating the guidelines by which children are raised and encultured. Enculturation is the term for the process of bringing up a child informally without institutional input, while education is the official system of schooling, usually starting around 5 years of age. There is yet another term, acculturation, which is used by anthropologists to describe the way in which a dominant culture imposes itself upon a weaker culture, so that its members eventually lose most of their culture. Because of the loss of culture, acculturation has strong negative connotations for most researchers.
During a person’s lifetime, enculturation is not only provided by a child’s family, and relatives, but also by neighbours, peers and work colleagues. Children carefully observe the behaviour being enacted around them and typically model that behaviour unless told otherwise. The process does not stop with childhood, but continues into a child’s teenage years and adulthood. These patterns of learnt social behaviour include relating to those of higher and lower status, those older, younger and the same age, boys and girls. The person learns how to be a boy or girl, and eventually a man or woman in that culture. A person’s identity, as a functioning human being is also learnt by this complex process of socialisation, which may include certain rituals along the way. Rituals include such as events as circumcision, tattooing, body piercing, baptism, and other religious ceremonies.
In Confucian ideology (the basis for many Chinese religious ideas), people are born naturally good. In contrast, much Christian ideology believes that people are born evil or sinful. The important issue here is not which ideology is right or wrong, but what these differing starting points do for the socialisation process. If you assume that children are good, then teaching them becomes a matter of showing them the right path to follow. Motivation is not problematic since they have an intrinsic desire to learn. If you assume that humans are basically evil, then you also assume that children are willful, egocentric and uncooperative. Motivating these beings is then a process of manipulation, rewards and punishments. This process of socialisation is then systematically reinforced by a culture’s education system.
We are not saying that the Confucian way is better or worse. There are a vast number of exceptions to these broad generalisations, but the point we would like to make is that people from other cultures are different for many more reasons other than just the spoken language.
Language is probably the one single most important dimension of a non-English speaker's culture. A common example is that when asked what distinguishes culture, a Chinese person will usually point to the Chinese language. But a Westerner will seldom say that English is what distinguishes his or her culture. In fact, many people make the claim that they have quite distinct cultures even though English is the mother tongue. One need only think of middle-class Australians versus upper class English versus black American cultures.
Language may be used for many reasons, but there is general consensus that language has at least two main functions: an information function and a relationship function. Scollon and Scollon (1995) stress that language usually serves both functions to some extent in any context, but that different cultures give different weightings to the importance of one function over the other.
For example, the Japanese culture places great importance on the use of language to convey subtle aspects of feeling and relationships, whilst the Westerner places the emphasis on the conveying of information. A European exception is the Polish language, which may use subtle forms of nouns and verbs in order to convey highly personal aspects of the relationship. International business culture, a global phenomenon, places great emphasis upon use of technologies such as e-mail, bulletin boards, video-conferencing and chat systems. These technologies provide near-instant communication and stress the informational nature of the message, with the relationship function almost disappearing.
There is a tradition of communicating without language, which has been strongly influenced by Zen Buddhism. In Japanese, Korean and Chinese cultures it is believed that all things, in particular, all important things, are unable to be communicated through language. Language is seen as mainly useful for the transmission of unimportant or trivial ideas. This is in stark contrast to Western traditions of language usage, where the effective use of language is seen as highly beneficial and is often the basis by which students pass exams, managers are promoted, and politicians are elected. In intercultural meetings, the immutable silence of the Asian businessman is often misinterpreted as a negotiation trick, or device to gain extra bargaining power, whereas it may simply be a meditative gesture of contemplation.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the idea that language has evolved to reflect the culture, in which it is used, and that the linguistic choices, in part, determines a particular culture’s ways of thinking. In 1929, Edward Sapir and Benjamin-Lee Whorf were two anthropologists who noted that in different cultures there existed several words for key concepts. For example, Eskimos have 18 words for “snow”, all with subtle differences, which we do not experience. The theory says that because of the Eskimo culture’s need for careful analysis of snow, these 18 different concepts of snow are unique to Eskimos, and cannot be simply understood by other people. Since Eskimos think differently about snow to everybody else, then intercultural communication, especially about snow, is a problematic task.
The debate about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is mainly about whether it is true or not. Few researchers have been able to prove or disprove the theory, until recently. Some new research has been carried out (cited by Skoyles, 1999) which appears to support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language moulds cognition. If this new research can be reproduced by other researchers, this would provide strong support for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
Non-verbal communication can be conceptualised as any form of communication that does not utilise the written or spoken word. It is more than just body language, since it includes use of time, space, furniture and clothing. However, in practice non-verbal communication accompanies verbal communication more often than not. Imagine a head nod or smile that was not a reaction to some verbal signal, or a rude hand sign that did not accompany a swear word. Non-verbal communication is integrally related to language use and as such forms a distinctive part of intercultural communication.
There are many different forms of non-verbal communication, and many ways of categorising this behaviour. We will classify non-verbal communication into four main categories: Paralanguage (or variations in our voices); Kinesics (or movements of our bodies); Proxemics (our use of space); and Other Aspects (including use of time, dress and appearance).
Parlanguage or paralinguistics is the study of how we use tonal variations of our voices in order to emphasise certain words or phrases. Paralinguistic behaviour is always concurrent with language usage and includes vocalisations such as “umm” and “ahhs”, loudness, speed, intonation, rhythm, pronunciation, use of pauses, and vocal accent or timbre. The main problem for intercultural communicators is that often non-native speakers will use a language such as English, accompanying it with the paralanguage, which is more suitable for the speaker's mother tongue thus giving a false impression of the speaker’s emotional state of mind.
For example, the instructional video, Crosstalk depicts speech and intonation patterns of an Indian speaker using the English language to ask questions of an English clerk. The paralanguage, which is expressive of questioning behaviour in Hindi, sounds very aggressive when heard by native English speakers. The rhythm and intonation of the voice communicates the wrong message, even though the words are quite meaningful and acceptable. Westerners, upon hearing the paralanguage, ignore the meaning of the words and wrongly attribute to the speaker the emotion of irritation, and respond in either a conciliatory or equally irritated fashion. The Indian speaker receives an unexpected response to his questions and thinks all Westerner are rude.
A similar situation has occurred to one of us, when confronted by an Arabic student, who was asking in English, for clarification of the marks for assignment. Using a typical Arabic intonation pattern, the impression gained was that this student was hostile, and needed to be placated. The only way to disprove this assumption, was to actually ask the student how they were feeling at the time. To our surprise the student replied that they were very happy with their mark, and was attempting clarification of the handwriting evaluation, which she could not decipher.
At this point we would like to point out there are no rights or wrongs in these intercultural communication incidents. We could blame the Indian or Arabic person for not using the correct paralanguage, or we could blame ourselves for misinterpreting the exact meaning. Similarly, we could blame either Mr Lau or Mr Clarke for their cultural insensitivity. But we think that blame is not the appropriate term in many cases. Understanding of all the possible cultural factors in such meetings is an impossible task, unless one is born and raised in all possible cultures. We believe that we need to withhold our judgments, which are based upon non-verbal communication, until we have confirmed these judgements by using language. Thus, if you are feeling irritation about the non-verbal responses of another person, then you should investigate whether your feelings are intended, or merely a by-product of non-English paralanguage.
Kinesics is what we mostly call body language and refers to those movements of our body parts, which are used to communicate interculturally. An important, yet often neglected part of our body is our face, which conveys a huge variety of meanings in interpersonal meetings. In the opening scene of this chapter, Mr Lau uses a smile to convey his embarrassment, but this smile is interpreted incorrectly by Mr Clarke. According to psychologists, smiles are supposed to be universally recognised in every culture in the world. But while smiles may be easily recognised, their true interpretation may not be understood, as is the case with Mr Lau, who uses a smile to mask his embarrassment.
Asian people tend to smile or even laugh more easily than Westerners in response to difficulties such as embarrassment or anxiety. Westerners typically misinterpret this behaviour as agreement and are therefore ignorant about the source of the difficulty. One interpretation of this so-called nervous smiling or laughter is that Asian people are trying to preserve the interpersonal harmony of the situation. Australians have no such need since the culture reinforces individualism not group welfare. Thus, in any given social situation, an Australian who smiles or laughs is usually expressing emotion, not unconsciously covering up an awkward situation.
The accepted form of a greeting between new acquaintances, colleagues and friends is very different around the world. In the West, shaking hands is the most common form of greeting for males, with the cheek kiss commonplace between females, and sometimes, male and females. In Asia, the bow is a very commonplace greeting between people from all walks of life. However, bowing is not the same in each country, with Japanese and Korean people exhibiting more frequent and deeper bows as compared to the Chinese culture. Shaking hands is also practised, especially in Japan, where there is considerable Western influence as more and more Westerners make contact with previously traditional companies and institutions. Even within the Australian culture, the practice of handshaking is changing, particularly with respect to women, whose hands were seldom shaken 20 years ago. In France, Italy, Spain and Latin American countries, the handshake between men and women often gives way to a double-cheeked kiss. This level of familiarity is not normally practised in Asian or English-speaking countries, but given the multicultural nature of many countries, such as Australia, is becoming popular with younger people of all nationalities.
Edward T. Hall (1959) was the first scholar to categorise the interpersonal distances used by Americans. Hall said that there were four main interpersonal zones:
Obviously, none of our family and friends use any one distance all the time with us. Everyone tends to constantly move in and out of these spatial zones. Hall was in fact depicting an average distance, but the problem with Hall’s zones is that they really only apply to Anglo-Americans during the 1950’s. If we were to contrast, say Latin Americans or Japanese cultures, then their relative distances are typically smaller than Hall’s four interpersonal zones. Mediterranean Europeans, Asians, females, and equal-status professionals (e.g. two doctors, two lawyers) also tend to stand nearer to each other than Hall’s categories would have us believe.
Hall’s categories are useful in order to describe relationships, which may be symbolically represented via distance between people. The categories are also able to explain the discomfort experienced when an Australian’s interpersonal space is violated by a member of another culture, say an Italian, who expects a smaller interpersonal distance. When the Italian keeps moves closer to feel comfortable, the Australian unconsciously backs away. Similarly, in population-dense, crowded areas of Asia, such as Hong Kong and Bangkok, the overcrowding an Australian farmer may feel, will not probably be experienced in the same way by the locals.
Proxemics may also be applied to furniture in the way that it is arranged around a room reflecting cultural attitudes towards family life. For example, space is a scarce resource in Japanese homes so much furniture is hidden from sight or arranged around the edges of a room to allow for a multiplicity of room functions. Western furniture tends to be organised around the middle of rooms endowing each room with a single function. In most Australian living rooms, all the furniture is arranged around the television, which is on the same level as the seated family members. The TV set (and its related peripherals such as the video or DVD), therefore constitutes the room’s main focus, while in other cultures the TV may be disguised in a closet or lowered on to the floor level, giving it a less conspicuous status. Similar intercultural analyses can be made about differences in the location of the computer, both at work and in the home.
The study of proxemics extends to examining organisational distribution of rooms, staff, hardware and office furniture. The position of the managing director’s office at the top of the building; the arrangement of chairs at a business meeting or a school classroom; the use of space in an apartment complex or even a whole city – are all indicative of that culture’s prevailing attitudes and values towards the users and/or owners of that space. The sense of strangeness, which is often termed, “culture shock” occurs when we travel to exotic locations and is due, in part, to these intercultural differences in the use of space.
The way in which we dress, the hairstyles we adopt, and the make-up and jewellery, which we choose to wear are all indicators of our employment status and our socio-economic class. Dress and appearance are in fact important signifiers of our social identities, but we are constrained by the acceptable limits of our culture. We can think of dress and appearance as a sort of uniform, which we choose to adopt in order to belong to a particular group of people in society. Thus, business people wear suits, in fact they are called “suits” by many students and non-professionals. Even within the sub-culture of businesspeople, there is a classification system based on the limited alternatives of business attire. In Australia, and in most other places in the world, expensive, designer-label suits are usually worn by the younger, MBA types, who work in advertising, finance and law. An off-the-rack suit is much more commonplace for the majority of males, who fit the middle-management profile. The choice of the tie, the shirt colour, and the shoes are extra signifiers of the professional status of the individual.
The variability for businesswomen is probably greater than for men. Females may choose from a wider palette in terms of clothing, hairstyles, make-up, fingernails, accessories and jewellery.
Hairstyles and the wearing of tattoos and body piercings are yet another area of wide variability even within English-speaking nations. For example, amongst teenagers short-cropped, spiky hair is very fashionable following British and American trends. The short hair is not a new hairstyle being popular in the early 90’s, the 50’s and during WW2. Strangely, short hair is not as popular in Latin America and Spain at the moment, with male long hair still signifying machismo throughout much of the Spanish-speaking world. Tattoos and piercings on the other hand have become very popular in the UK due to many British pop stars being tattooed and/or pierced. However, in countries, such as Australia, which do not have many teen idols brandishing body art, their popularity is not as great.
Hall divided all cultures up into high-context or low-context cultures. He said that all behaviour, including language and non-verbal communication was affected by the cultural context (high-context) or minimally affected by such context (low-context). Americans, Australians, the British, Scandinavians, Swiss and Germans can all be personified as being low-context since they react directly to verbal and non-verbal messages. However, for Mediterranean, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, Middle Eastern, and Latin American cultures the context of the message is just as important, (in some cases, more important) than the message itself. Some researchers have said that Hall’s two categories are really a continuum of context, so that there are middle of the road cultures, which seem to fit both high- and low-context definitions, e.g. African cultures.
High- and low-context cultures differ in their approaches to power hierarchies, social relationships, work ethics, business practices, and time management. The dominant values of high and low context cultures are significantly diverse (see Table 1) and may be the source of many intercultural problems and conflict.
Table
1
Dominant Values of
High-context and Low-context Cultures
|
High-Context (Group orientation) |
Low-Context (Individual orientation) |
|
Harmony with Nature |
Mastery over Nature |
Knowledge of high- and low-context cultures is important to our understanding about how culture can influence one's own, and other people’s style of communication. The dominant style of communication in the Australian (low-context) culture has the following characteristics:
1. The vast majority of the verbal information is explicitly stated. For example, an apology needs to be clearly articulated, whereas in a high-context culture the same message can be communicated through a variety of non-verbal gestures such as a smile, a sigh, a shrug, or a frown.
2. Australians prefer directness, openness, and honesty, with some degree of freedom of emotional expression. Spontaneity and casualness characterise informal relationships. Within this context, successful communication mainly requires an understanding of the explicit norms of behavior. In low-context cultures, success also requires knowledge of implicit norms and expectations.
3. Within reason, Australians expect others to challenge the status quo. Polite questioning of the boss and authority figures suggests one has personal power and can help bring about change. Independence, self-determination, and personal confidence are highly prized whatever the level of employment. In Japan, subordinates always defer to the boss’s decision.
4. Non-verbal communication such as posture, gestures, and facial expressions are very useful communication tools and are encouraged in high-context cultures. For example, eye contact is perceived to be important in validating recognition and communicating interest. It is also seen as assertive and shows that one has nothing to hide. The exact opposite is true of high-context cultures where expressions of emotion of are often hidden from view.
The most extensive intercultural study was probably that performed by the Dutch researcher, Geert Hofstede (1984), who studied employees of the multinational company, IBM. Hofstede surveyed 117,000 participants, from 53 separate cultures and then re-surveyed 29,000 of these people several years later to check on the reliability of his findings. He theorised that people hold mental ways of behaving, programs which are developed during childhood and then reinforced by the culture.
Through statistical analysis and reasoning, Hofstede identified four dimensions, which can be used to distinguish cultures around the world: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, and masculinity-femininity. One should view Hofstede’s work with some skepticism however, because his sampling methods were not random. Most of his participants were male, of a particular social class, and all worked for one large multinational company. Hofstede’ results may simply be a descriptive map based upon gender, level of education, and organisational factors. The data was also collected more than 30 years ago, and cultures may have changed since then, due to developments in the media, global travel and information technology.
Power distance refers to the fact that various cultures react differently to status differences and social power. Some cultures e.g. New Zealand, Denmark. Israel and Austria prefer low power distance indexes (PDI’s) and minimize inequalities in terms of job status, social class, or wealth. Managers in these cultures typically want to one of the boys, and be addressed by first names. Decisions are able to be questioned and challenged in these cultures giving a flat organisational structure with a relatively small number of hierarchical levels. As a contrast, Arab countries, Guatemala, Malaysia, and the Phillipines have high PDI’s and believe that individuals have rightful places in society, and that authority figures should not be challenged. Interestingly, China was not represented in the survey with Hong Kong preferring higher PDI’s than Japan.
Uncertainty avoidance refers to how certain cultures adapt to change and cope with uncertainties in their societies. How much a culture avoids uncertainty then becomes a measure of cultural anxiety or fear with respect to unpredictable events. Countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Hong Kong, England and Singapore have low uncertainty avoidance indexes (UAI’s) meaning that they cope very easily with unexpected problems, and also have a relatively small number of rituals and rules, which govern social conduct and human behaviour. These cultures tolerate dissent, and social deviance, and encourage new ideas and innovation in work. High UAI countries include Greece, Guatemala, Portugal, Uruguay and Japan. These cultures promote or even demand consensus in terms of social goals and disapprove of any deviant behaviour. Australia has a relatively low UAI appearing near the middle of the whole range of this dimension.
Individualism-collectivism refers to the extent a culture values individual autonomy as opposed to collective teamwork. The USA, Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands have high scores on the individualism index (IDV) which translates into an individualistic culture which looks after the family, but little else. Privacy, independence, and the self are all-important characteristics of these cultures. Decision-making is based upon the individual, with competition being the norm in terms of job selection and promotion. Low IDV countries include Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, Hong Kong, and Mexico. These countries have a strong collectivist orientation, which values the group over the individual. Such cultures have a “we” consciousness and emphasise belonging to a group or many groups.
Masculinity-femininity refers to the way that cultures prefer assertiveness and achievement (masculinity) compared to nurturance and social support (femininity). The alternative label for this dimension is achievement/nurturance. Austria, Italy, Japan and Mexico have high masculinity indexes (MAS’s) and strongly believe in achievement and ambition. These cultures tend to judge others according to their level or performance and amount of material goods that they possess. People in high MAS cultures also believe in ostentatious shows of manliness or machismo. Low MAS cultures such as Chile, Portugal, Sweden and Thailand adhere less to external achievment and shows of manliness and more to things like quality of life, and empathy for the less unfortunate. The term feminine is somewhat unusual since these cultures prefer equality between the sexes and less prescriptive gender-based roles.
One of Hofstede’s most controversial findings was that there were patterns to how the four dimensions appeared around the world. Hofstede suggests climatic, geographic and economic reasons for these cultural differences. Climate, measured by latitude is able to account for why people have certain power distance scores, and masculinity scores. For example people who live in warmer climates tend to prefer high power distance and high masculinity behaviour. People who live further from the Equator have a corresponding low power distance and more feminine outlook on life.
===============================================================
BOX 1:
Table 2: A Comparison
of Intercultural Behaviours of Australians and Other Cultures
|
Intercultural Behaviour |
Australian perception |
Other culture perception |
|
Legal Contracts |
Contracts are legally binding and enforceable by law. |
May not be regarded highly. May not be enforceable under international law. Caveat emptor. |
|
Social customs |
We tend to be forgiving of violations of our own social customs by foreigners. |
Tend to be more unforgiving than us. e.g. A gift may be seen as a bribe by some cultures. Informal attire may be viewed as disrespectful. |
|
Use of Space |
We prefer lots of personal space. |
May not need or require the same interpersonal space. |
|
Use of Time |
Australians prefer to be on time, and quickly get down to business in a meeting. |
May see time flexibly. May need to start a meeting slowly, with social discourse. |
|
Friendships |
We try to make friends very quickly, and regard our business acquaintances as possible friends. |
May not make friends easily. May view all business acquaintances with a degree of social distance. |
|
Class systems |
Class is not really an issue in Australia, or the USA. |
Other cultures may have a strict social hierarchy, which cannot be violated. |
|
Dress |
Formal business attire is important in Western countries. An exception would be academic settings. |
While important, dress may not be important to some cultures. Thus overdressing or underdressing may convey unintended meanings. |
|
Religion |
Many Australians are ignorant of other religious beliefs. (??) |
Are usually more religious than their Australian counterparts. |
|
Gender |
The role of men is thought to be fairly constant from culture to culture. |
The role of women varies enormously from culture to culture. |
|
Practicality |
Most Australians are practically oriented. If something has no practical value, it is usually thrown out. |
Other cultures retain practices that have little practical value, but are integral to their heritage. |
|
Work Ethic |
The Australian work ethic is a commonplace value. |
In some cultures, the work ethic is not a desired goal. |
|
Efficiency/ |
Efficiency is usually measure in terms of costs and benefits. |
May not see profits as the main measure of success. Enjoyment or satisfaction may be more highly regarded. |
|
Change |
While resistant to change, Australians will accommodate it eventually. |
May be totally resistant to any kind of change. |
|
Competition |
We will entertain competition in business. |
May not be accustomed to competition at all e.g. State controlled monopolies. |
|
Privacy |
We usually require privacy. |
May not need privacy. |
|
Formality |
While ostensibly formal in our dress, we are amongst the least formal cultures in the world. |
May have strict rules governing dress, language usage, and behaviour. |
|
Equality |
We may have a way to go, but Australians are closer to equal opportunity than many other cultures. |
Many other cultures openly practise discrimination based on age, sex, religion, and ethnicity. |
|
Oral Communication |
When using interpreters, there are problems to be solved. An interpreter's lack of knowledge can totally misrepresent a conversation. |
While other cultures may seem to speak English well, there will certainly be gaps in terms of jargonistic words and phrases. |
|
Written Communication |
Using a standard written document is usually seen as the best medium. Reports, memorandum and letters have a standard recognisable format. Greetings and salutations are seen as typical, but the greeting, “Dear” has special meaning in Spain and should be avoided. |
Written documents may be totally inappropriate. The content, or the writing styles may be offensive, e.g. Most Japanese documents are apologetic and place the writers in inferior positions to the readers. Thus Western documents are seen as too bold or direct. |
<Bruce>
Greetings from Sydney. Wanna chat? I work for an Australian university
<Yoko> Greetings from
Honolulu. Yes, I work at the University of Hawaii as a graduate tutor. I am in
my final year of my doctoral dissertation.
<Bruce>
great :-), what area of research?
<Yoko>
I am studying oceanography.
<Bruce>
I would like to ask you a question..
<Yoko> Yes?
<Bruce>
I am doing some research – can you tell me the Japanese word for “start” on a
computer?
PAUSE
<Yoko>
You are very rude. I think you are taking advantage of me. If you want to know
the answer to this question, then you should consult a dictionary!
<Bruce> I
am sorry I offended you, good-bye.
This is a
fictitious re-enactment of a real chat discussion, which occurred on the
Internet chat system called ICQ (short for I Seek You). Thousands of
such discussions occur daily on dozens of global chat systems, such as MSN
Messenger, AOL groups, IRC, yahoo chat, and CU-SeeMe. What is remarkable about
the excerpt is the unresolved misunderstanding, which terminates the
conversation. The underlying causes of the conflict are perplexing. A possible
cause might be the cultural differences between the two participants. Another
explanation could be a mismatch between the perceived social context of ICQ and
the unexpected work-related question. A third explanation is that Japanese
ex-patriots are often isolated in foreign countries and much more
sensitive than Japanese people on their own soil.
Most
professionals would agree that the Internet has enabled us to communicate more
effectively with our professional colleagues, both locally and overseas. The
ease, the speed and the convenience of e-mail, bulletin boards, chat systems
and instant messaging has revolutionised our professional practice. But there
is one area of concern, which seems overlooked: how does online communication
affect intercultural communication? Does our Western, informal and very direct
use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) technologies conflict with the way
other cultures use these technologies? Or has the whole world become a
homogeneous community, each country indistinguishable in terms of their online
communication behavior?
We do not
think that 5,000 years of civilization can be changed by a mere decade of
Internet usage. This means that our enthusiasm for online communication is
naïve and misplaced when it comes to communicating with members of other
cultures. With vastly increased opportunities for communication to take place,
we believe that there is an equivalent increase in the amount miscommunication
that is occurring between cultures. We cannot be certain of this however,
because there is very little research, which has studied the intersection of
communication technology and intercultural communication.
Worldview
For many
anthropologists and sociologists, a person’s worldview is an important
precursor to their communication expectations. The American or Australian
worldview wishes for a fast decision/negotiation and emphasises expediency as
being necessary in order to keep up with political, social and technological
change. Because work happens in the immediate present, the organisation needs
to move on to the next project. Thus, when we use e-mail we prefer fast
turnarounds and equally quick decisions. This expectation may be totally at
odds with Asian partners, who may feel pressured to make premature decisions
due to the demands of the technology, or who may simply defer answering our
demanding e-mails.
On the
Internet, our true identities are most often hidden from sight, unless we
choose to reveal who we really are. Celebrities, politicians, CEO’s, and
professionals all have e-mail addresses, which disguise their real identities.
However, in many cultures, understanding the identity of the other person is
imperative to understanding how to act towards that person. The status of that
person, their role in the organization, their decision-making power, and their
personality are all, to some extent, important considerations, which are
usually totally absent in mediated communication.
Culture and context
In the
60’s, Edward T. Hall typified the world’s cultures by dividing them into two
categories: high context and low context. If Hall’s theories are also
applicable to online communication, this may explain why CMC technologies are
problematic for some cultures. Low-context cultures such as America, Britain
and Australia do not usually use social contexts as a way of determining the
most appropriate way of replying to messages. But, in high-context cultures
such as Japan, Russia and Latin America, the context conveys as much
information (or even more) than the exact meaning of the message being
discussed.
When we receive
an e-mail message, participate on a listserv, or peruse a bulletin board forum
we are not usually looking for context. The identities of other participants
are almost unimportant, compared to their words - argumentation, ideas and
prose style are more important than who they are. This is exactly the opposite
situation to a member of a high-context culture, whose whole upbringing
requires a clear, unambiguous social structure in order for any communication
to occur. Without the context, the high-context person is lost for words.
Culture and language
Probably
the most obvious feature of intercultural CMC is the strong likelihood that we
will be writing in our mother tongue, English, but this will be a foreign
language for most of our international colleagues. Difficulties with English
grammar will lead to mistakes, which will give a less than favorable impression
of our overseas colleagues. Moreover, while we might proclaim the wonders of
e-mail, our informal manner of writing e-mail messages may contribute to the
interpretation burden of our non-English speaking partners, with our use of
English colloquial expressions to be avoided at all costs.
Our use of
language has other problems. Given that language has an informative function
and a relationship function, what happens when we use CMC with a foreign
colleague who is attuned to the social functions of the language, not the
information provided? Westerners do not normally ask about family and health in
business meetings, or via online communication. In our face-to-face meetings
and in our online communication, we tend to get to the point very quickly,
express our individual viewpoints, and expect a reply that affirms or perhaps
contradicts our conclusions. We do not expect our local colleagues to talk about
the weather, their health or their fathers’ or mothers’ well-being. Could it be
the case that online, we are tacitly seen as rude and uncaring lot, devoid of
humanity and only worried about individual gain, by many of our overseas
partners?
A person’s
use of non-verbal communication is a highly visible feature of their cultural
identity. A person’s body language, their use of personal space and their
appearance are obvious differences when we physically encounter people from
other cultures. A less obvious difference is their speech patterns, and
features such as tone of voice, vocal inflections, rhythmic phrasing, accent
and word choices, which are strong indicators of their culture, class and
socio-economic group. Apart from the simplest devices, such as ‘smilies’ and
‘frownies’, these paralinguistic features are usually completely missing in
online communication. Thus, when professionals communicate solely via
technology, their relationships are entirely based upon the written word.
Using CMC,
we create a persona via the keyboard, with eventual problems occurring when
there is a considerable mismatch between our screen identity and our real
selves. Synchronous chat systems are especially prone to this kind of distortion
and exaggeration because we are severely limited in the kinds of non-verbal
emotion we can portray. Attempts at linguistic subtlety such as sarcasm or
irony may simply be viewed as criticism. In the introductory transcript, an
ordinary question was interpreted by a Japanese ex-patriot to be inappropriate
for the relationship. Yoko’s description of the mistake was to call the simple
question, “rude”. Bruce’s surprise is deafening since he cannot escape the
accusation, and without the availability of non-verbal communication, any
explanation would be brutally long-winded and self-defeating. Once the
accusation was made on the chat system, the fledgling relationship was unable
to be rescued.
Humour and thinking
The use of humor is often used by Westerners as a way of breaking the ice in tension-filled situations and achieving group cohesion, and is thus sometimes used in online communication. Unfortunately, humor is not a universally accepted way of doing business, with many cultures having very specific ideas about what is humorous, and what is not. Humor may even be viewed as disrespectful in certain situations. In China it is disrespectful to make fun of one’s colleagues or superiors; in Slovakia humor is inappropriate until after the meeting; in Denmark sarcasm is a preferred method of joke-making; in Mexico, jokes about one’s family are totally off-limits. Any attempt at levity in intercultural exchanges is a highly risky behavior, and probably should not be attempted using CMC technologies.
One
psychological theory is that different ethnic groups have idiosyncratic ways of
thinking, i.e Asians think differently to Anglo-Australians. It is popularly
thought that Westerners have a preference for deductive ways of thinking,
whereas Asians prefer inductive methods. For example, Americans, French and
Japanese students write essays with entirely different structures. The American
way is regarded as linear, the French student has a few twists and turns, but
the Japanese essay is basically circular, never stating the conclusion. If
these different ways of thinking spill over into online communication then we
need to be very careful about jumping to the wrong conclusion about our
overseas partners’ ideas.
Problems and solutions
The answers
to these complex problems are not easy to solve. One solution is to try to
adopt the other person’s style of online writing, their way of thinking, or
joking, and to undervalue your own natural tendencies. We think this solution
is misguided and bound to fail. A better solution is to be less extreme in your
own cultural inclination, and to be more sensitive to the possible alternative
explanations inherent in that e-mail or bulletin board message.
If given the choice of a real-time online meeting or a bulletin board post or piece of e-mail, the Asian partner would probably choose the slower medium, since it allows for a more deliberate, more considered reply or even series of replies. Thus, we can model our collaborative partner’s potential responses by leaving the discussion open, by asking open-ended questions and not necessarily asking for a decision as soon as possible. CMC is devoid of non-verbal communication, but we can add bracketed actions (laughs), ellipses.. and smilies :-) to our e-mail. If in doubt, one should always courteously ask for clarification, perhaps using a non-CMC medium. Communication theory extols the virtues of two-way communication. We think judgment withholding and sensitive questioning of overseas colleagues’ points of view is the only way to fully understand their online ideas. Unfortunately, this is too late for Bruce and Yoko.
Communication competence: a Western concept
One of the key concepts, which this book encourages is the notion of communication competence. Another way of expressing this idea is that we have been describing and explaining a variety of ways of appropriately communicating, both in writing and in speech so that we achieve our professional goals in the most efficient way. This notion of communication competence is very much a Western idea, which probably began with Socrates' The Rhetoric, a treatise on how to best persuade your audience.
In Asia, it was Confucius, whose writings and ideas have had such a great influence upon not only China, but also Japan, Korea and S-E Asia. Confucianism is not about communicating with your audience, or persuading anyone to change their mind, but about individual and group spiritual enlightenment. Thus, the concept of communication competence, which this book embodies, is probably alien to most traditionally-raised non-Western people. A recent risk communication example of this trend is the 2003 SARS debacle, where the Chinese government in protecting its own national face, failed to communicate risk to its own citizens or acknowledge the SARS threat to the rest of the world until it was too late.
Thus we believe that while communication competence is a necessary part of many Western university students' degrees, and an expected skill in the real world, this is not the case in many countries, whose cultures and work ethics depend more upon kinship ties and traditional values of the family group, respect, and honour.
Corporate
communication as a form of culture
Organisational cultural theory is an alternate way of describing and understanding companies, especially large, multinational corporations, which are prominent in our consumer society. In the 70’s and early 80’s several theorists began questioning the rational, goal-directed, systemic descriptions of modern organisations. These scholars claimed that the traditional concepts of the organisation did not capture the symbolic influences on the way that employees interpret their working lives. Drawing upon anthropology and sociology, these theorists say that organisations are a form of culture, with their own history, worldview, myths, language and symbols.
It was the early ethnographic (modern day anthropologist) researchers who set the scene for contemporary theories. Studies of ordinary activities such as inner-city street gangs, patients in a mental hospital, and the rituals of factory workers showed that small groups of people have the same characteristics as large cultural groups, and that culture is just as important to these small groups as it is for whole societies.
Contemporary organisational culture theories can be categorised into two distinct but related schools. The first is the “cultural variables” approach, which says that key cultural elements influence an organisation’s activities and outcomes. The second approach is rather more extreme, in saying that it is culture that is the lifeblood of the organisation. Instead of being one aspect of an organisation, culture is seen as the very thing that gives life and meaning to members’ organisational reality. In other words, culture is the organisation. There are several other slightly different approaches within these two categories, but we shall treat all these approaches as roughly the same from here on.
Early theorists, Deal and Kennedy (1982) categorised organisational culture into four dimensions:
1. Values are the shared philosophies and beliefs of the corporation, and include slogans such as Vidal Sassoon’s “If you don’t look good, we don’t look good”, Heineken’s “It’s all about the beer”, or the University of Western Sydney’s “Bringing knowledge to life”.
2. Heroes are the standout members who best represent the organisation’s profile. Often these people are the founders of the company such as Colonel Sanders, Bill Gates of Microsoft, and Yataro Iwasaki from Mitsubishi. Sometimes they are elder managers or CEO’s.
3. Rites and rituals are the ceremonial practices by which an organisation celebrates or reinforces its daily activities. In higher education, the graduation ceremony, complete with gown, hood and mortar board is used to signify the passing from one kind of life (civilian) to another (academic) life.
4. Cultural communication networks are the informal channels of communication, which are used to indoctrinate new members into the prevailing culture. Students, for example, learn about assignment evaluation from fellow students who may have done the course in the past.
Although this approach is a useful method of describing organisational life, Kreps (1990) argues that it is too simplistic to simply assert that strengthening the four principles above will lead to a strong and profitable organisation. An alternate set of categories is presented by Peters and Westerman (1982) who studied the traits of 62 highly successful organisations in the fields of technology, consumer goods, services, general industrial goods, and project management. Excellent organisations were discovered to embrace eight primary cultural themes: 1. a bias towards action rather than excessive planning, 2. closeness to the customer, 3. an emphasis upon autonomy and entrepreneurship, 4. people orientation akin to family, 5. a hands-on approach to management, 6. a focus on what the company does best, 7. a simple hierarchy and lean staff, 8. an ability to innovate and a unanimity of organisational spirit.
It should be noted that most of the theories of organisational culture originate from American researchers and use American companies as their source of data. An Italian-American organisational culture comparison study (Morley, Shockley-Zalabak, and Cesaria, 1997) showed that the cultural themes, values, activities and perceptions of staff were similar but not identical across the Atlantic. In particular, three additional dimensions were found to be important to a company’s culture: 1. how success is defined, 2. the degree of expected conformity and 3. how expectations of work life should be defined.
The most recent research into organisational culture does not begin with the idea that culture is a universally shared set of symbols and beliefs. Hofstede et al’s (1990) research showed that perceptions of organisation culture may be affected by nationality and demographic characteristics. Keeton and Mengistu (1992) discovered that cultural perceptions vary across levels of management. Using just one health-related organisation, Helms and Stern (2001) measured employee perceptions of 10 accepted cultural dimensions. They found significant differences between different organisational units, the age of the employee, gender and ethnicity, concluding that organisational cultures are not monolithic, but extremely flexible and subject to change.
Discussion questions and exercises
1 On the Web and look
up a well-known product brand such as Coca-Cola or McDonalds or a product such
as jeans or joggers. Using Google, do a search for different countrys’ websites
e.g. American sites, Australian sites and Japanese sites.
How are the websites differently presented?
What colours are predominantly used in different countries?
Why do different nationalities create different looking websites for the same product?
2 When you are in
middle of trip in a foreign country, how much about that country’s culture
should you need to know?
Conversely, how much of our Australian culture should a new immigrant know when he/she arrives?
3 Are there any
cultural practices, which are reprehensible to Australians?
Are there any Australian cultural practices, which may be difficult for an foreigner to understand?
4 If someone comes to
Australia to live, should they entirely give up their own culture? How much
should they retain?
Should a new immigrant to Australian be required to learn English?
5 Are there any
universal cultural values, which transcend particular cultures?
6. If
you are in a class with students from other cultures, ask different kinds of
students if they have a word for “surfing” or “barbecue” in their language. Do
they have more than one word for particularly important concepts in their own
culture?
7. Use
the Internet to study intercultural differences on the Usenet via Google’s
groups, and on Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels.
8. Describe
the culture of the organisation you work for, or the institution you are
studying with?
References
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Gudykunst, W.B. & Mody, B. (eds) (2002). Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, 2nd ed, Sage, Thousand Oaks: California.
Hall, E.T. (1959). The Silent Language, New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Hall, E.T. (1983). The Dance of Life, New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Helms, M.M. and Stern,
R. (2001). Exploring the factors that influence employees'
perceptions of their organisation's culture. Journal of Management in Medicine, Vol. 15, Iss. 6; pp 415-31
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D. and Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organisational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 286-316.
Kaplan, R.B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education, Language Learning, 16: 1-20.
Keeton, K. and Mengistu, B. (1992), The perception of organisational culture by management level: implications for training and development, Public Productivity and Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 205-13.
Kreps, G. (1990). Organizational Communication: Theory and practice, 2nd ed, New York: Longman.
Lustig, M.W. and Koester, J. (1999). Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures, 3rd ed, New York: Longman.
Morley, D.D., Shockley-Zalabak, P. and Cesaria, R. (1997). Organizational communication and culture: A study of 10 Italian high-technology companies. The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 34, Iss. 3, 253-71.
Peters, T.J. and Westerman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies, New York: Harper and Row.
Pinto, D. (2000). Intercultural Communication : A Three-step Method for Dealing with Differences, Garant, Leuven.
Salamensky, S.I. (ed) (2001). Talk Talk Talk : The Cultural Life of Everyday Conversation, New York:Routledge.
Samovar, L. A. & Porter, R.E. (2001). Communication between Cultures, 4th ed, Belmont, California: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne Wong Scollon (2001). Intercultural Communication: A discourse approach, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Skoyles, J.R. (1999). The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: new surprising evidence. [Online] Available from http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~skoyles/swh.htm