Managing in international contexts (21717) Dr Anthony Fee Page 1 Communicating with strangers This week’s class is a transition of sorts. So far we have introduced a range of culture-general knowledge that should provide a foundation for appreciating the challenges of managing globally. The next six classes focus on specific management functions. In other words, how some of the ideas we’ve discussed to date play out in management interactions. We start with communication, which may be the most important part of a manager’s job. Forty years ago, Henry Mintzberg argued that up to 90% of a manager’s role relates to communication. While the mediums of communication may have changed, the importance of communication for effective management remains. The communication process Communication is a transaction, involving the exchange of a message & the sharing of understanding (Barnlund 1970). It includes all the private, public & behavioural cues that the recipient perceives & interprets, not just what is intended. There are many ways to represent the communication process graphically; the figure on the right is one example. All communication involves a sender, receiver & message. The process requires the sender to encode the message & transmit it via a message medium (‘sent message’). The message is decoded by the receiver (‘received message’). To complete the communication process, the receiver encodes a response (or feedback), which is decoded by the sender. Sender Received response Sent response Sent message Received message Receiver message medium encode decode response medium encode decode Effective communication occurs when the ‘gap’ is minimized between (a) sent & received message, and (b) sent & received response. Good communicators make prudent decisions about whether & how to transmit a message (how to encode, which medium to use, what message & tone), and display flexibility in receiving messages (decoding the message not just the words, encoding & transmitting appropriate feedback). All communication is imperfect. The message that is sent is never received exactly as intended. This is because the communication process is indirect, mediated by the symbols used to encode & decode the message. The greater the interference or ‘noise’ that exists at each stage of the process, the less likely it is that the intended message will be accurately decoded. Cultural difference can magnify this interference. Managing in international contexts (21717) Dr Anthony Fee Page 2 Cross-cultural communication Cross-cultural communication occurs when a message that is encoded in one culture is decoded in another. It is difficult for two reasons. First, communicating with ‘strangers’ is less predictable & more stressful than communicating with people who are ‘like you’; we’ll discuss this further during the lecture. Second, the process of encoding, transmitting & decoding a message is a deeply cultural one. The communication scripts & preferences we develop are a product of our enculturation; Australians/Brazilians/Chinese/Danes/Egyptians learn to communicate like Australians/Brazilians/Chinese/Danes/Egyptians. Consequently, cross- cultural communication increases the potential for gaps to emerge between sent & received messages & responses. Cultural difference in the way messages are encoded & decoded Without a common system of codification, efforts to share meaning would fail. So every culture creates a ‘universe of discourse’ for its members as a way to interpret & convey experiences to others. In class we’ll examine some of the common barriers to cross-cultural communication. Three pertinent issues are discussed in these briefing notes, all of which have probably influenced your in-class interactions during 21717. 1. Language is more than just the way we encode There are around 7000 unique languages in the world, although half of these are at risk of extinction. Language & cognition are more closely linked than most people realise. Rather than language simply reflecting our world, research shows that we probably experience the world in certain ways because we talk about the world in certain ways. That is, we categorise, perceive & interpret events the way we do because we speak a particular language (bilingual people may respond differently to identical questions depending on the language in which the question is posed). Language is also deeply connected with power. Some languages are imbued with greater prestige & power; the role of English as a privileged ‘global’ language might be one example of this. Language also creates power imbalances. Notably, it is not uncommon for global business people to use a second, third or fourth language during cross-cultural interactions. In these situations, proficiency using the language can give one side more control of the context & direction of conversation. This puts more fluent speakers in a position of power that can frustrate others who are less fluent in the language being spoken, a fact not often recognised by single-language speakers. In these situations, the use of interpreters is a viable way to achieve some balance. ‘The grammar of any culture is sent & received largely unconsciously, making one’s own cultural assumptions & biases difficult to recognize. They seem so obviously right that they require no explanation’ –Barnlund, 1988, p. 45. Managing in international contexts (21717) Dr Anthony Fee Page 3 2. Societies differ in the importance given to words In his 1959 book The Silent Language Edward Hall distinguished between societies’ communication patterns based on the relative importance given to verbal communication (words) compared to the context in which the words are transmitted. This has led to a distinction between low- context & high-context cultures. The characteristics of each are presented in the call-out boxes on the right. Low-context cultures emphasise the verbal message. Communication is direct & explicit; the words themselves are central to the message being transmitted. Good communicators are those who are able to craft direct & clear verbal messages. In contrast, high-context cultures communicate less directly. More of the message is encoded in the choice of an appropriate context for the communication (who, where, when, how), while little is encoded in the explicitly transmitted part of message. Indeed, the words themselves might be insignificant. The onus is on the recipient to decode the various cues that signal the true message. In reality, all socieities communicate in both low & high context ways. In some instances very low-context messages are required (e.g. emergency warnings). In others, high context communication is expected (e.g. negative performance reviews). However, the relative preference for words versus context distinguishes the communication style & skills that people develop. There can be a tendency for both sides to view the other unfavourably. From a high-context perspective, low-context communicators may appear stupid because of their inability to decode messages (‘What’s wrong with her! Isn’t she smart enough to get my message?!) & untrustworthy because they appear patronising (‘She’s treating me like a little child … she’s so arrogant.’). The opposite is also true. Low-context communicators view high-context communicators as incompetent (‘What’s wrong with him! Can’t he just say what he means?!’) & untrustworthy (‘What’s he hiding? I can’t trust him at all.’). Characteristics of communication in high context cultures - Indirect communication (‘face’ work) - Implicit (influenced by relationship, past experiences etc.) - Non-verbal important - Formal - Emotionally controlled - Spoken agreement - Emphasis on recipient (receiver-orientation) - Long-term commitment to other party Characteristics of communication in low context cultures - Direct communication (less ‘face’ work) - Explicit (‘what you see is what you get’) - Verbal important - Less formal - Emotionally expressive - Written agreement - Emphasis on sender (sender-orientation) - Short-term commitment to other party Managing in international contexts (21717) Dr Anthony Fee Page 4 3. Societies differ in their attitudes to expressing emotions Socieities also differ in the extent to which emotions should be involved in communication & other aspects of business practice, like decision- making (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1997). Neutral cultures like Ethiopia, Japan, China & New Zealand separate emotions from communication & decision-making. From this perspective, emotions have no place in the workplace. Good communication is emotionally restrained. Visibly emoting is frowned upon. Messages are best conveyed in calm monotones with a focus on logic rather than feelings. Expressions like ‘I agree with your reasoning’ have positive connotations. In contrast, affective cultures (e.g. Egypt, Spain, Philippines & Russia) view emotion as an important variable in business & communicative practice. The expression of emotion through words, intonation & non-verbal signals is valued. Anger, fear, joy & frustration are factors to be incorporated into business practice. Expressions like ‘I have the same feelings as you’ are viewed favourably. These differences can also lead to mistrust in both directions. From the perspective of an affective culture, people from neutral cultures may be seen as cold & heartless. Meawhile, neutral cultures may view people from affective cultures as being out of control & inconsistent in their behaviour & moods. The neutral/affective culture continuum is distinct from the high/low context continuum. The Philippines, Russia & Egypt are categorised as high-context, but also affective, cultures. Pre-class reflection: 1. We tend to interpret the communication style of others through the lens of what we believe is ‘good’ communication. a. Think of someone you know who is a good communicator. What does s/he do that impresses you? b. With whom do you feel most (& least) comfortable communicating? What makes you feel comfortable or uncomfortable? 2. What is your preferred communication style? Be specific about your strengths & preferences for encoding, transmitting & decoding messages. 3. To what extent do your responses to questions 1 & 2 reflect your enculturation? For instance, do you feel most comfort with, or admiration of, communicators from your own cultural background? 4. While many variables influence how we encode & transmit messages, in general people from collectivist cultures tend to use high-context communication more frequently & more instinctively than those from individualistic cultures. Why might this be? 5. Dean Barnlund (1998, p. 50-51) writes: ‘If it is true that the more people differ the harder it is for them to understand each other, it is equally true that the more they differ the more they have to teach & learn from each other ... to do so, there must be mutual respect & sufficient curiosity to overcome the frustrations that occur as they flounder from one misunderstanding to another’ Do you agree? What factors: (a) facilitate, Managing in international contexts (21717) Dr Anthony Fee Page 5 or (b) inhibit, learning from intercultural encounters in your workplace (or life)? 6. Briefly summarise what you see as the main findings from the reading article ‘The impact of language barriers on trust formation in multinational teams’. Don’t worry too much about the detail in the ‘Theoretical framework’ and ‘Methodology’ sections. Instead, focus on the study’s main points. The following questions might help you: a. How do the findings of this study compare with your own experiences in multinational teams (MNTs)? b. How might an international manager use the findings of this research? c. What concerns or reservations would you have applying these findings to your workplace? Selected references: • Barnlund, D. 1970, ‘A transcation model of communication’, in Akin, J., Goldberg, A., Myers, G. & Stewart, J. 1970, Language Behavior: A book of readings in communication, Mouton, The Hague & Paris, pp. 43-61. • Barnlund, D. 1998, ‘Communication ina global village’, in Bennett, M.J. (Ed) Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Selected readings, Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, ME, pp. 35-51. • Chen, G.M., & Starosta, W.J. 1996, ‘Intercultural communication competence: A synthesis’, Annals of the International Communication Association, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 353-383. • Engholm, C. 1991, When Business East meets Business West: The guide to practice and protocol in the Pacific Rim, New York, John Wiley & Sons. • Giles, H., Coupland, J. & Coupland, N. 1991, Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics, Cambridge & Paris, Cambridge University Press. • Gudykunst, W.B. 1998, ‘Individualistic and collectiivistic perspectives on communication: An introduction’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 107-134. • Hall, E.T. 1959, The Silent Language, New York: Doubleday. • Hall, E.T. & Hall. M.R. 1990, Understanding Cultural Differences, Yarmouth, ME, Intercultural Press. • Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. 1997, Riding the Waves of Culture, London: Nicholas Brealey. • Holtbrügge, D., Weldon, A., & Rogers, H. 2013, ‘Cultural determinants of email communication styles’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 89-110. • Kim, Y.Y., & Gudykunst, W.B. 1988, Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA, Sage. • Mathison, D.L. 1988, ‘Assumed similarity in communication styles’, Group & Organization Management, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 100-110. • Mintzber, H. 1973, The Nature of Managerial Work, New Yory, Harper-Row. • Whorf, B.L., Carroll, J.B., Levinson, S.C., & Lee, P. 2012, Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.