Communicating Across Cultures at Work 9781137526366, 113752636X

Table of contents :
COVER......Page 1
SHORT CONTENTS......Page 7
CONTENTS......Page 8
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES......Page 11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......Page 14
PREFACE......Page 15
PART 1 INTRODUCTION......Page 17
1 SOME KEY CONCEPTS......Page 18
1.1 The importance of skilled interpersonal work communication......Page 19
1.2 A behavioural model of interpersonal communication......Page 20
1.3 Communication competence......Page 22
1.4 Factors increasing the amount of work communication with ‘different others’......Page 23
1.5 The growing importance of cultural diversity at work......Page 24
1.6 The growing importance of skilled intercultural communication at work......Page 26
1.7 Computer-mediated communication, culture and intercultural communication at work......Page 27
Notes and references......Page 28
PART 2 CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION......Page 30
2.1 Different understandings of culture and cultural difference......Page 32
2.2 How do members of a society imbibe its culture?......Page 35
2.3 Other culture-related conceptual issues......Page 37
Notes and references......Page 42
3.1 How cultures vary – the values approaches......Page 45
3.2 Other ways of analysing cultural difference......Page 51
Chapter 3 summary......Page 54
Notes and references......Page 55
4.1 The impact of culture on work behaviour......Page 57
4.2 The impact of culture on work organization, organizational cultures and management......Page 59
4.3 The impact of culture on work environments......Page 64
Notes and references......Page 67
5.1 Core communication elements......Page 70
5.2 Rules and how intentions are conveyed......Page 77
5.4 Communication goals and strategies......Page 78
5.5 Communication traits and styles......Page 88
5.7 Communication competence......Page 90
5.8 Work communication......Page 91
5.9 Computer-mediated communication......Page 92
Notes and references......Page 93
6.1 Psychological factors involved in work communication......Page 99
6.2 The ‘self’......Page 111
6.3 Psychological processes involved in work communication......Page 113
Notes and references......Page 116
7.1 Negotiation......Page 121
7.2 Cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing......Page 125
7.3 Groupwork and teamwork......Page 127
7.4 Leadership and management......Page 130
Notes and references......Page 135
8.1 The growing importance of communication across subcultures at work......Page 139
8.2 Subcultural influences on work behaviour......Page 140
8.3 How different subcultural groups communicate......Page 141
8.4 Subcultural differences in communication practices......Page 143
8.5 How membership of a subculture affects the antecedents of work communication......Page 146
8.6 Subcultural differences in communication-based work activities......Page 152
Notes and references......Page 154
Part Two exercises, cases and role plays......Page 159
PART 3 INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK......Page 166
9 BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK......Page 167
9.2 ‘Universal’ barriers......Page 168
9.3 Prejudice, discrimination and harassment......Page 171
9.4 Different communication practices as barriers......Page 175
9.5 Psychological factors as barriers......Page 181
9.6 Work-specific barriers......Page 185
9.7 (Some) organizational cultures......Page 186
Chapter 9 summary......Page 188
Notes and references......Page 189
10.1 Using inclusive language......Page 193
10.2 Ethical issues in intercultural work communication......Page 194
10.3 General traits for intercultural effectiveness and how to develop them......Page 195
10.4 Gaining enhanced intercultural understanding of others......Page 197
10.5 Skills for effective intercultural self-presentation......Page 204
10.6 Effective intercultural interaction processes......Page 207
10.7 Applications of skills to particular situations......Page 216
10.9 Intercultural communication competence......Page 218
10.10 Skills for sojourning and working abroad......Page 221
Chapter 10 summary......Page 223
Notes and references......Page 224
11.1 Intercultural negotiation......Page 229
11.2 Intercultural cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing......Page 231
11.3 Working in diverse groups and teams......Page 236
11.4 Intercultural leadership and management......Page 245
Notes and references......Page 251
Part Three exercises, cases and role plays......Page 257
Glossary......Page 263
Further Reading......Page 272
Index......Page 273

Citation preview

Praise for the Previous Edition This is an impressively thorough update of an already excellent textbook. It provides a practical but unfailingly wellresearched overview of the major areas of intercultural and multicultural business communication, and in such a way that students get acquainted with the discussions that underlie the resulting guidelines. This makes it a very useful course book for organizational communication in an age of globalization. Anne Marie Bülow, Professor of Intercultural Communication, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark This book is a valuable resource for students on an undergraduate or postgraduate business or management degree programme which includes the study of culture and communication in the context of work and/or intercultural communication in the workplace. It is particularly useful for students planning to do an international work or study placement as part of their degree programme or those intending to work in organisations that operate across the globe. As the book is thoroughly grounded in research, it is also suitable for research purposes. The up-to-date, real world examples included throughout the book, together with the questions and exercises at the end of each chapter, make the book an appropriate course book for all levels of study at university. Claire Richardson, English Language Education Manager, Centre for English Language and Communication at Aston (CELCA), Aston University, UK This textbook boasts a wealth of information and a broad perspective on cross cultural communication. The inclusion of ethics, teams and leadership is very useful and the questions and exercises are to be particularly welcomed. Roberta Wiig Berg, Associate Professor, The Norwegian School of Management BI, Norway

Praise for the New Edition In my opinion this is the leading textbook globally for undergraduate and postgraduate students of cross-cultural communication. Based on a strong research foundation, it acts as a valuable aid to deepen our understanding as to how cultural differences influence how we communicate. Having spent time working in several countries, I found this book to be useful and relevant to those looking to work outside their home country in the future. Building on the previous edition, this new edition contains case studies and an enhanced student companion website to aid students’ learning. Alex Newman, Associate Dean (International), Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin University, Australia A lovely source, filled with imperative information for managers, practitioners, academics and students. It is distinctive in its scope and analysis, proposing insights into the application and theory of managing across communication in cultures. Milan Ajmal, Associate Professor of Management, Abu Dhabi University, UAE This is an impressive resource book for undergraduate and postgraduate students, lecturers, managers, and professionals interested in cross-cultural communication in the workplace. The updated book, grounded in thorough research and equipped with real-life examples, questions and exercises at the end of each chapter, is certainly a valuable contribution to cross-cultural communication research and teaching. Mingsheng Li, Senior Lecturer in Cross-Cultural Communication, Massey University, New Zealand

Communicating Across Cultures at Work FOURTH EDITION By Maureen Guirdham and Oliver Guirdham

© Maureen Guirdham and Oliver Guirdham 2017 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2017 by PALGRAVE Palgrave in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN 978–1–137–52636–6 paperback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

For Damon and in memory of E.F. Gazeley

short contents

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PREFACE A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY ABOUT THIS BOOK OVERVIEW

1

PART I INTRODUCTION 1

2

3

xii xv xvi xvii xvii xvii

SOME KEY CONCEPTS

1 3

PART 2 CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

15

2

CULTURE AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCE

17

3

HOW CULTURES VARY

30

4

CULTURE AND WORK

42

5

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION PRACTICES

55

6

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS84

7

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK ACTIVITIES

106

8

SUBCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

124

PART 3 INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

153

9 BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK 10 EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION 11 INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES

155 181 217

Glossary Further Reading Index

251 260 261 vii

CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PREFACE A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY ABOUT THIS BOOK OVERVIEW

xii xv xvi xvii xvii xvii

PART I

1

INTRODUCTION1 1 SOME KEY CONCEPTS

1.1 The importance of skilled interpersonal work communication 1.2 A behavioural model of interpersonal communication 1.3 Communication competence 1.4 Factors increasing the amount of work communication with ‘different others’ 1.5 The growing importance of cultural diversity at work 1.6 The growing importance of skilled intercultural communication at work 1.7 Computer-mediated communication, culture and intercultural communication at work Chapter 1 summary Notes and references

3

4 5 7 8 9

11 12 13 13

PART 2

2

CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

15

2 CULTURE AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCE

17

2.1 Different understandings of culture and cultural difference 2.2 How do members of a society imbibe its culture? 2.3 Other culture-related conceptual issues Chapter 2 summary Notes and references

17 20 22 27 27

ix

x  CONTENTS

3 HOW CULTURES VARY

30

4 CULTURE AND WORK

42

5 CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES

55

6 CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS

84

3.1 How cultures vary – the values approaches 3.2 Other ways of analysing cultural difference 3.3  Country clustering Chapter 3 summary Notes and references

4.1 The impact of culture on work behaviour 4.2 The impact of culture on work organization, organizational cultures and management 4.3 The impact of culture on work environments Chapter 4 summary Notes and references

5.1 Core communication elements 5.2  Rules and how intentions are conveyed 5.3 Communication functions 5.4 Communication goals and strategies 5.5  Communication traits and styles 5.6 Situations (contexts) 5.7 Communication competence 5.8 Work communication 5.9 Computer-mediated communication Chapter 5 summary Notes and references

6.1 Psychological factors involved in work communication 6.2 The ‘self’ 6.3 Psychological processes involved in work communication Chapter 6 summary Notes and references

30 36 39 39 40

42 44 49 52 52

55 62 63 63 73 75 75 76 77 78 78

84 96 98 101 101

7 CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK ACTIVITIES

106

8 SUBCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

124

Part Two exercises, cases and role plays

145

7.1 Negotiation 7.2 Cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing 7.3 Groupwork and teamwork 7.4 Leadership and management Chapter 7 summary Notes and references

8.1 The growing importance of communication across subcultures at work 8.2 Subcultural influences on work behaviour 8.3 How different subcultural groups communicate 8.4 Subcultural differences in communication practices 8.5 How membership of a subculture affects the antecedents of work communication 8.6 Subcultural differences in communication-based work activities Chapter 8 summary Notes and references

106 110 112 115 120 120

124 125 126 128 131 137 139 139

CONTENTS  

3

xi   

PART 3 INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

153

9 BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

155

10 EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION

181

9.1 Language barriers 9.2 ‘Universal’ barriers 9.3 Prejudice, discrimination and harassment 9.4 Different communication practices as barriers 9.5 Psychological factors as barriers 9.6  Work-specific barriers 9.7 (Some) organizational cultures 9.8 Barriers to mediated intercultural communication Chapter 9 summary Notes and references

10.1 Using inclusive language 10.2 Ethical issues in intercultural work communication 10.3 General traits for intercultural effectiveness and how to develop them 10.4 Gaining enhanced intercultural understanding of others 10.5 Skills for effective intercultural self-presentation 10.6 Effective intercultural interaction processes 10.7 Applications of skills to particular situations 10.8 Effective mediated intercultural communication 10.9 Intercultural communication competence 10.10 Skills for sojourning and working abroad Chapter 10 summary Notes and references

156 156 159 163 169 173 174 176 176 177

181 182 183 185 192 195 204 206 206 209 211 212

11 INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES

217

Part Three exercises, cases and role plays

245

11.1 Intercultural negotiation 11.2 Intercultural cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing 11.3 Working in diverse groups and teams 11.4 Intercultural leadership and management Chapter 11 summary Notes and references

Glossary Further Reading Index

217 219 224 233 239 239

251 260 261

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

1.1 A behavioural model of interpersonal communication 5 1.2 A behavioural model of interpersonal communication showing the relationships with intrapersonal factors 5 1.3 A behavioural model of interpersonal communication showing the direct and indirect influences of mode and context on interaction 6 1.4 Factors that make interpersonal work communication complex 6 1.5 Aspects of the enterprise affected by culture 9 1.6 Factors increasing the importance of diversity at work 10 A How (sub)cultural differences affect factors that influence work communication practices 16 2.1 Key ideas of theorists for whom communication is central to culture 19 2.2 How the process of social influence leads an individual to imbibe culture 21 2.3 A behavioural model of interpersonal communication showing the influence of culture 25 3.1 Links of Schwartz’s (2000) cultural values to managers’ work behaviour 33 3.2 World Values Survey findings for ten countries 34 4.1 Types of organizational culture and their characteristics (Hofstede 1981) 47 4.2 Cultural and other factors correlated negatively ↓ and positively ↑ with national corruption levels 51 5.1 Aspects of work communication affected by culture 56 5.2 Core elements of communication behaviour that are influenced by culture 56 5.3 Gibson and Manuel (2003) communication model showing the impact of culture at the different stages 61 5.4 Restricted and elaborated codes 61 5.5 The anxiety-uncertainty management process 65 5.6 Face maintenance in Japan 67 5.7 Conversational constraints and choice of interaction strategy 70 5.8 Cultural attributes linked to high virtual-team performance on a programming task 77 6.1 Cultural differences in communication behaviours and the psychological factors and processes that may affect these behaviours 85 6.2 Psychological influences on individuals’ work communication behaviour that may differ across cultures 85 6.3 Culture, the ‘self’, other psychological constructs and overt communication 96 9.1 How people define an encounter as intergroup 157 xii

List of Figures and Tables  

9.2 Factors that increase poor communication in intergroup encounters 9.3 Sources of communication problems and conflict in diverse work groups 10.1 Ease and difficulty of perceiving factors influencing others’ behaviour at work 10.2 The mindfulness continuum 10.3 Expectation States Theory: factors influencing expectations and behaviour in intercultural encounters 10.4 Skills for effective intercultural self-presentation 10.5 Focus of intercultural communication skills 10.6 The basic influences on behaviour in communication accommodation theory 10.7 Intercultural communication competence measures 10.8 Skills and attributes needed for effective intercultural work communication 11.1 Factors in intercultural negotiation effectiveness 11.2 Factors that increase barriers to intercultural cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing 11.3 Factors that promote and undermine coordination in MNE subunits 11.4 How leaders can improve intercultural teamwork and groupwork

158 174 186 190 191 192 196 200 207 209 218 220 222 233

Tables

3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1

Approaches to cultural difference 31 Cultural dimension scores for three countries 36 Examples of how cultural differences influence work behaviour 43 Effects of cultural values on work norms 43 Attitudes to risk in five Asian countries 44 Extent and nature of personalism and importance of hierarchy in five Asian countries 45 Corporate governance in five Asian countries 45 Variations in employment-related practices across eight countries  46 Extent of personalism in employment and work relations in five Asian countries 46 Innovation and creativity in five Asian countries 47 Corruption in five Asian countries 52 Cultural differences in communication goals and strategies 64 Individualism–collectivism and low-context/high-context face negotiation processes 66 Deference behaviours in four Asian countries 69 Relations among different cultural values and communication styles 75 Cultural differences in psychological influences on communication behaviour86 A comparison of types of regulatory focus 87 Work motivation patterns of employees in five Asian countries 88 Examples of cultural differences in psychological processes underlying communication behaviour 99 Effects of culture on negotiation 106

xiii   

xiv  List of Figures and Tables

7.2 Examples of cultural differences in negotiation 7.3 Negotiation style and approach of Chinese, Indian, Japanese and Taiwanese negotiators 7.4 Effects of culture on cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing 7.5 Effects of culture on groupwork and teamwork 7.6 Teamwork in five Asian countries 7.7 Effect of culture on leadership and management 7.8 Examples of cultural influences on leadership and management 7.9 Cultural characteristics reflected in performance appraisal characteristics 8.1 Examples of communication differences of subcultural groups 8.2 Differences in communication practices by different types of group 8.3 Examples of subgroup variations in psychological influences on communication 8.4 Gender differences in the emotional responsiveness of managers 9.1 Examples of prejudice, discrimination and harassment directed at different groups 9.2 Impediments to intercultural communication resulting from the different communication practices of different groups 9.3 Possible effects on communication of contrasting cultural values 10.1 Factors and guidance related to intercultural social perceptiveness 10.2 A comparison of conventional problem-solving approaches and AI approaches 11.1 Relative ease or difficulty of knowledge transfers between different types of culture 11.2 Status of factors that support knowledge sharing in intercultural teams and organizations 11.3 Effects on group- and team-work of factors related to culture 11.4 Effects of type of diversity and type of group task on group effectiveness 11.5 Behaviours that improve communication in intercultural virtual teams 11.6 Potential beneficial effects of a range of diversity team-building approaches 11.7 Issues that arise in intercultural leadership and management

107 109 110 113 114 115 116 119 127 128 132 133 160 164 169 186 201 221 223 225 226 230 230 234

Acknowledgements

The authors and publisher would like to thank the following reviewers for their constructive feedback and suggestions for the development of this textbook: Alex Newman, Monash University, Australia Daniel Lowensberg, University of Hull, UK Farhad Hossain, University of Manchester, UK Jens Graff, Umeå University, Sweden Mingsheng Li, Massey University, New Zealand Steven Breunig, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark

xv

Preface

Intercultural work communication presents challenges and opportunities that both justify and demand study by anyone wishing to achieve effectiveness at work. How people communicate at work is highly significant for individuals’ employability, career success and job satisfaction. It is equally important for organizations’ effectiveness and, in the case of businesses, profitability. Furthermore, a high and growing proportion of all work communication is with people from different cultures and demographics. More than half a century of cross-cultural research has firmly established that there are differences in the ways that members of different societies and societal groups behave, both in private life and at work. Culture is a highly important source of differences in behaviour; gender, age, social class and so on are other important sources. Communication is among the most important types of behaviour in organizations, because it is essential for cooperation and coordination. It is undisputed that there are cultural and demographic differences in how we communicate. In the fast-developing study of intercultural communication there have been several new or more thoroughly investigated approaches since the publication of the third edition of this book. Perhaps the most significant is the study of the impact of computer-mediated communication (cmc) on intercultural communication and of culture on cmc. This field has now begun to produce findings that require and justify including this topic here. Second, some disillusionment with grand models of cultural difference has set in, leading to a development which in the opinion of the authors is welcome: an increase in country-by-country studies designed less to test theories than to observe and report on realities on the ground. Cumulatively these studies, it is hoped, will generate a mass of information on which new and more realistic theories can be based; in the meantime, they provide valuable enrichment of our practical understanding of how to communicate across particular cultures at work. Third, there has been an increase in replication in other countries of studies first conducted in the USA, so that in some contexts, at least, it is no longer necessary to assume that those US studies apply with equal force in other ­cultures – that they are not culture-laden. This development, while limiting our confidence in and setting xvi

boundaries for what we thought we knew, opens the way for new knowledge. Fourth, there have been new findings about how language, perhaps the pre-eminent cultural artefact, affects communication, and how native speakers of different languages experience work interactions differently. Fifth, things that may have been of importance for some time in the world of work have attracted more scholarly attention: the contributions and challenges of the multicultural individual and cultural brokerage are two of these. There have also been further advances in our knowledge of the impact of cultural diversity and faultlines. This new knowledge allows us to better understand how the interaction is affected when members of several cultures and demographics communicate, as opposed to those of one-on-one intercultural encounters. As well as attempting to embrace these developments, in the fourth edition of Communicating Across Cultures at Work we have tried to respond to suggestions from readers of earlier editions. Previous versions of this book discussed subcultures (gender, age) alongside cultures, and subcultural communication alongside cultural communication. Some students, we have learned, find this confusing. In the current edition, therefore, we have separated out the material on subcultures and subcultural communication and placed it in a separate chapter in Part Two, Chapter 8. Part One, which introduces the topics of interpersonal work communication and how it is affected by diversity, as well as a number of conceptual issues, covers both culture and subculture. Part Three, which deals with barriers to intercultural communication and how to overcome them, applies equally to both cultural and subcultural challenges. This text in effect operates at two levels: an accessible level in the printed book, supplemented by opportunities for a deeper understanding either as a whole or on particular topics in the Student Companion Website. This material is signposted in the text with a globe symbol, as in the example below:   1.1.1 to see another definition of communication and why the present authors prefer this one.

Thus together the book and Student Companion ­Website provide supplementary material directly linked

Preface      xvii

to the text to allow readers to explore particular topics in greater depth; if all these supplementary materials are accessed, the two together allow a quite advanced reading of the subject. Other features of the student website are suggestions on the within-text questions, referrals to videos and a small number of self-completion questionnaires. There is also a Teachers’ website that gives a rationale of the chapters, answers to and comments on many of the end-of-Part questions, a course outline with lecture and tutorial topics including PowerPoint slides, and suggestions for which exercises go with that topic.

A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY References in the text to cultures and subcultures as distinct concepts use the terms without brackets. To cover the combined concepts, the terms ‘(sub)culture’ and ‘(sub) cultural’ are generally used; however, when referring to communication and interactions between members of different groups, we prefer the term ‘intercultural’, to avoid the clumsiness of ‘inter(sub)cultural’. Similarly, we use ‘cross-cultural’ rather than ‘cross(sub)cultural’ for comparisons. To refer to members of groups other than a communicator’s own, we generally use the terminology, which is gradually becoming current, of ‘different others’, and to capture the quality of their difference, ‘otherness’. However, certain intercultural communication theories use the term ‘strangers’ instead of ‘different others’ and where that is so, the author’s original terminology is retained. Again, we generally use the term ‘interpersonal’ to mean ‘between people’. However, in some writings on intercultural communication ‘interpersonal’ is used in contrast to ‘intergroup’ and ‘intercultural’, in the sense that an encounter, even between only two people, may occur on an intergroup or intercultural level, so that when these elements are absent the interaction takes place on an interpersonal level. Again, in these cases we follow the terminology of the writer but try to make the difference clear. Labels for societal groups are always problematic – the subject is discussed in the section on inclusive language in Chapter 10. The term ‘minority’ is often used not literally, but defined as a group in a subordinate position irrespective of relative size; for example, it can be applied to women in Britain or Black people in South Africa, both of whom are numeric majorities. This usage can be sensitive because of its suggestion of subordinate status, but in the absence of any other accepted general term and because it is adopted by the UK Commission for Racial Equality, it is the term we have used.

its coverage. Nevertheless, it has proved possible to cover adequately most topics needed for an understanding of intercultural communication and to provide guidance on applying these understandings at work. The underpinnings of cultural theory, psychology, social psychology, communication studies and interactive behaviour are touched on, but readings such as those given in Further Reading are needed for full comprehension. Each of the 11 chapters contains a summary as well as the core sections. The questions and exercises at the ends of Parts Two and Three offer a range of learning opportunities, including case analyses, group discussions and role plays. A Glossary is provided, which supplies explanations of terms not always explicated in the text. These terms are displayed in the following font on first use: intercultural communication.

OVERVIEW The book is divided into three major topics:

• Part One, Introduction, covers core issues about why we •

•

study work communication, culture and ­intercultural communication and what these topics consist of. Part Two, Culture and Work Communication, analyses diversity at work in terms of cultures (societies with a shared way of life). It also analyses cultural similarities and differences in work behaviour, organization and management, how we communicate at work, and examines cultural influences on the psychological factors such as motives, and on processes such as perception, that influence communication. It then explores cultural differences in some important work activities, including negotiating, cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing, working in groups and leadership. A final chapter in this Part applies a similar analysis to subcultures (subdivisions of societies such as gender and age groups that have some, but not all, the characteristics of a culture). Part Three, Intercultural Communication at Work, shows how the cultural differences that were established in Part Two, and other factors such as prejudice, impede effective intercultural work communication. It then shows how these impediments can be overcome and intercultural work communication be made effective. A final chapter describes how to achieve effective intercultural performance in work activities including negotiating, cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing, working in groups and leadership.

ABOUT THIS BOOK As far as possible, this book is based on research material. Because the field is still a young one, this necessarily limits

To access the Companion Website please visit www.palgravehighered.com/guirdham-cac-4e

part

1

INTRODUCTION

P

art one consists of one chapter, Chapter 1, which has three main purposes: to begin describing what intercultural work communication is by clarifying ‘work communication’, ‘culture’ and ‘intercultural communication’ itself; to substantiate the claim that intercultural communication at work is of great and growing importance; and to ­substantiate the further claim that it is not unproblematic and so requires and justifies study and skill development. The chapter also contains our model of interpersonal communication itself.

1

1 SOME KEY CONCEPTS Why is it worth studying how people communicate at work? Some readers may feel that since communicating is something we have been practising since childhood, this, at least, among the many things that we need to learn, can be taken for granted. However, there is clear evidence that a few people all of the time, some people much of the time, and everyone some of the time, are poor work communicators and that the consequences are damaging both for them and their organizations. All communication is error-prone: it is liable to lead to misunderstanding or even conflict when senders encode their messages inaccurately, transmission failures occur, or receivers who are inattentive or emotionally aroused decode inaccurately. These problems can arise even between two people from identical backgrounds and who have a large measure of shared experience. More positively, there is also clear evidence that high-quality work communication enhances the effectiveness of every work activity from decision-making to negotiating, selection interviewing to teamwork, while also supporting individuals’ careers and job satisfaction. Section 1.1 demonstrates these points. The core model for interpersonal communication in this book is a behavioural model. Section 1.2 explains this model. A book of this kind, which aims not just to impart knowledge, but also to help readers begin the process of gaining skill in communication, needs a foundation in what skilled communication is. Section 1.3 provides a breakdown of various models of communication that have been provided by scholars. Why is it worth studying intercultural work communication? The reason is that a plethora of factors has vastly increased both the amount and the importance of the communication that takes place at work between ‘different others’ (meaning people from different backgrounds in terms of nationality, ethnicity, gender, age group, religion and so on). These factors, which are described in Section 1.4, include a huge increase in the amount of economic activity in the southern and eastern hemispheres of the globe; urbanization of populations; widespread

demographic changes (ageing of populations); and the global connectivity that has led to globalization of economic activity. When people from different societies and demographics work together, the situation is one of diversity. As Section 1.5 explains, diversity at work continues to increase. Demographic differences are important for work communication because they lead to differences in behaviour, including communication behaviour, and in the underlying values, beliefs and attitudes that influence how people behave. We call these differences in behaviour, values and so on ‘cultural’ differences when they apply to people from different nationalities/ethnicities and ‘subcultural’ differences when they apply to people of different ethnicities or religions within nations, or of different genders, age groups and so on either within or across countries. As Section 1.6 shows, intercultural communication at work is growing in both amount and importance: there is exponential growth in the numbers of people in regular or occasional contact with ‘different others’ for work purposes. Communicating workers’ nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender and age group now differ markedly. Communication problems are exacerbated when the people who interact are from different backgrounds. People from different cultures (nationalities/ethnicities) and subcultures (minority ethnic and religious groups within nations, genders, age groups, sexual orientations or levels of [dis]ability) may communicate differently and may have differences of attitudes or beliefs. Intercultural communication skills are needed to avoid and overcome difficulties caused by these differences. An extraordinary change has come over interpersonal work communication since around 1990. The internet revolution means that a very high proportion of all work-related interaction takes place by email, instant messaging, video links, mobile telephone, texting and social media. These modes of communication, which are together called computer-mediated communication or cmc, are both affected by and affect how people from different cultures communicate; cmc vastly increases the total amount of intercultural communication. It can also 3

4  INTRODUCTION

change the character of that communication. The links among cmc, culture and intercultural communication at work are introduced in Section 1.7.

business executives reported that in making recent promotion decisions, they had placed a great deal of weight on candidates’ interpersonal skills.4  1.1.2 to see a video on the skills that employers are seeking and read about how increasing the focus on soft skills in an engineering organization helped build the world’s largest train construction company.

1.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF SKILLED INTERPERSONAL WORK COMMUNICATION Interpersonal work communication needs to be skilled both because it is important and because it is complex. One definition of interpersonal communication is the following: ‘Message exchange between two or more participants which is characterized by the intentional, conscious (at some level of awareness) use of mutually intelligible symbol systems.’1  1.1.1 to see another definition of ­communication and why the present authors prefer this one.

At work, communication is essential for coordinating activities; coordination is fundamental to organization. Work communication also leads to understanding or misunderstanding and to good or poor work relationships. The significance of any activity at work can be judged by the amount of time employees spend at it, and by its impact on how effectively and efficiently the work is carried out, on job satisfaction and career success for individuals, and on profits or other measures of results for organizations. By all these measures, communication is one of the most important work activities, especially in modern, service-oriented, team-based organizations. Many writers on organization now acknowledge the central role of communication and there is a large literature devoted to it.2 In order to compete, modern organizations need to tap the creativity, expertise and know-how of all their employees. This places a premium on interpersonal communication. There is considerable evidence that both individual achievement in organizations and organizational effectiveness are closely related to the interpersonal communication abilities of staff. Business executives consider soft skills (also known as people skills) and personal qualities very important attributes in job applicants. Employers want employees to have strong soft skills as well as hard skills. When hiring new graduates, employers place the highest importance on soft skills, a study published in 2013 found.3 In 2011, senior US

There is clear evidence that organizations should value skilled work communication. For instance, trust in both top management and an immediate supervisor is strongly related to the amount of information communicated to organizational members. In turn, perceived trust in management is strongly related to organizational effectiveness.5 This finding remains significant across diverse organizations, industries and geographic locations. Again, as a literature search reported, ‘Communicated knowledge is viewed as probably the single most important source of competitive advantage into the 21st Century.’6 Since competitive advantage yields above normal financial performance,7 it follows that there is a strong positive relationship between effective and efficient communication for knowledge transfer and financial performance.8 One important perspective on organizations regards them as actually constituted by communication. This ‘communicative constitution of organizations’, or CCO, perspective, identifies four forms of communication as constituting organizations:

• membership negotiation: a form of direct or indi• • •

rect communication with others, such as the reinforcement of ‘mission’ on existing members/ employees organizational self-structuring: mentions of official internal procedures, policies and feedback activity coordination: internal work processes such as tasks and protocols institutional positioning: a form of external communication which negotiates relationships with other companies and institutions.9 Give examples of communications that fit into each of these categories. In which is most interpersonal work communication likely to take place?  

1.1.3 for more on the importance of skilled communication at work.

SOME KEY CONCEPTS  5

Figure 1.1  A behavioural model of interpersonal communication Person A

Person B

Social perception (understanding Person B)

Social perception (understanding Person A)

Interaction

Self-presentation

Self-presentation

1.2 A BEHAVIOURAL MODEL OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION Figure 1.1 shows the basic model that describes interpersonal communication in terms of the processes that are involved. The elements of this model – understanding others (or social perception/social cognition), self-­ presentation (outward communication) and interaction (which adds responding to spontaneous outward communication) – underpin the whole book. As Figure 1.1 shows, each person participating in a conversation or correspondence with one other person uses his or her understanding of the other to present himself or herself in what he or she judges to be an appropriate way. This self-presentation is effected through interaction with the other person, who is simultaneously performing the same processes. However, people do not enter interactions as blank slates. They bring to the interaction their prior motives, emotions, beliefs and attitudes. Figure 1.2 shows the relationships of these variables to the processes that occur during an interaction.

As Figure 1.2 shows, interlocutors’ prior motives, e­ motions and attitudes influence how they perceive one another, how they self-present and their behaviours during interactions. Moreover, unless it is a first encounter with this interlocutor, they bring with them their beliefs and perceptions of that person from previous experience with them. During their interaction, however, both participants may learn more by the process of social perception, and this learning may (or may not) lead them to adjust their understanding about the other and the situation, and consequently their motives, emotions, beliefs and attitudes. Complete the questionnaire given at    1.2.1, discuss some aspect of your work or studies with someone you do not know well, then recomplete the questionnaire without looking at the original version and see how much has changed.

Figure 1.3 shows the influences of two more variables. These are communication mode (face-to-face [ftf] or the various forms of computer-mediated communication [cmc])

Figure 1.2  A behavioural model of interpersonal communication showing the relationships with intrapersonal factors

A's motives, emotions, beliefs, attitudes, etc.

Person A

Person B

Social perception (understanding Person B)

Social perception (understanding Person A) Interaction

Self-presentation A's past experience with B

B's motives, emotions, beliefs, attitudes, etc.

Self-presentation B's past experience with A

6  INTRODUCTION Figure 1.3  A behavioural model of interpersonal communication showing the direct and indirect influences of mode and context on interaction

A's motives, emotions, beliefs, attitudes, etc.

Person A

Person B

Social perception (understanding Person B)

Social perception (understanding Person A) Interaction

Self-presentation

B's motives, emotions, beliefs, attitudes, etc.

Self-presentation

A's past experience with B

B's past experience with A COMMUNICATION MODE COMMUNICATION CONTEXT

and context (work), that are particularly important for this book and that both affect interaction directly and affect the social perception and self-presentation of the participants.  1.2.2 to see a different diagram depicting these relationships.

Communication modes New technologies have increased interpersonal communication opportunities but also their complexity. Now people must choose the most appropriate among

different modes to communicate: face-to-face, telephone including mobile, voicemail, email, text, instant messaging and social media. They must also adjust their message and style appropriately for each different mode. This means that a new communication skill set is required and that adaptations are needed to make both the older and the new modes function effectively separately and together.

Communication contexts All communication is complex; work communication is less complex in some ways, more complex in others, than, for

Figure 1.4  Factors that make interpersonal work communication complex

Organizational culture Work group culture

Increasing emphasis on ethics

Conflicting attitudes, suppressed emotions, mixed motives

Diversity of participants ‘Voice’ of minorities

Prevalent use of multiple communication modes Complexity of work communication History of past interactions Expectation of future interactions Pressure from ‘constituents’ and stakeholders

SOME KEY CONCEPTS  7

instance, informal conversations with friends or family. Focus on tasks reduces work communication complexity by generally excluding certain topics such as personal wishes and emotions from explicit consideration, but the factors shown in Figure 1.4 increase the complexity of work communication.  1.2.3 for a detailed explanation of what these factors mean.

1.3 COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE Clearly any work on communication needs a framework that allows an examination of whether or not any particular piece of communication or episode has been effective. ‘Communication studies should aim to explain what works and what does not work in various situations; behavior that is typical may not be effective.’10 The framework offered by the communications literature is mainly in terms of communication competence. Competence implies being adequate to preserve a relationship within a desired definition, such as a ‘good’ working relationship, but not necessarily to do more than that. Perfect communication is probably unattainable. There is a range of understandings of communication competence:

• One model includes a capacity for using language.

•

However, situations do not all make identical demands on language, so competence must be evaluated in terms of some particular social circumstance. Communication requires both linguistic knowledge (for instance, participants must attach similar meanings to the messages transmitted) and nonlinguistic knowledge. A minimal requirement for competence is that the individual is being cooperative – that is, makes his or her contributions as and when needed, according to the purposes of the interaction.11 This model is advocated by linguistic pragmatists. Another model defines competence in terms of the mental processes required to achieve effective and efficient communication. Duran and Spitzberg (1995) found the following mental processes linked to communication competence: 1 Planning (thinking before a conversation what people might be going to talk about, mentally practising what to say, during a conversation thinking about what topic to discuss next). 2 Modelling (watching who is talking to whom when first entering a new situation, trying to ‘size up’ the event; generally, studying people and being aware of people’s interests).

3 Presence (during a conversation being aware of when a topic is ‘going nowhere’, of when it is time to change the topic; and paying attention to how others are reacting to what is said). 4 Reflecting (after a conversation thinking about your performance and how to improve it and about what the other person thought of you). 5 Consequence (thinking generally about how others might interpret what you say and how what you say may affect others).12 This model is put forward by cognitive communication theorists.

• A third model argues that competence is grounded

in rational efficiency, rather than just effectiveness, that ‘Given a desired end, one is to choose that action which most effectively, and at least cost, attains the end.’13 In other words, both inputs and outputs must be considered in assessing communication strategies. Effectiveness is an ‘output’ consideration; it focuses on the results of the strategy used and not on what effort or other resources it takes to employ a strategy. Conversely, efficiency focuses on both inputs and outputs; it considers the effort and resources that are used to achieve a given result. This model is adopted by writers on communication strategy.  1.3.1 for explanations of linguistic pragmatists, cognitive communication theory and communication strategy.

There is an alternative view of communication competence that it consists, not in the attributes or performance of an individual, but in a given interaction.14 That is to say, communication competence can be measured situationally rather than dispositionally, as particular to a given encounter instead of as a property of an individual. Cupach and Spitzberg (1983) showed that these are separate variables.15 They also found that situational measures of competence predicted ‘feel-good’ reactions after an encounter better than dispositional measures. According to this view, an individual may be socially skilled, but only particular communication relationships will be competent. This is because even the most skilled individual will certainly experience some failures of communication, and even the most unskilled will certainly experience some successes when they find people with whom they are congruent. However, according to these theorists the term ‘effectiveness’ can still be used for analysis of communication relationships, ‘skill’ for the performance of each of the participating individuals.

8  INTRODUCTION What are the main points of agreement and disagreement between these understandings of communication competence? Which of them do you prefer and why?

1.4 FACTORS INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF WORK COMMUNICATION WITH ‘DIFFERENT OTHERS’ Technological change, a shift in the geography of economic activity, global population ageing, an increase in flows of people, trade and communication, together with the growth of service business and the entry of women and other groups into workforces are greatly expanding the range of people of different nationalities, ethnic groups, gender, age and culture that most people communicate with through their work: 1 An eastward and southward shift is occurring in where economic activity is centred. As recently as the year 2000, 95 per cent of the world’s largest international companies were headquartered in developed economies, but by 2025 nearly half of companies with revenues of $1 billion or more will be based in emerging markets. Furthermore, it is predicted that nearly half of global economic growth will come from 440 mainly second- and third-tier cities in the emerging markets. The participation of these centres in business will greatly increase the amount of work-related intercultural communication.16 2 A huge increase is taking place in the pace of technological innovation and adoption, for the first time including that majority of the global population that lives in emerging markets. Processing power, connectivity and the data revolution, which places unprecedented amounts of information in the hands of consumers and businesses, is bringing about a fundamental shift in where, when, what, how and how much people communicate.17 3 Flows of people, trade and communication are increasing exponentially and are growing particularly fast in regions of the world where previously they were low: more than a billion people crossed borders in 2007; south-south trade doubled its share of world trade between 2005 and 2015. Again, ‘Twenty years ago, less than 3% of the world’s population had a mobile phone; now two-thirds of the world’s population has one and one-third of all humans are able to communicate on the internet.’18

4 A global expansion of telecommunications connectivity is enabling huge growth in work-related interpersonal contact within and between organizations, but is also supporting other trends that reinforce the amount of that communication. These trends include offshoring, virtual teams, the application of social networking to work and the growth of world trade, especially in services. 5 During the late 20th and early 21st centuries, workforces in many parts of the world became increasingly diverse – that is, they came to be composed of people from many different national and ethnic backgrounds, of women to nearly the same degree as men and to include more people who are differently-abled. Workforces also came to reflect legal recognition that people are entitled to differing sexual orientations, religious affiliations and family structures. The extension of working age limits and the cumulative effects of the open labour market also expanded the diversity of people at work in regions such as Europe. According to an article published in 2015, nearly 40 million Muslim women joined the global labour force in the previous ten years: among them, 9 million in the Arab world, 8 million in Indonesia, 7 million in Pakistan, 7 million in Bangladesh, 2 million in Turkey, and 1 million in Malaysia. Many of these women are well educated: in Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia, university-enrolment rates for women now exceed those for men. In Egypt, there were three women for every four men in university a decade ago. Today, those numbers are nearly equal. In Saudi Arabia, the university gender gap was closed ten years ago, but the absolute numbers are also rising: of all women in the university age bracket today, about 50 per cent actually attend, compared with 30 per cent a decade ago.19 This article is entitled ‘Women in the Muslim world taking the fast track to change’. Do you agree with the statement in this title? Why or why not?

6 The global population is ageing and its size may soon plateau. By 2013, 60 per cent of the world’s population lived in countries with fertility rates below the replacement rate of 2.1 per woman. This will lead to a change in the age composition of workforces, as pensionable retirement ages shift to later in life and organizations turn to older workers to maintain the size of their workforces. Markets for goods and services aimed at older people will grow; those for products aimed at the young, like fashion, will shrink. Customer- and clientfacing personnel will find themselves communicating

SOME KEY CONCEPTS  9

with buyers of a different age-profile to those they may have been working with up to now.20 Rank these six factors in order of what you think are their importance for increased contact at work with ‘different others’. Explain your reasons.

 1.4.1 for more about the trends that have increased the amount of contact and communication with ‘different others’ that people experience at work.

1.5 THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY AT WORK At work, as a result of the trends described in 1.4, individuals are now likely to interact with a highly diverse range of people as colleagues, subordinates, managers, clients, patients, customers, students, professional advisers and other service providers, sales representatives and other interface workers. Diversity here refers to differences in nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, education, social class or level of (dis) ability. The diversity described in the paragraph above is mainly demographic. There is some agreement that demographic factors are important primarily for their effects on psychological factors, such as values, beliefs and attitudes and thus on behaviour, including communication behaviour. As the time that group members work together increases, the effects of surface-level diversity (demographic and physical differences) diminish, whereas those of deep-level diversity (attitudes, beliefs and values) increase, according to Dansby and Knouse (1999).21 This section makes the case for linking diversity with culture and cultural differences in attitudes, beliefs, values and behaviour in the context of work.

There are many different understandings of culture. These will be discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, but for now we will use the term to mean a society or social system from the point of view of its members’ shared beliefs and preferred ways of doing things. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the trends described in Section 1.4 substantially increased the need to adapt for cultural difference at work: it started to become a major concern of general management, marketing and human resource management. Among the reasons was the rapid growth in the amount of contact among ‘different others’ at work, noted above. Another was the demonstration by researchers that from the point of view of work the significant differences among ‘different others’ include cultural differences as well as those of language, education and experience. Researchers also showed for the first time that cultural differences between modern societies are profound, significantly affect how people behave, may be less amenable to training or re-training than other sources of difference and are not disappearing, so that the ‘investment’ to adjust for them is worthwhile. In the words of one author: ‘Culture pervades and radiates meanings into every aspect of the enterprise.’22 Figure 1.5 depicts some ‘aspects of the enterprise’ affected by culture.  1.5.1 for examples of ‘aspects of the enterprise’ affected by culture. Internal communication was identified as the HRM (human resource management) practice most sensitive to cultural difference in a study that analysed data from 19 countries (Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, former East Germany, former West Germany, Greece, ­Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK). The HRM practice least sensitive to ­cultural ­influences was found to be rewards and benefits.23 How would you explain these findings?

Figure 1.5  Aspects of the enterprise affected by culture Consumers’ purchasing attitudes and behaviour and therefore the different ways of marketing to them Some aspects of culture that affect

The interactive behaviour of customers and employees in service businesses

enterprises

Business attitudes to adopting innovations Local characteristics of markets, regulation, the fiscal regime and the socio-political system

10  INTRODUCTION

The concept of diversity embraces not only national cultural differences, however, but also those of ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, education, social class or level of (dis)ability. In the words of Tovey (1997), ‘discussions of cultural diversity or multiculturalism should not be limited to cultures of a foreign country only. They should also include an understanding of the diversity within one culture.’24 Subcultures are groupings that exist within or cut across cultures – ‘French women’ or ‘women’ respectively, for example. The meaning of subculture will also be discussed in ­Section 2.2. From about 1960, diversity in domestic organizations became a growing concern, ‘as more and more minorities are brought into domestic work forces’, and fairness concerns and pressure from minority groups led many countries to pass equal opportunities legislation and later to a trend of valuing diversity. Valuing diversity in the workplace ‘is about recognizing, valuing, and managing people’s differences and about sharing power and communicating’. Valuing workplace diversity focuses on ‘empowering people of all kinds to develop and contribute their own unique talents to solving our business problems’, rather than having employees ‘give up their own ethnic, gender, or individual identities to be successful’.25 Heightened concern with diversity stems not only from the growing presence of women and minorities in the workforce, but also from modern organizational strategies that require

more interaction among employees of different functional backgrounds.  1.5.2 for more about equal opportunities laws and organizational diversity practices.

The level of diversity in an organization perceived by its employees may be as important an influence as its actual level, but these perceptions may differ from group to group. Gender and racial/ethnic differences were found in the diversity perceptions of 2,686 employees of an electronics company located in a multicultural community. Caucasian men perceived the organization as more fair and inclusive than did Caucasian women or racial/ethnic minority men and women; Caucasian women and racial/ ethnic minority men and women saw more value in, and felt more comfortable with, diversity than did Caucasian men.26 Studies have found both positive and negative effects of workforce diversity on performance. Some have shown that group diversity both enhances and diminishes task performance. The negative effects may result from poor management of diversity. Working with diversity is intrinsically more demanding but good diversity management can enhance overall performance.27 Figure 1.6 summarizes the factors that have increased the importance of diversity at work and so the importance of intercultural work communication.

Figure 1.6  Factors increasing the importance of diversity at work Increased workforce diversity

Globalization

Increased use of computermediated communication, virtual teams

Changed social attitudes giving minorities more 'voice' Increased emphasis on individuals and teams instead of structures

Growth in importance of cultural diversity at work

Increased management concern with the social aspects of work

Growth in offshoring

Increased person-to-person international contact

Widespread growth of service businesses

SOME KEY CONCEPTS  11

 1.5.3 for more on these factors and a link to a video that explains the importance of intercultural communication in business.

Rank the factors given in Figure 1.6 in order of what you think are the most important for the increase in intercultural communication at work. Explain your reasons. The text does not explain why the widespread growth of service businesses and the growth in offshoring increase the importance of (sub)cultural diversity at work and thus the importance of intercultural communication. Explain both points in your own words.

1.6 THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF SKILLED INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK The impact of (sub)cultural difference on interpersonal communication, which is vital for modern work effectiveness, is both direct and experienced by increasing numbers of people. New competencies needed by managers, shifts in the assumptions underlying cooperative international enterprises, and increasingly diverse publics all reflect this impact:

• The core competencies required of both domestic

•

and international managers in the 21st century have been identified as an ‘ability to balance the conflicting demands of global integration versus local responsiveness; an ability to work in teams comprised of peoples from multiple functions/disciplines, different companies, and diverse industry backgrounds; an ability to manage and/or work with peoples from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds’.28 These three abilities all depend on intercultural communication skills and all reflect the fact that (sub)cultural differences remain potent despite the work setting. In recent years there has been a shift in international work relationships that reinforces the need for skilled intercultural communication among international executives. For instance, in Sino-American joint ventures, in their earliest years Western cultural values tended to be imposed on the Chinese partner, creating concerns around the foreign exploitation of the Chinese worker and the potentially corrupting influence of the West on Chinese

society. More recent Sino-American joint ventures, however, operate according to … different economic and ­political forces. More than ever before, the experience of ­co-managing these corporate partnerships involves navigating a range of cultural, political and economic differences.29

• Large numbers of people interface with the public

in the course of their work and so with people from diverse backgrounds. As their clients, patients, students or customers may not adapt for the intercultural situation, the social and cultural influences on their ­co-interactors’ behaviour are likely to be paramount and need to be understood and allowed for. For example, health care organizations face demographic shifts in the patients served and their families. Ulrey and Amason (2001) found that cultural sensitivity and ­ effective intercultural communication, besides helping patients, personally benefited health care ­providers by reducing their stress. Effective intercultural ­communication and cultural sensitivity were found to be related. Health care providers’ levels of intercultural anxiety also were found to correlate inversely with effective intercultural communication.30 In some countries female patients are almost always accompanied by male relatives when they visit a doctor and usually the male relative speaks for the patient – she says little.31 How would you suggest a doctor should deal with this situation?

Communication at work may, however, be an area where many problematic issues resulting from cultural difference and diversity arise, as these comments from researchers suggest: ‘Communication can be seen to work best when people are similar, or at least on a similar wavelength’;32 ‘It should be clear that communication works better the more participants share assumptions and knowledge about the world.’33 In the context of construction projects, Fellows and Liu (2015) noted an example of this problem: ‘Projects are increasingly cross-cultural and complex, both technically and relationally. The diversity of participants enhances differences in perceptions and understanding of the meaning of the variety of signals (such as drawings and messages); often, the consequence is reduced performance and conflictual situations.’34 Research that found that people behave differently when they are interacting with different others led to the conclusion that ‘people know how to get to know other people from the same culture but not from different cultures’.35 The findings suggested that people experience intercultural contact as different, even difficult,

12  INTRODUCTION

and attempt to handle it differently. Grimes and ­Richard (2003) even argued that whether cultural diversity is advantageous or detrimental for organizations depends on how organization members communicate.36 Training in how to deal with people appropriately at work is gradually being introduced; similarly, equal opportunities awareness training is now widespread. However, most of the interpersonal skills training being provided gives little help in adjusting to the different values, attitudes and motives of people from different cultures; and most of the equal opportunities awareness training omits any serious treatment of communication. Neither training nor a book can make someone an effective intercultural communicator: that requires sensitivity, active listening and gaining feedback; nevertheless, awareness of cultural and subcultural difference and knowledge of how to communicate with different others is an important underpinning.

1.7 COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION, CULTURE AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK The pervasiveness of the internet and the resulting explosion of cmc (email, instant messaging, video links, mobile telephone, texting and social media) have led to a major increase in both the amount and the importance of intercultural interpersonal work communication. Work-related activities such as selection interviewing, service encounters, decision-making meetings, negotiations and project teamwork are now routinely conducted through mediated instead of face-to-face communication; the participants in these activities are commonly located in different parts of the globe and are also frequently members of different cultures. Their work-related communication is interpersonal, intercultural and mediated. There are different views on how cmc affects the (sub)cultural influences on communication and so the ease or difficulty of mediated intercultural work communication. One extreme view is that cmc completely obliterates the social cues that lead communicators to identify an interlocutor as coming from a different culture; at the other extreme it is argued that people behave in the same ways online as offline and that enough social cues are available for interlocutors to fully identify one another’s cultural background. An intermediate position is that cmc’s internal culture and the participants’ external culture align so that the meanings of values, beliefs

and artefacts in the ‘virtual’ and ‘real’ world are somewhat similar. These different perspectives have profound consequences for mediated communication that is intercultural in the sense that participants are from different cultures. We have as yet little evidence as to which of these perspectives is correct, although one finding is that cultural differences are not concealed by virtual means of communication.37 Discuss whether the distinction between ‘virtual’ and ‘real’ is meaningful. If so, in what way? If not, why not? According to St. Amant (2002) online communication technology makes intercultural communication faster and more direct than was ever before possible, but, in doing so, it may also amplify culture-derived rhetorical differences.38 Do you agree? Why or why not? The impact of new media (ICTs) has been described as the next frontier in intercultural communication. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Another issue that arises concerning intercultural communication by cmc concerns its impact on work relationships. Chen (2012) considered that the flexibility of information presented and shared in the new media will directly affect, either positively or negatively, the development of intercultural relationships in the virtual community through the creation of a network of personal connections.39 A positive finding is that in foreign language and study abroad contexts, the use of blogging not only showed a positive effect on the development of intercultural relationships, but also increased the degree of participants’ intercultural communication competence.40 On the other hand, new media may also have a negative effect on intercultural work relationships. For example, Qian and Scott (2007) found that revealing too much personal information in blogs, especially negative information about one’s friends, employer, and others, tends to jeopardize or cause problems in establishing constructive human relationships, whether intraculturally or interculturally.41 Our knowledge of what cultural differences there are in particular aspects of mediated work communication such as rules, conversational constraints and persuading styles or in particular work activities such as service encounters and negotiation is at present very limited. In this book, where research has found such cultural differences they will be pointed out; in other cases it will for now be necessary to assume that what applies face-toface also applies online.

SOME KEY CONCEPTS  13

CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY

• Communication has a claim to be one of the most

•

• •

• •

•

important single work activities. Interpersonal work communication has increased in importance with organizations’ new emphasis on individuals and teams. Technology has expanded the scope of work communication while often adding to its complexity. Interpersonal communication can be analysed into the processes of social cognition, self-presentation and interaction. This basic model can be made more realistic by the addition of intrapersonal influencing factors, communication modes and contexts. In the case of this book the primary context is that of work. Communication competence is a key concept for any book on communication. There are different views on what it means for a person to be communicatively competent. An alternative approach regards it as an aspect of an episode rather than an attribute of an individual. By the beginning of the third millennium, several forces were bringing about a great expansion in the amount and range of contacts with ‘different others’ experienced by people around the globe through their work. There are ongoing increases in economic activity outside the developed world, in the pace and locus of technological innovation and adoption, in flows of people and trade across boundaries, in new forms of business and organization that use connectivity to function globally and in the age composition and diversity of global workforces. These trends imply a significant increase in both the amount and the importance of intercultural communication at work, especially through mediated interpersonal intercultural communication. Cultural and subcultural diversity have assumed greater importance as organizations have come to recognize that increased demographic diversity means increased cultural diversity and that culture affects many aspects of business and management. The increasing diversity of domestic workforces, markets and populations, together with globalization and the pervasive use of the internet for work communication, mean that few organizations or individuals at work can afford to ignore cultural difference. For individuals to be effective at work internationally or in diverse organizations and societies, they need to be able to communicate well interculturally. The work context does not suppress differences so far as to eliminate this need. Intercultural communication is difficult but achievable through awareness and skill development. How much or little technological mediation reduces or increases the effects of cultural differences in

communication is still contested; its effect on intercultural work relationships can be either positive or negative.

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W., Codol, J.P. and Stephenson, G.M. (eds) (1988) Introduction to Social Psychology, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 2 See, for instance, Allen, M.W., Gotcher, M.M. and Seibert, J.H. (1993) ‘A decade of organizational communication research’, in Deetz S. (ed.) Communication Yearbook, 16: 252–330. 3 Finch, D.J., Hamilton, L.K., Baldwin, R. and Zehner, M. (2013) ‘An exploratory study of factors affecting undergraduate employability’, Education and Training, 55(7): 681–704. 4 Reinsch Jr, N.L., Gardner, J.A. and Berland, P.S. (2011) ‘Do good communicators get promoted? Maybe not’, in Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the Association for Business Communication. Retrieved from http://businesscommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/2011-ABC-01-REINSCH.pdf. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 5 Ellis, K. and Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2001) ‘Trust in top management and immediate supervisor: the relationship to satisfaction, perceived organizational effectiveness and information receiving’, Communication Quarterly, 49(4): 382–98. 6 Meyer, G.D., Tucker, M.L. and Westerman, J.W. (1996) ‘Organizational communication: development of internal strategic competitive advantage’, The Journal of Business Communication, 33(1): 51–69. 7 Porter, M.E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York: Free Press. 8 Meyer et al., op. cit. 9 McPhee, R.D. and Zaug, P. (2001) ‘Organizational theory, organizational communication, organizational knowledge, and problematic integration’, Journal of Communication, 51(3): 574–91. 10 Collier, M.J. and Thomas, M. (1988) ‘Cultural identity: an interpretive perspective’, in Kim, Y.Y. and Gudykunst, W.B. (eds) Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 11 Banks, S. (1989) ‘Power pronouns and the language of intercultural understanding’, in Ting-Toomey, S.F.K. (ed.) Language, Communication and Culture, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 12 Duran, R.L. and Spitzberg, B.H. (1995) ‘Toward the development and validation of a measure of cognitive communication competence’, Communication Quarterly, 4: 259–75. 13 Kim, Y.Y. (1991) ‘Intercultural communication competence: a systems-theoretic view’, in Ting-Toomey, S. and

14  INTRODUCTION

14

15

16

17 18 19

20 21 22 23

24 25

26

27

28

Korzenny, F. (eds) International and Intercultural Communication Annual: pp. 259–75, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wiemann, J.M. and Giles, H. (1988) ‘Interpersonal communication’, in Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W., Codol, J.P. and Stephenson, G.M. (eds) Introduction to Social Psychology, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Cupach, W.R. and Spitzberg, B.H. (1983) ‘Trait versus state: a comparison of dispositional and situational measures of interpersonal communication competence’, Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47(4): 364–77. Dobbs, R., Manyika, J. and Woetzel, J. (2015) ‘The four global forces breaking all the trends?’, McKinsey Global Institute, URL: http://www.mckinsey.com/ insights/strategy/The_four_global_forces_breaking_all_the_trends?cid=other-eml-alt-mgi-mckoth-1504. Last accessed 17 July 2016. Ibid. Ibid. URL: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/social_ sector/Women_in_the_Muslim_world_taking_ the_fast_track_to_change?cid=other-eml-alt-mipmck-oth-1503. Last accessed 17 July 2016. Dobbs, op. cit. Dansby, M.R. and Knouse, S.B. (1999) ‘Percentage of work-group diversity and work-group effectiveness’, Journal of Psychology, 133: 486–95. Trompenaars, F. (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture, London: Nicholas Brealey. Papalexandris, N. and Panayotopoulou, L. (2004) ‘Exploring the mutual interaction of societal culture and human resource management practices: Evidence from 19 countries’, Employee Relations, 26(5): 495–509. Tovey, J. (1997) ‘Addressing issues of cultural diversity in business communication’, Business Communication Quarterly, 60(1): 19–30. All quotations in this paragraph are taken from Ferraro, G.P. (1994) The Cultural Dimension of International Business, 2nd edn, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barak, M.E.M., Cherin, D.A. and Berkman, S. (1998) ‘Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(1): 82–104. Pelled, L.H., Eizenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999) ‘Exploring the black box: an analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 1–28. Tung, R.L. (1996) ‘Managing diversity for international competitiveness’, Paper presented at David See-Chai Lam Centre for International Communication; Pacific Region Forum on Business and Management Communication, Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre.

29 Krone, K. and Steimel, S. (2013) ‘Cooperative struggle: Re-framing intercultural conflict in the management of Sino-American joint ventures’, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 6(4): 259–79. 30 Ulrey, K.L. and Amason, P. (2001) ‘Intercultural communication between patients and health care providers: an exploration of intercultural communication effectiveness, cultural sensitivity, stress and anxiety’, Health Communication, 13(4): 449–63. 31 Told to one of the present authors by a senior ophthalmologist in Hyderabad, India. 32 Thompson, N. (2003) Communication and Language: A Handbook of Theory and Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 33 Scollon, R. (2000) Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach, New York: Blackwell. 34 Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (2015) ‘Sensemaking in the cross-cultural contexts of projects’, International Journal of Project Management, 33(2): 246–57. 35 Gudykunst, W.B. (1983) ‘Similarities and differences in perceptions of initial intracultural and intercultural encounters: an exploratory investigation’, The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 49: 49–65. 36 Grimes, D.S. and Richard, O.C. (2003) ‘Could communication form impact organizations’ experience with diversity?’ The Journal of Business Communication, 40(1): 7–27. 37 Mockaitis, A.I., Rose, E.L. and Zettinig, P. (2012) ‘The power of individual cultural values in global virtual teams’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 12(2): 193–210. 38 St. Amant, K. (2002) ‘When cultures and computers collide: Rethinking computer-mediated communication according to international and intercultural communication expectations’, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16(2): 196–214. 39 Chen, G.M. (2012) ‘The impact of new media on intercultural communication in global context’, China Media Research, 8(2). URL: http:// httpwww.chinamediaresearch.net/index.php/ back-issues?id=54http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=com_ facpubs. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 40 Elola, I. and Oskoz, A. (2010) ‘Collaborative writing: fostering foreign language and writing conventions development’, Language Learning & Technology, 14(3): 51–71. 41 Qian, H. and Scott, C.R. (2007) ‘Anonymity and selfdisclosure on weblogs’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4): 1428–51.

part

2 CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

T

he focus of Part two of this book is on culture, cultural difference and how culture influences the world of work in general and work communication in particular.

Chapter 2 discusses the different understandings of culture and cultural difference that are found in the literature and clarifies certain issues about culture that can confuse the discussion of its impact on work communication.

Chapter 3 analyses cultural differences, using a range of models. Many of these models are taxonomies based on underlying factors, such as values; others are based on communication itself, such as Hall’s (1976) ‘high-context/low-context communication’ distinction. Chapter 4 considers the impact of culture and cultural difference on core aspects of the context of work communication: work behaviour in general, work organization, organizational culture and management, and aspects of organizations’ environments. Chapters 5 and 6 cover communication at work and the effects of cultural differences. The subject of human communication is a huge one and radical selection has been necessary for this book: we have selected those elements of general communication which differ across cultures, such as the concept of ‘politeness’, and those which feed directly into intercultural communication, such as ‘elaborated and restricted codes’. Chapter 5 deals with analyses of overt work communication behaviour; Chapter 6 expands the analysis into the intrapersonal level and covers the psychological factors and processes affecting work communication behaviour. Chapter 7 focuses on the cultural differences in the communication that occurs in specific important work activities: negotiations, cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing, working in groups and teams, and leadership and management. Chapter 8 explains the importance for work communication of subcultures, particularly gender, age and religion, and gives findings that relate these subcultures to work communication and its applications. Figure A shows the relationships among the influences described in Chapters 3, 4, 6 and 8 on the work communication practices described in Chapter 5.

15

16  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION Figure A  How (sub)cultural differences affect factors that influence work communication practices

Section 3.1 How cultures vary the values approaches

Section 3.2 Other ways of analysing cultural difference

Section 3.3 Country clustering

Section 4.1 The impact of culture on work behaviour

Section 4.2 The impact of culture on work, organizational cultures and management

Section 6.1 Cultural differences in the psychological factors involved in work communication

Chapter 5 Work Communication Practices

Chapter 8 Subcultural communication at Work

Section 4.3 The impact of culture on work communication environments

Section 6.2 Cultural differences in the 'self'

As Figure A shows, culture affects work communication practices both directly and through its impact on the various contexts for work communication that also affect work communication practices. Similarly, culture affects the psychological factors and processes that underlie work communication practices. Subcultural differences also influence work communication practices.

2 CULTURE AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCE Culture has been defined as the shared way of life of a group of socially interacting people, transmitted from one generation to the next via acculturation and socialization processes that distinguish one group’s members from others.1 Individuals are rarely conscious of their culture, yet culture affects almost every aspect of the way the people of a society or societal group interact with each other or with outsiders. Cultures have been analysed in terms of values, beliefs, norms, attitudes, and behaviour propensities that are used to develop cultural taxonomies.  2.1 for more on how culture has been defined and for a video about what it means and its relationship to other concepts.

2.1 DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDINGS OF CULTURE AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCE This section introduces concepts of culture based on ­values, communication, shared meanings and social or cultural identities.

Values as the basis of culture Values have been defined as follows: ‘desirable, trans-­

situational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives’.2 Values are related to such practical work concerns as decision style, strategic action, innovation, creativity, commitment, managerial satisfaction and organizational competitiveness. A major part of cross-cultural research has sought to identify values that differentiate cultures. This emphasis on values was advocated by Rokeach (1993), who wrote: ‘The value concept, more than any other, should occupy a central position … able to unify the apparently diverse interests of all the sciences concerned with human behavior.’3 Within this approach, cultural values are

among the criteria used to select and justify actions and to evaluate people (including the self) and events. Societal institutions such as the family, education, and economic, political and religious systems function according to, and their goals and their modes of operation express, cultural value priorities. For example, in societies where individual ambition and success are highly valued, the organization of the economic system is likely to be competitive and that of the legal system adversarial. In contrast, a cultural emphasis on group well-being is likely to be expressed in more cooperative economic and legal systems. Because cultural value priorities are shared, role incumbents in social institutions can draw on them to select socially appropriate behaviour and to justify to others their behavioural choices – such as to go to war or to fire employees.4   2.1.1 for an example of a particular culture and for more on values as the basis of culture. How valid is it to analyse culture in terms of values?

Section 3.1 describes values approaches in more depth.

Communication as the basis of culture Approaches that place communication at the centre of culture have gained increasing acceptance in recent years. For instance, Aldridge (2002) defined culture as follows: [Culture is] the shared system of symbolic knowledge and patterns of behavior, derived from speech communication, that human individuals carry to provide predictable internal and external psychological stability so as to prevent chaos among human individuals. We learn cultural codes for social life, role expectations, common definitions of situations, and social norms in order to provide predictability and survival of the human species. Human language (spoken and written) is the symbolic glue for human culture.5 17

18  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

A communication perspective emphasizes process, interaction and meaning. Most communication theorists argue that people are not passive representatives of culture but regulators of a complex system, which they cocreate during interaction.

• For Kincaid et al. (1983), communication is the work

•

required to sustain a human group; it consists of the transfer of information among individuals and groups. Groups cluster together according to common beliefs, values and behaviour. Cultures are shared ways of thinking and acting, which develop because of relatively isolated within-group communication. Cultures differ from one another because there is less contact between cultures than within them. If everybody communicated with people outside their culture as much as they do with people within it, Kincaid et al. (1983) argue, cultures would soon disappear.6 Haslett (1989) holds that culture and communication are acquired simultaneously: neither exists without the other. Culture by definition is a ‘shared, consensual way of life and sharing and consensus is made possible only by communication’; in turn, humans communicate in a cultural environment that constrains the form and nature of communication. Through communication, members of a culture share a perspective or worldview, although members may not share that perspective equally or in every aspect of experience.7 What criticisms occur to you regarding these perspectives?

One communication-based approach to culture builds on the premise that different groups use different discourses. (A discourse refers to the ways in which language is used in a particular social context – thus recognized discourses include medical and educational discourses.) Known as the culture-in-context approach or the ­discourse/practice approach, in contrast to the culture-as-shared-values approach, this approach to culture also treats individuals as active participants (agents)  – they make pragmatic choices, decisions and calculations. Thus the discourse/practice approach emphasizes individuals’ communication choices, particularly as such choices are shaped by the various discourse systems to which the individual belongs. In support of this view, there are findings that business people do not fully conform to one cultural code, instead they adapt to specific situations; that some negotiators from different cultural backgrounds modify their behaviour in intercultural, as opposed to ­intracultural, interactions; that negotiators tend to match the other’s bargaining strategies; and that interactors coordinate their bodily movements and language.8

List three discourses other than the two given in the text. Is the discourse/practice approach vulnerable to criticism?   2.1.2 for more on communication as the basis of culture.

Shared meanings as the basis of culture For scholars in the cultural studies tradition, such as Stuart Hall (1997), culture is about ‘shared meanings’. Meanings are produced and exchanged through language, which is the medium through which we ‘make sense’ of things. Meanings can only be shared through language. Thus, ‘to say that two people belong to the same culture is to say that they interpret the world in roughly the same ways and can express themselves, their thoughts and feelings about the world, in ways which will be understood by each other’. To communicate, people must speak the ‘same ­language’ – broadly, be able to use the same ‘cultural codes’; they must interpret visual images, sounds, body language and facial expressions in broadly similar ways. They must also know how to translate their feelings and ideas into these various codes.9 As an example of the practical application of the ‘shared meaning’ view of culture, it has been argued that ‘brand personalities’ are symbols and carriers of culture. Research found that Spanish brand personalities had some dimensions in common with North American (sincerity, excitement and sophistication) and others that differed – passion (Spanish) and competence and ruggedness (American). Japanese brand personalities shared sincerity, excitement, competence and sophistication with American, but also had the dimension of peacefulness.10  2.1.3 for more on shared meanings as the basis of culture. Does the ‘shared meanings’ approach complement or conflict with each of the ‘values’ and ‘discourse/practice’ approaches?

Social or cultural identities as the basis of culture Communication and culture are seen as inextricably intertwined within another approach– cultural identity theory. A cultural identity is part of an individual’s self-construal, or sense of selfhood. (Self-construals are explained further in Chapter 6.) Cultural identity is the part of a self-construal that derives from a person’s knowledge of his or her membership in a cultural group (or groups), together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership. A cultural identity is one aspect of social identity, which also includes aspects such as family, gender and social

CULTURE AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCE  19

class identity. That part of the self-construal not accounted for by social identity is personal identity. There is a close link between communication and identity, which is reflected in findings that intergroup identity issues appear to account better than either power differentials or language competence for conversational style differences observed in intercultural decision-making meetings, specifically those involving US-born native English speakers and participants from East Asian countries.11 There are different types of culture corresponding to different types of groups which, according to cultural identity theorists, meet the requirements for being a culture. Cultural groups include corporations, support groups, national groups or civil rights groups; cultural groups are any such groups that are bounded (have restricted membership), have histories and are significant to individuals. Each individual has a range of cultures to which s/he belongs. Symbols and norms change over the lifetime of culture systems, but there is enough consistency in what is handed down to make it possible to define the boundaries between systems and distinguish members of one cultural system from those of another. Thus, for cultural identity theorists, national cultures are only one type among many. In fact, because many people contribute to the creation of a national culture’s symbols, meanings and norms, national culture is diffuse. Ethnicity, gender, profession, geographical area and organization are other bases for cultural difference. Belay (1996) argued that cultural identities are multi-faceted and include sociological identities, occupational identities, geobasic identities,

national identities, co-cultural identities, and ethnic identities.12 (Sub)cultural identities are enduring yet dynamic; for instance, the idea of what it means to be a woman changed considerably during the twentieth century, but the underlying idea of difference from men persisted.13 A further point was made by Delmestri (2006), who argued that individuals are able to participate in multiple cultural traditions and to maintain distinctive and inconsistent action frames (representations or understandings). For instance, Italian middle managers working in Italian firms enact a traditional Italian identity, in contrast to Italian middle managers in international firms or those in US and British firms, who enact Anglo-Saxon identities.14 Name one or more (sub)cultural identities other than those of women that have changed in recent decades. Justify your assertion.

An identity to which people normally pay little attention becomes more important to them at certain times; for instance, when they meet for the first time with people whom they perceive to have a different cultural identity, such as when they travel abroad.  2.1.4 for more on social identities as the basis of culture.

Figure 2.1 shows the key ideas of the ‘culture as communication’ theorists described in this chapter.

Figure 2.1  Key ideas of theorists for whom communication is central to culture Kincaid (1988) Communication is the work needed to sustain a human group. Cultures exist because people communicate more within than outside their group.

Hall (1977) Culture is about shared meanings, using the same codes. Discourses embody power relations.

Aldridge (2002) Language is culture’s glue. Culture is derived from communication. People regulate and co-create culture during interaction.

Burke (1966) Culture is the process of creating and using shared meanings.

Culture and communication are closely linked

Haslett (1989) Communication and culture are acquired simultaneously.

Collier (1988) Culture is a historically transmitted system of symbols, meanings and norms.

20  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION  2.1.5 for the citations for these papers.

2.2 HOW DO MEMBERS OF A SOCIETY IMBIBE ITS CULTURE? Culture is transmitted to the members of a society by social influence, which is the influence of other people. While social influence is pervasive throughout life, it has its strongest effect in infancy, and that is when most aspects of a culture are embedded. Children learn from their parents, other adults and school the behaviours, beliefs, attitudes and values, ranging from religious beliefs to table manners, that are expected in their society. Some of this is imparted intentionally, some unconsciously. This process of a child’s socialization is a particularly effective culture-embedding force because the child has no alternatives to consider and because the need to belong is reinforced by dependence.

Motives for accepting social influence The need to belong influences adults as well as children. Adults also accept social influence because of the desire to reduce uncertainty by believing what others believe. Both in childhood and later in life people adopt opinions or beliefs based on a relationship with another person. Again, people are motivated to form accurate perceptions of reality and to react accordingly, to develop and preserve meaningful social relationships, and to maintain a favourable self-concept; together these lead them to be susceptible to social influence.

is socially unacceptable (this is called exerting social control). It is the behaviour’s level of deviancy, rather than its frequency of occurrence, that is likely to provoke this reaction. People will exert social control when they feel personally implicated by the norm-deviant behaviour, as they are likely to in the case of cultural norm transgressions.16

Inferring others’ opinions Strongly held and widely agreed perceptions and beliefs act normatively to influence others’ behaviour in various communication situations.17 There is evidence that cultural differences in the bases for complying with requests or orders, in attribution of others’ behaviour to their situation or disposition and in thinking styles are related to what members of a culture perceive to be the consensual view of their culture.18 However, people do not primarily infer one another’s views on particular issues by discussion. Rather, it appears that they infer opinions in part by relying on stereotypes of their friends and in part by projecting their own views. This can mean that there is a gap between real and perceived agreement and that people may be socially influenced to believe something that the ‘influencer’ does not.19

Social contagion Social contagion is pervasive in human interactions; it underpins day-to-day interpersonal coordination. Social contagion consists of the largely automatic processes of behavioural mimicry, verbal contagion and emotional contagion:

• Behavioural mimicry is the automatic imitation of ges-

Social influence transmission ‘mechanisms’ There are various ‘mechanisms’ which transmit social influence to individuals. These include the expectation of accountability, inferring others’ opinions, social contagion, the operation of socially constructed norms and values congruence.

The expectation of accountability The expectation that others will judge their actions – the expectation of accountability – is an ‘explicit or implicit constraint on virtually everything people do’.15 People ask themselves, ‘If I do this, how will others react?’ This is one mechanism by which norms and roles affect individual behaviour. Bystanders communicate to the perpetrator of a norm transgression that his or her action

•

tures, postures, mannerisms and motor movements. The amount of behavioural mimicry that occurs in an interaction is affected by various motivational, social, emotional and personality factors. For instance, an ambitious teenager who frequently uses street-speak terms with her friends, when she begins work with older colleagues in an office will probably, even without noticing, talk differently with them. Behavioural mimicry in turn has unexpected influences on individuals, affecting for instance their cognitive processing style, attitudes, consumer preferences, self-regulatory ability and academic performance.20 Verbal contagion is the tendency to adopt the verbal forms used by another person but it goes beyond this: for instance, people will sometimes adopt the verbal description of a face, even when they have previously and recently seen the face themselves and the verbal description is erroneous.21

CULTURE AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCE  21

• Emotional contagion, the transfer of moods from per-

son to person or among people in a group has been demonstrated in studies of managerial decision-making. Contagion of positive emotion leads to improved cooperation, decreased conflict and increased perceived task performance.22 On the other hand, together with growing diversity, increased dispersion of employees in geographic locations, lack of experience of managers with new environments, and varying requirements, social/emotional contagion has been blamed for workplace bullying in global organizations and for it becoming embedded in some organizational cultures.23

Socially constructed norms Social influence in the form of socially constructed norms has its effect in part by legitimizing some behaviours and delegitimizing others. For instance, during transitional periods, managerial networking intensity (the extent to which managers develop and maintain relationships that may be used for business purposes) declines markedly over time, whereas their market-based strategies increase. These findings have led researchers to conclude that these

changes in strategy are driven by socially constructed norms; during transitional periods these legitimize new ways of competing and delegitimize old ones.24

Values congruence The very values learned through acculturation themselves lead people to accept influence because it is congruent with their value system. In adult life this last is likely to be the strongest and longest-lasting of the social influence effects.25 Figure 2.2 summarizes how social influence leads individual members of a society to imbibe its culture. As that figure depicts, cultural influencers lead individuals to accept and internalize the values, beliefs and attitudes of their culture and to express these in their behaviours, including their communication practices. These influencers include the media, a range of motivations to accept social influence, and the operation of social influence mechanisms such as behavioural mimicry.  2.2.1 for more on how culture is imparted to individuals.

Figure 2.2  How the process of social influence leads an individual to imbibe culture External influencers

Internal factors and processes that lead an individual to accept social influence Social influence motivators

Cultural influences Family School Religion Media Friends Colleagues Work organizations etc.

Motivation to: perceive accurately act appropriately have meaningful social relationships have a favourable self-concept

Willingness to accept social influence Individual adopts cultural features Values, beliefs, attitudes, etc. Behaviours including communication practices

Social influence mechanisms Expectation of accountability Inferring others’ opinions Social contagion - behavioural mimicry - verbal contagion - emotional contagion Socially constructed norms Value congruence

22  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

2.3 OTHER CULTURE-RELATED CONCEPTUAL ISSUES This section discusses questions readers may have about issues such as whether culture really matters, whether it is a constraint or a resource, how much culture explains, how broadly concepts of culture can be applied, whether cultures are converging, whether cultural difference can be measured, how culture affects communication, whether communication behaviours differ cross-culturally, whether intracultural behaviours can be generalized to intercultural situations, whether cultures are converging, whether the communication patterns and behaviours of different groups are converging, whether computermediated communication is giving rise to a new form of culture and how the work context affects the impact of culture on communication.

Does culture really matter? The following points suggest that the answer to the question in the heading is ‘Yes’. Culture has been credited with a strong influence on a society’s economic prosperity,26 as the following illustrate:

• Lee and Peterson (2000) argued that a society’s propen-

• •

•

sity to generate independent, risk-taking, innovative, competitively aggressive and proactive entrepreneurs and firms depended on its cultural foundation. Although economic, political-legal and social factors also affect entrepreneurialism, these factors are themselves influenced by culture.27 Muzychenko (2006) asserted that culture influences the cognition and behaviour of international entrepreneurs in identifying cross-border opportunities, as well as their competence in making related decisions.28 Cultural differences in risk assessment may lie behind the findings of a large-scale exploratory study that national business cultures within Europe affected acquirers’ beliefs about how to proceed in cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Specifically, the study found that national cultural differences affected beliefs about the value of due diligence and professional advisers in the pre-acquisition phase. By influencing how an acquirer regards target companies, the researchers suggested, these differences may have important consequences for the negotiation of deals and the subsequent management of the acquired company.29 In marketing, cultural influences on consumers have long been recognized. ‘Products are not just products: they become what they are as the result of their integration into particular contexts, that is by being creolized by the local socio-cultural and economic contexts.’30

Within organizations, culture affects behaviour at all levels. For instance, responses to Western management practices have shown that these practices can easily backfire in non-Western cultures: Some staff members grow cold and distant after receiving feedback on their work, and team members may clam up at meetings when asked for suggestions. A Western manager may view having subordinates participate in problem-solving to be a move towards making them feel valued, but an employee who has been taught deference to age, gender or title, might – out of respect – shy away from being honest or offering ideas, because offering suggestions to an elder or a boss might appear to them to be challenging authority. A time-conscious manager may wrongly see people whose cultures take a more relaxed view towards deadlines as being less committed to team goals, as well as less dependable, accountable and reliable. Another manager may be frustrated by an employee who nods in apparent understanding of a direction, then does not carry it out.31 As this quotation suggests, cultural differences have an impact on organizational life. For instance, among individuals in a financial services company operating in the UK and in Mumbai, India, cultural difference was described as the most significant stumbling block to day-to-day operations and to business process migration (offshoring) more generally.32 Section 4.1 analyses the impact of culture on work behaviour in more depth.

Is culture a constraint or a resource? In contrast to the older approaches to culture described in Section 2.1, more recently scholars have treated it not as a constraint that is either internalized by individuals or imposed on them by members of their immediate social group, but as a reservoir of relatively small and independent ‘bits of meaning’. This approach emphasizes individual agency in the use of culture. It leaves the individual in control. Cultural resources are heterogeneous bits of culture that include widely recognized schematic identities, frames, roles, stories, scripts, justifications and moralities.33 What do you think of this idea? Is culture a constraint or is it a resource?

How much does culture explain? Given that any one individual is potentially a member of multiple cultural and subcultural groups, how can behaviours be identified with any one type of group? Secondly,

CULTURE AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCE  23

with so many factors influencing behaviour, including genetic, epigenetic, familial, local, social (such as the environment of a particular school or a particular set of friends) and individual experience, how can we know what behaviours to attribute to culture? As Hickson and Pugh (1995) pointed out, it may be hard to determine whether a ‘highly personal, verbal practice of communication [in an organization] is due to a culture that values personto-person contact or to illiteracy among employees who could not read written instructions.’34 When transcripts of intercultural negotiations between Taiwanese and US Americans were analysed to compare the two cultures’ communication choices, it was found that culture and other aspects of an interaction combined to influence communication choices, rather than culture playing the dominant role. This contradicts a perspective that culture has a global influence.35 As Hickson and Pugh (1995) suggested, Perhaps it helps most to see the world as multi-causal, with many factors acting and interacting simultaneously. … Whatever one’s view, a sensitivity to the part likely to be played by societal cultures does aid understanding. Difficult though it may be to say exactly what that part is, the notion of culture is persistently useful and its manifestations are persistently recognizable.36 Do you agree with Hickson and Pugh (1995)? Is culture likely to outweigh genetic, epigenetic, familial, local, social and individual influences or is it just one among them?

How broadly can concepts of culture be applied? National boundaries are a convenient synonym for a culture, and many studies of culture deal with national culture. This framing of the concept is somewhat imprecise, however, since no nation is so pure that all of its members share a single dominant viewpoint. Conflating ‘culture’ with national culture is also controversial for other reasons. A number of scholars have argued that the term ‘culture’ can be applied to a much wider range of groupings than the national. For example, Lenartowicz et al. (2003) argued that equating ‘culture’ with ‘country’ can result in erroneous non-significant findings of cross-national differences and a disregard of cultural similarities across countries that may be relevant to management practice and research; their study found the existence of clearly defined subcultures in six locations in Latin America and argued that related subcultures can cross national and linguistic boundaries.37

Despite exceptions, in practice and in most research the term ‘culture’ is widely applied only to nationality: members of a nation face a set of common experiences, themes and institutions that help shape their values and ways of viewing the world. These shared experiences include geography, climate, economy, political system, racial mix, religious mix, media, language, educational system and so on. They result in a unique national character that is often more apparent to foreigners than to the nationals themselves.38 The members of ethnic and religious minorities and some other categories, such as gender, social class or occupational groups, typically conform to many of the norms and values of their dominant culture, despite having beliefs, attitudes, habits and forms of behaviour which deviate from those of others in their society. For this reason the term ‘culture’ is applied to these categories much less often. Widely used generalizations such as ‘Culture implies a shared worldview and set of values which are largely held unconsciously because they were inculcated in childhood’ would not apply easily to gender groups, for example. Women with different religious beliefs do not share a worldview; generally, men from Japan are positioned well apart on some cultural dimensions from men from the USA, whereas Americans of both genders and all social classes are closer together. On the other hand, a statement such as ‘Cultural differences lead to differences in communication styles’ does apply to ethnic and religious minorities, and to gender, social class and occupational groups: women communicate differently from men, working-class people differently from upper-class people, engineers from publishers (especially at work) across national, ethnic and religious boundaries. Overall, however, gender, social class, sexual orientation, age and educational, technical, professional and experiential background do not meet the full criteria for cultures; the same is true for ethnicity and religion except where these correspond to national boundaries. For these societal subdivisions, some, but not all, generalizations about cultural influences will apply. Being differently-abled, like sexual orientation, is to some degree unknown. Some people who are differently-abled were born such, and may have acquired particular worldviews and values as they grew up. Others will not have. This reasoning leads us to treat groups differentiated by ethnicity, religion, gender, social class, sexual orientation, age or educational, technical, professional and experiential background as subcultures.  2.3.1 for an explanation of other uses of the term ‘subculture’.

All these distinctions have fuzzy boundaries. There is substantial intragroup variation as well as intergroup

24  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

difference. Not every Japanese person has a highly communalist outlook; not every Muslim practises polygamy. The important point is to be aware of cultural and subcultural influences and how they may be affecting one’s own and others’ behaviour, while still remembering that individual variations due to differences in heredity, family, schooling and experience sometimes modify and outweigh those influences.   2.3.2 for more discussion of the issue of how widely concepts of culture can be applied.

Are cultures converging? Some readers may have wondered whether cultural differences are disappearing so fast39 that it is unnecessary to allow for them. People increasingly buy the same products, use the same labour-saving, transportation and communication devices, are entertained in the same way by television and music systems. Many now dress in Westernstyle clothes, live in Western-style houses, work at Western-style jobs and conduct many of their conversations in English. Does this mean that cultures are converging? Are people worldwide coming to share the same values, worldview, kinship system and social organization? These are questions that a number of scholars and researchers have addressed. The answers vary. For instance, Pinker (1994) noted that the difference between two cultures generally correlates with how long ago the societies separated; this suggests that cultures evolve.40 On the level of individuals, a study compared the cultural dimensions of 429 Indians living and working in India with those of 151 Indian migrants living and working in the USA. The study found significant cultural value differences between the two groups, both in terms of their total populations and in terms of breakdowns by occupation, gender, age, and level of education. These results suggest that when individuals are exposed to another culture their cultural values are more malleable than previously thought. (This may be particularly true when that culture is an aspirational one.)41 Li and Karakowsky (2002) argued that national culture and cultural influences on businesses are not necessarily stable, enduring characteristics. They can be altered, for instance, by consistent government policies. For example, in recent years, in both Hong Kong and Taiwan such policies have lowered respect for authority, a traditional element in ethnic Chinese culture.42 Again, a shift can be seen towards more entrepreneurial value orientations among newer generations of Chinese people (labelled the Consolidation and Social Reform Generations); this shift seems to be ‘compatible with organizational changes currently under way in China’s state-owned sector’.43 Furthermore, according to Zhang et al. (2014) the values of Chinese employees born after 1980 are driving the need for leaders

to adjust their leadership practices:44 leader integrity and leader effectiveness, which are not significantly related among more traditional subordinates, because to them leaders’ authority is independent of whether or not they have integrity, are significantly related among less traditional subordinates.45 On the other hand, a major study (Hofstede 1981) provided little evidence of global convergence, but this was based on a comparison between points of time only four years apart – 1968 and 1972. However, Hofstede concluded, on more general grounds, ‘There is very little evidence of international convergence over time, except an increase of individualism for countries that have become richer. Value differences between nations described by authors centuries ago are still present today, in spite of close contacts. For the next few hundred years, countries will remain culturally very diverse.’46 As Aldridge (2002) pointed out, ‘Each culture provides predictability, thus changing culture can be quite difficult unless the cultural value being changed has been demonstrated to be of less value or no longer useful to a particular group.’47 Empirically, the conclusion drawn from the longitudinal World Values Surveys is that there are shifts away from traditional values – these are linked to economic development. However, the broad cultural heritage of a society leaves an enduring imprint of values despite the forces of modernization.48   2.3.3 for more on whether societal cultural values are converging or diverging.

In relation to work-related values in particular, a 12-year (1989–2001) longitudinal comparison of managerial values systems in China, Hong Kong and the USA found that during a time period of stability in the USA and substantial change in both Hong Kong and China, managers’ values in Hong Kong and China became more similar, while the values of these two Greater China societies became more different from those of the USA. This finding supports the idea that a new cross-bred form of values may result from a blending that occurs when two cultures meet.49 Cultural shifts may be becoming more marked among people engaged in business or other international activities; these shifts can be attributed to internet-enabled communication. In India and the USA, large differences were found in 2011 in all five cultural dimensions as compared to Hofstede’s data. ‘Changes in work-related values may reflect the influence of advances in communication and internet technologies.’50

Can cultural difference be measured? There have been attempts to measure cultural differences, one of which was in Hofstede (1984). This gave measurements and rankings for a large number of countries on each

CULTURE AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCE  25

of four (later five) cultural values, so implying their levels of difference.51 However, this study did not provide an overall measure – there was no suggestion that the measures could somehow be combined. Chapter 3 describes the findings and the criticism that this work has attracted. In business and management studies, cultural difference has been expressed as ‘cultural distance’, which can be measured and compared. Characteristics such as dominant religion, business language, form of government, economic development and levels of emigration indicate two countries’ cultural distance from one another. Cultural distance between countries may be reduced by increased communication, geographical proximity (leading to more contact) and cultural attractiveness. For individuals, foreign experience and acculturation may also decrease cultural distance. For organizations, the presence of ‘bicultural’ individuals may have a bridging effect. However, there was no decrease in the effect of cultural distance over the previous three decades, a 1997 report on a study of international joint ventures found. Managers are aware of cultural distance as a phenomenon and perceive it similarly to ‘objective’ measurements.52 The concept of cultural distance has been criticized, however. One criticism is that ‘distance’ is symmetrical, so that ‘a Dutch firm investing in China is faced with the same cultural distance as a Chinese firm investing in the Netherlands. There is no support for such an assumption.’ Furthermore, Shenkar (2012) pointed out that cultural distance, as defined, can have no effect until organizations actually interact.53 Again, a study of multinational companies’ (MNCs’) decisions to standardize or customize (local) performance management systems, found from a response sample of 97 Bulgarian and Romanian companies

that overall cultural distance mattered less in customization decisions than specific cultural d ­ imensions – power distance and masculinity/femininity – and global integration strategy.54 Finally, a study of retailers’ market adaptation found that while business-related distance, such as market structure, business practices and language, had a significant influence, cultural distance was not significant.55 Luo and Shenkar (2011) proposed the substitution for ‘cultural distance’ of the concept of ‘cultural friction’ which, may not transform into a clash, or yield any meaningful interaction effect, negative or positive, until organizations truly engage in interactions; … cultural friction is situation-specific, subject to the influence of ‘drag’ parameters, such as entry mode (e.g., contract vs equity; greenfield vs acquisition), workflow [task] interdependence, breadth of local stakeholders, speed and stage of international expansion, and depth of localization; and… cultural friction can be curtailed through a series of managerial mechanisms, or lubricants, around the points of cross-border contact.56   2.3.4 for more on cultural distance. Discuss the arguments in favour of and against the concept of cultural distance as a measure of cultural difference.

How does culture affect communication? Figure 2.3 shows how interlocutors’ cultures and subcultures affect their social perception, self-presentation and interaction.

Figure 2.3  A behavioural model of interpersonal communication showing the influence of culture

A’s motives, emotions, beliefs, attitudes, etc.

Person A

Person B

Social perception (understanding Person B)

Social perception (understanding Person A) Interaction

Self-presentation A’s past experience with B

Culture of Person A

B’s motives, emotions, beliefs, attitudes, etc.

Self-presentation

Culture of Person B COMMUNICATION MODE COMMUNICATION CONTEXT

B’s past experience with A

26  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

As Figure 2.3 shows, culture influences all three core interpersonal communication processes: social perception/cognition (the attempt to understand the interlocutor), self-presentation (the message or contribution to the interaction) and interaction itself (the dynamic of question/answer, assertion/response). Culture also influences participants’ perceptions of interaction. Culture forms an implicit theory about the rules being followed and the ‘game’ being played that individuals use to guide their behaviour and interpret others’ behaviour.57

Do the communication patterns and behaviours of different groups differ significantly? Even though we know that culture influences communication, that still leaves the question of how much it influences it. There is an ongoing debate about universals and nonuniversals in communication and language. In support of the ‘universal’ argument, some research suggests that humans may be ‘pre-wired’ to recognize the communicative importance of language. This ‘innate’ recognition may, some suggest, account for the speed with which children learn to talk. In addition, all cultures use both verbal and non-verbal communication systems, including dress and adornment. In support of the case for cultural differences in communication, there have been well-documented national differences in non-verbal communication, judgements, intergroup communication and the processes through which a communication episode develops. Some aspects of communication differ among different subcultures, as opposed to cultures. For instance, Scollon and Scollon (1981) saw virtually all professional communication as intercultural.58 The position taken here is that of Haslett (1989) who contended that there are both universals and cultural specifics in communication.59

Can intracultural behaviours be generalized to intercultural situations? It is clearly important whether people behave differently when interacting with members of other cultures from the way they behave when interacting with members of their own culture. Cultural differences in behaviour are intrinsically interesting, but a major part of the concern with them has been with a view to facilitating intercultural communication. If culture has little influence on people’s intercultural behaviour, the incentive for studying culture is reduced. Unfortunately, we do not really have an answer to the question. There has been a tendency to assume that

intracultural interactive behaviours will generalize to intercultural situations but a serious argument has been made in the context of negotiating that this may be a false assumption, particularly among people from cultures where ingroups are treated very differently from outgroups: Intracultural dyads with collectivist cultural values were found to be more likely to emphasize certain cooperatively oriented tactics than intracultural dyads with individualist cultural values. ... In a negotiation with an out-group member, however, a negotiator with collectivist values may strongly discriminate against the out-group, since mistrust and suspicion of outgroup members is high.60 As this researcher concluded, ‘One should not assume that intracultural processes and behaviours of a cultural group will generalize to the intercultural context.’ ­Gudykunst (1983) found from exploratory research that people behave differently when they are interacting with others whom they perceive as culturally dissimilar: they ask more questions, but self-disclose less; they seek out information about dissimilarities instead of information about similarities. They are less willing to draw inferences about the attributes of people from other cultures.61 What we don’t know, however, is whether the changes seen in intercultural interactions are themselves culturally influenced. The position taken here is that, except in the few instances where research has demonstrated a disjunction between intracultural and intercultural behaviour, it is as well to keep in mind the possibility of cultural influence on the behaviour of different others, though without a mind closed to alternative interpretations. As far as the intercultural communication behaviours advocated in Chapter 10 are concerned, moreover, most of them would be worth practising in any communication context.

Is computer mediation giving rise to a new form of culture? Conference calls, electronic mail (email), fax messages, telephoning by landline or mobile phone, text messaging, video- and audio-conferencing and voicemail are all examples of technology-mediated interpersonal communication. Low bandwidth tools such as email and instant messenger programs are generally considered to have different affordances compared with face-to-face communication. It has been argued that the use of new media is shaking the roots of cultural identity by weakening or

CULTURE AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCE  27

strengthening the intensity of the relationship between people and community.62 McEwan and Sobre-Denton (2011) argued that computer-mediated communication can promote and develop virtual cosmopolitanism and virtual third cultures. The authors indicated that through the construction of a third culture space, a new hybrid culture is created, in which interactors from different cultures are able to gather cultural and social information, build online communities and form intercultural relationships. The time and space compression caused by the convergence of new media and globalization creates a universal cyberspace in which new cultural identities are emerging in different virtual communities.63 In sum, new interpersonal communication media may establish different kinds of communities without the limit of time and space, which makes cultural identity more dynamic, fluid and relativized, and imposes challenges to the autonomy and stability of cultural identity.64 There is no suggestion, however, that these online hybrid cultures will replace people’s usual cultures offline in the near future.  2.3.5 for more on new cultural identities formed by new communication media.

How does a work context affect the impact of culture on communication? ‘Work context’ here refers to the fact that colleagues usually share an understanding of tasks and technical knowledge; also that their communication is influenced by their work roles and by the organizational culture. Does this work context obliterate or eliminate differences in communication and behaviour resulting from cultural differences? There is evidence that East–West differences in attention to indirect meaning (‘reading between the lines’) are more pronounced in work settings compared with nonwork settings; that is, Americans, but not East Asians, have been shown to be less attentive to indirect cues in work than non-work settings.65 This suggests that cultural differences can actually be greater in work-related interactions. In the present authors’ view, clearly there are task and organizational constraints on how differently people behave at work, but (sub)cultural differences still obtain, are significant and need to be taken into account more than they are currently.   2  .3.6 for more on how culture affects workrelated interactions. Draft a list of single-sentence bullet points that summarize the issues discussed in this section.

CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY

• The cultural theories relevant to this book variously •

•

emphasize values, communication, shared meanings and identity. Culture and communication are strongly related in the last three of these approaches. Social influence is the main way in which culture is imbibed by individuals. Culture is imparted by a range of societal institutions, including family. People are motivated to accept social influence by a range of needs including the need to belong. The most important ‘mechanisms’ in social influence are the expectation of accountability, inferring others’ opinions, social contagion, the operation of social norms and values congruence. There are several concerns that are prior to a discussion of how culture affects communication; these include whether culture really matters, whether it is a constraint or a resource, how much culture explains, how broadly concepts of culture can be applied, whether cultures are converging, whether cultural difference can be measured, how culture affects communication, whether communication behaviours differ significantly across cultures, whether intracultural behaviours can be generalized to intercultural situations, whether computer mediation is giving rise to new forms of culture and the impact of the work context on culture and communication.

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (2013) ‘Mapping world cultures: cluster formation, sources and implications’, Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9): 867–97. 2 Schwartz, S.H. and Bardi, A. (2001) ‘Value hierarchies across cultures: taking a similarities perspective’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3): 268–90. 3 Rokeach, M. (1993) The Nature of Human Values, New York: Free Press. 4 Schwartz, S.H. (1999) ‘Cultural value differences: Some implications for work’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48: 23–47. 5 Aldridge, M.G. (2002) What is the basis of American culture? Intercultural Communication: A Global Reader, 84–98, URL: http://immi.se/intercultural/ nr5/aldridge.htm. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 6 Kincaid, D.L., Yum, J.O. and Woelfel, J. (1983) ‘The cultural convergence of Korean immigrants in Hawaii: an empirical test of a mathematical theory’, Quality and Quantity, 18: 59–78. 7 Haslett, B. (1989) ‘Communication and language acquisition within a cultural context’, in Ting-Toomey, S. and Korzenny, F. (eds) Language, Communication and Culture: Current Directions, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

28  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

8 Kim, M.-S., Hunter, J.E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A., Bresnahan, M. and Yoon, H. (1996) ‘Individual- vs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: effects on preferred conversational styles’, Communication Monographs, 63: 29–49. 9 Van Dijk, T.A. (ed.) (1997) Discourse as Structure and Process: Discourse Studies, A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 1, London: Sage. 10 Aaker, J.L., Benet-Martínez, V. and Garolera, J. (2001) ‘Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3): 492–508. 11 Aritz, J. and Walker, R.C. (2010) ‘Cognitive organization and identity maintenance in multicultural teams: A discourse analysis of decision-making meetings’, Journal of Business Communication, 47: 20–41. 12 Belay, G. (1996) ‘The (re) construction and negotiation of cultural identities in the age of globalization’, Information and Behavior, 5: 319–46. 13 Chesebro, J.W. and Fuse, K. (2001) ‘The development of a perceived masculinity scale’, Communication Quarterly, 49(3): 203–78. 14 Delmestri, G. (2006) ‘Streams of inconsistent institutional influences: Middle managers as carriers of multiple identities’, Human Relations, 59: 1515–41. 15 Tetlock, P.E. (1996) ‘Accountability’, in Manstead, A.S.R. and Hewstone, M. (eds) Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Social Psychology, Oxford: Blackwell. 16 Brauer, M. and Chaurand, N. (2010) ‘Descriptive norms, prescriptive norms, and social control: an intercultural comparison of people’s reactions to uncivil behaviors’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3): 490–9. 17 Glynn, C.J. and Huge, M.E. (2007) ‘Opinions as norms: applying a return potential model to the study of communication behaviors’, Communication Research, 34(5): 548–68. 18 Zou, X., Tam, K.P., Morris, M.W., Lee, S.L., Lau, I.Y.M. and Chiu, C.Y. (2009) ‘Culture as common sense: perceived consensus versus personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4): 579. 19 Goel, S., Mason, W. and Watts, D.J. (2010) ‘Real and perceived attitude agreement in social networks’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4): 611–21. 20 Chartrand, T.L. and Lakin, J.L. (2013) ‘The antecedents and consequences of human behavioural mimicry’, Annual Review of Psychology, 64: 285–308. 21 Loftus, E.F. and Greene, E. (1980) ‘Warning: Even memory for faces may be contagious’, Law and Human Behavior, 4(4): 323.

22 Barsade, S.G. (2002) ‘The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4): 644–75. 23 Harvey, M., Treadway, D.C. and Heames, J.T. (2007) ‘The occurrence of bullying in global organizations: A model and issues associated with social/emotional contagion’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(11): 2576–99. 24 Danis, W.M., Chiaburu, D.S. and Lyles, M.A. (2010) ‘The impact of managerial networking intensity and market-based strategies on firm growth during institutional upheaval: A study of small and mediumsized enterprises in a transition economy’, Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 287–307. 25 Kelman, H. (1961) ‘Processes of opinion change’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 35: 57–78. 26 Porter, M.E. (2000) ‘Attitudes, values, beliefs and the microeconomics of prosperity’, in Harrison, L.E. and Huntington, S.P. (eds) Culture Matters, New York: Basic Books. 27 Lee, S.M. and Peterson, S.J. (2000) ‘Culture, entrepreneurial orientation, and global competitiveness’, Journal of World Business, 35(4): 401–16. 28 Muzychenko, O. (2006) ‘Cross-cultural entrepreneurial competence in identifying international business opportunities’, European Journal of Management, 26(6): 366–77. 29 Angwina, D. (2001) ‘Mergers and acquisitions across European borders: National perspectives on preacquisition, due diligence and the use of professional advisers’, Journal of World Business, 36(1): 32–57. 30 Kragh, S.U. (2000) ‘Three perspectives on intercultural marketing’, in Sorensen, O.J. and Arnold, E. (eds) Marketing and Development Challenges, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Marketing and Development, Ghana. 31 House, R. and Wright, N. (1999) ‘Cross cultural research on organizational leadership: a critical analysis and a proposed theory’, URL: http://psycnet.apa.org/psy cinfo/1997-36742-019. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 32 Cohen, L. and El-Sawad, A. (2007) ‘Lived experiences of offshoring: An examination of UK and Indian financial service employees’ accounts of themselves and one another’, Human Relations, 60(8): 1235–62. 33 Weber, K. and Dacin, M.T. (2011) ‘The cultural construction of organizational life: Introduction to the special issue’, Organization Science, 22(2): 287–98. 34 Hickson, D.J. and Pugh, D. (1995) Management Worldwide: The Impact of Societal Culture on Organizations Around the Globe, London: Penguin. 35 Cai, D.A. and Donohue, W.A. (1997) ‘Determinants of facework in intercultural negotiation’, Asian Journal of Communication, 7(1): 85–110.

CULTURE AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCE  29

36 Hickson, op. cit. 37 Lenartowicz, T., Johnson, J.P. and White, C.T. (2003) ‘The neglect of intracountry cultural variation in international management research’, Journal of Business Research, 56(12): 999–1008. 38 Harpaz, I., Honig, B. and Coetsier, P. (2002) ‘A crosscultural longitudinal analysis of the meaning of work and the socialization process of career starters’, Journal of World Business, 37(4): 230–44. 39 Clarke, V. (2004) ‘Students’ global awareness and attitudes to internationalism in a world of cultural convergence’, Journal of Research in International Education, 3(1): 51–70. 40 Pinker, S. (1994) The Language Instinct, London: Penguin. 41 Budhwar, P.S., Woldu, H. and Ogbonna, E. (2008) ‘A comparative analysis of cultural value orientations of Indians and migrant Indians in the USA’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8: 79–105. 42 Li, J. and Karakowsky, L. (2002) ‘Cultural malleability in an East Asian context: an illustration of the relationship between government policy, national culture and firm behavior’, Administration & Society, 34(2): 176–201. 43 Egri, C.P. and Ralston, D.A. (2004) ‘Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China and the United States’, Organization Science, 15(2): 210–20. 44 Zhang, Z.X., Chen, Y.R. and Ang, S. (2014) ‘Business leadership in the Chinese context: Trends, findings, and implications’, Management and Organization Review, 10(2): 199–221 45 Zhang, G., Bai, Y., Caza, A. and Wang, L. (2014) ‘Leader integrity and organizational citizenship behaviour in China’, Management and Organization Review, 10(2): 299–319. 46 Hofstede, G. (1981) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London: Harper Collins. 47 Aldridge, op. cit. 48 Inglehart, R. and Baker, W.E. (2000) ‘Modernization, cultural change and the persistence of traditional values’, American Sociological Review, 61(1): 19–51. 49 Ralston, D.A., Gustafson, D.J., Cheung, F.M. and Terpstra, R.H. (1993) ‘Differences in managerial values: A study of US, Hong Kong and PRC managers’, Journal of International Business Studies, 24: 249–75. 50 Migliore, L.A. (2011) ‘Relation between big five personality traits and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: Samples from the USA and India’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1): 38–54. 51 Hofstede, G. (1984) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (Vol. 5), New York: Sage.

52 Azar, G. (2014) ‘How congruent are managers’ perceptions of cultural distance with objective reality?’ Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 21(4): 400–21. 53 Shenkar, O. (2012) ‘Beyond cultural distance: switching to a friction lens in the study of cultural differences’, Journal of International Business Studies, 43(1): 12–17. 54 Claus, L. and Hand, M.L. (2009) ‘Customization decisions regarding performance management systems of multinational companies: an empirical view of Eastern European firms’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9: 237–58. 55 Evans, J. and Bridson, K. (2005) ‘Explaining retail offer adaptation through psychic distance’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 33(1): 69–78. 56 Luo, Y. and Shenkar, O. (2011) ‘Toward a perspective of cultural friction in international business,’ Journal of International Management, 17(1): 1–14. 57 Baldwin, R. and Hunt, S.K. (2002) ‘Information-seeking behavior in intercultural and intergroup communication’, Human Communication Research, 28(2): 272–86. 58 Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (1981) Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 59 Haslett, op. cit. 60 Lytle, A. and Willaby, H. (2006) ‘Intracultural and intercultural negotiations: patterns of tactics’, IACM 2006 Meetings Paper, available at SSRN: http://ssrn. com/abstract=905462. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 61 Gudykunst, W.B. (1983) ‘Similarities and differences in perceptions of initial intracultural and intercultural encounters: an exploratory investigation’, The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 49: 49–65. 62 Singh, C.L. (2010) ‘New media and cultural identity’, China Media Research, 6(1) 86–91. 63 McEwan, B. and Sobre-Denton, M. (2011) ‘Virtual cosmopolitanism: Constructing third cultures and transmitting social and cultural capital through social media’, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 4(4): 252–58. 64 Chen, G.M. (2012) ‘The impact of new media on intercultural communication in global context’, China Media Research, 8(2), URL: http://digitalcommons. uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context= com_facpubs. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 65 Sanchez-Burks, J., Lee, F., Choi, I., Nisbett, R., Zhao, S. and Koo, J. (2003) ‘Conversing across cultures: EastWest communication styles in work and non-work contexts’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2): 363–72.

3 HOW CULTURES VARY The purpose of this chapter is to describe a range of understandings of the ways in which cultures differ. This is essential background for effective intercultural work communication. Section 3.1 describes the ways in which most scholarship to date has defined cultural variation; it describes taxonomies of cultural dimensions based on ‘values’. These taxonomies help identify cross-cultural similarities and differences. Section 3.1 also describes some of the findings of a longitudinal series of surveys of values, the European and World Values Surveys. ­Section  3.2 discusses five other ways of analysing cultures – as users of high-context or low-context communication, as subjective cultures, as tight or loose cultures, as elements of institutions and as strategic resources. In Section 3.3 a different approach is described: it identifies broad clusters of countries that are mainly geographically close to one another but also similar in terms of important dimensions such as autonomy, egalitarianism and mastery. Table 3.1 is a framework of the approaches to cultural difference explained in this chapter.   Table 3.1 for the citations for these papers.

3.1 HOW CULTURES VARY – THE VALUES APPROACHES A major thrust of theorizing and research into culture has been the attempt to identify and classify similarities and differences among cultures. This section describes some of the main results of these efforts, covering culture-level values and dimensions: Hofstede’s (1981 and 1991) and Schwartz’s (1999), and the longitudinal studies of the World Values Surveys.

Hofstede’s (1981 and 1991) culture-level values In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Geert Hofstede undertook the most comprehensive cross-cultural study to that 30

date, using questionnaire data from 80,000 IBM employees in 66 countries across seven occupations.1 From this research Hofstede (1981) identified four values that differ across cultures: individualism–collectivism (IC), power distance (PD), uncertainty avoidance (UA) and masculinity/femininity (MAS). 1 Individualism–collectivism (IC) is defined by the extent to which individuals’ behaviours are influenced and prescribed by others: individualists prefer selfsufficiency while collectivists give more recognition to their interdependent roles and their obligations to their group. The IC concept is the most frequently cited cultural dimension.2 It will often recur in this book. 2 Power distance (PD) is defined by the degree of separation between people of various social statuses or, to put it another way, the extent to which all members of a society, including the less powerful, expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Low PD cultures endorse egalitarianism; high PD cultures endorse hierarchies. In high PD cultures, how capable managers consider the groups of which they are members is more strongly tied to higher rather than to lower status group members’ personal judgements. In low PD cultures, all members contribute to collective efficacy judgements.3 3 Uncertainty avoidance (UA) refers to the extent to which a culture prefers to avoid ambiguity and to the way in which it resolves uncertainty. High UA cultures prefer rules and set procedures to contain the uncertainty, low UA cultures tolerate greater ambiguity and prefer more flexibility in their responses. Uncertainty avoidance may affect risk judgements: those of people from two Western countries with low UA scores differed from those of respondents from two countries with high UA scores (Hong Kong and Taiwan). These were more sensitive to the magnitude of potential losses and saw potential losses as less mitigated by the probability of positive outcomes.4

HOW CULTURES VARY  31

Table 3.1  Approaches to cultural difference VALUES APPROACHES

Hofstede (1981, 1991)

Individualism–collectivism Power distance Uncertainty avoidance Masculinity/femininity Long-term/short-term orientation Schwartz (1999) Embeddedness/autonomy Hierarchy/egalitarianism Mastery/harmony Dignity, Honour and Face Dignity cultures Cultures Honour cultures Face cultures Values Surveys Traditional/secular rational Survival/self-expression Work Values Extrinsic Intrinsic OTHER WAYS OF ANALYSING Hall (1976) High context/low context CULTURAL DIFFERENCE communication Monochronic/polychronic Triandis & Shuh (2002) Subjective culture Tightness–looseness Culture as an Institution Traditions, taken-for-granted rules and conventions, Preconscious widely-accepted customs DiMaggio (1997) Culture as a strategic resource — schemata COUNTRY CLUSTERING Based on World Values Surveys Western Europe English-speaking nations Eastern European nations Islamic Countries East Asian Countries Sub-Saharan Africa Based on Work Attitudes Far Eastern Confucian African Anglo Germanic Nordic Latin Europe Near East Arab

UA levels do not directly predict how much effort cultures devote to reducing uncertainty by imposing laws, rules and regulations. Germany is not extremely high in uncertainty avoidance, but there are many well-known examples of the German inclination for orderliness, conveyed in expressions like ‘Befehl ist Befehl’ (‘A command is a command’) or ‘Ordnung muß sein’ (‘There must be order’).5

4 Masculinity/Femininity (MAS) defines quality-of-life issues. High MAS cultures endorse assertiveness, competition and aggressive success; low MAS cultures prefer modesty, compromise and cooperative success. In high MAS societies people tend to believe that matters of material comfort, social privilege, access to power and influence, status and prestige, and the ability to consume are related to ability. This also means they

32  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

believe that people who do not have the ability, or the character, cannot and should not have these benefits, since they are essentially a reward for hard work and success. High MAS societies tend to reward financial and material achievements with preferential social prestige and status, and even to attribute strong character and spiritual values to such high achievers. In some low MAS societies, living in material comfort and having a high standard of living are believed to be matters of birth, luck or destiny. In some other low MAS societies, material comfort and lifestyle are considered less an indication of a person’s character and value than their religious devotion, their social conscience, their intellectual or artistic abilities, their stature as a wise elder, or (and this probably applies in Scandinavia) their rights as a fellow member of a caring society.

There have been numerous applications of these cultural value dimensions to economic and work-related behaviours, such as the rate of adoption of information and communication technology, participative decisionmaking and perceptions of the relative importance of various service quality features:

• National culture and the information and communica-

Explain how ‘high masculinity’ as a cultural value differs from the conventional idea of machoism. Countries where gendered languages (in which all nouns are either ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’) are spoken evidence less gender equality compared to countries with other grammatical gender systems.6

•

How would you explain this finding?

Later, Hofstede (1991) identified a fifth cultural value – long-term or short-term time orientation: willingness to postpone ‘payback’ and satisfaction against wanting or needing quick returns and rewards.7 In the context of international joint ventures, it has been shown, the effect of long- or short-term orientation is stronger than that of any of the other dimensions of culture.8  3.1.1 for more on how cultures vary, on the Hofstede (1981 and 1991) cultural value dimensions and for a link to a website that shows where individual countries are located on these dimensions.

Hofstede’s (1981 and 1991) dimensions and analyses of culture were not intended to be rigid categorizations of behaviour or people: the culture of a country – or any other category of people – is not a combination of properties of the ‘average citizen’ or ‘modal personality’. One person from a high UA culture may react in one way (such as feeling nervous), another from the same culture in another way (such as wanting rules to be respected). In addition, such reactions need not be found within the same persons or in all persons from the culture, but only statistically more often in the same society. Few people fall entirely into one or the other cultural pattern, but the tendency is there.

•

tion technology (ICT) adoption rate of a country are closely related, a study by Erumban and de Jong (2006) established, noting that the rate of adoption of ICT diverges considerably from one country to another regardless of their income levels. They used Hofstede’s dimensions and two different measures of ICT adoption, namely the average share of ICT spending in GDP across 42 countries, and numbers of computers per capita across 49 countries. Most of the Hofstede dimensions appeared significant influences on ICT adoption, although power distance and uncertainty avoidance emerged as the most important ones. The results were robust in both datasets, even after controlling for levels of education and income.9 Individualism–collectivism and power distance were linked to four different approaches to participative decision-making: face-to-face, joint (collective), pseudoand paternalistic participative decision-making, Sagie and Aycan (2003) found.10 Perceptions of the relative importance of service quality features were linked to individual-level cultural dimensions, a study showed. For instance, individuals with large power distance, high collectivism, high masculinity, neutral uncertainty avoidance and short-term orientations attached most importance to service quality assurance; individuals exhibiting large power distance, medium individualism, high masculinity, low uncertainty avoidance and short-term orientations were only concerned with the tangibles associated with the service, to which they attached extremely high importance.11

Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions have, however, been refuted as well as supported by replication, although the majority of replications support the existence of the values. A 2010 meta-analysis of data from 598 studies representing over 200,000 individuals found that the predictive power of the cultural values was significantly lower than that of personality traits and demographics for some organizationally relevant outcomes, such as job performance, absenteeism and turnover, but significantly higher for others, such as organizational commitment, identification, organizational citizenship behaviour, team-related attitudes and feedback seeking.12

HOW CULTURES VARY  33

Schwartz’s (1999) values approach A different set of cultural values emerged from work based on preceding anthropology by Schwartz (1999), who theorized that three basic issues confront societies: 1 to define the nature of the relation between the individual and the group 2 to guarantee responsible behaviour that will preserve the social fabric 3 to decide the relation of humankind to the natural and social world.13 When a values survey was conducted among teachers and students in nearly 50 countries, Schwartz and Bardi (2001) found a set of culture-level values corresponding to these three concerns: 1 Embeddedness versus autonomy. This value is related to but not identical with earlier value concepts such as IC and autonomy/conservatism, but also contrasts maintaining the status quo with openness to change. 2 Hierarchy versus egalitarianism. Again, there is a link, this time to power distance, but there is also a key difference. Egalitarianism calls for people to recognize one another as moral equals who share basic interests as human beings – these elements are absent from low power distance. 3 Mastery versus harmony. Mastery is similar to masculinity but does not imply selfishness; harmony is related to uncertainty avoidance but does not imply an emphasis on controlling ambiguity.14   3.1.2 for more on the Schwartz (1999) cultural values. What criticisms, if any, would you make of the Schwartz typology?

Sagiv and Schwartz (2000) found links of these cultural values to managers’ work behaviour,15 as shown in Figure 3.1.

Dignity, honour and face values as the basis of culture Recent scholarship has distinguished three types of culture, differentiated according to whether they use dignity, honour or face as basic values:

• Dignity cultures are based on the premise that each indi•

•

vidual at birth possesses an intrinsic value at least theoretically equal to that of every other person. Thus, the key idea is that each individual has inherent worth, and this worth does not depend on the esteem of other people. Honour cultures are based on the idea that personal value depends on the value of a person in his or her own eyes, but also in the eyes of his or her society. In contrast to dignity’s emphasis on internal, inalienable worth, honour, as a claim to precedence and to virtue, has both an external and an internal quality. Face cultures allocate personal worth according to the respectability and/or deference which a person can claim by virtue of [his or her] relative position in a hierarchy and the proper fulfilment of his or her role. Thus, everyone in the hierarchy can have some face, though some may have more than others due to their position. Implicitly, everyone has face unless they lose it.

Empirical studies have shown that people from honour cultures react more constructively to a conflict situation than people from dignity cultures, as long as they are not insulted.16 However, the scholars using this typology have asserted and supported with evidence that individuals within dignity, honour and face cultures vary, so that to explain behaviour, a model that combines both cultural and personality variables is required.17

Figure 3.1  Links of Schwartz’s (2000) cultural values to managers’ work behaviour Emphasis in national culture

Managers’ choices in managerial dilemmas

Harmony

Integrating solutions preferred over analysing

Embeddedness

Payments that take into account the size of the employee’s family, not just his or her work

Mastery and hierarchy

Commitment to the organization rather than to a friend

34  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

Values surveys

high priority to environmental protection, tolerance of diversity and broad participation in decision-making in economic and political life. Societies that rank high on self-expression values also tend to rank high on interpersonal trust.18

The World Values Surveys are major empirical studies. They were designed to measure all major areas of human concern, including religion, politics, economics and social life. Their findings reduce cultural difference to two dimensions, traditional/secular-rational and survival/selfexpression values. The meaning of these dimensions is as follows:

Industrialization leads to a shift from traditional values towards secular-rational values; as societies make a further shift towards becoming knowledge-based economies, priorities also shift from survival values towards self-expression values. Figure 3.2 shows levels and trends for these variables for ten countries. As the graph in Figure 3.2 shows, between 1996 and 2010–14 many countries saw a shift towards more selfexpressive values and away from survival values; exceptions were China, Russia and Japan, where values shifted in the direction of survival and Korea where little changed. Shifts towards traditional values were seen in Britain, Mexico and Russia, but the other countries all saw an increase in secular-rational values. Unlike those of Hofstede (1981 and 1991) and Schwartz (1999), the World Values Surveys provide a longitudinal view and allow findings on changes: surveys were

• The

•

traditional/secular-rational values dimension reflects the contrast between societies in which religion is very important and those in which it is not. Societies near the traditional pole emphasize the importance of parent-child ties and deference to authority, along with absolute standards and traditional family values; they tend to reject divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide. These societies have high levels of national pride and a nationalistic outlook. Societies with secular-rational values have the opposite preferences on all of these topics. The survival/self-expression dimension reflects the contrast between societies where the overwhelming emphasis is on economic security and those that give

Figure 3.2  World Values Survey findings for ten countries19 +2

+1.5 Secularrational values

Sweden

Japan S. Korea

+1

China Russia

Germany

+.5 Britain

France 0

–.5 Traditional values

1996 values

India

–1

2010–14 values

–1.5 Mexico –2.0

–2

–1.5

Survival values

–1

–.5

0

+.5

+1

+1.5

Selfexpression values

+2

+2.5

HOW CULTURES VARY  35

undertaken in 1981, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2006, 2008 and 2015. They also allow a comparison of cultures as a whole, again unlike those of Hofstede and Schwartz. This is because the survival/self-expression and traditional/secular-rational dimensions together explain more than 70 per cent of the cross-national variance in a factor analysis of ten indicators, and each of these dimensions is strongly correlated with large numbers of other important orientations.

Combined values approaches In recent years some researchers have begun to use a selection from the different values and dimensions taxonomies to study cultural difference. An example is a study of work investment. The study reported that time investment in work is heavier among men than women; this gender difference is greater in masculine than in feminine societies and also greater in societies where survival values are more important than self-expression values and where mastery values are high compared to those where they are low.20  3.1.3 for more on societal values as the basis of culture.

Work values Data from the Meaning of Work Study have consistently shown national cultural differences in three major components of work values: the importance and centrality of work, norms about the rights and duties attached to work, and the work goals sought by individuals in their working lives.21 For example, in comparison to the USA, it was found that in Germany work centrality (the importance attached to work) was lower. Meaningful work, good interpersonal relationships, job security and opportunities to learn were all more important in Germany than the USA but achievement, responsibility and advancement were all less important.22 Work values can be subdivided into extrinsic (or instrumental) work values, such as financial reward and job security, and intrinsic (or expressive) work values, such as meaningful work. Contrary to expectations that stage of economic development may be more important than culture in influencing work values, which would mean that intrinsic work values would be greater in post-industrialized countries, it appears that post-industrialization is negatively related to intrinsic as well as extrinsic work values.23 What are the implications for organizations and societies of the finding that post-industrialization is negatively related to intrinsic as well as extrinsic work values? 

  3.1.4 for findings on how attitudes to good pay, good job security, being able to achieve and opportunities to use initiative vary across countries.

Critiques of values approaches to culture Treatments of culture such as those of Hofstede (1981) and Schwartz (1999), which provide lists of shared characteristics such as values, have been criticized for being oversimplified, static and lacking a basis for determining whether two cultures are different as a whole. Hofstede’s (1981) work, though much admired and widely applied, has been criticized, primarily on two grounds: that it omits important values and that it is nondynamic. The comment of Tayeb (1996) is typical of these criticisms: ‘A country’s culture is too vibrant and complex an entity to be simplified and described only in terms of these dimensions.’24 According to Aldridge (2002), Human culture is a problem formation and problem resolution process and uses higher order abstractions via speech communication to provide for change. It is possible, for example, to have a highly individualist culture, as defined by Hofstede, but miss the variations in individualist cultures around the globe which have differing core values that may enhance or limit second order change.25 Empirically there are findings that show that, while countries within the same region often share some cultural influences, important differences should also be noted. For instance, while Japanese and Thai younger adults both linearly increase communicative respect and avoidance, beliefs about politeness, and deference norms as interlocutors got older (from young to middle-aged to older adult), a study found that Thais endorsed both politeness and deference norms more strongly than the Japanese and reported more respectful communication to younger adults than the Japanese.26 Finally, one limitation that has already been mentioned of the initial values approaches to culture and cultural difference is that they do not permit the overall cultures of two or more countries or regions to be compared: the scores on the different dimensions cannot be added up. For instance, the scores for Japan, Germany and South Africa on Hofstede’s dimensions are as shown in Table 3.2; this information does not allow the conclusion that Japan’s and Germany’s cultures are more similar than Japan’s and South Africa’s or than Germany’s and South Africa’s.

36  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION Table 3.2  Cultural dimension scores for three countries27

Power distance

Japan

Germany

South Africa

54

35

49

Individualism

46

67

65

Masculinity

95

66

63

Uncertainty avoidance

92

65

49

Long-term orientation

88

83

63

 3.1.5 for more on criticisms of dimensional approaches to culture.

3.2 OTHER WAYS OF ANALYSING CULTURAL DIFFERENCE In addition to the values taxonomies, there are five other approaches to cultural analysis underpinning the rest of this book. These approaches respectively emphasize highcontext/low-context communication, subjective cultures, tightness-looseness, institutions and culture as a strategic resource.

High-context/low-context communication Cultural difference can be analysed in terms of communication styles. Hall (1976) drew a distinction between high-context and low-context communication and used the distinction as the basis for differentiating cultures. In high-context cultures (HCCs), people rely on the overall situation to interpret messages, so that spoken or written messages can be ambiguous or vague. In low-context cultures (LCCs), people rely more on the explicit verbal content of messages, and are more direct.28 In a high-context culture, ‘most of the information [to be communicated] is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message’. In contrast, in a low-context society, ‘the mass of the [communicated] information is vested in the explicit code’.29 In discussions, people in LCCs tend to exhibit patterns of linear thinking, shifting from information already stated to information about to be given, while HCC communication tends to exhibit circular thinking, jumping back and forth and leaving out detail.30 Give examples to illustrate the distinction between high-context and low-context communication.

Nelson et al. (2002) found that Arab-Egyptian males make less use of indirect strategies when refusing a request than Americans do.31 (Egypt’s culture is collectivist, and in general collectivism correlates with high-context communication.) Discuss whether this finding contradicts Hall’s (1976) theory and what might explain the finding.

Hall (1976) drew further distinctions between cultures on grounds other than high-/low-context. Cultures, Hall (1976) argued, also have different conceptions of time and space; some are monochronic, emphasizing schedules and promptness and dividing time into segments, others are polychronic, undertaking a range of activities simultaneously; spatial differences in cultures are a matter of how large is an individual’s sense of the personal sphere. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of empirical data to identify where given countries are located on Hall’s (1976) dimensions; furthermore, ‘linguistically, it is very complex to identify degrees of directness, since ­explicitness – implicitness, communicative strength, and bluntness-cushioning are all involved.’32 There are, however, confirmatory findings from a small number of studies. Xie et al. (2008) showed that members of HCCs, such as Japanese people, use nonverbal cues and information about a person’s background to a greater extent than members of LCCs, such as the British. High-context people (HCP) comprehended nonverbal clues better than low-context people (LCP).33 Again, results from a 16-item survey of Chinese, Korean and US subjects showed that the three cultures differed in a way that was consistent with Hall’s (1976) conceptualization. The Chinese and Korean subjects exhibited tendencies consistent with Hall’s description of high-context cultures, while the American subjects exhibited tendencies consistent with low-context cultures.34 Weldon (1997) and TingToomey (1988) linked conflict management behaviour to low- versus high-context communication style.35,36 An exploratory analysis of McDonald’s websites identified five different strategies by which visual communication is used to support high-context communication traits in a lowcontext medium.37 At work, people in high-context cultures tend to adopt a role-oriented communication style that emphasizes their organizational position. Different ‘scripts’ are used in different role relationships. Work meetings in Eastern countries, for instance, are usually very formal by Western standards. As a result, interactions in such meetings are impersonal and ritualistic. In contrast, people in low-context cultures use a personal style. A personal style emphasizes personal identity over social position. Because role relationships and status differences are less important, communication is less formal and often more intimate.38

HOW CULTURES VARY  37

Regarding cmc, the emails of high-context cultures are more formal than those of low-context cultures, although, in contrast to past findings on face-to-face communication, low-context cultures’ emails are not expressed more directly than those of high-context cultures, a finding that shows that email affects communication styles. Again, in writing, and so in emails and instant messages, language features may not conform to the high-low-context model, a study found. South Korean texts showed more similarities to than differences from the American texts and did not show the presence of extensive shared information or an emphasis on relationships in doing business that the high-low-context model postulates.39   3.2.1 to see how Hall’s (1976) monochronic and polychronic dimensions relate to cmc.

Hall’s contexting approach has attracted criticism: a meta-analysis of 2008 found that those propositions tested most frequently have failed to support many contexting propositions, particularly those related to directness.40 How convincing do you find HCCs and LCCs as a way of differentiating cultures?

Subjective culture Subjective culture is an approach that focuses on psy-

chological constructs, such as beliefs, attitudes and individuals’ values, although it also includes a number of sociological factors, such as norms, roles and tasks. ­Triandis (1972) defined subjective culture as a society’s ‘characteristic way of perceiving its social environment’ 41: [it] consists of ideas about what has worked in the past and thus is worth transmitting to future generations. Language and economic, educational, political, legal, philosophical and religious systems are important elements of subjective culture. Ideas about aesthetics, and how people should live with others are also important elements. Most important are unstated assumptions, standard operating procedures, and habits of sampling information from the environment.42 Usefully, subjective culture provides an explanation for subcultures. They are considered to emerge because people share other elements, such as gender, physical type, neighbourhood, occupation, standard of living, resources, climates, and so on. For example, lawyers all over the world share some elements of subjective culture. Japanese lawyers have a subculture that differs from other lawyers as well as general Japanese

culture. A nation consists of thousands of cultures, but many of these cultures have common elements.43

Tightness-looseness Tightness-looseness captures the strength of social norms and the degree of sanctioning within societies. It affects how values operate: values such as collectivism will be more closely reflected in individuals’ behaviour in culturally ‘tight’ societies.44 It is a characteristic that can differentiate cultures. Triandis and Suh (2002) pointed out, though, that a culture might be tight in some areas and loose in others. Their example was that American culture is tight about passing bad cheques but loose about whom you choose as a room-mate.45

  3.2.2 for more on tightness-looseness.

Cultural tightness-looseness influences the effectiveness of different styles of leadership: people in culturally tight societies tend to perceive autonomous leadership as effective and charismatic and team leadership as ineffective. This applies even when ingroup collectivism, power distance, and future orientation at the societal and organizational level of analysis are taken into account, according to findings by Aktas et al. (2015).46 However, Italian marble companies are culturally tighter than those of Turkey in that they show a stronger tendency to comply with the norms set by their organizations, another study found;47 as Italy’s society is less tight than Turkey’s this finding implies that in respect of tightness-looseness organizational cultures may differ from societal cultures.

Culture as an institution Over recent years, culture has acquired the status of a major influence on economic variables from national economic growth to the location decisions of multinational enterprises. This status is derived from culture’s position as an element of countries’ institutions. In institutional theory, economic activity, business systems and organizations’ decisions are constrained by the institutions of the places (generally countries) where they potentially or actually operate. Institutions are: social structures that have attained a high degree of resilience. [They] are composed of cultural-cognitive, normative and regulative elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life. Institutions are transmitted by various types of carriers; these include symbolic systems, relational systems, routines, and artefacts. Institutions operate at different levels of jurisdiction, from

38  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

the world system to localized interpersonal relationships. Institutions by definition connote stability but are subject to change processes, both incremental and discontinuous.48

• Routine, everyday cognition relies heavily and uncriti-

cally on culturally available schemata – knowledge structures that represent objects or events and provide default assumptions about their characteristics, relationships and entailments under conditions of incomplete information:

The ‘cultural-cognitive’ element of institutions referred to in this quotation includes traditions, taken-for-granted rules and conventions, and preconscious widely accepted customs. This element ‘equates to culture’.49 Exploratory research by Guirdham (2009) suggested that a subelement of institutions, business culture, differed across five Asian countries and was influential in a whole range of business decisions. As a result, patterns of ownership, financing, governance, organization, management and strategy also differed across the five countries.50

Schemata are both representations of knowledge and information-processing mechanisms. … Much cognitive research demonstrates that schematic material dominates other material in accurate recall, in intruded recall, in recognition confidence, in recall clustering and in resistance to disconfirmation ... . Schemata also facilitate inaccurate recall when the information is schema consistent. In schematic cognition we find the mechanisms by which culture shapes and biases thought.51

  3.2.3 to learn more about culture as an institution.

Culture as a strategic resource Modern research in cognitive psychology suggests that our minds are full of images, opinions and information, to which we are inclined to attribute accuracy and plausibility, even though we don’t really know how truthful or accurate they are. Research on memory reveals that information (including false information) passes into memory without being ‘tagged’ as to source or credibility, and that if later we need to know its source we have to work it out. People store and retain with a default value of ‘correct’ almost every image or idea with which they come into contact. Within this perspective on cognitive psychology, culture is seen as a large toolkit on which people draw to make decisions about how to behave. People do sometimes behave as if they use culture strategically. This means that individuals do not acquire a unique culture by imbibing it (and no other) through socialization. Different situations cue differing cultural frames; this helps explain findings that culture is fragmented across groups and inconsistent across its manifestations. This in turn explains the capacity of individuals to participate in multiple cultural traditions, even when those traditions contain inconsistent elements. The finding that culture is stored in memory as an indiscriminately assembled and relatively unorganized collection of odds and ends imposes a far stronger organizing burden on people (here referred to as actors) than did the earlier highly socialized view. The question, then, is how the actor organizes the information that she or he possesses. Psychological research points to two quite different mechanisms or modes of cognition:

•

People are more likely to perceive information that relates to existing schemata and to recall schematically embedded information more quickly and more ­accurately; they may even falsely recall schematically embedded events that did not occur. For example, a supervisor might ‘recall’ an error of a subordinate that the subordinate did not in fact make. Research on social cognition enhances our understanding of how culture constrains behaviour but it does not support theories that depict culture as overwhelmingly determining. In contrast to automatic thought, psychologists have noted a quite different form of cognition, which is ‘explicit, verbalized, slow, and deliberate’.52 When sufficiently motivated, people can override programmed modes of thought to think critically and reflexively. In these circumstances, the influence of culture may be minimal. Psychological research suggests that people shift into deliberative modes of thought relatively easily when their attention is drawn to an issue; they may also shift from automatic to deliberative cognition when they are strongly motivated to do so; finally, people shift to more deliberative modes of processing when existing schemata fail to account adequately for new stimuli. Cultural understandings may be fragmented by domain, so that when persons or groups switch from one domain to another, their perspectives, attitudes, preferences and dispositions may change radically.53

According to Dimaggio (1997), it follows from this culture-as-a-toolkit perspective that large-scale cultural changes may be caused by more-or-less simultaneous frame switches by many interdependent actors. This implies that the strategic resource perspective can be used to account for cultural difference, although no published research has done so.

HOW CULTURES VARY  39

  3.2.4 for an alternative view of the relationship between the strategic resource perspective and cultural difference.

3.3 COUNTRY CLUSTERING In country clustering, statistical methods identify and group countries that share certain characteristics. Country clustering raises the possibility of identifying groups of countries that communicate similarly at work, although as yet such research has not been published. Country clustering is an attempt to overcome the limitation noted in Section 3.1 that basic dimensional approaches do not score or allow a comparison of the overall cultures of two countries. One example of the groupings emerging from clustering studies include the World Values Surveys groupings of English-speaking, Confucian and ex-Communist countries, Protestant and Catholic Europe, South Asia, Latin America and Africa that were described in Section 3.1.54 A different set of clusters consists of broad cultural groupings of nations, based on the Schwartz (1999) values taxonomy described in 3.1. These groupings are related to geographical proximity but are also based on other factors such as shared histories, religion, levels of development and contact with other cultures. The regions to which the countries in this sample were allocated are:

• the Western European nations (high in autonomy, • •

egalitarianism and mastery – except Italy, which was high in harmony); the English-speaking nations (high in mastery and autonomy, intermediate in hierarchy/egalitarianism); and the Eastern European nations (high in harmony, conservatism, intermediate in hierarchy/egalitarianism).

Islamic countries (high in hierarchy, conservatism, intermediate in mastery/harmony), East Asian and subSaharan African countries formed other groups. Thus empirical work based on Schwartz’s (1999) theory yielded meaningful transnational groupings, which may correspond closely to culture.55  3.3.1 for another example of the implications for organizations of clusters based on work attitudes.

There is an alternative clustering of countries that is useful for understanding cultural differences in work communication. These clusters were based on work attitudes

and so might be more closely linked to work communication than the general societal values. Eleven main clusters of countries emerged – Far Eastern, Confucian, African, Anglo, Germanic, Nordic, Latin Europe, East Europe, Latin America, Near East and Arab. These clusters vary in how cohesive they are. The Latin American cluster, for instance, is not highly cohesive – geographical proximity, use of the Spanish language and the predominance of the Roman Catholic version of the Christian religion are not, it seems, enough to produce a highly cohesive cluster. The Anglo and the Confucian clusters, however, are high in cohesiveness; they also provide an illuminating contrast: Both are high on future orientation and performance orientation, [but] they are almost diametrically opposed on other dimensions. The Anglo cluster is high on individualism, participative leadership, coaching, general communication, and reliance on specialists, and low on power distance, uncertainty avoidance, autonomous leadership, self-protective leadership, and reliance on unwritten rules. In contrast, the Confucian cluster is high on power distance, uncertainty avoidance, autonomous leadership, self-protective leadership, reliance on vertical sources, unwritten guidance rules, and widespread beliefs, and low on individualism, participative leadership, and reliance on specialists and co-workers. A number of implications can be drawn from this comparison. For instance, the Anglo cluster is characterized by a high degree of participative leadership and a low power distance; combined, this translates into a high level of involving others in making and implementing decisions. In contrast, the Confucian cluster shows a low degree of participative leadership and high power distance, suggesting a low level of involving others in making and implementing decisions.56 Country clustering such as this has admitted limitations: for example, there is a loss of data and richness, as within-group diversity is overlooked; on the other hand, data manageability is enhanced. What other criticisms of country clustering occur to you?

CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY

• Values-based approaches to analysing cultures and cultural difference include Hofstede’s (1981 and 1991) dimensions, which distinguish individualism– collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance,

40  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

•

•

masculinity/femininity and long-term/short-term orientation as the primary cultural values; and Schwartz and colleagues’ (1999) which identifies ten ‘motivational’ values and considers their hierarchical ordering across the world. Values surveys, which are longitudinal and so reflect trends, are also described. Despite criticism, these taxonomic approaches have led to an increase in our understanding of how cultural differences affect work and work communication. Alternative approaches emphasize five different facets of culture: high-context/low-context communication, subjective culture, tightness-looseness, culture as an element in the institutional framework of a country or region and culture as a ‘toolkit’. This last is a modern view that draws on the findings of cognitive psychology and argues that culture is a resource that people deploy strategically to make decisions, judge behaviours and govern their own behaviours; when they are motivated people can and do override cultural prescriptions, although routine, everyday transactions and interactions rely on cultural programmes. These five approaches are insightful although they lack rigorous testing. Country clustering allows countries to be grouped as more similar to one another than to other countries in different groups. A clustering of countries based on work attitudes may provide groupings of countries more closely linked to differences in work communication than those of societal values. There is little empirical research available, however, in relation to country clusters and work.

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Hofstede, G. (1981) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London: Harper Collins. 2 Bazerman, M.H., Curhan, J.R., Moore, D.A. and Valley, K.L. (2000) ‘Negotiation’, Annual Review of Psychology, 51: 279–314. 3 Earley, P.C. (1999) ‘Playing follow the leader: Statusdetermining traits in relation to collective efficacy across cultures’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80(3): 192–212. 4 Bontempo, R.N., Bottom, W.P. and Weber, E.U. (1997) ‘Cross-cultural differences in risk perception: A model-based approach’, Risk Analysis, 17(4): 479–88. 5 Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. (1997) ‘What differences in the cultural backgrounds of partners are detrimental for international joint ventures?’, Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4): 845–64. 6 Prewitt-Freilino, J.L., Caswell, T.A. and Laakso, E.K. (2012) ‘The gendering of language: A comparison of gender equality in countries with gendered, natural gender, and genderless languages’, Sex Roles, 66(3–4): 268–81.

7 Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (Vol. 2), London: McGraw-Hill. 8 Alkhazraji, K.M., Gardner III, W.M., Martin, J.S. and Paolillo, J.G.P. (1997) ‘The acculturation of immigrants to US organizations: the case of Muslim employees’, Management Communication Quarterly, 11(2): 217–65. 9 Erumban, A.A. and de Jong, S.B. (2006) ‘Cross-country differences in ICT adoption: A consequence of culture?’ Journal of World Business, 41(4): 302–14. 10 Sagie, A. and Aycan, Z. (2003) ‘A cross-cultural analysis of participative decision-making in organizations’, Human Relations, 56: 453–73. 11 Furrer, O., Shaw-Ching, B. and Sudharshan, L.D. (2000) ‘The relationships between culture and service quality perceptions: basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation’, Journal of Service Research, May: 355–71. 12 Taras, V., Kirkman, B.L. and Steel, P. (2010) ‘Examining the impact of “Culture’s Consequences”: A threedecade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3): 405. 13 Schwartz, S.H. (1999) ‘Cultural value differences: Some implications for work’, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48: 23–47. 14 Schwartz, S.H. and Bardi, A. (2001) ‘Value hierarchies across cultures: taking a similarities perspective’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3): 268–90. 15 Sagiv, L. and Schwartz, S.H. (2000) ‘A new look at national cultures: illustrative applications to role stress and managerial behavior’, in Ashkanasy, N.N., Wilderom, C. and Peterson, M.F. (eds) The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 16 Harinck, F., Shafa, S., Ellemers, N. and Beersma, B. (2013) ‘The good news about honor culture: The preference for cooperative conflict management in the absence of insults’, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(2): 67–78. 17 Leung, A.K.Y. and Cohen, D. (2011) ‘Within- and between-culture variation: individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3): 507. 18 Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy, New York: Cambridge University Press. 19 See http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 20 Snir, R. and Harpaz, I. (2009) ‘Cross-cultural differences concerning heavy work investment’, Cross-­ Cultural Research, 43(4): 309–19.

HOW CULTURES VARY  41

21 England, G.W. (1995) ‘National work meanings and patterns: Constraints on managerial action’, in ­Jackson, T. (ed.) Cross-Cultural Management, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. 22 Lingnan, O.S. (2003) ‘Job stress and job performance among employees in Hong Kong: the role of Chinese work values and organizational commitment’, International Journal of Psychology, 38(6): 337–47. 23 Parboteeah, K.P., Cullen, J.B. and Paik, Y. (2013) ‘National differences in intrinsic and extrinsic work values: The effects of post-industrialization’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 13(2): 159–74. 24 Tayeb, M.H. (1996) The Management of a Multicultural Workforce, England: John Wiley. 25 Aldridge, M.G. (2002) ‘What is the basis of American culture?’ in Intercultural communication: A global reader, 84–98, URL: http://immi.se/intercultural/nr5/ aldridge.htm. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 26 Ota, H., McCann, R.M. and Honeycutt, J.M. (2012) ‘Inter-Asian Variability in Intergenerational Communication’, Human Communication Research, 38(2): 172–98. 27 Based on: http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 28 Hall, E.T. (1976) Beyond Culture, New York: Doubleday. 29 Ibid. 30 Würtz, E. (2005) ‘A cross-cultural analysis of websites from high-context cultures and low-context cultures’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1): 13. 31 Nelson, G.L., Al Batal, M. and El Bakary, W. (2002) ‘Directness vs. indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English communication style’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(1): 39–57. 32 Dahl, S. (2004) ‘Intercultural research: The current state of knowledge’, Middlesex University Discussion Paper No. 26. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn. com/abstract=658202 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.658202. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 33 Xie, A., Rau, P.P.L., Tseng, Y., Su, H. and Chen Z. (2008) ‘Cross-cultural influence on communication effectiveness and user interface design’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(1): 11–20. 34 Kim, D., Pan, Y. and Park, H.S. (1998) ‘High- versus lowcontext culture: A comparison of Chinese, Korean, and American cultures’, Psychology and Marketing, 15(6): 507–21. 35 Weldon, E. (1997) ‘Intercultural interaction and conflict management in US–Chinese joint ventures’, in Stewart, S. (ed.) Advances in Chinese Industrial Organization, Vol. 4, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 36 Ting-Toomey, S. (1988) ‘Intercultural conflict styles: a face-negotiation theory’, in Kim, Y.Y. and Gudykunst,

37 38

39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46

47

48 49

50 51 52 53 54 55 56

W.B. (eds) Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Würtz, op. cit. Okabe, R. (1983) ‘Cultural assumptions of East and West: Japan and the United States’, in Gudykunst, W. (ed.) Intercultural Communication Theory, Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Thomas, J. (1998) ‘Contexting Koreans: does the high/ low model work?’, Business Communication Quarterly, 61(4): 9–22. Cardon, P.W. (2008) ‘A Critique of Hall’s contexting model: A Meta-analysis of literature on intercultural business and technical communication’, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(4): 399–428. Triandis, H.C. and Suh, E.M. (2002) ‘Cultural influences on personality’, Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1): 133–60. Triandis, H.C. (1972) The Analysis Of Subjective Culture, Oxford, England: Wiley-Interscience. Triandis and Suh, op. cit. Gelfand, M.J., Nishii, L.H. and Raver, J.L. (2006) ‘On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1225. Triandis and Suh, op. cit. Aktas, M., Gelfand, M. and Hanges, P. (2015) ‘­Cultural tightness–looseness and perceptions of effective leadership’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(2): 294–309. Ozeren, E., Ozmen, O.N.T. and Appolloni, A. (2013) ‘The relationship between cultural tightness–looseness and organizational innovativeness: a comparative research into the Turkish and Italian marble industries’, Transition Studies Review, 19(4): 475–92. Scott, W.R. (1995 and 2001) Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ahlstrom, D. and Bruton, G.D. (2002) ‘An institutional perspective on the role of culture in shaping strategic actions by technology-focused entrepreneurial firms in China’, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26(4): 53–69. Guirdham, M. (2009) Culture and Business in Asia, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Dimaggio, P. (1997) ‘Culture and cognition’, Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1): 263–87. Ibid. Ibid. URL: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp. Last accessed 17 September 2016. Sagiv and Schwartz, op. cit. Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (2013) ‘Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources and implications’, Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9): 867–97.

4 1 CULTURE AND WORK This chapter examines the effect of culture on some important contexts for work communication, drawing on concepts and findings that have been introduced in previous chapters. Section 4.1 expands on the topic of how culture and cultural differences affect work behaviour generally. (The impact of culture on work communication, which, though a type of work behaviour, has characteristics of its own, is covered in Chapter 5.) Section 4.2 first considers the impact of culture on work organization then its effects on organizational cultures and management. Section 4.3 shows how culture influences two key aspects of an organization’s environment: the operation of networks and the presence and extent of corruption.

• Culture

•

4.1 THE IMPACT OF CULTURE ON WORK BEHAVIOUR There is extensive evidence that culture influences work behaviour and its antecedents such as attitudes. Findings show cultural and national differences in preferences regarding standardization and for being challenged at work, work centrality, distributive justice perceptions, attitudes to punctuality and deadlines, work ethics more generally, organizational citizenship behaviour, attitudes to risk, concepts of power, status at work, responses to low job satisfaction, norms and productivity and conformity in groupwork. Table 4.1 summarizes these effects of cultural difference. The following give more detail on the examples of cultural influences on work behaviour listed in Table 4.1:

• •

• Professional

employees from high power-distance, high uncertainty-avoidance and high-context cultures prefer greater standardization of their service-related activity across offices and geographies whereas professional employees from high-individualism cultures prefer less standardization.1

42

•

strongly influences work centrality and although the effect is modified by institutions such as socialism, union strength, educational accessibility, social inequality, and industrialization,2 culture also influences these institutions. Again, when young people start work, it is usual for their level of work centrality to increase, but culture has an effect on this: countries high in uncertainty avoidance (UA) show the greatest increases in work centrality among young people starting work. The smallest increases occur in countries high in masculinity.3 ‘Cultures nurture different views of what is desirable and meaningful to do with power.’4 Vertical individualists conceive of power as a means of advancing personal status and prestige, whereas horizontal collectivists see it in terms of benefiting and helping others. Cultural variables predict beliefs about appropriate uses of power, episodic memories about power, attitudes in the service of power goals, and the contexts and ways in which power is used and defended. Evidence for the cultural patterning of power concepts is observed at both the individual level and the culturalgroup level of analysis.5 Whereas for individualists status is linked to competence, for collectivists it is associated with warmth. This difference affects both to whom evaluators ascribe status and what people at work do in order to achieve status.6 The behavioural responses to low job satisfaction of participants in Hong Kong and New Zealand were influenced by individualism–collectivism. Whether employees responded to low job satisfaction with exit, voice, loyalty or neglect was affected by their collectivism or individualism; this cultural variable also moderated the effect of quality of job alternatives and job satisfaction on exit and loyalty, and of quality of job alternatives on voice.7 Productivity and conformity, basic aspects of group performance, differ substantially by culture:

CULTURE AND WORK  43

Table 4.1.  Examples of how cultural differences influence work behaviour Cultural Dimensions

Effect At Work

High power distance, high uncertainty avoidance and high-context cultures

Preference for standardized professional services

High individualism

Preference for less standardized professional services

High uncertainty avoidance

Large increases in work centrality among young people starting work

High masculinity

Least increase in work centrality among young people starting work

Vertical individualism

Power seen as a means of advancing personal status and prestige

Horizontal collectivism

Power seen as a means of benefiting and helping others

Individualism

Status is linked to competence

Collectivism

Status is linked to warmth

Individualism–collectivism

Whether employees respond to low job satisfaction with exit, voice, loyalty or neglect

Collectivism

Productivity and conformity high (at least in face-to-face interactions)

See Table 4.2

Work norms

•

a meta-analysis of 133 replications of the Asch conformity study (which found that people tend to agree with the judgement of a group even when it contradicts what they can see in front of them), found that conformity was even higher among those with high scores on the collectivist pole of Hofstede’s (1981) individualism–collectivism value dimension.8 More recently, however, differences in the degree of conformity shown by collectivists versus individualists have been found, but only in face-to-face conditions, not in cmc. These findings suggest that communication mode can override culture in at least some respects.9 Table 4.2 shows how different cultural values can affect the norms applied to work behaviour. Other findings distinguish differences among countries:

• Social loafing is the tendency to work less hard in groups than alone, partly because effort is less likely to

•

bring personal reward than it is when working independently; it is a pattern found in the West. However, in China, Israel and Japan, social loafing is not only absent, but significantly reversed. In studies, subjects who endorsed collectivist values worked harder in group settings than individually.10 There are national differences in preferences regarding and perceptions of distributive justice (fair or unfair differences in rewards relative to status and work contribution). Employees in Belgium, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain tend to prefer equality-based pay policies that reward group-level effort and efficiency. In contrast, Danish, German, Irish and British employees prefer equitable pay policies that reward individuals. Again, distributive justice is less strongly related to overall fairness for Americans and Japanese than for Chinese and Koreans, but perceived fairness has a stronger effect on job satisfaction for Americans than for Chinese, Koreans and Japanese and on intentions to leave a job for Americans than for Chinese or Koreans.11

Table 4.2  Effects of cultural values on work norms Cultural Values

Work Norms

High power distance

Penalties for breaches apply more to lower members; higher ones are ‘above the law’; norms are imposed by leaders rather than emerging by consensus.

High masculinity (achievement)

Adherence to norms is more enforced in more punitive ways than it is in feminine cultures.

High uncertainty avoidance

Norms are more rigid – there is less scope for different interpretations than in low uncertainty-avoidance cultures.

High collectivism

Norms concerned with loyalty to the group are emphasized; there are different norms for ingroup versus outgroup members.

44  cuLTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

• Across nine countries – Canada, Ghana, India, Japan,

•

Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Trinidad and the USA – the perceived legitimacy of absenteeism, responses to absence scenarios, and self-reported absence (factors related to work ethics), work centrality, locus of control, polychronicity, preference for gender-role differentiation, and perceived social support all differed significantly.12 Indian and British employees embrace very different work ethics, a study of a financial services company operating in the UK and India found. A UK respondent, for instance, was quoted as saying, I think the whole work ethic is fantastic in India. I think if I need something done, someone in India will do it. In the UK you’ve got to jump through hoops sometimes to get people to accept changes to processes, changes to procedures. They can see it as a bit of a hassle whereas in India they’re enthusiastic about it because it’s something different and they’re so willing to demonstrate that they can do things well.13

• Arab employees tend to perceive both altruism and

•

civic virtue, which are two dimensions of organizational citizenship behaviour, as part of the job rather than beyond their role; and collectivism is a significant predictor of altruism for Arabs while procedural justice and job satisfaction are significant predictors of civic virtue.14 In contrast, government control in China ‘breeds lots of hidden rules that are invisible, informal and customary but widely recognized and adopted’. ‘There are channels for acquiring resources that are shamed to be made known to the public, sometimes illegal and immoral.’15 Within Asia, attitudes to risk and change vary significantly between countries, exploratory research by one of the present authors suggested.16 Table 4.3 shows the findings. The European Values Survey found that the data ‘show higher levels overall and wider crosscountry differences for expressive than instrumental work values’. What might account for this finding?

  4.1.1 for more on the impact of culture on work behaviour, including entrepreneurialism.

4.2 THE IMPACT OF CULTURE ON WORK ORGANIZATION, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES AND MANAGEMENT The structures and processes of organizations are important elements of the context for work communication; so are organizational cultures and managerial practices, beliefs and styles. All these are influenced by national culture. For example, lean manufacturing is most effective in countries that value high uncertainty avoidance, low assertiveness, low future orientation and low performance orientation.17 This section shows how culture influences organizational structures and practices, organizational cultures, and managerial practices, beliefs and styles.

Organizational structures and practices Attitudes to hierarchy, business control and decisionmaking, corporate governance and business ethics, organizational communication practices, employment relationships, effects of equal opportunities policies, and innovation practices are among features of organization that are often influenced by culture.

Attitudes to hierarchy and business control and decision-making Organizational structures and the designated work roles derived from them are extensively affected by cultural values: high power distance leads to steep hierarchies and narrow spans of control (and vice-versa for low power distance); high uncertainty avoidance to strict adherence to job descriptions and formality (and vice-versa for low uncertainty avoidance); individualism to an emphasis on personal responsibility; collectivism to an emphasis on group responsibility; high masculinity to prioritizing task orientation; high femininity to maintenance orientation.

Table 4.3  Attitudes to risk in five Asian countries

Attitudes to risk

China

India

Japan

Taiwan

Singapore

Some are gamblers, some are rational risk-takers

An individual, not a cultural matter

Risk-averse

Not risk-averse and able to handle risk effectively

Singaporean Chinese are risktakers; multinational (MNE) employees are not

CULTURE AND WORK  45

Table 4.4  Extent and nature of personalism and importance of hierarchy in five Asian countries Personalism in

business control and decisionmaking Importance of hierarchy

China

India

Japan

High – guanxi operates within organizations

High familism, High – personal High – pride in some casteism relations with business ownership others in the is a key value organization outweigh systems

Low – meritocracy except in the small and medium enterprise (SME) sector

High

Very high – boss- Low – status and subordinate power are not relations are equivalent ‘master-servant’

n/a

There are differences in the importance of hierarchy and in the practice of business control and decisionmaking across five Asian countries, according to research by one of the present authors. Table 4.4 shows the findings. As Table 4.4 shows, only in Singapore is there a claim that knowledge, skill and experience widely decide who exercises business control and makes business decisions. In the other four countries personalism prevails but it takes different forms – connections in China, family or caste ties in India, personal experience of working together in Japan and ownership in Taiwan are the deciding factors. These differences are reinforced or mitigated by the effects of attitudes to hierarchy: in India, the combination of personalism and the high importance attached to hierarchy excludes members of some castes from a decision-making role in many companies; in Japan, however, the preference for consensual as against individual decision-making can widen the range of people involved beyond those with whom the nominal decision-maker has worked in the past.

Corporate governance, business ethics and culture Systems of corporate governance are influenced by culture. In the words of Salacuse (2003): ‘Corporate regulatory systems in both law and practice have been shaped not only by national policies, but also by the cultures of the countries concerned. Differing systems for regulating corporations, [are] based … on strong cultural preferences.’18

Taiwan

Singapore

Medium – high in older companies, lower in new technology-based companies

For example, whereas in the Dutch and Danish systems a two-tier board (one supervisory, one executive) was common, in Great Britain only one tier was usual, a 2001 study showed. It also found that managerial discretion in Denmark and the Netherlands was restricted by both the supervisory board and a workforce board, whereas only shareholders restricted managerial discretion in Great ­Britain.19 These differences may in part reflect the fact that the UK is much higher in masculinity than either Denmark or the Netherlands and so less inclined to restrict top executives’ power. Again, the governance practices of businesses in five Asian countries were influenced by the national business culture, Guirdham (2009) found.20 Table 4.5 shows the findings. As Table 4.5 shows, corporate governance is generally weak in the countries of Asia where collectivism is a core value. Singapore’s and Hong Kong’s exceptionalism are probably due to and apply only to their dominant multinational sectors. Corporate codes of ethics are other aspects of governance that have been linked to social culture. For example, according to a 2013 study, Australian negotiators felt that corporate codes of ethics (CCEs) concerning bribery ought not to be broken, that there were serious implications if they were broken and that rules were intended to direct employee behaviour; in contrast, Chinese negotiators did not link the intent of the code to their behaviour. They expressed a belief that the code’s purpose was to earn income for the company or to facilitate market entry and thought that policies should change according to special circumstances or

Table 4.5  Corporate governance in five Asian countries

Corporate governance

China*

India**

Japan

Taiwan

Singapore

Weak

Weak

Weak

Weak

Strong

Notes: *Governance in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is stronger. **Being addressed seriously by the government.

46  cuLTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

market needs. Again, the majority of Australian participants said that in response to a potential breach of a CCE, they would bring up the issue to more senior managers and comply with their advice. Chinese negotiators sometimes concurred in this but more commonly responded to a potential breach by seeking a creative way around the code that would allow the company to achieve its objective.21

Cultural differences in employment relationships Many employment-related practices that are valued and widely applied in the USA, the UK and Canada are seen as far less important in Italy, Japan and Korea and positively devalued in France and Germany. Table 4.6 shows the differences.

Organizational communication practices and culture

Try to work out which, if any, of the Hofstede (1981) cultural values explained in Chapter 3 might account for these cross-country differences. Then check to see if your calculation is plausible.   4.2. 2, for a website that gives the necessary data.

Whether, when and how organizations communicate with their employees and external stakeholders differ, at least to some extent, by culture. Relationships among organizational culture themes, employee values, organizational communication activities, and perceptions of a variety of organizational outcomes are similar but not identical for US and European high-technology organizations, a study showed.22

The extent of personalism in employment relationships varies across five Asian countries, research by one of the present authors suggested. Table 4.7 shows the findings. Merit plays a role in employment policy in all these collectivist-culture countries, but in more traditional sectors connections or seniority are more important.

 4.2.1 for more examples of cultural differences in business ethics.

Table 4.6  Variations in employment-related practices across eight countries 23 Employment-Related Practice

USA, UK and Canada

Italy, Japan, S. Korea

France, Germany

Pay systems that promote performance

Valued and widely applied

Seen as unimportant

Positively devalued

Wide spans of control that promote delayering

Valued and widely applied

Seen as unimportant

Positively devalued

Eradication of specialized and directed workforces

Valued and widely applied

Seen as unimportant

Positively devalued

Reliance on flexible cross-functional teams

Valued and widely applied

Seen as unimportant

Positively devalued

Promotion of employee empowerment and involvement

Valued and widely applied

Seen as unimportant

Positively devalued

An emphasis on management development

Valued and widely applied

Seen as unimportant

Positively devalued

Analysis of individual performance

Valued and widely applied

Seen as unimportant

Positively devalued

Rewards for business productivity gains

Valued and widely applied

Seen as unimportant

Positively devalued

Sharing of benefits, risks and costs with the workforce

Valued and widely applied

Seen as unimportant

Positively devalued

Table 4.7  Extent of personalism in employment and work relations in five Asian countries

Personalism in employment and work relations

China

India

Japan

Taiwan

Singapore

Mixed, but China not a meritocracy

In traditional businesses personalism prevails and work relationships are allembracing; the modern private companies use merit-based systems

Organizations are communities of their employees; in big companies, appointment is meritbased but promotion is seniority-based

High in older companies; low in newer technologybased companies

Meritocratic except in the SME sector where familism prevails

CULTURE AND WORK  47

Table 4.8  Innovation and creativity in five Asian countries China

India

Japan

Taiwan

Singapore

Low (but fast copiers)

Low (but good problem-solvers)

Low except in technological products; good modifiers

Low (but good at reverse engineering)

Low (but MNCs bring innovation)

• There are differences linked to national culture across

Effects of equal opportunities policies Lower levels of cultural power distance increase the positive impact of equal opportunities policies on performance. Individualism, though, seems not to affect this relationship.24  4.2.3 for a link to a PowerPoint analysis of the relation of national culture and organizations.

Innovation practices and culture The available research on the relation between societal culture and innovativeness is limited, but what there is supports the idea of a significant link:

• Cultural differences in innovation practices in organi-

zations in Argentina, Brazil, New Zealand, Turkey and the United States were found by a study published in 2014. Levels of individualism and cultural tightnesslooseness as well as macroeconomic indicators explain these differences.25

five Asian countries, research by one of the present authors suggested. Table 4.8 shows the findings.

Traditional emphasis on rote-learning in education may help account for the relatively low rate of innovation in these countries by comparison with Anglo countries. Such learning patterns are associated with low cultural individualism.

Organizational cultures and national culture Organizational cultures are clearly important: for example, in the words of Hofstede (1994), ‘Common organizational cultures across borders are what keep multinationals together.’26 Hofstede (1981) identified six types of organizational cultures closely related to his dimensions of societal culture. Figure 4.1 shows Hofstede’s (1981) labels for the six kinds of organizational culture and their characteristics.

Figure 4.1  Types of organizational culture and their characteristics (Hofstede 1981)27 Results-oriented

Process-oriented Emphasizes technical and bureaucratic routines

Job-oriented

Professional Cosmopolitan outlook

Versus

Versus

Versus

Open system Open in communication Easy entry for outsiders and newcomers

Versus

Tightly controlled High formality and punctuality required of staff*

Versus

Pragmatic Flexible approach to environment; customeroriented

Versus

Focus on outcomes

Employee-oriented

Parochial Local outlook

Closed system Limited openness in communication Limited entry for outsiders and newcomers Loosely controlled Low formality and punctuality required of staff* Normative Rigid approach to environment, including customers

*Partly related to technology – cf. banks vs advertising agencies, but some variation found within technologies

48  cuLTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION Identify the relationships of the organizational cultural dimensions in Figure 4.1 to Hofstede’s societal cultural values.

Differences in organizational cultures can outweigh differences in national cultures: they have more effect on international joint venture performance, for instance28, and on international technology transfer.29 Again, diverse organizations with collectivist cultures show differences in workbased communication, conflict, creativity and productivity compared with similar organizations with individualist cultures. For instance, dissimilar co-workers in collectivist organizations communicated more by memos and less by face-to-face interaction than either non-dissimilar coworkers in collectivist organizations or dissimilar co-workers in individualist organizations. When people were more different from their co-workers they were more reluctant to interact in person.30   4.2.4 for examples of the differences in conflict, creativity and productivity between organizations with collectivist and organizations with individualist cultures.

The main question of interest here, however, is whether organizational cultures are significantly affected by national cultures. Research into this question has produced conflicting results:

• On the one hand an assessment of the cultures of an

•

American, a Japanese and a Taiwanese bank, as well as an American bank operating in Taiwan, confirmed that organizational cultures differed as a result of the impact of national cultures.31 Again, ‘societal cultural values and practices affect organizational culture and practices’ both directly and through influencing leadership practices, the GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) study of culture, organizations and leadership found.32 On the other hand, most of the variance in organizational cultures is not explained by country and of the variance that is explained by country, only a minority is due to national culture differences, Gerhart (2009) found from a review of the literature.33 In addition, the norms on which organizational culture is based are subject to a process of globalization that reduces cross-cultural and national differences, Vertinsky et al. (1990) suggested. These authors, however, acknowledged that some norms of organizational design and management reflect national culture values and are resistant to change and convergence.34

Recent years have seen a trend for organizations to develop and emphasize their ‘organizational culture’ in order to unite their employees and coordinate their approaches at a deeper level than that achieved by plans and strategies. ­Consider the implications of your reading so far in this book for this process.

Culture and management Perceptions of managerial effectiveness, managers’ work practices, task versus relationships orientation of managers, management roles and styles and managerial beliefs are all affected by culture.

Perceptions of managerial effectiveness and culture Assumptions about what makes a good manager are influenced by national culture. Across Europe, for instance, there are marked differences in the skills, qualities and competencies that are perceived to be central to the performance and the consequent expectations of managers: ‘While Anglo-Saxon managers emphasize the need for interpersonal skills and job visibility, being labelled “high potential” is the most important criterion for French managers (reflecting the elitist management development systems), and having a creative mind is the most important indicator for German managers.’35

Managers’ work practices French, British and American managers’ work practices differ in ways related to power distance, uncertainty avoidance (UA) and individualism. French managers typically view organizations as a formal pyramid of differentiated levels of power, and think that success stems from their ability to ‘work the system’ by managing power relationships effectively, a study found. Early attempts to transfer Management by Objectives (MBO) to France were unsuccessful because the idea of supervisor and subordinate jointly reaching decisions about the subordinate’s performance was inconsistent with the importance of hierarchy in French organizations. In France, typically only the supervisor or manager has power, so MBO meant that subordinates were held responsible for goals without having the power to achieve those goals. Similarly, the ideas of matrix management are quite inconsistent with the way French managers view authority: ‘How can someone take orders from two bosses?’ In contrast, British managers hold a less hierarchical view of organizations; they see them primarily as a network of relationships among individuals who get things done by influencing each other through communication and negotiation. Higher French UA is reflected in their being less willing to show trust, allow participation in

CULTURE AND WORK  49

decisions and share information than people from Anglo countries (British and Americans). French managers have been found to be preoccupied with absolute accuracy for all control indicators and less concerned about what the data implies.36

Culture and task versus relationship orientation of managers Culture influences the relative emphasis that managers place on tasks or relationships. A comparison of Nordic, Latin-European and Hungarian managers’ management styles found the strongest task orientation in Latin Europe, whereas the most intense employee orientation was found in the Nordic countries. Latin-European managers scored lower on consideration ‘as their cultures seem to support a more authoritarian manager who decides without any negotiation with his or her subordinates.’37 Task behaviour was further analysed, showing that Nordic managers emphasized planning and order, whereas Latin-European managers relied on goals, information and supervision behaviour. ‘This seems to be indicative of the more authoritarian character of Latin-European managers, while Nordic managers plan more beforehand and communicate more with their subordinates.’ In terms of relations to employees, Nordic managers were considerate. They relied on their subordinates, supported them, allowed them to make decisions and showed regard for them as individuals. Latin-European managers created ‘an atmosphere free of conflict’, probably by using direct supervision and clear rules and principles. Power seemed to be more centralized in Latin-European organizations. ‘Managers have the knowledge and make the decisions. There are no negotiations and therefore there is a low conflict level in their organizations. Latin-European managers seem to have much more of the boss-oriented mentality in their organizations: the boss is the head of the organization and does not expect ideas and support from the lower levels.’38 Does a relationship orientation conflict with getting the job done? Give your reasons. How can a relationship orientation be communicated? Does it vary according to the culture?

Culture and management roles and styles Research has pointed to significant national differences in management roles and styles. The cultural definition of a manager’s role contributes to whether he or she structures activities alone or with peers, and to the tendency to invite or disregard subordinates’ input.39 Again,

a four-country survey of general managers on their perceptions of national management style found significant differences in the perceived formality of structures and controls, individual versus team development, employee involvement in setting goals and the appraisal process, intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards and frequency of feedback.40

Cultural differences in managerial beliefs and practices Culture and managerial beliefs have been linked since the early studies of Haire et al. (1966).41 Their survey of 3,500 managers in 14 countries around the world found that about 28 per cent of the variance in managerial beliefs about participation and in the capacity of their subordinates to participate effectively could be accounted for by nationality alone. The countries could be grouped, on the basis of the managers’ responses, into four clusters: Nordic-European, Latin-European, Anglo-American and developing countries.42 A cultural explanation of these findings was supported by later findings that Australian managers’ leadership beliefs were similar to those in the Anglo-American group.43 Managers’ goals, preferences for taking risks, pragmatism, interpersonal competence, effective intelligence, emotional stability, and leadership style are linked to national cultures, another study across 12 countries showed.44 Studies of Greek managerial attitudes to subordinates’ capacities for leadership and initiative supported a cultural explanation; however, studies of Greek managerial attitudes to ‘sharing information with subordinates’ and ‘participative management’ showed ‘a low level of industrialization’ to be an explanatory variable so powerful that it offset the effects of cultural diversity.45 The researchers into Greek ­managerial attitudes cited at reference note 45 ­commented that national culture seemed to have more explanatory power for mature industrialized countries. Why might that be so? Does it seem likely to you?

4.3 THE IMPACT OF CULTURE ON WORK ENVIRONMENTS All the communication that takes place at work also takes place within the wider environment in which social and economic institutions are predominant elements. These social and economic institutions are themselves affected by culture. Culture has been linked to countries’ business systems,46 to national patterns of business ownership, financing and governance47 and to nations’ levels of civil

50  cuLTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

society and social capital.48 These huge topics are outside the scope of this book, but the impact of culture on two aspects of organizational environments that impact directly on work communication are considered: these are networks and corruption.

Networks The term ‘network’ usually refers to a loose organization of non-state actors characterized by voluntary, reciprocal and horizontal patterns of communication and exchange.49 The central argument of network theory is that actors (individual people or small groups or the organizations they represent) are embedded in networks of interconnected social relationships that offer opportunities for and constraints on behaviour. Culture has a strong influence on how dense and connected such networks are. For instance, Israeli networks are denser than the American equivalents, according to a replication in Israel of a study of Californian social networks.50 Culture, together with local social and business organizations and institutional arrangements, also goes far to explain the formation of interorganizational networks in the United States. Again, Scott (1987) showed that the different forms of inter-firm relations in Britain, France and Germany could be traced to their distinct patterns of historical development, and so to culture.51 Much of the institutional research on inter-firm structures in East Asia, such as that of Whitley (1992),52 has accounted for variations in network structures by focusing on cultural, political and historical contexts.53 Business cultures have been linked to the dense and highly interconnected phenomenon of business groups in East Asia.54 A Western procurement manager for an American firm exporting leather goods through Hong Kong found that members of the procurement unit routinely obtained supplies through their guanxi network instead of following company procedures of obtaining three quotes or, for larger amounts, by tender. When she raised the issue with them, they replied that they could always get a better deal through their contacts.55 Find other examples of cultural effects on how networks operate at work. Before you read the following paragraphs, consider what positive and negative consequences may flow from the prevalence of business networks.

According to network theory, networks inherently contain social capital, a competitive advantage enjoyed by members of the network. The advantage is based on the

fact that people cluster into groups as a result of interaction opportunities that arise in the places where they meet, the neighbourhoods they live in, the organizations they join and the projects they take part in. These contacts give them opportunities to obtain information. Networks also give rise to culture: communication is both more frequent and more influential within than between such groups so that people develop a common view of history, similar views of proper opinion and behaviour and ideas of how to move into the future.56 ‘What was once explicit knowledge interpretable by anyone becomes tacit knowledge meaningful only to insiders. Over time, the tacit knowledge becomes more complex, harder to move to outsiders or for outsiders to access. It becomes “sticky”.’57 This kind of information stickiness creates gaps in the information flow between groups – missing relationships that inhibit the flow of information, known as ‘structural holes’. There are two network sources of advantage for actors (whether individuals or organizations): closure and brokerage.

• Closure is about staying on your side of a structural

•

hole. ‘It is about the benefits of protection from variation in opinion and behaviour, protection afforded by focusing on connections with your own kind… . Structural holes prevent us from being overwhelmed by the diversity of knowledge on offer; they also enable organizations to effect control at lower cost.’58 Brokerage is about the benefits of exposure to variation in opinion and behaviour by building connections across structural holes. In business, network brokerage provides people, product, process and market enhancements to grow the business; closure provides labour, management and speed efficiencies that cut costs. Connecting across more holes means more exposure, which provides a vision advantage in selecting earlier between alternative ways to go, synthesising new ways to go, framing a proposal to be attractive to needed supporters and detecting potential supporters. … Network brokers enjoy more positive evaluations than their peers, higher compensation and faster promotions.59

(There are, however, costs in wasted time because not all new ideas are any good.) Burt (1992) put it succinctly, ‘Brokerage is about coordinating people whom it would be valuable, but risky, to trust. Closure is about making it safe to trust. The key to creating value is to put the two together. Bridging

CULTURE AND WORK  51

a structural hole can create value, but delivering value requires the closed network of a cohesive team around the bridge.’60 Networks occur within as well as between organizations, especially large ones, and there is evidence that national culture influences social network patterns within organizations. Thus, cultural differences appear in the bases for workplace friendships in multinational organizations. For instance, Korean employees are more strongly influenced than Americans in their workplace friendships by whether a co-worker is of the same gender and nationality, while American employees are more strongly influenced than Koreans by whether the co-worker has multiplex ties to another person.61 However, culture can erode the advantages of brokerage, at least for individuals. Xiao and Tsui (2007) found that brokerage by individuals does not fit with the collectivist values of China. Further, they found, the more an organization possesses a clan-like, high-commitment culture, the more detrimental are structural holes for employees’ career achievements such as salary or bonus, even after controlling for a host of other factors that may influence these career outcomes. In high-commitment organizations, the ‘integrators’ who bring people together to fill structural holes enjoy greater career benefits.62 Explain why brokerage might not ‘fit’ with the collectivist values of China.

  4.3.1 for other examples of cultural differences in social networks.

Corruption Corruption, the misuse of public office, trust, or power for private gain, has been linked to a range of cultural values and dimensions; research findings are beginning to accumulate in this area. Figure 4.2 shows the positive and negative relationships of cultural and other factors to national corruption levels. The following findings underlie the relationships shown in Figure 4.2:

• Corruption in 54 countries has been linked to Hofst•

ede’s (1981) cultural dimension variables, together with national wealth, national religion and a construct labelled ‘personality at the national level’, which included variables such as introversion-extraversion and conscientiousness.63 One form of corruption, bribe giving, is lower in countries low in power distance or long-term orientation, or high on individualism. However, when the level of economic development in the home country as measured by per capita income is included, the impact of cultural factors is muted considerably. It is firms from highincome countries that are least likely to give bribes.64

Figure 4.2  Cultural and other factors correlated negatively ↓ and positively ↑ with national corruption levels Cultural value

Other factors

Self-expression

High extroversion

Secular/rational

Low neuroticism

Low power distance/ hierarchy

Countries split into language groups

Low long-term orientation

Countries split into ethnic groups

High individualism

High probability of detection

Low fatalism High egalitarianism

Note: These are correlations, not necessarily causal relations

Low per capita national income

Correlated negatively with national corruption level Correlated positively with national corruption level

52  cuLTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION Table 4.9  Corruption in five Asian countries China*

India

Japan

Taiwan

Singapore

Official corruption has been high

Widespread except in technology-based businesses

Low

Political corruption endemic

Low

*Note: In the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region corruption is low but increasing.

• Cultures where hierarchy and fatalism are prevalent •

•

correlate with high corruption whereas egalitarian cultures correlate with low corruption, according to 'robust and statistically significant’ findings from a 2014 study.65 Corruption is higher among countries split among several language or ethnic groups.66 The reason is that in most such countries patronage of friends and relatives is higher because relationships are more personalized. In those countries, doing favours for friends and relatives is generally considered a moral obligation, not corruption. In countries where gift exchange is a norm in business transactions, public officials often consider that receiving ‘gifts’ from those whom they can favour is acceptable. Finally, loyalty to a clan, a kinship or a family is of utmost importance in some societies and leads to hiring associated or related others even at the expense of the common good.67

There are important differences in corruption levels in five Asian countries, according to research by one of the present authors. Table 4.9 shows the findings. Japan’s and Singapore’s lower corruption levels compared to China, India and Taiwan may be explained in part by Japan’s lower cultural power distance; Singapore’s is not much lower and the predominance of multinational companies may help explain it. Complete a sixth column that gives your assessment of corruption levels in your own country.   4.3.2 for more findings on the relationship between culture and corruption.

CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY

• A wide range of aspects of work behaviour, from work •

centrality to distributive justice perceptions, work ethics to groupwork behaviour, are all related to cultural values, research has shown. To varying degrees, culture affects organizational structures and work roles, organizational cultures, decision-making processes, perceptions of managerial effectiveness, task versus relationship orientation of

•

managers, management roles and styles, managerial beliefs and employment relationships. Culture also affects the wider environment of work communication; highlighted in this chapter were networks and corruption. In some cultures, networks are prevalent in business and at work more generally. Networks themselves give rise to cultures and also to opportunities for brokerage; interactions between networks can be intercultural. Various cultural features are linked to corruption.

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Newburry, W. and Yakova, N. (2006) ‘Standardization preferences: a function of national culture, work interdependence and local embeddedness’, Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 44–60. 2 Parboteeah, K.P. and Cullen, J.B. (2003) ‘Social institutions and work centrality: Explorations beyond national culture’, Organization Science, 14(2): 137–48. 3 Harpaz, I., Honig, B. and Coetsier, P. (2003) ‘A crosscultural longitudinal analysis of the meaning of work and the socialization process of career starters’, Journal of World Business, 37(4): 230–44. 4 Torelli, C.J. and Shavitt, S. (2010) ‘Culture and concepts of power’, Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4): 703. 5 Ibid. 6 Torelli, C.J., Leslie, L.M., Stoner, J.L. and Puente, R. (2014) ‘Cultural determinants of status: Implications for workplace evaluations and behaviors’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(1): 34–48. 7 Thomas, D.C. and Au, K. (2002) ‘The effect of cultural differences on behavioral responses to low job satisfaction’, Journal of International Business Studies, 33: 309–26. 8 Bond, R. and Smith, P.B. (1996) ‘Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task’, Psychological Bulletin, 119(1): 111–37. 9 Cinnirella, M. and Green, B. (2007) ‘Does ‘cyber-conformity’ vary cross-culturally? Exploring the effect

CULTURE AND WORK  53

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 17

18

19

20 21 22

23

of culture and communication medium on social conformity’, Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4): 2011–25. Earley, P.C. (1989) ‘Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 565–81. Kim, T.Y. and Leung, K. (2007) ‘Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural comparison’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1): 83–95. Addae, H.M., Johns, G. and Boies, K. (2013) ‘The legitimacy of absenteeism from work: a nine nation exploratory study’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 20(3): 402–28. Cohen, L. and El-Sawad, A. (2007) ‘Lived experiences of offshoring: An examination of UK and Indian financial service employees’ accounts of themselves and one another’, Human Relations, 60(8): 1235–62. Daly, P.S., Owyar-Hosseini, M. and Alloughani, M.E. (2014) ‘Antecedents of citizenship behavior in Arab employees in Kuwait’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(2): 239–60. Zhang, X., Fu, P., Xi, Y., Li, L., Xu, L., Cao, C., ... & Ge, J. (2012) ‘Understanding indigenous leadership research: explication and Chinese examples’, The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6): 1063–79. Guirdham, M. (2009) Culture and Business in Asia, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kull, T.J., Yan, T., Liu, Z. and Wacker, J.G. (2014) ‘The moderation of lean manufacturing effectiveness by dimensions of national culture: Testing practice-culture congruence hypotheses’, International Journal of Production Economics, 153: 1–12. Salacuse, J.W. (2003) ‘Corporate governance, culture and convergence: corporations American style or with a European touch?’, Law & Business Review of America, 9: 33–62. Glunk, U., Heijltjes, M.G. and Olie, R. (2001) ‘Design characteristics and functioning of top management teams in Europe’, European Management Journal, 19(3): 291–300. Guirdham, op. cit. Rivers, C. (2013) ‘Negotiating Ethics in China’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 43(4): 39–63. 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, 34: 252–66. Sparrow, P.R. and Budhwar, P. (1998) ‘Reappraising psychological contracting: lessons for the field of human-resource development from cross-cultural

24

25

26 27 28

29

30

31

32

33 34

35 36

and occupational psychology research’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 28(4): 26–52. Schneider, M. and Engelen, A. (2014) ‘Enemy or friend? The cultural impact of cross-functional behavior on the EO–performance link’, Journal of World Business, 50(3): 439–53. Fischer, R., Ferreira, M.C., Assmar, E.M.L., Baris, G., Berberoglu, G., Dalyan, F., ... & Boer, D. (2014) ‘Organizational practices across cultures: An exploration in six cultural contexts’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(1): 105–25. Hofstede, G. (1994) ‘The business of international business is culture’, International Business Review, 3(1): 1–14. Hofstede, G. (1981) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London: Harper Collins. Pothukuchi, V., Damanpour, F., Choi, J., Chen, C.C. and Park, S.H. (2002) ‘National and organizational culture differences and international joint venture performance’, Journal of International Business Studies, 33: 243–65. Cui, A.S., Griffith, D.A., Cavusgil, S.T. and Dabic, M. (2006) ‘The influence of market and cultural environmental factors on technology transfer between foreign MNCs and local subsidiaries: A Croatian illustration’, Journal of World Business, 41(2): 100–11. Chatman, J.A. (1998) ‘Being different yet feeling similar: the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 749–80. Lee, M. and Barnett, G.A. (1997) ‘A symbols-andmeaning approach to the organizational cultures of banks in the United States, Japan and Taiwan’, Communication Research, 24(4): 394–412. House, J.H. and Javidan, M. (2004) ‘Overview of Globe’, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (eds) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gerhart, B. (2009) ‘How much does national culture constrain organizational culture?’, Management and Organization Review, 5(2): 241–59. Vertinsky, I., Lee, K-H., Tse, D.K. and Wehrung, D.A. (1990) ‘Organizational design and management norms: a comparative study of managers’ perceptions in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong and Canada’, Journal of Management, 16(4): 99–110. Sparrow and Budhwar, op. cit. Schneider, S.C. and De Meyer, A. (1991) ‘Interpreting and responding to strategic issues: the impact of national culture’, Strategic Management Journal, 12: 307–20.

54  cuLTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

37 Arvonen, J. and Lindell, M. (1996) ‘The Nordic management style in a European context’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 26(3): 73–93. 38 All of the quotations in this paragraph are from ibid. 39 Ali, A.J. (1993) ‘Decision-making style, individualism and attitudes toward risk of Arab executives’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 23(3): 53–74. 40 Vance, C.M., McClaine, S.R., Boje, D.M. and Stage, D. (1992) ‘An examination of the transferability of traditional performance appraisal principles across cultural boundaries’, Management International Review, 32: 313–26. 41 Haire, M., Ghiselli, E.E. and Porter, L.W. (1966) Managerial Thinking: An International Study, New York: Wiley 42 Ibid. 43 Bass, B.M. (1981) ‘Leadership in different cultures’, in Bass, B.M. (ed.) Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership, New York: Free Press. 44 Kozan, M.K. (1993) ‘Cultural and industrialization level influences on leadership attitudes for Turkish managers’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 23(3): 7–18. 45 Cummings, L.L. and Schmidt, S.M. (1972) ‘Managerial attitudes of Greeks: The roles of culture and industrialization’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2): 265–72. 46 Whitley, R. (1992) Business Systems in East Asia: Firms, Markets and Societies, London: Sage Publishing. 47 Guirdham, op. cit. 48 Putnam, R.D. (2007) ‘E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century: The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2): 137–74. 49 Alkoby, A. (2008) ‘Global networks and international environmental lawmaking: a discourse approach’, Chicago Journal of International Law, 8(2). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1095019. Last accessed 10 October 2016. 50 Fischer, C.S. and Shavit, Y. (1995) ‘National differences in network density: Israel and the United States social networks’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2): 129–45. 51 Scott, W.R. (1987) ‘The adolescence of institutional theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4): 493–511.

52 Whitley, op. cit. 53 Brass, D.J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H.R. and Tsai, W. (2004) ‘Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective’, Academy of Management Journal, 47(6): 795–817. 54 Guirdham, op. cit. 55 Authors’ research. 56 Burt, R.S. (2009), Neighbour Networks: Competitive Advantage Local and Personal, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 57 Von Hippel, E. (1994) ‘ “Sticky information” and the locus of problem-solving: implications for innovation’, Management Science, 40(4): 429–39. 58 Burt, R.S. (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 59 Xiao, Z. and Tsui, A.S. (2007) ‘When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1): 1–31. 60 Burt, op. cit. 61 Rhee, M., Yang, D. and Yoo, T. (2013) ‘National culture and friendship homophily in the multinational workplace’, Asian Business & Management, 12(3): 299–320. 62 Xiao and Tsui, op. cit. 63 Connelly, B.S. and Ones, D.S. (2008) ‘The personality of corruption: a national-level analysis’, Cross-Cultural Research, 42(4): 353–65. 64 Sanyal, R. and Guvenli, T. (2009) ‘The propensity to bribe in international business: the relevance of cultural variables’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 16(3): 287–300. 65 Akbar, Y. and Vujic, V. (2014) ‘Explaining corruption: The role of national culture and its implications for international management’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 21(2): 191–218. 66 Mauro, P. (2004) ‘The persistence of corruption and slow economic growth’, IMF staff papers, 1–18, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30035860?seq=1#page_ scan_tab_contents. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 67 Ghazanfar, S.M. and May, K.S. (2000) ‘Third World corruption: a brief survey of the issues’, The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 25(3): 351–69.

5 1 CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES This chapter will consider the effects of culture on the overt work communication behaviour of individuals. There are certainly more similarities than differences between human beings from different cultures, and more within-culture differences among individuals than crosscultural differences. These points apply to their ways of communicating as much as to anything. Nevertheless, the differences are significant and do affect communication between people from different cultures. Enough has been found through research to make it clear that the differences in communication behaviour across cultures are important. It is likely that culture does not determine communication behaviour: individual and situational variations will sometimes override or compensate for cultural differences. However, we do know that effective intercultural communication depends on being aware of possible cultural differences in ways of communicating. Figure 5.1 shows the cultural influences on work communication described in this chapter. Section 5.1 covers core elements of communication behaviour, such as the topic-comment structure of a message, and shows how they may differ from culture to culture. Section 5.2 highlights the requirement for outward communication to be rule-based if it is to be understood and to convey the speaker or writer’s intention if it is to be successful; and suggests how culture affects these rules and intentions. Section 5.3 outlines how cultures vary in the communication functions to which they assign most value. Section 5.4 describes cultural differences in the goals and strategies of communicators and so in the uses to which communication processes are put. Section 5.5 describes cultural differences in communication traits and styles. Section 5.6 describes how the situation modifies communication rules, intentions, functions, goals and individual traits and styles, and how both the way that the situation is interpreted and how it is reacted to vary crossculturally. Section 5.7 explains cultural differences in the understanding of communication competence. Section

5.8 focuses specifically on cultural differences in workrelated communication. Section 5.9 gives more information on what research has so far taught us about how culture affects cmc.

5.1 CORE COMMUNICATION ELEMENTS This section considers the effects of culture on the core communication elements – messages, responses and codes – and the means by which they are conveyed – verbal communication, non-verbal communication and paralinguistics. Figure 5.2 depicts the relations among the factors discussed in this section. As Figure 5.2 shows, all three types of communication – verbal, paralinguistic and non-verbal – convey messages and responses (which are a particular type of message) and operate through codes. They differ according to the means of conveyance. Culture has an impact on every aspect: for instance, in contrast to American culture, Arab culture emphasizes form over function, affect over accuracy, and image over meaning.1

Cultural differences in verbal communication, paralinguistics and non-verbal communication Verbal communication Verbal behaviour (speech and writing) is particularly good for communicating information and intentions, less useful, though by no means useless, for communicating relationships and feelings. Communicating verbally requires the use of spoken or written language, in which conventions vary: for instance, in English, ‘I like X’ is a common expression, whereas there is no direct equivalent in Italian, in which ‘X mi piace’ – ‘X pleases me’ is used. 55

56  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION Figure 5.1  Aspects of work communication affected by culture U C

L

T

U

Traits

R

Styles

E

Rules

Functions

Core elements: Verbal communication Paralinguistics Non-verbal communication Intentions C

Goals Situations

E

Strategies

U

L

R

U

T

Figure 5.2  Core elements of communication behaviour that are influenced by culture L

T U

U

R C

Communication elements Verbal communication

Paralinguistics

Messages Responses Codes conveyed through

Messages Responses Codes conveyed through

Language Speech acts Discourses

E

Non-verbal communication Messages Responses Codes conveyed through

Voice tone and volume Speed of speech or Symbols such as emoticons Text-based conventions such as LOL

C

Postures Gestures Facial expressions Proxemics E R

U L

Cultural differences in verbal behaviour are highlighted by the concept of a speech community, which is central to the discipline of socio-linguistics. A speech community is based on several core components, including a shared form of socialization, regular interaction during which norms are established and reinforced, a common body of words to mean certain things and a certain type of verbal behaviour. Together these create a feeling of belonging and exclusivity – insiders understand the meaning of what is said but outsiders may not.2 Language, discourses and topic-comment structure are aspects of verbal communication that vary cross-culturally.

T

U

Language Language plays an important role in how culture affects communication. Different languages carry not just different but often opposing cultural messages about values and attitudes.3 For instance, the grammar and syntax of Indo-European languages (of which English is one) force communicators to specify the tense – past, present or future – of which they are speaking and whether the subject of the verb is singular or plural. These grammatical requirements lead speakers and writers of these languages to frame reality in these terms. Many other languages do not require the communicator to address time and number categories but some have other features with cultural

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  57

consequences, such as the Hopi requirement to specify whether the communicator actually witnessed an event or heard about it from a third party. This characteristic leads Hopi communicators to frame reality in terms of the source and reliability of their information.4  5.1.1 for more on language differences.

A culture’s preferred communication style is reflected in its use of language. Thus, in cultures where the preferred style is direct (that is, communicators reveal their intentions through explicit verbal communication), the language used features judgemental adjectives, directives, oppositions, negations, questions and references to quantity; these are less used in cultures whose preferred style is indirect. A preference for succinctness or elaborateness affects how many intensifying adverbs, dependent clauses, sentence initial adverbials (‘Well …’) and negations are used. Person-centred versus role-centred communication style preferences are reflected in the frequency of ‘I’ references, judgemental adjectives, oppositions and negations. Finally, the proportions of references to quantity, place, emotion, oppositions and negations reflect whether the cultural preference is for instrumental communication (which is oriented to the sender’s goals) or affective communication (which is oriented to the relationship with the receiver).5 In these ways, cultural preferences are reflected in language features. Languages give their users easier access than others do to particular personal and socio-cultural ideas; these in turn relate to or influence message content. For example, English gives ready access to business concepts. Russian supplies fewer of these; Russian speakers and writers often use loan words from English for business concepts. On specialized topics people who are bilingual may use the language that gives them better access to relevant concepts. For instance, some users of English-as-a-second-language use English for professional speaking and writing because this is the language in which they received training and learned professional concepts.6 Beyond this, individuals at different language proficiency levels communicate very differently. In meetings, low-proficiency second-language speakers contribute fewer ideas than do fluent second-language speakers or first-language speakers.7 It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between what is cultural and what is linguistic and in fact the two are intertwined. The problem of language is most obvious when people speak different languages. Many terms are untranslatable, because the underlying concepts differ; for example, the fact that the Bulgarian word closest to ‘ambitious’ never carries a negative loading, as it does in the English term ‘ambitious schemer’. Loan words can be a particular

problem: for instance, in Kazakhstan the loan word ‘executive’ refers only to the Chief Executive. Differences in meaning can be just as significant, however, when each culture uses the ‘same’ language. ‘Momentarily’ in British English means ‘for a moment’, in American English it means ‘in a moment’, so that an air stewardess might say, ‘We’ll be landing momentarily.’ This would have a very strange sound in British ears. ‘Scheme’ and ‘collaborate’ carry negative implications in US English, but not in British. If a British native tells her American friend to put the luggage in the boot, the American may not know that she means her to place the bags in the trunk of the car. While this is an obvious example, it does remind us that objects, events, experiences and feelings have a particular name solely because a community of people have arbitrarily decided so to name them.8 The following cultural variations in language use are well established:

• Japanese people can speak to another using a selection

•

of many different address forms to indicate explicitly any one of a whole range of relationships – for example, intimate, familiar, neutral, polite, deferential or authoritative. This reflects the hierarchy and ceremony of interpersonal relationships in the society. The Indian language Hindi has separate words for: my sister’s husband (behnoi), my husband’s elder brother (jait), my husband’s younger brother (deva), and my husband’s sister’s husband (nandoya). Kinship vocabulary is an indication of the nature of the more significant family relations in a culture. The single word brother-in-law in English indicates that one behaves similarly towards all the men in those various kinship statuses. The variety of words in Hindi suggests that each of these categories of people is treated differently.

Find more examples of cultural variations in ­language usages.  5.1.2 for more on the impact of language use on culture and work communication.

At work, the language used affects and interacts with culture to impact work communication in a range of ways: language differences can lead to work colleagues adopting language-based identities and competing with those who use a different language; the language used can also affect which culture bilingual interactors are influenced by:

• ‘Encounters between expatriates and local employees

of a Danish subsidiary in England showed that competition for resources and recognition made their interactions into negotiations in which language differences

58  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

•

seemed to affect the formation of social identities among organization members.’9 Since international business has now largely adopted English as a lingua franca, a large number of people at work are effectively bi- or multi-language communicators. Du-Babcock (1999) showed that in decisionmaking meetings people whose first language was Cantonese and whose second language was English acted in some ways differently according to the language in which the meeting was conducted. Statistical analysis revealed differences in turn-taking frequency, length of speaking time per turn, amount of felt information exchange and degree of felt influence, although ideas, volume and context level were similar in both situations. When the meeting was conducted in Cantonese, the pattern of the discussion was spiral; when it took place in English, decisions were reached by a sequence of linear processes.10 The researcher concluded that culture and language are intertwined, so that native speakers of Cantonese (a language mainly used in a high-context communication culture) will approximate more closely to a low-context communication culture when speaking English, a language embedded in such a culture.11

Discourses ‘Discourse’ refers to the ways in which language is used in a particular social context. Discourse rules govern topics of conversation, types of anecdotes, sequences of the elements of a story or account and amounts of speech to use. They also cover how to open and close conversations, take turns during conversations, interrupt, use silence or laughter as communication devices, interject humour at appropriate times and use non-verbal behaviour.12 There are cultural differences in the rules for general discourse. An analysis of interviews with and documents from Indian and Israeli business partners suggested that local discourse systems played a major role in their business communication. The findings included the following:

• Indians’ faxes were 2.7 times longer than Israelis’. They

•

included declarations of solidarity, such as, ‘On longterm and uninterrupted relationship with concrete and sound foundations, let us build our joint empire’, and long paragraphs with no numbers. Negatives, such as a refusal to go to Israel, were expressed indirectly. The Israelis commented on the Indian communications, ‘Every sentence has two extra degrees of freedom. You can never hold or grasp something. Words have double or triple meaning.’ The Indians’ comment on the Israeli communication style was that it was aggressive, lacked flexibility, style, patience and human orientation.

• Israelis used ‘dugri’ discourse, which emphasizes faith-

ful projection of one’s own feelings, often producing a forceful and confrontational tone; the Indians used Indian English, which is formal, poetic and inefficient, and requires long, indirect sentences to be polite.13

Although there are cultural differences in power distance and uncertainty avoidance between Indians and Israelis, which may be reflected in their discourse systems, it is the difference in those discourse systems themselves that is most noticeable in these findings, thus lending support to the discourse/practice approach to culture. Is the values or the discourse/practice approach more convincing and can the two be reconciled? Refer back to Section 2.1 when considering this question.

Topic-comment structure Topic-comment structure refers to the order in which a communicator puts the main point and the supporting aspects of a communication. There are clear cultural differences: among people from North American/European cultures, it is usual to put the main point or suggested action first and then give the background or reason; people from Asian cultural backgrounds do the reverse: they put the background or reason first and then their main point or the action they are suggesting.14 For example, a North American might say, ‘We could announce price cuts on 100 items for the next three months – we’d run a big press campaign and an in-store sales promotion, get lots of publicity [suggested action]. That way we’d really cut the ground out from under our competitors with their selective weekly price cuts [reason].’ By contrast, an Asian speaker would be more likely to say, ‘Our competitors are launching a campaign of weekly price cuts. This could have very serious consequences for our sales and market share [reason]. We could look at announcing price cuts on 100 items for the next three months … [suggested action].’

Non-verbal communication Non-verbal communication (NVC), such as gestures, facial expressions and postures, has several characteristics which make it different from verbal communication.15 For instance, the meaning of some NVC is universal; again, it is harder to control, so that emotion, for instance, ‘leaks out’ through NVC; it is also ‘the major contributor to communication of “affect” in messages’16 and can convey some meanings more accurately than words do. NVC is used to reinforce and communicate identity as a group member. Speech style and accent are the main

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  59

non-verbal vehicles performing this function, as shown in the difference between middle-class and working-class speech in British English. Gaze, particularly attention to the eyes of others, reflects willingness to interact with them. People gaze more at the eyes of their ingroup than their outgroup members – for instance, Whites attend more to the eyes of White than Black targets, and people generally attend more to the eyes of newly met members of their ingroup than to newly met members of their outgroups.17 Many cultural differences in non-verbal behaviour have been recorded. Examples include the following:

• For some groups, touching another person is pro-

•

scribed. These groups include the people of China, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Australia, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, America, India and Pakistan. Contact groups (who use ‘touch’ with less inhibition) include the people of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Republic, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, France, Italy and Turkey. Numerous conventions govern handshakes in different countries: in India, where the traditional greeting is a ‘namaste’ with palms pressed together and fingers pointing upwards, men should not proffer a hand to a woman unless she does so first. In China, the handshake is often accompanied by a slight bow. ‘Shaking hands is important in Madagascar. To omit this little ceremony can be construed as a deliberate insult.’18 The Russian handshake is firm almost to the point of being bone-breaking and eye contact is maintained; the French handshake is rather gentle.

Other NVC behaviours also differ across cultures – for example, voice tone. Latinos tend to vary their tone a great deal; East Asians tend to favour monotony, while Anglo-Saxons are in between. There are also differences in the way different cultural groups sequence their communication. Anglo-Saxons, for example, tend to follow without overlapping (interrupting is rude); Latinos to overlap; and East Asians to leave silence gaps. Long breaks in speaking are usual and acceptable between Finns, and are not mistaken for turn-taking signals.19 There are universal features: there is always some norm to regulate the non-verbal features of social interaction; bowing where it is used always signifies submission; similarly, smiling is a universal sign of wanting to appease another. The meaning of most non-verbal behaviours, however, varies: head nodding and shaking, hissing and spitting all have different meanings in at least some c­ ultures – for instance, spitting is a sign of affection among the Masai of East Africa.

Facial expression, which has been shown to be linked to emotion, has both an innate and a cultural basis; culture modifies innate emotional expression in three ways:

• The event that gives rise to the emotion has a different meaning (a funeral could be an occasion of sorrow or joy). • The reaction to emotions is affected (expressions of •

anger may not be shown because the person has been culturally induced to suppress anger). ‘Display rules’, such as those which make losers in competitions act as ‘good losers’, vary across cultures.20

Nevertheless, there is growing evidence that the facial expression of emotions can be judged accurately across cultures.21 Proxemics, the study of the way in which people use space as a part of interpersonal communication, recognizes that, ‘people of different cultures do have different ways in which they relate to one another spatially’.22 It is well known that Arabs stand ‘very close’ when conversing. In fact, Arabs and Europeans differ on distance, position relative to an interlocutor, touching, loudness and eye contact. Add as many examples as possible to the list of cultural variations in non-verbal behaviour given here. Try to find at least one example of each of the following: posture, ­gesture, gaze, eye contact and facial expression.

How important NVC is to understanding what someone else is saying also varies across cultures. Studies of Italian and British subjects have shown that the Italian subjects were better able to identify and remember verbal descriptions of objects if those descriptions were accompanied by gestures. Gesturing, however, provided little of value to the British subjects.23 Discuss whether, given the increasing prevalence of texting for communication, cultural differences in the importance of non-verbal behaviour for understanding messages is likely to be diminishing.   5.1.3 for more examples of cultural variations in non-verbal behaviour.

Recently, attention has turned to what are termed micromessages.5a These are small, often non-verbal, messages that people constantly send and receive; they can be either positive or negative. Some examples in everyday interactions

5a The term has recently been given another meaning – to refer to Twitter-length messages.

60  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

include winking to show understanding, glancing at a watch while someone is speaking to show boredom, or leaning forward during conversation with a colleague to show attentiveness. In a routine ten-minute conversation, two people will send each other, on average, between 40 and 100 micromessages. Micro-messages sometimes contradict spoken messages, as when a prejudiced person says that they regard everyone present as equal but in practice repeatedly interrupts the speech of minority members. As micro-messages are less under conscious control than spoken or written messages, they differ more by culture and subculture.24,25 Give three examples of positive and three of negative micro-messages.

In some work contexts, non-verbal behaviour can be essential for communication. For instance, gestures are used in group design projects to characterize concrete aspects of the design (e.g. size, shape). ‘Anyone who has sat through a face-to-face design meeting in which many ideas are generated and debated knows that gestures are as common as words.’26 Depending on the kind of entity that is being designed, participants may use gestures, simulate the use of the design, emphasize their verbally stated points about the design, point to drawings or lists, and in many other ways use their body in the space around them to communicate about the design. Another important function of non-verbal behaviour in the world of work is its symbolic use to signify occupation or status. In the West, high-level executives walk quickly along office corridors to convey the importance and urgency of their work; in Asia, they walk slowly to express dignity. People who misread these symbols may behave inappropriately – they may fail, for instance, to give the chief executive his or her due, or they may dress in an inappropriate style that will lead insiders to see them as outsiders.

Paralinguistics Paralinguistics is the term for behaviours such as turn-taking, voice tone, speed of speech and length of time that one speaker speaks; expectations about these, it has been shown, vary cross-culturally. People from collectivistic cultures distribute their turns and speaking time more evenly than those from individualistic cultures.27

Cultural differences in messages, responses and codes Messages, responses and codes are core elements of communication that differ cross-culturally and impact on work interactions.

Messages One definition of communication is ‘the collective and interactive process of generating and interpreting ­messages’.28 Only messages can be sent and received; meanings cannot be transmitted. This means that senders of messages must encode their meanings into symbols, preferably choosing those that are likely to be known to their audience. Receivers, equally, need to decode messages and recreate their meaning, often by inference. These facts create scope for miscommunication: for instance, there is no way for Person A to be certain that Person B means the same by ‘blue’ as they do. Much speech and even writing is elliptical: in an ordinary work email or instant message Person A is quite likely to say, ‘Send me the file, please’, even if there are several files, so long as s/he has some reason to think that the person s/ he is addressing will be able to infer which file s/he means. Furthermore, in instant messaging both parties can be typing at the same time, with an effect similar to two speakers both talking at the same time, that is, creating confusion. Applying a five-stage model of communication as consisting of constructing and transmitting, acquiring, interpreting and responding to messages, Gibson and Manuel (2003) suggested that cultural differences in communication are most evident during the first two stages of constructing and transmitting messages. These differences, they suggested, are often reconciled during the last three phases of acquisition, interpretation and response.29 ­Figure 5.3 depicts this model in a diagram.   5.1.4 for more on the Gibson and Manuel (2003) model.

‘Unlike in the USA, where asking a single q ­ uestion will elicit ample information from a salesperson or office clerk, in France a question is understood in a narrow way, with the a­ ssumption that you know everything else there is to know about the topic. … Relying purely on the answer to one question in France is the best way to have a miserable time. Here is a very recent illustration: One of my clients went alone to get information about the status of a performing artist who wants to work in France. There are actually two options for this artist, yet this client was only told about one because his question did not directly ask for information about other options.’30 What cultural differences between the USA and France might explain this?

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  61

Figure 5.3  Gibson and Manuel (2003) communication model showing the impact of culture at the different stages31 Cultural differences affect communication Constructing/ encoding messages • Collectivists use more implicit, individualists more explicit, messages • HCCs use more internal, LCCs more external, information • Collectivists use intuition, individualists use facts

Differences are reconciled

Transmitting messages

Receiving messages

Interpreting messages

Responding to messages

• High power-distance communicators use formal channels, low power-distance communicators use informal channels

Responses

Codes

Responses are a category of messages that have a particular character because they are made in answer to a question or assertion by another person. Analysis of responses to survey questionnaires show that people have a tendency to portray themselves in a more favourable light when responding than their thoughts or actions may actually warrant. The reason for this socially desirable responding, as it is called, is influenced by culture: individualism is associated with self-deceptive enhancement but not impression management (which, unlike self-deceptive enhancement is intentionally directed at the interlocutor) while collectivism is associated with impression management but not with self-deceptive enhancement.32

A distinction can be drawn between restricted and elaborated communication codes. As the names imply, restricted codes explicate less fully than elaborated codes do.33 For example, if someone approached a colleague in an office corridor the conversation might run like this: ‘Where’s the meeting?’ The answer might be a nod. Both questioner and responder used a restricted code – the questioner did not specify which meeting and the responder did not say anything: the nod was enough within their restricted code to indicate something like ‘The usual place’. The same assumption of shared knowledge could not usually be made, even if one of them came from a different unit of the same organization; then the interactors would use an elaborated code. Figure 5.4 shows the main differences between the two types of code.

Figure 5.4  Restricted and elaborated codes Context

Type of code

Closed society or interactors who meet frequently

Shared assumptions, social experience and expectations

Open, cosmopolitan society or interaction with ‘strangers’

Assumptions, social experience and expectations differ

Restricted

Elaborated

Code characteristics Small vocabulary, simple syntax, non-verbal communication very important

Larger vocabulary, more complex syntax, less use of non-verbal communication

62  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

As Figure 5.4 implies, it is likely that closed or ‘local’ societies make more use of restricted codes, open and cosmopolitan societies more use of elaborated ones. People from ‘local’ societies might have difficulty in switching to elaborated codes when they meet outsiders. There is an obvious parallel between the ‘elaborated/restricted code’ distinction and Hall’s (1976) high-context/low-context ­ hapter 3), communication distinction (described in C although the code concept is more fluid – the same people might use the restricted code among their familiars and the elaborated code with strangers and different others. The work context increases the amount of communication that people have with strangers and different others and so greater use is made of the elaborated code. The internet and mobile phone are likely to be reducing the ‘closedness’ of many societies, so it is likely that more people will, over time, be comfortable using elaborated codes.

5.2 RULES AND HOW INTENTIONS ARE CONVEYED To communicate requires more than just the ability to deploy words, gestures or voice tone accurately; two further requirements are that rules are followed that allow mutual comprehension of meanings and that the intention behind a message is conveyed and understood. This section explains how and why these rules operate and how intentions are conveyed; it also describes cultural differences in these aspects of communication.

Rules Communication is governed by rules, which can vary cross-culturally. Communication requires people to cooperate, which they do partly by following rules. People generally use rules to interpret what they see and hear (rules of meaning) and then act on the basis of their interpretations. They employ rules of action to decide what kind of action, in this case communication action, is appropriate. In the West, cooperation is achieved by following the rules or maxims of quality (being truthful), quantity (providing enough but not too much information), relevance and manner (not being obscure, disorganized or ambiguous).34 Communication rules, like other rules, are affected by cultural values. For example, people from collectivist cultures follow a maxim of seeking harmony and may not depend so heavily on the maxim of quality. Why does communication ‘require people to cooperate’?

In a work context in Iran (the Iranian Dispute Settlement Council) it was found that ‘quantity’ and ‘relevance’ were the two maxims frequently violated during the disputes. The maxims of ‘quality’ and ‘manner’ were the ones most followed.35 Americans self-disclosed (told others about themselves) more than Europeans who, in turn, self-disclosed more than Asians, a study found. In business transactions, Americans generally tolerated open discussion of errors and accepted criticism of performance, while ­Koreans did not. Again, Americans differentiated criticism of a person from criticism of that person’s actions, while Koreans viewed ­criticism as personal and ­face-threatening.36 How might Americans’ ­willingness to ­self-disclose and their tolerance of criticism in business (by comparison to Koreans’) be related to the cultural ­factors described in Chapter 3?

The maxim of quantity is important in internet newsgroup discussions (or internet forums), a study found.37  5.2.1 for more on communication rules.

Conveying intentions To speak or write is to perform an act that conveys an intention. Speech and writing are not used only to designate or describe something; speakers and writers do not speak or write only to give information: they may have a range of intentions, such as questioning, commanding, promising or one of a number of other possibilities.38 This perspective on communication is labelled speech act theory, so called, probably, to draw attention to the variety of purposes behind speech, which was less well recognized than that behind writing; the theory applies equally to writing as to speech, however. If a speech act or act of writing is successful, the receiver will understand the speaker’s or writer’s intention. If, for example, when Person A asks a question, the receiver, Person B, only understands the words, but not that A intended to ask a question, B is unlikely to give an answer. In this case, A’s speech act will not have been a successful one. Understanding what the speaker’s intentions are in saying or writing something is crucial to a receiver. For instance, if a colleague says something like, ‘The post has arrived,’ the literal meaning is easily understood by decoding, but the receiver needs to know why the speaker made this announcement. What was the intention behind saying this? It might simply be a desire to impart the information, but usually the speaker intends to communicate more.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  63

In the example above, it might be that the speaker wants the receiver to go to the post room to collect the post, or that s/he wants them to know that s/he has been to the post room. Receivers will need to know which of the possible communicative intentions apply or they will miss the full meaning of the message. To decide, they will draw on a set of assumptions that they use to understand their experience. These assumptions are likely to vary cross-culturally, as Chapter 6 will show. Speech act theory identifies what it takes to make a successful speech act, that is, to have an intention understood. There are guidelines on how to use speech or writing to accomplish a particular intention – for instance, if A wants something, s/he makes a request, and does it in a form which B will understand to obligate him/her either to grant it or to turn it down. Therefore, when communicators perform a speech act, they must follow rules and those rules must be known to and be understood by receivers, if they are to communicate successfully. It is probable that in all cultures to speak or write is to perform an act and that to be successful the communicative intention behind the act must be understood by the receiver. However, both intentions and the forms required to communicate them may be culture-specific and hard for outsiders to comprehend. For instance, in some societies, for a guest to praise a host’s possession usually obliges the host to offer it as a gift; it is assumed that the guest’s intention is to ask for it. Without prior knowledge, Westerners would not understand that implication of praise. Again, the strategies Native Americans use for offering congratulations differ from those used by Armenians and Iranians;39 this could lead an Armenian receiver, for instance, not to realize that he or she was being congratulated by a Native American and so not to respond appropriately. Find examples of culture-specific speech acts other than those given in the paragraph above.

5.3 COMMUNICATION FUNCTIONS Claiming rights, establishing identity and negotiating or ratifying relationships are equally as important functions performed by communication as giving information is. There are differences in the relative value placed by different national cultures on these functions. National cultural values play an important part in determining the function and thus the general tone of communication:

•

In individualist cultures, communication tends to affirm individuals’ claims for their rights within the

•

•

•

relationship: ‘For a person oriented toward the independent construal of self, the general tone of social interaction may concern the expression of his or her own needs and rights.’40 In individualist cultures, highly verbal people are often perceived positively because they are more successful at establishing identity. However, the value attached to being talkative varies cross-culturally. The benefit of low verbal output among collectivists comes from being understood without putting one’s meaning on record. Understanding is seen, not as the result of putting meaning into words, but rather as the greater understanding of shared perspectives, expectations and intimacy. In some societies relationships are thought of as spontaneously created by individuals and communication is used to negotiate those relationships; in other societies relationships are thought of as pre-determined and set – here communication ratifies pre-existing relationships. In business negotiations, Asians, who follow the ratification model, may state their positions less extremely if they feel that not to do so would disrupt the harmony of the relationship; Westerners may assume that each party has in mind only achieving their own best advantage and may state their positions strongly as a negotiating ploy. Many Japanese people believe that the most important things cannot be communicated in language. Japanese culture places a very high value on communicating subtle aspects of feeling and relationship and a much lower value on communicating information. Most Western cultures, despite some recent shifts, are the opposite. Not only do they emphasize communicating content at the expense of relationship but they tend to treat what cannot be expressed in language as not worth attending to. (Women from Western cultures, though, are closer to the Japanese in this respect.)  5.3.1 for more on the difference between Asian and Western ideas about the functions of communication and for a link to a video about culture and communication.

5.4 COMMUNICATION GOALS AND STRATEGIES All human communication is goal-directed. Even saying ‘Hi’ and nothing more must have the goal of establishing contact with the other. Not saying ‘Hi’, in circumstances

64  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION Table 5.1  Cultural differences in communication goals and strategies Communication Goal or Strategy

Example of Cultural Difference in Goal or Strategy

Information-seeking

People from HCCs ask more questions about a stranger’s background during initial interactions.

Anxiety and uncertainty management

AUM theory predicts that higher collectivism leads to lower uncertainty in outgroup communication relative to ingroup communication.

Face management

In a collectivist culture, facework is used to present the self as a member of the social network; in an individualist society, facework focuses more on maintaining one’s own personal identity.

Showing politeness

Koreans avoid directness in conveying negative responses — instead of ‘No’, they will say, ‘I agree with you, but…’.

Rapport management

Greeks take more time over greetings and endings in telephone calls than Germans do.

Showing deference

Indians are more likely than Americans to act deferentially in the presence of authority figures.

Achieving clarity, avoiding hurting others and minimizing imposition

Culture-level individualism correlates positively with concern for clarity and promoting one’s own goals in communication but not with the relational constraints of concern for minimizing threats to the hearer’s face, for minimizing imposition or for avoiding negative evaluation by the hearer. In contrast, in culture-level collectivism the reverse applies.

Building trust, reciprocating and behaving altruistically

Chinese participants in a study made and returned more ORPs (other-regarding preference behaviours) than their counterparts from three other countries.

Deceiving

Higher degrees of interdependence (a characteristic of the self linked to collectivism) are related to greater overall motivation to deceive for both self- and other-benefit, a study showed.

Influencing

Arabs’ persuasion strategies ‘differ in fundamental ways from US and Western strategies’.41 Various forms of repetition, highly metaphoric language, and strong emotion characterize Arabic persuasion norms, and these apply both in Arabic and English.

Conflict handling

Members of individualist cultures are more likely to handle conflicts directly through confrontation and problem-solving, whereas members of collectivist cultures are more likely to handle conflict in indirect ways that attempt to preserve the relationship.

where it would be usual to, probably has the goal of avoiding contact. This section explains some goals that are basic to human communication and describes the strategies that people use to obtain their goals. These goals and strategies include information-seeking, anxiety and uncertainty management, face management, showing politeness, rapport management, showing deference, achieving clarity, avoiding hurting others and minimizing imposition, building trust, reciprocating and behaving altruistically, deceiving, influencing and conflict handling. The section also shows the impact of culture on these communication goals and strategies. Table 5.1 shows examples of cultural differences in these communication goals and strategies; details and further examples are given in the text.

Information-seeking Information-seeking in this context is ‘the process by which individuals proactively acquire feedback through the use of … strategies to understand, predict and control their environments; increase task mastery; and reduce role ambiguity’. Information-seeking facilitates communication by reducing uncertainty and errors based on

misinformation. There are cultural differences in information-seeking behaviours, which correspond to the high-context/low-context communication distinction explained in Chapter 3. Communicators from high-context cultures (HCCs) are more cautious in initial encounters, use more subtle behaviours and make more assumptions about a stranger’s background. They are also more confident in making attributions about the ‘causes’ of another person’s behaviour. Communicators from low-context cultures (LCCs) rely more on verbal expressiveness and are more likely to use interrogation and self-disclosure.42

Anxiety and uncertainty management (AUM) AUM theory assumes that interacting causes individuals to experience anxiety and uncertainty, especially in a first meeting with strangers (here meaning people who are believed to lack understanding of the social world inhabited by the individual’s ingroup). Because anxiety and uncertainty cause discomfort, interactors’ goals and strategies include reducing their impact. Most importantly for this book, uncertainty and anxiety are most aroused and

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  65

people try hardest to reduce them when strangers act in a deviant fashion from the perspective of the individual’s own culture. Thus cultural differences in behaviour are central to AUM theory. People adopt one of three general strategies for reducing uncertainty: a passive strategy (doing nothing in the hope that as time passes things will become clearer); an active strategy (finding out as much as possible from outside sources); and an interactive strategy (seeking out opportunities to interact with people about whom uncertainty exists and using those occasions to obtain as much information as possible).43 Core elements of AUM theory are the concepts of the stranger, initial encounters, uncertainty and anxiety:

• In AUM theory strangers are seen as people who are

•

•

•

different because they are members of different (cultural) groups. When strangers act in a way that is deviant in terms of an individual’s own culture, the individual experiences uncertainty and anxiety, especially when those strangers will be encountered in future or can provide rewards. Initial encounters, by definition, are between strangers. When interacting with a stranger, individuals become aware that the stranger does not share their own (culture-derived) implicit theory about the rules or the game. Therefore they become more conscious of that implicit theory. The result is that interactions between strangers take place at high levels of behavioural awareness. Uncertainty is of two distinct types: not being able to predict what strangers’ attitudes, feelings, beliefs, values and behaviour will be and not being able to explain why they behave in the way they do. When uncertainty is too high for comfort, people will either try to reduce it by gaining information or end the interaction. When uncertainty is too low for comfort, people may be too bored to act effectively. Anxiety refers to the feeling of being uneasy, tense, worried or apprehensive about what might happen. This is an affective (emotional) response, whereas uncertainty is a cognitive (thought process) one. Anxiety is

usually based on people’s negative expectations, such as that their self-image will be damaged or that they will be negatively evaluated. When anxiety is too high for comfort, people either avoid encounters or their attention is distracted from the communication. Then they rely on information like stereotypes to predict other people’s behaviour, and therefore may misinterpret it. When anxiety is too low, people may not care what happens in the interaction, not pay attention and miss important cues. Figure 5.5 depicts this process in a diagram. Support for the existence of uncertainty Support for, etc reduction as part of the dynamic of interaction with strangers has come from research which showed it applies to both low-context communication and high-context communication cultures,44 friendship relations across cultures,45 interactions between Blacks and Whites in the USA46 and interethnic communication generally in the USA.47 Ethnicity, stage of relationship, shared networks and ethnolinguistic identity strength influenced how much interlocutors self-disclosed, how many questions they asked, whether their body language expressed affiliation, whether they saw one another as similar and how confident they were in making attributions about the causes of different others’ behaviour, using both high- and low-context measures, a study found. These findings are in accordance with AUM predictions.48 Uncertainty and anxiety are related to a range of communication behaviours: how much communication occurs between people, the degree to which they show warmth to one another by body language such as smiling, eye contact or touching, their levels of informationseeking, reciprocity and liking, and how intimately they communicate. Reciprocity, similarity and liking are also related to uncertainty. (In general each of these relations are inverse – thus, the greater the amount of communication and the higher the similarity, the lower the uncertainty. Information-seeking is an exception; it is higher in the presence of high uncertainty.) A number of hypotheses based on AUM theory relate anxiety or uncertainty to cultural dimensions. These include:

Figure 5.5  The anxiety-uncertainty management process I may be too bored to interact effectively No I may not care what happens and so not pay attention and miss important cues

Is this person a member of a different group from my own? Is this an initial meeting with this person?

Yes

This person is a stranger

I experience high uncertainty and anxiety

I try to gain information or I end the interaction I either avoid encounters with this person or use stereotypes that can lead to errors

66  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

• An increase in collectivism will produce a decrease in • •

uncertainty in outgroup communication relative to ingroup communication. An increase in uncertainty avoidance will produce an increase in anxiety and a decrease in intergroup adaptation and effectiveness. An increase in the strength of ethnolinguistic identities leads to an increase in confidence but also an increase in anxiety, though only when members of the outgroup are perceived as typical and ethnic status is activated.49 Why do you think that AUM theory predicts that an increase in collectivism will produce a decrease in uncertainty in outgroup communication relative to ingroup communication? What explanation can you give for the other two predictions?

The success of organizations’ attempts to cultivate good relations with their publics has been tested in an intercultural setting and found to be influenced by anxiety and uncertainty management.50  5.4.1 for criticisms of AUM theory.

Face management Face is the ‘positive social value people assume for themselves, the image they try to project to the public’.51 Face concerns are universal: a positive social value is a goal for almost everybody. Therefore, people undertake face management or facework to achieve it. They use communication to gain, maintain and avoid losing face; and, either out of concern for others or because they understand that facework is affected by reciprocity, they often use communication to help an interlocutor gain or avoid losing face.

The meaning and enactment of face are heavily culturedependent. For instance, the Indian concept equivalent to face, ‘izzat’, is strongly bound to family – even among second- or third-generation Americans of South Asian Indian origin, ‘family izzat is of primary importance and the motif of “respect” is central’.52 In China, mianzi (face-related dignity), as well as guanxi, lies at the heart of interactions not only with individuals, but with stakeholders including employees, local partners and government officials.53 Because the relative importance of the self and the group differ in individualist and collectivist cultures, the characteristics of an appropriate face and the nature of facework also differ. In a collectivist culture, facework is used to present the self as a member of the social network, and people are expected to help others maintain a similarly appropriate face. In contrast, in an individualist society, facework focuses more on maintaining one’s own personal identity with less interest in helping others maintain theirs.54 The concept of face and its elements has been further analysed in terms of a combination of two theories of culture: individualism–collectivism and high-context/ low-context communication (HCCs and LCCs).55 Table 5.2 gives a summary of the differences in these constructs for these cultural dimensions. As Table 5.2 shows, identity, self- versus other-face concern, needs, styles, strategies, modes, speech acts and nonverbal behaviour all tend to differ between individualist, low-context communication cultures and collectivist, high-context communication cultures. Some facework researchers have included at least one cultural difference variable in their models. Uncertainty avoidance influenced the choice among ritualistic, harmonious, and aggressive facework strategies in an embarrassing situation, a six-country study (in Chile, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Sweden and the United States) showed.56 Israelis exhibit more direct, aggressive and competitive facework strategies than Syrians, according to a 2012

Table 5.2  Individualism–collectivism and low-context/high-context face negotiation processes57 Key Constructs of ‘Face’

Individualist, Low-Context Communication Cultures

Collectivist, High-Context Communication Cultures

Identity

Emphasis on ‘I’ identity

Emphasis on ‘We’ identity

Concern

Self-face concern

Other-face concern

Need

Autonomy, dissociation, negative-face need

Inclusion, association, positive-face need

Style

Controlling or confrontation and solution-oriented styles

Obliging or avoidance and affective-oriented styles

Strategy

Distributive or competitive

Integrative or collaborative

Mode

Direct

Indirect

Speech acts

Direct

Indirect

Non-verbal acts

Individualist non-verbal acts, direct emotional expression Contextualistic non-verbal acts (role-oriented), indirect emotional expression

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  67

Figure 5.6  Face maintenance in Japan58 Face loss (seen as arrogant)

Face maintenance

Face loss (seen as lacking in dignity)

Dignity

Humility

study. Israeli facework strategies corresponded to cultural individualism and low power distance, whereas Syrian facework corresponded to cultural collectivism and high power distance. Contrary to expectation, however, Israeli facework was more harmonious.59 In Japan, a collectivist culture, people are exposed to face loss from both excessive humility, seen as lack of dignity, and excessive claims to dignity, seen as arrogance. They strive to remain in an intermediate zone in which face can be maintained, as ­Figure 5.6 shows.60 Strategies to protect ‘own face’ in a collectivist culture include the following:

in Australian courts found that the facework of the interpreter may have potential implications for courtroom interactions.63 There is also evidence that in some cultures face concerns operate online. Singaporean students displayed a need to save face online, a study reported.64

• asking someone else to transmit a message; • talking to a third person in the intended hearer’s presence; • acting as if a delegate – ‘pretending’ to be a messenger from a third person; • not expressing wishes explicitly, but expecting the other person to understand; • corresponding by letter or email, so avoiding meeting face-to-face.

In China, unofficial mediation is common in situations involving interpersonal conflicts. The mediator is usually a friend of the two parties in conflict or an elderly person respected by both. He or she intervenes on his or her own initiative or in response to a request by a person other than the two in conflict. In addition, impartiality and face maintenance are perceived as two key factors in successful mediation.61 All these strategies are available to and used by people in a range of cultures, but people from collectivist cultures may use them more often. Equally, strategies to protect one’s own face and threaten the other’s face, such as selfpraise or arrogance, are more common in highly individualist cultures. They also occur in collectivist cultures, but are disapproved of and regarded as anti-social. However, a study in four cultures – Chinese, Japanese, German and US national cultures – found few cultural differences in facework strategies (the way face concerns were related to facework) in recalled conflict situations.62 Face concerns are evident in organizations and at work generally. For instance, a study of interpreters of Korean

  5.4.2 for more on cultural differences in facework.

Showing politeness Politeness theory is an extension of the concept of facework. Some communicators do not seem to aim to construct their messages in the most efficient way, contrary to rule theories. Instead, they are often guided by the requirements of politeness. According to politeness theory, there is a relationship between a speaker’s face concerns, perceived threats to face and the ways in which a speaker will express a request, explanation, disagreement or any other verbal communication.65 All communication risks a threat to the faces of either the speaker or the hearer or both. This is because all people have two conflicting desires: for other people’s approval (positive face need) and yet to be independent of others and their approval (negative face need). Different kinds of communication, such as requests or apologies, are intrinsically more or less threatening to either the speaker’s or the hearer’s face. Threat is also increased by three factors: how much the communication imposes on the hearer (asking for directions is less of an imposition than asking for a loan); the status relations between the speaker and hearer (a schoolmaster is more threatened by a pupil’s disagreeing with him than the reverse); and how well the speaker and hearer know one another (knowing one another well reduces threat). Politeness theory defines politeness in communication as the attempt by the speaker to minimize or reduce the threat to the hearer’s face, and postulates that the more intrinsically threatening the situation, the more polite the speaker will be. There are national differences in concepts of politeness, the amount of politeness that people use, the influence of content versus relationship concerns on politeness and the politeness of direct and indirect forms. For instance,

68  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

Japanese people generally follow different sets of politeness norms from North Americans, including showing a higher level of deference to older people. Politeness is a rule of appropriate behaviour in different ethnic groups across the USA, but the particular behaviours that are defined as polite vary.66 Again, Koreans do not often use negative responses like ‘No’, or ‘I disagree with you’. Instead they are likely to say, ‘I agree with you in principle, but…’, or ‘I sympathize with you, but…’. Koreans’ collectivist values and consequent sense of politeness prevent directness of negative communication.67 Despite these various findings, caution is needed in assuming that culture determines the amount of politeness people expect. Data collected in 17 countries showed that individual variations are larger than cultural variation in preferences for direct as opposed to ‘polite’ communication style. National culture (in particular its score on an individualism index) was only indirectly related to preference for direct communication style.68 Sachin is Indian. Today he was late for work. What cultural factors would influence what Sachin would say when he arrived? Wilhelm is German. Today he submitted a report written, he knew, in substandard English. He had been rushed and unable to check it fully. What cultural factors would influence what Wilhelm would say when he handed in his report?

People are sometimes deliberately impolite or aim to embarrass. Strategic embarrassment, where the speaker attempts to embarrass the addressee into doing what he or she wants by talking about unmet expectations and thereby implying a mild reproach or complaint, has been found in the context of business interactions in Taiwan.69 Politeness behaviour and expectations vary across communication modes. For instance, conversational interruptions, which are ‘potentially dysfunctional or indicative of dominance’ are common face-to-face.70 In email such interruptions are obviously impossible, and although they can be attempted in instant messaging they are less likely to be successful. On the other hand, as the following saying suggests, cmc facilitates some forms of ‘impolite’ behaviour, such as flaming: ‘It is easier to hit the “send” button than to walk down the hall.’71 Cultural differences, too, persist in cmc: in email messages that ask for favours, findings show, Koreans more frequently include apologies while Americans more frequently include thanks.72 The felt need to be polite when using email creates difficulties for users who communicate interculturally. ‘Many people are uncertain about how to make their e-mail polite according to the norms of the receiving culture’, according to Murphy and Levy (2006).73 On the

other hand, there is evidence that in intercultural business emails people do try to show politeness and relational language and to facilitate understanding within sometimes ‘incomprehensible’ native-speaker/non-native-speaker interactions.74  5.4.3 for examples of cultural differences in concepts of politeness.

Rapport management ‘Rapport’ can refer to communication characterized by warmth, enthusiasm and interest, or to harmonious interaction. Negative rapport perceptions can lead to conflictual interpersonal relations, while positive rapport perceptions can generate interpersonal harmony. Rapport management has two motivational sources: concerns over face, which were explained above, and concerns over sociality rights, which are individuals’ claims on others to acknowledge and uphold their social identities or roles. Sociality rights are not treated as face issues, because sometimes an infringement of sociality rights may simply lead to annoyance or irritation, rather than to a sense of face-threat or loss. Similarly, a request for help, which in politeness theory would be regarded as a facethreatening act, may not in fact be regarded as an infringement or threat at all. On the contrary, it may be regarded as a boost to face, since the request shows trust in the qualities of the person asked.75 Do you agree with the contention of rapport management theory that people are as much concerned with their ‘rights’ in interactions as with their ‘face’? Give your reasons.

 5.4.4 for more on rapport management.

There is evidence for cross-cultural differences in rapport management. For instance, Greeks seemed to prefer an exchange of greetings, which maximize the relational and minimize the informational content of talk, before coming to the reason for calling, a study showed. Germans opted for a more direct path to the main subject of the call. Greeks used more repetition in closing telephone calls than Germans did, making the closing process more extended. In Greek calls, the decision to end the call was negotiated. In German calls, common ground was invoked.76 (Common ground among interacting individuals is defined as the sum of their mutual, common or joint knowledge, beliefs and suppositions.)77 Another study showed that one vehicle through which rapport is communicated in workplace interactions is behavioural

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  69

mirroring and that such coordination is affected by cul-

ture: for example Latinos mirror more than Anglos.78 In a work context, observation and analysis of rapport management in meetings between the representatives of a British host company and a visiting Chinese business delegation showed that both parties, not just the (collectivist) Chinese, were strongly influenced by group rather than individual face concerns. The British were concerned about the company’s reputation: They wanted the visitors to learn more about their company, and to go back to China with a deep and positive impression, firstly of the company and secondly of Britain. Similarly, the Chinese delegation presented themselves as a group, and was concerned about the group’s face and the reputation of Chinese people in general. ‘You just tell him, “Is it so easy to bully us Chinese, so easy to fool us?” ’ Equally, both parties were more concerned with ‘own face’ than ‘other face’. The researchers concluded that in different cultural settings different kinds of face threats and claims to sociality rights may arise.79

Showing deference Deference means a combination of submission to or compliance with the will or wishes of another person, together with showing them courteous regard or respect. There is clear evidence for cultural differences in deference. For example, Indians are more likely than Americans to act deferentially in the presence of authority figures. After reflecting upon an authority’s expectations, Indians were more likely than Americans to make clothing and course choices consistent with the authority’s expectations; there was no such cultural difference for peers’ expectations. Merely activating the concept of authority figures, without highlighting specific expectations, was sufficient to influence Indians’ choices.80 Again, Japanese and Thai younger adults both linearly increase communicative respect and avoidance, beliefs about politeness, and deference norms as the age of their interlocutors increases from young to middle-aged to older adult, but the Thais endorse both politeness and deference norms more strongly than the Japanese and report more respectful communication to younger adults than the Japanese.81 At work, deference is usually greater in high powerdistance than low power-distance cultures. However, research by one of the present authors suggested differences in deference behaviours among employees in four Asian countries as Table 5.3 shows.

Table 5.3  Deference behaviours in four Asian countries China

India

Japan

Taiwan

High to work superiors

Extremely high to owners; high to work superiors

Very high to both seniors and work superiors

Relatively low

What value dimensions, if any, help explain these differences? Complete a fourth column that gives your assessment of deference levels in your own country.

Communication mode does not alter the intention to defer, only its expression. Face-to face, deference is shown by postural constriction, smiling, patterns of eye contact and accommodating to another’s speech rhythm and pitch. Studies of work-related emails show that the intention to defer is clearly present in cmc, despite the lack of non-verbal behaviour. Expressing opinions vaguely (as in ‘I wonder if that’s right’, so as not to be seen as disagreeing with the recipient of the communication) and disclaimers (verbal warnings used to ward off negative implications to the relationship between speaker and recipient based on the communication that follows, as in ‘Don’t take this the wrong way, but ... ’) convey deference by subtly expressing to the recipient that the speaker values the relationship and does not desire to do anything to disrupt it.82

Achieving clarity, avoiding hurting others and minimizing imposition There is a theory that getting one’s own way and avoiding hurt to the receiver’s feelings are among the most basic of outward communication goals. These goals give rise to criteria known as conversational constraints (CCs), which are criteria for selecting conversational strategies in order to achieve clarity, minimize threats to the receiver’s face and minimize imposition. Each CC is therefore linked to a choice of conversational strategy, particularly the choice between direct ‘imperative’ and indirect ‘hinting’ forms, as shown in Figure 5.7. Later versions of CC theory added two more CCs: to avoid negative evaluation by the receiver and to be effective.83 As Figure 5.7 suggests, according to conversational constraints theory a communicator primarily concerned with clarity is likely to use direct forms and give instructions in an imperative way. A communicator primarily concerned with avoiding hurt to the receiver’s feelings, imposing as little as possible on the receiver or avoiding negative evaluation by the receiver is likely to express opinions or instructions in an indirect, hinting way. Someone concerned with

70  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION Figure 5.7  Conversational constraints and choice of interaction strategy Direct imperative forms

Hi

Lo

Indirect hinting forms

Direct imperative forms

Concern for other’s face (avoiding hurting the receiver’s feelings) Lo Hi

Indirect hinting forms

Direct imperative forms

Concern for minimizing imposition Hi

Indirect hinting forms

Hi

Indirect hinting forms

Lo

Indirect hinting forms

Direct imperative forms

Direct imperative forms

Concern for clarity (getting one’s own way)

Lo

Concern for avoiding negative evaluation Lo

Concern for effectiveness Hi

effectiveness will use judgement about where to locate their expression between direct and indirect forms. CC theory is relevant to cultural differences in communication behaviour because it makes links between individuals’ needs and psychological make-up and their choice of communication strategy. For instance, psychological masculinity leads to a concern for clarity and so to the related form of expression, which is direct and imperative; psychological femininity leads to a concern for others’ face and so to indirect forms of expression. A study undertaken in Korea, Japan, Hawaii and mainland USA found the following: culture-level individualism correlated positively with concern for clarity and promoting one’s own goals in communication but not with the relational constraints of concern for minimizing threats to the hearer’s face, for minimizing imposition or for avoiding negative evaluation by the hearer. In contrast, the results for culture-level collectivism were the reverse.84 The perceived importance of clarity was higher in more individualistic cultures, a later study found, while the perceived importance of avoiding hurt to the hearer’s feelings and of minimizing imposition was higher in the more collectivistic cultures. The perceived importance of effectiveness and of avoiding negative evaluation by the hearer, however, did not differ significantly across the cultural groups.85 The theory of conversational constraints has been developed, as its name suggests, only in the context of speech;

nevertheless, since both direct and indirect forms of expression are available in writing, there seems no reason why it should not apply, for instance, to text-based cmc.

Building trust, reciprocating and behaving altruistically It has been argued that trust, reciprocity and altruism, together labelled other-regarding preference behaviours (ORPs), are integral elements in economic transactions between companies, between consumers and retailers, between employers and employees, and in determining economic performance:

• Trust has been shown to have a positive influence on the economic performance of corporations. • Reciprocity helps explain the persistence of coopera•

tive actions in the absence of immediate incentives to cooperate and has been shown to increase the set of enforceable contracts and help markets to achieve efficiency gains. Altruism, in which the consumption by others appears positively as an argument in an individual’s utility function, has been linked to helping behaviour in the workplace.

Buchan et al. (2006) found in an experiment that there were variations in the proportion of trust-, reciprocity- or

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  71

altruism-based behaviours shown by participants from four different countries. Chinese participants made and returned more ORPs than their counterparts from other countries.86  5.4.5 for more on this study.

Deceiving Deception is commonplace both within and across the modern work organization. As Furner and George (2012) put it, ‘In today’s business environment, deception is commonplace … and recent technological advances have given individuals more ways in which to … deceive.’87 Culture significantly influences attitudes to deception, ways of deceiving and punishment for deceiving:

• Higher degrees of interdependence (characteristics of

• •

the self linked to collectivism) are related to a greater overall motivation to deceive for both self- and otherbenefit, a study showed. Furthermore, whereas people characterized by higher degrees of independence tend to perceive any message that departs from the truth as highly deceptive in nature, those characterized by higher degrees of interdependence are more likely to perceive messages that depart from truth as not deceptive.88 Willingness to use various deception strategies is moderated by the effects of the self-benefit versus otherbenefit situations.89 There are cross-cultural differences in reward and punishment. Americans reward honest actors more than they punish deceptive perpetrators, whereas East Asians reward and punish equally. The type of relationship with the actor matters for East Asians, but not for Americans. East Asians exhibit favouritism toward their friends by rewarding more than punishing them, but reward and punish equally when the actors are strangers; Americans reward more than they punish regardless of the type of relationship.90

It appears that deceivers are aware of the differences in the ability of different media to transmit cues and convey emotion and reversibility as they take these differences into account in choosing the mode to use for deception. Mode choice for deception is also influenced by national culture, however. A study showed that ‘individuals who scored highly on collectivism preferred to lie using textbased media, individuals who scored high on power distance preferred to lie using audio media and individuals who scored high on masculinity preferred to lie using visual media.’91

Influencing Influence and the need to exert influence are pervasive at work: the tasks of sales representatives, marketing practitioners and managers are perhaps the most obvious examples but most tasks require people to influence others to cooperate and coordinate. Influencing is therefore a core characteristic of behaviour in organizations. Influencing can be achieved by exerting power, the ability to control others’ outcomes, or by persuading, which means influencing by means other than using power, including discussion, argument or appeals to values, emotions or attitudes. High and low power distance are themselves an indication of different cultural attitudes to power. There are also cultural differences in the way both power and persuasion are communicated. In negotiations, where the relative power of the participants is an inevitable factor, Canadians are more responsive to arguments framed logically, whereas the Chinese are more responsive to arguments framed normatively.92 In persuasion, Arabic strategies ‘differ in fundamental ways from US and Western strategies’. Various forms of repetition, highly metaphoric language, and strong emotion characterize Arabic persuasion norms, and these apply both in Arabic and English. These norms are created by the linguistic characteristics of classical Arabic, the close connection between the Arabic language and Islam, and the social and political hierarchies that shape Arabic interaction.93 Advertising provides other instances of cultural differences in persuasion. North Americans have more favourable attitudes toward appeals that focus on self-reliance, self-improvement and achieving goals than Koreans, who have more favourable attitudes towards appeals that focus on family integrity, collective goals and the feeling of harmony with others.94 One explanation is that the associations embedded in appeals that are effective in a culture tend to be perceived as more important or diagnostic in that culture. For instance, the colour red, which is a symbol for good fortune in Chinese culture, has more persuasive weight around Chinese New Year than at other times.95

Conflict handling Conflict can be defined as ‘the tension between two or more social entities – individuals, groups or larger organizations – which arises from the incompatibility of actual or desired responses.’96 This definition is useful because it does not limit the subject to overt conflict. Conflict at work is often covert because fighting openly, even only in words, is unacceptable there. The definition also usefully emphasizes the communication aspect of conflict, which

72  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

is important. Conflict often originates in the ‘perceived and/or actual incompatibility of values, expectations, processes, or outcomes between two or more parties over substantive and/or relational issues’.97 Such incompatibility probably arises more often between people from different cultures. For instance, in software development, cultural differences can lead to conflicting requirements from different clients who want their requirements to be meaningful in the context of certain cultural beliefs and values: some units of a client may value stability and ask for a requirement only because it was in previous releases, when others favour new features in the system for continuous progress.98 Conflict intensity may vary as a function of culture because the value attached to a goal is influenced by subjective culture. What one culture may perceive as a major conflict may be quite minor in another. Cultures also differ on a number of aspects of conflict communication.99 For instance, in the West, the structure of messages is likely to be ‘Fact 1, fact 2, generalization, conclusion’; in other cultures the conclusion may be stated first, followed by facts that fit the conclusion. This structure permits deviations from a straight line. Another difference is between universalist and particularist cultures: universalists expect all facts to ‘fit in’ with a position, particularists may feel this is unnecessary (see universalism/particularism in the Glossary). Third, there is a cultural difference between those, like Westerners, who use abstractive communication and those others who use associative communication, for whom the importance of symbols is greater. Cross-cultural studies of negotiation-related behaviour have provided evidence that members of individualist cultures are more likely to handle conflicts directly through competition and problem-solving, whereas members of collectivist cultures are more likely to handle conflict in indirect ways that attempt to preserve the relationship.100 Vietnamese refugees are members of a collectivist, highcontext culture which often desires to avoid conflict. In a 1994 conflict situation in Louisville, Kentucky, USA, the Vietnamese conflict-avoiding style aided a defusion of tensions.101 Yugoslavians, who are collectivists by Hofstede’s (1981) measures, and the Japanese prefer collaboration or compromise in handling a conflict, North Americans prefer competition.102 Greeks, who by European standards are relatively collectivist, treat their ingroup as a source of protection and social insurance, but are more suspicious of and competitive with outgroup members, such as strangers. This ingroup–outgroup aspect of collectivism affects conflict: for instance, Chinese people are more likely to sue a stranger and less likely to sue a friend than North Americans are.

Cultural collectivism also influences attitudes to business conflict resolution: Japanese managers perceived the level of trust to be higher when an American partner requested a mutual conferral to resolve disputes rather than binding arbitration, a study showed.103 However, collectivism, as exemplified in the Chinese preference for ‘harmony’, does not mean that collectivists literally avoid conflict at all costs. Fieldwork studies have shown that ‘cooperative conflict’ occurs in Chinese organizations. Furthermore, experiments showed that Chinese people valued and used conflict to explore issues, make effective decisions and strengthen relationships. Cooperative conflict in China contributed to effective teamwork, quality service and leadership. Cooperative conflict was achieved through the protagonists communicating that they wanted to manage the conflict for mutual benefit rather than to win at the other’s expense.104 When conflict arises during negotiations, Chinese people use a more avoiding approach while Canadians use a more compromising approach.105 Although for many years conflict management researchers reported a tendency for East Asians to avoid conflict, more recently researchers have recognized that conflict handling in East Asia is characterized by many different approaches, including avoidance, confrontation and cooperation, that often function interdependently within a single conflict episode. This may be explained by East Asians’ use of dialectical thinking, a system of thoughts and beliefs characterized by the expectation of contradictions and change.106  5.4.6 for more on cultural differences in conflict handling. Rate the following ways of handling conflicts at work from 1 to 5, according to how closely they match the ways that people from your culture tend to behave (1 = not at all closely, 5 = extremely closely): • Seek a compromise. • Try to get a third party to adjudicate or arbitrate. • Try to bring all their concerns out in the open so that issues can be resolved. • Collaborate with their colleagues to come up with decisions acceptable to all. • Try to beat the opposite party. • Try to work with colleagues for a proper understanding of the problem. • Try to get a third party to mediate. • Place more emphasis on preserving the relationship than on winning.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  73

Conflict-handling styles have also been linked to other cultural variables:

• People from feminine cultures, such as the Dutch, have

•

•

been shown to prefer harmony-enhancing conflict resolution procedures, such as mediation and negotiation, over confrontational procedures such as threats and accusations. This preference was stronger among the Dutch than among Canadians, who score high on masculinity.107 Members of high power-distance cultures (the Philippines, Venezuela, India, France, Belgium) had fewer conflicts with their superiors and were more likely to have superiors intervene in settling their conflicts than members of low power-distance cultures (Denmark, Israel, Austria). Members of low-context communication cultures (USA, Germany, Scandinavia, Switzerland) were found to communicate more directly and to have different communication goals in conflict than members of high-context communication cultures (Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam).108

Nationality can sometimes differentiate more finely than dimensions such as individualism–collectivism. For instance, the Koreans, the Chinese and the Japanese are all high in collectivism but Koreans are more likely to use a compromise style in conflict situations than either the Chinese or the Japanese.109

5.5 COMMUNICATION TRAITS AND STYLES Communication traits and styles are ways of capturing the evident variations that occur from individual to individual and that appear to be somewhat consistent within individuals. There are cultural influences on these traits and styles, studies have found.

Communication traits A trait is a tendency to behave in a certain way, in the judgement of oneself or others. Four sets of communication traits are especially important in an intercultural work context – rhetorical sensitivity, relational attunement, assertiveness and argumentativeness. What they mean and how they can vary in different cultures is set out below.

Rhetorical sensitivity Rhetorical sensitivity is the trait of adapting messages to audiences. People differ in how far they use sensitivity

and care in adjusting what they say to allow for the knowledge, ability level, mood or beliefs of the listener.110 Some people express themselves without adjusting to others; these communicators are ‘rhetorically insensitive’. Others, the ‘rhetorically reflective’, mould themselves completely to what they perceive as likely to please others. Rhetorically sensitive people adopt an intermediate way, showing concern for themselves, others and the situation. Most people use all three types of communication but show a tendency to use one more than the others, so displaying a rhetorical trait. It has been asserted that rhetorical sensitivity is key for communication competence, but this is contested.111 The related concept of intercultural sensitivity, however, is linked to intercultural communication competence.112 Findings on cultural differences in rhetorical sensitivity include some that are unexpected. When a test for rhetorical sensitivity was conducted on 316 Thai and 182 US American students, US Americans displayed significantly higher levels of rhetorical sensitivity than the Thais. This finding was contrary to prior expectations based on the belief that the highest Thai cultural values are associated with social harmony.113 For an online communication of instruction to be rhetorically sensitive, according to Gross et al. (1997) it must have the following five characteristics: clarity (obviousness), consistency throughout, use of global terminology, dynamic use of different text, pictures, charts, video clips and so on to keep the reader involved, and openness.114 Do you agree with Gross et al. (1997) on the characteristics of rhetorically sensitive online communication? Why or why not?

 5.5.1 for more on cultural differences in ­rhetorical sensitivity.

Relational attunement This trait is similar to rhetorical sensitivity, but has a wider connotation, referring not only to messages but to the whole pattern of interactive behaviour. To be relationally attuned is to be sensitive to the other person’s state at the time of an interaction. Culture-based differences in relational attunement underlie findings that culturalgroup membership influences how strongly behavioural mirroring affects workplace participants’ experiences and performances in intercultural interactions. US Latino managers were more affected than US Anglo managers

74  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

when their interlocutor in an experiment engaged in behavioural mirroring.115

Assertiveness Putting one’s own rights forward without hampering other individuals’ rights is called assertiveness. These rights include the rights to set one’s own priorities, refuse requests without feeling guilty, express oneself and judge one’s own behaviour, thoughts and emotions, while taking responsibility for the consequences.116 Assertiveness is a middle way between submissiveness and aggression. It has been much advocated in the West as a way for women and members of ethnic minorities to communicate, especially with people who are prejudiced against them or who for other reasons are inclined to ‘put them down’. It can be effective. In reality, however, rights are not separable from the society in which someone communicates. How assertiveness is construed is therefore culture-related – what is assertive in one society is seen as aggressive in another.117 People from both English-speaking and continental European cultures were close in self-perceived assertiveness, and both were higher than people from East Asian cultures, a study found. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Chinese men were more assertive than Chinese women.118 Assertiveness is associated with both gain and satisfaction for Canadians, but only with satisfaction, not gain, for the Chinese.119 What might explain this difference?

mainland China perceived ‘being argumentative’ more positively than both those from Hong Kong and those from Taiwan. Mainland Chinese perceived argument as a relatively positive and constructive action and several traditional value orientations contributed to argumentative tendencies.123

Communicator style For some psychologists, a bundle of traits is called a personality; the equivalent for communication theorists is communicator style. There is evidence that communicator style has important effects at work: for instance, supervisors tend to be more satisfied with subordinates whose communicator style is affirmative.124 Other style variables that have been researched include being friendly, relaxed, contentious, attentive, precise, animated, open, impression-leaving and having a positive communicator image. Style theorists believe that individuals have dominant styles, which may have biological origins.125 However, the environment plays an important part in the development of an individual’s ‘communication personality’, which thus can be expected to vary among cultures and subcultures. For instance, Arabic and American cultures have two distinct perspectives for viewing the role of language, for structuring persuasive messages, and for communicating effectively with their audiences. For Arabic culture, the emphasis is on form over function, affect over accuracy and image over meaning. Indians’ and Americans’ communication styles may also differ, according to this quote from an interview with an Indian callcentre trainer:

Argumentativeness Willingness to engage in constructive persuasive debate is called argumentativeness.120 It is a trait that managers have been shown to value in subordinates. However, Kim et al. (2001) suggested that argumentativeness is a form of verbal aggression. It is, they asserted, acceptable in US culture because the attack is directed against an ‘object’ – the matter under discussion – rather than a person, but this distinction is probably neither understood nor accepted in other cultures. Individualism increased argumentativeness, research by Kim et al. (2001) showed.121 Conversely, research found no differences in argumentativeness between ethnic groups in the USA. The groups tested included African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanics and European Americans.122 Taiwanese people are located on the low end of being argumentative whereas people in China are at the high end, a study found. People in

There is a mismatch between American and Indian communication styles which is very hard to overcome, especially as it is only the Indians who are trying to overcome it. The American customer, of course, has no sense that he or she should make an effort. Part of the problem is comprehension – the Indians understand the words, but not the meaning; for instance, they do not grasp when the speaker is being sarcastic or ironic.126 Table 5.4 sets out the communication styles that would be predicted from different cultural values.  5.5.2 for more on how cultural values can be used to predict and explain differences among communicator styles in different countries.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  75

Table 5.4  Relations among different cultural values and communication styles Cultural Values

Communication Styles

High uncertainty avoidance

Expressive

Low uncertainty avoidance

Low key

High masculine values (achievement)

Assertive, competitive

High feminine values (relationships)

Supportive, cooperative

High power distance

High formality; low disclosure and openness

Low power distance

Low formality; high disclosure and openness

High individualism

Competitive

High collectivism

Cooperative with ingroup

5.6 SITUATIONS (CONTEXTS) Verbal and non-verbal forms of communication are partly determined by the situation or context in which they are produced and are not decided only by the goals and strategies of the interlocutors, or by the rules for cooperating or conveying an intention. A communication situation is the entire communication event, including the participants, the setting and the activities taking place. A context is that part of a situation that is durable rather than temporary; equally, a situation is that part of a context that is temporary. According to situation theorists, people normally adjust their communication behaviour for the situation. Work is a communication situation or, rather, a large number of different situations with some shared characteristics, such as the norm of focusing on the task, that differ from those among members of a family, friends, neighbours or other interactors. There are cultural differences in how people interpret situations. ‘Two people socialized to different cultures may react to a situation differently because of differences in internalized conceptions of the content of the situation, of what is normal, what is appropriate and so on.’127 For instance, in some cultures a funeral is seen as a joyful and not a sorrowful occasion. The fact that work creates a different communication situation from private life applies cross-culturally, although how it differs varies from one culture to another. For example, while pressure of work is an acceptable excuse for non-attendance at a distant cousin’s wedding in many families in the UK, that would not be equally true in many Indian families; on the other hand, absence from work to visit one’s father’s grave on the first anniversary of his death is usual in India, but not in the UK.

Comment

Except among Japanese people This applies to manager-subordinate interactions but may not apply to peer-to-peer interactions; it depends on the power balance.

5.7 COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE There are cultural variations in what counts as communication competence and effectiveness. Using low-context communication in a high-context culture counts as incompetent – too many words, too little use of silence; the reverse is also true – in a low-context culture, high-context communication may be seen as inarticulate and hesitant. Indirectness is ineffective where directness is the rule and vice-versa. An emphasis on relationship data is seen as ‘soft’ where content data is usually predominant and, as the case of women illustrates, it also conveys a lack of authority and assertiveness; an emphasis on content data in a cultural milieu that prefers an emphasis on relationship data may be seen as an incompetent lack of subtlety and refinement. ­Cultural variations mean that the skills such as tolerance of ambiguity, and the processes such as uncertainty reduction, which have been tested and argued to be generalizable, may not be universally effective. Flexibility, respect, openness, confidence or self-control may reflect a Western cultural bias on individualism or low social distance.128 Empirically, a study found that Thais who are perceived to be communicatively competent know how to avoid conflict with others, control their emotions, display respect, tactfulness, modesty and politeness, and use appropriate pronouns in addressing others.129 These skills may not be among the most important aspects of what communication competence means in other cultures. Again, findings from a study of upper and middle managers in the United States and the Russian Federation show that national culture has an impact on intercultural

76  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

communication competence that affects the performance of multicultural teams.130

of delay often requires the reader to absorb details, sometimes relevant and sometimes not, before discovering the problem.132

5.8 WORK COMMUNICATION

The emphasis placed on consensus in decision-making at work

There are some particular points about cultural differences in work communication that will be explained here. These add to the points made in sections 5.2 to 5.6 about cultural differences in communication which used workrelated illustrations in many cases. Co-worker interaction norms, written business communication, the emphasis placed on consensus in decision-making, the level of preference for face-to-face communication in business dealings and the assumptions about relations and communication between a boss and subordinates are among the factors that vary across cultures.

Co-worker interaction norms Empirical studies have shown that there are cultural differences in the ‘models’ on which co-worker interaction norms are based, with market, family, law and friendship relations as alternative templates. American workplace relationships tend to have a market transaction orientation, evidenced by a comparatively low duration of ties and limited informal tie overlap. Chinese interaction work norms show ‘traces of filial responsibility’ – they tend to focus on superordinates (superiors). German workplace relationships have an accent on political/ legal procedures, as shown by a higher frequency of jobrequired communication and a lower level of affective closeness. Spanish norms, in contrast, reflect friendship codes, shown in more frequent communication on nonjob-required topics and a greater duration of informal ties.131

Written business communication There is evidence for cultural effects on written business communication. For instance, US and Korean business writers prefer different structures and styles, a study of complaint letters found. The majority of the letters written by US managers followed the ‘direct’ pattern: identification of the problem, discussion of relevant information, request for action, and a buffer, with the buffer representing an optional move. Only a small proportion of the Korean letters followed the US model, despite the fact that they were written in English to conduct business with US companies. Instead, the standard Korean pattern was indirect: most led with relevant information about the problem before identifying the problem itself. This kind

There are cultural differences in how many people are involved in making decisions at work. In Japan, ‘appropriate others’ participate in making decisions, so that a sense of group involvement results. Information, too, is widely shared. Making decisions takes longer, but implementation is more certain and often quicker. ‘The Japanese are not good at doing deals. One reason is that consensus is essential. There is a longer approval cycle. A negotiator will have only limited discretion and when he or she refers back, it is not to one individual with more discretion but to make sure everybody is well informed and approves the deal.’133 This consensual approach, which also extends to management methods – the Japanese use discussions and ‘making resolutions to do better’ – contrasts sharply with the North American practice of decision-making and management by single individuals.

The level of preference for face-to-face work communication Members of different cultures show different preferences for communication modes. Whereas in the USA mediated communication is increasingly replacing face-to-face contact at work, Japanese work communication exhibits a preference for the face-to-face mode over email, memo or telephone. Japanese offices are usually open plan, allowing day-to-day awareness of others’ non-verbal behaviours and their context, which allows them to be interpreted more effectively. In many developing countries, too, according to Aycan (2002), there is a strong preference for face-to-face communication, for instance in business dealings. The pattern of communication in organizations is indirect, non-assertive, non-confrontational and usually directed downwards in terms of hierarchy. The context determines the way in which information is coded and understood. As such, there is room for subjective interpretation of the content and intent of the message.134

Assumptions about relations and communication between a boss and subordinate National differences have been found in the assumptions about relations and communication between a boss and subordinates that are reflected in their models of work communication. Japanese managers, compared with the

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  77

Chinese and Koreans, are less likely to dominate and subordinates are more likely to oblige their supervisors.135  5.8.1 for more on cultural differences in work communication practices.

5.9 COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION

•

Culture is one characteristic of the user that influences how cmc affects behaviour. Use of ftf versus email, both generally and in organizations, minority influence on groupwork and the performance of teams are all influenced by cultural factors:

• Higher power-distance scores correlate positively with

•

ftf use and negatively with email, though not with use of other media, a study based on self-reports found. Americans were more likely to use email than Japanese people were, while the Japanese were more likely to use ftf, telephone, fax and letters than Americans. (Japan’s power distance is not extremely high but it is higher than the USA’s.) Unexpectedly, however, no correlations are found between scores on high-context communication and positive ftf use or negative use of other modes.136 Cultural differences in cmc use have been found in an organizational setting: members of high-context cultures such as China and India tend to build smaller but

•

more intense networks, prefer instant messaging, vary which cmc mode they use and express different levels of sentiment depending on the hierarchy within the relationship.137 The influence of culture on choice of mode at work may be related particularly to communication with those perceived as superiors: for instance, some Koreans perceive using email as disrespectful and tend to avoid using it for communication with their superiors.138 The absence of non-verbal cues such as voice and facial expression in cmc can result in significantly less social presence and conformity pressure, and in turn less majority influence. In collectivist cultures group members with minority views are generally more susceptible to group majority influence than such minorities are in individualist cultures. When collectivistic majorities were restricted by the low social presence imposed by a communication medium, however, the influence of cultural similarity on a group decision-making outcome was limited, despite collectivists’ cultural inclination toward supporting and/or agreeing with ingroup members, a study found.139 There are findings that indicate that a team’s cultural composition is a significant predictor of its performance on programming projects, although the type of programming task affects whether the relationship between individual cultural attributes and performance is strong or weak. The cultural attributes linked to high virtual-team performance on a programming task are shown in Figure 5.8.140

Figure 5.8  Cultural attributes linked to high virtual-team performance on a programming task141 High locus of control + Low power distance

+ +

High perceived team harmony

High willingness to defer gratification

+

Performance of a virtual team working on a programming task

78  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

As Figure 5.8 shows, cultural attributes most strongly correlated to virtual-team performance include those linked to beliefs about how much influence individuals have on their fate (high internal locus of control increases performance), attitudes about organizational hierarchy (high power distance reduces performance), perceived organizational harmony (high perceived harmony increases performance) and trade-offs between future and current needs (high willingness to defer gratification increases performance).142 In a negotiation being conducted by audioconferencing or instant messaging, what consequences for people from high power-distance cultures might follow if the negotiators do not announce who they are before they speak or write?  5.9.1 for more on how culture influences cmc practices at work.

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY

• All cultures exhibit a wide range of kinds of communi• • •

• •

cation behaviour, the content of which may vary from culture to culture. Messages, responses and codes are elements of communication that vary across cultures; means of conveying them – verbally, paralinguistically or non-verbally – also vary cross-culturally. Rules that govern the cooperation required for communication and for conveying the intention behind a message also differ among cultures. Cultural differences have been found in informationseeking, anxiety and uncertainty management, face management, politeness, rapport management, deference behaviours, achieving clarity, avoiding hurt to others and minimizing imposition, trust-building, reciprocity and altruistic behaviour, deception, influencing and conflict handling. These differences partly reflect the cultural values differences described in Chapter 3, but in some cases appear to be independent variables. Apart from ‘high-context/low-context’, we do not as yet have a taxonomy of cultural differences in communication itself. Traits such as rhetorical sensitivity and assertiveness, communicator styles and how communication situations are interpreted are all affected by culture. At work, cultural differences have been found in the ‘models’ on which co-worker interaction norms are based, written business communication, the use made by management of discussions and making resolutions,

•

the level of preference for face-to-face contact and models of business communication. In cmc, choice of mode, the level of majority influence, and decision-making regarding distributed work are all aspects of communication affected by culture.  5.A for a link to another video on culture and communication.

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Zaharna, R.S. (1995) ‘Understanding cultural preferences of Arab communication patterns’, Public Relations Review, 21(3): 241–55. 2 Trudgill, P. (1983) (Revision of 1974 Edition), Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books. 3 Gfeller, E. and Robinson, C. (1998) ‘Which language for teaching? The cultural messages transmitted by the languages used in education’, Language and Education, 12(1): 18–32. 4 Malotki, E. (1983). Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of the Temporal Concepts in the Hopi Language (Vol. 20) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 5 Armstrong, G.B. and Kaplowitz, S.A. (2001) ‘Sociolinguistic inference and intercultural coorientation: a Bayesian model of communicative competence in intercultural interaction’, Human Communication Research, 27(3): 350–81. 6 Babcock, R.D. and Du-Babcock, B. (2001) ‘Languagebased communication zones in international business communication’, The Journal of Business Communication, 38: 372–412. 7 Egbert, M., Niebecker, L. and Rezzara, S. (2005) ‘Inside first and second language speakers’ trouble in understanding’, in Gardner, R. and Wagner, J. (eds) Second Language Conversations, London: A&C Black. 8 Samovar, L.A. and Porter, R.E. (1985) ‘Introduction’, in Samovar, L.A. and Porter, R.E. (eds) Intercultural Communication: A Reader, 4th edn, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 9 Lauring, J. (2008) ‘Rethinking social identity theory in international encounters: language use as a negotiated object for identity making’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8: 343–61. 10 Du-Babcock, B. (1999) ‘Topic management and turn taking in professional communications: first- versus second-language strategies’, Management Communication Quarterly, 12(4): 544–74. 11 Ibid. 12 Van Dijk, T.A. (ed.) (1997) Discourse as Structure and Process: Discourse Studies, A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 1, London: Sage

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  79

13 Zaidman, N. (2001) ‘Cultural codes and language strategies in business communication interactions between Israeli and Indian business people’, Management Communication Quarterly, 14(3): 408–41. 14 Yum, J.O. (1987) ‘Asian perspectives on communication’, in Kincaid, D. (ed.) Communication Theory: Eastern and Western Perspectives, New York: Academic Press. 15 Harrison, R. (1974) Beyond Words: An Introduction to Nonverbal Communication, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 16 Gallois, C. and Callan, V.J. (1986) ‘Decoding emotional messages: influence of ethnicity, sex, message type and channel’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4): 755–62. 17 Kawakami, K., Williams, A., Sidhu, D., Choma, B.L., Rodriguez-Bailón, R., Cañadas, E., Chung, D. and Hugenberg, K. (2014) ‘An eye for the I: Preferential attention to the eyes of ingroup members’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1): 1–20. 18 Murphy, D. (1985) Muddling Through in Madagascar, London: Century Press. 19 Kirra, K.M. (2000) ‘Finns in interaction with nonFinns: problematic phenomena perceived as critical incidents’, Intercultural Communication, 4: 109–23. 20 Ekman, P. and Friesen, W.V. (1968) ‘Nonverbal behaviour in psychotherapy research’, in Schlein, J.M. (ed.) Research in Psychotherapy, Vol. 3, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 21 Matsumoto, D., Olide, A., Schug, J., Willingham, B. and Callan, M. ‘Cross-cultural judgments of spontaneous facial expressions of emotion’, Journal of Non-verbal Behaviour, 33(4): 213–38. 22 Birdwhistell, R. (1970) Kinesics and Context, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 23 Haworth, D.A. and Savage, G.T. (1989) ‘A Channelratio model of intercultural communication: the trains won’t sell, fix them please’, Journal of Business Communication, 26(3): 231–54. 24 Young, S. (2007) Micromessaging: Why Great Leadership is Beyond Words, Chicago: McGraw-Hill. 25 Khetarpal, I. ‘Leadership in multicultural and intercultural education a practitioner’s submission’, URL: http://www.icponline.org/. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 26 Becker, M.M, Olson, J.S. and Olson, G.M. (2000) ‘How does radical collocation help a team succeed?’ Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer supported Cooperative work, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, pp. 339–46. 27 Du-Babcock, B. (2003) ‘A comparative analysis of individual communication processes in small group behavior between homogeneous and heterogeneous groups’, URL: http://personal.cityu.edu.

28 29

30 31 32

33 34 35

36

37

38 39

40 41 42

hk/~enbertha/A%20comparative%20analysis%20 of%20individual%20communication%20processes_ 2003.pdf. Last accessed 17 July 2016. Stohl, C. (1995) Organizational Communication: Connectedness in Action, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gibson, C.B. and Manuel, J. (2003) ‘Building trust: effective multi-cultural communication processes in virtual teams’, in Gibson, C.B. and Cohen, S.G. (eds) Virtual Teams That Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Taquet, J., ‘What’s in a question? A cross-cultural perspective’, JB Intercultural Consulting, URL: www. culture-at-work.com. Last accessed 17 July 2016. Based on Gibson and Manuel op. cit. Lalwani, A.K., Shrum, L.J. and Chiu, C.Y. (2009) ‘Motivated response styles: the role of cultural values, regulatory focus, and self-consciousness in socially desirable responding’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4): 870. Bernstein, B. (1971) Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies Toward a Sociology of Language, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Grice, H.P. (1975) ‘Logic and conversation’, in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds) Syntax and Semantics 3, New York: Academic Press. Tajabadi, A. Dowlatabadi, H. and Mehri, E. (2014) ‘Grice’s cooperative maxims in oral arguments: the case of dispute settlement councils in Iran’, ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 98: 1859–65. Ramsey, S.J. (1998) ‘Interactions between North Americans and Japanese: considerations of communication style’, in Bennett, M.J. (ed.) Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Selected Readings, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Atifi, H., Mandelcwajg, S. and Marcoccia, M. (2011) ‘The co-operative principle and computer-mediated communication: the maxim of quantity in newsgroup discussions’, Language Sciences, 33(2): 330–40. Searle, J. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nasri, N., Dastjerdy, H.V. and Ghadiri, M. (2013) ‘Congratulations across cultures: English versus Armenian and Persian speakers’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70: 67–73. Thompson, N. (2003) Communication and Language: A Handbook of Theory and Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Buchan, J. (2014) ‘Toward an understanding of Arabic persuasion: A Western perspective’, International Journal of Business Communication, 51(3): 279–303. Baldwin, J.R. and Hunt, S.K. (2002) ‘Informationseeking behavior in intercultural and intergroup

80  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

43

44 45

46

47 48

49 50

51 52

53

54 55

56

communication’, Human Communication Research, 28(2): 272–86. Berger, C.R. and Calabrese, R.J. (1975) ‘Some explorations in initial interactions and beyond’, Human Communication Research, 1: 99–112. See also: Berger, C.R. (1987) ‘Communicating under uncertainty’, in Roloff, M.E. and Miller, G.R. (eds) Interpersonal Processes, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Berger and Calabrese, op. cit. Gudykunst, W.B., Yang, S.M. and Nishida, T. (1985) ‘A cross-cultural test of uncertainty reduction theory: comparisons of acquaintance, friend and dating relationships in Japan, Korea and the US’, Human Communication Research, 11: 407–55. Gudykunst, W.B. and Hammer, M.R. (1988) ‘Strangers and hosts: an uncertainty reduction based theory of intercultural adaptation’, in Kim, Y.Y. and Gudykunst, W.B. (eds) Intercultural Adaptation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gudykunst, W.B., Nishida, T. and Chua, E. (1986) ‘Uncertainty reduction in Japanese–North American dyads’, Communication Research Reports, 3: 39–46. Gudykunst, W.B., Sodetani, L.L. and Sonoda, K.T. (1987) ‘Uncertainty reduction in Japanese–American/ Caucasian relationships in Hawaii’, Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51(3): 256–78. Gudykunst, W.B. (1988) ‘Uncertainty and anxiety’, in Kim, Y.Y. and Gudykunst, W.B. (eds) Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ni, L. and Wang, Q. (2011) ‘Anxiety and uncertainty management in an intercultural setting: The impact on organization–public relationships’, Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(3): 269–301. Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Baig, N., Ting-Toomey, S. and Dorjee, T. (2014) ‘Intergenerational narratives on face: a South Asian Indian American perspective’, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 7(2): 127–47. Buckley, P.J., Clegg, J. and Tan, H. (2006) ‘Cultural awareness in knowledge transfer to China—The role of guanxi and mianzi’, Journal of World Business, 41(3): 275–28. Katriel, T. (1991) Communal Webs: Communication and Culture in Contemporary Israel, Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H., Lin, S.L. and Nishida, T. (1991) ‘Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: a study in five cultures’, The International Journal of Conflict Management, 2: 275–96. Merkin, R.S. (2006) ‘Uncertainty avoidance and facework: A test of the Hofstede model’, International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(2): 213–28. 57 Ting-Toomey, S. (1988) ‘Intercultural conflict styles: afacenegotiation theory’, in Kim, Y.Y. and Gudykunst,W.B. (eds) Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 58 Based on Lebra, T. (1971) ‘The social mechanism of guilt and shame: the Japanese case’, Anthropological Quarterly, 44(4): 241–55. 59 Merkin, R. (2012) ‘Middle Eastern impression-management communication’, Cross-Cultural Research, 46(2): 109–32. 60 Lebra, op. cit. 61 Ma, R. (1992) ‘The role of unofficial intermediaries in interpersonal conflicts in the Chinese culture’, Communication Quarterly, 40(3): 269–78. 62 Oetzel, J., Garcia, A.J. and Ting-Toomey, S. (2008) ‘An analysis of the relationships among face concerns and facework behaviors in perceived conflict situations: A four-culture investigation’, International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(4): 382–403. 63 Lee, J. (2013) ‘A study of facework in interpreter-mediated courtroom examination, Perspectives, 21(1): 82–99. 64 Netzley, M.A. and Rath, A. (2012) ‘Social networks and the desire to save face: a case from Singapore. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(1): 96–107. 65 Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. (1978) ‘Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena’, in Goody, E.N. (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 66 Collier, M.J. (1989) ‘Cultural and intercultural communication competence: current approaches and directions’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13: 287–302. 67 Kim, Y.Y. (1991) ‘Intercultural communication competence: a systems-theoretic view’, in Ting-Toomey, S. and Korzenny, F. (eds) International and Intercultural Communication Annual, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 68 Park, H.S., Levine, T.R., Weber, R., et al. (2012) ‘Individual and cultural variations in direct communication style’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(2): 179–87. 69 Orthaber, S. and Márquez-Reiter, R. (2011) ‘ “Talk to the hand”: Complaints to a public transport company’, Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15): 3860–76. 70 Graham, S.L. (2007) ‘Disagreeing to agree: conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community’, Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4): 742–59. 71 Ibid. 72 Lee, H.E. and Park, H.S. (2011) ‘Why Koreans are more likely to favor “apology”, while Americans are more likely to favor “thank you” ’, Human Communication Research, 37(1): 125–46.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  81

73 Murphy, M. and Levy, M. (2006) ‘Politeness in intercultural email communication’, Journal of Intercultural Communication, 12: 1–11. 74 Incelli, E. (2013) ‘Managing discourse in intercultural business email interactions: a case study of a British and Italian business transaction’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(6): 515–32. 75 Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002) ‘Managing rapport in talk: using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations’, Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 529–45 76 Pavlidou, T.-S. (2000) ‘Telephone conversations in Greek and German: attending to the relationship aspect of communication’, in Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.) Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures, London: Continuum. 77 Clark, H. (1996) Using Language, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 78 Sanchez-Burks, J., Lee, F., Choi, I., Nisbett, R., Zhao, S., and Koo, J. (2003) ‘Conversing across cultures: EastWest communication styles in work and non-work contexts’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2): 363–72. 79 Spencer-Oatey, H. and Xing, J. (2000) ‘A problematic Chinese business visit to Britain’, in Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.) Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport Through Talk Across Cultures, London: Continuum. 80 Savani, K., Morris, M.W. and Naidu, N.V.R. (2012) ‘Deference in Indians’ decision making: introjected goals or injunctive norms?’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4): 685. 81 Ota, H., McCann, R.M. and Honeycutt, J.M. (2012) ‘Inter-Asian variability in intergenerational communication’, Human Communication Research, 38(2): 172–98. 82 Fragale, A.R., Sumanth, J.J., Tiedens, L.Z. and Northcraft, G.B. (2012) ‘Appeasing equals lateral deference in organizational communication’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(3): 373–406. 83 Kim, M.-S. (2006) ‘Cross-cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of conversational constraints’, Human Communication Research, 21(1): 128–51. 84 Kim, M.-S. and Wilson, S.R. (1994) ‘A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting’, Communication Monographs, 61: 210–35. 85 Kim, M.-S. (2006), op. cit. 86 Buchan, N.R., Johnson, E.J. and Croson, R.T.A. (2006) ‘Let’s get personal: An international e­ xamination of the influence of communication, culture and social distance on other regarding preferences’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60: 373–98.

87 Furner, C.P. and George, J.F. (2012) ‘Cultural determinants of media choice for deception’, Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4): 1427–38. 88 Kim, M.S., Kam, K.Y., Sharkey, W.F. and Singelis, T.M. (2008) ‘Deception: moral transgression or social necessity?: cultural-relativity of deception motivations and perceptions of deceptive communication’, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1(1): 23–50. 89 Ibid. 90 Wang, C.S., Leung, A.K.Y., See, Y.H.M. and Gao, X.Y. (2011) ‘The effects of culture and friendship on rewarding honesty and punishing deception’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6): 1295–9. 91 Furner and George, op. cit. 92 Ma, Z. (2007) ‘Conflict management styles as indicators of behavioral pattern in business negotiation: the impact of contextualism in two countries’, International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(3): 260–79. 93 Suchan, J. (2014) Toward an understanding of Arabic persuasion: A Western perspective’, International Journal of Business Communication, 51(3): 279–303. 94 Han, S.P. and Shavitt, S. (1994) ‘Persuasion and culture: Advertising appeals in individualistic and collectivistic societies’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30(4): 326–50. 95 Aaker, J.L. (2000) ‘Accessibility or diagnosticity? Disentangling the influence of culture on persuasion processes and attitudes’, Journal of Consumer Research, 26(4): 340–57. 96 Raven, B.H. and Kruglanski, A.W. (1970) ‘Conflict and power’, in Swingle, P. (ed.) The Structure of Conflict, New York: Academic Press. 97 Oetzel, J.G., Ting -Toomey, S., Yokochi, Y., Masumoto, T. and Takai, J. (2000) ‘A typology of facework behaviors in conflicts with best friends and relative strangers’, Communication Quarterly, 48(4): 397–419. 98 Damian, D.E. and Zowghi, D. (2003) ‘An insight into the interplay between culture, conflict and distance in globally distributed requirements negotiations’, in Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. IEEE. 99 Triandis, H. (2000) ‘Culture and conflict’, International Journal of Psychology, 35(2): 145–52. 100 Bazerman, M.H., Curhan, J.R., Moore, D.A. and Valley, K.L. (2000) ‘Negotiation’, Annual Review of Psychology, 51: 279–314. 101 D’Silva, M.U. and Whyte, L.O. (1998) ‘Cultural differences in conflict styles: Vietnamese refugees and established residents’, Howard Journal of Communications, 9(1): 57–68.

82  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

102 Cushman, D.P. and King, S.S. (1999) Continuously Improving an Organization’s Performance: High-speed Management, Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 103 Sullivan, J., Peterson, R.B., Kameda, N., and Shimada, J. (1981). ‘The relationship between conflict resolution approaches and trust—a cross cultural study’, Academy of Management Journal, 24(4): 803–15. 104 Tjosvold, D., Hui, C. and Law, K.S. (2001) ‘Constructive conflict in China: cooperative conflict as a bridge between East and West’, Journal of World Business, 36(2): 166–83. 105 Ma, op. cit. 106 Liang, L.H., Adair, W.L. and Hideg, I. (2014) ‘When should we disagree? The effect of relationship conflict on team identity in East Asian and North American teams’, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 7(4): 282–89. 107 Leung, K., Bond, M.H., Carment, D.W., Krishnan, L. and Liebrand, W.B. (1990) ‘Effects of cultural femininity on preference for methods of conflict processing: A cross-cultural study’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(5): 373–88. 108 Ting-Toomey, S. (1982) ‘Toward a theory of conflict and culture’, URL: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED225201. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 109 Kim, T.Y., Wang, C., Kondo, M. and Kim, T.H. (2007) ‘Conflict management styles: the differences among the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans’, International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(1): 23–41. 110 Hart, R.P. and Burks, D.M. (1972) ‘Rhetorical sensitivity and social interaction’, Speech Monographs, 39: 75–91. 111 Dilbeck, K.E. and McCroskey, J.C. (2009) ‘Socio-communicative orientation, communication competence, and rhetorical sensitivity’, Human Communication, 12(3): 255–66. 112 Ameli, S.R. and Molaei, H. (2012) ‘Religious affiliation and intercultural sensitivity: Interculturality between Shia and Sunni Muslims in Iran’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(1): 31–40. 113 Knutson, T.J., Smith, V.R. and Han, P.C. (2002) ‘A comparison of Taiwanese and American samples on rhetorical sensitivity and conflict style’, in Chen, G.-M. and Ma, R. (eds) Chinese Conflict Management and Resolution, Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. 114 Gross, D.D., Walkosz, B. and Brumley, B. (1997) ‘Rhetorical sensitivity: a key concept for creating successful online instruction’, URL: http://eric.ed.gov/ ?id=ED412976. Last accessed 2 October 2016. 115 Sanchez-Burks, J. and Blount, S. (2006) ‘Unpacking rapport: the role of behavioral coordination and culture in workplace interviews’, Ross School of Business

Paper No. 911. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=901778. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 116 Langrish, S. (1981) ‘Assertive training’, in Cooper, C.L. (ed.) Improving Interpersonal Relations: Some Approaches to Social Skills Training, London: Gower. 117 Ibid. 118 Anderson, C.M., Martin, M.M., Zhong, M. and West, D. (1997) ‘Reliability, separation of factors, and sex differences on the assertiveness-responsiveness measure: A Chinese sample’, Communication Research Reports, 14(1): 58–64. 119 Ma, Z. and Jaeger, A.M. (2010) ‘A comparative study of the influence of assertiveness on negotiation outcomes in Canada and China’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17(4): 333–46. 120 Waldron, V.R. (1999) ‘Communication practices of followers, members, and proteges: the case of upward influence tactics’, Communication Yearbook, 22: 251–99. 121 Kim, M.-S., Aune, K.S., Hunter, J.E., Kim, H.-J. and Kim, J.-S. (2001) ‘The effect of culture and self-construals on predispositions toward verbal communication’, Human Communication Research, 27(3): 382–408. 122 Schullery, N.M. (1998) ‘The optimum level of argumentativeness for employed women’, The Journal of Business Communication, 35: 346–67. 123 Chen, L. and Yeh, J.B. (2004) ‘Traditional value orientations and argumentativeness: A study of Mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan Chinese’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans Sheraton, New Orleans, LA, URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/ p113433_index.html. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 124 Infante, D.A. and Gorden, W.I. (1989) ‘Argumentativeness and affirming communicator style as predictors of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with subordinates’, Communication Quarterly, 37(2): 81–90. 125 Horvath, C.W. (1995) ‘Biological origins of communicator style’, Communication Quarterly, 43: 394–407. 126 Authors’ interview with a trainer for an Indian call centre dealing with customer complaints for a US online retailer. 127 Hall, E.T. (1976) Beyond Culture, New York: Doubleday. 128 Collier, op. cit. 129 Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam, N. and Jablin, F.M. (1999) ‘An exploratory study of communication competence in Thai organizations’, Journal of Business Communication, 36(4): 382–418. 130 Matveev, A.V. and Nelson, P.E. (2004) ‘Cross cultural communication competence and multicultural team performance perceptions of American and Russian managers’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4(2): 253–70.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION PRACTICES  83

131 Morris, M.W., Podolny, J. and Sullivan, B.N. (2008) ‘Culture and coworker relations: Interpersonal patterns in American, Chinese, German, and Spanish divisions of a global retail’, Organization Science, 19(4): 517–32. 132 Park et al., op. cit. 133 Guirdham (2009) Culture and Business in Asia, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 134 Aycan, Z. (2002) ‘Leadership and teamwork in developing countries: challenges and opportunities’, in Lonner, W.J., Dinnel, D.L., Hayes, S.A. and Sattler, D.N. (eds) Online Readings in Psychology and Culture (unit 15, chapter 8), URL: http://www.wwu. edu/culture/readings.htm. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 135 Kim, Wang, Kondo and Kim, op. cit. 136 Richardson, R.M. and Smith, S.W. (2007) ‘The influence of high/low-context culture and power distance on choice of communication media: Students’ media choice to communicate with professors in Japan and America’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(4): 479–501.

137 Jiang Yang, Zhen Wen, Adamic, L.A., Ackerman, M.S. and Ching-Yung Lin (2011) ‘Collaborating globally: Culture and organizational computer-mediated communication’, Completed Research Paper Jiang Yang School of Information University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA, URL: web.eecs.umich. edu/~ackerm/pub/11b67/ICIS-collaborating.final. pdf. Last accessed 10 October 2016. 138 Lee, O. (2000) ‘The role of cultural protocol in media choice in a Confucian virtual workplace’, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43: 196–200. 139 Zhang, D., Lowry, P.B., Zhou, L. and Fu, X. (2007) ‘The impact of individualism-collectivism, social presence, and group diversity on group decision making under majority influence,’ Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(4): 53–8. 140 Swigger, K., Alpaslan, F., Brazile, R. and Monticino, M. (2004) ‘Effects of culture on computer-supported international collaborations’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60(3): 365–80. 141 Based on ibid. 142 Ibid.

6 1 CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS The previous chapter, Chapter 5, described culture-based differences in overt communication behaviour at work; this chapter will examine culture-based differences in the internal psychological factors and processes that underlie communication behaviour. The relation between Chapters 5 and 6 is shown in Figure 6.1. Communication, from one point of view, is only a particular form of behaviour and like other forms of behaviour it has antecedents which influence it. This means that we can increase our understanding of how people communicate by learning more about the antecedents of their behaviour. In the words of Kastanakis and Voyer (2014) it is important to go ‘beyond mere description of cross-cultural differences in … behavior to address the roots of these differences, that is, the existence of fundamental cross-cultural differences in pre-behavioral processes.’1 The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to deepen and widen the analysis of cultural similarities and differences in ways of communicating that were discussed in Chapter 5. To achieve this, it will explore psychological constructs and processes underlying overt communication. The chapter will show that individuals’ values, motivations, emotions, perceptions, beliefs, assumptions, expectations, attitudes, and even their sense of ‘self’ tend to differ from culture to culture. How individuals perceive other people and how they think can also differ according to their culture. This is not to deny, however, that other factors than group memberships, including individual heredity, interact with these group effects to influence behaviour. Section 6.1 describes the psychological elements such as emotions and Section 6.2 explains the overall self and identity; cultural differences in these constructs and their effects on communication are also covered in these sections. Section 6.3 sets out the internal processes that people go through before, after and while they are communicating. In this book there is no space to do more than introduce these vast subjects (but readers are recommended to follow them up: some relevant books are listed 84

in Further Reading). Instead the focus is on how cultural differences are reflected in these constructs and processes that underlie communication. Chapter 1 argued that there are both universals and culture-specifics in communication behaviours; the same applies to the constructs and processes described in this chapter, despite the emphasis here on differences.

6.1 PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS INVOLVED IN WORK COMMUNICATION Understanding others, the foundation for communication, requires a knowledge of how psychological factors vary across cultures. That is the purpose of this section. Psychological factors such as emotions and attitudes are even more closely related to culture than communication practices. Cultural values are most strongly related to emotions, followed by attitudes, then behaviours, and finally job performance, Taras et al. (2010) found from analysing three decades of research.2 The internal factors covered here are values, including moral codes, motives, emotions and moods, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, expectations and intentions. The relationships among these variables are shown in Figure 6.2. Cultural differences in the ‘self’, which covers personality, identity, self-construals and self-esteem, are explained in Section 6.2.  6.1.1 for a more detailed diagram of these influences.

At times any of the psychological factors shown in F­ igure 6.2 is likely to influence an individual’s work communication directly: for example, the emotion of anger will sometimes make a person speak rudely or aggressively, or an attitude of distrust will make someone

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN work COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS  85

Figure 6.1  Cultural differences in communication behaviours and the psychological factors and processes that may affect these behaviours CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN INTERACTORS’

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS"

COMMUNICATION, SUCH AS: verbal communication, paralinguistics, nonverbal communication, rules, traits, styles, uses of communication (functions), goals, strategies, Can result from responses to situations, choice of mode and behaviour in different modes

motivations, emotions, perceptions, beliefs, assumptions, expectations, attitudes and ‘self’

(Content of Chapter 6)

(Content of Chapter 5)

Figure 6.2  Psychological influences on individuals’ work communication behaviour that may differ across cultures

Values Motives

Intentions

Communication

Emotions and moods

Expectations Perceptions Attitudes Beliefs

conceal information, or high organizational commitment may lead someone to respond positively to an appeal to work late. Their influence is often more subtle, affecting the whole tenor of a person’s work behaviour, of which their communication is an important part. At times, however, the context, situation or the person’s ability may prevent these variables exerting a direct influence on overt behaviour, which helps explain the Taras et al. (2010) finding that culture’s impact on psychological variables is more evident from research than its impact on overt behaviour. Table 6.1 gives examples of cultural differences in each of these variables. The text below gives details of these and further examples.

Cultural differences in values, including moral codes Values are ‘concepts or beliefs that pertain to desirable end states or behaviors, transcend specific situations, guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events and are ordered by relative importance’.3 There is evidence that individuals’ values do give meaning to, energize and regulate value-congruent behaviour, but only if those values are cognitively activated (being thought about) and central to the person’s sense of themselves.4 The topic of values was covered in Section 3.1, where cultural differences in individualism–collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance,

86  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION Table 6.1  Cultural differences in psychological influences on communication behaviour Psychological Influences on Communication Behaviour

Examples of Cultural Differences

Values

e.g. individualism-collectivism, power distance, mastery/harmony, emphasis on dignity, honour or face, expressive/survival

  Moral codes

Individualism–collectivism and uncertainty avoidance helped explain national differences in judgements of the ‘ethicality’ of decision items, a ten-nation study found.

Motives

The achievement motive may be a motive limited to individualist cultures.

Emotions and moods

Emotional conflict has a more negative effect on performance in Mexican teams than US teams.

  Communication apprehension

Collectivists are higher in communication apprehension.

  Emotional intelligence (EI)

The British score higher than the Chinese in global EI.

Perceptions

Chinese subjects perceived communication episodes mainly in terms of communal values, power distance and usefulness, rather than pleasantness, whereas Australians were more aware of competitiveness and individualism, research found.

Beliefs   Core beliefs

In the USA, people who strongly agree with social dominance orientation (SDO) blame people in low-status positions (such as poverty) for their misfortunes. However, in Taiwan, people who strongly agree with SDO tend to believe that people’s misfortunes are due to forces outside of themselves.

  Locus of control

Oriental Asians, particularly the Japanese, show higher external locus of control scores than North-American Caucasians.

  Belief in a just or unjust world

Just world belief correlates significantly with power distance and individualism.

  Self-efficacy beliefs

Costa Ricans exhibit the highest level of self-efficacy belief and Japanese people the lowest.

  (Religious beliefs)

(The influence of religion is contested.)

  Protestant relational ideology

Strong influence on Americans, not Chinese, Koreans or Thais

 Assumptions – such as the reciprocity norm

Asians are more likely than North Americans to refuse a small gift that is offered to them by a casual acquaintance.

  Work-related beliefs

Youths in Hong Kong and Singapore differ in beliefs about money, business ethics, corporate social responsibility and guanxi compared with youths in Canada and Hawaii.

Attitudes  Trust

In judging another’s trustworthiness, the Japanese emphasize organizational commitment, while Americans emphasize personal integrity.

  Attitudes to gender

A Spanish sample showed more favourable attitudes toward ‘woman’ than a Moroccan one did.

  Attitudes to cmc

The Chinese are more self-confident than the British about their advanced computer skills.

Expectations

In high power-distance societies such as Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, Greece, Portugal and Turkey, employees expect power within institutions to be distributed unequally and authority to be centralized. It is accepted that power holders will negotiate special privileges for themselves. In contrast, in low power-distance countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and Finland, a more democratic contracting style may be expected.

Intentions

Effects of culture unclear.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN work COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS  87

long-term/short-term orientation, embeddedness/autonomy, hierarchy/egalitarianism and mastery/harmony were explained.

societies and religions have arrived at similar moral ideas, such as advocating love, compassion and forgiveness. The application of these ideas in society, however, has varied greatly with the circumstances of life at different times.

 6.1.2 for a discussion of whether it is valid to use country-level cultural values at the level of individuals.

 6.1.3 for a discussion of culture, ethics and morality.

Moral codes

Cultural differences in motives

Moral codes are behaviour standards that differentiate right from wrong. It is likely that the possession of a moral code of some sort is universal. However, since moral codes generally reflect values, which, as Chapter 3 showed, vary quite fundamentally across cultures, it is not surprising that researchers have found cultural differences in morality. It has been argued that business ethical standards, for instance, are unique to each culture, as a result of a combination of institutional, organizational and personal factors, all of which are based on the ‘social foundation’ of national culture.5 The ‘trial-and-error process of actual business activity’ and personal interaction with other people both play an important role in the way moral reasoning is formed within civil society. Business and its underlying ethical principles of trust and cooperation in the context of civil society are captured in the notion of business as a ‘mediating’ institution. ‘Mediating institutions break down an individual’s interaction with the rest of the world into more manageable personal interaction with other human beings.’6 There is empirical support for moral codes in business being related to cultural difference. Individualism–collectivism and uncertainty avoidance helped explain national differences in judgements of the ‘ethicality’ of decision items, a ten-nation study found. The particular items were concerned with relations with external stakeholders, the corporation and the group.7 Again, compared with US employees, employees from Taiwan were more likely to indicate they would make an unethical decision that benefits the organization and less likely to openly question an unethical practice by their organization, a survey found.8 On the other hand, there is evidence that Chinese employees are more likely to report the unethical acts of peers within their organization than Canadians are.9 Perhaps the best resolution of this issue of cultural differences in ethics is that of Argyle (2000).10 Different

Motives are internal responses to needs. They result from inherited drives acting on felt needs. Needs are states of physical or psychological disturbance or discomfort that, with drives, motivate people to change their condition. Some needs are biological: for food, sex, rest. Others are learned: for esteem, power, ­self-fulfilment. Others – for security and affection – are intermediate between the learned and the biological needs. ­Recognizing the needs that we and other people are attempting to satisfy helps in understanding both our own and their actions better. A theory which has received some empirical support asserts that a motivational system regulates goal-directed behaviour: this system is termed regulatory focus, and consists of either a promotion focus or a prevention focus. People differ in their regulatory focus, or tendency to be motivated to ‘promote’ (seek to gain) or to ‘prevent’ (seek to avoid harm). Table 6.2 shows how a promotion and a prevention focus differ. As Table 6.2 shows, individuals’ concerns, goals, strategies for reaching their goals and responses to success or failure vary with their regulatory focus. The strength of promotion and prevention focus varies both chronically across individuals and within individuals from time to time across situations. Studies based on regulatory focus theory have shown that it affects a person’s commitment to goals and the means to reach them, whether people use their manager as a role model, and how a leader’s vision motivates followers. Whether someone has a promotion or prevention focus is linked to culture. Individualists usually have a promotion focus and are sensitive to information that has a direct bearing on their ability to realize their hopes; collectivists, in contrast, tend to have a prevention focus and are sensitive to information that prevents them from

Table 6.2  A comparison of types of regulatory focus Type of Focus

Concerns

Goals

Strategy

Response to Success

Response to Failure

Promotion focus

Gain

Growth accomplishment

Approach strategy

Cheerfulness

Dejection

Prevention focus

Safety

Fulfilment of duty and responsibility

Avoidance strategy

Quiescence

Agitation

88  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

violating their obligations.11 This difference in regulatory focus affects what kinds of persuasion are most effective with people from individualist or collectivist cultures: British people, with a stronger promotion focus, are more persuaded by a message framed in terms of gain or benefit, while East Asians, with a stronger prevention focus, are more persuaded by loss-framed messages.12 At work, motivation and differences in motivational patterns have long been associated with a whole range of outcomes, from productivity to job satisfaction and employee turnover. In a communication context, motivation is a central concept in influencing processes, as Chapter 3 showed, and also explains much about how and why people communicate. However, most current theories of motivation originated in the USA and are now being criticized for being culture-specific. For example, it has been argued that the needs for power, esteem and achievement, which feature strongly in Western motivational theories, are not found in all cultures. Achievement, which means individual achievement, may be a motive limited to individualist cultures; similarly, the need for power may not motivate many people in a high power-distance culture, such as Malaysia’s, where most people accept that they have a ‘pre-ordained’ position in a social hierarchy. In the literature on culture and work motivation, organizational commitment is a major concern. It has been shown that different cultures ­conceptualize organizational commitment differently. In the USA, for instance, dedication, obligation, integrity and ­determination emerged as primary themes, reflecting high individualism. In contrast, four of the five themes from a Japanese sample reflected collectivism: connection, membership, responsibility and c­ooperation.13 In Islamic countries, the Islamic work ethic promotes individuals’ commitment to their organization, according to studies in the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan;14,15 a further study in Kuwait also found that the Islamic work ethic and loyalty were positively and strongly correlated.16 Again, through its effects on motivation, the Islamic work ethic significantly and

positively affects the knowledge sharing and innovation ­capabilities of employees in the public sector organizations of Malaysia.17 There are differences in the work motivation of employees in five Asian countries, research by one of the present authors suggested. Table 6.3 shows the findings. In Table 6.3, complete a seventh column that gives your assessment of these motives and behaviours for your own country.

Industriousness is high in all five countries, as Table 6.3 shows, but the motivation driving that industriousness tends to differ from country to country.  6.1.4 for more on cultural differences in motives.

Cultural differences in motives for communicating are of particular importance for this book. Past research indicated that the six main motives that people have for initiating conversations with others are pleasure, escape, relaxation, inclusion, affection and control. A comparison of Mexican and US subjects’ motives for interpersonal communication found that Mexican scores were not significantly higher than US scores on interpersonal control, relaxation, and escape motives, but were significantly lower than US scores on interpersonal affection, pleasure, and inclusion motives, in both cases as national value differences predicted.18

Cultural differences in emotions and moods Emotions such as joy, fear and anger are linked to motives and to general moods such as happiness and sadness; both emotions and moods affect social perception, trust development and concern with fairness. Other links undoubtedly exist, even if not yet researched. In the work environment, therefore, communicators must take emotions into account. Emotional expression can be regarded

Table 6.3  Work motivation patterns of employees in five Asian countries

Primary motivation

China

India

Japan

Taiwan

To make money (driven by insecurity)*

To make money (driven by insecurity)

Commitment to the organization

Career; selfdevelopment; learning

Quite high (long hours)

High

Secondary motivation Work behaviour (industriousness)

Singapore

Career; selfdevelopment; learning High

High

*Note: In the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, desire for efficiency is itself a motivator and industriousness is very high.

Quite high

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN work COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS  89

as social information, enabling greater understanding of the person expressing the emotion.19 Cultural influences on emotions are reflected in findings that people from individualist cultures may more often experience ‘ego-focused’ emotions, such as anger, frustration and pride, while people from collectivist cultures may more often experience sympathy or shame, which are ‘other-focused’ emotions.20 Again, both the antecedents of emotions (what triggers them) and their expression may have culture-specific as well as universal elements.21 People are generally more accurate at judging emotions when the emotions are manifested by members of their own cultural group rather than by members of a different cultural group.22 At work, there is evidence of cultural variations in workers’ job-related emotions and ways of dealing with them. For instance, power distance can modify how people respond to emotional displays at work. When leaders express negative emotions to followers about their work, followers high in the personality traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness usually respond with improved performance; however, if followers with these same personality traits are low in power distance and perceive the leader as low in power, they are more likely to respond to leaders’ expressing negative emotions with a worse performance.23 Again, emotional conflict has a more negative effect on performance in Mexican teams than US teams, particularly when team-oriented behaviours are high.24 Responses to emotions triggered by work events or situations can also be affected by culture. For instance, Chinese employees who are made angry by their boss tend to use one of four strategies: outflanking (using third parties who may influence the boss to change), withdrawal (ignoring what the boss says and leaving the scene), retaliation (for instance, deliberately underperforming and getting together with colleagues to laugh at the boss behind his or her back) or rechannelling (undertaking other activities to get rid of the emotional drive). All these strategies are strongly influenced by the boss’s perceived face needs, both because that is the cultural convention and because to attack the boss’s face would be dangerous for the individual.25  6.1.5 for more on emotions and culture.

Two aspects of emotion are particularly important for this book: these are communication apprehension and emotional intelligence.

Communication apprehension Communication apprehension (CA), the fear aroused by the prospect of interacting, has its major effect on how

people communicate, although it also affects job satisfaction. Individuals who are high in communication apprehension – whether about speaking or listening – are likely to be less willing to listen than others are and to be poor communicators.26 Interethnic communication apprehension (IECA)

affects whether and how people attempt to maintain relations with people from other ethnic groups. High IECAs are less likely than low IECAs to use strategies to maintain interethnic relations. These strategies include performing duties and sharing responsibilities or tasks, emphasizing common affiliations or networking, being optimistic, cheerful and uncritical, directly discussing the relationship and stressing the desire to remain in the relationship. High IECAs may in fact be less willing to remain in interethnic relationships, and that may be why they use so few relation-maintenance strategies in them.27 Culture influences who experiences high CA: a comparison of Korean, Hawaiian and US students found that high CA (and low argumentativeness) may be a function of culture-level collectivism;28 another study showed that in France CA is higher among Muslims than Catholics.29 Again, culture influences not only who experiences CA but also the felt consequences of that experience. Among Mexican workers, high levels of CA are positively related to their job satisfaction and organizational commitment.30 This finding, which is counter-intuitive to many Westerners, can be explained by the high power distance of Mexico’s culture, where most workers’ expectations are that their supervisor will tell them what to do and that their role is to obey. In such a culture silence may be considered more acceptable than talking and people with low levels of CA might be a poor organizational fit and so less contented.  6.1.6 for more on communication apprehension.

Emotional intelligence Emotional intelligence (EI) has been defined as the ‘accurate appraisal and expression of emotions in oneself and others and the regulation of emotion in a way that enhances living’, and as ‘the ability to be aware of one’s own feelings, be aware of others’ feelings, to differentiate among them, and to use the information to guide one’s thinking and behaviour’.31 Emotional intelligence appears to be distinct from, but positively related to, other intelligences; it is an individual difference, where some people are more endowed and others are less so; it develops over a person’s life span and can be enhanced through training; and it involves, at least in part, a person’s abilities to identify and to perceive emotion (in the self and in others), as

90  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

well as possession of the skills to subsequently understand and manage those emotions successfully.32 The effect of a person’s emotional intelligence – for instance on how cohesive team members think their team is – depends on how competently the person communicates.33 Culture affects EI: collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation have a positive influence on its different dimensions.34 Again, there appears to be pronounced cross-cultural variation in global trait EI scores: the British, for instance, score consistently higher than the Chinese.35 At work, higher emotional intelligence is significantly related to better mental health, more work engagement, more satisfaction with social support in the workplace, and more perceived power in the workplace;36 high levels of emotional intelligence are associated with lower job stress and propensity to leave in B2B sales staff.37 In intercultural settings EI has as strong an effect as cultural similarity on expatriates’ general living adjustment and a greater effect on their interactional and work adjustment,38 while leadership and management positions in multinational companies call for high trait EI.39

Cultural differences in perceptions Perceptions are inferences from personal experiences, including sensory experiences; they are the result of the process of perceiving. Social perceptions are inferences about, or understandings of, other people. As the behavioural model underpinning this book implies, cultural influences on social perceptions are of particular interest for communication. Some writers concerned with culture and management place perceptions centrally in their analysis of how culture affects individuals’ behaviour, and others argue that culture ‘lies at the very roots of perception’.40 The perception of others’ emotions is an important kind of social perception that differs across cultures. For instance, the context, particularly the responses of surrounding people, strongly influence Japanese people’s perceptions of others’ emotions but not those of Americans.41 Members of a given culture have a ‘shared, implicit cognitive representation of interaction episodes’. These representations cover assessments of: the episode’s intimacy, involvement and friendliness; the importance of task versus relationship orientation; participants’ own self-confidence and anxiety levels; and their positive or negative evaluation of each encounter. These representations, which are influenced by cultural values such as individualism–collectivism and achievement/relationship, usually differ from those held by members of different cultures.42 For instance, Chinese subjects perceived episodes mainly in terms of communal values, power distance and

usefulness, rather than pleasantness, whereas Australians were more aware of competitiveness and individualism, research showed.43 In a work context a study found that the social perceptions of doctors who work in foreign countries, cultures, and languages (known as mobile medical practitioners or MMPs) may diverge in some respects from those of the colleagues with whom they interact. Both the MMPs themselves and their host-country colleagues agreed that the MMPs need additional training related to everyday medical language, fluency, idioms, pronunciation, humour and local dialects. Beyond this, however, assessments diverged: MMPs themselves generally felt confident in their communication skills (and thought others saw them as competent), but their host-country colleagues reported a number of concerns, including difficulty with small talk, non-verbal communication and observance of local cultural norms.44 Finally, cross-culturally similar perceptions can lead to different responses. Vigoda (2001) found no significant differences between British and Israeli civil servants’ perceived levels of organizational politics. Despite this, the British reacted with significantly higher intentions of leaving the organization, lower levels of loyalty and job satisfaction and a stronger sense that their expectations had not been met.45  6.1.7 for more on culture and social perceptions.

Cultural differences in beliefs Beliefs are cognitions – thoughts – to which people attach at least some degree of credence as to their realism. Belief systems ‘help people perceive, interpret, and predict events, such as predicting whether people will succeed or fail and select courses of action, such as deciding whether to help a victim of misfortune’.46 Cross-cultural variation has been demonstrated in core beliefs about how the world works, locus of control, belief in a just or unjust world, self-efficacy beliefs, religious beliefs, Protestant relational ideology, assumptions and beliefs about work.

Core belief systems Six fundamental belief systems about how the world works have been identified and shown to vary from culture to culture. According to Bond and Smith (1996) these dimensions of beliefs, along which countries may be arrayed, overlap only moderately with measures of values for the same countries.47 This may mean that they have the potential to be used as a different or additional way of

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN work COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS  91

analysing culture. These belief systems are authoritarianism (belief system of high deference to those in authority, often associated with a rigid value system and prejudice against deviants); social dominance orientation (belief in and support for a natural hierarchy among individuals and groups); Protestant work ethic (belief system that stresses successful outcomes for anyone who works hard, and attributes failure to personal factors such as lack of effort and weakness of character); humanitarianism– egalitarianism (belief in and support for equality, social justice and concern for others); beliefs about the malleability of human attributes (beliefs about whether people can change in their human qualities, such as morality, personality and intelligence); and beliefs about diversity (positive or negative beliefs about ethnic diversity, other specified ethnic groups and women’s equality).48  6.1.8 for explanations of these fundamental belief systems and how they vary across cultures and subcultures.

Locus of control The locus of control scale is a set of beliefs about what controls the outcomes of an individual’s actions. In particular it concerns whether factors internal or external to the individual have more influence. Locus of control beliefs are important in predicting individual behaviour; for instance, they affect whether a leader’s style is more task- or more relationship-oriented.49 Studies have reported a number of mean differences between country samples in locus of control scores; for example, Oriental Asians, particularly the Japanese, consistently showed higher external locus of control scores than North-American Caucasians.50 Again, the likelihood of an internal locus of control orientation and an entrepreneurial orientation, defined as internal locus of control combined with innovativeness, is higher in individualistic cultures, a nine-country exploratory study found.51 Chinese employees, however, may be shifting towards a more internal locus of control.52  6.1.9 for more about culture and locus of control.

Belief in a just or unjust world People who believe in a just world are more likely to reciprocate an act of generosity53 and less likely to respond aggressively to treatment such as being ostracized.54 Belief in a just world, together with an internal locus of control belief, correlates with a free-enterprise view of economics and higher satisfaction with private and public economy.55

Rank-ordered ‘just world’ belief and ‘unjust world’ belief scores from 12 countries correlate significantly with power distance and individualism.56

Self-efficacy beliefs Self-efficacy beliefs are an important kind of belief for work behaviour, including groupwork. They are concerned with individuals’ self-perceived ability to influence events that affect their lives and to perform an action effectively. As this book will show, self-efficacy beliefs are a factor in knowledge sharing and in leader emergence. There is evidence that self-efficacy beliefs occur in all cultures, but there are important variations. For example, of individuals from 25 countries, Costa Ricans exhibited the highest level of self-efficacy belief and Japanese people the lowest. One possible explanation is that hard work and effort are more highly valued than ability in collectivist cultures, leading to less importance being attached to self-efficacy. Again, women in some countries appear to have lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs but these differences are not systematic.57 Team members from individualistic cultures reported higher self-efficacy beliefs than team members from collectivist cultures, but changing the reference from the individual to the group led to a greater increase in self-efficacy belief for the collectivist versus individualistic team members.58  6.1.10 for more on self-efficacy beliefs.

Religious beliefs Religion’s influence on behaviour is seen at work as elsewhere. Among other factors it affects moral judgements and attitudes to wealth and ways of gaining it, such as earning interest on capital. Most religions view work in a positive light. When data from 44,030 individuals in 39 countries were used to test the influence of religion on work values, they showed that Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam, but not Christianity, were positively related to extrinsic work values, while all four religions showed a positive relationship with intrinsic work values. (However, those who reported no religious affiliation also viewed work values positively.)59 Whether culture is an influence on religious belief is contentious. Hofstede (1981) argued that religion is not a fundamental cultural value, and so, logically, must be capable of being influenced by culture;60 on the other hand Huntington (1997) considered it a central element of any civilization.61 With which of these two scholars do you agree? Give your reasons.

92  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

The present authors have not been able to find any research which deals with the possible effects of culture on religion; most studies seem to conflate the two.  6.1.11 for more about culture and religious beliefs.

Protestant relational ideology Protestant relational ideology is a term that refers to deepseated beliefs that emotional and relational concerns are inappropriate in work settings, and therefore are to be given less attention than in social, non-work settings. It should be distinguished from Protestant work ethic, although both probably have the same roots in American Protestant religion. People living in cultures influenced by this ideology have been shown to encode fewer socialemotional and relational cues, show poorer memory for interpersonal information, and be less attuned to others’ non-verbal behavioural cues while in work settings than in non-work social settings. Protestant relational ideology is prevalent in American culture, shaping how people think about and respond to the socio-emotional dimension of work and non-work interactions. Protestant relational ideology appears to have a particularly strong effect on responses to emotions. When primed for a work context, emotional tone of voice had virtually no effect on a group raised with Protestant relational ideology. In short, participants in the work condition were able to identify the semantic meaning of the words and block out emotional content in the work context. In contrast, Chinese, Koreans and Thais, members of cultures not influenced by Protestant relational ideology, attended to relational cues equally well across work and non-work interactions.62 When comparing American and East Asian managers’ preferences for using indirectness cues in communication, Sanchez-Burks et al. (2007) found no differences in indirectness between work and non-work settings for East Asians. In contrast, Americans reported significantly more indirectness – that is, being more attentive to face-saving cues – when communicating with a co-worker than with a social acquaintance.63 How does this finding relate to the concept of Protestant relational ideology?

Assumptions Assumptions are taken-for-granted, unquestioned beliefs. Assumptions undoubtedly affect behaviour and are hard

to detect, sometimes even by the person holding them. At work, relevant assumptions include those held by managers about their subordinates’ work motivations, those that negotiators hold about their opponents and those that people hold about the members of other social groups. Because assumptions are both powerful and inaccessible to self-awareness, they are key variables in encounters. This applies particularly to assumptions about outgroup members, such as unconsciously held stereotypes. There is evidence that one party’s assumptions can change the reality for both parties: interpersonal beliefs actively guide social interaction, creating a social world that fits the expectations of the actors. Actors engaged in social interaction behave as if their beliefs about the others are true, and their targets, in turn, tend to act in ways that verify these beliefs. In negotiations, too, the parties, through their belief systems, create the interaction and its outcomes. Negotiators can, and do, ‘change the game’.64 Suggesting that cultural differences in assumptions are particularly important, Schein (1992), writing specifically in a work context, actually defined culture in terms of assumptions: ‘I am defining culture as the set of shared, taken-for-granted implicit assumptions that a group holds and that determines how it perceives, thinks about and reacts to its various environments.’65 Four sets of assumptions that are especially important for intercultural communication are ethnocentrism, norms, stereotypes and agency.

Ethnocentrism A biased set of assumptions in favour of one’s own ethnic group has been given the label ‘ethnocentrism’. To some degree, biases in favour of people’s own ingroup and in opposition to outgroups are ‘natural’. There are studies that show that people from all cultures tend to:

• think of what goes on in their own culture as natural • • •

and correct and what goes on in other cultures as not natural or not correct; perceive their own customs as universally valid; believe their own norms, roles and values are correct, particularly those that concern their own immediate ingroup or subculture; and favour and cooperate with ingroup members while feeling hostile towards outgroups.66

Although these biases are widespread, in most people they do not amount to the extreme version that is labelled ethnocentrism. A work-based task-group study

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN work COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS  93

found that ethnocentrism varied, depending on whether respondents were reporting on task aspects or relationship aspects of their intergroup dynamics. Ethnocentrism is rewarded in interactions within an ethnic group: high ethnocentrics are more likely to conform to its norms, roles and values and therefore to be accepted. It is likely, however, that ethnocentric world views may impede the probability of adjustment and consequently of success for people who are working abroad.67 Ethnocentric individuals tend to feel high levels of communication apprehension.  6.1.12 for more on ethnocentrism.

Norms Norms are unwritten rules for how to behave in given roles or situations. They are commonly enforced by social pressure rather than specified penalties. Norms are a manifestation of assumptions; it is important to remember that behind the norms lies a deeper taken-for-granted set of assumptions that most members of a culture never question or examine. There are cultural differences in the operation of norms such as the reciprocity norm, which is universal but takes different forms. For instance, Asians are more likely than North Americans to refuse a small gift that is offered to them by a casual acquaintance. Asians, who are inclined to think of themselves in relation to others, are more likely than North Americans to invoke a reciprocity norm in exchanging gifts with casual acquaintances, and they refuse a gift in order to avoid the feeling of indebtedness they would experience if they could not reciprocate. North Americans, however, who are inclined to think of themselves independently of others, are more likely to base their acceptance of the gift on its attractiveness without considering their obligation to reciprocate.68

Stereotypes A stereotype is a stable set of beliefs or preconceived ideas that the members of a group share about the characteristics of another group of people. The concept of stereotype has gradually lost its earlier sense of irrationality and prejudice. Instead stereotyping is now considered an ordinary cognitive process in which people categorize in order to avoid information ‘overload’, although that is not to say that most stereotypes are realistic; many are biased. Various findings have challenged the old idea of stereotypes as automatically distorting their holders’ behaviour. Biased stereotypes are not automatically and invariantly activated when perceivers come into contact with members of stigmatized groups. For instance, people self-completing race [sic] attitude questionnaires showed less race bias when the experimenters were Black

than when they were White.69 Moreover, stereotypes are not continually affecting attitudes and behaviour. For example, when research subjects watched a video of a member of a group about which they had stereotypes, these were first activated (after 15 seconds), then dissipated (after 12 minutes). They were re-activated when the person portrayed expressed disagreement with the research subjects’ own view on a court judgment.70 Finally and counter-intuitively, when people distrust another person they tend to focus on their dissimilarities from themselves and that reduces their tendency to stereotype the other.71 Stereotypes of subgroups show both similarity and difference from culture to culture. Similarity was shown by an examination of sex stereotypes in 30 countries which concluded that there is substantial agreement among cultures concerning the psychological characteristics differentially associated with men and women. The stereotypes were scored for activity, strength and favourability of affective meaning. Stronger male stereotypes, that is, a greater attribution of active, strong characteristics to males than to females, were found in cultures with lower levels of literacy and socio-economic development and with a lower proportion of women enrolled in college. (However, the male stereotype turned out to be no more favourable.)72 Differences in cultural frames do influence gender stereotype content, however: there are findings that male stereotypes align more closely with core cultural values (specifically, individualism vs. collectivism) than female stereotypes do. Americans rated men as less collectivistic than women, whereas Koreans rated men as more collectivistic than women.73 There is evidence that a person who is differentlyabled is often regarded as atypical of people who are differently-abled because he or she does not act in a stereotypical way; how does this help to keep stereotypes intact?

Cultural differences in stereotypes of older workers have also been found. Compared to a Hong Kong sample, UK respondents saw older workers as more effective but less adaptable.74 Explain in your own words the meaning of stereotyping. How does it differ from ethnocentrism? How can ethnocentrism and stereotyping, respectively, affect work behaviour?  6.1.13 for more about the stereotypes that different cultures hold about various minority groups and a link to a video about cultural stereotypes.

94  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

Assumptions about agency Agency here means the ability or tendency to take action. Agentic social beings are goal-directed, carry out actions in pursuit of goals, are responsible for their actions, and may potentially be praised or blamed for their actions. Cultural differences arise in whether or not groups, as opposed to individuals only, are perceived as agentic. In three East Asian cultures (Hong Kong, Japan and Korea), both individuals and groups were conferred an equal level of agency, but in three English-speaking cultures (Australia, UK and USA) and two continental European cultures (Belgium and Germany), the individual person was seen to be more agentic than groups, while the English-speaking version of individualism placed still more emphasis on the agency of the individual than the continental European version.75 These fundamental cultural differences in assumptions about, for instance, attributing responsibility and blame, must clearly influence work communication.

Work-related beliefs People of course hold beliefs that are specifically related to their work. Beliefs about what is important can affect which of the stimuli bombarding managers and others at work are attended to; beliefs about causal relations can affect strategic choices. One cross-cultural analysis found significant differences in beliefs about money, business ethics, corporate social responsibility and guanxi among youths in two Asian economies – Hong Kong and Singapore – from those in two Western economies, Canada and Hawaii.76 ‘Western’ Christians (Australian) and non-Western Buddhists (Sri Lankan) reportedly had similar perceptions about the meaning of work, but Sri Lankans were more strongly committed to hard work and did not endorse the belief that hard work leads to success as enthusiastically as Australians did.77 Against these findings of a link between national culture and work-related beliefs, however, a study in five Hungarian firms with Anglo-Saxon or Western management found that factors such as national culture, functional area, education, age, rank and gender had relatively little influence on beliefs about company strategy compared with the factor of whether or not an individual was located in a unit favourably affected by that strategy.78  6.1.14 for more on work-related beliefs.

Cultural differences in attitudes Attitudes are a combination of beliefs and affect. ‘Affect’ means ‘enduring positive or negative evaluations about

some person, object or issue’. Attitudes received a great deal of attention from psychologists when it was believed that they had a strong influence on behaviour – so strong that a person’s behaviour could be predicted from knowing their attitude. It eventually became clear, however, that looking for a direct attitude–behaviour link was not likely to be fruitful. Instead, efforts have been directed at establishing links between the following:

• attitudes to performing a behaviour and actually per• • •

forming it, for example attitudes to working abroad and actually seeking such an assignment; attitudes to a target person or object and acting accordingly, for instance attitudes to an overseas job offer and accepting it; attitudes to the context and acting accordingly, such as attitudes to a country and seeking to work there; and attitudes to time and using it for a particular purpose, for example attitudes to one’s career and taking a year out to gain international experience.

All four attitudes might need to be favourable before the relevant action is performed, or one might outweigh all the others and trigger or stop the action on its own.79 Attitudes to diversity provide an example of how attitudes affect an important type of work-related communication, knowledge sharing. Positive attitudes to linguistic and informational diversity have positive associations with all group knowledge-processing variables – knowledge location, knowledge needed, bringing knowledge to bear and personal knowledge. Openness to value diversity is positively associated with most group knowledge-processing variables, while openness to social category diversity only has a positive effect on personal knowledge.80 Project planning and control is an important communication-based work activity that national culture influences.81 A case study of the implementation of project management during Dutch/French cooperation found that whereas the Dutch had positive attitudes to evaluation and control and so easily adopted them, the French partners had negative attitudes and avoided them, because they are not part of the French logic of ‘métier’. This led the French managers to ‘weak and limited articulations between the individual and the group’.82 Trust, attitudes towards gender, and attitudes towards cmc are attitudes that vary cross-culturally and strongly influence work communication.

Trust Trust is a positive attitude towards another person that includes a tendency to expect that the other’s actions will not be harmful. In interactions, trust influences levels of disclosure,

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN work COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS  95

openness and formality on the part of outward communicators and willingness to listen, believe and be persuaded on the part of receivers. In a work context, trust has been shown to promote open and influential information exchange, reduce transaction costs, negotiation costs and conflict and improve performance in interorganizational collaborations.83 In the past it was believed that social distance is inversely related to trust – that the further apart (less closely related or socially similar) two members of the same society are, the less they trust one another and the less they expect the other person to trust them. That applies in the USA, but it is somewhat different for Chinese people. They report that they expect others to be less responsive to social distance than they are themselves.84 Culture influences the meaning of concepts related to trust: for instance, in judging another’s trustworthiness, Japanese and Americans use different criteria: the Japanese emphasize organizational commitment, while Americans emphasize personal integrity. (It has been suggested that this difference ‘may help explain persistent miscommunication about trustworthiness between Japanese and US colleagues’.)85 Chinese managers configure trust within their professional networks differently from American managers. Whereas economic exchange tends to increase affect-based trust more for Chinese than American managers, friendship is more important in increasing trust for Americans than Chinese. Additionally, the more a given relationship is highly embedded in ties to third parties, the greater the level of belief-based trust experienced by Chinese managers; this effect is much less significant for American managers.86 In Turkey and China (two countries very far apart on some cultural values), trust in supervisors, peers and subordinates shows similarities in that benevolence plays a very important role in trust-building across all three work relationships in both countries, but also shows some culture-specific differences in how benevolence is manifested. Thus intimacy, unselfish behaviour, personalized generosity and protection are seen as showing benevolence by Turkish employees but not by Chinese workers, while affability is considered an attribute of benevolence by Chinese employees but not by their Turkish equivalents.87 Explain in your own words what trust is, what aspects of communication it influences, and how it varies in different economies and between individualist and collectivist cultures.

Attitudes towards gender In the diverse world of work, attitudes towards different societal groups are highly important. Culture influences these. For instance, a Spanish sample showed a more

egalitarian view and more favourable attitudes toward ‘woman’ than a Moroccan one did.88

Attitudes towards cmc Attitudes towards the internet and computers are important for intercultural communication in the modern world of work, dependent as it is on cmc. There is evidence that these attitudes vary by culture, as a study among students found in 2007. Significant differences were found in internet experience, attitudes, usage and self-confidence between Chinese and British students. These show the continued significance of culture in attitudes towards, and use of, computers: ‘British students were more likely to use computers for study purposes than Chinese students, but Chinese students were more self-confident about their advanced computer skills.’89  6.1.15 for more about culture and attitudes.

Cultural differences in expectations Expectations are beliefs6a about how people do and should behave and more particularly how they should treat the holder of the expectation. In interactions they apply to both verbal and non-verbal behaviour. They influence how people interpret and evaluate what others say and do during interactions; when they are violated, people react, often with negative evaluations of the violator.90 On the other hand, they may also be changed (co-constructed) during the interaction.91 Expectations influence supervisor-subordinate relations. When ‘normal’ expectations are contravened, as when the supervisor is from an ethnic minority and the subordinate is from the dominant majority, problems arise. When supervisors and subordinates were demographically similar, the subordinates’ behaviour outside of their roles was favourably affected, a study found. This was probably because similarity creates attraction. Basic task performance was not affected, however. When supervisors and subordinates were dissimilar in ways consistent with social cultural norms (for instance, when the supervisor was a man and the subordinate a woman) both basic task performance and subordinate behaviour outside of the task were positively affected.92 Expectations about both work and communication behaviour are influenced by national cultural differences in values. For instance, individualism influences expectations, commitment and behavioural decision-making patterns. Individualism is reflected in the desire to avoid submission to authority figures as well as a preference for doing things in one’s own way. Less individualistic people have a longer-range view and are more willing to take advice.93 In

6a  Expectations are beliefs but because of their importance are treated separately here.

96  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

high-individualism countries, such as the UK, Italy, Belgium and France, people expect others to display self-respect. Collectivist countries, such as Spain, Greece and Portugal, expect others to place more emphasis on harmonious relationships and the maintenance of face. Power distance, too, plays a role in how individuals interpret organizational actions and standards of behaviour and so their work-related expectations. In high power-distance societies such as Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, Greece, Portugal and Turkey, employees expect power within institutions to be distributed unequally and authority to be centralized. It is accepted that power holders will negotiate special privileges for themselves. In contrast, in low power-distance countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and Finland, a more democratic contracting style may be expected. Status is widely used in all cultures as input to the expectations individuals form about others with whom they will interact. In general, a wider range of behaviour is expected and tolerated from a high-status person than others. Status is assessed from external factors (for example, ethnicity, sex, attractiveness, education and occupation) and expressive cues (for example, dialect, eye contact, speech styles and skin colour) or indicative cues (such as someone’s statement that they grew up in Mexico). These factors are used in all cultures to assess status, but they are not used in identical ways. In Japan, professional position is so important that people need to know it in order to know how to address one another correctly, and an introductory exchange of business cards is de rigueur. In the USA, in contrast, questions directed at ascertaining someone’s professional status can be rude, and physical attractiveness is often a key status factor for both sexes, even at work.

 6.1.16 for more about culture and expectations.

Cultural differences in intentions Intentions are mental plans of action. As Chapter 3 showed, it is vital for effective communication that receivers correctly understand what speakers or writers intend to communicate. Intentions are more closely linked to behaviour than attitudes, although the relationship is still far from one-for-one. Because people are usually aware of their intentions, these are relatively controllable. Intentional actions, it has been suggested, are less strongly influenced by culture than routine, habitual ones or those driven by emotion. However, people usually overestimate how deliberate others’ actions are, thus underestimating the influence of culture on others’ behaviour.

6.2 THE ‘SELF’ The ‘self’ is a psychological construct that is considered to be a factor that gives relative consistency and some degree of permanency to individuals’ values, motives, emotions, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, expectations and intentions – in other words the factors explained in Section 6.1. There is a range of ways of analysing the self – personality, self-construals and identity – each of which has been linked both to overt communication behaviour and to cultural differences, as this section will explain. Self-esteem is another important concept that has been shown to differ across cultures. Figure 6.3 shows how the construct ‘self’ interacts with culture and communication.

Figure 6.3  Culture, the ‘self’, other psychological constructs and overt communication influences CULTURE

THE SELF

personality traits identity self-construals self-esteem

i.e a tendency to exhibit relatively consistent and durable values motives emotions and moods perceptions beliefs attitudes expectations intentions

leads to

relatively consistent and durable COMMUNICATION PATTERNS

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN work COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS  97

Cultural differences in personality traits Personality traits are tendencies to show consistent patterns of thoughts, feelings and actions. The Five-Factor Model (FFM) is a taxonomy of personality traits, consisting of neuroticism, extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Studies comparing the mean levels of personality traits across cultures show that all five are found in all cultures, but there may be additional personality factors specific to individual cultures, and some factors may be of greater or less importance in different cultures. For example, individual differences in openness to experience may be of little consequence in traditional cultures where life’s options are severely limited. In the words of Bond and Smith (1996), Studies of implicit personality theory in any language studied to date indicate that a five-factor model can describe the organization of perceived personality. The apparent universality of the broad categories of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience may arise from their importance in directing universal types of social behaviors such as association, subordination, and formality. Within the general framework of this model, culture exercises its influence by accentuating certain of the Big Five personality dimensions over others. In free-response trait descriptions of themselves or of others, Chinese, for example, use the category of conscientiousness more often and use the category of agreeableness less often than do Americans. Moreover, the rated importance of each of the five categories varies among cultural groups, and these categories are differentially weighted in guiding social behavior.94 A meta-analytic review of 66 studies found that personality strongly influences how well people learn to adapt culturally.95 The personality traits of extroversion, openness and conscientiousness are related to whether someone is open to forming good relationships with people from other cultures and are more closely related to it than individual differences in altruism/cooperation-related traits.96 Other categorizations of personality have recently been researched and shown effects on work interactions. For instance, ‘psychopathic’ personality features, including selfish social motivations and illusions of conflict with others, predicted greater personal monetary gains when success favoured competitive actions, but predicted monetary loss when success depended on cooperation. ‘Results suggest that psychopathic personality traits can both bolster and hinder success in business.’97

 6.2.1. for more on culture and personality.

Cultural differences in self-construals and identity A self-construal is a mental representation of the self, derived, at least in part, reflexively – that is, by interpreting how others seem, from their communication, to perceive one’s self. Identity is an element in a person’s self-construal. Identity is not seen as a fixed, enduring characteristic of the individual, nor as a collection of psychological factors unaffected by wider social concerns. Identity theorists emphasize the social (and cultural) dimensions of identity and the fluid or changing nature of identity over time.98 In some schools of thought, self-construals and identity have emerged to replace the concept of personality.99 A key difference linked to culture is the distinction between independent and interdependent self-construals. An approach to national cultural differences based in cultural psychology argues that individualists have independent self-construals: their mental representations of the self are separate from those they have of others. In contrast, for collectivists, self-construals are fundamentally interdependent. Other people are in effect considered part of the self. In individualist models, the self ‘comprises a unique, bounded configuration of internal attributes, such as preferences, traits, abilities, motives, values and rights, and behaves primarily as a consequence of these internal attributes.’100 Interdependent self-concepts are more likely to occur in cultures that are collective and tight, whereas independent self-concepts are more common in individualistic and loose cultures, a study of 16 cultures showed.101 Compared with individuals with independent self-construals, individuals with predominantly interdependent self-construals have been found to be more aware of the status of the source of a communication, more influenced by the perceived fairness of a procedure, more inclined to link procedural fairness and outcome favourability, less inclined to perceive their ingroup as homogeneous, more inclined to use hint strategies, more easily embarrassed and more easily affected by emotional contagion.102 According to Thompson (2003), culture shapes selfconstruals through giving meaning to experience. However, he noted, ‘We are constrained, not only by the range of possibilities which culture offers – that is, by the variety of symbolic representations – but also by social relations.’103 Identities at work may be strongly influenced by culture, a study suggested. German managers, constrained to behave according to the prescriptions of their American employing company (prescriptions which corresponded

98  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

to American cultural norms), had both to adjust substantially and lost status. When the managers’ affective identities were measured, they reflected substantially lower levels of niceness and powerfulness, two of the dimensions of German identities. ‘This redefinition shows that he [sic] had lost any basis for corporate leadership’, according to the study’s author.104 The effect of identity on work communication is demonstrated by a study which showed that people whose identity is strongly bound up with their organization have difficulty in collaborating in interorganizational projects, instead tending to behave competitively.105 Attention is being drawn to what is described as a ‘new demographic’ of employees – individuals who identify with two or more cultures and have internalized associated cultural schemas.106 How would you expect such employees to be able to contribute to their organizations?  6.2.2 for a critique of the concepts of selfconstrual and identity.

Cultural differences in self-esteem Self-esteem results from a combination of beliefs about the self – specifically about self-worth – and the emotions triggered by those beliefs; in other words it is an attitude that results from a process of self-evaluation. There is substantial evidence that people’s self-evaluations are often wrong; for instance, they tend to underestimate their conscientiousness and assertiveness, in comparison with the judgement of others, and overestimate their abilities. (Unfortunately, contrary to widespread beliefs, overestimating one’s abilities does not improve performance – instead, it reduces it.)107 Core self-evaluations impact on individuals’ creative performance, transformational leadership, ability to cope with organizational change, and manage ‘boundaryless’ careers. Followers’ core self-evaluations moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ motivation and performance.108 It has been asserted that culture influences the perceived gap between our actual self and our ideal self, and so decides how we evaluate our selves. The evidence, however, is somewhat conflicting. On the one hand, Farh et al. (1991) found cultural differences in self-esteem strongly reflected when they investigated modesty bias among Taiwanese and Western workers. Modesty bias means that subjects give self-ratings of work performance that are lower than supervisors’ ratings; Western workers’ self-ratings of performance are

usually higher than ratings obtained from supervisors – they do not exhibit modesty bias. Farh et al. (1991) found that Taiwanese workers did exhibit modesty bias.109 Their findings were explained in terms of broad cultural differences between Taiwanese and Western workers. On the other hand, a replication study using data from several organizations in China showed leniency in self-ratings – that is self-ratings higher than supervisor or peer ratings – which suggests that broad cultural factors may not fully explain the reported modesty bias.110  6.2.3 for more on culture, identity, self-construals and self-esteem.

6.3 PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES INVOLVED IN WORK COMMUNICATION Important among the influences on work communication described in Section 6.1 are cognitive constructs such as perceptions, beliefs, assumptions, expectations, attitudes and intentions. This section concerns the processes that produce these cognitive constructs. Cognitive processes receive, select, transform and organize information, construct representations of reality and build knowledge. Many activities are involved, including perceiving, learning, memorizing, thinking and verbalizing. These processes continuously influence one another. They are subject to a number of distorting influences. They do not directly predict particular communication behaviours such as reciprocity or defensiveness, but do so indirectly by their influence on thoughts. The emphasis in this section is on how these processes themselves may vary cross-culturally and how they may lead to differences in the resulting constructs and behaviours. In the words of Kastanakis and Voyer (2014): Cultural elements, including norms and values conveyed by individualist and collectivist societies, dominant modes of independent and interdependent self-construal, and language affect individual perception and cognition and eventually result in behavioral differences. … behavior reinforces the mechanisms by which culture influences individual-level psychological mechanisms.111 Table 6.4 gives examples of cultural differences in psychological processes.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN work COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS  99

Table 6.4  Examples of cultural differences in psychological processes underlying communication behaviour Psychological Process

Example of Cultural Difference

How people perceive

The self-serving bias is more prevalent in North American cultures than in Asian cultures.

Ways of thinking

Chinese people attend to a greater range of past information than Canadians do.

 Categorizing

The timing of contextual influences differs by culture, beginning earlier in Chinese observers than in Americans.

  Logic style

Anglo-Saxon thought patterns are predominantly inductive, Latin American and Russian thought patterns are predominantly deductive.

  Sense-making

Significant culturally based differences were found in two Finnish SMEs’ and their Russian partner firms’ understanding of a business interaction.

  Learning style

Culture influences preferences for abstract conceptualization as against reflective observation.

  Problem-solving processes

Canadians were found to have a tendency to seek fast decisions and to rush to closure on data collection. The Japanese were found to resist fast decision-making because of a preference for obtaining large amounts of information.

Cultural differences in how people perceive Perceiving consists of the processes of attending to cues, and of interpreting the cues in the light of cognitive representations of the subject. Cues are stimuli or sensory impressions attended to from the vast range that reaches the senses; attention is affected by mood, current needs, existing beliefs and habituation as well as by characteristics of the stimulus; cognitive representations derive from previous perceptions and the mental processes they have undergone. Social perception, or perception of people, involves additional processes, including applying personal ‘rules’ that identify a cue such as someone’s raising their voice with their being angry and then associating that identification with others, such as their being bad-tempered. Social comparison and categorization, making attributions and trait judgements are important elements in these processes. The process that introduces most cultural difference into social perceiving is attribution. This term refers to deciding, often subconsciously, what causes another person’s behaviour; people make attributions in order to predict future events, exercise control and gain understanding. Most people attribute another’s observed behaviour to either their disposition or their situation. For example, in order to decide whom to make redundant, a sales manager may need to decide whether a salesperson’s poor sales record is the result of his or her incompetence and laziness (disposition) or of market conditions (situation). There are different kinds of personal attributions and these differ cross-culturally. Some cultures give greater weight to ascribed attributes, such as ethnicity, and others to achieved attributes, such as attitudes or past performance.

Several types of attribution bias have been well documented. Of these, one has been clearly demonstrated to vary cross-culturally. This is the self-serving bias, or tendency to attribute successful outcomes of one’s own actions to oneself and unsuccessful outcomes to the situation. At the individual level, the self-enhancing attributional tendency has been shown to be more prevalent in North American cultures than in Asian cultures.112 Even at the corporate level, as reflected in annual reports, US companies tend to attribute favourable performance to internal rather than external causes to a greater extent than Chinese companies do.113 However, Finns and the Dutch use the self-serving bias less than Americans, pointing to a difference between the two European cultures and the other Western one. In comparison to the Americans, the Finns and Dutch were less likely to attribute good outcomes to internal, stable and global factors.114  6.3.1 for more on culture and social perceiving.

Cultural differences in ways of thinking Cultures differ in the processes such as inferring and memorizing that transform perceptions through mental work. For example, compared with people from other cultures Westerners make more egocentric errors when reasoning about others and interpreting their reactions. Again, people from different cultures pay different amounts of attention to the past: Chinese people attend to a greater range of past information than Canadians, recall greater detail about past events and rate behaviours that took place in the past as more relevant to deciding an issue.115

100  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

Aspects of mental processes that affect work communication and may differ between cultures include categorizing, logic style, learning style and problem-solving processes.

Cultural differences in categorizing How people classify or differentiate other people, things or issues is not ‘natural’, but rather learned, mainly through communication. The complexity of the categories in a child’s cognitive system increases as the child gains experience. In mature individuals it varies – some people differentiate more finely than others and most people differentiate more finely on subjects they are interested in or knowledgeable about. Because the categories that people use are learned, not natural, they are culturally influenced and biased by the context. For instance, when people are shown the same face in what looks like either an American or a Chinese context, their categorizations of the face as American or Chinese are significantly influenced. Furthermore, the timing of contextual influences differs by culture, beginning earlier in Chinese observers than in Americans, as high-context, low-context cultural theory would predict.116

Cultural differences in logic style Western logic emphasizes atomistic analysis, dichotomization, deduction and induction from empirical data by an accepted set of procedures and abstractions. There are, however, variations within Western cultures on which of these are more emphasized. According to Maletzke (1996) Anglo-Saxon thought patterns are predominantly inductive, Latin American and Russian thought patterns predominantly deductive. Whereas inductive thinking aims to derive theoretical concepts from individual cases, deductive thinking aims to interpret individual cases within previously derived theoretical concepts. Argumentation and more general communication styles will be quite different in the two approaches, Maletzke (1996) contended. Western logic systems as a whole, however, can be contrasted with those of Eastern cultures. In these, again with internal variations, holism and intuition predominate, together with an emphasis on seeing the relationships between the external and internal world.117

Cultural differences in sense-making Sense-making is the process of extracting meaning from communication.118 It is important in a practical sense: for example, the development of customer relationships is driven by individual-level sense-making, but where more than one member of a supplier’s staff deals with a

customer, shared views are needed for managing and taking care of customer relationships.119 Sense-making is culture-bound. The cultural background of managers plays a major role in their sense-making capabilities: for instance, significant culturally based differences in two Finnish SMEs’ and their Russian partner firms’ understanding of a business interaction were found by a study that compared managers engaged in mutual dyadic business-to-business relationships.120

Cultural differences in learning style While the capacity to learn from experience is clearly universal, there are cultural differences in what is learnt, how it is learnt and the degree to which mature adults remain open to such learning. Culture, gender, level of education and area of specialization explain a significant portion of the variance in the preference for abstract conceptualization as against reflective observation, Joy and Kolb (2009) found. Individuals in countries high in ingroup collectivism, institutional collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, future orientation and gender egalitarianism tend to have a more abstract learning style. Individuals may have a more reflective learning style in countries that are high in ingroup collectivism, uncertainty avoidance and assertiveness. The impact of culture on the preference for active experimentation over reflective observation is only marginally significant, however.121

Cultural differences in problem-solving processes How people work and their preferences for certain actions or solutions to work-related issues are affected by how they approach obtaining information and manipulating it and by their approach to problem-solving. There is evidence that these processes, which are known together as cognitive style, are affected in turn by culture. There is also evidence that people with different cognitive styles experience difficulties in communicating with one another. These interaction problems can lead to conflict. A study of Canadian and Japanese cognitive styles found the following differences: Canadians were found to have a tendency to seek fast decisions and to rush to closure on data collection; the Japanese were found to resist fast decision-making because of a preference for obtaining large amounts of information.122 Find further examples of cultural differences in the following aspects of mental processes: categorizing, logic style, learning style and problem-solving.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN work COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS  101

CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY

• Values, motivations, emotions, perceptions, beliefs, atti-

• •

tudes and intentions are affected by many individual factors. These range from genetic make-up to school environment during upbringing, from the innate element in intelligence to experiences at work. In particular, though, they are affected by the way people have been taught by their culture to look at the world. In turn, these psychological factors affect individuals’ communicative styles, emphases (content versus relationship, control, affiliation), strategies and ways of using language. All these differences can affect both work behaviour generally and work communication in particular. The ‘self’ can be understood as a set of personality traits, a self-construal, or an identity or number of identities. Cultural influences have been traced in all of these and in self-esteem. There are cultural differences in how people perceive, including what they notice about other people and to what causes they attribute others’ behaviour. Cultural differences also affect how people categorize as well as their preferred styles of logic, learning and problemsolving. These differences affect how they interact at work with culturally different others.

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Kastanakis, M.N. and Voyer, B.G. (2014) ‘The effect of culture on perception and cognition: A conceptual framework’, Journal of Business Research, 67(4): 425–33. 2 Taras, V., Kirkman, B.L. and Steel, P. (2010) ‘Examining the impact of “Culture’s consequences”: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cultural value dimensions’, Journal of Applied ­Psychology, 95(3): 405–39. 3 Schwartz, S.H. (1992) ‘Universals in value content and structure: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 1–66. 4 Verplanken, B. and Holland, R.W. (2002) ‘Motivated decision making: effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3): 434–47. 5 Stajkovic, A.J. and Luthans, F. (1997) ‘Business ethics across cultures: a social cognitive model’, Journal of World Business, 32(1): 17–34. 6 Kazakov, A.Y., Taylor, T.C. and Thompson, M. (1997) ‘Business ethics and civil society in Russia’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 27(1): 5–18.

7 Jackson, T. (2001) ‘Cultural values and management ethics: a 10-nation study’, Human Relations, 54(10): 1267–302. 8 Sims, R.L. ( 2009) ‘Collective versus individualist national cultures: comparing Taiwan and US employee attitudes toward unethical business practices’, Business & Society, 48(1): 39–59. 9 Zhuang, J., Thomas, S. and Miller, D.L. (2005) ‘Examining Culture’s Effect on Whistle-Blowing and Peer Reporting’, Business & Society, 44: 462–86. 10 Argyle, M. (2000) Psychology and Religion: An Introduction, London: Routledge. 11 Lee, A.Y., Aaker, J.L. and Gardner, W.L. (2000) ‘The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: the role of interdependence in regulatory focus’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78: 1122–34. 12 Uskul, A.K., Sherman, D.K. and Fitzgibbon, J. (2009) ‘The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed health messages’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3): 535–41. 13 Guzley, R.M., Araki, F. and Chalmers, L.E. (1998) ‘Crosscultural perspectives of commitment: individualism and collectivism as a framework for conceptualization’, Southern Communication Journal, 64(1): 1–19. 14 Yousef, D.A. (2000) ‘Organizational commitment as a mediator of the relationship between Islamic work ethic and attitudes toward organizational change’, Human Relations, 53(4): 513–39. 15 Murtaza, G., Abbas, M., Raja, U., Roques, O., Khalid, A. and Mushtaq, R. (2016) ‘Impact of Islamic work ethics on organizational citizenship behaviors and knowledge-sharing behaviors’, Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2): 325–33. 16 Ali, A.J. and Al-Kazemi, A.A. (2007) ‘Islamic work ethic in Kuwait’, Cross Cultural Management: An international Journal, 14(2): 93–104. 17 Kumar, N. and Rose, R.C. (2012) ‘The impact of knowledge sharing and Islamic work ethic on innovation capability’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 19(2): 14–15. 18 Rubin, R.B., Perse, E.M. and Barbato, C.A. (1988) ‘Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives’, Human Communication Research, 14(4): 602–28. 19 Chi, N.W. and Ho, T.R. (2014) ‘Understanding when leader negative emotional expression enhances follower performance: The moderating roles of follower personality traits and perceived leader power’, Human Relations, 67(9): 1051–72. 20 Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991) ‘Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation’, Psychological Review, 98: 224–53.

102  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

21 George, J.M., Gonzalez, J.A. and Jones, G.R. (1998) ‘The role of affect in cross-cultural negotiations’, Journal of International Business Studies, 29(4): 749–72. 22 Elfenbein, H.A. and Ambady, N. (2002) ‘Universals and cultural differences in recognizing emotions: a meta-analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, 128(2): 208–35. 23 Chi and Ho, op. cit. 24 Cooper, D. and Watson, W. (2011) ‘Conflict and performance in US and Mexican learning teams: the influence of team behaviors and cultural context’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(4): 426–42. 25 Han, X. (2009) ‘Anger-expression avoidance in organizations in China: the role of social face’, URL: http:// commons.ln.edu.hk/mgt_etd/1/. Last accessed on 17 July 2016. 26 Roberts, C.V. and Vinson, L. (1998) ‘Relationship among willingness to listen, receiver apprehension, communication apprehension, communication competence, and dogmatism’, International Journal of Listening, 12: 40–56. 27 Toale, M.C. and McCroskey, J.C. (2001) ‘Ethnocentrism and trait communication apprehension as predictors of interethnic communication apprehension and use of relational maintenance strategies in interethnic communication’, Communication Quarterly, 49(1): 70–83. 28 Kim, M.-S., Aune, K.S., Hunter, J.E., Kim, H.-J. and Kim, J.-S. (2001) ‘The effect of culture and self-construals on predispositions toward verbal communication’, Human Communication Research, 27(3): 382–408. 29 Croucher, S.M. (2013) ‘Communication apprehension, self-perceived communication competence, and willingness to communicate: a French analysis’, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 6(4): 298–316. 30 Madlock, P.E. (2012) ‘The influence of power distance and communication on Mexican workers’, Journal of Business Communication, 49(2): 169–84. 31 Mayer, J.D., DiPaolo, M. and Salovey, P. (1990) ‘Perceiving affective content in ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence’, Journal of Personality Assessment, 54: 772–81. 32 Ashkanasy, N.M. (2002) ‘Studies of cognition and emotion in organisations: Attribution, affective events, emotional intelligence and perception of emotion’, Australian Journal of Management, 27(1 suppl): 11–20. 33 Troth, A.C., Jordan, P.J. and Lawrence, S.A. (2012) ‘Emotional intelligence, communication competence, and student perceptions of team social cohesion’, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(4): 414–24.

34 Gunkel, M., Schlägel, C. and Engle, R.L. (2014) ‘Culture’s influence on emotional intelligence: an empirical study of nine countries’, Journal of International Management, 20(2): 256–74. 35 Gökçen, E., Furnham, A., Mavroveli, S. and Petrides, K.V. (2014) ‘A cross-cultural investigation of trait emotional intelligence in Hong Kong and the UK’, Personality and Individual Differences, 65: 30–5. 36 Schutte, N.S. and Loi, N.M. (2014) ‘Connections between emotional intelligence and workplace flourishing’, Personality and Individual Differences, 66: 13–39. 37 Bande, B., Fernández-Ferrín, P., Varela, J.A. and Jaramillo, F. (2014) ‘Emotions and salesperson propensity to leave: The effects of emotional intelligence and resilience’, Industrial Marketing Management, 44: 142–53. 38 Koveshnikov, A., Wechtler, H. and Dejoux, C. (2013) ‘Cross-cultural adjustment of expatriates: The role of emotional intelligence and gender’, Journal of World Business, 49(3): 362–71. 39 Siegling, A.B., Nielsen, C. and Petrides, K.V. (2014) ‘Trait emotional intelligence and leadership in a European multinational company’, Personality and Individual Differences, 65: 65–8. 40 Robinson, S. (1997) ‘Intercultural management: the art of resolving and avoiding conflicts between cultures’, AIESEC Global Theme Conference: Learning and Acting for a Shared Future, URL: http//www.eye.ch/~gtc97/ intercul.html. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 41 Masuda, T., Ellsworth, P.C., Mesquita, B., Leu, J., Tanida, S. and Van de Veerdonk, E. (2008) ‘Placing the face in context: cultural differences in the perception of facial emotion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(3): 365–81. 42 Forgas, J.P. (1976) ‘The perception of social episodes: categorical and dimensional representations in two different social milieus’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33: 199–209. 43 Forgas, J.P. and Bond, M.H. (1985) ‘Cultural influences on the perception of interaction episodes’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(1): 75–88. 44 Gasiorek, J. and van de Poel, K. (2012) ‘Divergent perspectives on language-discordant mobile medical professionals’ communication with colleagues: an exploratory study’, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40(4): 368–83. 45 Vigoda, E. (2001) ‘Reactions to organizational politics: a cross-cultural examination in Israel and Britain’, Human Relations, 54(11): 1483–518. 46 Bond, M.H. and Smith, P.B. (1996) ‘Cross-cultural social and organizational psychology’, Annual Review of Psychology, 47: 205–35.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN work COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS  103

47 Ibid. 48 West, T. and Levy, S.R. (2002) ‘Background belief systems and prejudice’, in Lonner, W.J., Dinnel, D.L., Hayes, S.A. and Sattler, D.N. (eds) Online Readings in Psychology and Culture (unit 15, chapter 4), URL: http://www.wwu.edu/culture. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 49 Dumitriu, C., Timofti, I.C., Nechita, E. and Dumitriu, G. (2014) ‘The Influence of the locus of control and decision-making capacity upon leadership style’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141: 494–9. 50 Smith, P.B., Trompenaars, F. and Dugan, S. (1995) ‘The Rotter locus of control scale in 43 countries: A test of cultural relativity’, International Journal of Psychology, 30(3): 377–400. 51 Mueller, S.L. and Thomas, A.S. (2001) ‘Culture and entrepreneurial potential: A nine country study of locus of control and innovativeness’, Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1): 51–75. 52 Tong, J. and Wang, L. (2006) ‘Validation of locus of control scale in Chinese organizations’, Personality and Individual Differences, 41(5): 941–50. 53 Edlund, J.E., Sagarin, B.J. and Johnson, B.S. (2007) ‘Reciprocity and the belief in a just world’, Personality and Individual Differences, 43(3): 589–96. 54 Poon, K.T. and Chen, Z. (2014) ‘When justice surrenders: The effect of just-world beliefs on aggression following ostracism’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52: 101–12. 55 Bastounis, M., Leiser, D. and Roland-Lévy, C. (2004) ‘Psychosocial variables involved in the construction of lay thinking about the economy: Results of a crossnational survey’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(2): 263–78. 56 Furnham, A. (1993) ‘Just world beliefs in twelve societies’, The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(3): 317–29. 57 Scholz, U., Doña, B.G., Sud, S. and Schwarzer, R. (2002) ‘Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? Psychometric findings from 25 countries’, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(3): 242–51. 58 Hardin, A.M., Fuller, M.A. and Davison, R.M. (2007) ‘I know I can, but can we? Culture and efficacy beliefs in global virtual teams’, Small Group Research, 38(1): 13–55. 59 Parboteeah, K.P., Paik, Y. and Cullen, J. (2009) ‘Religious groups and work values’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 9(1): 51–67. 60 Hofstede, G. (1981) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London: Harper Collins. 61 Huntington, S.P. (1997) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, London: Simon & Schuster.

62 Sanchez-Burks, J. (2002) ‘Protestant relational ideology and (in) attention to relational cues in work settings’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4): 919–29. 63 Sanchez-Burks, J., Lee, F., Nisbett, R. and Ybarra, O. (2007) ‘Cultural training based on a theory of relational ideology’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(3): 257–68. 64 Williams, J.E. and Best, D. (1990) Sex and Psyche: Gender and Self Viewed Cross-Culturally, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 65 Schein, E.H. (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership (2nd edn), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 66 Triandis, H.C. (1990) ‘Theoretical concepts that are applicable to the analysis of ethnocentrism’, in Brislin, R.W. (ed.) Applied Cross-Cultural Psychology, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 67 Thomas, K.M. (1996) ‘Psychological privilege and ethnocentrism as barriers to cross-cultural adjustment and effective intercultural interactions’, The Leadership Quarterly, 7(2): 215–28. 68 Shen, H., Wan, F. and Wyer Jr, R.S. (2011) ‘Cross-cultural differences in the refusal to accept a small gift: the differential influence of reciprocity norms on Asians and North Americans’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2): 271–81. 69 Devine, P.G. (2001) ‘Implicit prejudice and stereotyping: how automatic are they?’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5): 757–9. 70 Kunda, Z., Davies, P.G., Adams, B.D. and Spencer, S.J. (2002) ‘The dynamic time course of stereotype activation: activation, dissipation, and resurrection’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3): 283–99. 71 Posten, A.C. and Mussweiler, T. (2013) ‘When distrust frees your mind: The stereotype-reducing effects of distrust’, 105(4): 567–84. 72 Best, D.L. and Williams, J.E. (1994) ‘Masculinity/ femininity in the self and ideal self-descriptions of university students in fourteen countries’, in Bouvy, A.M., van de Vijver, F.J.R., Boski, P. and Schmitz, P. (eds) Journeys into Cross-Cultural Psychology, Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger. 73 Cuddy, A.J., Wolf, E.B., Glick, P., Crotty, S., Chong, J. and Norton, M.I. (2015) ‘Men as cultural ideals: cultural values moderate gender stereotype content’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(4): 622–35. 74 Chiu, W.C., Chan, A.W., Snape, E. and Redman, T. (2001) ‘Age stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes towards older workers: An East-West comparison’, Human Relations, 54(5): 629–61. 75 Kashima, Y., Kashima, E., Chiu, C.-Y., Farsides, T., Gelfand, M., Hong, Y.-Y., Kim, U., Strack, F. and Wer. L. (2005) ‘Culture, essentialism, and agency: Are

104  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

76 77 78 79 80 81

82 83

84

85

86

87

88 89

individuals universally believed to be more real entities than groups?’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 35: 147–69. Swee, H.A. (2000) ‘The power of money: a cross-cultural analysis of business-related beliefs’, Journal of World Business, 35(1): 43–60. Niles, F.S. (1999) ‘Toward a cross-cultural understanding of work-related beliefs’, Human Relations, 52: 855–67. Markoczy, L. (2000) ‘National culture and strategic change in belief formation’, Journal of International Business Studies, 31(3): 417–42. Ajzen, L. (1991) ‘The theory of planned behaviour: some unresolved issues’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179–211. Lauring, J. and Selmer, J. (2013) ‘Diversity attitudes and group knowledge processing in multicultural organizations’, European Management Journal, 31(2): 124–36. Rodrigues, J.S., Costa, A.R. and Gestoso, C.G. (2014) ‘Project planning and control: does national culture influence project success?’, Procedia Technology, 16: 1047–56. De Bony, J. (2010) ‘Project management and national culture: A Dutch–French case study’, International Journal of Project Management, 28(2): 173–82. Gibson, C.B. and Manuel, J. (2003) ‘Building trust: effective multi-cultural communication processes in virtual teams’, in Gibson, C.B. and Cohen, S.G. (eds) Virtual Teams That Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Buchan, N. and Croson, R. (2004) ‘The boundaries of trust: Own and others’ actions in the US and China’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55(4): 485–504. Nishishiba, M. and Ritchie, L.D. (2000) ‘The concept of trustworthiness: A cross-cultural comparison between Japanese and US business people’, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28: 347–67. Chua, R.Y., Morris, M.W. and Ingram, P. (2009) ‘Guanxi vs networking: Distinctive configurations of affectand cognition-based trust in the networks of Chinese vs American managers’, Journal of International Business Studies, 40(3): 490–508. Wasti, S.A., Tan, H.H. and Erdil, S.E. (2011) ‘Antecedents of trust across foci: A comparative study of Turkey and China’, Management and Organization Review, 7(2): 279–302. Díaz, A. and Sellami, K. (2013) ‘Traits and roles in gender stereotypes: A comparison between Moroccan and Spanish native samples’, Sex Roles, 70(11–12): 457–67. Li, N. and Kirkup, G. (2007) ‘Gender and cultural differences in Internet use: A study of China and the UK’, Computers & Education, 48(2): 301–17.

90 Burgoon, J.K. and Le Poire, B.A. (1993) ‘Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication and expectancy disconfirmation evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior’, Human Communication Research, 20(1): 67–96. 91 Ducharme, D. and Bernard, R. (2001) ‘Communication breakdowns: an exploration of contextualization in native and non-native speakers of French’, Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 825–47. 92 Tsui, A.S., Porter, L.W. and Egan, T.D. (2002) ‘When both similarities and dissimilarities matter: extending the concept of relational demography’, Human Relations, 55(8): 899–930. 93 Ali, A.J. (1993) ‘Decision-making style, individualism and attitudes toward risk of Arab executives’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 23(3): 53–74. 94 Bond and Smith, op. cit. 95 Wilson, J., Ward, C. and Fischer, R. (2013) ‘Beyond culture learning theory: What can personality tell us about cultural competence?’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(6): 900–27. 96 Stürmer, S., Benbow, A.E., Siem, B., Barth, M., Bodansky, A.N. and Lotz-Schmitt, K. (2013) ‘Psychological foundations of xenophilia: the role of major personality traits in predicting favorable attitudes toward cross-cultural contact and exploration’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(5): 83–44. 97 ten Brinke, L., Black, P.J., Porter, S. and Carney, D.R. (2015) ‘Psychopathic personality traits predict competitive wins and cooperative losses in negotiation’, Personality and Individual Differences, 79: 116–22. 98 Thompson, N. (2003) Communication and Language: A Handbook of Theory and Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 99 O’Malley, L., O’Dwyer, M., McNally, R.C. and Murphy, S. (2014) ‘Identity, collaboration and radical innovation: The role of dual organisation identification’, Industrial Marketing Management, 43(8): 1335–42. 100 Markus, R.H. and Kitayama, S. (1994) ‘A collective fear of the collective: implications for selves and theories of selves’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5): 568–79. 101 Carpenter, S. (2000) ‘Effects of cultural tightness and collectivism on self-concept and causal attributions’, Cross-Cultural Research, 34(1): 38–56. 102 Tasaki, K., Kim, M.-S. and Miller, M.D. (1999) ‘The effects of social status on cognitive elaboration and post-message attitude: focusing on self-construals’, Communication Quarterly, 47(2): 196–214. 103 Thompson, op. cit. 104 Schneider, A. (2002) ‘Behaviour prescriptions versus professional identities in multicultural corporations:

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN work COMMUNICATION ANTECEDENTS  105

a cross-cultural computer simulation’, Organization Studies, 23(1): 105–32. 105 Grabher, G. (2002) ‘Cool projects, boring institutions: temporary collaboration in social context’, Regional Studies, 36(3): 205–14. 106 Fitzsimmons, S. (2013) ‘Multicultural employees: A framework for understanding how they contribute to organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 38(4): 525–49. 107 Kim, Y.-H., Chiu, C. and Zou, Z. (2010) ‘Know thyself: misperceptions of actual performance undermine achievement motivation, future performance and subjective well-being’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3): 395–409. 108 Judge, T.A. and Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2011) ‘Implications of core self-evaluations for a changing organizational context’, Human Resource Management Review, 21(4): 331–41. 109 Farh, J.L., Dobbins, G.H. and Cheng, B. (1991) ‘Cultural relativity in action: a comparison of self-ratings made by Chinese and US workers’, Personnel Psychology, 44: 129–47. 110 Yu, J. and Murphy, K.R. (1993) ‘Modesty bias in selfratings of performance: a test of the cultural relativity hypothesis’, Personnel Psychology, 46: 357–73. 111 Kastanakis and Voyer, op. cit. 112 Chandler, T.A., Shama, D.D., Wolf, F.M. and Planchard, S.K. (1981) ‘Multiattributional causality for social affiliation across five cross-national samples’, Journal of Psychology, 107: 219–29. 113 Xu, K. (2011) ‘Causal attributions for corporate performance: a cross-cultural comparison of Chinese and US American companies’, Journal of International

and Intercultural Communication, 4(3): 221–39. 114 Nurmi, J. (1992) ‘Cross-cultural differences in selfserving bias: responses to the attributional style questionnaire by American and Finnish students’, Journal of Social Psychology, 132(1): 69–76. 115 Ji, L.J., Guo, T., Zhang, Z. and Messervey, D. (2009) ‘Looking into the past: cultural differences in perception and representation of past information’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4): 761–69. 116 Freeman, J.B., Ma, Y., Han, S. and Ambady, N. (2013) ‘Influences of culture and visual context on real-time social categorization’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2): 206–10. 117 Maletzke, G. (1996) Interkulturelle Kommunikation: zur Interaktion Zwischen Menschen, Opladen: Westdeutscher. 118 Weick, K.E. (1995) Sense-making in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 119 Pernu, E., Mainela, T. and Puhakka, V. (2015) ‘Creating shared views of customers: Individuals as sense-makers in multinational companies’, Industrial Marketing Management, 48: 50–60. 120 Ivanova, M. and Torkkeli, L. (2013) ‘Managerial sensemaking of interaction within business relationships: A cultural perspective’, European Management Journal, 31(6): 717–27. 121 Joy, S. and Kolb, D.A. (2009) ‘Are there cultural differences in learning style?’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(1): 69–85. 122 Abramson, N.R., Lane, H.W., Nagai, H. and Takagi, H. (1993) ‘A comparison of Canadian and Japanese cognitive styles: implications for management interaction’, Journal of International Business Studies, 24(3): 515–87.

7 CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK ACTIVITIES This chapter explores cultural differences in a selection of important work activities, building on the understanding of communication, culture and cultural differences explained earlier. The work activities covered are negotiation (7.1), cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing (7.2), working in groups and teams (7.3) and leadership and management, including mentoring, giving feedback, diversity leadership and international project management (7.4).

7.1 NEGOTIATION Negotiation is the process by which two or more par-

ties attempt to resolve a perceived divergence of interest.1 Negotiation is pervasive at work, applying not only to major contract negotiations between organizations or employers and unions, but to low-level discussions about, for instance, office allocations.

As Table 7.1 shows, there are logical implications for negotiation in the cultural differences that Chapter 3 described. Furthermore, a combination of cultural dimensions can create approaches to negotiation that differ radically: high masculinity and power distance combined with low collectivism and uncertainty avoidance plus a short-term orientation would lead to negotiation characterized by hard bargaining, emphasis on power, elevated targets and pressure to reach a deal. In sharp contrast, combined low masculinity, power distance and uncertainty avoidance values would lead to concern with joint outcomes, willingness to make concessions and preference for exploring all issues before making a deal. The effect of high collectivism would depend on whether the opposing parties were members of the same ingroup. (It should, however, be remembered that not all these extrapolations from cultural differences to particular behaviours have been found through research.)

Table 7.1  Effects of culture on negotiation Effect of:

High

Low

Collectivism

‘Getting to yes’ and ‘win-win’ approach with ingroups; reluctance to make concessions to outgroups; preference for holistic bargaining

Target is high gain for own party, though not necessarily to defeat the other party; preference for item-by-item bargaining

Power distance

Strategies and tactics strongly influenced by perceived relative power and status of parties

Emphasis on strength of case and interests rather than power or status

Uncertainty avoidance

Preference for formality, use of adjournments to refer to constituents, reluctance to reach a binding decision

Preference for informality, willingness to consider ideas and alternatives

Masculine values

Competitive attitudes – target is to win

Cooperative attitudes – target is to achieve best joint outcome

Contextualism

Flexible, especially regards time management, contract signing and closing deals2

Systematic, formal agreement is the aim and signing it terminates the negotiation3

Long Time orientation

106

Focus on relationship building; preference for prolonged exploration of issues before offers and concession-making

Short Focus on the particular transaction; preference for rapid testing of scope for reaching a deal

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK ACTIVITIES  107

How plausible do you find the extrapolations from cultural values to negotiation shown in Table 7.1? Consider them one by one, not as a whole.

Brett (2000) argued that individualism–collectivism, hierarchy/egalitarianism and high-/low-context communication affect how people negotiate. Where individualists set high personal goals in negotiation and so reject acceptable but suboptimal agreements, collectivists align their goals with those of their ingroup and are cooperative in that context but competitive with their outgroups. Negotiators from hierarchical cultures are more likely than negotiators from egalitarian cultures to endorse power as normative and to use all types of power in negotiation: status, BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement), and persuasion. Low-context communicators confront and negotiate directly but highcontext negotiators avoid confrontation and involve third parties.4 At a more detailed level there is evidence that cultural differences include negotiators’ norms and values, negotiators’ frames, perceptions, judgement biases and attributions, negotiation styles, non-verbal behaviour and paralinguistics, the effects of assertiveness and felt tension in negotiations, and in processes, strategies and outcomes.

Table 7.2 gives examples of cultural differences and influences in these aspects of negotiation. The text gives details of these and further examples.

Cultural differences in negotiators’ norms and values  7.1.1 for a link to a website that gives values differences for different countries.

In addition to the general differences in values and norms that have been described earlier in this book, some specifically negotiation-related norms and values differ across cultures. Salacuse (1998) gave a taxonomy based on a literature review and interviews with practitioners. It had the following ten items: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Negotiating goals: contract or relationship? Negotiating attitude: win/lose or win/win? Personal style: formal or informal? Communication: direct or indirect? Sensitivity to time: high or low? Emotionalism: high or low? Forms of agreement: general or specific? Building an agreement: bottom up or top down?

Table 7.2  Examples of cultural differences in negotiation Cultural Difference in/Influence on Negotiation

Example

Negotiators’ norms and values

Indian, Mexican and Turkish negotiators are focused on a contract, while Finnish negotiators seek a relationship.

Negotiators’ frames, perceptions, judgement biases and attributions

The fixed-pie error is more prevalent in negotiations in the United States than Greece.

Negotiation styles

US managers use factual and analytic styles of negotiating more frequently than Taiwanese managers.

Negotiators’ paralinguistics

Chinese negotiators exhibit self-control by remaining calm and suppressing emotion in their vocal tone.

Effects of assertiveness in negotiation

Assertiveness is associated with favourable economic and affective outcomes (gain and satisfaction) for Canadians, but only with affective outcomes for the Chinese.

Effects of felt tension in negotiations

For the Chinese, greater levels of tension led to an increased likelihood of agreement; for Americans, felt tension decreased marginally the likelihood of an agreement.

Negotiation processes and strategies

US negotiators tend to share information directly, whereas Japanese, Russian and Hong Kong negotiators are more likely to share information indirectly through the patterns of offers that they make.

Negotiation outcomes

Maximizing the economic gains that flow directly from the negotiation gives US negotiators most satisfaction; East Asian negotiators look to how much relational capital has been built and so are more satisfied when outcomes are equalized.

108  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

9 Team organization: one leader or group consensus? 10  Risk taking: high or low?5 A comparison of cultural tendencies in negotiation in Finland, India, Turkey, Mexico and the USA established the utility of the Salacuse framework in identifying significant country differences in negotiation orientations both between and within cultures; these were revealed ‘at a level of complexity not found in previous empirical studies’. For example, contrary to conventional beliefs, Indian, Mexican and Turkish negotiators are focused on a contract, while Finnish negotiators seek a relationship. Turks and Indians are as likely to adopt a win-lose attitude as a win-win one.6

Cultural differences in negotiators’ frames, perceptions, judgement biases and attributions Cognitive frames (representations) of negotiations differ cross-culturally. Americans, for instance, per­ ceived ­certain negotiations as more about winning and violations to individual rights, whereas the Japanese perceived the same negotiations to be about compromise and violations to duties.7 The fixed-pie error, a judgement bias in which negotiators fail to perceive the potential for integration, is more prevalent in ­negotiations in the United States, an individualistic culture, than Greece, a collectivistic culture.8 ­Negotiators from the United States are also more likely to make internal attributions of other negotiators’ behaviour and to base their fairness judgements on their ­alternative ­economic options. In contrast, Japanese negotiators base their fairness judgements on obligations to others, such as their colleagues.

Cultural differences in negotiation styles Negotiation styles have been linked to various models of cultural values: individualism versus collectivism to negotiation goals, egalitarianism versus hierarchy to the use of power and high- versus low-context communication to information sharing in negotiation.9 Recent studies provide examples of particular cultural influences on negotiators’ styles:

• Chinese negotiators show a preference for an indirect •

‘mitigated’ style of negotiation involving, for instance, small talk about the interlocutor’s place of residence; this is a way of checking the interlocutor’s financial viability without threatening his or her face.10 US managers use factual and analytic styles of negotiating more frequently than Taiwanese managers, while Taiwanese managers use intuition and normative styles

that emphasize rules and obligations to other people more frequently than US managers; these negotiation style differences correspond to their cultural backgrounds – individualistic and low-context in the case of US managers, high-context and collectivist for Taiwanese managers.11 Other negotiator style differences are based in culturally influenced concepts of time, power distance or universalism/particularism. Negotiators such as North Americans and West Europeans, who hold monochronic concepts of time, are more likely to process issues sequentially and to negotiate in a highly organized fashion. In contrast, negotiators with polychronic conceptions of time, such as Asians, Africans, South Americans and Middle Easterners, are more likely to process issues simultaneously. They tend to ignore conversational turntaking, instead speaking simultaneously and using frequent interruptions.

Cultural differences in negotiators’ paralinguistics Recent studies have found cultural influences on negotiators’ non-verbal behaviour:

• When Canadian negotiators have a positive percep•

tion of their counterpart and are actively involved in the negotiation, they show this in a faster speech rate and greater expressiveness of voice.12 Chinese negotiators exhibit self-control by remaining calm and suppressing emotion in their vocal tone.13

Cultural differences in the effects of assertiveness in negotiation Assertiveness is associated with favourable economic and affective outcomes (gain and satisfaction) for Canadians, but only with affective outcomes for the Chinese.14

Cultural differences in the effects of felt tension in negotiations Both Chinese and American executives felt tension during negotiations, a study found, but the consequences differed. For the Chinese, greater levels of tension led to an increased likelihood of agreement, but also led to lower levels of interpersonal attraction and in turn lower trust for their American counterparts. For the Americans, felt tension decreased marginally the likelihood of an agreement, did not affect interpersonal attraction, but did have a direct negative effect on trust.15

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK ACTIVITIES  109

Cultural differences in negotiation processes and strategies

• US • •

•

negotiators tend to share information directly, whereas Japanese, Russian and Hong Kong negotiators are more likely to share information indirectly through the patterns of offers that they make. US negotiators tend to time concession-making for late in the negotiations, whereas Latin American and Asian negotiators practise making generous concessions at first with progressively fewer and smaller concessions as the negotiation proceeds. ‘Some cultures prefer to start from agreement on general principles, while others prefer to address each issue individually. Some cultures prefer to negotiate by “building up” from an initial minimum proposal; others prefer to “build-down” from a more comprehensive opening proposal. Cultural differences also show up in the preferred pacing of negotiations and in decisionmaking styles.’16 North Americans have been shown to regard their option of ending a negotiation strategically, as a source of power, whereas the Japanese think of power as based on roles (for example, buyer versus seller).17

Cultural differences in negotiation outcomes Even where few differences are found in negotiation behaviour, outcomes can differ cross-culturally. A study of business negotiations discovered ‘surprising similarity in the patterns of bargaining behaviors of Russians and Americans. However, most importantly, the effects of those behaviors on negotiation outcomes (i.e., profits and satisfaction) were found to vary substantially across cultures.’ For Americans, satisfaction with negotiation outcomes was higher when sellers gave out more information, made fewer appeals to the opposite party to be consistent and fewer statements in total. For the Russians, on the other hand, satisfaction with negotiation outcomes was higher when sellers asked more questions, gave out

more commands or requests and made fewer informational and conditional statements.18 Again, whereas maximizing the economic gains that flow directly from the negotiation gives US negotiators most satisfaction, East Asian negotiators look to how much relational capital has been built and so are more satisfied when outcomes are equalized. The extent to which cultural factors influence negotiations varies, however: it is higher in conditions of high accountability (being answerable to a constituency, that is, representing a group of other people), high need for closure and high ambiguity. In other conditions, the personality of the negotiators and the nature of the matter being negotiated have more influence.19 So, for example, someone negotiating on behalf of their company (high accountability) with a potential international joint venture partner (high need for closure due to currency fluctuation unknowns regarding the investment) would likely be strongly influenced by culture. The effect of accountability itself on negotiators also varies with circumstances. While it tends to lead to the behaviour most strongly influenced by cultural norms, and so varies by culture, there are exceptions. In general when negotiators from relationally focused cultures are accountable to a constituency they shift towards a more pro-relationship approach to negotiations, but this applies only when they negotiate with ingroup members; thus when Chinese negotiators interact with Americans they are no more pro-relationship than the Americans.20 By surveying both Pakistani negotiators and those from other cultures who regularly negotiated with Pakistanis, Rammal (2005) found the following Pakistani cultural factors influenced intercultural negotiations with them: centralized decision-making, relationship building, and attitudes to time; contrary to expectations the findings did not confirm the need for agents, an emphasis on structured negotiations or a preference for indirect communication.21   7.1.2, for details of these findings.

Table 7.3  Negotiation style and approach of Chinese, Indian, Japanese and Taiwanese negotiators China

India

Holistic (aiming for an overall resolution rather than item by item)

Hard bargaining – the aim is to Negotiations are part of a beat the other side relationship

Japan

Rational, not emotional

Can have unrealistic expectations of what they can obtain

Not aiming to beat the opponent but there is no ‘getting to yes’

See a large power and status difference between the vendor and buyer

Balanced approach

Taiwan A link between the parties is a prior condition The aim is to win

Face issues are paramount

110  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

The differences shown in Table 7.3 apply to the approaches to negotiation of Chinese, Indian, Japanese and Taiwanese business negotiators, according to research by one of the present authors.22 Complete a fifth column that gives your assessment of the negotiation style and approach for people from your own country. How far can culture explain the differences shown in Table 7.3 in the approaches of ­Japanese negotiators compared with those from China, India and Taiwan? Rate the following approaches to negotiating from 1 to 5, according to how closely they match the ways that people from your culture tend to behave (1 = not at all closely, 5 = extremely closely): 1. Seeing the goal of negotiating as creating a relationship. 2. Expecting the negotiated terms of a contract to be strictly adhered to. 3. Thinking a buyer has more power than a seller. 4. Trying to get as much information as possible from the other party without giving much away themselves. 5. Dealing with one issue at a time. 6. Expecting both sides to improve on their initial offers by making concessions. 7. Aiming to ‘win’.

8. Selecting negotiators by seniority.  for how to interpret this exercise.

 7.1.3,

 7.1.4 for more on cultural differences in negotiation.

7.2 COOPERATION, COORDINATION AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING Cooperation is fundamental to coordination and coordination is fundamental to the organization of work. For instance, CEOs’ Twitter messages showed that they were primarily concerned with activity coordination.23 Having organizational members share their knowledge has also been recognized recently as essential for coordination and so for organizational success. In fact, there is a large literature which treats organizational design – and hence ­structure – as a response to the information needs created by the interdependence of organizations’ constituent units. While computer systems have been developed to support knowledge sharing and coordination, there is a clear need for cooperation among the human elements of the system if it is to function effectively.24 The cultural differences described in Chapter 3 are likely to have the effects on cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing set out in Table 7.4. As this table shows, approaches to cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing can differ radically in cultures with

Table 7.4  Effects of culture on cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing Effect of:

High

Low

Collectivism

Willingness to cooperate and share knowledge with ingroups, less so with outgroups

Cooperation depends on visibility of individual’s contribution and personal advantage possibilities

Power distance

Maximal cooperation and knowledge sharing with bosses, high with peers if demanded by boss, reluctant with those of lower status

Depends on the value seen in the individual’s contribution

Uncertainty avoidance

Preference for formal coordination and knowledge-sharing procedures and documentation

Preference for informality; information-sharing could arise casually; possible danger of leakage

Masculine values

Competitive attitudes

Cooperative attitudes

Contextualism

Relative awareness of tacit knowledge that needs interpreting through context and good adjustment to tacit coordination

Expect knowledge and coordination methods to be explicit

Long

Short

Emphasis on thoroughness, full disclosure, longterm planning

Emphasis only on cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing regarding immediate projects and concerns

Time orientation

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK ACTIVITIES  111

various combinations of values. Most likely to provide optimal conditions for cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing is a combination of low uncertainty avoidance, low masculinity, long-term orientation, high collectivism (providing the cooperation required is within ingroups) and high power distance (providing the cooperation required is with high-status colleagues). It should, however, be remembered that not all these extrapolations from cultural differences to particular behaviours have been found through research. How plausible do you find the extrapolations from cultural values to cooperation and coordination shown in Table 7.4? Consider them one by one, not as a whole.

Cultural differences in cooperation and coordination There are cultural influences on the kinds of situations that people categorize as cooperative. These categorizations are sometimes similar and sometimes different in different cultures such as those of China and the United States.25 Cooperation emphasizes group accomplishments, so has generally been considered a collectivistic trait. Nevertheless, findings show that concepts of cooperation are often similar across cultures that are different in terms of individualism–collectivism.26 Despite this similarity of concepts of cooperation, however, teams with a high percentage of collectivistic members exhibit higher levels of cooperation than those with mainly individualistic members; this in turn is related to higher performance.27 In Mexico, a country with a largely collectivist culture, an emphasis on norms and values regarding the family and the community helped to enhance cooperation.28 Beyond these findings our knowledge is largely based on logical projections from the characteristics of collectivist and individualist societies. Chen et al. (1998) hypothesized that instrumental factors such as high goal interdependence, enhancement of personal identity, cognitive-based trust and individual-based accountability would do more to foster cooperation in individualistic cultures, whereas in collectivist cultures socio-emotional factors such as goal sharing, enhancement of group identity, affect-based trust and explicit cooperative rules would have greater effects on cooperation.29 More recently, cross-cultural differences have been found in conference participants’ online collaborative behaviours. For example, Korean students were more social and contextually driven online, Finnish students were more group-focused as well as reflective and, at times, theoretically driven, and US students more action-oriented and pragmatic in seeking results or giving solutions.30

 7.2.1 for more on the Chen et al. (1998) hypotheses on culture and cooperation.

Fey and Denison (2003) reported a number of findings from case studies that showed how Russian culture impeded coordination. Stating that the Russian workforce has ‘a unique time perspective and a unique set of subcultures that often undermine attempts at coordination and integration’, they argued that the Russian ‘tendency to dissemble’, ‘preference for working in groups’, and ‘circumspect nature’ highlight elements of Russia’s national culture that may help give rise to organizational subcultures. Furthermore, Fey and Denison (2003) found, information is typically seen as power, and Russians often regard firm-level goals as distant and unfamiliar priorities compared to maintaining the integrity of their own functional area, so adding to the barriers to coordination and integration.31  7.2.2 for an example of how Russian cultural dynamics can affect coordination at work.

Cultural differences in knowledge sharing In recent years a perspective has emerged that emphasizes that much important work-related knowledge is tacit, embedded in people, socially determined and related to daily practice. This means that issues arise about how well it can be shared within organizations and value chains. While high knowledge transferability can be seen as a ‘double-edged sword’ (it facilitates internal operations or those between offshore service providers and clients but it also means that knowledge can more easily be copied by outsiders), most interest has centred on increasing transferability.32 There have been two lines of research on this topic. One is concerned with the characteristics of the knowledge, in particular its ‘stickiness’. Knowledge stickiness refers to the fact that transferring the knowledge needed for executing processes from one set of personnel to another is not frictionless. The more ambiguous and socially complex, the less explicit and the more difficult to express in words or symbols the process knowledge, the stickier it is – that is, the greater the impediments to transferring it.33 Give examples of knowledge that is high in ­stickiness and other knowledge that is low in stickiness, showing how they differ in terms of the criteria given above.  7.2.3 to learn more about knowledge stickiness.

112  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

The second line of research into knowledge transfer has been concerned with how people and social systems affect it and thus brings cultural difference into the picture. Motivating knowledge sharing is easier in collectivist than in individualist cultures, a 2013 literature search found34 and cultural collectivism has a positive and significant impact on attitudes toward and subjective norms with regard to knowledge sharing, according to a study published in 2016.35 Michailova and Hutchings (2006) argued that vertical collectivism and particularistic social relations in China and Russia lead to intensive social relations among organizational members; these relationships facilitate knowledge sharing among ingroup members in organizations in both countries. They also maintained that differences in the essence of collectivism as well as in the extent of collectivism in the two cultural contexts lead to different intensities of knowledge sharing in Chinese and Russian organizations.36 Empirical findings include Hwang’s (2012) demonstration that people from collectivist cultures respond more positively than others when told about social norms in favour of sharing knowledge by email.37 Other findings show that knowledge transfer depends on power distance, performance orientation, in-group collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance.38 Again, a cross-sectional survey suggested that while collectivism promotes knowledge sharing, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and Confucian dynamism have interactive effects with knowledge sharing motivations. Furthermore, some cultural values, like concern for face, have complex effects on knowledge sharing.39 In China, both face and guanxi orientation exert a significant effect on the intention to share knowledge.40 Some studies have explored knowledge-sharing differences between countries rather than cultures, though the conclusions often point to the latter. One such is a survey that compared knowledge sharing in China and the USA and found that culture influences motivations for knowledge sharing: Chinese tend to comply to avoid opposing their group and Americans tend to follow a more individualistic path; Chinese have more tendencies to conform to teams’ opinions and tend to favour knowledge sharing as a means of achieving harmonious relationships, while Americans engage in knowledge sharing because self-worth is viewed as the manifestation of their individual determinations.41 The degree of collectivism, competitiveness, the importance of saving face, ingroup orientation, attention paid to power and hierarchy, and culture-specific preferences

for communication modes had different levels of importance among employees in China, Russia and Brazil, another study that explored knowledge sharing strategies in virtual communities of practice found. The issue of saving face was less important than expected in China. Modesty requirements as well as a high degree of competitiveness among employees were found to be serious barriers to information sharing in China, but not in Russia and Brazil. Perceived differences in power and hierarchy seemed to be less critical in all three countries than initially assumed.42 Finally, the impact of culture on other aspects of organization can have knock-on effects on knowledge sharing. For instance, authoritarian leadership is culturally endorsed in China. Authoritarian leadership inhibits knowledge sharing among members of a group, and so inhibits group creativity by comparison with transformational leadership.43

7.3 GROUPWORK AND TEAMWORK This section considers the effect of cultural differences and diversity both on decision-making (problem-solving) groups and on teams entrusted with carrying out a project or performing a function. The logical implications of the cultural differences described in Chapter 3 appear in both decision-making groups and work teams. Table 7.5 shows what those effects are. As the table shows, a combination of cultural dimensions can create approaches to groupwork that differ radically: high masculinity and low collectivism, power distance and uncertainty avoidance plus a short-term orientation would lead to groupwork characterized by a competitive atmosphere, low deference to authority, a preference for informality and a sense of urgency. In sharp contrast, combined low masculinity and high collectivist, power distance and uncertain avoidance values would lead to a cooperative atmosphere, need for leadership, formality and thoroughness. (It should, however, be remembered that not all these extrapolations from cultural differences to particular behaviours have been found through research.) How plausible do you find the extrapolations from cultural values to groupwork and teamwork shown in Table 7.5? Consider them one by one, not as a whole.  7.3.1 for findings on people’s preferences regarding group culture.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK ACTIVITIES  113

Table 7.5  Effects of culture on groupwork and teamwork Effect of:

High

Low

Collectivism

Cooperative atmosphere with ingroups, less so with outgroups

Competitive or self-serving atmosphere

Power distance

Difficulty in working in an unchaired or unsupervised group

Low deference to authority/leader

Uncertainty avoidance

Preference for agendas and sticking to them, structured discussion, clear outcomes, minutes

Preference for informality

Masculine values

Competitive atmosphere

Cooperative atmosphere

Contextualism

Tacitly understood common ground has strong influence

Highly verbal people may dominate, preference for clear outcomes, minutes

Time orientation

Exploration of all issues before decision sought; thoroughness given priority over speed

Long

An empirical finding that applies to both decisionmaking groups and to teams is that in general people in group contexts prefer group members who display collectivist as opposed to individualist behaviour – that is, who show more concern for the group than for themselves as individuals. This applies to both collectivists and individualists.44 Process losses occur in both decision-making groups and in teams. Process losses ‘represent that portion of potential productivity that is not employed by the group and reflect the relative weaknesses of the group’s decision process’. Dominance by some individuals or subgroups, non-contribution by some out of fear of being judged negatively, information overload and production blocking (a group member losing his or her train of thought because other people are speaking when he or she wants to express it) are among common forms of process losses. Whether working face-to-face or by a cmc system, groups from different cultures experience different levels of process losses. For instance, across both modes Hong Kong groups report greater production blocking than US groups do.45

Cultural differences in decision-making and problem-solving groups How decisions are made varies widely across cultures. In the words of Olson and Olson (2000): In Western societies, decisions are made on the basis of input from those involved. Or, they gather individual preferences and democratically vote on the solution. In cultures with greater hierarchies, group members assume an authority will decide and they are only to enact the decision, not to have input or take

Short Sense of urgency, pressure for closure

responsibility. Of course, this is hard to assess since the criteria for success in relationship-based cultures is very different from those in material- or success-based cultures. Not only do the processes differ, the basis for evaluation of alternatives and the outcomes also differ.46 It is no surprise that processes in complex work decision settings are influenced by cultural factors. Culture affects participants’ experience of variable decision situations, how predictable the environment is and how great the level of power distance is. In turn these variables affect how group members approach decision-making. For example, in a complex decision task, German managers used different decision-making processes from Indian managers, even though both worked in modern technological industries. Specifically, the German managers achieved their results with comparatively few but ‘strong’ decisions. The Indian managers achieved their results with many small steps. The researchers commented that both the ‘massive’ German and the ‘incremental’ Indian approach appeared to be effective in their respective environments. Highly unpredictable economic environments, such as those in India, meant it made sense to start with some small steps, closely monitor the effects and then gradually increase the size of decisions in those avenues that proved reliable. In a more predictable environment, such as the German, probable outcomes of decisions could be anticipated and there was less risk involved in making strong decisions. The German and Indian decision-making styles might also be related to cultural differences in power distance: ‘Large power distance could be related to cautious and defensive decision making whereas small power distance should work in the direction of risk-taking and assertiveness.’47

114  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

Chinese and several other East Asian groups (but not the Japanese) were more confident than Americans that their decisions were correct, another study found. This may be owing to a greater propensity to select the first adequate problem solution that is identified rather than to survey a range of alternatives before deciding. These differences may be explicable in terms of variations in individualism–collectivism.48 How might differences in ­individualism–collectivism produce the effects described in this paragraph?

Cultural differences in teamwork As with group decision-making or problem-solving, so with teams: in different cultural contexts, different patterns of expectations arise concerning team roles, scope, membership and objectives. At a general level, it is true, most definitions of a team are likely to include what a team does and for whom it does it, the scope of its activity, roles, the nature of membership, especially whether voluntary or compulsory, and the team’s goals and objectives. However, the specific content of what people mean by teamwork varies across cultures. This can be revealed by the metaphors they use. For instance, if the national context is individualistic, then sports or club metaphors are more likely to resonate than those that imply a broader activity scope. An emphasis on tight control in the culture means that a military or family metaphor is likely to resonate.49 Groups composed of people from collectivist cultural traditions (Asian, Hispanic and Black Americans) displayed more cooperative behaviour than groups composed of people from individualistic cultural traditions (Anglo-Americans), according to an early study.50 Again, while individualists (Americans) performed better when

working alone than with either an ingroup or an outgroup, collectivists (Chinese) performed better when they believed they were working with an ingroup than either alone or with an outgroup.51 National culture was important in explaining patterns of relationships in a team but was less direct and deterministic than suggested by previous research, a network study of the management team of a German-Japanese international joint venture found.52 There are differences in the teamwork behaviour of people in five Asian countries, research by one of the authors suggested. The findings are shown in Table 7.6. As this table suggests, a collectivist cultural underpinning can manifest itself in teamwork in very different ways. Only in Japan did the research find evidence that collectivist values led to good teamwork; in China and Taiwan, loyalties were to groups other than the organization and that meant poor teamwork, especially in cross-functional teams. Complete a seventh column in Table 7.6 that gives your assessment of teamwork and its cultural underpinning for your own country.  7.3.2 for a link to a website that gives cultural values for different countries.

In work groups with no appointed leader, a leader often emerges and, indeed, if no leader emerges, the group’s performance is usually worse. In Western cultures, sex, gender role orientation, dominance, high self-efficacy and high self-monitoring predict who will emerge as leader; in Turkey, however, which has ‘feminine and collectivist cultural characteristics’, most of these demographics and personality traits are not predictive; only the trait of selfmonitoring predicts who will emerge as a leader.53 Culture has an influence on the effects of team and group diversity. For instance, diversity affects Japanese and US

Table 7.6  Teamwork in five Asian countries China

India

Japan

Taiwan

Singapore

Teamworking

Poor in crossorganizational teams

Poor

Very good

Poor in crossorganizational teams

Poor

Cultural underpinning

Collectivist loyalty is transferred to the work group, not the wider organization

India’s level of collectivism is lower than the Sino countries’ and loyalty is to units outside the organization, especially the family

Collectivist loyalty is transferred to the organization

Collectivist loyalty is transferred to the work group, not the wider organization

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK ACTIVITIES  115

teams differently. Whereas there is no relationship between national diversity and team performance in US teams involved in a task of low interdependence (baseball), in Japanese teams there is a negative relationship – they perform worse under conditions of national diversity.54 Again, gender diversity associates more positively with group identification in Chinese work groups than in American work groups and is more positively associated with group performance. This is probably because in China, unlike America, genderdiverse groups perform better than homogeneous groups by decreasing relationship conflict and task conflict.55

Cultural differences in groupwork by cmc There is as yet limited evidence on the impact of culture on groupwork by cmc. However, research findings include the following: significant differences in the perceptions of Mexicans and North Americans were found regarding the norming and performing stages of online group development. These differences were attributed to collectivist vs individualist tendencies.56 National culture influences the number of critical comments made by participants in discussions using group support systems (GSS), a technology for supporting collaborative work using cmc; however, the amount of flaming is not affected by national culture in these circumstances.57

7.4 LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT This section contains a discussion of cultural differences and similarities in leadership and management. It also considers four specific aspects of how culture affects

communication by leaders and managers: compliance gaining, mentoring, giving feedback and international project management. The cultural values differences that were explained in Chapter 3 are likely to be reflected in leadership and management in the ways set out in Table 7.7. In cultures that are high in uncertainty avoidance, low in power distance, high in collectivism, low in masculinity and that have a long-term time orientation, leaders are likely to be given limited discretion, to be expected to make decisions in agreement with colleagues, to function as the representative of their group, to be very involved with their team members, and to emphasize the long term. (It should, however, be remembered that not all these extrapolations from cultural differences to particular behaviours have been found through research.) How plausible do you find the extrapolations from cultural values to leadership and management shown in Table 7.7? Consider them one by one, not as a whole.

What is expected of leaders or managers, what they may and may not do, and the influence that they have, varies considerably from culture to culture. The GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) project, for example, found that national culture ‘indirectly influences leadership behaviors through the leadership expectations of societies. In other words, executives tend to lead in a manner more or less consistent with the leadership prototypes endorsed within their particular culture. In turn, leaders who behave according to expectations are most effective.’58 There have been findings of both universality and cultural specificity of various leadership and management behaviours. GLOBE found that some leadership

Table 7.7  Effect of culture on leadership and management Effect of:

High

Low

Collectivism

The leader/manager represents the group or organization

The leader/manager leads and directs the group or organization

Power distance

Hierarchical ‘strong’ management, lack of challenge to leader’s opinions

Leader is first among equals, decision-making consensual

Uncertainty avoidance

Leaders hedged around with checks and constraints

Leaders given wide discretion

Masculine values

Focus is on competing outside own team, department or organization; task orientation

Focus is on own team, department or organization; relationship orientation

Contextualism

Subordinates expect to understand managers’ requirements without being told. Charisma often important

Verbal facility and fluency important for both managers and leaders

Long Time orientation

Emphasis on long-term plans and strategies

Short Emphasis on quick results

116  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

behaviours, such as charismatic/value-based leadership, are universally effective; others, such as participative leadership, are much more culturally sensitive.59 Managers in nations of different ‘cultural-industrialized’ standing are all involved in the same 44 skill activities,60 and the views of middle managers from 61 societies in 58 countries on destructive versus constructive leadership profiles reflected the harshness of the thermal climate and the degree of collective wealth rather than culture.61 On the other hand, managers’ preferences regarding participation show differences that correlate positively with power - distance scores across countries; in other words, the higher a country’s power distance the lower its managers’ liking for participative management. Within Europe, differences in preferences, habits, languages and cultures, in other words its diversity, are recognized as the constraint within which firms and leaders ‘must exploit European integration opportunities’.62 Other empirical research ‘seems to show that cultural forces influence many aspects of leadership’.63 These aspects include what is typically required of holders of leadership positions, the degree to which leadership roles are filled by ascription or achievement, typical leader behaviour patterns, preferences for and expectations of leaders, and followers’ and subordinates’ reactions to different kinds of leader behaviour. At a more detailed level there is evidence that cultural differences in leadership and management include how much managers rely on their own experience, what they expect from work teams, how far subordinates participate in decision-making, effects of authentic leadership,

typicality of pragmatic management, managers’ interpersonal awareness, managers’ critical information seeking, subordinate empowerment, managers’ cronyist practices, a religious basis for management and servant leadership. Table 7.8 gives examples of cultural differences and influences in these aspects of leadership and management. The text below provides details of these and further examples.

• A survey of managers in 16 countries found that in •

•

individualist, low power-distance nations, managers relied more heavily on their own experience and training than they did in collectivist, high power-distance countries. Studies show differences in how Japanese, British and American supervisors judge work teams. In Japan, supervisors judge as most effective those work teams that place more reliance on their peers; in the USA, those that make more reference to superiors; and, in Great Britain, those that show greater self-reliance.64 A comparison of decision-making by British and C ­ hinese managers found that the national culture as well as the type of decision affected the degree of subordinate participation and supervisor consultation. While Chinese supervisor-level employees and higher-level managers exhibited a positive attitude towards employee empowerment, this positive attitude was lower for empowerment than for other managerial leader behaviour sets. This finding came from a study in an organization where previously expatriate managers had introduced and practised empowerment management, so suggests a persistent concern about the practice.65

Table 7.8  Examples of cultural influences on leadership and management Cultural Difference in/Influence on Leadership and Management

Example

Managers’ reliance on own experience and training

Higher in individualist, low power-distance countries

How supervisors judge work teams

Differences between Japanese, British and American supervisors

Subordinate participation

Relatively low for Chinese supervisors

Positive effects of authentic leadership

High in China

Typicality of pragmatic management

High in Sweden

Managers’ interpersonal awareness

Higher in UK than Taiwan

Managers’ critical information seeking

Higher in Taiwan than UK

Subordinate empowerment

Low in China

Managers’ cronyist practices

High in China

Religious basis for managerial practices

High in Islamic countries

Servant leadership

High in Islamic countries

Pseudo-participative management

High in Arab countries

Leader-member exchange practices

Covers wider concerns in China than the West

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK ACTIVITIES  117

• Chinese traditionality strengthens the positive effects of authentic leadership on subordinates’ perceptions that their leader practices interactional justice, which in turn positively relates to their in-role performance, creativity, and organizational citizenship behaviour.66 What aspects of individualism and collectivism might explain the differences in how Japanese, British and American supervisors judge work teams?  7.4.1 for a summary of a case study about Swedish national culture and leadership in IKEA, the global furniture business.

•

• •

•

Typical organizational practices in Sweden have been summarized by the term ‘pragmatism’, meaning the balancing of rituals with rational choices, the rituals thus acquiring instrumental uses and the rational choices or instruments expressing important values. A series of studies conducted in leading Swedish companies concluded that Swedish managers were very sensitive to fashions and to trends that affect the metaphors and labels used for organizational ideas and ideologies. There were definite rules for introducing change, and organizational change was strongly institutionalized. This provided room for new ideas at the same time that it protected organizations from extreme swings.67 Both Taiwanese and UK managers are highly achievement focused, but ‘UK managers demonstrated more interpersonal awareness, and concern for impact, whereas Taiwanese managers were more likely to demonstrate critical information seeking behaviour.’68 Chinese tradition means that organizations are still regarded as large families with their leaders acting as the families’ heads. Most communication is therefore downward and subordinates are often not empowered and their contributions are often belittled. Leaders often construct intimate relationships and mutual trust with particular groups, who consequently have more opportunities to obtain support or acquire resources.69 One study argued that Islamic leadership does not rely on traditional authority for its legitimacy, but rather on rational-legal systems based on unity of purpose, acknowledgement of the one God, and the foundational example of the Prophet Muhammad, whose referent and charismatic authority live on in discussions of the sunnah and the hadith. ‘It is thus vital to refine external or “etic” characterisations of Islamic leadership with an appreciation of leadership prototypes in the Qur’an, the sunnah and hadith.’70 Another study found that servant

•

leadership (leadership that primarily aspires to serve) was the most widely used leadership style, and Islamic values were given the greatest importance.71 According to findings by Ali (1993) the decision-making style strongly endorsed by Arabs is best described as pseudo-participative: while managerial behaviour ‘remains strictly within the framework of the authoritarian and hierarchical structure of the organization, [it also] seeks to prepare subordinates to accept decisions already made by managers and to improve the individual managers’ images in a society where [participative and egalitarian] Islamic and tribalistic values still have some important influence.’72  7.4.2 for more examples of cultural differences in managerial behaviour.

• A major development in our understanding of leadership in recent years has been leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. This theory emphasizes

that the quality of leader-follower communication is a strong influence on subordinates’ and teams’ performances and job satisfaction. However, the Western concept of LMX only refers to the supervisor-subordinate exchange within the work relationship, while the benefits being exchanged are mainly related to work; in China, in contrast, the main focus of LMX is related to concerns outside work and the benefits exchanged can be social and material. This exchange is developed through the interaction between the subordinate and the supervisor after office hours through home visits or other social functions.73 Cultural differences in attitudes to leadership lead to differences in how specific managerial functions, such as compliance gaining, mentoring, giving feedback and performance appraisal, are performed.74

Cultural differences in compliance gaining Compliance gaining refers to the relatively strong influencing effect of getting others to behave in a desired way. It is an important purpose for which managers use communication. Communication methods for getting other people to comply may correspond to cultural values. In the USA, giving reasons and explanations were favoured over threats or moral pressure, one study found. These preferences were probably linked to values of individual autonomy. In contrast, in Colombia, which has a collectivist culture, confianza (which means the degree of trust and closeness in a relationship, plus responsibility for others) interacted with acceptance of authority. This meant that in some relationships it was acceptable for one party to

118  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

‘command’ the other. This can allow the use of threats and moral pressure and remove the need to give explanations. In other words, individualism–collectivism may influence which compliance-gaining methods are effective.75 Compliance gaining with subordinates often does mean using persuasion to influence them to do what they are directed to do and to convince them that the task is worth doing. Such communication is common between superiors and key subordinates. US and European managers use mainly reasoning and friendliness, as opposed to sanctions, bargaining or appeals to higher authority. The probable reasons are that such appeals avoid making superior–subordinate interactions riskier and help both superiors and subordinates to attain their goals. What applies to Japanese managers? Findings based on three samples of 14, 13 and 41 Japanese managers were that reasoning was the most used strategy. However, when Japanese managers saw themselves as permanent employees they resorted more to the use of assertiveness: they frequently set deadlines for key subordinates, told them that they must comply and reminded them repeatedly. Permanently employed Japanese managers also made more use of loyalty appeals, even when the subordinates were temporary workers.76 Across Dutch, Turkish and Moroccan groups high source expertise was the most effective way of gaining compliance, a study showed. There were no significant cross-cultural differences for this finding. In cases of low source expertise, however, Moroccan and Turkish people were more compliant than Dutch people, regardless of the compliance-gaining strategy used.77 In China, harmony in the sense of an ‘in-built art-based, multi-dimensionally dynamic approach to life’, is positively related to compliance behaviour.78

Cultural differences in mentoring Mentoring generally refers to a senior and experienced member of the staff of an organization providing information, advice and support for a junior person. Research in several private firms and public service agencies revealed seven types of mentor assistance that were particularly helpful. These were: helping a person to shift her or his mental context, listening when the mentoree had a problem, identifying mentoree feelings and verifying them, effectively confronting negative intentions or behaviour, providing appropriate information when needed, delegating authority or giving permission and encouraging exploration of options.79  7.4.3 for more on mentoring and a link to a video about it.

There are cultural differences in the expectations of different ethnic groups in regard to mentoring. For instance,

culturally, Asian mentor-like relationships differ from their Western counterparts in that they are much more formally hierarchical and they blur the distinction between family and social ties. Formal language and titles, deference and other forms of reverence are expected between junior and senior colleagues. Asian personnel may not seek guidance and nurturance actively; instead, they expect the person with the greater power to initiate this. Asian mentorees are likely to be concerned about not taking up too much of the mentor’s time. As a result, they may quickly usher themselves out of the office. This fear of being a burden is detrimental to an effective mentoring relationship.80 Individualist cultural tendencies like those found in the USA and Great Britain cause mentors generally to prefer focusing on task accomplishment, such as starting and ending meetings on time, whereas collectivist mentors focus on relationship building, according to Osula and Irvin (2009). Ingroup collectivism also affects trust between individuals. Trust is foundational to the mentoring relationship as a whole. Individualists tend to be universalistic in their willingness to trust people and give them the benefit of the doubt. Collectivists on the other hand tend to be particularistic, extending trust only to those from within their ingroup. Trust must be earned slowly by consistency of character and by proof of benevolence. Harmony is a key value for collectivists. Personal confrontation is normally considered rude, and communication can be very indirect. A mentoree from a collectivist country will normally not dare to contradict his or her mentor, but may express agreement that does not imply – from the mentoree’s perspective – any real commitment. People from individualist countries, on the other hand, believe that speaking the truth openly, even if it causes conflict, is both virtuous and healthy. While low power-distance mentors may enjoy lively interchanges and disagreements, high power distance may produce an aversion to disagreeing with a superior, which can constrain open discussion.81 ‘There’s a lot of interest in mentoring training here at the moment. There’s a problem in that mentors tend to think that the way they got there is the right way for every mentoree. They don’t listen and they do lecture.’82 What cultural factors might lead to this mentoring behaviour?

Cultural differences in feedback and performance evaluation Culture affects both how feedback is received and how it is given. Individual performance evaluation and feedback seeking are related to culture. US respondents have been

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK ACTIVITIES  119

shown to desire success feedback, show more initiative in obtaining feedback and perceive more direct workplace feedback than do the Japanese. However, interestingly, the Chinese respond quite differently from the Japanese, suggesting that collectivism cannot be directly translated into feedback attitudes; the authors of the research interpreted the findings in terms of reforms in the People’s Republic of China.83 In three cultural regions (North America, Asia and Latin America) managers’ performance appraisals of their subordinates are influenced by their perceptions of employees’ intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic motivations. In North America managers perceive their subordinates as more extrinsically motivated, while in Asia managers perceive their subordinates as equally motivated by both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. In Latin America managers both perceive subordinates as more motivated by intrinsic factors and base their performance appraisals more on intrinsic motivations.84 A comparison of Hong Kong and British performance appraisal practices and attitudes found extensive differences: British appraisal tends to be more participative and to place greater emphasis on discussing objectives, development and career plans. Hong Kong appraisals appear to be more directive and Hong Kong respondents perceive a higher level of ‘negative’ appraiser behaviour. In spite of this, Hong Kong respondents show if anything slightly more confidence in the utility of appraisal than do British respondents. They show stronger support for appraisal’s use for reward

and punishment and less support for the objectivessetting and training and development uses than do the British sample. Hong Kong respondents are more likely than their British counterparts to favour involving a more senior manager in appraisal, and they are less likely to prefer more frequent appraisals. There is little evidence that Hong Kong respondents have a stronger preference for group-based appraisal criteria, although they do show more support than the British sample for the use of personality as a basis for appraisal. Overall, the suggestion is that appraisal has been adopted in Hong Kong organizations but that the practice of appraisal has been adapted to suit the cultural characteristics of the society.85 Table 7.9 shows how cultural differences are reflected in differences in performance appraisal characteristics.  7.4.4 for a detailed explanation of why these cultural characteristics lead to these performance appraisal characteristics.

Cultural differences in international project management Case studies of international construction projects have revealed that the impact of culture on project management is likely to be evident from the very early days of the project. This impact is felt even before the formal process starts. For example, according to Dadfar and Gustavsson (1992), a project manager stationed in the Middle East said,

Table 7.9  Cultural characteristics reflected in performance appraisal characteristics86 Cultural Characteristics Power Distance

Low

Uncertainty avoidance

Low

Power distance

Low

Uncertainty avoidance

High

Power distance

High

Sample Countries

Characteristics of Performance Appraisal

The UK Denmark Sweden Norway The Netherlands

Joint problem-solving exercise

Germany Switzerland Austria Finland

Bureaucratic

Greece Turkey France Belgium Italy Spain

One-way – superior to subordinate

120  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

Social relations in the Middle East are very important; if not for anything else, it is vital for getting information. In order to know very early that a project is proceeding, you must have a network of relations to be informed … they must know you and trust you as a person first, and then trust your company. It is impossible to build such interpersonal relations without cultural awareness.

• Some universal aspects to leadership have been found

but culture affects both what is expected of leaders and their usual behaviour. Many of these effects can be linked to the cultural values described in Chapter 3. Cultural differences lead to differences in how specific managerial functions, such as compliance gaining, mentoring, giving feedback and international project management, are performed.

Other conclusions included the following: The problems associated with cultural differences between the Arabs and Swedes were found to be very sensitive. In addition to differences in religion and value and belief systems, the concepts of contract, time and planning as well as philosophies of business were found to be different in the parties’ cultural context. and ‘Arabs prefer to do business based on interpersonal relationships; they do not plan for a long-term future; to them verbal and written agreements have equal value; and they are not aware of technical and practical problems. “They contract a project today and want it to be delivered yesterday”, said a project manager’.87

CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY

• Both theory-based models and empirical findings sup-

•

•

port the existence of cultural differences in how negotiations are defined, negotiators’ norms and values, frames, perceptions, judgement biases and attributions, negotiation styles, non-verbal behaviour (paralinguistics), the effects of assertiveness and felt tensions, and negotiation processes, strategies and outcomes. Cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing are all affected by culture. Willingness to cooperate and share knowledge, level of preference for formal coordination and knowledge sharing procedures and documentation, and whether the emphasis is on thoroughness, full disclosure, long-term planning or only immediate projects and concerns are among matters that may be influenced by culture. Culture may affect preferred decision-making styles and expectations concerning group- and team work, the ease or difficulty of working in an unchaired or unsupervised group, the level of deference to an authority/leader, the level of preference for informality, whether the atmosphere is competitive or cooperative, and whether there is a preference for exploring all issues before a decision is sought or alternatively for a sense of urgency and pressure for closure.

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Pruitt, D.G. (1996) ‘Bargaining’, in Manstead, A.S.R., Hewstone, M., Fiske, S.T., Hogg, M.A. and Semin, G.R. (eds) The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Social Psychology, Oxford: Blackwell. 2 Mintu-Wimsatt and A. Gassenheimer, J.B. (2000) ‘The moderating effects of cultural context in buyer-seller negotiation’, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 20(1): 1–9. 3 Ibid. 4 Brett, J.M. (2000) ‘Culture and negotiation’, International Journal of Psychology, 35(2): 97–104. 5 Salacuse, J.W. (1998) ‘Ten ways that culture affects negotiating style: some survey results’, Negotiation Journal, 7: 221–40. 6 Metcalf, L.E., Bird, A., Shankarmahesh, M., Aycan, Z., Larimo, J. and Valdelamar, D.D. (2006) ‘Cultural tendencies in negotiation: A comparison of Finland, India, Mexico, Turkey, and the United States’, Journal of World Business, 41(4): 382–94. 7 Gelfand, M.J., Nishii, L.H., Holcombe, K.M., Dyer, N., Ohbuchi K.I. and Fukuno M. (2001) ‘Cultural influences on cognitive representations of conflict: interpretations of conflict episodes in the United States and Japan’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1059–74. 8 Gelfand, M.J. and Christakopoulou, S. (1999) ‘Culture and negotiator cognition: Judgment accuracy and negotiation processes in individualistic and collectivistic cultures’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3): 248–69. 9 Brett, op. cit. 10 Ladegaard, H.J. (2011) ‘Negotiation style, speech accommodation and small talk in Sino-Western business negotiations: A Hong Kong case study’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2): 197–226. 11 Tu, Y.T. (2014) ‘Cross-cultural equivalence and latent mean differences of the Negotiation Style Profile (NSP-12) in Taiwan and US managers’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43: 156–64. 12 Semnani-Azad, Z. and Adair, W.L. (2013) ‘Watch your tone… relational paralinguistic messages in

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK ACTIVITIES  121

13 14

15

16

17 18

19 20

21 22 23

24

25

26

negotiation’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 43(4): 64–89. Ibid. Ma, Z. and Jaeger, A.M. (2010) ‘A comparative study of the influence of assertiveness on negotiation outcomes in Canada and China’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17(4): 333–46. Lee, K.H., Yang, G. and Graham, J.L. (2006) ‘Tension and trust in international business negotiations: American executives negotiating with Chinese executives’, Journal of International Business Studies, 37(5): 623–41. Salacuse, J. (1991) ‘Making deals in strange places: a beginner’s guide to international business negotiations’, in Breslin, J.W. and Rubin, J.Z. (eds) Negotiation Theory and Practice, Cambridge, MA: The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Bazerman, M.H., Curhan, J.R., Moore, D.A. and Valley, K.L. (2000) ‘Negotiation’, Annual Review of Psychology, 51: 279–314. Roemer, C., Garb, P., Neu, J. and Graham, J.L. (1999) ‘A comparison of American and Russian patterns of behavior in buyer-seller negotiations using observational measures’, International Negotiation, 4(1): 37–61. Gelfand, M.J., Erez, M. and Aycan, Z. (2007) ‘Crosscultural organizational behavior’, Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 479–514. Liu, W., Friedman, R. and Hong, Y.Y (2012) ‘Culture and accountability in negotiation: Recognizing the importance of ingroup relations’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1): 221–34. Rammal, H.G. (2005) ‘International business negotiations: the case of Pakistan’, International Journal Of Commerce And Management, 15(2): 129–40. Guirdham, M. (2009) Culture and Business in Asia, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Girginova, K. (2015) ‘Social CEOs: Tweeting as a constitutive form of organizational communication’, in Darcis, E. (2015) Digital Business Discourse, Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan. Hwang, Y. (2012) ‘Understanding moderating effects of collectivist cultural orientation on the knowledge sharing attitude by email’, Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6): 2169–74. Keller, J. and Loewenstein, J. (2011) ‘The cultural category of cooperation: A cultural consensus model analysis for China and the United States’, Organization Science, 22(2): 299–319. Leonard, K.M., Cosans, C. and Pakdil, F. (2012) ‘Cooperation across cultures: An examination of the

27 28 29

30

31

32

33 34

35

36

37 38 39

40

concept in 16 countries’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(2): 238–47. Ely, L.T. and Dobbins, G.H. (1997) ‘Collectivistic orientation in teams: an individual- and group-level analysis’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 275–95. D’Iribarne, P. (2002) ‘Motivating workers in emerging countries: universal tools and local adaptations’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 243–56. Chen, C.C., Chen, X.P. and Meindl, J.R. (1998) ‘How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-collectivism’, Academy of Management Review, 23(2): 285–304. Kim, K.J. and Bonk, C.J. (2002) ‘Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration’, Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 8(1), URL: http://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00163.x/full. Last accessed 17 July 2016. Fey, C.F. and Denison, D.R. (2003) ‘Organizational culture and effectiveness: can American theory be applied in Russia?’, Organization Science, 14(6): 686–706. Winter, S.G. (1987) ‘Knowledge and competence as strategic assets’, in Teece, D. (ed.) The Competitive Challenge—Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Szulanski, G. (1996) ‘Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, 17: 27–43. Witherspoon, C.L., Bergner, J., Cockrell, C. and Stone, D.N. (2013) ‘Antecedents of organizational knowledge sharing: a meta-analysis and critique’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2): 250–77. Arpaci, I. and Baloğlu, M. (2016) ‘The impact of cultural collectivism on knowledge sharing among information technology majoring undergraduates’, Computers in Human Behavior, 56: 65–71. Michailova, S. and Hutchings, K. (2006) ‘National cultural influences on knowledge sharing: a comparison of China and Russia’, Journal of Management Studies, 43(3): 383–405. Hwang, op. cit. Wilkesmann, U., Fischer, H. and Wilkesmann, M. (2009) ‘Cultural characteristics of knowledge transfer’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(6): 464–77. Zhang, X., De Pablos, P.O. and Xu, Q. (2014) ‘Culture effects on the knowledge sharing in multi-national virtual classes: A mixed method’, Computers in Human Behavior, 31: 491–8. Huang, Q., Davison, R.M. and Gu, J. (2008) ‘Impact of personal and cultural factors on knowledge sharing in China’, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(3): 451–71.

122  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

41 Jiacheng, W., Lu, L. and Francesco, C.A. (2010) ‘A cognitive model of intra-organizational knowledge-sharing motivations in the view of cross-culture’, International Journal of Information Management, 30(3): 220–30. 42 Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T. and Stuedemann, R. (2006) ‘Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1): 94–107. 43 Zhang, A.Y., Tsui, A.S. and Wang, D.X. (2011) ‘Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes’, The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5): 851–62. 44 Hagger, M.S., Rentzelas, P. and Koch, S. (2014) ‘Evaluating group member behaviour under individualist and collectivist norms: A cross-cultural comparison’, Small Group Research, 45(2): 217–28. 45 Reinig, B.A. and Mejias, R.J. (2003) ‘An investigation of the influence of national culture and group support systems on group processes and outcomes’, Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. IEEE. 46 Olson, G.M. and Olson, J.S. (2000) ‘Distance matters’, Human Computer Interaction, 15(2&3): 139–78. 47 Strohschneider, S. (2002) ‘Cultural factors in complex decision making’, in Lonner, W.J., Dinnel, D.L., Hayes, S.A. and Sattler, D.N. (eds) Online Readings in Psychology and Culture URL: http://www.wwu.edu/~culture. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 48 Bond, M.H. and Smith, P.B. (1996) ‘Cross-cultural social and organizational psychology’, Annual Review of Psychology, 47: 205–35. 49 Gibson, C.B. and Zellmer-Bruhn, M.E. (2001) ‘Metaphors and meaning: an intercultural analysis of the concept of teamwork’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 274–303. 50 Cox, T.H., Lobel, S.A. and McLeod, P.L. (1991) ‘Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task’, Academy of Management Journal, 34(4): 827–47. 51 Earley, P.C. (1993) ‘East meets West meets Mideast: Further explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups’, Academy of Management Journal, 36(2): 319–48. 52 Salk, J.E. and Brannen, M.Y. (2000) ‘National culture, networks, and individual influence in a multinational management team’, Academy of Management Journal, 43(2): 191–202. 53 Türetgen, I.Ö., Unsal, P. and Erdem, I. (2008) ‘The Effects of sex, gender role, and personality traits on leader emergence: Does culture make a difference?’, Small Group Research, URL: http://sgr.sagepub.com/ content/39/5/588. Last accessed 17 July 2016.

54 Sakuda, K.H. (2012) ‘National diversity and team performance in low interdependence tasks’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 19(2): 125–41. 55 Zhang, Y. and Hou, L. (2012) ‘The romance of working together: Benefits of gender diversity on group performance in China’, Human Relations, 65(11): 1487–508. 56 Gunawardena, C.N., Nolla, A.C., Wilson, P.L., LopezIslas, J.R., Ramirez-Angel, N. and Megchu-Alpizar, R.M. (2001) ‘A cross-cultural study of group process and development in online conferences’, Distance Education, 22(1): 85–121. 57 Reinig, B.A. and Mejias, R.J. (2004) ‘The effects of national culture and anonymity on flaming and criticalness in GSS-supported discussions’, Small Group Research, 35(6): 698–723. 58 Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A. and House, R. (2012) ‘GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership’, Journal of World Business, 47(4): 504–18. 59 Ibid. 60 Lubatkin, M.H., Ndiaye, M. and Vengroff, R. (1997) ‘The nature of managerial work in developing countries; a limited test of the universalist hypothesis’, Journal of International Business Strategy, 28(4): 711–33. 61 Van de Vliert, E. and Einarsen, S. (2008) ‘Cultural construals of destructive versus constructive leadership in major world niches’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8: 275–95. 62 Boone, P.F. and van Den Bosch, F.A.J. (1996) ‘Discerning a key characteristic of a European style of management: managing the tension between integration opportunities and the constraining diversity in Europe’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 26(3): 109–27. 63 House, R., Wright, N. and Aditya, R.N. (1999) ‘Cross cultural research on organizational leadership: a critical analysis and a proposed theory’, Working Paper of the Reginald H. Jones Center, The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania WP 99-03A 48, URL: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1997-36742-019. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 64 Ibid. 65 Littrell, R.F. (2007) ‘Influences on employee preferences for empowerment practices by the “ideal manager” in China’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(1): 87–110. 66 Li, F., Yu, K.F., Yang, J., Qi, Z. and Fu, J.H.Y. (2014) ‘Authentic Leadership, traditionality, and interactional justice in the Chinese context’, Management and Organization Review, 10(2): 249–73. 67 Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (1993) ‘Swedish management: modern project, postmodern implementation’,

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN WORK ACTIVITIES  123

68 69

70

71

72

73 74

75 76 77

International Studies of Management & Organization, 23(1): 13–27. Vickers, D. (2013) ‘A comparative study of UK and Taiwanese chemical plant managers’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 20(3): 386–401. Zhang, X., Fu, P., Xi, Y., Li, L., Xu, L., Cao, C. and Ge, J. (2012) ‘Understanding indigenous leadership research: explication and Chinese examples’, The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6): 1063–79. Almoharby, D. and Neal, M. (2013) ‘Clarifying Islamic perspectives on leadership’, Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 6(3/4): 148–61. Ahmad, K. and Ogunsola, O.K. (2011) ‘An empirical assessment of Islamic leadership principles’, International Journal of Commerce and Management, 21(3): 291–318. Ali, A.J. (1993) ‘Decision-making style, individualism, and attitudes toward risk of Arab executives’, International Studies of Management & Organization, 23(3): 53–73. Zhang et al. (2012), op. cit. Sparrow, P.R. and Budhwar, P. (1998) ‘Reappraising psychological contracting: lessons for the field of human-resource development from cross-cultural and occupational psychology research’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 28(4): 26–52. Fitch, K.L. (1994) ‘A cross-cultural study of directive sequences and some implications for compliance-gaining research’, Communication Monographs, 61: 185–209. Sullivan, J. and Taylor, S. (1991) ‘A cross-cultural test of compliance-gaining theory’, Management Communication Quarterly, 5(2): 220–39. Schouten, B.C. (2008 ) ‘Compliance behavior and the role of ethnic background, source expertise, selfconstruals and values’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations’, 32(6): 515–23.

78 Chin, T. (2014) ‘Harmony as means to enhance affective commitment in a Chinese organization’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 21(3): 326–44. 79 Shea, G.F. (1992) Mentoring: A Guide to the Basics, London: Kogan Page. 80 Goto, S. (1999) ‘Asian Americans and developmental relationships’, in Murrell, A.J., Crosby, F.J. and Ely, R.J. (eds) Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships within Multicultural Organizations, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 81 Osula, B. and Irvin, S.M. (2009) ‘Cultural awareness in intercultural mentoring: A model for enhancing mentoring relationships’, International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5: 37–50. 82 Interview with an HRM Consultant, India, authors’ research. 83 Bailey, J.R., Chen, C.C. and Dou, S.G. (1997) ‘Conceptions of self and performance-related feedback in the US, Japan and China’, Journal of International Business Studies, 28(3): 605–25. 84 DeVoe, S.E. and Iyengar, S.S. (2004) ‘Managers’ theories of subordinates: A cross-cultural examination of manager perceptions of motivation and appraisal of performance’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 93(1): 47–61. 85 Snape, E.D., Thompson, D., Yan, F.K.C. and Redman, T. (1998) ‘Performance appraisal and culture: practice and attitudes in Hong Kong and Great Britain’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(5): 841–61. 86 Sparrow and Budhwar, op. cit. 87 Dadfar, H. and Gustavsson, P. (1992) ‘Competition by effective management of cultural diversity: the case of international construction projects’, International Studies of Management & Organization, 22(4): 81–92.

8 1 SUBCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK There are differences both within countries and crossnationally among genders, age groups, religious groups and so on in some communication behaviours and in some underlying values, motivations, beliefs and attitudes. Many of these differences can be seen in workrelated activities. This chapter explores these differences. Section 8.1, on the growing importance of subcultural differences at work, shows how workforces are increasingly composed of population elements other than the traditional and how the ‘voice’ of these different elements is increasingly heard so that communication with ‘different others’ is now pervasive within as well as across cultures. Section 8.2 shows how work behaviour varies across subcultural groupings; 8.3 how these differences affect work organization and management. Section 8.4 explains differences in the communication practices of different subcultural groups and 8.5 discusses how the underlying psychological factors and processes that influence communication behaviour are affected by gender, age and so on. Section 8.6 outlines differences in the ways members of different subcultural groups carry out work-related activities such as negotiation and leadership.

8.1 THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNICATION ACROSS SUBCULTURES AT WORK In terms of work communication, two factors in particular affect the significance of any social group: its ‘presence’, here meaning the proportion of the total that its members constitute and its members’ ‘voice’, meaning how much and at what level they participate in interaction, activities and decision-making. There is clear evidence that in many parts of the world members of some subcultures have increasing presence and/ or voice. Here we discuss gender, age, regions within a country, ethnicity (referring to minority ethnic groups) and religion. 124

Gender Gender differences have growing significance for communication at work. Gender has been defined as ‘patterned, socially produced distinctions between female and male. … Gender is not something that people are … rather for the individual and the collective, it is daily accomplished’.1 The term ‘gender’ therefore refers to a society’s beliefs about the differences between the sexes and its norms for appropriate behaviour for males and females. Women participate increasingly in labour markets, but are more likely than men to be in part-time work and are over-represented among the low-paid. The number of women with jobs in management, or in executive, administrative and managerial occupations, continues to increase as more women accumulate work experience and complete management and professional education programmes, but again they are less likely than men to be in senior roles.  8.1.1 for more on gender (in)equality at work.

Age There are wide differences by region and industry in the numbers and proportions of people of different age groups at work. In Europe, for instance, both a very high unemployment rate among the young and the effects of past declines in birth rates have cut the numbers of young people in work; in India, a focus on IT and the still-growing size of the working age entry population have had the opposite effect. The proportion of older employees at work in many countries has increased dramatically over the past decades owing to an unprecedented increase in human longevity along with prolonged labour participation and declining birth rates.2 This means, in the words of The Economist magazine, ‘that companies will have to learn how to manage older workers better. … How do you encourage older people to adapt to new practices and technologies? How do they get senior people to take orders from young whippersnappers?’

SUBCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  125

What skills are younger workers likely to need to work effectively alongside or manage older workers?  8.1.2 for more about the growing importance of older age groups at work.

Regional variations in culture Distinctly different ‘culture areas’ exist in large highpopulation countries like India and China. For example, significant differences were found in descriptions of leadership behaviour in people working in business organizations in Zhengzhou City, Henan Province; Hangzhou City, Jiangsu Province; Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province; and in the Macau Special Administrative Region in the People’s Republic of China.3

Ethnicity Using ethnicity (sometimes called ‘race’) to analyse communication or any other behaviour is problematic: although it is among the most widely recognized social differences: ‘Race is poorly defined; the boundaries between races are defined differently by different groups of people, and, since the definitions are cultural, scientists cannot describe a “true boundary between any two races”.’4  8.1.3 for more on the growing importance of ethnic minorities at work.

Religion No figures are available for labour market participation or employment by religious group, but it is likely that cultural values reduce participation by some groups (Muslim women, for instance). Lack of accommodation to religious needs, such as Muslims’ needs to worship five times a day or the need of Orthodox Jews to be home by sunset on Fridays, distorts the employment pattern towards self-employment or part-time working. Clearly, though, the adherents of the various religions compose the majority of workforces worldwide and therefore participate in work communication to an important extent.

Other groups Societal groups that are important among the ‘different others’ encountered at work include people who are differently-abled and people with different sexual orientations. It has sometimes been pointed out that what is considered ‘different’ now can in future be seen

as similar and vice-versa. Give examples of these two kinds of change.  8.1.4 for more on the growing importance of subcultural groups at work.

8.2 SUBCULTURAL INFLUENCES ON WORK BEHAVIOUR All behaviour is variable and context dependent. Genderrelated behaviours, for instance, are influenced by the expectations of perceivers, the self-systems of the target, and situational cues.5 It has also been argued that demographic factors are likely to have limited ‘universal’ effects because of cultural differences. Thus, Pelled (1996) pointed out that there are cultural differences in the significance of particular demographic factors; for instance, age and gender play especially significant roles in Mexican culture. In addition, some demographic categories vary cross-nationally: Mexican workplaces typically lack some of the ethnic categories present in US workforces, such as African American and Asian, while other ethnic distinctions, such as those between Mestizo, Amerindian and White people, are important in the Latin American culture.6 Again, Ofori-Dankwa and Lane (2000) argued that demographic diversity and value similarity (congruence) are not opposed, but instead interact to determine, for instance, how cooperative or competitive the relations between individuals and groups in an organization will be.7 Some empirical findings also identify a lack of relationship between demographic variables and work behaviour: in China, unlike the West, researchers found, demographic variables such as age and gender had no direct effect on an individual’s commitment to the organization. Under the influence of traditional Chinese culture, including ‘personalism’ and ‘guanxi’ (connections), Chinese employees behaved differently from their Western counterparts.8 Nevertheless, gender, age, generation, education and religious affiliation all have demonstrable effects on work behaviour, although some of these are minor and confined to particular aspects of behaviour:

• In public and social domains, such as work, expecta-

tions based on sex stereotypes are stronger and more constraining, while power differences between the genders can also lead to differences in the behaviour of men and women. For instance, one study indicated that females sent less information to supervisors and experienced less information overload than males.9 Again, female managers are more ethical than male managers, another study found.10

126  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION  8.2.1 for more on gender differences in work behaviour.

• Common stereotypes of older workers are that they

•

•

•

are less motivated, generally less willing to participate in training and career development, more resistant and less willing to change, less trusting, less healthy, and more vulnerable to work-family imbalance. However, a meta-analysis of 418 empirical studies found that the only stereotype consistent with empirical evidence is that older workers are less willing to participate in training and career development activities. They are no less motivated, trusting and healthy and no more change-resistant or vulnerable to work-family imbalance, than younger workers.11 Again, older expatriates regulate and utilize their emotions more effectively to achieve general living and interactional adjustment to different cultures.12 On the other hand, negative relationships have been found between age and risk-taking, while the core dimensions of transformational leadership occur more frequently among younger than among older leaders.13 Differences between generations are important where they appear. Most studies, including the few time-lag studies, show that GenX (born between 1962 and 1982) and especially GenMe (born after 1982) rate work as less central to their lives, value leisure more, and express a weaker work ethic than Baby Boomers (born 1946–64) and Silents (aged 41–65 in 1974). Extrinsic work values (for example, salary) are higher in GenMe and especially GenX (born 1965–81). Contrary to popular conceptions, however, studies have found no generational differences in altruistic values (for example, wanting to help others). Again, there are fewer intergenerational differences in job mobility, compliance-related behaviour and working overtime than suggested by stereotypes of the generations (Baby Boomers, GenXers and Millennials).14 Conflicting results appear in the desire for job stability, intrinsic values (for example, meaning), and social/affiliative values (for example, making friends). GenX, and especially GenMe, are consistently higher in individualistic traits.15 Education has been linked to the ethical behaviour of salespeople; better-educated salespeople are less prone to problematic behaviour, although this may be because they are more adept at avoiding problematic behaviour where the risk of discovery is high and the consequences serious.16 There is evidence that religious values impact on work behaviour. Muslims believe that work is a means of worshipping God; thus, in contrast to the Protestant work ethic, which places a high value on most work whatever its content, Islamic religious belief

affects attitudes to the content of work. For example, producing or selling alcohol or working in ‘usurious’ occupations, such as Western-style ­banking, are ­prohibited. In addition, Islam provides a complete set of guidelines for conducting economies in accordance with Islamic teachings, specifying how to deal with such problems as unemployment and inflation.17,18 Finally, combinations of demographic variables have been shown to affect work behaviour: aggression within organizations is related to ethnic group and within ethnic group to gender.19 In Malaysia, ethnicity and gender similarity in supervisor-subordinate relationships have a positive association with both subordinate and supervisor perceptions of leader-member exchange quality, job satisfaction, commitment to work group, in-role performance and out-role performance. However, these findings may be particular to Malaysian culture.20 Research has shown that social class affects individuals’ work values. Would you expect demographic differences, whether based on ethnicity, gender, age, different ability, religion or sexual orientation, to affect work values? If so, explain how. If not, give your reasons.  8.2.2 for more about the work behaviour of other subcultures.

8.3 HOW DIFFERENT SUBCULTURAL GROUPS COMMUNICATE This section gives a summary of our current knowledge of how communication varies by gender, age, ethnicity and religion and how it affects how the communicator is perceived. Table 8.1 gives examples of the communication differences of some subcultural groups. The text below explains these and gives further examples.

Gender and communication practices There is continuing debate about how differently men and women communicate. Most recent scholarship argues that women and men are more similar than different, but that the differences that do exist between men and women are enough to make a difference in how they create and interpret messages as well as in how they are evaluated as communicators. Gender differences are found in smiling and nonverbal sensitivity, flirting behaviours, marital conflict

SUBCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  127

Table 8.1  Examples of communication differences of subcultural groups Subcultural Group

Differences in Communication

Gender

Being female or male explains less than five per cent of the variance in communication but negatively affects women’s perceived credibility and attributions of their truthfulness, guilt, deception and dominance.

Age

There are wide variations from individual to individual; name-retrieval problems and some insensitivity lead perceivers to exaggerate the extent of cognitive disability in older people; age effects may not apply at work.

Ethnicity

Evidence is minimal, but does suggest differences – for instance in information-requesting strategies.

Religion

One study found differences in self-disclosure, attraction and verbal and non-verbal behaviour when speaking with people from other denominations. Another found a link between a ‘quest’ religious orientation and an attentive communicator style.

communication, especially the demand-withdraw pattern, and everyday conversational topics.21 However, being female or male explains less than five per cent of the variance in communication. Despite this, how credible an individual is judged to be is influenced not only by their status and expertise but also by speech style and vocal and facial qualities linked to gender.22 Women’s linguistic styles affect evaluators’ attributions of truthfulness, guilt, deception and dominance. A further effect is to render women ‘silent’. In those discourses that are more highly valued in society (religious, political, legal, scientific and poetic discourses) women’s voices are heard less often than men’s.  8.3.1 for more on gender and communication practices.

Age and communication practices The intrinsic effects of ageing on communication abilities are recognised. In a large survey of US Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or more, the percentages reporting problems with hearing, writing and telephoning were 42, 26 and 7 respectively (though health issues, not just ageing, may affect these). With age, working-memory capacity and processing speed decline in normal adults. This may lead to them having more difficulty in interpreting complex syntax. In addition, older adults have more problems than younger adults in retrieving proper names. This normal, age-related name-retrieval problem can lead interlocutors wrongly to infer more cognitive disability than simply forgetting a name. Also, some older individuals have been shown to be quite insensitive to the needs and concerns of their younger conversational partners; to introduce embarrassing self-disclosures; and to talk excessively with a lack of focus on the general content of the conversation. However, these findings all relate to private-life situations and we have no evidence on whether the same communication problems arise with older people who are at work.

Ethnicity and communication practices Only a small amount of communication research has so far focused on the communication behaviours of people from different ethnic backgrounds within the same general culture, despite language being a highly salient feature of ethnicity in symbolic terms.23 What evidence there is, does, however, suggest that people from different ethnic backgrounds use different communication behaviours. For instance, ethnic differences have been found in information-requesting strategies.

Religion and communication practices Are there differences that may be relevant at work in the communication behaviours of religious and non-religious people and between adherents of different religions? It might be expected that religious people would be unlikely to use blasphemy, perhaps less likely than others to use swear words generally, and possibly be more easily offended by others who do. There are differences between religious groups in both communication behaviour and the factors underlying it, one study showed. It found major differences between two denominations – Protestant and Catholic Christians in Northern Ireland – on measures of group identification, self-disclosure, attraction, trust and outgroup contact; on verbal and non-verbal behaviour when speaking with people from the other denominations; and on attitudes and experiences. Such differences imply that there may be a ‘religious effect’ on communication behaviour generally.24 Another study found partial support for a relationship between a ‘quest’ religious orientation and an attentive communicator style, although no more general relationship between religious orientation and communicator style was found.25  8.3.2 for the communication practices of people who are differently-abled, from different social classes or other subcultures.

128  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

8.4 SUBCULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION PRACTICES When communication practices are examined in detail, significant differences are identified across the subcultural groups discussed in this chapter. Table 8.2 shows the main types of communication practice where subcultural differences have been identified. The text explains these and gives examples. Table 8.2  Differences in communication practices by different types of group Types of Communication Practice That Show Differences Across Subcultural Groups

Types of Group That Show Differences

Message encoding and decoding

Ethnicity

Non-verbal behaviour

Gender, class

Conversational constraints

Gender

Politeness

Gender

Conversational improvement strategies

Ethnicity

Conflict behaviour

Gender

Assertiveness

Gender

Communication traits

Age, education

Communicator style

Gender, religious affiliation, class

Communication outcomes

Gender

Cmc

Age group, gender, region, income level

Subcultural differences in encoding and decoding of messages Ethnic differences in conveying and interpreting positive and negative messages have been found. A comparison of encoding and decoding of messages by Australian nationals found that they decoded positive messages by Australian and Italian men less accurately than positive messages by British men. On negative and neutral messages, Italian male speakers were decoded less accurately than both Australian and British male speakers. There were fewer differences for female speakers. These results suggested that decoding and encoding were influenced by both social skills and attitudes towards the other interactors.26

Subcultural differences in non-verbal behaviour Non-verbal and paralinguistic behaviours together comprise demeanour, which is controlled in part by status within a group. It creates and perpetuates status inequalities and beliefs about unequal abilities. It also affects the influence an individual exerts in a group and how credible an impression they make. An autocratic demeanour on the part of a leader reduces group members’ satisfaction, while behaving simply as ‘the boss’ usually increases satisfaction. The demeanour of those involved affects the definitions that people apply to a situation (for instance, whether it is a crisis or a routine event) and so affects their response.27 Research has shown that demeanour varies by gender. Some women use body language to express submissiveness. They may take up less physical space in relation to their size than men, hover in the background or lower their eyes when looked at instead of making eye contact. Women managers, in contrast, sometimes show their understanding of the subcultural meaning of non-verbal behaviour by dressing in a masculine way or decorating their offices in a neutral ‘sexless’ manner. There is evidence that class differences in communication exist on the non-verbal level – appearing already in pre-school-age children; middle-class children are less affected than working-class children by whether an instruction is spoken in a positive, neutral or negative tone of voice.

Subcultural differences in conversational constraints Participants’ gender had no significant direct effect on the perceived importance of any of the conversational constraints, a study of four societies found. The finding seems to contradict assertions that men use language to assert a ‘position of dominance’ by coming directly to the point (clarity), whereas women use language to create and maintain relationships of closeness. The apparent contradiction may, however, be related more to the distinction between preferences and behaviour; many researchers have found gender differences in verbal styles (power, politeness, directness), but this still leaves room for men and women to be relatively similar in their preferred conversational styles and so in the importance they attach to conversational constraints.28

Subcultural differences in politeness There is evidence for ethnic and gender differences in politeness. Politeness is a rule of appropriate behaviour in different ethnic groups across the USA, but the particular

SUBCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  129

behaviours that are defined as polite vary.29 Some women have a pattern of politeness behaviours that is different from men’s and can lead to an image of less intelligence.30 Politeness theory research shows that women are more likely than men to use a form that minimizes the threat to the hearer’s face. They may:

• give their orders as requests, such as ‘Please would you mind finishing this letter first?’ • make their statements sound provisional by using qualifiers. • use tag questions as in ‘I think we need to call a meeting, don’t we?’ • use disclaimers – ‘I may be wrong, but … • use supportive rather than powerful vocabulary. Use of politeness of these kinds can lead to some women being rated as less intelligent and less well informed than other people, including other women who do not use them. It is difficult, however, to know whether use of polite forms ‘causes’ these attributions, because men who use them are not similarly downgraded.31 Gender differences in politeness may be less marked in cmc. Both men and women retaliate aggressively to rejection or criticism on a social networking site, although men retaliate more than women.32

Subcultural differences in conversational improvement strategies Differences have been found between the conversational improvement strategies (CISs) used by African and European Americans (AAs and EAs respectively). CISs are used after ‘failure’ events, such as interactions not running smoothly or expectations being violated, with the aim of restoring relationships. AAs self-reported as more likely to use active and mutual CISs, especially ‘other orienta­tion – involving the other person more, having patience with the other person or focusing on them’ and ‘avoidance – not bringing up unpleasant topics’. EAs, in contrast, said they were more likely to use passive strategies that put the onus on the other person, such as ‘giving in, apologizing or agreeing’.33

Subcultural differences in conflict behaviour Women and men do not consistently behave in ways indicated by traditional sex stereotypes. Actual behaviour shows that, if anything, women are more competitive than men, that men have a tendency to avoid conflict and that, except for crying, both genders express anger in the same ways. This applies particularly in private life.

At work, however, gender differences in how people handle conflict with others do appear to confirm the stereotypes: females have been shown to be more likely to endorse the use of compromising than males, regardless of culture; in individualistic cultures, compromising was endorsed more frequently by females and males were more likely to report using forcing than females; in all cultures males were more likely than females to choose a forcing style with their superiors.34 Women are rated by their bosses, peers and subordinates as significantly more likely to engage in almost every constructive behaviour in workplace conflict situations, while men are rated as more likely to engage in active destructive behaviours.35

Subcultural differences in assertiveness and behaviour during interactions Are women less assertive than men at work? There is evidence that, compared with male managers, women managers are more inclined to ingratiate, less likely to focus on the importance of their jobs to the organization and society and less likely to claim success, but more likely to report low-performance expectations and make attributions to lack of ability. They are four times less likely to report that they would move directly to coercive tactics if faced with a non-compliant subordinate. Men talk more than women do in formal versus informal tasks and more in public versus private communication. While most members of same-sex task teams produce similar amounts of verbal output, in mixed-sex teams the men produce more than the women. In public, for instance, men spoke for a greater length of time and men’s speech was more on the task while women’s was more reinforcing. Men tended to hold the floor for long periods, so that they dominated and prevented others from speaking. This dominance also implies higher social status and suggests that men believed themselves more competent to complete the tasks or to discuss the issues at hand than were women. Men used a more adversarial style in discussions, while women were likely to ask more questions.36 Other findings, though, suggest that both male and female managers displayed ‘masculine’ characteristics. The environment in a typical organization may socialize women into behaving like ‘honorary men’.37  8.4.1 for more on gender differences in assertiveness at work.

Unfortunately, active assertiveness may be harmful for women. Evidence across a number of disciplines and fields has shown that women can encounter both social and financial backlash when they behave assertively, for example, by asking for resources at the bargaining table. This

130  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

backlash appears to be most evident when a gender stereotype that prescribes communal, nurturing behaviour by women is activated. In situations in which this female stereotype was suppressed, for instance when resources were so plentiful that a request was not threatening to the respondent, when the female was described as being of high status, or when women were acting as advocates for others (and so indirectly fulfilling their ‘nurturing’ role) backlash against assertive female behaviour was attenuated.38 Again, women receive more ‘penalties’ for exhibiting dominance behaviours – more dislike, more hostile reactions and less effectiveness in persuasion than men do.39 There is evidence that suggests that men view interactions more strategically than women do.40

Subcultural differences in communication traits There are age- and education-related differences in rhetorical sensitivity, research among nurses found. Nurses under the age of 35 and those with more education were more rhetorically sensitive, those over 55 more rhetorically reflective. On the other hand, gender tends not to differentiate rhetorically sensitive communicators from those who are less sensitive.41 How some older people or those who are differentlyabled communicate is affected by both intrinsic and externally provoked factors. For instance, communicators who are born with a hearing impairment speak with low fluency and mispronunciations; they also have difficulty in controlling how loudly they speak. People who are hard of hearing commonly repeat what has already been uttered and interrupt others because they do not hear them talking. Some adults who become deaf later in life have difficulty adjusting to their deafness but a few studies show that many late-deafened people can communicate perfectly well.42 The intrinsic effects of ageing on other communication abilities are also variable. There is little evidence for changes in communication abilities and practices among people below the age of 60; although there is some for progressive changes after that age, there are wide variations from individual to individual.

Subcultural differences in communicator style One summary view of gender differences in language use is that women use language on a cooperative basis – they are concerned with ‘connectedness’. For instance, Carter (2002) found from extended interview and journal data with nine mid-career women that their professional development was created and sustained largely through talk.

This talk achieved transformative learning – learning that significantly revised beliefs, attitudes and values, and not just with instrumental, performance-based learning. Instead of analytical, point-counterpoint discussions, the women professionals’ conversations were often highly personal and self-disclosing.43 Men, contrastingly, tend to focus on using language to gain status or establish territory.44 Women often soften their messages by adopting linguistic practices such as using tag questions (for instance, ‘That’s a good idea, don’t you think?’) and qualifiers (like ‘perhaps’, or ‘might’ instead of ‘should’). Gender differences in speaking appear easy to recognize: people were extremely successful at identifying the gender of speakers from short pieces of written-down talk that lacked any reference to the gender of the speaker, according to a study. Socio-economic status and other personal characteristics of the listeners had almost no impact on respondents’ ability to identify the gender of the speakers. The authors commented, ‘[The fact] that respondents should be able to recognize gender from such short excerpts, transcribed and out of context, suggests that distinct male and female voices exist and can be heard.’ However, recognition of gender varied dramatically for some of the extracts, suggesting that some talk may not be gendered.45 This may be because gender is not always important, but ‘waxes and wanes in the organization of group life’.46 There are findings that the genders’ language style preferences parallel those which distinguish national cultures, that is, direct versus indirect, succinct versus elaborate, personal versus contextual, and instrumental versus affective. This might suggest that women and men differ culturally along the lines of individualism–collectivism, and so on, though no conclusive studies have been published. Tannen (1990) also argued that gender differences can best be observed from a cross-cultural approach, one that does not assume that differences arise from men’s efforts to dominate women.47 Instead, masculine and feminine styles of discourse are viewed as two distinct cultural dialects rather than as inferior or superior ways of speaking.48 While some scholars do not believe that identifying gendered communication styles is important or even appropriate,49 others, such as Tannen (1990), believe that ignoring those differences is riskier than naming them. At work, female supervisors’ communicator styles are perceived as placing more emphasis on interpersonal relations than those of male supervisors.50 On the other hand, male and female managers in two organizations demonstrated similar communicator styles in their staff meetings, a US study found.51 Religious affiliation and the work context can combine to affect communication styles. Protestant European Americans raised in traditions of Calvinism were less attentive to affect in spoken words when primed with a work context

SUBCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  131

relative to a non-work context, and to participants raised as Catholics in either context. Equally, within a work setting, male Protestants showed lower levels of behavioural mimicry (a sign of sympathetic affect towards another person) than male non-Protestants and women in either group. Within a non-work setting, male Protestants mimicked more and did not differ from male non-Protestants.52 Many working-class people, particularly those from mainly oral cultures, tend to prefer a speaking style that presumes knowledge shared with the audience, ‘shows’ rather than ‘tells’ and implies linkages among a wide range of topics, which need not be presented chronologically. In working-class environments, ‘people simply talk and do not have to prove everything that they say’.53 Systematic studies show that middle-class speakers tend to talk more, use more varied vocabulary and employ more varied grammatical constructions than working-class speakers. However, the notion that in some subcultures language is more simple or primitive is probably wrong. The basic structuring principles on which language is founded appear to be universal and most linguists now assume that languages do not differ greatly in their underlying structures or in their formal characteristics. In all languages, sentences are hierarchically structured and their interrelationships are equally complex. The same applies to the language of people of different socio-economic status or ethnicity – the rules for constructing sentences are of equal difficulty and complexity in all cases. Tannen (1990) argued that gender differences in communication are based in women’s lower power-orientation. How good an explanation do you think this is for the differences described so far in this chapter? Why?

Subcultural differences in communication outcomes No gender biases have been demonstrated for level of communication satisfaction. Both men and women find that mixed-sex dyads yield slightly more communication satisfaction than single-sex dyads.54

Subcultural influences on computermediated communication How do subcultural differences such as gender affect computer-mediated communication? In theory, because communication media such as email lack social context cues and participants may have a feeling of anonymity, people of lower social status may participate more equally than they do face-to-face. However, findings on gender differences do not support this contention. In

online discussions, research found, men sent longer and more frequent messages than women, and Whites sent more messages than other ethnic groups. Moreover, men were more willing to adopt the technology than women and Whites were more willing than other groups. Men presented more dominating behaviour online. The researcher concluded that online discussions parallel face-to-face interaction in respect of participation by different groups.55 A meta-analysis of 50 studies in the use of cmc found that there was a small but significant gender effect on users’ collaborative orientation. On average, female users more often displayed collaborative behaviour when using cmc than males did, but also challenged others more and were more person-oriented. Males, on the other hand, used more authoritative statements. Male users enjoyed more about cmc environments than their female counterparts and were more confident in using cmc. However, levels of apprehension, anxiety or difficulty did not differ between genders.56 At work, there are significant differences by age group, gender, region and income level in how people use cmc. Within the USA, for instance, there are differences in what business professionals consider appropriate mobile phone behaviour during formal and informal meetings. The differences between women and men are striking: men are nearly twice as likely to consider various mobile phone behaviours acceptable in informal meetings.57 Studies show that gender differences in computer and internet use at work are more likely to be related to differences in male/female employment patterns than to gender itself.58,59 Gender differences in how people communicate by cmc, however, may be real. Men send more and longer messages than women, though surprisingly they also make more socio-emotional contributions; women, on the other hand, display more ‘interactivity’ – they include more references to previous contributions.60 Gender affects evaluations of a communication medium’s ability to support affection, domination, similarity and trust.61  8.4.2 for more on subcultures and cmc.

8.5 HOW MEMBERSHIP OF A SUBCULTURE AFFECTS THE ANTECEDENTS OF WORK COMMUNICATION Although research into the differences that are related to gender, age and so on in the values, motives, emotions, beliefs, assumptions, attitudes, personality and

132  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

identity variables that influence work communication is limited, enough has been done to show that they are important. Readers should look at the equivalent parts of Sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 for an introduction to these topics. Table 8.3 gives a summary of our current knowledge of how psychological influences on communication vary by subgroup, with examples. The text explains these points and findings.

Subcultural differences in values Gender appears to have rather little effect on the core cultural values, except the masculine/feminine (achievement/relational) dimension, according to Hofstede’s (1981) findings. Whether the values of members of ethnic minorities within nations align with those of the nation or the wider ethnic group is complex and not well researched. It probably varies widely by country and ethnic group.

Table 8.3  Examples of subgroup variations in psychological influences on communication Psychological Influence on Communication

Subcultural Group

Example

VALUES

Gender

Men more masculine, women more feminine values

Generations

Millennials’ values differ from previous generations at work

Social class

Less-educated, low-status employees more authoritarian

Gender

Women more affiliative

Age

Older people in Germany more initiative-motivated

 Motives for undertaking interpersonal communication

Gender

US women more motivated by affection and inclusion, less by control

EMOTIONS

Gender

See Table 8.4

  Emotional intelligence

Gender

Stereotypes ascribe more EI to women

BELIEFS

Gender

Men higher on social dominance orientation

Age

Opposing views on human malleability

ASSUMPTIONS

Age

Older people have more positive stereotypes of older people

EXPECTATIONS

Role

Physicians’ and patients’ role expectations of each other differ

ATTITUDES

Age

Work attitudes

TRUST

Gender

Men trust more than women do

ATTITUDES TO CMC

Gender

Men more self-confident

PERSONALITY

Age

Neuroticism, extroversion and openness to experience decline, agreeableness and conscientiousness increase between teenage and 30 years

Gender

Women more anxious than men

Gender

Women’s self-construals more interdependent

Social class

Upward socially mobile people feel conflicted

Religion

Believers feel superior to non-believers

Disability

Differently-abled individuals’ self-construals do not differ from the norm

Gender

Female junior surgeons underestimate their performance

MOTIVES

IDENTITY

SELF-ESTEEM

SUBCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  133

For members of religious groups, while common sense would suggest some important differences between their values and, for instance, those of other religious groups, no research seems to have applied to them the cultural dimensions discussed in this section. As Section 3.1 described, there is evidence of generational shifts in values in some countries, such as China. Other evidence suggests these shifts may be more general: a recent study has found that there are generational differences in values that can affect how engaged people are with their work. The newest of the four generations in the workplace, Millennials, were recently shown to have different intrinsic, extrinsic, social and leisure values at work compared with the other two prevalent generations. Only altruistic values were similar for Millennials and the other generations.62 Social class has been shown to affect values. Authoritarian values are akin to masculine values in de-emphasizing relationships. Less-educated, low-status employees in various Western countries have more authoritarian values than their higher status co-workers. These authoritarian values are manifested not only at work, but also at home. Working-class parents demanded more obedience from their children than middle-class parents, a study in the USA and Italy showed.63 However, when Hofstede (1981) divided occupations within IBM into six groups according to the level of achievement or relationship (masculine or feminine) values they reported, people in unskilled and semi-skilled occupations recorded the highest level of relationship values apart from office workers. This placed them above managers of all categories, skilled workers/ technicians, professional workers and sales representatives. Do these findings directly contradict each other? Give your reasons.

Moral codes There is only a small amount of research available about how moral codes of different subcultural groups vary. A study of 3,000 students in the USA found that female survey participants were slightly but significantly more ethically inclined than male survey participants;64 again, men are more likely than women to justify ethically suspect behaviours, a difference which, under high performance

orientation (a positive attitude in favour of high task performance) tends to increase in people with high job positions, although ingroup collectivism moderates the difference.65 Survey participants who reported being very religious were slightly but significantly more ethically inclined than survey participants who were less religious.66

Subcultural differences in motives Men communicate with co-workers more from control needs, while women do so for affection. With superiors, women, more than men, communicate from motives of affection and relaxation, though a sense of duty also influences this.67 In a study of age effects on motivation in the German workforce, measures of personal initiative were examined as a function of age, in combination with other demographic and work characteristics. Overall, initiative tended to be greater among older people. Initiative in job behaviour showed no significant age differences among male employees, but both men’s and women’s initiative in educational activities declined with age.68

Motives for undertaking interpersonal communication People’s reasons for undertaking interpersonal communication are important for this book. There are significant positive relationships between female gender and the affection and inclusion motives and a negative relationship between female gender and control motives. These findings hold for a US sample, though not for a Mexican one.69

Subcultural differences in emotions There are findings of work-related emotional differences between genders: women managers may be more responsive to emotional issues than men, as shown in Table 8.4. As Table 8.4 shows, as housing managers men and women have different strengths and weaknesses: women may have better understanding of their staff and clients and be able to communicate better with them but be less able than men to practise advocacy or political pressure on their behalf; and vice-versa.

Table 8.4  Gender differences in the emotional responsiveness of managers70 Emphasis in Interpersonal Relationships

Women Housing Managers

Men Housing Managers

With own team

Understanding of people; sensitivity; care for individual feelings and development; rich perception of human beings

Support own team; look after their interests; defend them to the hilt

With clients

Empathy; relationships; understanding of different needs

Can use pressure groups

134  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

Some kinds of difference in ability can produce emotional effects that affect work relationships. Technical professionals with hearing impairments may develop emotional barriers to face-to-face communication. For example, a man with a hearing impairment who worked as a systems analyst for Procter & Gamble said he was still learning to work on projects as part of a team. ‘I grew up with a strong preference for solitary activities. This has been one of my greatest challenges.’71

Emotional intelligence Most people’s perceptions of EI dimensions are biased by gender stereotypes, in terms of being perceived as more characteristic of one gender or the other, a recent Spanish study showed. An ingroup gender bias appears particularly among females, whereby they attribute higher scores to women than to men in most EI dimensions. Men also favour men, giving higher scores than women do in some of the dimensions.72 However, ‘objective’ measures show that women score higher than men on the ‘social skills’ factor in EI, but men’s self-estimated EI is higher than women’s. This is as likely to be because women underestimate their EI and that men overestimate it.73

Subcultural differences in beliefs The issue of subcultural variations in beliefs is far from clear-cut. In most cases, members of different subcultures within a culture share the same core beliefs. Some feminist scholars, however, have described the female worldview as significantly different from the male worldview. Gilligan (1982), arguing from a psychological perspective, stated that female identity revolves around interconnectedness and relationship. Conversely, ‘Male identity stresses separation and independence.’74 These ways in which concepts of social relationships (and their accompanying communication patterns) differ between genders are argued to be parallel to gender differences in worldview. Certainly, there is some evidence that, cross-culturally, males are consistently higher on social dominance orientation than females, reflecting status and power differences between males and females across cultures.75 Female drivers have a more external locus of control than male drivers.76 Among professional women, an internal locus of control is negatively linked to perceptions of role ambiguity, role overload and nonparticipation in the workplace. Both male and female workers with higher externality scores report higher levels of career dissatisfaction and illness.77 Few sex differences are found in terms of belief in a just world, but richer and more powerful individuals within societies are more likely to believe in a just world.78

What might explain why men are more likely than women to justify ethically suspect behaviours?

Opposing views on human malleability have been found across age groups (elementary school, middle school and college). A study of 292 Russian managers’ beliefs found, together with many similarities among responding groups, some differences depending upon managerial level, age and gender. These differing beliefs included those relating to humanistic belief systems and work ethics.79

Subcultural differences in assumptions Assumptions strongly influence subgroups’ work experiences. For instance, assumptions about the stereotypical characteristics of women (emotional, sensitive, nurturing and interdependent) and men (independent, dominant, emotionally inhibited and goal directed) are strong, unspoken influences on their relative treatment in terms of job segregation and career advancement. We really know surprisingly little, however, about how people’s stereotypes of others vary according to their gender, age and so on. One exception is a finding of agerelated effects on age stereotypes: compared with young respondents, older respondents reported more positive stereotypes of older people, although not for work effectiveness in the case of older supervisors.80 Another finding concerns the effect of religious beliefs on stereotypes: religion can affect gender role expectations. The role of women expected in mainstream American religious groups might be conservative, according to a study of religious television’s depiction of family life. Women were found to be under-represented and portrayed in minor roles typically associated with the household. Only infrequently did they initiate interaction with other people.81 There is a negative relationship between authoritarian leadership and subordinate performance that is stronger for female than for male leaders and also a positive relationship between benevolent leadership and subordinate performance that is stronger for male than for female leaders.82 What might explain this gender difference in the effects of authoritarian and benevolent leadership? A woman member of a minority ethnic group was being interviewed about her claim to housing benefit. The officer asked her to describe her circumstances. She replied with a long story about the

SUBCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  135

difficult behaviour of her child, her husband’s being out of work, her own poor health and the failures of the (private) landlord to deal with problems in her flat. The officer thought she was being evasive. He interrupted her – ‘I didn’t mean that, I meant your financial circumstances. How much money do you have coming in each week?’ The woman was silent. How would you explain the behaviours of the two participants in this interaction?

Subcultural differences in expectations Subcultural variations in expectations are shown by research which found that physician and patient groups had different role expectations of themselves and one another and that age differences affected role expectations in both groups.83

Subcultural differences in attitudes Subcultural differences in important work-related attitudes have been reported. Among managers both chronological and subjective age affected work attitudes, a study showed. Job involvement and satisfaction, organizational commitment and perceived organizational support were lower in older managers.84 In state-owned enterprises in China, older employees (described as first generation) scored higher than second on ratings of loyalty, security and even bureaucracy, although both the first and the second generation expressed a desire to maintain harmony and reduce inequality.85 Of course, intergenerational differences may be particularly marked where a major environmental shift, such as the Chinese embrace of capitalism in 1979, has occurred. Trust and attitudes to cmc are among the attitudes that vary across subcultures and affect work communication.

Trust There are gender differences in trust dynamics. According to findings from experimental games, men trust more than women, although the level of their trusting behaviour depends on what return they expect; women are more trustworthy than men. Women feel more obligated both to trust others and to reciprocate, but the impact of obligation on behaviour varies.86 Women care more about maintaining relationships than men, and this greater relational investment means that they are both less likely to lose trust after a trust violation and more likely to restore trust in a transgressor than men. Moreover, men are less likely than women to trust their employing organization (believe that it is fulfilling its contract with them) unless they perceive those in authority as acting fairly.87

Attitudes to cmc Significant gender differences have been found in attitudes to cmc among both Chinese and UK research subjects. Men in both countries were more likely than women to use email or ‘chat’ rooms. Men played more computer games than women, Chinese men being the most active games players. Men in both countries were more self-confident about their computer skills than women, and were more likely to express the opinion that using computers was a male activity and skill than were women. Gender differences were higher in the British group than the Chinese group.88 An earlier study of Hong Kong and UK computer attitudes and anxieties found no gender differences in computer anxiety in the UK sample, but males held more positive attitudes than females. For the Hong Kong sample, there were no gender differences in computer attitudes but males reported greater computer anxiety than females. This was the first sample in which males have been found to be more computer-anxious than females, despite Hong Kong males reporting more computer experience than females. An item-by-item analysis identified that Hong Kong males were more anxious when anticipating using computers (rather than when actually using computers).89

Subcultural differences in the ‘self’ Personality traits There is evidence that personality traits vary across subcultures. They may, for instance, be influenced by gender. Women scored higher than men in anxiety, vulnerability, straightforwardness and openness to aesthetics, a study of gender differences across 16 countries found; men scored higher in (claimed) competence, assertiveness, excitement seeking and openness to ideas. However, the same study found evidence for cultural differences in the size of gender differences. Contrary to expectations, the greatest gender differences in traits such as assertiveness were found in modern European countries and the least in traditional cultures such as South Korea. A possible explanation is that, in countries where women are expected to be subservient, they attribute their low assertiveness to their role as a woman rather than their traits. Contrastingly, European women who are equally low in assertiveness identify it as a part of their own personality.90 Personality traits may also be age-related: studies in the USA found noticeable changes in the mean level of all five of the Big Five personality factors (neuroticism [N], extroversion [E], openness to experience [O], agreeableness [A] and conscientiousness [C]) between adolescence and about age 30. ‘N, E, and O decline, whereas A and C increase. After age 30, the same trends are seen, but at a

136  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

much slower pace: in terms of personality traits, 30-yearolds resemble 70-year-olds more than 20-year-olds.’ These findings apply cross-culturally: data from Germany, Italy, Portugal, Croatia, South Korea, Estonia, Russia, Japan, Spain, Britain, Turkey and the Czech Republic showed patterns of age differences very similar to those seen in the USA.91  8.5.1 for the findings of another study on agerelated changes in personality.

There are correlations between managers’ personality traits, suggesting that roles affect personality, at least temporarily: both US and Indian manager groups indicate a negative correlation for extroversion and individualism, and a positive correlation for extroversion and uncertainty avoidance. Combinations of personality and workrelated values influence work interactions, and are known to cause issues in international business – underestimation of the time or skills needed to complete a project, unmet or failed expectations, uncooperative behaviours, and higher than expected costs.92

Identity Gender is fundamental to most people’s identity. In all cultures, men and women differ in their self-reports of masculine and feminine characteristics, although the gender difference is typically less than that reflected in gender stereotypes.93 In the West, women may be more like people from collectivist cultures than Western men are, having more interdependent self-construals: Cross and Madison (1997) argued, ‘Many gender differences in cognition, motivation, emotion and social behavior may be explained in terms of men’s and women’s different selfconstruals’.94 For US women, but not for men, a positive relationship has been found between self-esteem and motives that favour acting in friendly or helpful ways. Selfenhancement strategies used by US men often involved boasting and exaggeration of their abilities, operating with a false uniqueness bias – the false belief that one’s own abilities are exceptional – and overestimating their performances against objective standards. In contrast, US women were more likely to adjust their self-enhancement strategies for the feelings of others. For instance, women students with high grade-point averages were more likely to take into account the assessments received by their interlocutors before talking about their own grades. US women also responded more to feedback than US men did. This finding has also been interpreted in terms of their having more interdependent self-construals. On the other hand, women’s greater responsiveness to feedback may be because they have lower self-esteem, rather than

being directly linked to their self-construals. The fact that women have lower status than men may lower their selfconfidence, leading them, among other things, to place a low valuation on their own opinion of themselves and to be more responsive than men to others’ evaluations.95 Social class often enters into identity. Hoyt (1999) found that high-flying working-class individuals entering middle-class environments can feel stress and feelings of incompetence, because of a lack of ‘cultural necessities, that is the speech, manners, clothing and experiences of the middle class. Such individuals may be “conflicted”. One said, “Part of our identity was middle class while another part remained back in the working class world of our roots.” ’96 According to Huntington (1997), religions give people identity by positing a basic distinction between believers and non-believers, between a superior ingroup and a different and inferior outgroup.97 People who are differentlyabled, however, have been shown to have self-construals not significantly different from those of others, contrary to stereotypes. Students who were and were not differentlyabled tended to rate each other in a stereotypical manner, a study found. Students who were differently-abled were seen as more conscientious and cultured than were students who were not, whereas students who were not differently-abled were seen as more extroverted and emotionally stable than students who were. When the students self-rated, however, no such differences emerged between the groups who were and were not differently-abled.98  8.5.2 for findings about how relevant selfconstruals are at work.

Self-esteem Self-esteem is linked to how well someone feels that they are succeeding in their social world (being accepted, belonging, respected) and across cultures is motivated by that need.99 However, gender differences have been found in self-esteem: findings published in 2014 showed that schoolgirls still had lower levels of self-esteem than schoolboys, despite having on-average higher school attainments.100 Similarly, female junior surgeons underestimate their performance more than their male colleagues do, though not to a statistically significant extent.101

How subculture affects psychological processes that affect work communication As with culture, the main differences among subcultures in psychological processes that influence work communication have been found in the process of attribution.

SUBCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  137

In terms of gender, there is evidence of differences in the attributions for success or failure of even young children: 4th grade boys in the USA attributed failure to luck; girls’ ability attributions were self-derogatory.102 In regard to work, women and men who received positive feedback about their team’s performance on a malesex-typed task allocated credit for the joint success very differently. Women gave more credit to their male teammates and took less credit themselves unless their role in bringing about the performance outcome was irrefutably clear or they were given explicit information about their likely task competence. However, women did not credit themselves less when their teammate was female.103 Again, there is a statistically significant difference between males and females on measures of causal attributions or expectations.104 Religious orientation has some effect on attributions. Religious participants preferred secular attributions, especially when assessing the causes of failure, a Swedish study found. People with high extrinsic religious orientation (who view religion instrumentally and as one of many influences on life) were most likely to make different attributions depending on the topic.105  8.5.3 for more on subcultural differences in the psychological factors and processes underlying work communication.

8.6 SUBCULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN COMMUNICATION-BASED WORK ACTIVITIES This section outlines important aspects of what we know about how gender, age and other subcultural differences affect a selection of important work activities: negotiation, groupwork and leadership and management.

Negotiation There are important subcultural differences in how people negotiate; gender is an example. Even in the personally salient area of salary negotiations, women’s requests for salary increases are lower than men’s and their outcomes worse. Differences in the beliefs of the two genders about requesting a higher salary lie behind the differences in requests.106 However, a study in Spain and Holland found no evidence of gender differences in how much worker representatives, who negotiate with management on behalf of workers, accommodate to management. That applied as much to Spain, where female worker representatives perceived themselves to have less social support

than their male counterparts, as to the Netherlands where they did not. A possible explanation is that women perceive negotiating on behalf of others as more legitimate than negotiating for themselves. Showing that women’s disadvantage in negotiation is not a function of men’s approach is a finding that negotiations between all-female dyads result in lower joint economic outcomes than negotiations between males.107

Cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing Among the few studies of how subgroup membership affects cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing one found that groups with a majority of females exhibited the highest level of cooperation among students working in groups on a computing task.108 Information sharing by bloggers is also related to gender: bloggers’ trust, strength of social ties, and reciprocity all have a positive effect on their knowledge-sharing behaviour and the impact of each of these factors varies by gender.109 Another study found that when individuals’ ethnic identity is primed they put less effort into joint tasks and so cooperate less.110 At work, gender has been shown to be a significant moderator of perceptions of knowledge-sharing cultures in organizations: female participants required a more positive social interaction culture before they would perceive a knowledge-sharing culture as equally positive as that perceived by their male counterparts.111

Groupwork There are gender differences in team communication and other processes: female-only groups use more words per message and exhibit a significantly higher rate of team development, cohesion and team member satisfaction, while all-male teams pursue riskier and wider-ranging strategies.112,113 Group composition in terms of gender, ethnicity and age may be less significant for participation, cooperation and respect than whether group members’ self-construals tend more to independence or interdependence (which is an individual-level construct related to individualism– collectivism). However, also in that study, it was found that cooperation, equal participation and respect were not related to performance.114

Leadership and management There are well-researched differences between women and men as managers. To a greater extent than men, Finnish studies found, women tend to encourage their subordinates to use their abilities fully and to cut through

138  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

bureaucratic red tape. They do this by facilitating informal contacts between leaders and workers, introducing new working methods and training, disseminating information and taking workers’ views into consideration.115 Again, a meta-analysis of 370 studies compared men’s and women’s leadership styles and concluded, The strongest evidence … for a sex difference in leadership style occurred on the tendency for women to adopt a more democratic or participative style and for men to adopt a more autocratic or directive style. … 92 per cent of the available comparisons went in the direction of more democratic behaviour from women than men.116 This difference was attributed to women’s greater interpersonal skills and cognitive complexity. Finally, a survey of 3,500 British managers found that, except at the highest echelons of companies, both male and female subordinate managers rated women bosses more highly than men. They were found to be rated more highly on the following factors, listed in order of how much more highly the women were rated: being decisive, focusing effort, being a good mentor, managing change, inspiring others, openness to ideas, encouraging change, networking, problem-solving, clear strategy, and being supportive of mistakes. On being a good delegator, accessible and honest/consistent, men and women scored equally.117 Female bosses rate their subordinates more highly than male bosses do – for instance in relation to whether a subordinate engages in constructive or destructive conflict behaviours.118 There is evidence that men’s and women’s leadership communication differs along the dimensions of closed/ open and intimidating/supportive. Women managers judged masculine communication to be harmful, overpowering and ineffective, but saw themselves as isolated by their values and numbers. Their most common reported ways of handling this were rejection of masculine power, self-doubt and blame, striving for competence, confrontation, isolation and resignation.119 Managers from four Western European cultural groups perceived gender-based differences in leadership effectiveness. Some stereotypes did vary across cultures, but these stereotyping patterns were more often linked to participants’ gender than to their cultural beliefs.120 On the other hand, culture had a stronger impact on leadership behaviours than gender, a large-sample study (64,000 subordinates evaluating the leadership behaviours of their direct supervisors [N = 13,595] representing 42 countries) found. The results ‘suggest that gender differences in managerial behavior are predominantly present in western societies’.121

Age and other factors, as well as culture and gender, affect how people lead. In a study of Nordic management style, the least development-oriented managers were older than 50. Variations in task orientation were accounted for by the manager’s age, gender, function (for example, production, marketing and other services) and line of business (manufacturing, service industries).122 In a sample of Belgian managers, public-organization managers were more conciliatory, tended to be more risk-averse and had a stronger belief in external control than the average business manager. The attitudes expressed by the Belgian managers also depended on both ethnicity and organizational affiliation.123

Mentoring While mentoring may be particularly beneficial for women and members of minorities, by giving the kind of support that may help them overcome the obstacles caused by prejudice, there is evidence that in fact it is White males who are most often given the most practical help. While women and members of ethnic minorities received about the same level of mentoring help as White males, it differed in type, a study found. The help given to White males was mostly instrumental (for instance, career advice or contacts) while that given to the minority groups was mostly socio-emotional. This was mainly because of who mentored whom. White male mentors gave the same kind of instrumental help to all kinds of mentorees, but mainly mentored White males. Women and members of ethnic minorities were more likely to be mentored by women or ethnic minority members, who gave predominantly socio-emotional help.124 ‘Racial’ dynamics also affect mentoring activities, often ‘inhibiting authentic collaboration in cross-racial relationships’.125 In hierarchical cultures such as Taiwan’s, mentored women with high power distance reported higher career returns than did mentored women with low power distance. In contrast, in egalitarian cultures such as the USA’s, mentored women with low power distance reported higher career returns than did mentored women with high power distance. Thus there is variation in mentoring outcomes, not just across, but also within, cultures.126 In Turkey, mentoring has little impact on women’s careers. In contrast to the American situation where women receiving more kinds of support from their mentors reported benefits such as greater job and career satisfaction, and female mentors provided more psychosocial functions than did male mentors, in Turkey female and male mentors generally provided the same mentor functions, and mentor functions had little impact on work outcomes.127  8.6.1. for more on subcultural differences in performing work activities.

SUBCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  139

CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY

• All round the world there has been an increase in the

• •

•

•

workforce presence and voice of groups differentiated by gender, age, ethnicity, religion and other demographic and social characteristics. This trend continues to increase the importance of intercultural communication at work. A range of differences in work behaviour, including commitment, the operation of norms, and behaviour during groupwork are related to subculture. In communication practices similarities are perhaps as common as differences, especially at work, where the task strongly affects them. Differences between population subgroups have been found, however, in the encoding and decoding of messages, non-verbal behaviour, conversational constraints, politeness, conversational improvement strategies, conflict behaviour, assertiveness, communication traits, communicator style, communication outcomes and cmc. Underlying psychological factors and processes, not being as much constrained by the work context as communication practices, may vary more from subgroup to subgroup. Differences have been found in values, motives, emotions, beliefs, attributions, assumptions, attitudes, personality and identity. Negotiation, cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing, groupwork, and leadership and management are important work activities that provide examples of differences across various subgroups within societies.

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Acker, J. (1992) ‘Gendering organizational theory’, in Mills, A.J. and Tancred, P. (eds) Gendering Organizational Analysis, London: Sage. 2 Walter, F. and Scheibe, S. (2013) ‘A literature review and emotion-based model of age and leadership: New directions for the trait approach’, The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6): 882–901. 3 Littrell, R.F., Alon, I. and Chan, K.W. (2012) ‘Regional differences in managerial leader behaviour preferences in China’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 19(3): 315–35. 4 Anthony, D. (2010) The Horse, The Wheel and Language; How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 5 Deaux, K. and Major, B. (1987) ‘Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior’, Psychological Review, 94(3): 369–80.

6 Pelled, L.H. (1996) ‘Relational demography and perceptions of group conflict and performance: a field investigation’, International Journal of Conflict Management, 7: 230–46. 7 Ofori-Dankwa, J. and Lane, R.W. (2000) ‘Four approaches to cultural diversity: implications for teaching at institutions of higher education’, Teaching in Higher Education [Electronic database], 5(4), Ipswich, MA: Academic Search Elite. 8 Chen, Z.X. and Francesco, A.M. (2000) ‘Employee demography, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions in China: do cultural differences matter?’, Human Relations, 53(6): 869–87. 9 Allen, D.G. and Griffeth, R.W. (1997) ‘Vertical and lateral information processing: the effects of gender, employee classification level, and media richness on communication and work outcomes’, Human Relations, 50(10): 1239–60. 10 McClaren, N. (2013) ‘The personal selling and sales management ethics research: managerial implications and research directions from a comprehensive review of the empirical literature’, Journal of Business Ethics, 112(1): 101–25. 11 Ng, T.W. and Feldman, D.C. (2012) ‘Evaluating six common stereotypes about older workers with metaanalytical data’, Personnel Psychology, 65(4): 821–58. 12 Wechtler, H., Koveshnikov, A. and Dejoux, C. (2014) ‘Just like a fine wine? Age, emotional intelligence, and cross-cultural adjustment’, International Business Review, 24(3): 409–18. 13 Walter and Scheibe, op. cit. 14 Becton, J.B., Walker, H.J. and Jones-Farmer, A. (2014) ‘Generational differences in workplace behavior’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(3): 175–89. 15 Twenge, J.M. (2010) ‘A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes’, Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2): 201–10. 16 McClaren, op. cit. 17 Alkhazraji, K.M., Gardner III, W.L., Martin, J.S. and Paolillo, J.G.P. (1997) ‘The acculturation of immigrants to US organizations: the case of Muslim employees’, Management Communication Quarterly, 11(2): 217–65. 18 Stewart, R.A. and Roach, K.D. (1993) ‘Argumentativeness, religious orientation, and reactions to argument situations involving religious versus nonreligious issues’, Communication Quarterly, 41(1): 26–39. 19 Galin, A. and Avraham, S. (2009) ‘A Cross-cultural perspective on aggressiveness in the workplace: a comparison between Jews and Arabs in Israel’, CrossCultural Research, 43(1): 30–45. 20 Bakar, H.A. and McCann, R.M. (2014) ‘Matters of demographic similarity and dissimilarity in supervisor– subordinate relationships and workplace attitudes’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 41: 1–16.

140  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

21 Canary, D.J. and Dindia, K. (eds) (1998) Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication: Critical Essays and Empirical Investigations of Sex and Gender in Interaction, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 22 Robinson, K.A. (1998) ‘Gender and truthfulness in daily life situations’, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 38(9): 821–31. 23 Thompson, N. (2003) Communication and Language: A Handbook of Theory and Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 24 Dickson, D.A., Hargie, O.D.W. and Rainey, S. (2000) ‘Communication and relational development between Catholic and Protestant students in Northern Ireland’, Australian Journal of Communication, 27(1): 67–82. 25 Baesler, E.J. (1994) ‘Religious orientation, persuasion, and communicator style’, The Journal of Communication and Religion, 17(2): 61–72. 26 Gallois, C. and Callan, V.J. (1986) ‘Decoding emotional messages: influence of ethnicity, sex, message type and channel’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4): 755–62. 27 Rashotte, L.S. (2002) ‘What does that smile mean? The meaning of non-verbal behaviors in social interaction’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(1): 92–102. 28 Kim, M.S., Hunter, J.E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A.M., Bresnahan, M. and Yoon, H.J. (1996). ‘Individual vs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects on preferred conversational styles’, Communications Monographs, 63(1): 29–49. 29 Collier, M.J. (1989) ‘Cultural and intercultural communication competence: current approaches and directions’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13: 287–302. 30 Stewart, C.M., Shields, S.F. and Sen, N. (1998) ‘Diversity in on-line discussions: A Study of cultural and gender differences in Listservs’, Electronic Journal of Communication, 8(3/4). 31 Colwill, N. and Sztaba, T.I. (1986) ‘Organizational genderlect: the problem of two different languages’, Business Quarterly, 3: 64–6. 32 Chen, G.M. and Abedin, Z. (2014) ‘Exploring differences in how men and women respond to threats to “positive face” on social media’, Computers in Human Behavior, 38: 118–26. 33 Martin, J.N., Hecht, M.L. and Larkey, L.K. (1994) ‘Conversational improvement strategies for interethnic communication: African American and European American perspectives’, Communication Monographs, 61(3): 236–55. 34 Holta, J.L. and De Voreb, C.J. (2005) ‘Culture, gender, organizational role and styles of conflict resolution: a meta-analysis’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2): 165–96.

35 Davis, M.H., Capobianco, S. and Kraus, L.A. (2010) ‘Gender differences in responding to conflict in the workplace: Evidence from a large sample of working adults’, Sex Roles, 63(7–8): 500–14. 36 Stewart and Roach, op. cit. 37 Gardner III, W.L., Peluchette, J.V.E. and Clinebell, S.K. (1994) ‘Valuing women in management: an impression management perspective of gender diversity’, Management Communication Quarterly, 8(2): 115–64. 38 Tinsley, C.H., Cheldelin, S.I., Schneider, A.K. and Amanatullah, E.T. (2009) ‘Women at the bargaining table: pitfalls and prospects’, Negotiation Journal, 25: 233–43, Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 09–19. URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1397699. Last accessed 10 October 2016. 39 Carli, L.L. (1999) ‘Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence’, Journal of Social Issues, 55(1): 81–99. 40 Buchan, N.R., Croson, R.T. and Solnick, S. (2008) ‘Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(3): 466–76. 41 House, J.H. and Javidan, M. (2004) ‘Overview of Globe’, in House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (eds) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 42 McIntosh, A. (2000) ‘When the deaf and the hearing interact: communication features, relationships, and disability issues’, in Braithwaite, D.O. and Thompson, T.L. (eds) Handbook of Communication and People with Disabilities: Research and Application, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. 43 Carter, T.J. (2002) ‘The importance of talk to midcareer women’s development: a collaborative inquiry’, The Journal of Business Communication, 39(1): 55–91. 44 Tannen, D. (1990) You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Communication, New York: William Morrow. 45 Wolfinger, N.H. and Rabow, A. (1997) ‘The different voices of gender: social recognition’, Current Research in Social Psychology, 2(6): 50–65. 46 Thorne, B. (1993) Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers. 47 Tannen, op. cit. 48 Mulac, A., Bradac, J.J. and Gibbons, P. (2001) ‘Empirical support for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: an intercultural analysis of male/female language differences’, Human Communication Research, 27(1): 121–52. 49 Romaine, S. (1999) Communicating Gender, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

SUBCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  141

50 Hanninen-Salmelin, E. and Petajanieme, T. (1994) ‘Women managers: the case of Finland’, in Adler, N.J. and Izraeli, D.N. (eds) Competitive Frontiers, Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. 51 Birdsall, P. (1980) ‘A comparative analysis of male and female managerial communication style in two organizations’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16(2): 183–96. 52 Sanchez-Burks, J. (2002) ‘Protestant relational ideology and (in) attention to relational cues in work settings’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4): 919. 53 Hoyt, S.K. (1999) ‘Mentoring with class: connections between social class and developmental relationships in the Academy’, in Murrell, A.J., Crosby, F.J. and Ely, A.J. (eds) Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships within Multicultural Organizations, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 54 Hecht, M. (1984) ‘An investigation of the effects of sex of self and other on perceptions of communication satisfaction’, Sex Roles, 10(9–10): 733–41. 55 Stewart, C.M., Shields, S.F. and Sen, N. (2002) ‘A study of cultural and gender differences in Listservs’, Electronic Journal of Communication, 8(398), URL: http:// www.cios.org/www/ejc/v8n398.htm. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 56 Li, Q. (2005) ‘Computer-mediated communication and gender differences: a meta-analysis’, University of Calgary working paper, URL: http://people.ucalgary. ca/~qinli/publication/CMC_meta per cent20.html. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 57 Washington, M.C., Okoro, E.A. and Cardon, P.W. (2014) ‘Perceptions of civility for mobile phone use in formal and informal meetings’, Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 77(1): 52–64. 58 Ono, H. and Zavodny, M. (2004) ‘Gender differences in information technology usage: A US-Japan comparison’, Sociological Perspectives, 48(1): 105–33. 59 Helsper, E.J. (2010) ‘Gendered internet use across generations and life stages’, Communication Research, 37: 352–74. 60 Barrett, E. and Lally, V. (1999), ‘Gender differences in an on-line learning environment’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15: 48–60. 61 Wachter, R.M. (1999) ‘The effect of gender and communication mode on conflict resolution’ Computers in Human Behavior, 15(6): 763–82. 62 Schullery, N.M. (2013) ‘Workplace engagement and generational differences in values’, Business Communication Quarterly, 76(2): 252–65. 63 Kohn, M.L. (1969) Class and Conformity: A Study in Values, Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. 64 Albaum, G. and Peterson. R.S. (2006) ‘Ethical attitudes of future business leaders: do they vary by gender and religiosity?’, Business & Society, 45: 300–21.

65 Chen, C.W. (2014) ‘Does job position moderate the relationship between gender and ethics? A cross-cultural analysis’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 21(4): 437–52. 66 Albaum and Peterson, op.cit. 67 Anderson, C.M. and Martin, M.M. (1995) ‘Why employees speak to coworkers and bosses: Motives, gender, and organizational satisfaction’, Journal of Business Communication, 32(3): 249–65. 68 Warr, P. and Fay, D. (2001) ‘Age and personal initiative at work’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3): 343–53. 69 Rubin, R.B., Perse, E.M. and Barbato, C.A. (1988) ‘Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives’, Human Communication Research, 14(4): 602–28. 70 Based on Sparrow, J. and Rigg, C. (1993) ‘Job analysis: selecting for the masculine approach to management’, Selection and Development Review, 9(2): 5–8. 71 McKee Ranger, L. (2002) ‘Communication is key for deaf and hard of hearing technical pros’, Diversity/Careers Professional, Oct/Nov, URL: http:// www.diversitycrossing.com/article/1450063/. Last accessed 10 October 2016. 72 Lopez-Zafra, E. and Gartzia, L. (2014) ‘Perceptions of gender differences in self-report measures of emotional intelligence’, Sex Roles, 70(11–12): 479–95. 73 Petrides, K.V. and Furnham, A. (2000) ‘Gender differences in measured and self-estimated trait emotional intelligence’, Sex Roles, 42(5–6): 449–61. 74 Gilligan, C. (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 75 Chen, op. cit. 76 Holland, C., Geraghty, J. and Shah, K. (2010) ‘Differential moderating effect of locus of control on effect of driving experience in young male and female drivers’, Personality and Individual Differences, 48(7): 821–6. 77 Gianakos, I. (2002) ‘Predictors of coping with work stress: the influences of sex, gender role, social desirability, and locus of control’, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 42: 1059–79. 78 Furnham, A. (1993) ‘Just world beliefs in twelve societies’, The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(3): 317–29. 79 Puffer, S.M. (1996) Managing Across Cultures: Insights from Fiction and Practice, Oxford: Blackwell. 80 Chiu, W.C., Chan, A.W., Snape, E. and Redman, T. (2001) ‘Age stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes towards older workers: An East-West comparison’, Human Relations, 54(5): 629–61. 81 Abelman, R. (1991) ‘The depiction of women in religious television’, The Journal of Communication and Religion, 14(2): 1–14.

142  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION

82 Wang, A.C., Chiang, J.T.J., Tsai, C.Y., Lin, T.T. and Cheng, B.S. (2013) ‘Gender makes the difference: The moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership styles and subordinate performance’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2): 101–13. 83 Cichon, E.J. and Masterson, J.T. (1993) ‘Physicianpatient communication: Mutual role expectations’, Communication Quarterly, 41(4): 477–89. 84 Cleveland, J.N. and Shore, L.M. (1992) ‘Self-and supervisory perspectives on age and and work attitudes and performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4): 469–84. 85 Liu, S. (2003) ‘Cultures within culture: unity and diversity of two generations of employees in state-owned enterprises’, Human Relations, 56: 387–417. 86 Buchan et al., op. cit. 87 Lee, C., Madan, P. and Law, K. (2000) ‘Power distance, gender and organizational justice’, Journal of Management, 26(4): 685–704. 88 Li, N. and Kirkup, G. (2007) ‘Gender and cultural differences in Internet use: A study of China and the UK’, Computers & Education, 48(2): 301–17. 89 Brosnan, M. and Lee, W. (1998) ‘A cross-cultural comparison of gender differences in computer attitudes and anxieties: The United Kingdom and Hong Kong’, Computers in Human Behavior, 14(4): 559–77. 90 Schmitt, D.P., Realo, A., Voracek, M. and Allik, J. (2008) ‘Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1): 168–81. 91 McCrae, R.R. (2002) ‘Cross-cultural research on the fivefactor model of personality’, in Lonner, W.J., Dinnel, D.L., Hayes, S.A. and Sattler, D.N. (eds) Online Readings in Psychology and Culture (unit 6, chapter 1), URL: http:// www.wwu.edu/~culture. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 92 Migliore, L.A. (2011) ‘Relation between big five personality traits and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: Samples from the USA and India’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1): 38–54. 93 Best, D.L. and Williams, J.E. (1994) ‘Masculinity/ femininity in the self and ideal self-descriptions of university students in fourteen countries’, in Bouvy, A.M., van de Vijver, F.J.R., Boski, P. and Schmitz, P. (eds) Journeys into Cross-Cultural Psychology, Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger. 94 Cross, S.E. and Madison, L. (1997) ‘Models of the self: self-construals and gender’, Psychological Bulletin, 122(1): 5–37. 95 Roberts, T.-A. (1991) ‘Gender and the influence of evaluations on self-assessments in achievement settings’, Psychological Bulletin, 109(2): 297–308.

96 Hoyt, op. cit. 97 Huntington, S.P. (1997) The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order, London: Simon & Schuster. 98 Kelly, A.E., Sedlacek, W.E. and Scales, W.R. (1994) ‘How college students with and without disabilities perceive themselves and each other’, Journal of Counseling and Development, 73: 178–82. 99 Gebauer, J.E., Sedikides, C., Wagner, J., Bleidorn, W., Rentfrow, P.J., Potter, J. and Gosling, S.D. (2015) ‘Cultural norm fulfillment, interpersonal belonging, or getting ahead? A large-scale cross-cultural test of three perspectives on the function of self-esteem’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3): 526–48. 100 Diseth, Å., Meland, E. and Breidablik, H.J. (2014) ‘Selfbeliefs among students: Grade level and gender differences in self-esteem, self-efficacy and implicit theories of intelligence’, Learning and Individual Differences, 35: 1–8. 101 Minter, R.M., Gruppen, L.D., Napolitano, K.S. and Gauger, P.G. (2005) ‘Gender differences in the selfassessment of surgical residents’, The American Journal of Surgery, 189(6): 647–50. 102 Nicholls, J.G. (1975) ‘Causal attributions and other achievement-related cognitions: Effects of task outcome, attainment value, and sex’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(3): 379–89. 103 Haynes, M.C. and Heilman, M.E. (2013) ‘It had to be you (not me)! Women’s attributional rationalization of their contribution to successful joint work outcomes’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, URL: http://uncadvocatesformdphdwomeninscience.web. unc.edu/files/2013/11/4nov13_WomensRationalization.pdf. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 104 Eccles, J.S. (1987) ‘Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions’, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2): 135–72. 105 Hovemyr, M. (1998) ‘The attribution of success and failure as related to different patterns of religious orientation’, International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 8(2): 107–24. 106 Barron, L.A. (2003) ‘Ask and you shall receive? Gender differences in negotiators’ beliefs about requests for a higher salary’, Human Relations, 56(6): 635–62. 107 Curhan, J.R., Neale, M.A., Ross, L. and Rosencranz-Engelmann, J. (2008) ‘Relational accommodation in negotiation: Effects of egalitarianism and gender on economic efficiency and relational capital’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2): 192–205. 108 Busch, T. (1996) ‘Gender, group composition, cooperation, and self-efficacy in computer studies’, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15: 125–36.

SUBCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  143

109 Chai, S., Das, S. and Rao, H.R. (2011) ‘Factors affecting bloggers’ knowledge sharing: An investigation across gender’, Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(3): 309–42. 110 Chen, Y., Li, S.X., Liu, T.X. and Shih, M. (2014) ‘Which hat to wear? Impact of natural identities on coordination and cooperation’, Games and Economic Behavior, 84: 58–86. 111 Connelly, C.E. and Kevin Kelloway, E. (2003) ‘Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5): 294–301. 112 Savicki, V., Kelley, M. and Lingenfelter, D. (1996) ‘Gender and small task group activity using computer mediated communication’, Computers in Human Behavior, 12: 209–24. 113 Martin, E. and Good, J. (2014) ‘Strategy, team cohesion and team member satisfaction: The effects of gender and group composition’, Computers in Human Behavior, 53: 536–43. 114 Oetzel, J.G. (2001) ‘Self-construals, communication processes, and group outcomes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups’, Small Group Research, 32(1): 19–54. 115 Hanninen-Salmelin and Petajanieme, op. cit. 116 Eagly, A.H. and Johnson, B.T. (1990) ‘Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, 108(2): 233–56. 117 Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2003) ‘Gender and leadership: a masculine past, but a feminine future?’ Proceedings of the BPS Annual Occupational Psychology Conference, Brighton, January 8–10, 67–70, URL: http://www.hajduszoboszlo.hu.com/digitalcity/servlet/PublishedFileServlet /AAAASMRH/Gender-and-Excellence.pdf#page=163. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 118 Davis et al., op. cit. 119 Sloan, D.K. and Krone, K.J. (2000) ‘Women managers and gendered values’, Women’s Studies in Communication, 23(1): 111–30.

120 Prime, J., Jonsen, K., Carter, N. and Maznevski, M.L. (2008) ‘Managers’ perceptions of women and men leaders: a cross-cultural comparison’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8: 171–210. 121 Van Emmerik, H., Euwema, M.C. and Wendt, H. (2008) ‘Leadership behaviors around the world: the relative importance of gender versus cultural background’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8: 297–315. 122 Arvonen, J. and Lindell, M. (1996) ‘The Nordic management style in a European context’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 26(3): 73–93. 123 Cummings, L.L., Harnett, D.L. and Stevens, O.J. (1971) ‘Risk, fate, conciliation, and trust: an international study of attitudinal differences among executives’, Academy of Management Journal, 14: 285–304. 124 McGuire, G.M. (1999) ‘Do race and sex affect employees’ access to and help from mentors?: insights from the study of a large corporation’, in Murrell, A.J., Crosby, F.J. and Ely, R.J. (eds) Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships within Multicultural Organizations, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 125 Wanguri, D.M. (1996) ‘Diversity, perceptions of equity and communicative openness in the workplace’, The Journal of Business Communication, 33: 443–57. 126 Ramaswami, A., Huang, J.C. and Dreher, G. (2014) ‘Interaction of gender, mentoring, and power distance on career attainment: A cross-cultural comparison’, Human Relations, 67(2): 153–73. 127 Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J., Alayoglu, N. and Wolpin, J. (2014) ‘Mentoring relationships among managerial and professional women in Turkey: Potential benefits?’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 21(1): 2–22.

Part two EXERCISES, CASES AND ROLE PLAYS  145

Part two EXERCISES, CASES AND ROLE PLAYS 2.1. Chinese managers identified the best processes for dealing with emotional issues at work as: ➤➤ to pay attention to or recognize the seriousness of the disruption, ➤➤ to divert attention and thinking away from the disruption, ➤➤ to calm unpleasant inner feelings, either privately or in connection with others, ➤➤ either to maintain or to calm pleasant emotions, ➤➤ to keep up their employees’ pleasant emotions, ➤➤ to come to a better understanding of problems and possible solutions by thinking and feeling through them, and ➤➤ to learn from emotional experiences so that pleasant ones can be sustained and unpleasant ones can be avoided in future.1 How would these processes differ from those most likely to be used by managers in your own culture? Where there are differences, which would you expect to be more effective in your own culture and why? 2.2. The following are extracts from business complaint emails: (a) ‘You have charged us the wrong amount’; ‘Please send us a replacement at your earliest convenience’; (b) ‘It appears that there is a discrepancy in the invoice compared with the estimate’; ‘We would like to request that you consider replacing this item’. Compare (a) and (b) in terms of clarity, effect on the supplier–customer relationship and overall effectiveness in different cultures. 2.3. In as diverse a group of four or five people as is available, create a proforma for observing the effects of diversity on creativity in work groups. 2.4. What cultural knowledge helps explain the behaviours identified at (1) to (8) below? X was an internal auditor for an international company. His current assignment was to audit the travel department of the company’s Italian subsidiary. The department had responsibility for organizing and paying for all the travel and accommodation arrangements as well as visas for a staff of 35 international executives and sales representatives. (1) X arrived at the time arranged but was kept waiting in an outer office for 25 minutes. When he entered, he looked somewhat pointedly at his watch. The manager of the department smiled broadly, saying, ‘Ah, we have plenty of time, have we not? Would you care for a coffee?’ X refused. (2) The manager, having shaken hands, moved closer to X, who felt uncomfortable and backed away. (3) X’s discomfort was increased by the fact that the office seemed to be overcrowded with desks occupied by people to whom he was not introduced, while other people continuously came and went through a side door. (4) The conversation was several times interrupted by people asking the manager questions, to which he would intersperse his answers with his answers to X, who began to feel confused. The manager also often interrupted their discussion himself, to speak to a colleague about some unrelated matter, or to answer the telephone. He also seemed excited, jumping up to find a paper from his desk, and using emphatic gestures. However, X had expected the last of these: he’d heard about the Italians. (5) When they were seated, the manager asked him about his journey, and appeared to be really interested (possibly a professional interest, X thought). He asked about X’s family, commented on the latest political happening in X’s country and asked X about his political views. ‘Next he’ll be wanting to know what religion I am’, X thought. (6) X began by raising the two problem areas highlighted in his junior’s preliminary audit report. One was complaints of late payment of travel expenses by expatriates working in the subsidiary; the other was numerous instances where rules had been infringed. (He did not beat about the bush in raising these matters, but came straight to the point. Afterwards, he wondered if he had seemed impolite.) (7) He suggested they deal with them in that order; the travel department manager agreed, then jumped quickly to the rules question. (8) ‘You know, some of these rules, they are not practical’, he said. ‘They only 145

146  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION make work for nothing. You will agree that your colleague found no instances of dishonesty or misappropriation of funds?’ X agreed – none had been found, but ‘Rules are rules’, he thought. 2.5. What cultural knowledge helps explain the behaviours identified in (1) to (5) below? (1) In the course of a negotiation with the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of a company listed on the Bombay (India) stock exchange, the negotiator for an American company was startled when his opposite number, having taken a call on his mobile phone, suddenly excused himself and left the room. Another member of the Indian negotiating team explained, smiling, that the CFO had been summoned by the ‘owner’s’ wife to assist with discussions over payments for her daughter’s wedding. (2) An applicant for a junior post in a British-owned offshore business in India had done well at his first interview and was called for a second. He had appeared very enthusiastic about getting the job and had in fact telephoned in every day following the first interview to find out whether he would be called for the second. Now he called in to say that he could not attend on the appointed day. When told that was the only day when second interviews would take place, and that those who did not attend would lose their chance, he sounded disappointed but said it was impossible. (3) An Indian executive was well over an hour late for a middle of the day meeting with senior colleagues; the meeting’s location was 20 minutes away from the office where he spent his working days. His Indian colleagues sat talking until he arrived as he was bringing information without which no decisions could be taken. Although he had an office-supplied mobile phone, no call or message was received during this interval and he did not reply when the number was called. (4) Perusing the accounts of the unit of a small software business he was auditing, an expatriate auditor new to India found to his surprise payments for a religious ceremony; these included fees to the Brahmin priest and payments for garlands and coconuts as well as for food. These turned out to relate to the opening of a new office. (5) An important client waiting for confirmation of urgent travel arrangements from a Chennai travel agency which depended heavily on the client’s custom did not receive the expected call at 1pm. He waited until 1.30 pm and then phoned. When told that the person dealing with the matter was unavailable, he expostulated. ‘But he has to have his lunch’, was the reply. 2.6. X was a visiting official from the international parent organization of the Hungarian Business Association, which was holding a presentation and reception for members to meet a VIP. The Hungarian President of the Association spoke first. X had agreed with him beforehand that he would convey a ‘message’ about the Association’s mission. (1) The President began by telling several funny anecdotes. It was clear that the audience enjoyed these. Then he began to get quite emotional, even melancholy, and philosophical. (2) After a while, X began to feel that the agreed ‘message’ was not going to be conveyed. (3) During the networking at the reception after the presentations, X found, as she had before, that while the Hungarian men were very courteous to her (one even attempted to kiss her hand!), (4) they dominated the conversation in a series of unstoppable monologues and she had difficulty getting any chance to speak. (5) When she did manage to make herself heard, though, she was careful to open with a couple of sentences in praise of Hungary and its cultural heritage. After that, things became easier. (6) Nevertheless, as soon as the topic turned to Association business, she found that her interlocutors quickly confronted her with a series of problems. It would be wrong, she thought, to describe them as complaints – they were presented just as problems – but there was no attempt to identify solutions. (7) Instead, there seemed to be an expectation that finding ways round the problems was up to someone else. What cultural knowledge would help the visiting official to understand the behaviours identified at (1) to (7) above? 2.7. X was interviewing Czech applicants for a graduate-level entry post with the Prague subsidiary of an international business. The applicant was neatly dressed, polite and soft-spoken. The CV showed a record of high scholastic achievement, participation in sports and leadership in student affairs. However, when it came to the ‘standard’ selection interview questions, although the applicant listened carefully and seemed to understand them, X found it difficult to get the kinds of answers he was used to. For example, in response to the question, ‘What are your greatest strengths?’ the candidate hesitated, laughed, blushed, then said, ‘I’m

Part two EXERCISES, CASES AND ROLE PLAYS  147

not sure. I am very interested in working for your company because it has such a good reputation.’ When X pressed, saying, ‘Yes, but what could you bring to our company? Why should I give the job to you instead of someone else?’ the interviewee said, ‘I am hardworking and I would be a loyal worker, but, of course, I’m sure all the other applicants would, too.’ Asked about ambitions, the candidate replied, ‘To have interesting work and to serve my country.’ Asked about a hypothetical situation in which a factory production problem had led to a chaotic disruption of deliveries to customers, the candidate said, ‘I would need more information before I could answer, really.’ Asked about the most important factors in business success, the candidate answered, ‘Solving problems creatively, being concerned for the well-being of others, being flexible.’2 What cultural knowledge would help X to understand the behaviours described above? 2.8. A conference in Hungary, jointly organized by UK and Hungarian staff, had the following features: 93 invitations were sent out, only six replies were received by the start of the conference, and 72 people attended. The Hungarian staff said, ‘Hungarian people have a bad habit: they do not reply to invitations.’ The conference was intended as a participative workshop. The Hungarian staff, in charge of on-the-ground arrangements, scheduled six presentations an hour for four hours, with no time allowed for questions. This was to be followed by a one hour ‘discussion period’. The venue was the most formal room in the city’s largest hotel; the seating was arranged round tables forming a huge hollow square. When the discussion period arrived (an hour later than scheduled) it was impossible to rearrange the room for groupwork, and, in plenary, discussion was stilted and consisted only of questions and comments addressed to the Chair. The conference was ended sharply at six o’clock because, a Hungarian said, ‘Hungarians always want to rush off home.’ What cultural knowledge would help the UK organizer to understand the behaviours described above? 2.9. Discuss the cultural values that may be reflected in the following passage: ‘A Belgian research analyst who worked for a UK research organization in London, said, ‘In my country only people with good qualifications in statistics or economics would be employed in this kind of work. As a result, they would be demanding about the quality of the data and statistics that they would agree to use, which might sometimes mean that they could not give the client companies the sort of information they need. Here, most researchers are arts graduates, with rather weak statistical backgrounds. As a result, they are flexible about data, and willing to provide client companies with answers to their questions, based, perhaps, on small samples.’3 2.10. The following questions were used in research into cultural difference. What aspects of culture do you think they were trying to access? ➤➤ You have just come from a secret meeting of a board of directors of a certain company. You have a close friend who will be ruined unless he can get out of the market before the board’s decision becomes known. You happen to be having dinner at your friend’s home this evening. What right does your friend have to expect you to tip him off? ➤➤ Which of the following describes a company? (a) A system designed to perform functions and tasks in an efficient way: people are hired to fulfil these functions with the help of machines and other equipment. They are paid for the tasks they perform. Or (b) A group of people working together: the people have social relations with other people and with the organization. The functioning is dependent on these relations. ➤➤ Which of the following do you agree with? (a) A company should take into account the size of the employee’s family. The company is responsible for the extra compensation per child. (b) An employee should be paid on the basis of the work he [sic] is doing for the company. Therefore, the company does not have to take into account the employee’s family.4 2.11. Explain how individualism–collectivism might account for these findings: Cross-cultural studies have shown that a preference for equality with one’s ingroup peers is most typically found among collectivist nations. Members of more individualist nations are typically keener on the freedom to receive rewards in proportion to their individual contribution. No more than 30 to 40 per cent

148  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION of respondents from the Scandinavian nations (except Iceland) choose equality, whereas the pattern from Portugal, Italy and Spain is the reverse.5 2.12. What factors might explain the differences described in the following? To most western Germans, freedom (49 per cent) matters more than equality (35 per cent). To eastern Germans, it is the other way around (36 per cent and 51 per cent respectively).6 2.13. ‘Korean business is not hierarchical. The military culture is one where leaders go first and so are exposed to all the dangers of their followers. Team leaders in business work as hard as or harder than their team. They face the same problem as Japanese team leaders of reconciling internal harmony with an outward-facing competitiveness, but resolve it differently.’7 What differences would you predict in how Korean and Japanese teams leaders resolve the problem of reconciling internal harmony with an outward-facing competitiveness? (You might wish to refer to Hofstede’s [1981] analysis of the value differences between Japan and Korea.) 2.14. What cultural differences might explain the difference of approach to a new brand launch described below? By their own account, many Chinese people operate by trial and error. For example, the Chinese managers of a French multinational company’s Chinese subsidiary drew up a plan to launch a new brand in the Chinese market. ‘We would recruit 200 dealers, support them with minimum back-up, find an agency, design a logo and off we go.’ The French headquarters wanted ‘long discussion and research’ before taking action.8 2.15. What factors might explain Polish attitudes described in this extract? ‘Poland is a country that foreigners criticize at their peril. Even the mildest mention of habitual unpunctuality, brusque telephone manners or bad roads can prompt a lengthy and emotional review of the outside world’s insensitive and ignorant attitude to the country’s tragic history. … What is rather odder is that praising Poland can go down badly too. A mild remark about the variety and excellence of the country’s media or the growing strength of its private sector can be taken as being insensitive to poverty, unemployment and the inadequacy of public services, let alone the country’s historical tragedies.’9 2.16. What cultural theories best explain the following Japanese work behaviours? ‘One Japanese can and will guess what another one wants to say without him saying it. Western people cannot understand this. … Japanese people will guess what other people think from a few words and accommodate, behave in a civilized way. [At work] people, including juniors, are generally attuned to reading atmosphere and context and adapting. Bosses don’t quarrel openly, especially not in front of others. However, others may detect that there is hidden conflict and they will try to make it right. Acting maturely, adjusting to atmosphere used to be considered one of the most important work skills; it is becoming less common now. [But] conflict is always avoided.’10 2.17. In Hindi, the same word, ‘kal’, means either tomorrow or yesterday – literally one day away; and ‘parso’ means two days away – either the day after tomorrow or the day before yesterday.11 What cultural theory best explains this? 2.18. Two surveys of Belgian people’s hostility to the wearing of the veil by Islamic women revealed that subtle prejudice/racism, self-enhancement and security values and anti-religious thinking predicted greater levels of anti-veil attitudes beyond the effects of other related variables such as age and political conservatism. Universalist values and spirituality predicted relatively lower levels of anti-veil attitudes.12 Are the factors listed here related to Belgian cultural values as revealed in Hofstede (1981)? Explain why or why not. 2.19. What does the following passage tell us about cultural differences? ‘South Korea relies on manufacturing for 60 to 70 per cent of its GDP. In manufacturing industry, a military culture is strongly embedded. … How this culture reveals itself can be shown by the following example: a new product is to be developed; Japan is used as a benchmark; Japan took 12 months to develop it; a

Part two EXERCISES, CASES AND ROLE PLAYS  149

target is sent down to a team to develop it within 6 months; the team accepts it as a mission and works round the clock – sacrificing personal life if necessary. This is because “the organisation’s success is our own success”. When Sony aimed at emulating Korea’s prowess at execution, they studied Samsung but concluded that they could not copy it because they lack the military culture.’13 2.20. What cultural values might explain the following? ‘In a Chinese company, if a manager writes a report, he or she must always put, right at the start, that senior managers or other departments shared in the achievement of his or her department.’14 2.21. What aspect of collectivism, if any, might account for the sales assistant’s behaviour described in the following passage? A UK retailing company was running a competition to find the ‘best’ sales assistant in each store. The method was to get customers to give feedback on their in-store experience; participating customers had a chance of winning a prize. The method of entry was printed on the receipt. One store manager received two separate complaints about one assistant. On investigating it was discovered that she was writing the words ‘Strongly Agree’ on each receipt and telling the customers to mark their feedback questionnaire in this way. Had they complied, this would have resulted in her gaining top marks in the competition. The sales assistant was from a collectivist country.15 2.22. One of the present authors received an email from an Indian training client which included the following: ‘Let me know a tentative plan from your end … including the commercials … so that we start our sales pitch.’ On asking an Indian colleague whether the request was for her to create TV commercials, she received the following reply: ‘About the mail, I think what is meant is that they would like the following details from you: your tentative calendar (arrival, proposed dates for the program and so on); your commercial fee (what the client will have to pay you per batch/whole program or however you would like to price this); minimum and maximum number of participants per batch you would like; number of batches (if there are larger numbers, you may need to look at multiple batches).’16 Suppose the author had had no colleague she could ask, how should she have proceeded to obtain clarification from the Indian training client about the meaning of the email? 2.23. What cultural factors help explain the behaviours described below? In a videoconference involving developers from the United States, France and Germany, the Americans spent the first five to ten minutes worrying that not all participants were there yet. In contrast, the Europeans spent the time talking among themselves (across the video link) about the weather, sports and other personal matters until the Americans decided that a quorum was present and business could begin. At the end of the videoconference, the Americans immediately disconnected the call. The French and Germans continued for another five minutes, wishing a departing French teammate well in his retirement, and reminiscing about good times. The Europeans viewed the American behaviour as rude and insensitive. The Americans viewed time as money, focusing on the cost of the videoconference. In other countries, entire videoconference calls are devoted to establishing relationships, without conducting the core of the task at all.17 2.24. What cultural or other factors help explain the findings about perceptions set out below? ➤➤ Where some White males perceive a hierarchical structure open to talent and energy, people from ethnic minorities, women and people who are differently-abled often perceive a glass ceiling. For instance, in the Netherlands, in a diverse organization, ethnic minority employees experienced less person-related communication at work and perceived higher levels of unequal treatment of minorities than ethnic majority employees.18 ➤➤ Americans, who scored significantly higher than Israelis on a Protestant ethic scale, were also consistently more deterministic in their interpersonal perceptions than Israelis when asked to rate, on the basis of past information, the probabilities of a person being at present a ‘mental patient’ or a ‘successful businessman’.19 ➤➤ A country’s relative size, in combination with linguistic similarity, predicts the likelihood of people from one

150  CULTURE AND WORK COMMUNICATION country perceiving another as less sympathetic, more arrogant and less similar to themselves. These findings come from research into Dutch/German, Belgian/French and Dutch-Belgian versus French-Belgian attitudes towards Holland.20 ➤➤ Research has shown that members of work teams’ perceptions of their team’s level of diversity do not correlate with objective diversity in terms of age or gender and that it is perceived diversity, not objective diversity, that affects their behaviour.21 2.25. A Chinese woman banker looking for work in London was often interviewed for jobs on the strength of her CV but then failed the selection interviews. On one occasion she was asked why she had left her previous job. Her answer was ‘A new woman manager was appointed and she did not like me.’ The interviewers’ report was that she had excellent banking expertise but lacked ‘competencies’. What cultural factors might have influenced the Chinese woman banker’s reply? 2.26. A woman expatriate working for an international consultancy in China said she had experienced ‘difficult relationships, especially with men over 35, regardless of whether they have overseas experience. They will not address any of my suggestions, long telephone calls show no progress, they never contact me; there is virtually no communication. I have been told they have a comfort hierarchy and foreign women are at the bottom of it, just below young Chinese women.’22 Research Chinese culture and identify cultural factors that might have led to this experience of the international expatriate woman. 2.27. A senior British executive working in India found that there was a conflict between his environmental values and the expectations of his staff. Concern for the planet meant that instead of owning a car and having a driver, as would be expected for someone in his senior position, he normally went to work by auto-rickshaw (a means of transport that does not add greatly to global warming) and only used a car occasionally. What Indian cultural values might lead to this expat’s behaviour conflicting with the staff’s expectations? 2.28. A lawyer had three appointments with new clients in one morning. Judging from their names, s/he anticipated that the first would be a white Anglo-Saxon male, one a Bengali woman and one a French male. His/ her prior expectations were that the communication with the first client would go most smoothly, that with the third the next most smoothly, while that with the second client, the Bengali woman, would be the most difficult. However, these expectations were confounded. The white Anglo-Saxon male was aggressive from the beginning (‘He had a chip on his shoulder against the law’), the French male was uncommunicative (‘He seemed to be afraid of giving himself away’), while the Bengali woman’ who was wearing a chador, was articulate, well educated and reasonable.23 What explains the lawyer’s prior expectations about his/her appointments? How would you expect the experiences of that morning to affect him/her?

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Krone, K.J., Chen, L., Sloan, D.K. and Gallant, L.M. (1997) ‘Managerial emotionality in Chinese factories’, Management Communication Quarterly, 11(1): 6–50. 2 Interview: authors’ research. 3 Interview: authors’ research. 4 Based on Hampden-Turner, C. and Trompenaars, A. (1993) The Seven Cultures of Capitalism, Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 5 Eyjolfsdottir, H.M. and Smith, P.B. (1996) ‘Icelandic business and management culture’, International Studies of Management & Organization, 26(3): 61–73. 6 Ibid. 7 Interview with a South Korean senior manager: authors’ research. 8 Interview with a Chinese marketing manager, Beijing: authors’ research. 9 The Economist, 11 May 2006. http://www.economist.com/node/6875791. Last accessed 16 December 2016. 10 Interviews with a Japanese Finance and Accounting lecturer and a Japanese product manager from a Western multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer: authors’ research.

Part two EXERCISES, CASES AND ROLE PLAYS  151

11 Quoted in Guirdham, M. (2009) Culture and Business in Asia, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 12 Saroglou, V., Lamkaddem, B., Van Pachterbeke, M. and Buxant, C. (2009) ‘Host society’s dislike of the Islamic veil: The role of subtle prejudice, values, and religion’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(5): 419–28. 13 Interview with a South Korean executive: authors’ research. 14 Interview with a Chinese expatriate manager in London: authors’ research. 15 Interview with a retail branch manager in London: authors’ research. 16 Personal correspondence: authors’ research. 17 Olson, J.S. and Olson, G.M. (2003–4) ‘Culture surprises in remote software development teams’, Queue, (1)9: 52–9. 18 Dinsbach, A.A., Feij, J.A. and de Vries, R.E. (2007) ‘The role of communication content in an ethnically diverse organization’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations’, 31(6): 725–45. 19 Goitein, B. and Rotenberg, M. (1977) ‘Protestantism and retrospective labeling: a cross-cultural study in person perception’, Human Relations, 30: 487–97. 20 Van Oudenhoven, J.P., Askevis-Leherpeux, F., Hannover, B., Jaarsma, R. and Dardenne, B. (2002) ‘Asymmetrical international attitudes’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(2): 275–89. 21 Hentschel, T., Shemla, M., Wegge, J. and Kearney, E. (2013) ‘Perceived diversity and team functioning: the role of diversity beliefs and affect’, Small Group Research, 44(1): 33–61. 22 Guirdham, M. (2009) Culture and Business in Asia, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 23 Interview with a lawyer: authors’ research.

part

3 INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

P

art two of this book established that there are important differences in how people from different cultures and subcultures communicate at work. Part Three will show how these differences and other factors, such as prejudice, impede effective intercultural work communication and how these impediments can be overcome and i­ ntercultural work communication made effective. Chapter 9 presents the argument that intercultural communication is problematic in particular ways. It describes the wide range of barriers that apply. It both deals with ‘universal’ factors, such as stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination, and builds on the analyses of Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 by showing how (sub)cultural differences also impede intercultural communication. Chapter 10 is concerned with how intercultural communication can be made more effective. Its coverage ranges from inclusive language to the practical application of a number of intercultural communication theories. Attention is paid to behaviours and traits such as tolerance for ambiguity, mindfulness and self-monitoring. There is discussion of the underlying motivations, goals, emotions and cognitions as well as the processes of intercultural encounters. Chapter 11 describes how to achieve effective intercultural communication for the range of work activities that were described in terms of cultural differences in Chapter 7.

153

9 BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK This chapter is concerned with sources of intercultural miscommunication. People are aware of these barriers: native speakers of American English who interacted with non-native speakers perceived interaction as more difficult and had more thoughts showing confusion than did their counterparts who interacted with other native speakers.1 When barriers are recognized, people often try to overcome them, and often succeed. Thus, by alerting readers to different sources of intercultural miscommunication, this chapter may enable them to communicate more effectively with ‘different others’. Common experience teaches that communication is flawed and can lead to misunderstanding and even conflict. Communication theorists generally take it as given that communication can never be perfect.2 There are many sources of miscommunication. They include ‘noise’, in the technical sense of physical or psychological interference which prevents messages being received, poor encoding by the sender, distortion by the medium and selection, inaccurate decoding, distorted interpretation and indiscriminate categorization by the receiver. The two-way nature of face-to-face communication allows feedback – the sender can find out how well the receiver understands the message – which can reduce miscommunication. However, it also imposes demanding time pressure on each receiver in turn to respond, so reducing opportunities for thinking through what they say. In mediated communication reduced channel bandwidth can increase miscommunication. Cultural differences in the ways in which people from different backgrounds communicate, as well as in the intra-individual factors and processes underlying their behaviour, add to the intrinsic barriers to communication. These differences affect communication not just in the much-researched situation of individualistic Westerners with collectivist others but within these categories. For instance, at the Universiti Utara Malaysia, Arab students and Malay instructors faced significant challenges when communicating verbally, a study found.3

Behaviours such as ingroup/outgroup differentiation, stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination and harassment also construct communication barriers. In the case of people from different backgrounds who work together, there are further sources of miscommunication, which are described in this chapter. Work-specific barriers include heterogeneity of work groups and task-related conflict; some organizational cultures are impediments to effective intercultural communication. These barriers create misunderstandings between individuals, whether in the roles of colleagues, professionals and their clients or suppliers and their customers. These misunderstandings often result in emotional distress and reduced performance. Other consequences are that heterogeneous work groups, while potentially more creative, take longer to perform and are more likely to break down, and that transnational negotiations and business operations can be fraught with conflict. Section 9.1 describes the language barrier, perhaps the most obvious source of miscommunication. Section 9.2 describes those barriers that are ‘universal’, but apply with particular force in intercultural situations. Section 9.3 describes prejudice, discrimination and harassment and discusses their negative consequences for individuals, organizations and work communication. Section 9.4 describes those obstacles arising from the fact that, as Part Two showed, differences of cultural background do affect how people communicate. Section 9.5 builds on the analysis in Chapter 6 of cultural differences in the factors and processes underlying behaviour to consider how those differences can create barriers to intercultural communication. Section 9.6 introduces two specifically work-related types of barrier – heterogeneity of work groups and taskrelated conflict. Section 9.7 considers the possible barriers to intercultural communication created by negative or weak organizational policies regarding diversity, and the contrary effect of strong positive policies. Section 9.8 explains the particular barriers arising from mediated intercultural work communication. Chapter10 will show 155

156  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

how these barriers can be overcome and how effective intercultural communication can be achieved.  9.A for more on the meaning of miscommunication.

9.1 LANGUAGE BARRIERS Most people have experienced the sheer difficulties of getting their meaning across or understanding what is being said when they, or their interlocutor, are not fluent in the language being used. These difficulties also apply in written modes: for instance, when producing written English, cultural differences related to the alphabet, letters, way of writing, word patterns and grammar were among linguistic factors that created errors and difficulties faced by Arab Algerian EFL university students, a study showed.4 Within organizations language barriers create a range of issues: 1 Translation is costly, while not undertaking it involves hidden costs such as staff denied access to new knowledge or misapplying new technology. Translators ‘deform the original text’ in the process of translation and so knowledge is altered in some way. A need to translate can be a disincentive to individual employees to share knowledge as it adds to the time required. 2 Multinational organizations often introduce a common corporate language to facilitate inter-unit communication. However, this language standardization merely ‘pushes the translation question further down the line, becoming an absorptive capacity issue for subsidiary management’. 3 Participation in meetings or training depends on fluency in the language used: Finnish research demonstrated how subsidiary staff participation in training programmes was restricted by the need to be fluent in English, the language of instruction. 4 Possession of relevant language fluency delivers power and turns an individual into a gate-keeper who may choose to withhold or distort information. 5 There is a danger that the centralization of knowledge through the use of information and communication technology will disconnect those who lack requisite language competence if the knowledge is codified into the company language. 6 Language is one factor that can cause subsidiary team isolation. 7 Trust plays a critical role in tacit knowledge transfer, and language barriers can make it very hard to establish a trusting relationship. For example, a new product development team, comprising two Americans and

an Englishman, descended into mistrust and dysfunctional interaction in part because of the way in which members applied different meanings to the same English words.5 Buckley et al. (2005) found that transfer of knowledge across national borders within multinational enterprises depends both on a common language necessary for ­communication and on the shared social knowledge necessary to understand and predict the behaviour of those engaged in the knowledge-transfer process.6 Language and dialect barriers inhibit international and in some countries inter-regional communication. Beyond this, language barriers provoke cognitive and emotional reactions that negatively influence the perceived trustworthiness of the people being interacted with and whether or not communicators intend to trust them; this has been shown to impede the communication of members of multinational teams.7 In multicultural teams, language-related challenges increase the likelihood of emotional conflict, and team members have difficulty in ‘finding words’ in emotional situations because of the nonlinear, fragmented, image-driven qualities of these circumstances. Again, asymmetries in language fluency contribute to an ‘us vs them’ dynamic which is common in global teams.8 It has been shown that beyond a certain point, language differences between two organizations reduce the likelihood of their engaging in a research and development alliance together, though smaller differences may enhance collaboration by leading partners to rethink solutions.9

9.2 ‘UNIVERSAL’ BARRIERS Some barriers apply to all or most communication, but create particular problems in intercultural communication. This section discusses two such barriers: the general problem of intergroup communication and stereotyping.

The general problem of intergroup communication Modern work generally involves meeting or working with individuals from different ethnic backgrounds, socio-economic classes, age groups, genders and so forth. In these encounters, people may communicate with each other not just or even mainly as individuals with unique temperaments and personalities but largely as undifferentiated representatives of social groups. For example, Person A might deal with Person B as a ‘Polish Catholic lawyer’ or ‘White male doctor’ and Person B might deal with Person A as a ‘Welsh Protestant client’ or an ‘Afro-Caribbean woman nurse’. (When people respond to one another

BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  157

Figure 9.1  How people define an encounter as intergroup10 Is the other person from a different group?

Is group membership salient?

Is the other person’s language a major one?

Are the boundaries of one’s own and the other person’s ingroup mutually exclusive?

Is the other person’s group aspirational?

primarily in terms of their group membership, the terms ‘intergroup encounter’ and ‘intergroup communication’ apply even if only two people are present.) This tendency to emphasize group membership is especially strong at initial meetings with different others. People treat an encounter as intergroup when the five factors shown in Figure 9.1 apply. As that diagram depicts, recognizing that someone’s ethnicity, religion or gender is different can lead to an interaction being treated as intergroup. It may not, however, if the individual’s personal attitudes or the subject of the interaction make group memberships seem irrelevant. For example, perceived religious difference might have no bearing on a discussion of software capability. A third factor is whether the other person’s language is perceived as a major one; if not, as in the case of English-speaking people interacting with Welsh-speaking people, the English might not treat the encounter as intergroup (but the Welsh might). Fourth, where people draw their ingroup boundaries varies from person to person and occasion to occasion. A French person might, on some occasions, perceive his or her ingroup as ‘European’ and so not regard an encounter with a German as intergroup. Finally, an individual may disregard social group differences if s/he perceives the status of the other person’s ingroup as high and identifies with it or perceives an overlap in social categories (‘You may be an English businesswoman, but, like me, you are a woman.’) Where none of these exceptions applies, awareness that the other person is from a different major group usually leads to the encounter being treated as intergroup. ‘People know how to get to know other people from the same culture but not from different

Yes

Yes

Yes

The encounter with this person is intergroup

Yes

No

cultures.’ Does this statement explain why ­ eople behave differently when ­communicating p with culturally different others? Give your reasons.

Effects of intergroup problems on communication in general In intergroup interactions, how accurately people understand an interlocutor can be lower than it is in interactions among people from the same group. For instance, Whites higher in desire to affiliate with ethnic minorities tended to overestimate how well understood their ethnic minority partners felt. Furthermore, participants’ overestimation of how well they understood partners correlated negatively with partners’ reports of relationship quality.11 Communicating with others as representatives of their groups can create barriers and complications in at least the following ways:

• People’s group membership is not always obvious: • •

•

group membership must be inferred. There is scope for making errors during this process. Interpersonal factors cannot be ignored in intergroup encounters, so both group and personal factors must be handled, creating complexity. When interactions are treated as intergroup, people respond to their interlocutors as if they were stereotypical instead of adjusting to their individuality (this is the outgroup co-variation effect), treat them less favourably than their ingroup (ingroup favouritism) and feel less closeness to them (maintain social distance). Intergroup communication involves at least one of the individuals present being regarded as a ‘stranger’.

158  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

•

• •

•

Interactions with strangers can create anxiety and often are experienced by both parties as a series of crises.12 As Chapter 6 showed, people attribute other people’s behaviour to their disposition or their situation. When they treat an encounter as intergroup, they commonly use their knowledge of the group to decide their attributions. This increases the likelihood that they will attribute different others’ behaviour to their disposition as opposed to their situation, and will possibly judge it more harshly.13 In addition, they may not know much about the beliefs, attitudes and so on of the different other’s group, leading them to make false attributions or, if they are aware of the problem, to make limited and provisional attributions that inhibit openness.14 Ethnocentrism is readily activated in intergroup encounters, leading to hostility towards the different others. Criticism from outsiders provokes high levels of defensiveness and intergroup suspicion, leading to rejecting the truth of the comments. In contrast, criticism from ingroup members is tolerated ‘surprisingly well’, and is seen to be more legitimate and constructive than outgroup criticism. Positive comments from outsiders are received as well as from insiders, suggesting that the effect of outsiders’ criticism is not due to general outgroup negative bias.15 Intergroup relations are more competitive and discordant than relations between interacting individuals; this is particularly so when the people involved depend on one another. Highly interdependent research subjects endorse threat more and acceptance of others’

demands less to a relatively greater degree in an intergroup as opposed to an inter-individual conflict. These sources of potential miscommunication are summarized in Figure 9.2. Finally, there is evidence that negative contact itself makes it more likely that intergroup conflict will persist: negative contact causes category salience to increase.16 Intracultural relationships develop faster than intercultural relationships in both face-to-face and asynchronous cmc groups such as those that use email,17 as would be predicted from the number of barriers to intergroup communication. ‘[Intergroup] conflict, despite appearances, still leads to intergroup influence.’ Discuss this statement.

Effects of intergroup problems on work communication in particular Knowledge flows better within clusters of similar people than between them and dissimilar others, creating a paradox, because people who are unlike one another are more likely to have knowledge useful to one another but less likely to share it. Cultural similarity, shared language and similarity of organizational status are factors that make people feel similar to one another. Such similarity leads to a higher tendency for interaction, increasing the sharing of business knowledge, and driving an aggregate effect of clustering.18  9.2.1 for more on the general problem of intergroup communication.

Figure 9.2  Factors that increase poor communication in intergroup encounters Group identities may be hard to decide and so be wrongly inferred. Intergroup relations are more competitive and discordant, especially when interactors are highly interdependent.

Need to handle complexity – both interpersonal and intergroup factors apply.

Outsiders’ criticism is more likely to provoke defensiveness and suspicion than insiders’.

Encounters with ‘strangers’ create anxiety.

False attributions are common when knowledge of the other person’s culture is low.

Ethnocentrism is readily activated. Dispositional attributions are more common, increasing blame levels.

BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  159

Stereotyping Stereotypes were explained in Chapter 6. Stereotyping is a natural and necessary process, but it can distort communication. It may lead people to base their messages, their ways of transmitting them and their reception of them on false assumptions. These distortions arise in at least the following five ways: 1 Stereotypes can influence how information is processed. More favourable information is remembered about those of whom the stereotype is positive, less favourable about those of whom it is negative; for instance, someone who has a stereotype of Scottish people as ‘mean’ is likely not to notice or quickly to forget if a Scottish person shows generosity. 2 Objectively, there is often more variation within groups than between them. This applies even to fundamental cultural values and still more to more superficial characteristics such as meanness. Stereotyping, though, leads to individuality being overlooked. 3 Stereotypes create expectations about different others and individual others often feel a pressure to confirm these expectations. It may seem unlikely that Scottish people will try to confirm expectations that they are mean, though it can happen; but research has shown that schoolchildren underperform if teachers expect less of them because of their background. 4 Stereotypes constrain others’ patterns of communication. Conventions and politeness may prevent people who perceive they are being treated in accordance with a stereotype from disputing it. Even if they do react, this is likely to disrupt the conversation or discussion. 5 Stereotypes create self-fulfilling prophecies in the form of stereotype-confirming communication. A clear example is the way that, as Chapter 8 showed, some women use ‘powerless’ ways of speaking to conform to stereotypes of femininity.19 In addition, negative stereotypes can contribute to prejudice. For instance, 76 per cent of Blacks said they felt that Whites are insensitive to Black people and that Whites do not want to share with non-Whites and 79 per cent that Whites see themselves as superior and able to boss others around. These communication stereotypes may be ‘a key piece of the interracial relations puzzle’.20 Give your own examples of these five ways in which stereotypes can distort intergroup communication.

9.3 PREJUDICE, DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT Prejudice is a thoughtless derogatory attitude or set of attitudes towards all or most of the members of a group. Discrimination is any situation in which a group or individual is treated unfavourably on the basis of arbitrary grounds, especially prejudice. Harassment is ‘vexing by repeated attacks’. Prejudice, discrimination and harassment not only ‘deafen’ their perpetrators to communication from the groups against which they are prejudiced or against which they practise discrimination, but cause members of those groups and other unprejudiced people to close down or distort their communication with the perpetrators. The potentially disastrous organizational consequences of prejudice and discrimination are well illustrated by this example: In the Saudi subsidiary of a Danish company, the management had decided to maintain the traditional Saudi Arabian organizational form. Therefore, the organization was stratified in what could be called an ethnically segregated hierarchy in which nationality defines all positions. Hence one had to be Saudi or European to be a manager and Egyptian to be a supervisor. … As one of the expatriates put it, ‘To have an Indian boss for a Saudi worker, that is almost impossible. Same with an Egyptian worker and an Indian boss, that is difficult in many cases as well. There exists some form of informal class division which divides people hierarchically dependent on where they come from. That is the general case for Saudi Arabia.’ This led to high levels of distrust among the nationalities employed, information withheld from staff who needed it, a suggestion seriously considered by managers to install video-cameras in workers’ homes and workers so alienated as to steal from the company.21 Table 9.1 gives examples of prejudice, discrimination and harassment directed at different cultures and subcultures. The text below gives details.

Prejudice In modern usage prejudice usually refers to an irrationally unfavourable or hostile attitude. It includes racism, sexism, homophobia and ageism. Religious prejudice, too, can be as potent and thoughtless as any of these. Prejudice gives rise to myths, such as that some dialects or accents indicate lower intelligence.

160  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK Table 9.1  Examples of prejudice, discrimination and harassment directed at different groups Type of Communication-Inhibiting Group Targeted Attitude/Behaviour

Example

Prejudice

National and ethnic ‘minorities’

Prejudice led to exclusion from top management positions of Chinese Singaporean employees in a French multinational corporation

Women

Prejudice leads to tendency to favour male leaders

Older adults

Messages addressed to older adults are shorter, less complex and more demeaning in tone

People who are differently-abled

People with visible impairments are made to feel worthless, unattractive and stressed by how others look at them

Ethnic minorities

Indirect discrimination in job selection

Women

Gender pay gap

Older workers

Higher redundancy rates and difficulty for anyone over 50 in obtaining employment following redundancy

Both genders, but type differs

64% of respondents to a global poll answered that they had been bullied: either physically hurt, driven to tears, or had their work performance affected

Discrimination

Harassment

Belonging to a coherent and unified group can ‘lend a veneer of legitimacy to prejudice and disinhibit its expression’, possibly because people can more easily explain such groups’ biases as a defence of collective interest.22 Research into how prejudice operates reveals some unexpected aspects. For example, people seem to be more, not less, willing to act in a prejudiced way after they have disagreed with blatantly sexist statements or made a job selection in favour of a member of a group against whom there is a widespread prejudice, such as a Muslim in Southern France. They might then reject a woman for a stereotypically male job or reject a member of a minority group for a job stereotypically suited to majority members. This behaviour may occur because they feel they have previously established their moral credentials and so act according to their prejudices.23 However, prejudice is better regulated and the quality of intergroup contact increases when members of groups feel acceptance from their outgroup.24

National and ethnic prejudice Between 1990 and 2000 most countries of Europe saw a decrease in ethnic prejudice as measured by the percentages stating that they would not want members of another race as neighbours.25 People in Western countries might, though, exhibit ‘aversive racism’ even though most would no longer explicitly deny ethnic equality. Aversive racism is defined in terms of feelings

of discomfort and uneasiness that motivate people to avoid ethnic outgroups and to maintain social distance from them.26 For example, white French subjects showed significantly different psycho-physiological responses, such as change of heartbeat rate, to pictures of outgroup members (Arabs) as against ingroup members (other white French). This applied even though, when self-report measures were used, the subjects did not exhibit anti-Arab prejudice.27 Prejudice even affects visual processing by supplementing objective information: experiments showed that participants acquired information about counter-stereotypic pairings (armed Whites, unarmed Blacks) more slowly than stereotypic pairings (armed Blacks, unarmed Whites).28 In a work context, findings from interviews with 219 ethnic minority and majority employees and managers, divided over 15 Dutch organizations, were that ethnic differences as such did not necessarily affect interethnic relations in a work setting; they did so only when they were meaningful to individuals or within a particular context. Examples of meaningful conditions included those where ethnic differences were perceived to affect people’s sense of achievement such as work goals, their sense of belonging, such as unity of the group, and their sense of equality, such as procedural justice. Such problems were reported more often when ethnic differences were associated with other types of diversity, such as information diversity and value diversity, than when the differences related to ethnicity alone.29

BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  161

Illustrating the possible damaging consequences of national prejudice at work is a finding that in a French multinational corporation ‘the stereotype of the “uncertainty avoidant” Chinese Singaporean employees was employed by the top manager … to lend legitimacy to the employees’ exclusion from top management positions. The converse argument was made that “uncertainty avoidance” is absent among the French, who are hence more qualified as … top managers.’ As the researchers noted, ‘Both claims were unfounded in this inquiry.’30

Gender prejudice There is clear evidence for gender prejudice. For example, a meta-analysis of research in which actual performance indicators were equalized between men and women found an overall tendency to favour male leaders. This bias was slight, but it was real. It was larger in the following conditions:

• Where • •

the woman leader’s style corresponded to male stereotypes (that is, was not interpersonal and participative). For roles usually occupied by men as against those occupied equally by both sexes or where the sex distribution was unknown. In some organizational contexts, such as sports and athletics coaching or business and manufacturing. The evaluation of male business managers was generally slightly more favourable than that of female business managers.

Men were more likely to devalue women than women were. Women were largely neutral.31

whom we know. It is the knowledge that each entry into the public world will be dominated by stares, by condescension, by pity and by hostility.’34 People whose difference in ability is invisible may fear ‘exposure’. The responses of people who are differently-abled to how others speak to them include shorter interactions, decreased eye contact and low verbal immediacy.35 These are ways of avoiding communication.

Who are the prejudiced? Perceptions of prejudice are themselves often biased. There is a tendency to believe that certain groups (such as older white male managers) are prejudiced or that its victims are members of certain groups (such as ­Bangladeshi women). That is, perceptions of prejudice are influenced by expectations about who is typically prejudiced about whom.36 In an interview with one of the present authors, the Personnel Director of a major UK car manufacturer said, We find that the stereotypes of who will be prejudiced are often wrong. We tend to think that it will be the older males, especially from the engineering or factory side, that will be most biased. Often, though, it’s the “young Turks” – mostly graduates – in Sales and Marketing. I think perhaps they see them – the women – as rivals, in a way the older ones don’t. False suspicions of prejudice, as well as prejudice itself, can create communication problems in a wide range of organizational, work, social and educational settings.  9.3.1 for more about prejudice.

Discrimination Age- and different-ability-based prejudice It has been shown that messages to negatively stereotyped older adults are shorter, less complex and more demeaning in tone. There is clear evidence that patronizing talk from younger individuals to older adults is common. It is likely that being spoken to in these ways affects how older adults communicate. Negative social experiences of these types adversely affect older adults’ ability to function.32 Gaze is influenced by the stereotypes and prejudices about people who are differently-abled. People with visible impairments can be made to feel worthless, unattractive and stressed by how others look at them. This happens especially in the medical context (some doctors perform ‘public stripping’), but also within everyday social interaction. When one person in an interaction has a visible impairment the other person gains privileged information and therefore power.33 According to Morris (1991), ‘It is not only physical limitations that restrict us to our homes and those

Discrimination is a widespread part of the context of work communication. All minority groups, including people who are differently-abled, religious minorities, LGBT people (­lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) and older people, as well as ethnic minorities and women, are affected by prejudice and discrimination both at work and in society more generally. Discrimination is a manifestation of prejudice that is often institutionalized and pervasive throughout an organization. Discrimination seriously reduces minority groups’ chances of obtaining employment, equal earnings and promotion. It also, of course, undermines organizations’ effectiveness by preventing the selection of the person best able to do the work.

Discrimination against ethnic minorities Despite extensive legal protection against discrimination in many countries, one problem that continues to affect

162  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

ethnic minorities is indirect discrimination: selection criteria, for instance, are applied equally to everyone but disproportionately affect members of particular groups. ‘Many of the ordinary, routine aspects of the recruitment market and the labour market may give rise to indirect discrimination – for example, the notion that candidates must “fit in”. If selectors hold stereotypes of minority ethnic groups which mean they do not “fit in”, indirect discrimination follows.’37

Discrimination against women There is clear evidence for discrimination against women globally in the form of the gender pay gap. The gender pay gap is not only in itself disadvantageous to women, it also supports and maintains the lesser status of women in society and helps to preserve the status quo with respect to gender roles; for instance, it can be argued that in itself it impedes women’s advancement in management because applicants’ current pay can influence hiring decisions.38 There are undoubtedly sectors, such as the insurance industry, where prejudice and discrimination are overt, but it may be indirect discrimination that is currently having more damaging effects on women at work. Indirect discrimination ranges from the lack of family-friendly policies in many organizations to the gendering of organizations. ‘Family-friendly policies’ is the term for the provision of childcare (and eldercare) resources and facilities, such as workplace nurseries, part-time, flexi-time, work-at-home, job sharing, compressed work weeks, extended lunch breaks and maternity and parenting leave. However, many European employers, including companies that employ a very large number of women, provide few if any of these benefits. Even where they exist, their value is limited. Organizational gendering refers to the existence and persistence of a male-dominant organizational culture and climate that occur through four distinct but interrelated processes: 1 the construction of gender divisions, with men almost always in the highest positions of organizational power; 2 the construction of symbols and images that explain, express or reinforce those divisions—such as language, dress and media image; 3 the gendered components of individual identity and presentation of self; and 4 the norms that demand ‘gender-appropriate’ behaviour and attitudes.39

Discrimination based on age Ageism, a term originating in about 1970, is discrimination against people, usually older people, on the grounds

of their age. Ageism has been blamed for people ageing poorly in Western societies. Discrimination directed against older people leads to higher redundancy rates among older employees and difficulty for anyone over 50, or in some cases 40, in obtaining employment following redundancy. Age prejudice is largely a problem of individualist Western cultures – in collectivist cultures elderly people are usually highly respected and their contribution is acknowledged. Fear of growing old among the young and middle-aged is a powerful factor in ageism. Age discrimination affects women particularly, as it reduces career prospects for women returning to work after ­childrearing. As Section 1.3 noted, however, demographic changes in the West may soon reduce the practical impact of ageism on older workers’ job prospects, but this will not necessarily reduce discrimination where employers are in a position to discriminate.  9.3.2 for more about discrimination, ­including discrimination against members of other subcultures. Give examples to clarify the distinction between prejudice, discrimination and harassment.

Harassment and workplace bullying Dictionaries define harassment as ‘vexing by repeated attacks’; this definition could also apply to bullying, but harassment is commonly applied in a sexual context.40 The main kinds of sexual harassment are non-verbal, such as pin-ups, leering, whistling and suggestive gestures; physical, such as unnecessary touching; verbal, such as unwelcome sexual advances, propositions or innuendo; intimidation, for instance offensive or superfluous comments about dress, appearance or performance; and sexual blackmail.41 A 2011 global poll found that 64 per cent of respondents answered that they had been bullied: either physically hurt, driven to tears, or had their work performance affected.42 Equal numbers of men and women reported that they were bullied at work, a European study found, but for women it was more likely to be sexual harassment by co-workers and for men more likely to be ­bullying by supervisors as well as co-workers. Poor social climate were significant ­ predictors of harassment and bullying for both genders, and both experienced feelings of stress, poor mental health and lowered job satisfaction as a consequence.43 It is not necessarily the quantity of the negative acts that cause the change in behaviour but the fact of being exposed to such acts at all, Danish research indicated.44 In Britain, few differences were found for the experience of self-reported bullying between workers,

BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  163

supervisors, or middle or senior managers. Workers and supervisors were more frequently exposed to negative acts, such as derogatory or exclusionary behaviour, than managers, who more often reported exposure to extreme work pressure. Women managers, however, were subjected to negative acts.45 Employees in a large telecommunications call ­centre used the term ‘bullying’ to describe difficult work ­situations, which they saw as imposed by the organization, as well as the oppressive behaviour of individuals, research found. The authors commented, ‘This additional narrative brings issues of power and politics in organizations to the fore.’46 One thing is clear: communication has a central role in workplace bullying – most of it is not physical. This raises a number of questions which, a 2012 paper argued, research has yet to resolve: how abuse manifests, how employees respond, why it is so harmful, why resolution is so difficult, and how it might be resolved.47  9.3.3 for more on harassment and workplace bullying.

The effects of prejudice, discrimination, harassment and bullying on interpersonal work communication The direct effects of prejudice are mainly discrimination and harassment. Both of these, in addition to their negative effects on individuals and organizations, are intrinsically barriers to communication, but so is prejudice itself, even when it is not overt. Prejudiced people distort and misread communication from those about whom they hold prejudiced views. Moreover, people who become aware of others’ prejudices about themselves or others are likely to reduce communication with them or to develop negative attitudes to the prejudiced individual’s opinions in general, regardless of how soundly based those other opinions may be. Prejudice is often displayed in negative micro-messages. These subtle, semiconscious, devaluing messages discourage and impair the target’s performance, possibly leading to lower employee productivity and morale and higher absenteeism and turnover – all critical to the success of a company. For example, micro-inequities conveyed by micro-messages occur within a team when a manager communicates different messages to different people. Individuals who belong to groups that have been historically excluded and devalued because of their difference may have stronger reactions to micro-inequities.48,49 Past experience of prejudice naturally affects the response of members of minority groups to communications they receive at work. Excuses, apologies and explanations, which are collectively called social accounts, can

defuse anger at work but may be counterproductive when used by members of dominant groups with members of minority groups; this is known as the persistent injustice effect. It has been demonstrated in work relations between White supervisors and Black subordinates.50  9.3.4 for further explanations of the ­consequences of micro-inequities and the persistent injustice effect. How might the persistent injustice effect be overcome in a work context?

Discrimination and harassment create barriers that go beyond the immediate situation, putting fear, resentment and even hatred into intercultural relations wherever they are experienced or heard about. Understanding and knowing about this is essential background for communicating across barriers created by difference. Without such understanding and knowledge, there can be no possibility of the awareness of sensitive issues, which, as Chapter 10 will show, is vital. The effects of discrimination on work communication depend partly, however, on how the negative behaviours of one group towards another are interpreted. It has been found that the more members of low-status groups endorse the ideology of individual mobility, the less likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from higher status group members to discrimination. Conversely, the more members of high-status groups endorse this same ideology, the more likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from low-status group members to discrimination.51 Gender discrimination is now often created and sustained more by communication micropractices than by overt discrimination. Women interviewed by Hatcher (2000), particularly those working for financial institutions, spoke eloquently of the ways in which they were excluded from organizational life. The topics of conversation, including the omission of topics such as parenting responsibilities, the styles of communication, the policing of female sexuality through the repression of involvement in banter, or the turning of the male gaze onto female bodies through innuendo and game-playing, all contributed to the performance of gender in organizations.52

9.4 DIFFERENT COMMUNICATION PRACTICES AS BARRIERS The cultural and subcultural differences in ways of communicating that were described in Chapters 5 and 8 can create barriers to intercultural communication. National,

164  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

ethnic, gender and social-class differences in how people speak and interact can lead to them being perceived as disorganized or poor thinkers or as being insulting. A survey found that respondents perceived the following dimensions of communication as problematic in their interactions with people of other nationalities: lack of language proficiency, transfer of mother-tongue patterns into a foreign language, mistaking a concept to mean the same in the other culture as in their own, use of a concept unfamiliar in the other person’s culture, words taken too literally or personally, use of directness or indirectness, particularly in criticism, self-presentation, acceptance of an offer or invitation, choice of topic, register or form of address perceived as unexpected or inappropriate, turntaking perceived as difficult, back-channelling perceived as unexpected or negative, use of silence perceived as excessive or insufficient, eye contact, smiles or gestures misinterpreted, for instance wrongly seen as inviting intimacy, use of space perceived as unexpected, territoriality behaviour and attitudes to time perceived as negative or unexpected, treating the other person on the basis of stereotyped views, gender attitudes and behaviour perceived as negative or unexpected and power-distance ­orientation perceived as negative or unexpected. Example comments from the respondents included the following: ‘I expected everybody to listen to what I had to say. This was not the case but the Italians interrupted me in what I considered to be a harsh way and started all to give their own opinion in chorus.’ ‘We were sitting in a

bus on an excursion with our group when she asked me if I shaved my legs. I was surprised at the question as I considered it all too personal to be asked in a public place.’ ‘An American fellow passenger kept asking too personal matters such as whether I was married and why I was not married.’53 All the respondents to this survey were Finnish, but it seems likely that many of the communication issues they found problematic would arise with people of other nationalities.  9.4.1 for examples of barriers linked to the communication practices of different groups.

This section aims to show how variations in the way particular communication functions are performed, described in Section 5.2, can lead to misunderstanding and even conflict in intercultural encounters. The practices covered include the functions of talk, encoding and decoding of messages, language issues, elaborated codes, the topic-comment structure of a communication, social knowledge, relevance, face issues, politeness, non-verbal behaviour, high-context/low-context communication, deceiving and detecting deceptions, communication strategies, conflict management and the functions talk is used for. Table 9.2 gives examples of how the communication practices of different groups can inhibit intercultural communication; the text gives more details and further examples.

Table 9.2  Impediments to intercultural communication resulting from the different communication practices of different groups Potentially Communication-Inhibiting Practice

Example

Functions of talk issues

Some women see talk as the essence of a relationship while some men use talk to exert control, preserve independence and enhance status; this can lead to misunderstanding and negative judgement of the other person.

Encoding and decoding barriers

When the language two intercultural interactors use converges, but their meanings diverge, misunderstanding is compounded by the participants believing that they have understood one another.

Language issues

Native English speakers assume that ‘I’m sorry’ means ‘I admit responsibility’; Japanese speakers mean ‘I acknowledge that you have suffered’ but not that they admit responsibility.

Barriers caused by codes

Using elaborated codes slows the pace at which relationships develop.

Topic-comment communication structure barriers

Topic-comment order varies between cultures and this can cause confusion.

Social knowledge barriers

A speech strategy that is inappropriate for the language being spoken: for instance, speaking loudly and forcefully in Japanese can give offence.

Relevance/intention barriers

A Western banker found that dealing with Turkish officials led to difficulty in conveying an intention to be ‘properly and prudentially’ cautious.

Face issues

Non-alignment or misalignment of strategies: people from one culture avoid face issues while people from another culture select strategies that defend their face.

BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  165

Table 9.2  (continued) Potentially Communication-Inhibiting Practice

Example

Politeness issues

Making a request is generally not a face-threatening act for North Americans so they can offend people such as the British for whom it is.

Non-verbal behaviour barriers

Asians often respond to embarrassment or being reprimanded by smiling or laughing. Westerners then misinterpret this as pleasure or agreement and the source of the difficulty is missed.

Trait and style barriers

Using a level of assertiveness which is appropriate in one culture with interactors from another may be seen as aggression.

High-context communication (HCC) and lowcontext communication (LCC) as barriers

When a speaker uses HCC, the problem for LCC receivers is literally to grasp their meaning.

Issues in detecting deceptions

The 50% rate of detecting deceptions intraculturally declines to 0% interculturally.

Communication strategy issues

In discussions with men, women’s communication strategies often express the subordinate, non-aggressive role allocated to women, but this can be misleading.

Conflict-handling issues

A person from a culture which endorses avoidance might well be made more hostile by the attempts to discuss the conflict openly made by someone whose culture endorses confronting issues.

Functions of talk issues Cultural and subcultural differences in what communication is used for can create barriers in intercultural communication. One function is to distribute control of the interaction; another is to determine the level of affiliation. Some women see talk as the essence of a relationship while some men use talk to exert control, preserve independence and enhance status. These differences can lead to misunderstanding of the discussion and negative judgement of the interlocutor.

Encoding and decoding barriers Intercultural communicators often have problems both in encoding their own messages so that they can be understood by the other party and in accurately decoding what the other party says. The ways in which meanings are made and the differences in meanings form a core problematic for intercultural communication. A particular problem can occur when the language two intercultural interactors use converges, but their meanings ­diverge – misunderstanding is then compounded by the participants believing that they have understood one another.54 Bias increases the encoding/decoding difficulty. Gallois and Callan (1986) considered that the results of their study of message decoding in Australia, described in Chapter 5, revealed that the negative attitudes of Anglo-Australians to Italian men were reflected in the difficulty they had in decoding these speakers when the Italian voice and accent were present. They concluded that the listeners’ own goals

and perception of the context as threatening may have led to an overall distortion of the speaker’s messages.55

Language issues Language is fundamentally ambiguous,56 giving rise to much confusion, especially for non-native speakers. For instance, in English, there is nothing in the words themselves to say, ‘This is the important point.’ That emphasis is supplied by the expectations each speaker has that the other speaker will use language in the same way that s/he does. In the case of spoken English this means they have to grasp the subtle English use of voice modulation. For example, questions can be expressed as statements spoken in a rising voice pitch, as in, ‘So you went to the bank this morning.’ This is a statement if spoken in a level pitch and a question if spoken in a rising pitch. Word order, too, is problematic for non-native speakers of many languages and affects written as well as spoken communication. There are subtleties of language use that enable receivers of messages spoken in their native language to draw accurate inferences about the communicators’ meanings. These subtleties will tend to escape non-native language users. Equally, the other source of inference, knowledge of the ‘world’, may be defective, when the speaker is from another culture, as the two participants’ ‘worlds’ will be influenced by their culture. For example, Kotani (2002) noted that native English speakers assume that ‘I’m sorry’ means ‘I admit responsibility’, and that the words closely represent the speaker’s feeling; conversely, Japanese speakers mean, ‘I acknowledge that you have suffered’, and there

166  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

can be little correspondence between the words and the feeling. This may lead to English speakers judging Japanese people insincere.57 Misunderstanding also arises interculturally because of misinterpreting the cues used to decide what kind of language event is occurring. Expectations about how conversational exchanges should develop, appropriate ways of speaking and the interpersonal relations and speaking rights of those involved are based on these cues, which may be missed or misread by people from outside the culture.58 Additional barriers are found when communicators have to use a language which is not the mother tongue of either. The lack of a shared language and low motivation to improve foreign-language proficiency may reinforce cultural barriers and status and power differences, according to a study of English-language communication between Nordic expats and Japanese colleagues. In combination, these can lead to extensive reliance on language intermediaries (interpreters), information filtering (passing on less than the whole message), ingroup/outgroup categorization (communicating differently with members of the individual’s ingroup and outgroup), receiver-centred communication (sometimes inappropriate attempts to adapt to the perceived understanding of the message recipient) and incongruent supervisor-subordinate expectations.59

Barriers caused by codes When people realize that they are interacting with someone from a different background, they usually adapt their discourse by using elaborated rather than restricted codes.60 This adaptation is necessary, but can mean that intercultural encounters are marked by formality. This formality slows the pace at which relationships develop while people from some (sub)cultures, such as the North Americans, find it unfriendly. In addition, adapting to the elaborated code places heavy demands on people’s communication resources.

Topic-comment communication structure barriers Communicators may either give the context of what they want to say first and then their main point, or vice-versa. Topic-comment order varies between cultures and this can cause confusion, especially in languages like English that, unlike Japanese, for instance, have no semantic way of marking the main subject. In the example given in Section 5.2, concerning a marketing campaign, the North American listener might grow impatient, especially if the reasons were elaborated, as they might well be. The North American might then be inattentive when the Asian speaker reached the point of proposing action. Conversely,

an Asian listener to the North American, expecting to hear the reason for any action first, might find this abrupt, or might interpret the opening sentence as the reason and become confused. Reword the following two sentences to change the topic-comment order of each: ‘Take the ring road to go to the factory because there are road works creating traffic holdups on the direct route, so if you go that way you will be late for your important meeting with the CEO of our client.’ ‘Because of difficulties in transit which have led to delivery delays and increases in packaging costs which are beyond our control, we have been forced to reconsider our pricing policy, leading to a new price structure from 1st November.’

Social knowledge barriers Intercultural communicators, even those with high technical understanding of the other culture’s language, will often be hampered by lack of social knowledge. For instance, they might not know the definitions and boundaries of situations that are well understood in the other culture, the precise nature of role relationships occurring in those situations or the linguistic and non-verbal codes to use.61 Errors result when people impose the social rules of their own (sub)culture in a situation where the social rules of another (sub)culture would be more appropriate. One type occurs when a speech strategy is employed which is inappropriate for the language being spoken: for instance, speaking loudly and forcefully in Japanese. Another type involves getting the balance between talk and silence wrong for the culture. On the other hand, attempting to adapt to the perceived needs of the person being spoken to can itself produce problems – for instance, using simplified ‘foreigner talk’ limits discussion as well as possibly giving offence.  9.4.2 for links to videos that make the point about how lack of shared knowledge impedes business collaborations.

Relevance/Intention barriers Communicators have to decide which is the relevant intention of various possibilities that might underlie a communication, as the discussion of speech acts in Section 5.2 demonstrated. In intercultural situations, however, using relevance to decide another person’s intention can create problems. The speaker may have a limited ability to make their intention correspond to the beliefs most likely to be

BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  167

relevant to the receiver. For instance, as the following quotation from an interview with a Western banker shows, dealing with Turkish officials created difficulty in conveying an intention to be ‘properly and prudentially’ cautious because of not knowing what beliefs would be relevant to them in the situation at issue: When presenting a privatization proposal to Turkish government officials, one issue is whether to give a balanced view, referring to potential problems, or not. Generally, Turkish history and culture predispose them to believe that any problems referred to are the tip of a very large iceberg and will actually prove fatal to the project. They are not used to working through problems; instead their experience is that problems cause failure. It makes it difficult to follow banking prudence nostrums – you do not know what to say that would make them realize you are being prudent without triggering alarm bells.62 A related issue concerns differences in what aspects of a communication, whether attitudes or roles, receivers notice; these can ‘have profound implications for the probability of conflict and the type of conflict that will develop between individuals and groups’.63

Face issues In uncertain situations, which may threaten people’s sense of their identity, they need to use active facework; this can create problems, however. Important work meetings, negotiations or interviews, which involve meeting people from another culture for the first time, are examples of uncertain situations. Culture influences people’s use of facework. For instance, people from one culture may choose strategies that avoid face issues while people from another culture select strategies that defend their face. Non-alignment or misalignment of facework strategies can lead to miscommunication – the people who are interacting misread each other’s signals and so respond inappropriately. This can lead to spiralling conflict.64 Give an example of misalignment of facework strategies.

Politeness issues Another source of intercultural communication problems arises from the miscommunication of politeness. As Ambady et al. (1996) speculated in a conclusion to research about cultural differences in politeness strategies, ‘Perhaps many misunderstandings that occur between cultures are due to the miscommunication of politeness.’65 What

constitutes a face-threatening act varies cross-culturally. For instance, making a request is generally a less facethreatening act for North Americans (as shown by their dictum ‘Always ask’) than to many British people. Again, while North Americans often show politeness through behaviours and language perceived as friendliness, Germans show it through what they might label respect. Many Germans stress honesty in encounters, leading to direct behaviour which North Americans sometimes consider rudeness; in contrast many North Americans use indirectness because they wish to be polite, which in their culture implies showing an agreeable attitude and therefore being indirect; Germans may consider that a high level of indirectness shows superficiality or insincerity.66

Non-verbal behaviour barriers Variations in the meaning of non-verbal behaviours such as kinesics, proxemics and speech delivery speed lead to misinterpretation.

Kinesics Asians in general tend to smile or laugh more readily than Westerners when they feel difficulty or embarrassment. Westerners then misinterpret this as normal pleasure or agreement and the source of the difficulty is missed.

Proxemics Hall (1959) put forward the notion of a ‘space bubble’ in which each individual moves and feels comfortable. The size of this space bubble varies by culture: Arabs and LatinAmericans feel comfortable with a smaller space bubble than Anglos. This leads them to stand closer, creating discomfort for an interacting Anglo, who may move backwards, thus giving an impression of unfriendliness to the Arab. Responses to perceived invasion of space have also been shown to differ between men and women. While men may respond aggressively, women tend to yield space rather than challenge the intruder.67

Speed of delivery of speech Faster speakers almost always evaluate slower speakers negatively. Thus Europeans and people from the northern USA often wrongly regard people from the southern states of the USA, whose culture inculcates slow speech, as slow thinking. Give your own examples of how differences in communication practices can give rise to misunderstanding.

168  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

Trait and style barriers Differences in argumentativeness, for instance, can create communication barriers. Again, the point has already been made that there are cultural differences in what counts as assertiveness and the value attached to it. Using a level of assertiveness which is appropriate in one culture with interactors from another will probably be seen as aggression or, on the other hand, over-submissiveness.

High-context communication (HCC) and low-context communication (LCC) as barriers Misunderstanding arises easily between users of HCC and LCC. When a speaker uses HCC, the problem for LCC receivers is literally to grasp their meaning: so much is left unsaid and they are not attuned to the implicatures and inferences being used, nor to the extensive use of non-verbal communication. Indirectness and an emphasis on relationship data compound the problem. When the speaker uses LCC, the problem for HCC receivers is less to grasp their overt meaning than to avoid over-interpreting and seeing inferences that may not be present. They may also be affronted by directness or the ‘brutality’ of the concentration on hard content; or simply suffer from information overload.

Issues in detecting deceptions Lie detection rates are generally low. They are slightly better than chance for ‘emotional’ lies and below it for ­non-emotional lies.68 Three types of assessment are generally used to decide whether a speaker is telling the truth: whether the speaker’s non-verbal behaviour breaches common expectations, whether the message being communicated is plausible, and how nervous the speaker is. People from a different background can misread all these indicators. When Americans and Jordanians were v­ ideotaped while telling lies and truths and other ­Americans and Jordanians watched the resulting videotapes and made lie detection judgements, results showed similar patterns of lie detection within each of the two cultures but no lie detection across cultures. In both the USA and Jordan, people who breached common expectations by avoiding eye contact and pausing in the middle of speaking were judged to be deceptive, but despite this no lie detection occurred across cultures.69 These low rates of lie deception in intercultural communication are barriers not only because being lied to successfully means that the receiver does not know the truth, or, indeed, believes a falsehood, about the matter

of the lie, but also that he or she does not truly understand the interlocutor. Again, successful liars are likely to lie again and an ethos of distrust can be created.

Communication strategy issues Differences of communication strategy can produce conflict, especially between members of different subcultures. For example, in discussions with men, women’s communication strategies often express the subordinate, non-aggressive role allocated to women, but this can be misleading. Soft-spoken women who use multiple hesitations and tag questions may nevertheless be highly determined and power-oriented; they may be deliberately, and even successfully, adopting a ‘feminine’ style or they may lack awareness of their own style and so miscommunicate their attitudes or intentions. Strategies designed to overcome the fear of seeming prejudiced may be counterproductive: avoiding talking about race [sic], or avoiding acknowledging racial difference during interracial interaction, predicts negative nonverbal behaviour and lowered ability to simultaneously display friendliness.70

Conflict-handling issues Cultural differences in how conflict is usually conducted may increase the difficulty of resolving intercultural conflicts. For example a person from a culture which endorses avoidance might well be made more hostile by the attempts to discuss the conflict openly made by someone whose culture endorses confronting issues. Triandis (2000) used the concept of cultural distance, which was explained in Chapter 2, to ‘measure’ how different two cultures are and found that conflict is greater when two cultures are very different than when they are similar.71 Some scholars dispute the idea that ­intercultural communication is a special kind of ­communication in which misunderstandings arise because the participants do not share meanings and ­communication practices. Instead, they argue, all communication requires interactors to go through a process to establish ­common ground. Misunderstandings are part of that process. ‘Existing research on intercultural ­misunderstandings usually explain them as caused by culturally ­different conventions … here misunderstanding is understood as part of the process of ­constructing a discursive ­interculture.’72 Consider this idea. What do you think?

BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  169

9.5 PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS AS BARRIERS Cultural differences affect intercultural encounters as different values, beliefs or worldviews are manifested and as culture creates differing expectations. All of the underlying psychological factors, which, as Chapters 6 and 8 showed, vary across cultures and subcultures, are capable of leading to behaviours that disturb effective intercultural communication. These include values, motives, emotions, beliefs, expectations, intentions and self-construals. The processes of social perception and thinking are similarly vulnerable.

Values Between people from different sides of cultural divides, communication can be inhibited by non-acceptance of the others’ values. For example, the attempt of someone with high power from a high power-distance society to receive the attentions ‘due’ to their status will grate on people from more egalitarian communities. On the other hand, people from low power-distance cultures can also cause difficulties when they work in high power-distance societies. For instance, university lecturers in Central Europe may regard the egalitarianism between students and staff, which is now usual in British universities, as damaging the learning process by undermining their authority. Both deep and surface cultural values can be problematic in intercultural communication: deep culture because communication which conflicts with others’ values is very likely to be misunderstood, rejected and found offensive; surface culture because it determines matters such as what is polite and what is not. For example, in the West to proffer the wrong hand for a hand shake is a mere error; to do so in Arab countries is a grave offence against

manners. Sometimes the problem is one of false interpretation; at other times, there are genuine differences in values that, when accurately communicated, create negative responses. It is probable that differences in education and upbringing between the French and British, both of which may be rooted in differences in their cultural levels of uncertainty avoidance, do lead at least some of the people of these two nations to approach issues differently. It is also quite possible that both have low tolerance for the other’s approach.  9.5.1 for examples of communication problems resulting from errors in interpretation. Give examples to show the effects on communication of surface-level and deep-level culture.

Table 9.3 illustrates the possible effects of contrasting cultural values on communication. As that table implies, the negative attitudes of both universalistic and particularistic thinkers towards people who think and speak differently can lead to poor listening – a lack of serious attention and consideration of the views being expressed or the information being imparted. When these attitudes to others are transmitted, often unintentionally, to the person to whom they apply, a natural reaction for them is to withdraw, reducing the amount of communication they offer, or to get angry. Either reaction can lead to a breach in communication. Again, people from diffuse cultures are likely to terminate relations with people from specific cultures who use direct speech in order to avoid confrontation. Many similar examples could be cited to show how differences in values lead to miscommunication as it is broadly defined.74 Several of the core cultural values can constitute barriers to communication in themselves, regardless of whether intercultural communication is at issue. For example, if

Table 9.3  Possible effects on communication of contrasting cultural values73 Contrasting Cultural Values

Possible Effects on Communication

Universalism preference for drawing general principles versus Particularism preference for anecdotes or lists of specific items

People who think and speak in universal modes can underrate the quality of thinking of those who think and speak particularistically. Conversely, particularistic thinkers can regard universalistic thinkers as ‘academic’ and out of touch with the real world.

Specificity private life occupies a small area clearly separate from public life versus Diffuseness private and public life overlap extensively

Direct speech by people from specific cultures can offend people from diffuse cultures for whom it is impossible not to take things personally. For them losing face is ‘what happens when something is made public which people perceive as being private’.

170  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

everyone were an extreme individualist, one might predict a world of poor communication – individualists show low concern for ‘other face’; if all were collectivists, one could predict poor communication and conflict between groups. Collectivists erect barriers to communication with outgroup members, regardless of whether those outgroup members are themselves collectivists or not. People in high power-distance cultures erect barriers against those in a different power position from themselves. High uncertainty avoidance leads to reluctance to engage in uncertain communication situations regardless of whether they are with culturally different people. High masculinity as a trait (as opposed to a value) has been shown to correlate with low ability to ‘read’ others’ emotional states or to express emotion; it seems probable that the equivalent value tends to lead to similar communication deficiencies. Interethnic differences in values were one reason why interethnic conversation was often unsatisfying and did not go smoothly, American research revealed. African Americans’ core values include sharing (which endorses the ingroup, reflects collectivism and implies bonding), uniqueness (individuality), positivity (emotional vitality), realism (‘tellin’ it like it is), and assertiveness. European Americans prioritize the individual, the right to choose, the self, traditional social roles, being honest, sharing and communication. Even where the labels were the same, they were understood differently: for European Americans sharing meant sharing opinions, not bonding; honesty meant expressing one’s true understanding rather than realism; their ‘self’ implied less interpersonal connectedness than African Americans’ ‘uniqueness’ implied.75

Emotions Trompenaars (1993) contended that the amount of visible display of emotion is a major difference between cultures.76 These differences in culturally inculcated rules for emotional display can create severe difficulties for participants in intercultural encounters. The English, with their famous stiff upper lip, have traditionally been embarrassed, to the point where their ability to empathize or sympathize was subverted, by the more demonstrative displays of affection and grief shown by Mediterranean people. The same applies to subcultures – men in Western cultures often fear the ‘emotionalism’ of women, and so take the route of avoidance. The gender differences here may, however, be more closely related to culturally induced differences in what it is legitimate to display than in the real level of emotion. In addition to the obstacles created by these cultural differences, the intercultural encounter itself often gives rise to emotions that can create further barriers. For

example, in international negotiations, increasingly negative emotional reactions can cause ill will, harm the negotiation process and even bring it to an end. ‘In negotiations between Japanese and US negotiators, the latter may be prone to experiencing frustration and the former may be prone to experiencing anxiety. The anxiety of the Japanese negotiators results in increasing frustration on the part of the US negotiators, leading to a vicious circle of increasingly negative feelings.’77 Again, in encounters between people who are and people who are not differently-abled, anxiety, as well as negative stereotypes and expectations, affects both parties and leads to miscommunication. The two emotions discussed below are directly linked to communication and create difficulties for some intercultural interactors.

Communication fear or apprehension (CA) CA, which was described in Chapter 6, impedes communication. Individuals who experience high CA ask few questions during the first minute of an interaction, engage in ‘over-high’ levels of self-disclosure and are considered less competent by their communication partners. ‘Individuals who experience high levels of CA are high in global uncertainty and lack expertise when playing out acquaintance scenarios.’78

Intercultural communication apprehension (ICA) ICA is the fear of communicating with people from differ-

ent cultures or with ‘different others’ in general. Suffering from ICA may in some cases be an individual trait – it can be predicted from a person’s emotionality, sociability and self-control. There is evidence that emotional intelligence manages and/or reduces ICA.79 ICA is often objectively unjustified. On structured communication tasks interethnic dyads such as a French Canadian with an English Canadian, were just as efficient at communicating with each other as intra-ethnic dyads, such as a French Canadian with a French Canadian. Likewise, in the unstructured situation of a free interaction, mixed-ethnicity pairs showed the same pattern of conversational topics, did not take longer to begin communicating and did not talk less than same-ethnicity pairs. Yet, despite this evidence that interethnic communication can be as successful as intra-ethnic communication, it has been found that not only did subjects enter these intergroup encounters with negative expectations but they also left them with an unfavourable impression of what had been achieved. Such negative perceptions no doubt serve as an important deterrent to future intergroup interaction.80

BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  171

Other sources of emotional discomfort in intercultural encounters Emotional discomfort can arise in intercultural encounters from other causes:

• Disconfirmed expectations: being upset not because a • • •

• • • •

situation is bad, in and of itself, but rather because it is not what was expected. A frustrated desire to belong: not being part of the ingroup of a culture; always feeling like an outsider. This feeling can be provoked by physical difference – being tall and fair among people who are short and dark – or the perceived attitudes of the culture’s members. Ambiguity: not being sure what is ‘going on’ or how to interpret events. Confrontation with one’s own prejudices: in being socialized into their own culture, people learn to categorize people as ‘like me’ and ‘not like me’, and develop ways of treating people in those two groups differently. In another culture, where all or a majority of people are ‘not like me’, they have to rethink how they treat other people. Sometimes they may be dismayed to find themselves prejudiced. Awareness of inadequacy: anxiety is caused by not knowing if a given behaviour is appropriate, what is safe, how to negotiate a situation and so on.81 Feeling overwhelmed and needing to withdraw. Fatigue from the need to concentrate continuously. Evoked emotions also have the potential to influence the emotions that are experienced during the current interaction. These are emotions attached to past experiences with a particular other party or with people from a related group. Negative past intercultural experiences can evoke negative emotions in current intercultural interactions.

(Some of these points relate particularly to sojourning, which is discussed later, in Section 10.10.) It is not, of course, the emotion itself that constitutes a communication barrier: it is how individuals respond to that emotion. If their response is withdrawal or aggressiveness, communication is impeded. Having strong emotional reactions to intercultural situations is normal, and one of the skills of becoming interculturally competent is learning how to deal with such emotions in productive ways, which are described in Chapter 10.

Beliefs Probably more disagreement arises over differences in conscious beliefs than anything else. Disagreement should

not be confused with miscommunication, even on a broad view. However, to the degree that conflict can be taken as a measure of miscommunication, the amount of conflict prevailing throughout history and still raging today around issues of religion is an indication of how these kinds of beliefs produce barriers. Huntington (1997) argued that intercultural conflicts centred on beliefs are perhaps the most intractable of all. While ideological differences can at least be debated, and differences in material interests negotiated, core beliefs are not negotiable or even discussable: Hindus and Muslims are unlikely to resolve the issue of whether a temple or a mosque should be built at Ayodhya by building both, or neither, or a syncretic building that is both a mosque and a temple. Similarly, neither French authorities nor Muslim parents are likely to accept a compromise which would allow schoolgirls to wear Muslim dress every other day during the school year. Cultural questions like these involve a yes or no, zero-sum choice.82 Chapter 6 introduced a set of beliefs, consisting of authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, Protestant work ethic, humanitarianism–egalitarianism, beliefs about the malleability of human attributes and beliefs about diversity. The first three of these belief systems are linked to prejudice, which, as Section 2 of the current chapter showed, distorts and damages communication:

• Authoritarianism and social dominance orientation

•

(SDO) are associated with negative attitudes towards policies that promote equality across gender, social class, ethnic or racial groups, and sexual orientation, and towards the groups that would benefit from such policies. In North America, people who agree with SDO are more likely to agree with sexism, racism, and ethnocentrism even than people who agree with authoritarianism. People who agree with the Protestant work ethic (PWE) in the USA tend to dislike those who are overweight and to be prejudiced toward racial minorities. This follows directly from beliefs that people who have worse outcomes are responsible for them.

The other three belief systems, humanitarianism–egalitarianism, positive beliefs about the malleability of human attributes and positive beliefs about diversity, are linked to low levels of prejudice. For instance, holders of these beliefs tend to attribute Blacks’ negative outcomes, such as experiencing discrimination, to causes located outside

172  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

of the individual, believe that society, rather than the individual, should change to improve those outcomes, agree less strongly with stereotypes of ethnic and occupational groups and less readily form extreme trait judgements of unfamiliar groups.83 Kincaid (1988) wrote, ‘Absolute certainty ­renders communication inoperable.’84 Consider this ­contention in relation to the material on core beliefs here and in Chapter 6.

Assumptions Making false assumptions based on the situation in someone’s own culture can lead to impeding communication through giving or taking offence by, for example, not giving deference where it is expected or expecting it where it will not be granted. Who is important, whom it would be useful to get to know and who is to be respected may be different in one culture than it is in another. A religious leader may be more important in one culture, someone with wealth in another. In one culture Black people may be the insiders, in another it may be South Asians. People who are insiders in their own culture, due to their economic, professional or educational status, may be outsiders in another culture, because their skills are not important there, or because of ethnicity or gender, or simply because they are from another culture and can never be fully accepted in the host culture.

Expectations Violations of expectations, including role and norm expectations, often lead to people evaluating the violator negatively. People have expectations about both the verbal and the non-verbal behaviour of others, based on social and cultural norms, previous experience with the situation and, where applicable, previous experience of the other person. These expectations refer both to how they think others do behave and to how they think others should behave. However, as norms for behaviour vary from social group to social group, these expectations are often violated in intercultural encounters. For instance, in the European American middle-class subculture of the USA, ‘one expects normal speakers to be reasonably [sic] fluent and coherent in their discourse, to refrain from erratic movements or emotional outbursts and to adhere to politeness norms’.85 What counts as reasonable fluency and coherence, erratic movement, emotional outburst or politeness varies considerably from one culture and subculture to another, so European American middle-class people interacting with many other groups in the world are likely to have their expectations violated. Insofar as fear

of violations of expectations means that people expect interactions with people from outside their own social circle to be more costly in terms of effort than rewarding in terms of social gain, people may be more inclined to avoid such interactions.86

Intentions Inferring the intentions of a speaker, which, as Chapter 5 showed, is crucial to communication, is highly problematic for receivers from another culture. Some of the problems have already been pointed out in the discussion of language ambiguity.

Personality, identity and self-construals There is evidence that several of the Big Five personality dimensions correlate with how well or badly people perform in an international setting. For example, introversion is negatively related to how well people interact with host nationals – how adaptive they are; low agreeableness is related to poor adjustment to living in a foreign context; low openness to experience is related to difficulty in working well in an intercultural team and lack of willingness to perform citizenship behaviour in that context; and emotional instability increases a person’s difficulty in managing stress and interacting effectively with others in an international setting.87 Another factor is the different self-construals held by people from different cultures. This applies particularly to interactions between people from individualist and collectivist cultures. It means that each party is likely to make false assumptions about members of the other party. For instance, ‘Asians will possibly overestimate a Westerner’s concern about his [sic] group’s response to an issue, while a Westerner is likely to assume a greater degree of independence on the part of an Asian with whom he is negotiating.’88

Social perception and thinking The processes of social perceiving are also subject to difficulties and errors particular to intergroup and intercultural encounters. The increased tendency to make errors when making intergroup attributions was noted in Chapter 4. Categorization is another error-prone process; there is evidence that some people categorize narrowly and both some of them and some others categorize rigidly. Narrow categorizers group together only cases that are closely similar on a particular criterion: for instance, a narrow categorizer might apply the label ‘manager’ only to people who are responsible for the work of others. Broad categorizers, in contrast, allow more cases to fit into the

BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  173

same category by using an increased number of criteria. Thus, broad categorizers might count as managers people who manage budgets or brands as well as those who manage people. Both narrow and broad categorizers might be flexible or rigid categorizers, willing or unwilling to shift their category ‘definitions’ on receiving new information. There is, though, a tendency for rigidity and narrowness to go together. Rigidity and narrowness, especially when combined, create obstacles to intercultural communication by leading people to overemphasize differences and ignore similarities and by reducing their willingness to search for appropriate interpretations of different others’ behaviour. Finally, (sub)cultural differences in logic style, learning style and problem-solving, such as those described in Chapter 4, obviously impede mutual understanding.

9.6 WORK-SPECIFIC BARRIERS A number of issues arise in the work context to limit intercultural communication effectiveness. These are often related to different beliefs and expectations about what is appropriate behaviour at work, and might not apply equally to private life. Research on multicultural business meetings ‘suggests that attributing difficulties, miscommunications, or communication behaviour solely to linguistic and cultural differences, or to an interactant’s membership in a national culture, overlooks social and organizational roles as well as other important situational factors, especially those related to business issues’.89 Thus culture, the (work) situation and other factors combine to create communication issues. For example, four kinds of communication tensions surfaced most frequently in intercultural workplace interactions between professionals, regardless of whether the interactions took place face-to-face or by cmc, a study found. These tensions resulted from differences in the expected level of formality, ‘fixed’ versus flexible appointments, task versus social orientation and the range of emotional expressions exhibited. For instance, a professional from Germany said of interacting with French people by email, ‘French people, … they easily write very emotional words. … Like my boss always likes to say, “If we don’t do this today, then we will all die!” … I find it stressful sometimes when people need to be so emotional in their conversations and in their emails.’90  9.6.1 for other examples of how cultural differences in emotional expression, level of formality, ‘fixed’ versus flexible appointments and task versus social orientation create tensions.

Two areas have attracted particular attention: the effects of the heterogeneity of problem-solving and task groups and task-related conflict.

Heterogeneity of work groups Because organizations are increasingly moving to teambased job design, communication within both task groups and decision-making groups is increasingly important. This has led to research being undertaken into the effects of heterogeneity of work groups on how well people working in them communicate and on related matters such as their creativity. Heterogeneity is associated with lower levels of groups’ social integration, according to a study of 20 actual work units with 79 respondents. This, in turn, is associated with higher staff turnover. Group members more distant in age are the ones likely to leave. ‘Individuals in an age-heterogeneous [work] group have higher turnover rates, as do individuals distant in age from an otherwise homogeneous group.’ One possible explanation comes from an earlier finding that after controlling for an individual’s demographic characteristics, the greater the difference in superior–subordinate dyads, in terms of age, education, race [sic] and sex, the lower the supervisor’s rating of the subordinate’s effectiveness and the higher the subordinate’s role ambiguity. If subordinates experience ‘prejudiced’ assessments when they are in a mixed work group or when they are different in background from their supervisor, they may decide that the easiest solution is to leave.91

Task-related conflict There is clear evidence for poor work relations in intercultural situations. For instance, studies of Chinese–American joint ventures reported the following:

• ‘[Chinese] workers … evaluated Chinese managers by •

a simple standard: whoever quarrelled with Americans the most aggressively would be considered comrade in arms, and whoever co-operated with the Americans would be nicknamed “Er Gui Zi” (fake foreigners).’92 ‘American managers complained that the Chinese did not recognize the importance of deadlines and schedules; that the Chinese were not proactive and would not take risks; that the Communist party representative at the firm often had more power than the Chinese managers; and that the hardship of working in China was a chronic stressor, which exacerbated intercultural conflict. The Chinese managers complained that Americans did not try to understand and learn from the Chinese; that the American management style was too abrupt; that Americans failed to recognize the

174  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

importance of relationships; and that they overemphasized the importance of formal rules and regulations. “The atmosphere [at Beijing Jeep] became so tense that even the most trivial business dealings between the American and Chinese became bogged down in charges and countercharges.” ’93 Larkey (1996) proposed that there are five dimensions of interaction in culturally diverse groups at work.94 Being dimensions, they have positive as well as negative poles, but it is the negative poles that are most often associated with workforce diversity. The dimensions are inclusion/exclusion, convergence/divergence, conforming/varied ideation, understanding/misunderstanding and positive/ negative evaluation:

• Exclusion in the workplace is the practice of margin-

•

•

alizing members of certain groups by limiting contact and restricting entry into certain job areas. The related communication behaviours include simple exclusion from conversations. This is done by avoidance or starting conversations only when selected individuals are absent or by non-verbally or linguistically excluding outsiders who are present. Other exclusions are changes in the content of information, especially to exclude individuals from job-related information, either deliberately or by the assumption that they are not appropriate recipients, the use of privileged forms of discourse and exclusion from the normative expectations. Convergence means adjusting ways of speaking (such as style, dialect, rules and primary language choice) to match those of a partner perceived as different or to show a wish for affiliation; divergence is adherence to one’s own way in spite of perceived differences or even increasing the difference. It is open to individuals in diverse work groups to diverge deliberately in order to increase social distance. Conforming ideation means suppressing divergent points of view and converging towards normative views in decision-making; varied ideation is the reverse.

•

•

A climate of conforming ideation is likely to lead to suppressing the views of minorities. Misunderstanding here means the mismatching of expectations and meanings for people in interaction. Both employees and managers are predisposed to interpret the communication of others according to specific culture-based expectations. For instance, views of what makes a good leader or a good employee may vary substantially, leading to misinterpretations of the behaviour of individuals in those roles. Among the resulting communication practices are complaints of inappropriate responses or expectations. Negative evaluations can be explained by perceptions of ingroup/outgroup membership and associated responses to social identity, reinforced by stereotyping (the communication of even positive stereotype beliefs may elicit negative responses from those being categorized). The resulting behaviours include harassment, overt statements of negative stereotyping and stories with negative implications.

Figure 9.3 shows the relationship that may exist between cultural diversity in groups and the above five communication practices.

9.7 (SOME) ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURES Organizational cultures that are negative for diversity act as impediments to effective intercultural communication both internally and in the external relations in which their employees take part. Organizations and their managers are sometimes highly conscious of the disadvantages of diversity. They are aware of the difficulties involved in reaching agreement, standardizing procedures and working in parallel on aspects of a project when individuals from a range of cultural or subcultural backgrounds are involved. For many organizations the cost of diversity is highly visible. It includes the

Figure 9.3  Sources of communication problems and conflict in diverse work groups High exclusion of ‘others’ from discussions High cultural diversity in work group

High divergence from ‘others’ communication patterns

High misunderstanding

Negative evaluations

Suppression of divergent points of view Conflict

BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  175

negative reactions to diversity in the workplace by some employees. Indeed, the main diversity goal of many organizations might be described as to minimize the costs diversity entails. In other companies, Diversity programs are not usually seen as critical to the survival of the company, even though statements are made about markets and bottom lines. No one in the organization is likely to lose his or her job if they don’t ‘value’ diversity the way they could if the production of goods and the selling of goods and services are not improved. Thus, diversity can be seen as a discretionary activity to be postponed when more pressing situations are faced.95 Furthermore, a negative trend for diversity support has been noted in recent years: employers have increasingly turned to ‘employee fit’ as a formal job requirement and have retreated from detailed bureaucratic structures in ways that place heightened importance on social relations. ‘These structural moves raise new concerns about workplace equality, for they strengthen demands to conform with prevailing work culture by making social relations more crucial to an individual’s employment success.’96 Hofstede (1981) identified six organizational culture dimensions which were described in Section 4.2. These differences in organizational cultures can be linked to how well the organization supports diversity:

• As process-oriented cultures cannot tolerate a range of •

• • •

approaches, they may well support diversity less well than the alternative results-oriented cultures, which can accept different approaches provided the results are satisfactory. Organizations with job-oriented cultures assume a narrower responsibility for employees’ well-being than those with employee-oriented cultures. Obviously, in organizations with a diverse workforce a job-oriented culture is less likely to ensure that all individuals have opportunities for advancement. A parochial organizational culture is likely to be linked with a degree of xenophobia or distrust of outsiders. Such distrust can make diversity costly because of the amount that existing employees must adapt. Closed systems cultures are likely to be less accessible to minorities than open systems cultures as well as less capable of benefiting from the increased sensitivity to the environment which diversity makes possible. Tightly controlled cultures are less able than loosely controlled cultures to tolerate the behavioural differences which come with diversity; tightly controlled

•

cultures require all individuals to conform to a single model. Since flexibility is both a necessary condition for and an outcome of diversity, normative cultures are less well adapted to benefit from it than pragmatic cultures are.97

In most organizations, at present, one culture is dominant. In the UK organization The Body Shop, the dominant culture is that of white liberal women, which favours ‘feminine’ values, such as care for the environment and the support of equal opportunities. This is exceptional, however. The pervasiveness of the masculine culture in most Western organizations has been noted by a number of researchers: the expectations of this workplace culture are masculine heterosexual. These expectations create difficulties for gay people of both sexes and transgenders, as well as for heterosexual women. According to Collinson and Hearn (1996) this culture is reinforced through joking, which often has a focus round three ‘rules’ of sexuality: the ideal, typical, real man, definitions of males as not-female and the normality of heterosexuality.98 Men’s continuing domination of the most powerful positions in most organizations results in a widespread emphasis on power and control over people, resources, environments and events as the only path to corporate success; worse, in the late twentieth century, in many organizations abrasiveness and macho approaches like working extremely long hours came to be valued for themselves. While the end of the 1990s saw the pendulum swing to some degree against this, performance evaluations in many British and North American companies continued to be heavily based on personal power and control. Organizations with a strong dominant culture force those from the ‘minority’ cultures (who may or may not be in a numerical minority) to adjust their behaviour to accommodate it. Worse, they may not even be able to admit to having values which conflict with those of the dominant group. This not only creates stressful internal conflict for those individuals, but sets up a climate in which creativity is hampered, because too many points of view are inhibited, thus ruling out the conditions favourable to creativity. Such a climate may also be one in which the damage done by groupthink (lack of challenge to majority views) can most readily occur. ­Moreover, as Schreiber (1996) noted, such organizations curb productivity because workers ‘who assimilate are denied the ability to express their genuine selves in the workplace.… People who must spend significant amounts of energy coping with an alien environment have less energy left to do their jobs.’99

176  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

9.8 BARRIERS TO MEDIATED INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION Significant cultural differences have been found in cmc use in an organizational setting. These cultural differences might hinder extensive intercultural collaboration. For example, Chinese employees make more use than Americans of instant messaging (IM); as a result, in the words of the researchers, ‘a Chinese employee who has established a working style incorporating use of IM for prompt and negotiable communication with her Chinese colleagues may find it difficult to work with new colleagues from the West.’100 In some cultures, such as those where members of outgroups may be distrusted, speakers or writers must have a readily discernible and stable identity in order for a given audience to attend to their message. In cmc, however, online identity is easy to create or change; this can mean that cmc contradicts the norms that members of certain cultures use to govern communication practices, especially in terms of to whom they should pay attention: For example, if an individual from cultures with a strong disposition toward social networks receives an e-mail message that lacks many of the non-verbal cues essential to establishing the identity the sender claims in the message [how would they react]? Moreover, if individuals from such cultures (cultures in which a person’s word is often their bond) see how easily cmc messages can be altered and reposted, would those individuals be willing to use the online environment to introduce new people or new ideas or to give earnest advice knowing that their words (and their reputations) might be altered and reposted by others?101 These concerns may impede the use of both intracultural and intercultural cmc for members of such cultures.

CHAPTER 9 SUMMARY

• Language •

barriers can impede participation and knowledge sharing, isolate non-fluent speakers of the language used in the workplace and limit co-workers’ trust in one another. When work interactions or relationships are regarded by participants as intergroup, the outgroup co-variation effect, ingroup favouritism and social distance can undermine them and lead to greater complexity, anxiety, false attributions, ethnocentrism, rejection and resentment of any criticism, and increased

•

•

•

•

•

competitiveness. Stereotypes distort communication when they lead people to base their messages, their ways of transmitting them and their reception of them on false assumptions. These distortions occur most often in communication between members of different cultures and societal groups. Some kinds of prejudice may be diminishing but still are widely prevalent and lead to transmitting negative micro-messages. Discrimination, too, persists everywhere, including in Europe, although in some places more than others and in different countries it is directed mainly against different groups. Indirect discrimination and micro-inequities may be more common than blatant discrimination. Harassment and workplace bullying are also widespread. Experience of prejudice, discrimination or harassment naturally affects the responses of members of minority groups. The consequences for both individuals and organizations are seen in ill-health, high absentee and attrition rates as well as in communication breakdowns that impair performance. Changes to the legal framework in some countries, such as those of the EU, give some hope for improvement. The functions for which talk is used, encoding and decoding of messages, language ambiguity, inferences, elaborated codes, the topic-comment structure of a communication, social knowledge, relevance, face issues, politeness, non-verbal behaviour, high-context/ low-context communication, detecting deceptions, communication strategies and conflict management are all communication practices that may be influenced by culture and so prone to create intercultural misunderstanding. Again, differences of social background, such as in gender, age, ethnicity and religion not only affect how people communicate but also may be a serious cause of miscommunication. The psychological factors and processes underlying communication behaviour can contribute to miscommunication between people from different groups. To date, most attention has been paid to the barriers created by different values, by emotions, especially fear, and by the violation of expectations. The cultures of the organization or organizations for which communicators work may create a climate which adversely impacts their communication. Processoriented, job-oriented, parochial, closed-system, tightly controlled and normative organizational cultures may increase intercultural communication problems at work. Some dominant organizational cultures impede creativity and reduce the productivity of minority members. Cultural norms may prevent intercultural communication by cmc from being effective.

BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  177

Now that you have read this chapter, consider this question: Findings based on 326 respondents suggest that Arab customers are more ­comfortable—­more satisfied with the service encounter and more willing to provide ­feedback—if the employee is the same gender. To what would you attribute this finding?

13 14 15

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Chen, I. (2003) ‘Conversation orientation and cognitive processes: a comparison of US students in initial interaction with native- versus non-native-speaking partners’, Human Communication Research, 29: 182–209. 2 Burke, K. (1966) Language as Symbolic Action, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 3 Krishnasamy, H.N., Hussein, M.H. and Dalib, S. (2014) ‘Intercultural interaction experiences in a tertiary level institution in Malaysia’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 155: 465–70. 4 Elachachi, H.H. (2015) ‘Exploring cultural barriers in EFL Arab learners’ writing’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199: 129–36. 5 Welch, D.E. and Welch, L.S. (2008) ‘The importance of language in international knowledge transfer’, Management International Review, 48(3): 339–60. 6 Buckley, P.J., Carter, M.J., Clegg, J. and Tan, H. (2005) ‘Language and social knowledge in foreign-knowledge transfer to China’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 35(1): 47–65. 7 Tenzer, H., Pudelko, M. and Harzing, A.W. (2013) ‘The impact of language barriers on trust formation in multinational teams’, Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5): 508–35. 8 Von Glinow, M.A., Shapiro, D.L. and Brett, J.M. (2004) ‘Can we talk, and should we? Managing emotional conflict in multicultural teams’, Academy of Management Review, 29(4): 578–92. 9 Joshi, A.M. and Lahiri, N. (2014) ‘Language friction and partner selection in cross-border R&D alliance formation’, Journal of International Business Studies, 46(2): 123–52. 10 Based on Rogers, E. and Kincaid, D. (1981) Communication Networks: Toward a New Paradigm in Research, New York, NY: Free Press. 11 Holoien, D.S., Bergsieker, H.B., Shelton, J.N. and Alegre, J.M. (2015) ‘Do you really understand? Achieving accuracy in interracial relationships’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1): 76–89. 12 Wiemann, J.M. and Giles, H. (1988) ‘Interpersonal communication’, in Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W., Codol,

16

17

18

19

20 21

22

23 24

25

J.-P. and Stephenson, G.M. (eds) Introduction to Psychology, Oxford: Blackwell. Hewstone, M. and Jaspars, J. (1984) ‘Social dimensions of attributions’, in Tajfel, H. (ed.) The Social Dimension vol. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Detweiler, R. (1975) ‘On inferring the intentions of a person from another culture’, Journal of Personality, 43: 591–611. Hornsey, M.J., Oppes, T. and Svennsson, A. (2002) ‘ “It’s ok if we say it, but you can’t”: responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 32: 293–307. Paolini, S., Harwood, J. and Rubin, M. (2010) ‘Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12): 1723–38. Mustafa, H., Hamid, H.A., Ahmad, J. and Siarap, K. (2012) ‘Intercultural relationship, prejudice and ethnocentrism in a computer-mediated communication (cmc): a timeseries experiment’, Asian Social Science, 8(3): 34. Makela, K., Kalla, H.K. and Piekkari, R. (2007) ‘Interpersonal similarity as a driver of knowledge sharing within multinational corporations’, International Business Review, 16(1): 1–22. Hewstone, M. and Giles, H. (1986) ‘Social groups and social stereotypes in intergroup communication: review and model of intergroup communication breakdown’, in Gudykunst, W.B. (ed.) Intergroup Communication, London: Edward Arnold. Leonard, R. and Locke, D. (1993) ‘Communication stereotypes: is interracial communication possible?’ Journal of Black Studies, 23(3): 332–43. Lauring, J. (2011) ‘Intercultural organizational communication: The social organizing of interaction in international encounters’, International Journal of Business Communication, URL: http://job.sagepub. com/content/early/2011/05/06/0021943611406500. abstract. Last accessed 17 July 2016. Effron, D.A. and Knowles, E.D. (2015) ‘Entitativity and intergroup bias: how belonging to a cohesive group allows people to express their prejudices’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2): 234–48. Monin, B. and Miller, D.T. (2001) ‘Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1): 33–43. Kunstman, J.W., Plant, E.A., Zielaskowski, K. and LaCosse, J. (2013) ‘Feeling in with the outgroup: Outgroup acceptance and the internalization of the motivation to respond without prejudice’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3): 443–57. Halman, L. and Kerkhofs, J. (2001) The European Values Study: Selected Results, URL: www.romir.ru

178  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

26

27

28

29

30 31 32

33

34 35

36 37 38 39

/eng/research/01_2001/european-values.htm. Last accessed 17 July 2016. Hagendoorn, L. and Kleinpenning, G. (1991) ‘The contribution of domain-specific stereotypes to ethnic social distance’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 30: 63–78. Dambrun, M., Desprès, G. and Guimond, S. (2003) ‘On the multifaceted nature of prejudice: psyhophysiological responses to ingroup and outgroup ethnic stimuli’, Current Research in Social Psychology, 8: 187–206. Correll, J., Wittenbrink, B., Crawford, M.T. and Sadler, M.S. (2015) ‘Stereotypic vision: How stereotypes disambiguate visual stimuli’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2): 219–33. Schaafsma, J. (2008) ‘Interethnic relations at work: Examining ethnic minority and majority members’ experiences in the Netherlands’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(5): 453–65. Lee, D. (2013) ‘Beliefs on “avoidant cultures” in two French multinational corporations’, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 20(1): 20–38. Eagly, A.H., Makhujani, M.G. and Klonsky, B.G. (1992) ‘Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, 111: 3–22. Krause, N. and Shaw, B.A. (2002) ‘Negative interaction and changes in functional disability during late life’, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(3): 339–60. Reeve, D. (2002) ‘Negotiating psycho-emotional dimensions of disability and their influence on identity constructions’, Disability and Society, 17(5): 493–508. Morris, J. (1991) Pride Against Prejudice: Transforming Attitudes to Disability, London: Women’s Press. Fox, S.A., Giles, H., Orbe, M.P. and Bourhis, R.Y. (2000) ‘Interability communication: theoretical perspectives’, in Braithwaite, D.O. and Thompson, T.L. (eds) Handbook of Communication and People with Disabilities: Research and Application, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Inman, M.L. and Baron, R.S. (1996) ‘Influence of prototypes on perceptions of prejudice’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 727–39. Noon, M. (1993) ‘Racial discrimination in speculative applications: evidence from the UK’s top 100 firms’, Human Resource Management Journal, 3(4): 35–47. Tharenou, P. (2013) ‘The work of feminists is not yet done: The gender pay gap—a stubborn anachronism’, Sex Roles, 68(3–4): 198–206. Acker, J. (1992) ‘Gendering organizational theory’, in Mills, A.J. and Tancred, P. (eds) Gendering Organizational Analysis, London: Sage.

40 Grimshaw, J. (1999) Employment and Health: Psychosocial Stress in the Workplace, London: The British Library. 41 The European Commission (1998) Preventing Sexual Harassment at Work, URL: www.un.org/womenwatch/ osagi/pdf/shworkpl.pdf. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 42 URL: http://www.management-issues.com/opinion /6235/workplace-bullying-a-global-overview/. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 43 Vartia, M. and Hyyti, J. (2002) ‘Gender differences in workplace bullying among prison officers’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 111: 113–26. 44 Hogh, A. and Dofradottir, A. (2001) ‘Coping with bullying in the workplace’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4): 485–95. 45 Hoel, H., Cooper, C.L. and Faragher, B. (2001) ‘The experience of bullying in Great Britain: the impact of organizational status’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4): 443–6. 46 Liefooghe, A.P.D. and MacKenzie Davey, K. (2001) ‘Accounts of workplace bullying: the role of the organization’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4): 375–92. 47 Lutgen-Sandvik, P. and Tracy, S.J. (2012) ‘Answering five key questions about workplace bullying: how communication scholarship provides thought leadership for transforming abuse at work’, Management Communication Quarterly, 26(1): 3–47. 48 Stangor, C., Swim, J.K., Van Allen, K.L. and Sechrist, G.B. (2002) ‘Reporting discrimination in public and private contexts’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1): 69–74. 49 Wanguri, D.M. (1996) ‘Diversity, perceptions of equity and communicative openness in the workplace’, The Journal of Business Communication, 33: 443–57. 50 Davidson, M. and Friedman, R.A. (1998) ‘When excuses don’t work: the persistent injustice effect among Black managers’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 154–83. 51 Major, B., Gramzow, R.H., McCoy, S.K., Levin, S., Schmader, T. and Sidanius, J. (2002) ‘Perceiving personal discrimination: the role of group status and legitimizing ideology’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3): 269–82. 52 Hatcher, C. (2000) ‘Making the visible invisible: constructing gender through organizational micropractices’, Electronic Journal of Communication, 10(1 and 2), URL: www.cios.org/www/tocs/AJC/0192.htm. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 53 Kirra, K.M. (2000) ‘Finns in interaction with nonFinns: problematic phenomena perceived as critical incidents’, Intercultural Communication, 4: 109–23.

BARRIERS TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK  179

54 Dougherty, D.S., Mobley, S.K. and Smith, S.E. (2010) ‘Language convergence and meaning divergence: A theory of intercultural communication’, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 3(2): 164–86. 55 Gallois, C. and Callan, V.J. (1986) ‘Decoding emotional messages: influence of ethnicity, sex, message type and channel’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4): 755–62. 56 Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 57 Kotani, M. (2002) ‘Expressing gratitude and indebtedness: Japanese speakers’ use of “I’m sorry” in English conversation’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(1): 39–72. 58 Thompson, N. (2003) Communication and Language: A Handbook of Theory and Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 59 Peltokorpi, V. and Clausen, L. (2011) ‘Linguistic and cultural barriers to intercultural communication in foreign subsidiaries’, Asian Business & Management, 10(4): 509–28. 60 Bernstein, B. (1971) Class, Codes and Control, St Albans: Paladin. 61 Armstrong, G.B. and Kaplowitz, S.A. (2001) ‘Sociolinguistic inference and intercultural coorientation: a Bayesian model of communicative competence in intercultural interaction’, Human Communication Research, 27(3): 350–81. 62 Interview with an investment banker, authors’ research. 63 Triandis, H.C. (2000) ‘Culture and conflict’, International Journal of Psychology, 35(2): 145–52. 64 Ting-Toomey, S. (1988) ‘Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory’, in Kim, Y.Y. and Gudykunst, W.B. (eds) Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 65 Ambady, N., Koo, J., Lee, F. and Rosenthal, R. (1996) ‘More than words: linguistic and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 996–1011. 66 Wierzbicka, A. (1991) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 67 Hall, E.T. (1959) The Silent Language, New York: Doubleday. 68 Warren, G., Schertler, E. and Bull, P. (2009) ‘Detecting deception from emotional and unemotional cues’, Journal of Non-verbal Behaviour, 33(1): 59–69. 69 Bond, C.F. Jr., Adnan, O., Adnan, M. and Bonser, R.N. (1990) ‘Lie detection across cultures’, Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour, 14(3): 189–204.

70 Apfelbaum, E.P., Sommers, S.R. and Norton, M.I. (2008) ‘Seeing race and seeming racist? Evaluating strategic colorblindness in social interaction’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4): 918. 71 Triandis, op. cit. 72 Koole, T. and ten Thije, J.D. (2001) ‘The reconstruction of intercultural discourse: methodological considerations’, Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 571–87. 73 Trompenaars, F. (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business, London: Nicholas Brealey.  2.1 for more on Trompenaars’ cultural dimensions.

74 Ibid. 75 Martin, J.N., Hecht, M.L. and Larkey, L.K. (1994) ‘Conversation improvement strategies for interethnic communication: African-American and EuropeanAmerican perspectives’, Communication Monographs, 61(3): 236–55. 76 Trompenaars, op. cit. 77 George, J.M., Gonzalez, J.A. and Jones, G.R. (1998) ‘The role of affect in cross-cultural negotiations’, Journal of International Business Studies, 29(4): 749–72. 78 Douglas, W. (1991) ‘Expectations about initial interaction: an examination of the effects of global uncertainty’, Human Communication Research, 17: 355–84. 79 Fall, L.T., Kelly, S., MacDonald, P., Primm, C. and Holmes, W. (2013) ‘Intercultural communication apprehension and emotional intelligence in higher education: Preparing business students for career success’, Business Communication Quarterly, 76(4): 412–26. 80 Ibid. 81 Brislin, R., Cushner, K., Cherrie, C. and Yong, M. (1986) Intercultural Interactions, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 82 Huntington, S. (1997) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, London: Simon & Schuster. 83 West, T. and Levy, S.R. (2002) ‘Background belief systems and prejudice’, in Lonner, W.J., Dinnel, D.L., Hayes, S.A. and Sattler, D.N. (eds) Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, URL: http://www.wwu.edu/~culture. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 84 Kincaid, D.L. (1988) ‘The convergence theory of communication: Its implications for intercultural communication’, in Kim, Y.Y. (ed.) Theoretical Perspectives on International Communication: Vol. XII. International and Intercultural Annual, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 85 Burgoon, J. and Hale, J. (1988) ‘Nonverbal expectancy violations’, Communication Monographs, 55: 58–79. 86 Hoyle, R., Pinkley, R. and Insko, C. (1989) ‘Perceptions of social behavior’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15: 365–76.

180  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

87 Burke, M.J., Watkins, M.B. and Guzman, E. (2009) ‘Performing in a multi-cultural context: The role of personality’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(6): 475–85. 88 Yum, J.O. (1987) ‘Asian perspectives on communication’, in Kincaid, D. (ed.) Communication Theory: E­astern and Western Perspectives, New York: ­Academic Press. 89 Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Bulow-Moller, A.M., Nickerson, C., Poncini, G., Zhu, Y. (2003) ‘Five perspectives on intercultural business communication’, Business Communication Quarterly, 66(3): 73–96. 90 He, H.A. and Huang, E.M. (2014) ‘A qualitative study of workplace intercultural communication tensions in dyadic face-to-face and computer-mediated interactions’, Communication & Collaboration DIS. 91 O’Reilly III, C.A., Caldwell, D.R. and Barnett, W.P. (1989) ‘Work group demography, social integration and turnover’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 21–37. 92 Grub, P.D. and Lin, J.H. (1991) Foreign Direct Investment in China, New York: Quorum Books. 93 Mann, J. (1989) Beijing Jeep: The Short, Unhappy Romance of American Business in China: New York: Simon and Schuster. 94 Larkey, L.K. (1996) ‘The development and validation of the workforce diversity questionnaire’, Management Communication Quarterly, 9(3): 296–337.

95 Muir, C. (1996) ‘Workplace readiness for communicating diversity’, The Journal of Business Communication, 33: 475–84. 96 Green, T.K. (2005) ‘Work culture and discrimination’, California Law Review, (93)3: 623–84. 97 Hofstede, G. (1981) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London: Harper Collins. 98 Collinson, D.L. and Hearn, J. (1996) ‘Breaking the silence; on men, masculinities and managements’, in Collinson, D.L. and Hearn, J. (eds) Men as Managers, Managers as Men: Critical Perspectives on Men, Masculinities and Managements, London: Sage. 99 Schreiber, E.J. (1996) ‘Muddles and huddles: facilitating a multicultural workforce through team management theory’, The Journal of Business Communication, 33: 459–73. 100 Jiang Yang, Zhen Wen, Adamic, L.A., Ackerman, M.S. and Ching-Yung Lin (2011) ‘Collaborating globally: Culture and organizational computer-mediated communication, Completed Research Paper Jiang Yang School of Information University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA, URL: web.eecs.umich.edu/~ackerm/pub/11b67/ ICIS-collaborating.final.pdf. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 101 St. Amant, K. (2002) ‘When cultures and computers collide: Rethinking computer-mediated communication according to international and intercultural communication expectations’, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16(2): 196–214.

10 EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION This chapter focuses on how intercultural encounters at work can be made more effective and how the barriers to intercultural work communication described in Chapter 9 can be overcome. We know that people try to communicate effectively with ‘different others’: in those situations they have more thoughts focused on the partner and fewer on the content of the conversation, more on understanding the other’s message, less on clarifying their own message and less on displaying their own involvement.1 These responses to being aware of barriers may improve intercultural communication, although others, such as feeling confused, impede it. Section 10.1 covers inclusive language, Section 10.2 discusses ethical issues in intercultural communication, Section 10.3 describes general traits for effective intercultural communication and how to develop them. The next three sections follow the behavioural interpersonal communication model that underpins this book: 10.4 explains how to gain enhanced understanding of different others, 10.5 describes skills for effective intercultural self-presentation and 10.6 analyses effective intercultural communication processes, many of which are interactive and mutual. Section 10.7 explains skills required in particular types of intercultural situation such as inter-ability communication. Section 10.8 explores what we know about skilled mediated intercultural communication at work. Section 10.9 is an examination of what competence means in an intercultural communication context. A final section, 10.10, describes the particular skills needed for living and working abroad, which include but go beyond those needed for effective intercultural communication in the home country.  10.A for a discussion of issues involved in communicating effectively with different others. Varner (2000) argued that intercultural business communication is a unique construct that is different from intercultural medical or intercultural religious communication.2 Do you agree? Why or why not?

10.1 USING INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE Inclusive language is language that avoids excluding, demeaning or showing prejudice towards others, especially ‘different others’. None of the ways of overcoming intercultural communication barriers described later in this chapter is likely to work if, whether unintentionally or out of a perverse or misguided intention not to be politically correct, language is used that excludes, demeans or shows prejudice. Prejudiced language has been shown to affect adversely the self-image of members of the group excluded or negatively portrayed. There is therefore a strong argument from social justice for proscribing it. In addition, prejudiced language naturally provokes resentment among members of negatively portrayed groups, which contributes to social disharmony and disrupts intercultural communication. For instance, French women managers disliked compliments concerning their physical appearance … . In the workplace, women managers wanted to be recognized for their abilities. The French language allows a job title to indicate the gender of the person holding the job, but most women managers chose to use the masculine form rather than the feminine form of their professional title, especially on their visiting cards.3 Non-inclusive language reinforces barriers which prevent some members of an organization or society from participating fully in its work; it also undermines policies aimed at diversity. Non-inclusive language is of three main kinds: 1 Using generic masculine words or titles to refer to all persons. 2 Using terms or expressions that reinforce inappropriate, outdated or demeaning attitudes or assumptions about persons or groups. These may be based on age, different ability, ethnicity, gender, national origin, religion or sexual orientation. 181

182  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

3 Misusing stereotypes, which too often represent an oversimplified opinion, subjective attitude or uncritical judgement. They become particularly offensive and demeaning when used to make assumptions about the intellectual, moral, social or physical capabilities of an individual or a group. Neither individuals’ demographic and other characteristics, nor their group membership should be mentioned, unless they are specifically relevant to the topic being discussed. Inclusive language aims to respect the wishes of the group to or about whom the communication is taking place.4 In addition to these general points, care should be taken over terms for people’s ethnicity, gender, age group, type of ability difference and sexual orientation. Ethnicity is a social and political phenomenon, and, as such, its categories are not fixed. As society changes, so do the labelling conventions that define groups. Within broadly drawn groups, individual members may not agree about which term they feel best defines them. In the UK, White and Black (sometimes distinguishing Black Caribbean and Black African) are current; Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi are generally used specifically, though Asian also occurs. Interestingly, the equivalents of terms such as Black American or Asian American – for example, Black Briton or Asian Briton – are not current, which perhaps points to a lack of inclusiveness in British social attitudes. On the other hand, the term ‘people of colour’, which is widely used in the USA, ceased to be acceptable in the UK in the mid-1990s. Referring to members of both genders by traditional terms such as ‘man’ and ‘mankind’ and the masculine pronouns ‘he’, ‘him’ and ‘his’ has two costs: ambiguity and exclusion. Using these terms requires the listener or reader to decide whether the reference really does include women as well as men. More seriously, studies have shown that girls and women do feel excluded by this usage. Feeling excluded from history books, policy statements, professional titles and the like can have a powerful impact on the self-image and aspirations of women. Stereotyping by gender often takes the form of assigning complementary and opposing characteristics to men and women, such as active/passive, strong/weak and rational/emotional. In these formulations, it is usually the characteristic associated with masculinity that is viewed as more positive and desirable, at least in a work context. Men and women should be treated primarily as people, and not as members of different genders. Their shared humanity and common attributes should be stressed. Neither gender should be stereotyped. Both men and women should be represented as whole human beings with human strengths and weaknesses, not masculine and feminine ones.

Using ageist language makes biased assumptions. Expressions such as, ‘Even at 75, x can do y’ or ‘Octogenarian w still does y’ are ageist; describing someone as old depends on a judgement which may be prejudiced. It also shows ignorance of the fact that in many countries people are living longer in good health. Just as some people in their twenties and thirties are not as vigorous as others of their age, people in their sixties, seventies and eighties differ greatly in their physical health and abilities. At the other end of the scale, young men and women should not be referred to as boys or girls. Giving the age of individuals in reports, as newspapers do (especially for women), reinforces ageism and sexism. Unless age is the topic being written or spoken about, it is generally preferable not to refer to it. People who are differently-abled prefer that others focus on their individuality. The terms ‘handicapped’, ‘not able-bodied’, ‘physically challenged’ are discouraged and so is the article ‘the’ with an adjective, as in ‘the deaf’, ‘the differently-abled’, ‘the disabled’ to describe people. The preferred usage, ‘people who are differently-abled’, ‘people who are deaf’ stresses the essential humanity of individuals and avoids objectification. Alternatively, terms such as ‘­­­­deaf people’ may be acceptable, but still define people as deaf first and people second. It is important to be careful not to imply that people who are differently-abled are to be pitied, feared or ignored, or that they are always somehow more heroic, courageous, patient or ‘special’ than others. The term ‘abnormal’, or ‘normal’ in contrast, should never be used. Sexuality is now regarded as usually determined early in life, despite instances of transgender feelings. Thus, sexual orientation is a more accurate term to describe a person’s sexuality than sexual preference or sexual choice. The clinical term ‘homosexual’ may be appropriate in certain contexts, but generally the term ‘LGBT people’ is preferable. The euphemisms ‘lifestyle’ or ‘alternative lifestyle’ should be avoided, because gay people, like heterosexuals, have a variety of lifestyles. The term ‘domestic partner’ is being used increasingly to refer to the person with whom someone shares a household on a permanent basis, whether married or not. Emails and other text-based communication should be checked to ensure that only inclusive language is used.

10.2 ETHICAL ISSUES IN INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION Intercultural business ethics addresses moral issues that emerge when the norms and values of stakeholders, including employees, reflect (sub)cultural differences in

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  183

the way described in Part Two of this book. For example, while Western cultures tend to turn moral issues into issues of conscience or law, this might not be the case in other cultures. Ethical relativism claims that there is no culturefree, universal morality and therefore no way of ranking moral views and practices as more or less right, at least across cultures. Ethical relativism runs counter to assumed cultural superiority or ethnocentrism and to top-down morality. However, ethical relativism has been criticized on grounds such as the following:

• Obvious empirical differences of moral beliefs and practices do not prove that they are all right. • Surrender of principles in the face of disagreement • • •

hurts integrity, even if it is justifiable that some practices vary from place to place. Disagreement about judgements does not necessarily prove disagreement about the principles upon which such judgements are based. Relativism can confuse behaviour and analysis rather than enlighten them. There is no moral-free space, although there are many moral grey zones.

These arguments suggest that ethical dilemmas arising in intercultural work communication cannot be evaded by a resort to ethical relativism. What is needed and sufficient, according to Brinkmann (2002), is an intercultural consensus about an ethical minimum. Ethics integrates people by seeking a consensus around good principles and procedures.5 Brinkmann (2002) proposed the following model, described as a ‘virtuous (but vulnerable) circle of delaying judgement and transcending ethical relativism’. If a moral conflict or dilemma is faced in an intercultural setting, intercultural communication, ideally, could contribute with: 1 unprejudiced, non-ethnocentric description and interpretation, 2 tools for communication and barrier reduction, 3 ethics that focus on moral and value conflicts, and 4 possibilities for solutions, preferably consensus building. Such an interdisciplinary mix of competencies could then: 5 reach a preliminary minimum consensus, a first step towards transcending ethical relativism and 6 produce positive examples and experiences for future situations.

Such a virtuous circle is self-reinforcing once it works, but is also vulnerable, that is, can fail or even turn into a vicious circle.6 Deetz et al. (1997) considered that the international business situation poses unique and complex issues of ethics and responsibility: only a stakeholder approach to organization, combined with ‘adequate’ conceptions of communication and micropractices of negotiation could lead to ethical daily practices in modern organizations; because the organization is part of the community, the values and ethical standards of the community should be both represented and considered.7 In this book we argue that many of the intercultural communication skills explained later in this chapter, including empathy and tolerance for ambiguity, may be seen as indicators of an interculturally ethical stance, which means trying to understand different others according to their own frame of reference. Hall (1997) added the point that ‘ethical efforts to assist others must include a deep concern for the value systems of others involved in the process. … It means that we should be concerned about others’ dignity, rights, values and concerns as much as we are about our own.’8 The opportunity to check emails and other text-based communication to ensure that interculturally ethical standards are maintained is an advantage of cmc. How realistic do you consider the various proposals for ethical intercultural work communication? Give your reasons.  10.2.1 for more on the stakeholder approach to ethical intercultural business communication.

10.3 GENERAL TRAITS FOR INTERCULTURAL EFFECTIVENESS AND HOW TO DEVELOP THEM Many factors may affect the success or failure of intercultural communication. Some of these are not within a person’s immediate control – for instance, their status in the eyes of the person with whom they are interacting or the prejudices of other participants. However, the person’s own behaviour during the interaction impacts very directly on its success or failure and is within their control. This section looks at traits—general patterns of behaviour – that facilitate intercultural communication. Later sections examine specific ways of communicating that support intercultural communication.

184  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

Self-monitoring, emotion regulation ability, intercultural sensitivity, cultural relativism, biculturalism, ­multiculturalism and cultural intelligence (CQ) are traits that support intercultural effectiveness.

•

Self-monitoring Self-monitoring is the habit of self-observation and analysis. There is substantial evidence that it has positive effects on intercultural communication both ftf and by cmc. High self-monitors are better able to do all the following:

• discover appropriate behaviour in new situations, • have control over their emotional reactions, • create the impressions they wish, • modify their behaviour to changes in social situations, • make more confident and extreme attributions, • seek out information about others with whom they anticipate interacting, and • initiate and regulate conversations more. 9

They also have a greater need to talk, and are more likely to be leaders. This applies to both genders.

Emotion regulation ability Because excessive emotion can undermine perceptual accuracy and distort self-presentations, intercultural interactors need to prevent their extreme emotions and moods from affecting their behaviour. Negative emotions, particularly, are an issue here. Chapter 9 described some sources of negative emotions that often arise or are evoked during intercultural encounters and that act as barriers. Emotion regulation refers to ‘the processes by which individuals influence which emotions they have, when they have them, and how they experience and express these emotions’. There are consistent findings that high regulation of negative emotions is the most important predictor of positive intercultural adjustment.10 Interaction apprehension and anxiety are particularly important negative emotions in this context. In intercultural interactions, particularly with strangers, it will often be appropriate to lower harmfully high anxiety levels.11 There are three main reasons: fear will make interaction unpleasant or painful, it will make it difficult to concentrate enough to behave in a skilled way and it will communicate itself to interlocutors. Ability to manage anxiety and communication fear should mainly be developed away from interaction itself, through introspection, observation and the following practices:

• identifying, as precisely as possible, situations that give rise to communication fear,

• observing, carefully, from memory if possible and from

•

future interactions as they take place, just how, if at all, past expectations were proved wrong (the fear usually originates in past experiences of disconfirmation of expectations), taking equally careful note of when expectations were confirmed (there is a tendency to notice our failures but not our successes, which undermines confidence unnecessarily), and checking that when a situation requiring communication gives rise to apprehensiveness in the future, the problem is not caused by over-generalizing. Communication situations have multiple aspects: two people may be from different continents, but both may be mothers; the discussion may be about accounts, which make a person nervous, but with fellow-students to whom they can talk without fear on other subjects. Instead of concentrating on the difficulties, it is more effective to concentrate on the emotionally easy aspects.12

These practices also help in regulating other negative intercultural interaction emotions such as anger. Read Section 10.6 of this chapter for a description of the specific processes that managing emotions in intercultural encounters calls for.

Intercultural sensitivity Intercultural sensitivity is well-developed awareness of and ability to respond appropriately to (sub)cultural differences. Intercultural sensitivity is increased through self-monitoring, open-mindedness, empathy, interaction involvement and non-judgement.13 A model for developing intercultural sensitivity has been proposed. It assumes that there are six developmental stages that an individual may be located in or progress through toward greater intercultural competence. The first three stages are denial, defensiveness and minimization; they can be grouped as ethnocentric. Stages four, five and six are acceptance, adaptation and integration; these can be grouped as ethnorelative.  10.3.1 for descriptions of these stages.

The model postulates that as a person’s experience of cultural difference becomes more complex and sophisticated, he or she progresses from an earlier to a later stage and that consequently his or her potential competence in intercultural relations increases.14

Cultural relativism and compatible biculturalism Achieving real and ethical intercultural communication requires cultural relativism. This involves a shift away from

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  185

a position in which the norms, roles, values and behaviours into which a person was socialized are seen as uniquely valid. Instead, the person sees others’ norms, roles, values and behaviours as equally valid in themselves, possibly beneficial, and eligible for adoption. Unfortunately, this shift is difficult to achieve: following norms into which one was socialized is reflexive and requires little effort; not following them, or following others, is non-reflexive and requires substantial effort. Biculturalism goes beyond cultural relativism and involves accepting role-taking as part of the human condition, avoiding stylized verbal behaviour, being willing to accept the strain of adaptation, being well aware of conversational constraints and showing flexibility in conversational adaptation.15 There are, however, individual differences in whether bicultural people see their two cultures as oppositional or compatible. It is easier for people who see their two cultures as compatible to switch between culturally different interpretive lenses or frames. For example, they may make external attributions in the Chinese cultural manner after Chinese primes and internal attributions after American primes. Biculturals who perceive their cultural identities as oppositional exhibit the reverse priming effect and so are likely to be less effective intercultural communicators as well as more confused about their identity.16 Self-monitoring, intercultural sensitivity, cultural relativism and biculturalism are as important for intercultural cmc as for ftfc (face-to-face communication). While cmc may appear as a device for circumventing the need for emotion regulation, evidence that flaming occurs in emails suggests this is not the solution.

Multiculturalism The trait of accepting all cultures as valid, usually derived from exposure to multiple cultures, is called multiculturalism. It leads to reduced endorsement of stereotypes, racism and discriminatory hiring decisions. The beneficial effects of multiculturalism in reducing intergroup bias and increasing social tolerance occur regardless of the targeted stereotype group (such as African Americans, Ethiopians, homosexuals, and native Israelis) and regardless of the population sampled (such as Caucasian Americans or native Israelis), demonstrating the robustness of this phenomenon.17

CQ Cultural intelligence (CQ) is ‘a person’s capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts’. Originally intended to relate to individuals’ ability to adapt to a host culture as sojourners, it has been adopted for a wider range of uses in

subsequent research. CQ has four components: 1 cognition or knowledge of one’s self, environment, information handling, and thinking processes, 2 metacognition or one’s ability to piece together the available information to form a coherent picture, 3 motivation or one’s desire to engage with the new environment given one’s values and expectations, and 4 behaviour or the enactment of communication by both verbal and non-verbal means in social situations. Performing the fourth of these effectively demands a large behavioural repertoire of verbal and non-verbal responses to draw on in a particular situation; but also the cognitive capability and the motivation to acquire and use such a repertoire.18 Confirmation of the relations between the constructs was found from three substantive studies in field and educational development settings across two national contexts, the USA and Singapore. These ‘demonstrated a consistent pattern of relationships where metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ predicted cultural judgement and decision making; motivational CQ and behavioural CQ predicted cultural adaptation; and metacognitive CQ and behavioural CQ predicted task performance’.19 It seems likely that cultural exposure of any kind has an impact on cultural intelligence.20 CQ has been criticized for its claim that cultural metacognition is an improvement on earlier concepts such as crosscultural or intercultural competence. Context, motivation and the role of experience in cultural learning processes are, it is asserted, all factors that should be taken into account.21

10.4 GAINING ENHANCED INTERCULTURAL UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS A first stage in skilled communication behaviour is to understand the values, motives, beliefs, attitudes and intentions of an interlocutor. As Figure 10.1 suggests, some factors that influence behaviour are relatively easy to perceive; others are more difficult. In an intercultural context, both interpersonal and intercultural understandings are needed. The skills involved include increasing intercultural perceptiveness, unlearning and learning, accurately predicting others’ behaviour and responses, developing a transactional culture or discourse, tolerating ambiguity, being nonjudgemental, being mindful and developing positive expectations about intercultural encounters.

186  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK Figure 10.1  Ease and difficulty of perceiving factors influencing others’ behaviour at work

Motivations and emotions

Situation

Perceptions and assumptions

Behaviour

Abilities and skills

Attributions

Dispositions

Difficult to perceive

Easy to perceive

Intercultural perceptiveness Intercultural understanding encompasses both cognitive and affective domains. Knowledge about one’s own and other cultures, and about cultural similarities and differences, is important, but positive attitudes such as empathy, curiosity and respect are also necessary.22 To perceive accurately in intercultural contexts, communicators need awareness of their own and others’ cultural sensitivities, of the context and of perceptual barriers.

Table 10.1 summarizes some important aspects of these factors. The text below explains them more fully.

Self- and other-cultural sensitivity awareness Some trainers in intercultural communication now consider that working to enhance self-awareness is the most essential preparation for working in another culture as a sojourner or on international assignments. Most people remain unaware that their own behaviours, attitudes and

Table 10.1  Factors and guidance related to intercultural social perceptiveness Intercultural Perceptiveness Factors Awareness of own and others’ cultural sensitivities

Guidance for Becoming More Interculturally Aware Setting aside time to talk with people from other cultures Avoiding assuming more similarity than actually exists Remembering that the validity of stereotypes is limited Remembering that all cultures have internal variations Understanding the language of the other culture is invaluable

Appreciation of context

Bearing in mind these influences on intercultural interactions: •  Power and status •  Cultural assumptions defining the ‘rules of the game’ •  Attitudes •  The role the participants assign to the immediate encounter •  At work, the nature of the task

Overcoming perceptual barriers

Avoiding assuming that others have the same values and attitudes as oneself Becoming more sensitive to differences in others’ verbal and non-verbal language Becoming more aware of societal preconceptions and stereotypes Avoiding evaluating another’s culture as inferior

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  187

beliefs are culture-specific, unless they are exposed to at least one other culture. Therefore, a first step towards better intercultural understanding is to seek out such exposure at work or at leisure. Learning from such experiences then needs to be enhanced and speeded up by reflective observation, either alone or in discussion. The purpose is to understand one’s own stereotypes, prejudices, ethnocentrism, values and attitudes as much or more than those of others. It is easy, when ignorant of the sensitivities of another culture, not only to set up barriers to good communication but also to cause serious offence. The problem is how to develop cultural awareness in order to avoid such problems.   10.4.1 for more about the issues involved in developing cultural sensitivity.

There is no easy solution, but there are some principles that can be applied: 1 The best, and most neglected, source of information on a culture is people from that culture. Often they can be met in the course of work. Setting aside time to talk with as many of them as possible about the sensitivities inculcated through their culture is an excellent use of time. Most will be willing to help someone who explains that they want to understand more out of respect and to avoid giving offence. If the people concerned are clients, patients, advisers, customers or suppliers it may be necessary to arrange a special time for the discussion; with colleagues, opportunities may arise naturally in the course of the work. 2 The following points should be kept in mind: First-hand experience is necessary to understand many subtleties of any culture. What is logical and important in a particular culture may seem irrational and unimportant to an outsider. In describing another culture, people tend to stress the differences and overlook the similarities; in contrast, in interacting with people from another culture, they tend to assume more similarity than actually exists. Stereotyping may be inevitable among those who lack frequent contact with another culture but an understanding of the limited truth of stereotypes is essential. Personal observations by others about another culture should not be taken as objective evidence. Many subcultures often exist within a single ethnic or language group, religion or nationality. These subcultures are differentiated by education, age,

• • • • • •

• • •

gender, socio-economic status, education, and exposure to other cultures. Highly educated people of a given cultural group are less likely to reveal indigenous language and communication patterns than less educated persons. All cultures have internal variations. Cultures are continually evolving. Understanding another culture is a continuous process. To best understand a culture, one should understand the language of that culture.23

Awareness of contexts Communication takes place within a context that fundamentally affects the knowledge needed by participants.24 Therefore, they need to be aware of contexts and situations. A context has at least four dimensions, each of which can magnify, reduce or have neutral impact on how aware the participants are of their cultural differences. These are power and status, cultural assumptions defining the ‘rules of the game’, attitudes and the role the participants assign to the immediate encounter:

• Power and status. These exert an influence over whose

•

• •

cultural preferences are accepted and in some cases who controls the discussion. In contact between White and Black people, the White person typically controls access to valued resources that the Black person needs or wants.25 Cultural assumptions defining the ‘rules of the game’. For example, in a high power-distance culture, a subordinate from a low power-distance culture would probably be frustrated by the restraints on free speech in talking to a manager. This would probably not bother a subordinate from the high power-distance culture. Attitudes. People’s prior personal experiences affect their attitudes. The role the participants assign to the immediate encounter. For instance, if two colleagues of different sexes, ethnicity and professional status were discussing why a photocopier broke down, their awareness of their cultural differences would probably be low. It would be higher, though, if they were negotiating with one another over the salary of one of them.

An appreciation of the context of an encounter is a useful tool for increasing intercultural effectiveness. Intercultural encounters have distinctive characteristics and texture, according to their context: for instance, tourism encounters, unlike some others, essentially celebrate, rather than try to overcome or pacify, the experience of cultural difference. When Western tourists tell stories of bargaining in ‘native’ stores, they are relating their

188  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

enjoyment of the, to them, unusual experience. International trade, diplomacy and scholarly exchanges are other examples of encounters with their own distinctive characteristics and texture. All these contexts ‘create differences in the expectations of the parties to encounters and the requirements for effective communication’.26 In work encounters the nature of the task also has a strong contextual influence. Another contextual factor influencing intercultural encounters is how well the participants know one another – how often they have met. Initial encounters are generally the most difficult. Not surprisingly, the influence of cultural norms and stereotypes diminishes as people get to know one another. Therefore, being able to communicate successfully when the level of cultural dissimilarity is high is most important on first acquaintance or in formal settings. These contexts, of course, occur often at work. Work contexts can sometimes reduce intercultural communication difficulties, however, because where both parties concentrate on the task, the near-universalism of technology (in its broadest sense) creates a bridge. Unfortunately, though, there has often been an over-reliance on this factor, with resulting poor work relations between people from different cultures.

Awareness of perceptual barriers Being aware of stumbling blocks can help in avoiding them, so interactors need awareness of perceptual barriers to intercultural communication. Intercultural communication is improved by learning not to assume that others have the same values and attitudes, by becoming more sensitive to differences in others’ verbal and non-verbal language, more aware of societal preconceptions and stereotypes which portray other groups from our own as different, or in the case of the other gender as opposite, and by avoiding the tendency to evaluate another’s culture as inferior. Give an example to show how intercultural social perceptiveness can be improved by communicators being aware of their own and others’ cultural sensitivities, of the context and of perceptual barriers.

Unlearning and learning Increasing all the forms of awareness just described is really a matter of unlearning and learning. Unlearning may often be a necessary preliminary to improving social perception: it means being freed from past attitudes, preconceptions, prejudices and expectations in order to absorb new ideas and information. Unlearning is, of course,

learning by another name; but it is a difficult type of learning because it involves a change in self-organization – in the self-construal. Such changes are threatening and tend to be resisted. Learning, and hence unlearning, is easier when the subject matter is perceived as having relevance for someone’s own goals. Therefore learning about cultural difference and intercultural communication comes more easily just before an important meeting with someone from a different background or before an overseas journey. In addition, when external threats are at a minimum, learning which is threatening to the self is more easily perceived and assimilated, because there is a limit to the level of threat to the self that most people can tolerate.27 How might you set about trying to unlearn a prejudice that you have about people from a different culture or subculture?

The following also facilitate learning:

• Activity – much significant learning is acquired by doing. • Active learning, in which the learner drives and steers the process, works better than passive learning. • Self-initiated learning which involves the whole per•

•

son, feelings as well as intellect, is the most lasting and pervasive. Formative evaluation by the learner is more helpful than summative evaluation by others. If learners can assess, somewhat objectively, their own progress, strengths and weaknesses as they go along, they will gain independence, creativity and self-reliance as well as knowledge. Training oneself to learn from experience.   10.4.2 for suggestions on how to train yourself to learn from experience.

Predicting others’ behaviour and responses accurately To guide choices of communication strategy, to avoid giving offence inadvertently and to keep the flow of discussion smooth, communicators need to predict how others will respond. All communicators predict others’ responses repeatedly during interactions, though they may not be aware of it. Often, however, their predictions are inaccurate. This is especially likely if they are members of a dominant subculture interacting with members of a ‘minority’ subculture, as they may receive little feedback about their communication performances, especially if they as individuals are in positions of power. Fear or a wish

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  189

to ingratiate may lead minority group members to conceal negative responses. Even aside from people in dominant positions, though, everyone relies on stereotypes and rules based on past experience to predict others’ responses. These necessary simplifications often produce inaccuracy. Predicting others’ responses more accurately depends on the following:

• obtaining as much information as possible both before and during interactions, • becoming more generally aware of sensitive issues, language and non-verbal behaviour, • examining and modifying stereotypes, implicit theories and rules, and • encouraging others to give feedback.   10.4.3 for suggestions on encouraging others to give you feedback.

Sense-making Intercultural communicators have a more than usually demanding task to make sense of their partners, the relationships in which they are engaged and the context. They have no choice but to devote energy to sense-making. To achieve this, participants need to focus their attention, articulate difficulties, deliberate and reflect, instigate and maintain interaction and reduce judgement errors and individual biases. According to Vlaar et al. (2006), this applies as much at work as elsewhere; for instance, differences between partners in interorganizational relationships in terms of culture, experience, structure and industry give rise to ‘problems of understanding’. Vlaar et al. (2006) contended that formalization facilitates sensemaking; this may be limited to the circumstances of newly formed interorganizational relations which were the topic of their research.28

Developing a transactional culture or discourse The idea of a transactional culture originated with Bell (1992) who explained that intra-cultural behaviour may be adapted for intercultural purposes: when Japanese and Americans meet, the Japanese lower their ‘Japaneseness’, the Americans their ‘Americanness’. A modification of this idea may be more useful: Bulow, in Bargiela-Chiappini et al. (2003), introduced the term transactional discourse, and defined it as the willing suspension of fixed expectations: Fortunately, if there are common goals for the interaction, people make allowances. Shared expectations at any level help in blocking attributions of ill will, and

an acquaintance with anything from speech habits to the sanctity of contracts in the speaker’s set of norms, is useful. … Transactional discourse is, therefore, what comes into play whenever a speaker foregoes judgment, tolerates ambiguity, and actively seeks to build frames within which new, fruitful questions can be asked.29

Tolerating ambiguity People who tolerate ambiguity can control their feelings in situations where it is unclear what is happening, why, or what the outcome is likely to be. It is not suggested that discomfort or other negative feelings should not be experienced when confronted with uncertain situations, but that their effects on behaviour can be controlled. Individuals with a high tolerance for ambiguity are more inclined to seek out ‘objective’ information, which means that their intercultural behaviour is more likely to be based on a realistic appreciation. People with lower tolerance for ambiguity tend to seek supportive rather than objective information – that is, in order to feel less psychological discomfort they select and distort incoming information. Behaviours that support being or becoming tolerant of ambiguity include:

• Delaying the decision on how to approach a new per• • • • •

son or situation until as much information as possible has been gained by observation. Having flexible short-term aspirations or goals (for instance, not being fixated on achieving a particular goal in the present encounter – being willing to try again at a later date if necessary). Using trial and error rather than the same formula until what works becomes clear. Consciously relaxing muscles, especially those in the back and neck. Avoiding tense behaviours such as frowning, growling, pacing, sounding exasperated, clenching teeth, fidgeting, talking fast or pounding anything (remembering that how someone behaves affects how they feel as much as the reverse). Projecting confidence to oneself through positive messages: ‘I feel confident, I can handle this, and I feel relaxed.’

Other traits related to being tolerant of ambiguity are uncertainty-orientation and field-independence. Uncertainty-oriented individuals seek information more than certainty-oriented individuals. People whose sense of self is not too much affected by their environment experience less stress on entering a new culture than field dependents, who are strongly affected by their environment.30

190  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK Assess how uncertainty-oriented and fieldindependent you are. Discuss the concepts with a colleague or friend.

Being non-judgemental Judging others’ behaviour or judging them as people, especially early in initial meetings, risks making errors of judgement, especially because it increases reliance on stereotypes. As a result, it can lead to basing one’s own behaviour on false premises. It also leads to communicating to interlocutors the fact that they are being judged, which can lead them to have negative attitudes to the speaker. Behaviours that support and communicate a non-judgemental perspective include:

• Withholding preconceived opinions – asking, not telling. • Expressing questions openly rather than in a closed • • • • • • • • • • • •

way: ‘What do you think?’ or ‘What do you mean by …?’, rather than ‘Do you think X?’, or ‘Is Y what you mean?’. Soliciting feelings specifically: ‘How do you feel about … –?’ Asking questions to find out explanations of others’ behaviour that may be deep-seated in their values or culture. When expressing views, making it clear that it is understood that they are only opinions with which other people may disagree. Acknowledging different values, beliefs and perceptions as valid. Listening openly. Listening to another’s view without interrupting or criticizing. Acknowledging the other’s point of view as valid: ‘I see what you mean’. Providing reassurance: ‘Don’t worry – this won’t be taken as agreement’. Avoiding calling a view which is disagreed with bad or wrong. Sorting objective facts from more subjective feelings, perceptions and stereotypes. Avoiding over-generalizations. Making statements in a form which acknowledges one’s own subjectivity, such as, ‘I feel uneasy when Mr Ling does not appear to react to what I am saying’, rather than generalizing or laying claims to objectivity, as in, ‘Chinese people are hard to read’.

Being mindful Mindfulness means awareness of one’s own mental processes. Mindfulness involves tuning in consciously to habituated mental scripts; mindlessness is the rigid reliance on old categories, whereas mindfulness means the continual creation of new ones. Mindfulness is necessary to correct the tendency to misinterpret others’ behaviour. As shown in Figure 10.2, mindfulness occupies an intermediate zone between uncaringness and monitored constraint – between not caring about learning or improving and an inhibited caution which is defensive and closed to new ideas. Mindfulness includes creating new categories, being open to new information and being aware of more than one perspective.31 Studies have shown that mindfulness – becoming aware of one’s thoughts and experiences and being able to observe them as transient mental events – reduces the tendency to be driven by a motivational state – for instance to want unhealthy food when hungry.32   10.4.4 for a further explanation of mindfulness.

The concept of mindfulness as just described is intrapersonal; it has, however, been extended to include social mindfulness which means acting thoughtfully toward another person and in particular their ability to control their outcomes from an interaction33 and shared mindfulness, which emphasizes communication and has been defined as ‘a state of mindfulness achieved conjointly, whereby, in communicative interaction, the individuals involved are in an active state of attending, responding, and perceiving information correctly’. As a result, ‘they are continually updating, attuned, and open to incoming data that are unexpected, disconfirming, improbable, implicit, and/or contested’.34 The following are the behaviours most closely related to whether or not a state of shared mindfulness arises, according to a study of interactions among pilots during crises in the cockpit: effective decision-making was related to reasoning from a positive perspective, using a kaleidoscopic perspective, speaking thoughts and feelings aloud, precisely, and conditionally, and acknowledging communication substantively. The following behaviours either significantly hindered or precluded the formation of shared mindfulness in an interaction: precognitive commitment, non-positive reasoning strategies and overt dominance.35

Figure 10.2  The mindfulness continuum Uncaringness

Mindfulness

Monitored constraint

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  191

Give an example to illustrate three processes that comprise mindfulness.

Having positive expectations about intercultural encounters People’s expectations influence their ability to understand different others. The attitudes someone has about a particular other (sub)culture or other (sub)cultures in general create expectations about experiences in interactions with different others. The stereotypes someone has about people also affect expectations. Someone who is open to other (sub)cultures, with a positive attitude towards the specific (sub)culture, and has positive stereotypes about the people of the (sub)culture will probably have positive expectations about their experiences, and vice-versa. Negative attitudes and stereotypes create negative expectations. Negative expectations, in turn, tend to create self-fulfilling prophecies; that is, lead to interpreting the behaviour of members of the other (sub)cultures negatively and therefore to having negative experiences. On the other hand, expectations transferred without mindfulness from the ‘own’ culture are particularly likely to be violated. These are further reasons for avoiding, or at least postponing, evaluating the behaviour of ‘different other’ people. These pointers are based on expectations states theory whose core idea is the influence of expectations, which were introduced in Chapter 6, on behaviour in interactions. People ‘choose among various communication strategies on the basis of predictions about how the person receiving the message will respond’.36 Three types of information are

used in making predictions: cultural, social and personal. (North Americans use more personal than social information; the Japanese do the reverse.) We saw in Chapter 6 that the expectations people have about how others will respond to what they say strongly influence their communication behaviour. Chapter 9 showed how communication barriers can arise when expectations are violated. Expectations themselves are a function of knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, stereotypes, self-conceptions, roles, prior interaction and status characteristics.37 Figure 10.3 shows the relationships among these variables. As Figure 10.3 depicts, the knowledge referred to in the expectations states theory model is mainly knowledge of the group to which people who are being met for the first time are thought to belong. When a person meets ‘strangers’ without any previous knowledge of the strangers’ group, s/he predicts how they will behave by watching and listening to what they do and say. These observations are, of course, selective, and the impressions gained are influenced by the individual’s own cultural framework. Those observed and interpreted behaviours are then treated as ‘typical’ and inferences are drawn from the impressions. The need to make inferences is greater when dealing with people who are unfamiliar; this can lead to extreme predictions and expectations. The more previous knowledge people have about the other group, the less they are inclined to over-interpret small samples of behaviour, such as are observed on first meeting. Thus, prior knowledge affects expectations and so behaviour. If this knowledge is accurate, the effect is likely to be beneficial. If, however, they have false beliefs or the ‘knowledge’ consists of simplified and inaccurate stereotypes, the resulting expectations can

Figure 10.3  Expectation States Theory: factors influencing expectations and behaviour in intercultural encounters Knowledge of the other interactor’s group Roles Beliefs/ attitudes Prior interaction

Expectations

Stereotypes

Self-concepts

Status characteristics

Communication behaviour

192  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

distort behaviour with adverse effects on communication. Videotaped conversations between 46 US students and confederates from India showed significant differences in the Americans’ communication behaviour depending on their previous knowledge or beliefs about India.38 People employ one or more of three strategies for gaining information about another group. One is a passive strategy such as watching TV (which is the strategy most likely to lead to over-reliance on stereotypes), or observing directly but without interacting. The second is an active strategy of asking others from their own group about the other (sub) culture, and the third is an interactive strategy of meeting members of the other (sub)culture, asking them questions, self-disclosing and trying to detect deceptions. This last sounds on the surface like the best information-gathering strategy, and it can be. However, to gain accurate information, contacts with other (sub)culture members must be made under conditions that do not increase prejudice. In expectations states theory predictions about others’ responses serve as the main intervening v­ ariable between behaviour in intercultural encounters and a range of independent variables. As a result, the theory inevitably leaves out the possibly equally powerful variables put forward in other theories – goals, for instance, or episode representations. How can expectations of people from another (sub)culture be made both more supportive of intercultural communication effectiveness and less subject to violations?

10.5 SKILLS FOR EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL SELFPRESENTATION Self-presentation is as essential a process for communication as understanding others. It is essential because we usually need others to understand us, not just in the sense of understanding what we are saying, but also in the sense required by our association and consideration needs, as rapport management scholars assert (see Chapter 5). If we want to persuade others or get them to comply with our requests, we need appropriate selfpresentation for that purpose too. Self-presentation is also unavoidable. Whether intentional or not, every person in an interaction conveys an impression to others. An effective self-presentation in the sense used here is one that accurately conveys attitudes and intentions. It does not necessarily imply making a ‘good impression’. However, if the objective in an interaction is to achieve effective intercultural communication, it helps if the attitudes and intentions conveyed are positive rather than negative. The skills required to achieve an effective intercultural impression include those shown in Figure 10.4. They are language choice, following appropriate conversational rules, achieving clarity, adjusting for non-routine interactions, showing empathy, communicating a relationship as well as a task orientation, communicating appropriate assertiveness, being a resourceful communicator and sharing information.

Figure 10.4  Skills for effective intercultural self-presentation

Using the language that gives the best chance of mutual understanding

Following appropriate communication rules

Speaking or writing clearly

Using person-centred messages

Sharing information Effective intercultural self-presentation Being a resourceful communicator

Communicating appropriate assertiveness

Showing empathy

Communicating a relationship orientation

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  193

Language choice People usually appreciate it when an interlocutor speaks their language. However, when one person speaks the other’s language well but the reverse is not true, using the language best understood by both parties increases understanding. Sometimes, though, partial bilingual communicators may in fact be more effective, as their encoded blunt or ‘rude’ messages are more likely to be tolerated and attributed to their language deficiencies than would be the case for full bilinguals or native language users. Silence and pauses in conversation are normal and accepted parts of communication between partial bilinguals, so they can use breaks in the conversation flow strategically, even in situations where they could process information faster and send messages sooner. For instance, they may use pauses to avoid introducing unproductive and destructive comments into conversations and to provide breaks for reflection. However, while the norms of some languages, such as Chinese and Japanese, mean that such silences do not cause anxiety, the same might not be true for some Westerners. Language choice has implications for the nature of the relationships that bilingual communicators develop and for whether they are included in informal communication channels. Bilingual expatriates who choose to use their own language remain outsiders and so are less likely to be sanctioned for not following the country’s customs and social norms. By choosing the host-country language, however, they become insiders, develop closer interpersonal relationships with colleagues and have more access to ‘soft’ information.39

Following communication rules As Chapter 5 explained, communication requires people to cooperate, which they do, in part, by following conversational rules. Schwarz (1994) suggested the following list of requirements for outward communicators: Outward communicators should:

• take the receiver’s characteristics into account, • be coherent and comprehensible, • give neither too much nor too little information, • be relevant, • produce a message that is appropriate to the context, the circumstances and the communicative purpose, • convey the truth as they see it, and • assume that the receiver is trying, as much as possible, to follow the rules of communication.

Schwarz (1994) further suggested that receivers should:

• take the speaker’s characteristics into account, • determine the speaker’s communicative intent purpose,

or

• take the context and circumstances into account, • pay attention to the message and be prepared to receive it, and • try to understand the message and provide feedback, when possible, to the speaker concerning their understanding of the message.40 Would Schwarz’s (1994) list of requirements for speakers be appropriate for someone communicating with a person from your culture? Give reasons.

Achieving clarity Communicating clearly is usually an important communication objective, especially in work-based situations where the requirements of the task demand it. For instance, for a doctor, clarity is vital because of the importance of accuracy in diagnosis and in patients’ following of instructions. The distinction between restricted and elaborated codes, referred to in Chapter 5, is relevant to how clarity is achieved in intercultural communication. In communication with people who are familiar, language use goes on largely at a level below consciousness, with varying degrees of effectiveness; with new acquaintances or people from different backgrounds, however, effectiveness depends on heightened consciousness of how language is being used. This need for high awareness applies widely in work situations. When speakers expect marked differences from other people with whom they are interacting, they both do and should use more formal language – that is the elaborated code, instead of the restricted code that they use when they can assume that the receiver will understand their assumptions.41 An expectation of marked difference leads the speaker to express fully those meanings that are expected to be misunderstood. In other words, these meanings have to be put into words rather precisely to make them available to the receiver. Therefore elaborated codes require a large vocabulary and complex syntax. Clear communication requires the following actions:

• stating points concisely and precisely, • adjusting to the other person’s level of understanding without being demeaning, • simplifying language, • explaining or avoiding jargon, • where possible and acceptable, using the idiom of the other (sub)culture, • avoiding slang, • slowing down (but not speaking louder), • starting from where the other person is ‘at’, • using progressive approximations, • dividing explanations into smaller, more specific units,

194  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

• repeating in alternative ways, • getting the other person to ask questions, • giving short answers – stopping after a partial reply and waiting for their response, and • checking understanding to ensure messages are com-

municated clearly and completely: for example by asking ‘Am I being clear?’, ‘Will you say it back to me in your own words?’, ‘Let me show you what I mean’, ‘Why don’t you give it a try now?’

Adjusting for non-routine interactions In non-routine contexts, such as intercultural interactions early in a relationship, people cannot achieve their communication goals by just applying cultural rules, conventions and codes. Instead they need to use personcentred messages.42 Person-centred messages recognize other people’s perspectives and explain the reasons for statements, requests or orders in terms of the other’s perspective. To construct person-centred messages, communicators first use open questioning to obtain information about the other’s attitudes, beliefs and values. They then take other’s attitudes and beliefs into consideration and acknowledge them when appropriate. Person-centred messages demand more thought from the communicator. They have, though, been shown to be more effective in gaining others’ compliance. Since intercultural encounters are often non-routine, communicators should expect to use more inquiry, less advocacy and more attempts to see and acknowledge the other’s point of view and emotions than they do in routine situations.   10.5.1 for more on adjusting for non-routine interactions.

Showing empathy Being empathic means accurately understanding the thoughts and motivations of another person in an interaction and putting oneself in their place when making a judgement about them. It does not necessarily mean agreeing with them or sympathizing with them – only really trying to understand them. Total empathy with another person is probably impossible, even when both are from the same culture and subculture. However, most people’s communication with others would be more successful if they could increase their ability to empathize and, equally importantly, if they could convey to their interlocutor an intention to empathize. To communicate empathy involves the following actions:

• asking open-ended questions, such as, ‘What was the experience like for you when …?’,

• listening actively, • paraphrasing the other person’s words (for example,. • •

‘What I think I hear you saying is …’, ‘Is this what you mean?’) to check for understanding and to show a sincere attempt to understand, checking out verbal and non-verbal cues to find out what another is feeling: ‘I sense you are feeling … angry … sad … glad … afraid. Am I reading you correctly?’, and paying attention to any of one’s own non-verbal messages that may make another person uncomfortable; and mirroring elements of the other person’s body language, tone and pace, when appropriate.

Communicating a relationship as well as a task orientation People from individualist cultures, especially men, are at risk of provoking a culture clash if they act with people from collectivist cultures according to what may be their usual priority of getting on with the task ‘regardless’. It is well known that Arabs and other Middle-Easterners prefer to do business by building a relationship and then, when trust has been established, proceeding to the negotiation or discussion. The same applies to people of many other nationalities and ethnicities. Equally, men who wish to move away from the position in which their dominance imposes a style which may be inimical to their women colleagues, clients or patients and/or counterproductive for the organization, should try to increase the amount of ‘relationship’ orientation they communicate at work. Methods include:

• remembering people’s names and small details about them learnt unobtrusively or by asking, • using their names according to their culture (e.g., patronymic first), • initiating conversations on non-work topics, • being sensitive to nuances, • reciprocating acts of consideration, • using humour appropriately and with care, • finding common ground with counterparts, • supporting others’ communication, • bringing others in to discussions, • thanking others for their work or contribution, • praising above-standard work (in public or private according to the other person’s culture), and • where appropriate giving candid feedback (in private). Communicating appropriate assertiveness Chapter 5 made the point that assertiveness, while fundamentally desirable as a communication attribute, is a variable; the level appropriate in one culture appears as

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  195

aggression or submission in others. There is a matter of judgement here. Some people may be unwilling to compromise their own assertiveness level even if they are aware that the other person is likely to regard their behaviour as aggressive or submissive. However, the optimal intercultural communication approach is to seek the appropriate level of assertiveness for the culture of the person being interacted with.

Being a resourceful communicator Communication resourcefulness is the knowledge and ability to apply cognitive, affective (emotional) and behavioural resources appropriately, effectively and creatively in diverse interactive situations.43 Like other forms of resourcefulness, it is related to approaching new situations as learning opportunities.

• Whether someone thinks of an intercultural encoun-

•

•

ter as an opportunity or as an anxiety-ridden event has a profound influence on how they approach interactions with strangers. Being secure in one’s own cultural identity and not feeling threatened by another person’s different cultural identity allows a person to approach an encounter as an opportunity to learn. If one person conveys a sense of identity security it tends to evoke the sense of security in the other, and vice-versa. The emotions of an intercultural encounter are either ego-focused or other-focused, or more often some combination of the two. Culture plays a major role concerning the emotional meanings and reactions attached to encounters. For individualists, ego-focused emotions are most common; conversely, collectivists most commonly experience other-focused emotions. In both cases, demands are made on the individual’s affective resourcefulness (which is similar to emotional intelligence) to resolve emotional issues. To deal with the diverse identity needs of different persons in different situations, intercultural interactors need the behavioural resourcefulness to develop a wide range of verbal and non-verbal repertoires. Being responsive to strangers and open to learning from them are other aspects of behavioural resourcefulness.

Thus, to become a more resourceful intercultural communicator, there are three aspects to work on:

• Regarding intercultural encounters as opportunities to •

affirm one’s own and endorse other people’s identities rather than as sources of anxiety. Achieving an acceptable and appropriate balance between ‘ego’ concerns and ‘other’ concerns in

•

interactions. This also means achieving a good balance between relying on principles, rules and procedures for guidance and regulation of the encounter, and on the other hand relying on trust and caring – a relationship approach. Highly individualist, achievement-oriented people are often deficient in the ‘other’ dimension of affective resourcefulness and should attempt to shift in that direction; other groups, including many women, may gain in affective resourcefulness by more emphasis on their own needs and on principles rather than feelings. Developing a wide range of verbal and non-verbal repertoires to deal with the diverse identity needs of different persons in different situations. Another key theme is behavioural adaptation and flexibility.44 How might individualist, achievement-oriented interlocutors need to adjust their behaviour in order to increase their affective resourcefulness?

Sharing information By sharing information individuals can create more favourable impressions among colleagues from whom they are demographically different and who negatively stereotype them as outgroup members. Such information sharing comes more naturally to extroverts and to high self-monitors but is available to all.45 When others’ impressions of them are more positive, a study showed, demographically different people performed better, were more satisfied and reported higher levels of social integration, no matter how different they were from their work colleagues.46 Using suitable language, following communication rules, achieving clarity, adjusting appropriately for non-routine interactions, sharing information and being a resourceful communicator are all at least equally available in cmc as ftfc, and the non-synchronicity of some forms of cmc may actually facilitate these skills. On the other hand, showing empathy, communicating a relationship as well as a task orientation and communicating appropriate assertiveness can be made more difficult by the reduced bandwidth of most cmc.

10.6 EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL INTERACTION PROCESSES This section discusses processes that increase intercultural communication effectiveness; most of them require both parties to cooperate. These processes are CQ talk, appreciative inquiry, managing uncertainty and anxiety in intercultural encounters, tension mitigation strategies, adapting in initial intercultural encounters, grounding,

196  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK Figure 10.5  Focus of intercultural communication skills Managing uncertainty and anxiety in intercultural encounters

CQ talk

Self-preparation and self-management Grounding

Adapting in initial intercultural encounters

Increased mutual understanding

Developing shared representations of intercultural episodes

Communication accommodation Establishing good relations through reassurance of having good intentions

Creating a ‘third culture’ perspective

Appreciative inquiry

Tension mitigation strategies

Conflict resolution

communication accommodation, developing shared representations of intercultural episodes, conflict resolution, mutual conversational improvement strategies, and creating a ‘third culture’ perspective. Some of these fall into the category of ‘self-management’; others are techniques for increasing mutual understanding; others are directed at reassuring interlocutors of having good intentions and so helping establish good relations. Figure 10.5 shows which goals of intercultural communication are addressed by each of these skills.

CQ talk and managing uncertainty and anxiety in intercultural encounters These skills directly impact preparing oneself for an intercultural work encounter and managing one’s emotions and attitudes during it; through self-preparation and self-management they influence both the level of mutual understanding and how good work relationships are.

Mutual conversational improvement strategies

CQ talk Rogers (2008) proposed that benefits flow to intercultural communication from applying CQ (cultural intelligence, which was explained in Section 10.3) to interactions. CQ talk is ‘an individual’s deliberate verbal and nonverbal behavior during an evolving interaction to find out what needs to be learned interculturally’. Examples of CQ talk could include ‘In our meetings we usually handle several major items. Would you prefer to look at these one at a time?’ (to find out whether the preferences of a monochronic or polychronic culture apply), or, ‘Can we make a decision now or do you need to consult with upper management?’ (to explore whether high or low power-distance values are in play).47 CQ capabilities facilitate negotiators’ ability to demonstrate cooperative, interest-based negotiation behaviours in a negotiation context that demands behavioural adaptation. CQ also predicts negotiation performance.48 People higher in CQ practise more integrative information

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  197

behaviour and cooperative relationship management during negotiations, even when other types of intelligence (cognitive and emotional) personality and international experience are controlled for.49 Being adept at thinking about their own cultural assumptions (a characteristic related to high CQ) helps managers to be more effective in intercultural creative collaboration, share ideas and perform creatively with a nonacquaintance from another culture.50 Cultural intelligence is a stronger predictor of cross-border leadership effectiveness than either general or emotional intelligence.51

Managing anxiety and uncertainty in intercultural encounters To adapt successfully to working with different others, individuals need to manage the levels of uncertainty they experience about others’ behaviour and the anxiety they feel about interacting with different others. This means that they must be able to understand the different others (manage uncertainty) and to manage their emotional reaction to the differences (control anxiety).52 They may also be able to help the other party manage uncertainty and anxiety and so to interact more effectively. Several factors contribute towards people’s ability to manage uncertainty and anxiety. These factors include:

• knowledge of the other’s culture or subculture – for • • • • • • •

instance, its communication rules and behavioural norms, open, flexible and accurate stereotypes, positive attitudes towards the other (sub)culture and its members, intimate and rewarding contact with members of the other (sub)culture, perceiving similarities between their own (sub)culture and the (sub)culture of the different others, sharing communication networks with members of the (sub)culture, a positive cultural identity (when a person’s cultural identity is negative, the insecurity and anxiety stimulated by intercultural contact will seem greater, perhaps too great, leading to avoidance), and a demeanour that may help shift other participants’ definition of a situation from ‘difficult interaction with strangers’, which would tend to be an anxietyprovoking definition that would lead to heavy reliance on stereotypes, to a more relaxed one where individual characteristics can be taken into account. The demeanour of those involved in a situation affects the definitions that people create for situations (for instance, whether it is a crisis or a routine event) and so how people respond to the situation.53 By decreasing

uncertainty and anxiety, a relaxed demeanour may allow people to adapt more and be more effective in intercultural communication. Managing uncertainty and anxiety in intercultural encounters requires the skills to make accurate predictions, tolerate ambiguity, be mindful, empathize, selfmonitor and adapt behaviour through cultural relativism and biculturalism. Competence in a second language, which need not necessarily be used in the interaction, also reduces anxiety. These skills, with some suggestions on how to develop them, were described in Section 10.4. This guidance on factors and skills for reducing uncertainty and anxiety in intercultural encounters comes from anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory, which was introduced in Chapter 5. Effective communication occurs when levels of uncertainty and anxiety are optimal – intermediate between too high and too low. However, in interactions with strangers, both are often too high for effective communication. In these cases, effective intercultural communication depends on controlling anxiety through tension-reducing behaviour and reducing uncertainty by information seeking. In intercultural as against intracultural interactions, information seeking involves more interrogation, self-disclosure and non-verbal affiliative expressiveness, but there is no increase in how many direct questions are asked. Self-monitoring, attributional confidence and attraction are related to how much information seeking takes place in an interaction.54 Anxiety may sometimes be lower in cmc than ftf, although uncertainty may be higher because of the limited range of cues from non-verbal behaviour and paralinguistics available in those modes.

Adapting in initial intercultural encounters, grounding, communication accommodation, appreciative inquiry, developing shared representations of intercultural episodes and creating a ‘third culture’ perspective These skills increase mutual understanding during intercultural work encounters and so contribute both to building better work relations and to individuals’ ability to self-manage in future.

Adapting in initial intercultural encounters Adaptation theory is concerned with the conditions under which individuals who are interacting interculturally make more or less effort to adapt; in particular it concerns how responsibility for adapting is allocated between two participants. Adaptation is regarded as a burden that the

198  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

participants will assume equally or differentially according to their relative power in the interaction or their relative dependence on it for desired outcomes. Adaptations are the changes that individuals make in their emotions, thoughts, sense of identity and communication behaviour as they interact in a new cultural environment. The extent and nature of the adaptation depends on their motivation. People are more likely to adapt when they have a goal in an interaction, as opposed to merely engaging in a casual conversation. If the goal is shared: if, for instance, both are team members who will benefit from a good team performance, both participants will adapt; if only one participant has a goal which will be served by adaptation, then only that person will adapt. Goals arise from needs for cooperation, participation or agreement in such areas as commerce, manufacturing, defence, education, science, technology, politics, agriculture, medicine, the arts and scholarly research. When one person adapts ineffectually, the other participant will respond by invoking culture-based beliefs about difference. So, if a European in negotiation with someone from China suddenly starts ‘stone-walling’, in a clumsy attempt to adopt what s/he regards as Chinese negotiating style, the Chinese person might ascribe the behaviour to Western deviousness, if that is part of his or her culture-based belief about Europeans. Adaptation is disrupted when culture-based beliefs are invoked. If they are not, other impediments, such as status differences, are more likely to be overcome. Adaptation theory concerns first-time encounters. These are less predictable than later meetings and their outcomes often determine whether there will be further contact. In first-time encounters, the theory states, people will probe one another’s beliefs, especially those related to the task or purpose of the meeting, in order to identify areas of agreement or disagreement. An important outcome of this process is reinforcement or modification of prior cultural stereotypes. This learning will become a cognitive resource for future encounters. Whether such learning proves to be positive or negative for such future encounters depends on how closely ‘strangers’ met in future conform to the stereotype. Experience does not necessarily increase competence in intercultural communication, although it has the potential for doing so. Also important is self-examination. Adaptation involves confronting not only the ‘other’, but also the self. In this process, the personal cultural stereotype is reinforced or modified, and this learning also becomes part of the background of the individual’s future intercultural encounters.55 The implications of this theory for improving intercultural communication are that it is beneficial to:

• realize that both participants may be wrongly diagnosing

the intercultural situation. This could happen if they both wrongly identify the culture of the different other person.

• •

• •

It could also occur if they have incomplete or inaccurate knowledge of the cultural stereotype with which the other has been correctly identified or how closely the individual actually conforms to the stereotype. expect beliefs to be probed for areas of agreement and disagreement; understand the importance of agreement for building relationships. anticipate that how either party sees the interaction will affect whether they will take on, reject or intend to share the ‘burden’ of adaptation. They are likely to adapt their own communication behaviour more than they expect of the other party in the following circumstances: if they see the encounter as purposeful, its goals as shared, the benefit as mutual or theirs, the ‘territory’ as the other’s and their power and status as lower than the other’s. If any of the above conditions do not apply, they are likely to adapt less than they expect of the other. understand that adaptation itself is likely to change the attitudes and perceptions of adapters, both about the other party and their culture and about themselves and their own culture. avoid invoking culturally based beliefs which may conflict with the other person’s.

To speed progress with the task it is beneficial for each party to:

• offer more functional adaptive behaviour; if there is • •

inequality in adaptive behaviour to shift towards parity (that is, assume more of the ‘burden’ than would be ‘natural’). expect the major beneficiary of task completion to take responsibility for accelerating adaptive behaviour. disregard differences of status or territory which are to their advantage; or invoke them to increase the amount of adaptation the other party will supply.56

List five implications of Adaptation Theory that point to behaviours, expectations and understandings that are beneficial to speeding progress with tasks that involve significant amounts of intercultural communication.

Grounding Grounding is the process by which people establish and continuously update their shared understanding in conversations. The following is an example of grounding: A junior researcher wrote: ‘The US government had revenues of $5.8 trillion for the financial year 2014, a 19.1per cent increase from the previous

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  199

year. This equated to 43.7 per cent of global government spend for that year.’ The editor realized that the researcher wrongly thought government revenues equate to government spending, not allowing for government borrowing or deficit reduction. He wrote: ‘Spend and revenues are not the same thing.’ This could have been a case where grounding was unsuccessful, as the editor did not understand what the researcher’s exact problem was. However, the researcher replied: ‘Why not?’ The editor then replied: ‘Because governments can spend more than they take in from tax by borrowing in the financial markets.’ To make sure she understood, the researcher asked: ‘So that would mean that to work out the US government’s share of global government expenditure we would need to know the US government’s expenditure?’ Editor: ‘Yes.’ Researcher: ‘And to work out the US government’s share of global government revenues we would need a figure for global government revenues?’ Editor: ‘Yes.’ Give another example of grounding, if possible from lived experience.

In attempting to speak so as to be understood, communicators make assumptions about the common ground they share with their interlocutors. Each time they are understood and each time they understand what the other person says, the common ground is extended, so that ‘in orderly discourse, common ground is cumulative’.57 Grounding occurs naturally, but can be enhanced by asking and answering questions or by one party anticipating the other’s information needs and supplying them without being asked. In either case, unsuccessful grounding can occur if the information supplier does not correctly understand the other person’s information needs; however, as the example above illustrates, a process of ‘successive approximations’ can be successful. The more intercultural pairs ground, the better they communicate. It has been suggested, however, that they are less inclined to ground than monocultural pairs, although one study found the contrary.58   10.6.1 for more on grounding.

Communication accommodation When two or more people are communicating faceto-face, they often adjust features of their speech or behaviour, including accent, speed, loudness, vocabulary, grammar, voice tone or gestures; this is communication accommodation. Sometimes they adjust in a way that makes their communication more like the other person’s (converging), sometimes to make it more unlike (diverging). Diverging usually accentuates a person’s own group membership. Converging and diverging are probably strategies to signal communicators’ attitudes towards one other. They may converge to gain approval or identify. They may diverge to differentiate themselves from their interlocutor.59 Convergence may produce other benefits. When interlocutors’ speech rates converge during conversation, they are more likely to behave cooperatively with one another afterwards; it is suggested that the joint effort of convergence is perceived as a form of cooperation which induces more of the same. (As Chapter 5 showed, cooperation is very important for work.) This effect does not, however, occur following language convergence.60 Communication accommodation theory (CAT) identifies factors that influence whether people try to converge or diverge; it is illustrated in Figure 10.6. According to CAT, people from different cultures (or groups) can increase their ability to communicate with one another by converging through a process of attuning.61 Attuning consists of:

• using increasingly similar phrasing and vocabulary, formality levels and non-verbal behaviour, • sharing the choice of topic, taking turns to speak and • •

listen, responding to what others say and supporting others’ ‘face’, minimizing interruptions, corrections and evaluations, and adjusting speech-rate, loudness, framing and focusing moves to maximize ease of understanding for the partner.

Other important CAT processes include the following: 1 Learning when to expect people to behave more in intergroup terms and more in accordance with their norms; being more careful about breaches of norms. This means learning to: realize when an interaction is likely to involve status issues, recognize people who are highly dependent on their group and those whose sense of solidarity with their group is high,

• •

200  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK Figure 10.6  The basic influences on behaviour in communication accommodation theory62 Communication characteristics of other interactor For example, slow emphatic speech with limited use of gesture

Social/psychological context

Communication behaviour

For example, a manager interacting at work with his/her subordinate

Low tendency to accommodate

Divergence – speeding up of speech rate, increased use of gesture

For example, a subordinate interacting at work with his/her manager

High tendency to accommodate

Convergence – slowing of speech rate, reduced use of gesture

• recognize people who feel that they or their group • •

are disadvantaged and be aware of its implications (see Section 9.1), distinguish members of dominant and subordinate groups and know how that status is likely to affect their behaviour, and treat initial encounters as occasions when people will be particularly conscious of and behaving in accordance with their group memberships.

2 Being aware that the long-term motivations of interactors to build relationships or otherwise will affect how much they are likely to accommodate. 3 Paying attention to others’ needs and behaviours. 4 Noticing how much attention interlocutors pay to others’ needs and behaviours. 5 Monitoring interlocutors’ communication strategies to identify them as convergence, divergence or maintenance; becoming aware of the possibility of using a wider range of strategies than are normally used; trying to gain the level of personal control which will allow using an appropriate strategy rather than simply adopting a strategy unthinkingly. 6 Being sensitive to the other party’s evaluations of one’s own interactive behaviour as accommodative or not and attributable to oneself, one’s situation or one’s group; monitoring one’s own equivalent evaluations and ensuring they are soundly based. 7 If interlocutors are converging, being aware that that probably implies one or more of the following on their part: they desire social approval,

•

• they perceive the ‘costs’ of attuning as lower than the perceived rewards, • they desire to meet the perceived communication needs of their interlocutor(s), and • they desire a mutual self-presentation and equal-

status role relations. 8 Similarly, the presence of these factors suggests that attuning can be expected. 9 If interlocutors are diverging, being aware that that probably implies that they desire: to communicate a contrastive self- or group-image, to dissociate personally from their interlocutors or their definition of the situation, to signal differences from their interlocutors in experience, knowledge, intellectual capability or communicator style, and to achieve or maintain a high-status role. 10 Knowing the counter-intuitive findings on people’s use of interaction strategies – for instance, that people from collectivist cultures may use politeness to create social distance.63 11 Knowing that underaccommodation is consistently evaluated less positively than overaccommodation, likely due to the inferred motive.64

• • • •

Appreciative Inquiry This approach is based in the definitions of the two terms in its title: appreciate and inquire.65 To appreciate is to value: it refers to the act of recognizing the best in people or the world around us, affirming past and present strengths, successes and potentials, perceiving those

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  201

Table 10.2  A comparison of conventional problem-solving approaches and AI approaches66 Conventional Problem-solving Processes

AI Processes

Define the problem

Search for solutions that already exist

Fix what’s broken

Amplify what’s working

Underlying grammar is of problems, symptoms, causes, solutions, action plans, interventions

New grammar of the true, good, empowering

Focus on decay

Focus on life-giving forces

Learn from our mistakes

Learn from what works

Slow; takes a lot of positive emotion to bring about real change

Expands vision; creates energy fast

Can lead to a ‘blame’ culture

Assumes others are sources of capacity and imagination

things that give life (health, vitality, excellence) to living systems. A second meaning is to increase in value, as when an investment has appreciated in value. To inquire is to undertake the act of exploration and discovery or to ask questions; it involves being open to seeing new potentials and possibilities. The theoretical underpinning of appreciative inquiry (AI) is social constructionism – the theory that humans co-create reality, for instance by telling stories and through conversations (particularly inquiry) that continuously create new images, actions and realities. AI is intended to substitute an appreciative process for conventional problem-solving processes. The differences are set out in Table 10.2. The present authors have not been able to locate any research that applies AI to intercultural situations, but the approach seems capable of being used effectively in such contexts. As Table 10.2 shows, the positive approach to problemsolving taken in AI leads to detailed process differences from the implicitly negative approach of conventional problem-solving.

Developing shared representations of interaction episodes Intercultural communication is made more effective when the participants think of interactions in similar ways. ‘For interaction to succeed, participants must essentially agree in their social situation definition.’ As Section 6.1 explained, people from different cultures often think about (cognitively represent) interaction episodes in different terms. The greater the differences between how communicators think about interaction episodes, the harder it is for them to understand one another. Thus these (sub)cultural differences can create barriers. Understanding how people from a different culture think about interactions and so coming to have ‘shared representations’ of interaction episodes helps overcome

these barriers. Two other factors can assist: thinking about interactions in more complex ways and being generally socially skilled. More cohesive teams have more complex episode representations, based on three dimensions, friendliness, intimacy and activity, than more fragmented and less successful teams, which have two-dimensional representations, based only on evaluation and friendliness, a study found. It has been shown that how someone thinks about encounters is related to social skill. Highly socially skilled individuals see episodes more in terms of evaluation and intensity, while less socially skilled persons are primarily affected by anxiety in their mental representations of social episodes.67   10.6.2 for more findings on shared representations of intercultural episodes.

Creating a ‘third culture’ perspective through cultural awareness Cultural awareness consists of three types of awareness:

• General cultural awareness is composed of cultural •

sensitivity, empathy, mindfulness and competence, with their respective nuances. Cultural self-awareness consists of being aware of the way one’s life has been shaped by one’s own culture, consciousness of one’s own values and biases and their effects on the way one engages in intercultural interactions, the necessity of becoming comfortable with cultural differences and sensitivity to circumstances.

General cultural awareness and cultural self-awareness are foundational for the third level of cultural awareness:

• Situation-specific awareness, or the ability to judge a cultural situation accurately from both one’s own and the other’s cultural viewpoint.

202  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

The three types of awareness together enable a third culture perspective that has seven characteristics: openmindedness toward new ideas and experiences; the ability to empathize with people from other cultures; accuracy in perceiving differences and similarities between the sojourner’s own culture and the host culture; an attitude of being non-judgemental; being an astute, non-critical observer of one’s own and of other people’s behaviour; the ability to establish meaningful relationships with people in the host culture; and lower levels of ethnocentricity.68 Analysis of documents from a Mexican company that operated on both sides of the US-Mexico border and communicated in both English and Spanish suggested that a ‘third culture’ approach to business communication was emerging there. Letters, proposals and invoices showed that professionals on that border were adopting, and adapting to, shared communicative standards and practices in business communication.69

Tension mitigation strategies, conflict resolution and mutual conversational improvement strategies These approaches and skills help support better intercultural work relationships, particularly by showing good intentions. With better relationships, understanding increases and individuals gain confidence and self-manage their anxieties more effectively.

Tension mitigation strategies People adopt a range of ways to mitigate workplace tensions that arise with others who tend towards greater or lesser degrees of emotional expression, formality or informality, fixed or flexible appointments or task or relationship focus than they do themselves. A study found the following strategies:

• More expressive participants adapted in both face-

•

to-face (ftf) and audio interactions to use milder non-verbal expressions of both positive and negative emotion, such as reducing loudness of voice, laughing less, or in general appearing less extroverted. In email interactions, some emotionally expressive participants felt regret after sending negatively emotional emails and developed a goal to calm down before sending such emails in the future. Lower formality participants adapted in ftf interactions by explicitly encouraging less formal non-verbal behaviours (for example, keeping rather than avoiding eye contact). In cmc interactions, some lower formality participants also consciously selected instant messaging (IM) because of its medium to high immediacy

• •

of feedback and low symbol variety in an attempt to initiate ‘informal’ conversations. In text-based interactions (for example, email and IM), higher formality participants mitigated tensions by making use of the affordances of reprocessability and rehearsability to review the writing style of their communication partner and mimic it. Some people used text-based cmc (for example, SMS, IM, email) to manage others’ expectations of their appointment attendance through explicit status updates. To mitigate differences in task or relationship focuses, task-oriented professionals adapted to dedicate time and conversation content to social topics such as family, though not always successfully as it did not come ‘naturally’ to them.70

Conflict resolution ‘Dispute settlement is already no easy task. … With the addition of cultural barriers, cross-cultural negotiation may seem next to impossible.’71 The cultural barriers consist not only of differences in beliefs and values, such as were described in Chapter 4, or in ways of communicating, as recounted in Chapter 3, but also in models of conflict resolution itself. Low-context cultures, with their ‘enlightenment-based rationalism’, attempt to resolve disputes by a ‘means-end rationality’, an emphasis on technical ways to break problems down into their component parts and a guiding ethic which is ‘instrumental and manipulative’. In contrast, highcontext cultures attempt dispute resolution through adaptation and eschewing dichotomous either/or possibilities. For moral conflict management, it is widely agreed following Habermas that there is no alternative to ‘fair and open intercultural communication’.72 Unfortunately, however, it is precisely in an intercultural setting that, according to some researchers, open communication is least likely. Whereas similarity encourages people to adopt a cooperative, integrative approach, lack of cultural similarity is a significant factor in explaining reliance on a legalistic strategy. The feeling of a lack of common ground may lead to a higher level of perceived behavioural uncertainty and so to reliance on legal mechanisms for resolving conflicts. Conflict resolution with open problem-solving and compromising is widely advocated to enable participants to escape from deadlock situations. In international joint ventures, for instance, both partners need to adopt a give-and-take attitude in resolving disagreements.73 Critics suggest, though, that conflict and instability are not anomalous or uncharacteristic, but inevitable; therefore the aim should be for resolutions that ‘privilege instability and difference within a more stable whole’. Any positions, standpoints or solutions should always be understood as subject to being revised, changed, deleted

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  203

or replaced. Most methods rely too much on linear logic, quasi-legalistic approaches and formalism that ‘undermine other discourses (e.g., based on needs, differences, multicultural diverse voices, and so on) and possibly more liberating narrative constructions.’74 Barkema and Vermeulen (1997) found that cultural distance in uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation are more detrimental than cultural distance in individualism, power distance or masculinity for the survival of international joint ventures.75 How can these findings be explained?

Two approaches that attempt to answer these criticisms respectively emphasize sources of conflict that stem from frustrated needs and the mental processes of the disputants. Needs, as opposed to interests, are universal.76 Needs also differ from interests in other important ways. First, they are non-negotiable. People will not trade away their identity or their security. Identity and security are so necessary to all human satisfaction that people will do almost anything, even things that violate fundamental norms, or diminish their ability to attain their interests, in an effort to obtain their basic needs. Second, needs are usually not mutually exclusive. While interests may be structured in such a way that only one side can get what it wants, needs are usually mutually supporting. Insecurity tends to breed aggression against others; security allows one to leave others alone. Similarly, if one’s own identity is secure, there is no need to threaten another’s sense of identity. If a group’s identity is denied, however, it is likely to respond by asserting its identity against that of the opposing group(s). A second approach emphasizes the mental processes of the disputants. One important aspect is how the parties perceive their situation, as opposed to how it might appear to an independent observer. Second, especially where some participants are ‘subaltern voices’, such as those of women or ethnic minorities, the complexities of people’s group identities must be allowed for. ‘It is fundamentally important for all participants in a conflict to be heard and understood.’ These understandings underpin an approach that aims for conflict transformation rather than dispute settlement. It sees conflict as both caused by and causing changes in relationships. ‘Destructive interaction patterns need to be transformed into positive or constructive relationships and interactions … development of empowerment and mutual recognition, along with interdependence, justice, forgiveness, and reconciliation.’ One technique is ‘dialogue’ in which small groups of people who hold opposing views on highly divisive and emotional issues are brought together to have a ‘new kind

of conversation’. Dialogue does not always lead to settlement, but may produce a transformation in the way the conflict is pursued.77 A third possibility also makes the parties’ perceptions a central issue but builds on practices observed as being used in work-related conflicts both intra- and intercultural. This is the use of third parties, not as mediators or for other forms of intervention but as ‘sense-makers’. Volkema et al. (1996) recorded finding that encounters with third parties (for example, co-workers, friends, family) were common responses to perceived incompatibility of interests at work. Emotional, cognitive and behavioural sense-making are components of these encounters. Support for this ‘natural’ behaviour, either explicitly through the provision of counsellors or by encouragement and exhortation, may have the potential to reduce such conflicts.78 Finally, because on the surface work-related conflict focuses on substantive issues, not relational and image issues, face negotiation has implications for how people manage it. Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998) argued that culturally competent facework is a critical aspect of conflict management.79

Conversational improvement strategies To repair communication failures, people say they use one or more conversational improvement strategies:

• Asserting a point of view: being more persuasive, expressing disagreement, arguing one’s point of view. • Open mindedness: being less judgemental, not dis• • • •

missing ideas or opinions, letting the other person express their own opinion. Avoidance: not bringing up unpleasant topics. Giving in: apologizing, agreeing. Interaction management: more talking, listening, turntaking, questioning, exploring topics on the part of both. Other-orientation: involving the other person more, having patience with other person, focusing on them.

Respondents also mention a seventh ‘strategy’, acceptance that nothing can be done; it seems unlikely, however, that this strategy will actually repair failures.80   10.6.3 for critiques of intercultural communication theories.

Intercultural work communication by cmc Most of the strategies and processes described in this section for achieving effective intercultural communication are equally as available and equally as necessary in cmc as ftfc.

204  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

10.7 APPLICATIONS OF SKILLS TO PARTICULAR SITUATIONS Situations calling for application of both the general intercultural skills already described and more specific skills include inter-ability communication, avoiding and proscribing harassing or discriminatory behaviour, coping with others’ harassment, bullying, prejudice or discrimination and helping change others’ stereotypes about outgroup members.

Inter-ability communication Relying on broad ‘disability knowledge’ is not enough in interactions with a particular person who is differentlyabled. Implying that another person cannot enact any role outside his or her differently-abled identity threatens both their fellowship and their competence face. Instead, the following can help develop inter-ability relationships:

• Notice cues that help to reveal others’ preferred identities instead of relying on your own impression. • Emphasize personal, not ability, identities. • Treat people and relationships as unique, not as representatives of any category. • Anticipate face needs and learn to overcome face•

threats by including the other person and respecting his or her abilities. When face-threats do occur, apologize. Be aware that it may take several interactions to achieve effective inter-ability communication.81

Disclosing a difference in ability, its type and cause, can reduce tension and uncertainty so that the initial focus on the difference will recede and the individual will become the focus. This strategy has the drawback, however, that it disregards the needs and feelings of the person who is differently-abled and makes them responsible for disclosure. Both parties prefer the other to take the initiative, but since the privacy issue most concerns the person who is differently-abled, it is important that the decision to disclose information remains theirs.82 In practice people who are differently-abled are often the ones who undertake the roles of enabling communication and of educating or training others to achieve inter-ability communication.

Avoiding and proscribing harassing and discriminatory behaviour Any kind of harassing or discriminatory behaviour is not only wrong and unacceptable in itself, it also creates barriers to communication, not only with its victims but also

with all who perceive and condemn it. Some perpetrators of harassment, especially sexual harassment, do not always understand that what they do is harassment. Not all harassment at work is done by men to women although the majority is. While awareness of harassment has increased and most men avoid it, others continue to be a problem. People accused of harassment are generally rated more credible, more likeable, more dedicated and more competent when they accept responsibility, compared to when they rely on excuses or denials. Excuses lead to more warnings, punishments and advice for the accused; denials prompt respondents to consider the matter further or refer the entire incident higher up.83

Coping with others’ harassment, bullying, prejudice or discrimination Sexist, racist and other prejudiced behaviours are not the fault of the victims. Responsibility for preventing them and putting them right is primarily the perpetrators’ and secondarily any relevant managers’, organizations’ or institutions’. Despite this, victims do often need to handle them in order not to be damaged emotionally or in their ability to communicate and maintain relationships at work. There are both positive and negative coping strategies for dealing with work stress, however caused.

• Positive (control-related) coping styles include help-

•

•

seeking (which involves actively pursuing consultations with others in the work situation, publicly announcing decisions about what should be done, and undertaking policy changes to prevent future problems), positive thinking and direct action (devoting more time and energy to do what is expected, using more effective planning methods, and working harder and longer hours). High scores on gender identity roles, whether masculine or feminine, were linked to positive coping styles, a study found. Low scores on gender identity were associated with the escape-related coping styles of alcohol use and avoidance/resignation. High masculinity, but not high femininity, was linked to help-seeking scores. ‘Such activities seem to require certain levels of assertiveness and analytical decisionmaking skills, traits more descriptive of a masculine rather than feminine gender role.’ (These findings relate to gender role, which was more closely linked than biological sex to ways of coping with work stress.) Having an internal locus of control increased people’s tendency to use help-seeking and positive, directaction coping strategies; an external orientation, that either powerful other people or chance control what happens, increased the tendency to use escape-related strategies.

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  205

• Older workers are less likely to avoid or resign them-

selves to workplace stressors. This finding is consistent with other research that finds older workers exhibit a greater sense of being in control and more accurate self-appraisals; these may result from their longer experience with effective coping behaviours.84

Suggestions for how women and other ‘minority’ groups can learn to cope with others’ damaging behaviours include the following:

• having one’s own clear parameters and consistent commitment to fair treatment, • judging when to ‘let it go’ and when to react strongly, • recognizing allies in the oppressing categories, • getting a mentor, • getting better qualifications and experience than the ‘competition’, and • accepting the need to prove oneself over and over. Most victims started with constructive conflict-solving strategies, changed their strategies several times but ended with trying to leave the organization, a German study found. The unsuccessful victims, in their fight for justice, often contributed to the escalation of the bullying conflict. On the other hand, successful copers (those victims who believed that their situation at work had improved as a result of their coping efforts) less often fought back with similar means, less often used avoidance behaviour such as absenteeism, and were better at recognizing and avoiding escalating behaviour.85

Helping change others’ stereotypes about outgroup members To promote a good atmosphere for intercultural communication in an organization, there can be a need to influence co-members of an ingroup to change their stereotypes of other (sub)cultural groups. Referent information influence is one way to achieve this. Referent information influence is the motivation individuals have to agree with (for example, share the beliefs of) other members of a group they find attractive, where their social identity as a group member is salient. In these circumstances, people expect to agree with the other group member. When disagreement occurs, they may be motivated to reduce the subjective uncertainty that arises from disagreement with people with whom they prefer to agree. Then they may change their views in one of three ways:

• Recategorize the disagreeing ingroup members as an

outgroup (for example, as in, ‘My sister Mary works with Asian women and she says they are not nearly as

•

•

submissive as people think but Mary’s always had some peculiar ideas – she’s not like the rest of our family’). Attribute the disagreement to perceived relevant difference in the stimulus situation (for example, as in, ‘My sister Mary works with Asian women and she says they are not nearly as submissive as people think – but she’s talking about the ones who’ve been brought up in the West – they’re different’). Alter their views to become consistent with other ingroup members (for example, by shifting their own stereotypes – as in, ‘My sister Mary works with Asian women and she says they are not nearly as submissive as people think – she could be right’).86 If the ingroup member’s stereotype about an outgroup is a positive one, this last response to disagreement could be beneficial.

Another approach is based on attribution theory. Counter-stereotypic behaviour by one member of an outgroup often fails to change outgroup stereotypes because it can be dismissed as an exception to the rule. Thus, for instance, Mrs Thatcher’s behaviour as UK Prime Minister failed to change many men’s stereotypes of women because they chose to regard her as an ‘honorary man’, that is, not a typical woman. However, the impact of an individual outgroup member’s behaviour on stereotypes can be increased. This happens if two conditions apply: the behaviour is attributed to a stable internal cause such as personality, rather than to an external cause, such as ‘luck’ or an unstable internal cause such as mood; and the outgroup member is seen as typical, because in other ways their behaviour is similar to the behaviour of many members of the outgroup. Thus, by dressing in a feminine way to confirm male stereotypes of women but consistently making the ‘hard’ decisions, women managers increase their chances of shifting their male colleagues’ stereotypes of women. Unfortunately, though, negative beliefs are often more resistant to change than positive ones.87

Marginalized groups’ strategies Co-cultural communication theory creates a framework for understanding the processes by which members of marginalized groups negotiate attempts by others to mute their voices within dominant societal structures. Three strategies – separation, accommodation and assimilation – are widely applicable. Each has a non-assertive, assertive or aggressive mode of application. The combination of mode and strategy produces actual interaction behaviours. For example, a non-assertive mode combined with a separation strategy leads to avoiding interaction or maintaining interpersonal barriers during interaction; an assertive mode combined with a separation strategy leads to communicating one’s own identity (self), networking

206  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

within one’s own ingroup, exemplifying the ingroup’s strengths and embracing stereotypes; an aggressive mode in combination with a separation strategy leads to attacking behaviour or behaviour that sabotages different others.   10.7.1 for more on co-cultural communication with examples of the behaviours produced by combinations of accommodation and assimilation strategies with the different modes.   10.7.2 for findings concerning the subvertion of the suppression of motherhood in the workplace.

10.8 EFFECTIVE MEDIATED INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION Some of the requirements for communicating effectively in intercultural work situations are made more difficult in cmc, especially text-based cmc; others are facilitated. Cmc makes intercultural social perceptiveness and so predicting others’ behaviour and responses accurately more difficult because cues are reduced; tolerating ambiguity can also be more difficult because of delays in responses. On the other hand unlearning habitual responses, being non-judgemental, being mindful and having positive expectations about intercultural encounters are equally available online as ftf. Willingness and effort to understand an intercultural interaction – interaction attentiveness – plays an important role in intercultural sensitivity outcomes. This effect is greatest in a virtual channel.88 Effective intercultural self-presentation is on the whole easier whole in text-based cmc. More time to draft and the option to revise support effective language choice, rule-following, achieving clarity, appropriate assertiveness, resourcefulness and information sharing. Against this the lack of non-verbal behaviour display can make showing empathy and communicating a relationship as well as a task orientation more difficult, particularly in a work context where emotions may be seen as inappropriate. Of the intercultural interaction processes described in Section 10.6, grounding, sense-making, communication accommodation and appreciative inquiry are as available in cmc as ftfc, while research has shown that intercultural anxiety levels are lower. In text-based cmc, achieving other desirables such as developing shared representations of intercultural episodes and conflict resolution are possible but likely to take longer because of the slower rate of interaction.

Specific concerns that arise once computer-mediated communication is one of the possible modes of intercultural communication include which media to use, how to ensure that everyone who feels that they have the ‘right to know’ receives the information they believe they are entitled to and reduce the risk of any member hiding information, how to meet the need for a ‘human touch’ in the effectiveness of discussing critical or complex information and how to establish credibility and trust. The findings of a study published in 2008 (Sharma et al. 2008) revealed attitudes to these issues:

• While a substantial minority (46 per cent) of respond-

•

•

• •

ents agreed that email is more effective than direct communication (telephone or face-to-face) for reducing gaps due to cultural differences, 30 per cent disagreed. Those who agreed were probably focusing on the greater ease of ensuring clarity by email, but not on the difficulty of intercultural relationship building by that mode. 68 per cent of respondents believed that discussion forums and web repositories were more effective than emails for activities related to project discussions. The information risks of flooding and hoarding in emails are avoided in forums and repositories, as they can largely support the preferences of the communicator. There was very significant support among practitioners for an assertion that tested the need for transparency and open communication: 69 per cent of respondents supported the view that organizational politics can be reduced by the practice of distributing uniform information through newsletters and bulletins. 78 per cent of respondents agreed that critical project issues are more effectively discussed through audio or video conferencing than email or discussion forums. This was believed to meet the need for a ‘human touch’ when discussing critical or complex information. Following up email with telephone enabled the building of trust, participants believed. A small majority (51 per cent) thought that video-conferencing is better than telephone conferencing in its ability to build trust. Regular informal communication increases trust, the study found.89

10.9 INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE Read Section 1.3 of this book for an explanation of communication competence. Understandings of intercultural communication competence (ICC) vary according to different theoretical perspectives.

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  207

• A language-based approach defines ICC as the ability •

•

to encode meanings and decode messages in ways that correspond to the meanings held in the other communicator’s repository.90 In AUM theory effective communication means that participants attach similar meanings to the messages transmitted, an understanding that corresponds to the definition just given. (The importance of this factor is shown by a finding that when Black and White people interacted in public meetings, they often assigned different meanings to the matters under discussion. However, they tended to believe that the meanings they assigned were the same, and on this basis ascribed negative motives to the other group.91) Effective intercultural communication also requires that individuals from one culture can attribute others’ behaviour to causes, whether situation or personal or group disposition, that are the same as those of a native of the other’s culture under the same conditions. The facework approach to intercultural communication competence is a developmental model with four stages: Stage 1 – unconscious incompetence: the individual is fundamentally ignorant both cognitively and behaviourally;

Stage 2 – conscious incompetence: the individual understands the behaviour issues but cannot deal with them; so, for example, an interlocutor may be aware that there are too many awkward pauses and silences but not be able to correct this; Stage 3 – conscious competence: the individual cognitively understands communication differences between cultures and is conscious of facework; Stage 4 – unconscious competence: this is the final, fully effective stage. As with driving a car or swimming, at a certain point it becomes spontaneous and natural. Adjustment and adaptation occur without conscious effort.92

• Satisfaction with an intercultural encounter can be one

•

measure of its effectiveness. A study found that the level of satisfaction expressed by participants in initial intercultural encounters was linked to three factors: perceptions of how well synchronized the conversation was, how difficult it was and how much common ground there was.93 Chen (1988) provided a set of intercultural communication competence measures, which are shown in Figure 10.7.94

Figure 10.7  Intercultural communication competence measures95 Personal attributes

Communication skills

Self-disclosure Self-awareness Social relaxation

Message and social skills Flexibility Interaction management

Intercultural behavioural assessment measures Display of respect Interaction posture Orientation to knowledge Empathy Relational role behaviour Interaction management Tolerance of ambiguity

Psychological adaptation

Cultural awareness

Frustration* Stress* Alienation* Ambiguity*

Social values Customs Norms Systems

*All negatively scored

208  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

•

•

As Figure 10.7 shows, according to Chen (1988), intercultural competence can be measured in terms of a series of behavioural assessments and the four sets of factors on which these depend – personal attributes such as self-awareness, communication skills including flexibility, awareness of other cultures including their norms and systems, and an absence of poor psychological adaptation indicators such as alienation. Building on earlier theoretical and empirical work, a multidimensional model of ICC proposed and tested in 2005 found that knowledge and motivation were identified as important components of ICC. Additions to a multidimensional definition of ICC included listening skills, prior cross-cultural experiences, having a global outlook as opposed to an ethnocentric one, and an ‘other-centred’ style of communication.96 In a work context, international business managers identified the following seven dimensions of communication competence as predictors of the success of international and intercultural business management.97 These predictors were confirmed by other empirical studies.98 1 How appropriately individuals adapt to new or ambiguous situations, acquire new learning and perform according to the standards and practices of the host society. Those who are unwilling or slow to adapt to new situations may have many problems in intercultural business interactions. 2 The ability to show respect and positive regard for another person in interpersonal and intercultural relations. Respect is conveyed in a variety of ways – through eye contact, body posture, voice tone, voice pitch and general displays of interest. Showing respect is a very important managerial skill for international business success. 3 The ability to understand others’ situations and feelings through giving and receiving feedback or empathy. 4 Interaction management, including negotiation of topics discussed, turn-taking, entering and exiting episodes and handling topical development smoothly. Holding negotiations, conducting meetings, communicating decisions and making presentations are important for international business management. 5 The ability to respond to others in a descriptive and non-judgemental way. Judgement, evaluation and appraisal are major barriers to interpersonal communication. Withholding judgement is important in international business management. 6 Having the flexibility to explain things to different people in different situations in order to reach the

•

same results. Maintaining flexibility in explanations predicted culture awareness and effectiveness in intercultural communication, research findings showed.99 A survey indicated that the Vice Presidents of international business corporations perceived maintaining flexibility as an important skill for international business success.100 7 The ability to perform both relationship and task roles and to avoid self-centred roles. In intercultural interaction, developing a working relationship is the basis on which two parties can facilitate task roles. Without a good working relationship, business cannot be conducted between two parties. Finally, a review of 70 papers on intercultural communication competence published between 2003 and 2013 found that cultural empathy, cooperation and open attitudes towards other people in general contribute to ICC: 1 Cultural empathy is inversely related to ethnic prejudice and positively related to cooperation, which in turn results in high levels of problem-solving. 2 Cooperative (collaborative) learning and volunteer experience facilitate the development of ICC while telecollaboration is a means of developing ICC through exposure to other cultures. 3 Positive (open) attitudes toward people of other cultures have also been identified as a key variable in ICC.101

Some findings have suggested a challenge to traditional intercultural competence criteria. The type of situation and the other participants within the situation may be more powerful determining factors than the particular intercultural communication competence traits possessed by individuals. Trait criteria are considered of ‘limited value in differentiating between the actual behaviour in situ of culturally different persons’. For instance, the situation of firing an employee elicited communication behaviour judged less competent than that for promotion or selection, regardless of the culture or gender of the stimulus person.102 A second challenge has been made to intercultural competence approaches (here called cross-cultural competence or CC) in the context of international business on the grounds that they focus too much on the knowledge, skills and attributes that appear to be its antecedents, resulting in a gap between ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’. A model is put forward instead that claims to explain how CC is nurtured in individuals, linked to the concept of cultural intelligence. The model follows Earley and Ang (2003) in adding the cognitive aspects of knowledge acquisition (which they called metacognition) to Hofstede (2001)’s culture-general knowledge (a focus on awareness and

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  209

knowledge of cultural differences) and culture-specific knowledge (a focus on specific knowledge about another culture).103 Metacognition provides insights into three aspects of the knowledge acquisition process: 1 ‘person’ aspects – intra-individual, inter-individual or universal; 2 task variables – the nature of the information required; and 3 strategy variables – the procedures for using the acquired knowledge.104 The model adds in personal skills such as abilities and aptitudes, personal attributes such as values, beliefs, norms, personality traits such as flexibility, perseverance and self-efficacy, and two moderating external factors: institutional ethnocentrism (where an MNB imposes its home culture way of working on its affiliates abroad) and cultural distance. Personal skills and cultural knowledge are depicted as influenced by behavioural learning and crosscultural training, while even in the presence of CC, international business failures may result from external factors in the environment and internal factors in the firm.105

It is worth drawing a distinction between competence in communication and communication that conveys an impression of general competence. Competent behaviour increases influence except in the case of members of stigmatized groups, where it can have the opposite effect.106 Figure 10.8 summarizes the skills and attributes required for effective intercultural communication at work.

10.10 SKILLS FOR SOJOURNING AND WORKING ABROAD Sojourners are people who grew up in (had their ‘primary socialization’ in) one culture and moved, temporarily, but for at least a month, into another, who depend to some extent on the host environment for meeting their personal and social needs, and are engaged in first-hand, continuous experiences with the host environment. Sojourners, in other words, are people who are living abroad. We are concerned here with sojourners who are working abroad,

Figure 10.8  Skills and attributes needed for effective intercultural work communication Uses inclusive language

Resolves ethical issues: - uses fair, open communication - is culture relative

Competent communication:

- increases the voice of weaker stakeholders

- uses appropriate language and is co-operative

- shows concern for others’ values

- adjusts for the situation - plans, models, has presence, reflects

Employs skills of: - enhanced intercultural understanding - effective intercultural self-presentation - self-monitoring, dealing with emotions Competent intercultural communication: Uses effective intercultural processes: - grounding - communication accommodation - adaptation - development of shared mental images - managing uncertainty and anxiety - conflict resolution - conversational improvement strategies - marginalized groups’ strategies

- achieves isometric meanings and attributions - achieves unconsciously competent facework - achieves managers’ practical suggestions - adjusts for cultural differences

210  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

either as students or as employees or entrepreneurs. Living abroad can be beneficial for both individuals’ careers and their personal development; for instance, living abroad is positively related to individual creativity including the aspects of insight, association, and idea generation,107 and, through leading the sojourner to acquire new international support relationships, to personality development in the direction of greater openness and agreeableness and lowered neuroticism.108 Sojourning can, however, be problematic, involving culture shock, the need to resolve ethical issues and the need to deal with negative emotions and stress provoked by overseas encounters.

Orienting to another culture Knowing specific similarities and differences such as whether to greet with a handshake, a namaste or a bow is essential for knowing in detail how to behave. Knowledge of general cultural similarities and differences, such as whether another culture is collectivist or individualist, particularist or universalist, is also vital: it is needed for accurately interpreting the behaviour of people in another country. Knowledge of the host culture and its language can be gained in several ways. These include reading books or articles, watching TV programmes or films, talking to people who have had extended contact with people from the other culture or talking directly to people from the other culture. Other ways of gaining information are by observing the members of the other culture interacting among themselves and by observing their behaviour when interacting with them. One of the best ways to learn about people in other cultures is to learn their language. ‘Without understanding some of the host language, it is not possible to understand their behaviour.’109 This does not necessarily mean speaking the language fluently; however, the more the language is understood, the more the culture can be understood. Also, host nationals usually regard making an effort to speak the language as a positive sign. It increases their desire to get acquainted.   10.10.1 for more on orienting to another culture.

To obtain critical informational and emotional support, expatriates who are working abroad must form network ties in the host country. Individuals who identify with both their home and host cultures (that is, biculturals) show enhanced creativity (exhibit more fluency, flexibility, and novelty on a creative uses task and produce more innovations at work) and professional success (achieve higher promotion rates and more positive reputations) compared with individuals

who identify with only a single culture (that is, assimilated and separated individuals). These effects are driven by biculturals’ greater levels of integrative complexity.110

Culture shock ‘Culture shock’ refers to feelings of anxiety and tension owing to loss of familiar customs and social interactions. Put differently, culture shock is a ‘cumulative and debilitating state of disorientation, one that builds slowly from each experience in which the sufferer encounters contrary ways of perceiving, doing and valuing things’.111 ‘Culture shock’ can appear in a number of guises, varying from mild to severe homesickness, or feeling frustrated to suffering alienation and isolation. These feelings can be brought on by a number of things including the language barrier, loneliness, difficulty in penetrating the host society, not knowing how to react in a difficult situation and always being the centre of attention. Common symptoms of culture shock that have been identified include irritability, loneliness, depression and rigidity. Culture shock and the need for a painful process of cultural adjustment have been described as ‘universal aspects’.112 Individuals are commonly disoriented when undergoing a transitional experience and the accompanying stress. Realizing that what they are undergoing is ‘normal’ helps many individuals to tolerate stress. There are five distinct patterns of stress experienced by sojourners over the course of their time abroad: a reverse J-curve (where stress declines initially then increases again), an inverse U-curve (where stress increases sharply to a peak then declines sharply), mild stress (fairly stable at a low level), minor relief (responding positively but mildly to stress), and resilience pattern (responding positively and strongly to stress). There is evidence that which of these patterns is experienced depends on the individual’s empathy, their cultural adaptation, and coping strategies.113  10.10.2 for more on coping with culture shock.

Sojourner adjustment/adaptation Despite problems of culture shock, most sojourners do eventually adjust to the point where they are coping and effective. How do they do it? Can the process be speeded up? One approach is to identify a series of stages that are usually gone through in the process of adjustment. In one such model the stages are: 1 Fascination. In the early days ‘buffers’ such as getting set up with work, accommodation and so on prevent real contact with the host culture. 2 Hostility and aggression. As the buffers reduce, contact

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  211

occurs and often leads to anger towards everything and sometimes everyone in the host culture. This is a critical point where the shock can develop into rejecting the host culture or accepting it and adjusting to the new surroundings. 3 Acceptance. The person then accepts the host culture as much as they can. This is never total but is sufficient to make life comfortable. 4 Adaptation. In spite of difficulties a person does his or her best to adjust to the new culture and refuses to give in to culture shock.

identity presuppose that the visitor’s simplified view of the host society is replaced with a more realistic, more complex view. Competence in the language of the host country, being highly motivated to achieve acculturation and having access to interpersonal and mass communication experiences are the three factors which have most bearing on gaining more realistic perceptions of the host country.

Motivation to adapt is the most important factor in how quickly individuals pass through these stages. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, expatriates who have themselves taken the decision to live and work abroad adjust better to general aspects of their host country and interactions with host-country nationals than do those sent by their organizations.114 Other factors that have a positive influence on both work and non-work adjustment include the expatriate’s language proficiency, type, and the personality traits of emotional stability and cultural empathy.115 Using English in the workplace and congruent communication and conflict styles are more relevant to work adjustment and work attitudes than host-country language proficiency or social interaction frequency with host-country nationals, a study of 125 foreign workers in South Korea showed. On the other hand, host-country language proficiency and social interaction frequency with host-country nationals have a more positive influence on general and interaction adjustment.116 The longer immigrants reside in a country, the more they communicate with the host nationals via new media. This social interaction conducted through new media by immigrants proves to be a critical element that can determine whether they can successfully adjust to the host country.117

Host-country language competence, ­motivation, access to interpersonal and mass communication experiences, stress, expectations, anxiety and attributional confidence are variables that influence acculturation. Draw a diagram to show the relations among these variables.

  10.10.3 for more on sojourner adjustment/ adaptation.

  10.10.4 to learn more about acculturation and for a link to a video about the challenges of working abroad.

CHAPTER 10 SUMMARY

• Finding the acceptable term for members of a group

•

•

Acculturation Acculturation is the establishment of an ‘intercultural identity’ for an immigrant, sojourner or international assignee who successfully integrates into a new environment. Intercultural identity is achieved when an individual grows beyond their original culture and encompasses a new culture, gaining additional insight into both cultures in the process.118 It involves understanding the norms and values, and adopting salient reference groups of the host society. Acculturation and acquiring an intercultural

•

becomes easier with practice. Where possible, the term used should be the one preferred by members of the group themselves. When speaking about any group, a positive or neutral description should be used and when speaking of an individual there should be a focus on the person’s essential humanity, not on characteristics such as ethnicity, gender or age. Ethical issues are among the most problematic in intercultural work. Ethical relativism, which evades ethical issues by the contention that no moral system is better than any other, appears to be logically flawed. Consensus building by fair and open communication based on cultural relativism, finding a way to increase the power and voice of weaker stakeholders, and having a deep concern for others’ value systems are among the suggested ways to achieve ethical intercultural work communication. A wide range of traits can contribute positively towards achieving effective intercultural communication. Selfmonitoring, emotion regulation ability, intercultural sensitivity, cultural relativism, compatible biculturalism and CQ are among the most important. Skills that enhance intercultural understanding of others include intercultural social perceptiveness, unlearning and learning, accurately predicting others’ behaviour and responses, sense-making, developing a transactional culture or discourse, tolerating ambiguity, being non-judgemental, being mindful and having positive expectations about intercultural encounters.

212  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

• Effective

•

• • •

intercultural self-presentation behaviours include choosing appropriate language, following appropriate communication rules, being clear, adjusting for non-routine interactions, showing empathy, communicating a relationship as well as a task orientation, communicating appropriate assertiveness, being resourceful as a communicator and sharing information. Ease and effectiveness during intercultural interactions can be attained by CQ talk, appreciative inquiry, managing uncertainty and anxiety in intercultural encounters, tension mitigation strategies, adapting in initial intercultural encounters, grounding, communication accommodation, developing shared representations of intercultural episodes, conflict resolution, mutual conversational improvement strategies, and creating a ‘third culture’ perspective. Particular situations can require skills specific to interability communication, avoiding and proscribing harassing and discriminatory behaviour, helping change others’ stereotypes about outgroup members and marginalized groups’ strategies. Approaches to communication and intercultural communication competence and effectiveness include both stage models and lists of dimensions. Definitions vary with the theoretical perspective of the definer. Sojourning and working abroad involve orienting to another culture, coping with culture shock, and adapting to the point of being effective. Acquiring ­competence in the host culture’s language, forming network ties, having high motivation to adapt, realising that culture shock is ‘normal’ and interacting with host nationals are among behaviours that help in these processes. Achieving acculturation, which is a further level of success in adjustment, is related to language competence, high motivation to acculturate and ­communication experiences.

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Chen, I. (2003) ‘Conversation orientation and cognitive processes: a comparison of US students in initial interaction with native- versus non-native-speaking partners’, Human Communication Research, 29: 182–209. 2 Varner, I.L. (2000) ‘The theoretical foundation for intercultural business communication: a conceptual model’, Journal of Business Communication, 37(1): 39–57. 3 Serdjénian, E. (1994) ‘Women managers in France’, in Adler, N.J. and Izraeli, D.N. (eds) Competitive Frontiers, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

4 This section is developed from The Human Relations Code of the University of Maryland at College Park, URL: http://www.inform.umd.edu/Student/Diversity_ Resources. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 5 Brinkmann, J. (2002) ‘Business ethics and intercultural communication: exploring the overlap between two academic fields’, Intercultural Communication, 5, URL: http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr5/abstract5. htm#brinkman. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 6 Ibid. 7 Deetz, S., Cohen, D. and Edley, P.P. (1997) ‘Toward a dialogic ethic in the context of international business organization’, in Casmir, F.L. (ed.) Ethics in Intercultural and International Communication, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 8 Hall, B.J. (1997) ‘Culture, ethics, and communication’, in Casmir, F.L. (ed.) Ethics in Intercultural and International Communication, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 9 Gudykunst, W.B. (1985) ‘The influence of cultural similarity, type of relationship, and self-monitoring on uncertainty reduction processes’, Communications Monographs, 52(3): 203–17. 10 Yoo, S.H., Matsumoto, D. and LeRoux, J.A. (2006) ‘The influence of emotion recognition and emotion regulation on intercultural adjustment’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(3): 345–63. 11 McCroskey, J.C. (1984) ‘The Communication apprehension perspective’, in Daly, J.A. and McCroskey, J.C. (eds) Avoiding Communication: Shyness, Reticence and Communication Apprehension, Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. 12 Kim M.-S., Hunter, J.E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A., Bresnahan, M. and Yoon, H. (1996) ‘Individual vs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: effects on preferred conversational styles’, Communication Monographs, 63: 29–49. 13 Chen, G.M. and Starosta, W.J. (2000) ‘The development and validation of the intercultural sensitivity scale’, Human Communication, 3: 1–15. 14 Hammer, M.R., Bennett, M.J. and Wiseman, R. (2003) ‘Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4): 421–43. 15 Merrigan, G. (2000) ‘Negotiating personal identities among people with and without identified disabilities: the role of identity management’, in Braithwaite, D.O. and Thompson, T.L. (eds) Handbook of Communication and People with Disabilities: Research and Application, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. 16 Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F. and Morris, M.W. (2002) ‘Negotiating biculturalism cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5): 492–516.

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  213

17 Tadmor, C.T., Hong, Y.Y., Chao, M.M., Wiruchnipawan, F. and Wang, W. (2012) ‘Multicultural experiences reduce intergroup bias through epistemic unfreezing’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5): 750. 18 Earley, P.C. and Ang, S. (2003) Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures, Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. 19 Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C.K.S., Ng, K.Y., Templer, K.J., Tay, C. and Chandrasekar, N.A. (2007) ‘Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation, and task performance’, Management and Organization Review, 3: 335–71. 20 Crowne, K.A. (2013) ‘Cultural exposure, emotional intelligence, and cultural intelligence An exploratory study’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 13(1): 5–22. 21 Blasco, M., Feldt, L.E. and Jakobsen, M. (2012) ‘If only cultural chameleons could fly too: A critical discussion of the concept of cultural intelligence’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 12(2): 229–45. 22 Perry, L.B. and Southwell, L. (2011) ‘Developing intercultural understanding and skills: Models and approaches’, Intercultural Education, 22(6): 453–66. 23 Gudykunst, W. and Kim, Y.Y. (1997) Communicating With Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication, 3rd edn, Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. 24 Katriel, T. (1989) ‘From “context” to “contexts” in intercultural communication research’, in TingToomey, S. and Korzenny, F. (eds) Language, Communication and Culture: Current Directions, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 25 Mason, D. (1995) Race and Ethnicity in Modern Britain, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 26 Katriel, op. cit. 27 Rogers, K. (1951) Client-centred Therapy, London: Constable. 28 Vlaar, P.W., Van den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2006) ‘Coping with problems of understanding in interorganizational relationships: Using formalization as a means to make sense’, Organization Studies, 27(11): 1617–38. 29 Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Bulow-Moller, A.M., Nickerson, C., Poncini, G. and Zhu, Y. (2003) ‘Five perspectives on intercultural business communication’, Business Communication Quarterly, 66(3): 73–96. 30 Gudykunst, W.B. (1988) ‘Uncertainty and anxiety’ in Kim, Y.Y. and Gudykunst, W.B. (eds) Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 31 Langer, E. (1989) Mindfulness, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

32 Papies, E.K., Pronk, T.M., Keesman, M. and Barsalou, L.W. (2015) ‘The benefits of simply observing: Mindful attention modulates the link between motivation and behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1): 148–70. 33 Van Doesum, N.J., Van Lange, D.A. and Van Lange, P.A. (2013) ‘Social mindfulness: Skill and will to navigate the social world’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(1): 86–103. 34 Krieger, J.L. (2005) ‘Shared mindfulness in cockpit crisis situations: an exploratory analysis’, The Journal of Business Communication, 42(2): 135–67. 35 Ibid. 36 Burgoon, J.K. and Le Poire, B.A. (1993) ‘Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication and expectancy disconfirmation evaluations of communicators and their communication behavior’, Human Communication Research, 20(1): 67–96. 37 Manusov, V. and Hegde, R. (1993) ‘Communicative outcomes of stereotype-based expectancies: An observational study of cross-cultural dyads’, Communication Quarterly, 41(3): 338–54. 38 Ibid. 39 Babcock, R.D. and Du-Babcock, B. (2001) ‘Languagebased communication zones in international business communication’, The Journal of Business Communication, 38: 372–412. 40 Schwarz, N. (1994) ‘Judgment in a social context: biases, shortcomings and the logic of conversation’, in Zanna, M.P. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26: 123–62, New York, NY: Academic Press. 41 Berger, C.R. and Calabrese, R.J. (1975) ‘Some explorations in initial interactions and beyond’, Human Communication Research, 1: 99–112. See also: Berger, C.R. (1987) ‘Communicating under uncertainty’, in Roloff, M.E. and Miller, G.R. (eds) Interpersonal Processes, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 42 Applegate, J.L. and Sypher, H.E. (1988) ‘A Constructivist theory of communication and culture’, in Kim, Y.Y. and Gudykunst, W.B. (eds) Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 43 Ting-Toomey, S. (1989) ‘Communicative resourcefulness: an identity negotiation perspective’, in Asante, M.K., Gudykunst, W.B. and Newmark, E. (eds) Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 44 Flynn, F.J., Chatman, J. and Spataro, S.E. (2001) ‘Getting to know you: The influence of personality on impressions and performance of demographically different people in organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3): 414–42. 45 Snyder, M. (1974) ‘Self-monitoring of expressive behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30: 526–37.

214  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

46 Ibid. 47 Rogers, P.S. (2008) ‘The challenge of behavioral CQ: What might dialogue tell us?’, in Ang, S. and Van Dyne, L. (eds) Handbook on Cultural intelligence: Theory, Measurement and Applications, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. 48 Groves, K.S., Feyerherm, A. and Gu, M. (2014) ‘Examining cultural intelligence and cross-cultural negotiation effectiveness’, Journal of Management Education, 39(2): 209–43. 49 Imai, L. and Gelfand, M. J. (2010) ‘The culturally intelligent negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2): 83–98. 50 Chua, R.Y., Morris, M.W. and Mor, S. (2012) ‘Collaborating across cultures: cultural metacognition and affect-based trust in creative collaboration’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(2): 116–31. 51 Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L. and Annen, H. (2011) ‘Beyond general intelligence (iq) and emotional intelligence (eq): the role of cultural intelligence (cq) on cross-border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world’, Journal of Social Issues, 67(4): 825–40. 52 Rashotte, L.S. (2002) ‘What does that smile mean? The meaning of non-verbal behaviors in social interaction’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(1): 92–102. 53 Triandis, H.C. (1980) ‘Values, attitudes and interpersonal behavior’, in Page, M. (ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1979, 27, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 54 Gudykunst, W.B., Nishida, T., Koike, H. and Shiino, N. (1986) ‘The influence of language on uncertainty reduction: an exploratory study of Japanese–Japanese and Japanese–North American interactions’, in McLaughlin, M. (ed.) Communication Yearbook Vol. 9, Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. 55 Ellingsworth, H.W. (1988) ‘A theory of adaptation in intercultural dyads’ in Kim, Y.Y. and Gudykunst, W.B. (eds) Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 56 Leodolter, R. and Leodolter, M. (1976) ‘Sociolinguistic considerations on psychosocial socialization’, in McCormack, W. and Wurm, S. (eds) Language and Man, The Hague: Mouton. 57 Schwarz, op. cit. 58 Li, H.Z. (1999) ‘Grounding and information communication in intercultural and intracultural dyadic discourse’, Discourse Processes, 28(3): 195–215. 59 Giles, H. (1977) Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, London: Academic Press.

60 Manson, J.H., Bryant, G.A., Gervais, M.M. and Kline, M.A. (2013) ‘Convergence of speech rate in conversation predicts cooperation’, Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(6): 419–26. 61 Beebe, L.M. and Giles, H. (1984) ‘Speech accommodation theories: a discussion in terms of secondlanguageacquisition’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46: 5–32. 62 Based on Gallois, C., Franklyn-Stokes, A., Giles, H. and Coupland, N. (1988) ‘Communication accommodation in intercultural encounters’, in Kim, Y.Y. and Gudykunst, W.B. (eds) Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.. 63 Gallois, C., Giles, H., Jones, E., Cargile, C. and Ota, H. (1995) ‘Accommodating intercultural encounters: elaborations and extensions’, Intercultural Communication Theory (International and Intercultural Communication Annual) XIX: 115–46, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 64 Gasiorek, J. and Giles, H. (2012) ‘Effects of inferred motive on evaluations of nonaccommodative communication’, Human Communication Research, 38(3): 309–31. 65 Cooperrider, D.L. and Srivastva, S. (1987) ‘Appreciative inquiry in organizational life’, Research in Organizational Change & Development, 1: 129–69. 66 Based on a seminar given by Harish Rainchandani of Potentia in Hyderabad, India, 17/18 February 2010. 67 Forgas, J.P. (1983) ‘Social skills and the perception of interaction episodes’, British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22(3): 195–207. 68 Hammer, M.R., Gudykunst, W.B. and Wiseman, R.L. (1978) ‘Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2(4): 382–93. 69 Ortiz, L.A. (2005) ‘The emerging hybrid discourse of business communication in a Mexican-US border region’, Journal of Business Communication, 42(1): 28–50. 70 He, H.A. and Huang, E.M. (2014) ‘A qualitative study of workplace intercultural communication tensions in dyadic face-to-face and computer-mediated interactions’, Communication & Collaboration DIS. 71 Leung, K. (1997), ‘Negotiation and reward associations across cultures’, in Earley, P.C. (ed.) New Perspectives on International Industrial/Organizational Psychology, San Fransisco, CA: Jossey Bass. 72 Brinkmann, op. cit. 73 Lin, X. and Germain, R. (1998), ‘Sustaining satisfactory joint venture relationships: the role of conflict resolution strategy’, Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1): 197–214. 74 Lederach, J.P. (1995) Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures, Syracuse, NY ­Syracuse University Press.

EFFECTIVE INTERCULTURAL WORK COMMUNICATION  215

75 Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. (1997) ‘What differences in the cultural backgrounds of partners are detrimental for international joint ventures?’, Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4): 845–64. 76 Burton, J.W. (1996) Conflict Resolution: Its Language and Processes, Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. 77 Lederach, op. cit. 78 Volkema, R.J., Farquhar, K. and Bergmann, T.J. (1996) ‘Third-party sensemaking in interpersonal conflicts at work: a theoretical framework’, Human Relations, 49(11): 1437–54. 79 Ting-Toomey, S. and Kurogi, A. (1998) ‘Facework competence in intercultural conflict: an updated face-negotiation theory’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22: 187–225. 80 Martin, J.N., Hecht, M.L. and Larkey, L.K. (1994) ‘Conversational improvement strategies for interethnic communication: African American and European American perspectives’, Communication Monographs, 61(3): 236–55. 81 Fox, S.A., Giles, H., Orbe, M.P. and Bourhis, R.Y. (2000) ‘Interability communication: theoretical perspectives’, in Braithwaite, D.O. and Thompson, T.L. (eds) Handbook of Communication and People with Disabilities: Research and Application, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. 82 Ibid. 83 Dunn, D. and Cody, M.J. (2000) ‘Account credibility and public image: excuses, justifications, denials, and sexual harassment’, Communication Monographs, 67(4): 372–91. 84 Gianakos, I. (2002) ‘Predictors of coping with work stress: the influences of sex, gender role, social desirability, and locus of control’, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 42: 1059–79. 85 Zapf, D. and Gross, C. (2001) ‘Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: a replication and extension’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4): 497–522. 86 Haslam, S.A., Oakes, P.J., McGarty, C., Turner, J.C., Reynolds, K.J. and Eggins, R.A. (1996) ‘Stereotyping and social influence: the mediation of stereotype applicability and sharedness by the views of ingroup and outgroup members’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 35: 369–97. 87 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory: CNORSE. ‘Cross cultural communication: an essential dimension of effective education’, URL: http://www. nwrel.org/cnorse. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 88 Coffey, A. J., Kamhawi, R., Fishwick, P. and Henderson, J. (2013) ‘New media environments’ comparative effects upon intercultural sensitivity: A five-dimensional analysis’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(5): 605–27.

89 Sharma, R., Madireddy, V., Jain, V., & Apoorva, S.R. (2008) ‘Best practices for communication between client and vendor in IT outsourcing projects’, Journal of Information, Information Technology, and Organizations, 3: 61–93. 90 Beamer, L. (1992) ‘Learning intercultural communication competence’, Journal of Business Communication, 29(3): 285–303. 91 Kochman, T. (1983) Black and White: Styles in Conflict, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. 92 Chen, G.M. (1988) ‘Relationships of the dimensions of intercultural communication competence’, Paper presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Baltimore, MD, URL: http://www.flstw.edu/pderic.html. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 93 Chen, L. (2002) ‘Perceptions of intercultural interaction and communication satisfaction: a study on initial encounters’, Communication Reports, 15(2): 133–47. 94 Chen, G.M., op. cit. 95 Ibid. 96 Arasaratnam, L.A. and Doerfel, M.L. (2005) ‘Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2): 137–63. 97 Kealey, D.J. (1989) ‘A study of cross-cultural effectiveness: theoretical issues, practical applications’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13: 387–428. 98 Zhao, J.J. and Ober, S. (1991) ‘Communication skills needed by US international business persons’, Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 33: 52–60. 99 Ruben, B.D. and Kealey, D.J. (1979) ‘Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 3: 15–47. 100 Zhao, op. cit. 101 Arasaratnam, L.A. (2014) ‘Ten years of research in intercultural communication competence (2003– 2013): a retrospective’, Journal of Intercultural Communication, 35, URL: http://immi.se/intercultural/ nr35/arasaratnam.html. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 102 Dinges, N.G. and Lieberman, D.A. (1989) ‘Intercultural communication competence: coping with stressful work situations’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13: 371–85. 103 Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 104 Earley and Ang, op. cit. 105 Johnson, J.P., Lenartowicz, T. and Apud, S. (2006)

216  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

‘Cross-cultural competence in international business: toward a definition and a model’, Journal of International Business Studies, 37: 525–43. 106 Carli, L.L. (1999) ‘Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence’, Journal of Social Issues, 55(1): 81–99. 107 Maddux, W.W. and Galinsky, A.D. (2009) ‘Cultural borders and mental barriers: the relationship between living abroad and creativity’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5): 1047–60. 108 Zimmermann, J. and Neyer, F.J. (2013) ‘Do we become a different person when hitting the road? Personality development of sojourners’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3): 515–30. 109 Gudykunst, W.B. (1988) ‘Uncertainty and anxiety’ in Kim, Y.Y. and Gudykunst, W.B. (eds) Theories in Intercultural Communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 110 Langer, op. cit. 111 Tadmor, C.T., Galinsky, A.D. and Maddux, W.W. (2012) ‘Getting the most out of living abroad: biculturalism and integrative complexity as key drivers of creative and professional success’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3): 520–38. 112 Schreiber, E.J. (1996) ‘Muddles and huddles: facilitating a multicultural workforce through team management theory’, The Journal of Business

Communication, 33: 459–73. 113 Martin, J. (1986) ‘Training issues in cross-cultural orientation’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10: 103–16. 114 Demes, K.A. and Geeraert, N. (2015) ‘The highs and lows of a cultural transition: A longitudinal analysis of sojourner stress and adaptation across 50 countries’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(2): 316–37. 115 Peltokorpi, V. and Jintae Froese, F. (2009) ‘Organizational expatriates and self-initiated expatriates: who adjusts better to work and life in Japan?’ The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(5): 1096–12. 116 Peltokorpi, V. (2008) ‘Cross-cultural adjustment of expatriates in Japan’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(9): 1588–606. 117 Froese, F.J., Peltokorpi, V. and Ko, K.A. (2012) ‘The influence of intercultural communication on crosscultural adjustment and work attitudes: foreign workers in South Korea’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(3): 331–42. 118 Chen, G.M. (2012) ‘The impact of new media on intercultural communication in global context’, China Media Research, 8(2).

11 INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES This chapter will show how skilled intercultural c­ ommuni­cation helps overcome the difficulties produced by cultural differences when performing work activities such as negotiating, cooperating, coordinating and k­ nowledge sharing, working in groups and leading others. The work activities covered are the same as those covered in our examination of cultural differences in Chapter 7: intercultural negotiation (11.1), intercultural cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing (11.2) working in diverse groups and teams (11.3), and intercultural leadership and management (11.4). Diversity leadership is an addition to the activities of mentoring, giving feedback, and international project management described in 7.4. Performing these work activities effectively in an intercultural setting depends on the cultural knowledge and understanding described in Part Two. Awareness of the barriers explained in Chapter Nine is needed as well as the skills for enhanced intercultural understanding, effective intercultural selfpresentation and productive interaction described in Chapter 10. Additional skills and processes specific to each intercultural work activity are described here: for instance, harmonization of mental models in negotiations, informal social interaction for cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing, using multicultural individuals for cultural brokerage in groupwork and maintaining high levels of action for leadership.

11.1 INTERCULTURAL NEGOTIATION As Section 7.1 pointed out, negotiation is pervasive at work. Inevitably, in modern multicultural organizations, many of these negotiations will be intercultural.

Barriers to effective intercultural negotiation Fundamentally, a negotiation is a kind of meeting. It is often unmanaged. Meetings where social interaction is

unmanaged are often marked by poor decision-making and ineffective communication processes, practices and products. This is likely to be even more the case in meetings where the participants come from different cultures. Non-native speakers of the language of a meeting find that native speakers speak too quickly or too quietly; that participants’ knowledge of the (English) language varies from fluent to barely understandable, creating a language barrier; non-native speakers often struggle to find the right expression or vocabulary for what they want to say and can miss contributing on important points because the delay before they have prepared what to say means the meeting has moved on. Cultural differences can make it hard for some participants to interrupt or to express small divergences of opinion, and difficulties experienced in the past can make people reluctant to speak up; cultural differences in working styles mean that many members need time to consider the issues in question, perhaps to discuss them with colleagues and then to formulate their reply in an actual meeting or negotiation.1 Hong Kong participants in professional business meetings conducted in English reported finding the following aspects of meetings particularly problematic: listening to different accents, interrupting effectively, and presenting an effective argument; aspects which they perceived to be unproblematic were taking notes, following a discussion, and expressing opinions.2 These aspects probably apply equally in negotiations. In experimental research, intercultural negotiators usually achieve worse joint outcomes than intracultural negotiators. A combination of power struggle, focus on self-interest and insufficient information sharing may produce this effect.3 Again, cultural differences reduce joint profits and moderate the impact of trust and bargaining strategy on joint profits.4  11.1.1 for links to videos about intercultural meetings and negotiations.

There are (sub)cultural differences in how negotiations are defined, negotiators’ norms and values, frames, 217

218  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

perceptions, judgement biases and attributions, negotiation styles, non-verbal behaviour (paralinguistics), processes, strategies and outcomes, as Chapters 5 and 8 demonstrated. These diverging perceptions and behaviours can act as barriers in intercultural negotiations. Negotiators also have mental models of negotiations in terms of such dimensions as relationship versus task, cooperation versus winning and emotional versus intellectual appeals. When the parties do not come to a common model of the interaction, the negotiation is much more likely to result in impasse or widely disparate payoffs than when a single model is shared, regardless of how the shared model defines the interaction. In an effective negotiation each party’s frame influences the other’s. One negotiating party sends messages that communicate their frame. In return, the responding negotiator sends messages adopting, rejecting or modifying this frame. Then a short period of initial

interaction solidifies the mental models of the negotiators, resulting in a script that carries through the negotiation. Negotiators who are high in need for closure tend to ‘freeze’ their mental model of the negotiation early and also to instigate stereotypical judgements toward culturally distant others because they feel negatively disposed towards those with different opinions and cultural traits. Freezing the mental model makes it difficult to absorb new information or update analysis of the negotiation and leads the negotiator to forego opportunities to discover integrative potentials that can lead to consensus and joint gains. In turn, the frames affect individual and joint monetary outcomes, as well as satisfaction with the outcomes.5

Effective intercultural negotiation Findings on factors that influence effectiveness in intercultural negotiations are shown in Figure 11.1 and detailed

Figure 11.1  Factors in intercultural negotiation effectiveness Factors influencing intercultural negotiation effectiveness

Measures of negotiation effectiveness

Negotiators overcome language and cultural barriers + Participants have searched flexibly for cultural and contextual information + Negotiations expose differences in culture-based norms and values

Reaching a settlement

Participants’ communication supports harmonization of their mental models

+ Participants’ satisfaction with the outcome +

Participants have high concern for the other party’s face

Parties’ different cultural preferences create opportunities for compromise

A cultural moderator is used

+

+

INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES  219

below. They include the negotiators’ needs, aspirations and whether they are motivated to search for information, whether they have undertaken preparation to acquire an understanding of the other negotiators’ culture, whether differences in culture-based norms and values are exposed during the negotiation, whether the mental models of the negotiators converge during the negotiation, concern for face and whether differences in preferences present opportunities for compromise.

• Negotiators with higher and more egoistic aspirations

•

•

• •

•

tend to achieve greater profit in China and Japan than in the United States because in China and Japan their opponents more often have prosocial negotiation motives. When, as in the United States, opponents have similarly egoistic negotiation motives, the egoistic negotiator achieves less profit than when opponents have prosocial motives.6 Negotiators who are motivated to search for information, and are flexible about how that search is carried out, can reach high-quality outcomes in intercultural negotiations.7 Preparation to acquire an understanding of the other negotiators’ cultures, languages, possession of legal knowledge and knowledge of the negotiation context is particularly important for intercultural negotiations.8 When negotiations expose differences in culture-based norms and values, not only can conflict be triggered, but also the negotiators are likely to experience negative moods and emotions. On the other hand, when expectations in these areas match, they can lead to positive feelings helpful to the negotiation process.9 The negotiators’ mental models that damage the process when they diverge support it when they converge. This communication that supports harmonization of mental models is a key factor in intercultural negotiation.10 High concern for face raises the probability of consensus. High concern for face indicates that a person is more sensitive to how others view him or her, and correspondingly has greater awareness of the other party and his or her needs. This added attention to the other party leads people high in concern for face to converge their mental models with those of the other party and so brings about a greater probability of consensus.11 Again, while differences between cultural ‘scripts’ can create conflict over procedure, differences in preferences present opportunities for compromise. For example, cultures that differ in their perceptions of risk can create value by sharing risks and benefits proportionately but asymmetrically. One side can assume more risk, and have a chance of gaining more benefit, than the other. Because of their different risk

•

preferences, both sides gain from this. Moreover, it can be effective to balance the cultural preferences of both sides. For instance, if one party’s cultural preference is to develop relationships and the other’s is to exchange information, they can follow a procedure which begins by developing relationships with others, then leads to exchanging information about the topics under negotiation. Balance might also be reached by recognizing multicultural techniques of persuasion and also emphasizing the role of concessions in achieving agreement. However, there is as yet no evidence that an individual negotiator can transcend his or her own cultural background.12 The presence of a cultural moderator, that is an individual who has the same cultural background as the opposing negotiator, ‘always’ improves a team’s economic outcomes, a study of French and German negotiators found.13

Finally, contrary to expectations, one study has produced results which suggest that ‘in a world of globalization and international perspectives, an intercultural context may cue people to co-operate rather than compete.’14 The findings were that participants associated the intercultural context in a negotiation neither with higher national social identity nor with lower reciprocity.

11.2 INTERCULTURAL COOPERATION, COORDINATION AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING How well people within an organization or organizational alliance such as a supply chain coordinate their actions and share knowledge depends directly on how well they cooperate. Achieving coordination is an extremely important issue in distributed settings such as virtual teams, offshoring or multinational enterprises. Intercultural knowledge sharing, too, is an important issue for ­multinational enterprises (MNEs) and multinational teams. It has been argued that MNEs’ very existence depends on their ability to transfer and exploit knowledge more effectively than can be achieved between organizations.15 Again, knowledge management and transfer are the competences most often mentioned by multinational team (MNT) leaders for effective leadership of MNTs; to fully explore, exploit and transfer valuable knowledge within the team and beyond, a leader must be ‘cross-culturally competent and multilingual in order to motivate MNT members’.16 Clearly, therefore, in international organizations, intercultural cooperation and coordination both within and across organizations is essential.

220  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

Barriers to intercultural cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing Intercultural coordination issues arise because intercultural interactions are less cooperative and more competitive than intracultural interactions, research has shown. A range of factors create issues, especially substantial differences in the interactors’ power-distance scores.17 Figure 11.2 depicts these factors. Rauwolf et al. (2014) found that the propensity to prefer to interact with others of similar beliefs, which is called homophily, increases the sustainability of cooperation;18 it is likely, therefore that the differences of belief that are linked to culture decrease its sustainability. Again, the awareness of similarity in religion and ethnicity increases people’s cooperativeness.19 Willingness to cooperate and share knowledge, level of preference for formal coordination and knowledgesharing procedures and documentation, and whether the emphasis is on thoroughness, full disclosure, long-term planning or only immediate projects and concerns are

among matters that may differ cross-culturally, Section 7.2 showed. Teraji (2008) argued that coordination requires an additional cost if one or more of the participants has to change culture.20 Cultural differences potentially increase coordination problems because the ability to predict another’s behaviour is fundamental to coordination and cultural differences increase the difficulties of predicting accurately what others will do. One important mechanism for coordination, tacit coordination, depends on people feeling that they have a common understanding of the issues; this feeling is less likely to occur when those with whom they need to coordinate are from a different culture.21 Again, because people tacitly coordinate their decisions by using social information (information about the people they have to coordinate with), cultural difference is detrimental to tacit coordination as people have less social information about ‘different others’.22 On the other hand, when a dataset of millions of electronic mail messages, calendar meetings and teleconferences for many thousands of employees of one multidivisional firm during three months of 2006 was

Figure 11.2  Factors that increase barriers to intercultural cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing Differences in power distance

Low homophily

Differences in preferences for coordination formality

Differences in time horizons

Differences in predicting responses and behaviour

Lack of social information needed for tacit coordination Differences in sense-making, situation framing, knowledge preferences Situations requiring cooperation between horizontal individualists and vertical collectivists Situations requiring cooperation between vertical individualists and vertical collectivists

Greater difficulty in intercultural cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing

INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES  221

analysed to investigate which boundaries between people least impeded communication, the findings were that people were not much less likely to communicate with ‘different others’ than with similar others. Most communication took place within strategic business units and functions – that is, within structural boundaries – and where pairs of individuals were co-located – in other words within spatial boundaries. Socio-demographic boundaries were much weaker. A further finding was that particular categories of individuals were most likely to act as boundary spanners between distant groups in the company’s social structure – these were women, mid- to high-level executives, and members of the executive management, sales and marketing functions.23 Primary data from the Arab cultures of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Sudan showed that Arab cultural beliefs were a very strong predictor of resistance to systems and thus information technology transfer. In particular, the research focused on the Arab sense of time, arguing that Arab culture is polychronic – viewing time as a static phenomenon, where events simply transpire without necessarily being tightly coupled to antecedents. Therefore Arabs tend not to plan for a single event.24 Discuss this finding in relation to intercultural coordination.

Knowledge sharing In 2013, Klitmøller and Lauring asserted that ‘cultural and linguistic variations are known to have a great effect on knowledge sharing’,25 and sense-making, situation framing, knowledge preferences, and knowledge processing and sharing are other relevant processes that differ cross-culturally, according to Möller and Svahn (2004).26 These differences may act as barriers to understanding between different actors. Leung et al. (2005) considered that the effectiveness of

cross-border knowledge transfer is directly related to the type of knowledge involved, but also that this transfer is affected by the nature of the transacting cultural patterns and the cognitive styles of the individuals involved. Their model conceptualizes four patterns of culture: vertical individualism, horizontal individualism, vertical collectivism and horizontal collectivism.  11.2.1 for definitions of these cultural patterns.

A series of propositions links these cultural patterns to the ease or difficulty with which, other things being equal, knowledge is transferred. The greatest ease (in terms of speed and depth or viscosity) of knowledge transfer occurs when such transfers involve similar cultural contexts.27 Table 11.1 shows how combinations of verticalism/ horizontalism and individualism–collectivism translate to their effects on knowledge transfer. The degree of difficulty for each type of transfer depicted in Table 11.1 is a function of the difference between the approach to knowledge of the different cultural elements in each category. Individualism–­collectivism has more impact on information processing than verticality/ horizontalism does, although that has some. Individualists prefer knowledge to be easily codified and to stand independent of the organizational context; collectivists put more emphasis on the context than the content and on what was mutually agreed upon than what precisely was communicated.28 Why would knowledge transfer between a ­vertical individualist and a horizontal collectivist be more difficult than that between (a) a vertical ­individualist and a horizontal individualist and (b) a vertical individualist and a vertical ­collectivist?   11.2.2, for an answer and for explanations of these analyses.

Table 11.1  Relative ease or difficulty of knowledge transfers between different types of culture29 Ease or Difficulty of Knowledge Transfer

Types of Transfer Between Cultures

Easiest

Vertical individualist to vertical individualist Vertical collectivist to vertical collectivist Horizontal individualist to horizontal individualist Horizontal collectivist to horizontal collectivist

Second easiest

Vertical individualist to horizontal individualist and vice versa (v.v.) Vertical collectivist to horizontal collectivist and v.v.

Third easiest

Vertical individualist to vertical collectivist and v.v. Horizontal individualist to horizontal collectivist and v.v.

Most difficult

Vertical individualist to horizontal collectivist and v.v. Horizontal individualist to vertical collectivist and v.v.

222  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

Empirical findings highlight problems for intercultural knowledge sharing. ‘Knowledge sharing hostility’ often defeats knowledge sharing, research conducted on knowledge sharing between Russian and Chinese subsidiaries and Western headquarters concluded.30 National cultural differences strongly affected knowledge transfer in international acquisitions, data on international acquisitions carried out by Finnish corporations showed.31 Most empirical research on knowledge transfer has tended to focus on communication between geographically and culturally distant locations where face-to-face (ftf) communication cannot be the predominant mode.  11.2.3 for more on barriers to intercultural cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing.

Factors in effective intercultural cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing Findings of the use and value of informal means of resolving coordination issues and encouraging knowledge sharing demonstrate the importance of effective intercultural communication in diverse organizations. Informal lateral relations in the form of social interaction have been found to be more effective than centralization for achieving coordination of subunits in MNEs. They had a significant positive effect on knowledge sharing among units that

competed with each other for market share (though not among units that competed with each other for internal resources). These findings confirm the importance of inter-unit social interaction as an effective coordination mechanism in a multiunit organization. Social interaction allows individual units to accumulate social capital that can help them gain access to new knowledge or new information. The flows of information or knowledge through inter-unit networks require social interaction to promote trust and to reduce perceived uncertainty about providing new knowledge to other units or acquiring new knowledge from other units. Knowledge sharing involves a complex social process that demands collaborative efforts. Social interaction is indispensable in this process as it can create trust and foster cooperation. Social interaction also helps break down barriers created by cultural differences.32 Other factors that may influence intercultural interunit cooperation and collaboration include managers’ participation in corporate training programmes, their language fluency, trust and shared vision, results from a sample of 308 dyadic relationships between ­Finnish and Chinese subsidiaries and their headquarters and sister units showed. The findings indicated that the intensity (frequency and perceived importance) of inter-unit communication was related to the extent of subsidiary managers’ participation in corporate training programmes, their fluency in the language in which the inter-unit communication took place, and, to some extent, to the use

Figure 11.3  Factors that promote and undermine coordination in MNE subunits Informal social interaction

Centralized control of interaction Subunit managers’ participation in corporate training programes Subunit managers’ language fluency

Subunit managers’ mutual trust

Subunit managers’ shared vision

+ + + + +

Effects on coordination of MNE subunits

INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES  223

of expatriate managers. High levels of trust and shared vision contributed to collaborative behaviour, and language fluency related significantly to shared vision and perceived trustworthiness in both the Chinese and Finnish subsidiaries, outweighing the effects of socialization mechanisms.33,34 Figure 11.3 shows the factors that promote or undermine coordination in MNE subunits

Effective intercultural knowledge sharing A common language, social knowledge of the other party’s culture, the appropriate use of both weak and strong social ties, the contributions of expatriates, opportunities for intercultural knowledge creation and relational capital improve knowledge sharing. As most of these factors are less likely to be present in international or intercultural organizations, positive action is needed to encourage them. Table 11.2 summarizes the status of these factors which are explained in more detail below.

• The transfer of knowledge across national borders

•

•

within multinational enterprises depends both on a common language necessary for communication and on the shared social knowledge necessary to understand and predict the behaviour of those engaged in the knowledge-transfer process. In a set of four case studies, it was found that knowledge transfer was more effective when technical and social knowledge were transferred together. Rich person-to-person contact in multinational teams provided an effective means of transferring social knowledge.35 There is a debate in the literature about the relative value of strong and weak ties for knowledge sharing. According to the weak-tie theory originally advanced by Granovetter (1973), distant and infrequent relationships (that is, weak ties) are efficient for knowledge

sharing because they provide access to novel information by bridging otherwise disconnected groups and individuals in an organization. Strong ties, in contrast, are likely to lead to redundant information because they tend to occur among a small group of actors in which everyone knows what the others know. Granovetter (1973) described the strength of a tie as a ‘combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding) and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie’.36 While there is substantial ambiguity built into this definition, it certainly seems likely that intercultural ties are generally weaker than intracultural ties, which would tend to imply that they are functional for knowledge sharing, or at least that other factors which might militate against intercultural ties for knowledge sharing would be to some degree counteracted.37 Neither weak nor strong relationships between ­ perating units are necessarily better for efficient sharo ing of knowledge among them, however, according to a 1999 study. Weak and strong inter-unit ties had their ­respective strengths and weaknesses in facilitating search for and transfer of useful knowledge across organization ­subunits. The net effect on project completion time of having either weak or strong inter-unit ties was contingent on the complexity of the knowledge to be transferred across subunits. When the knowledge was highly complex, strong ­inter-unit ties provided the highest relative net effect (or least negative effect) on completion time, whereas when the knowledge was not complex weak inter-unit ties had the strongest positive ­ on-diverse effect on completion time.38 Thus while n ­organizations using complex knowledge may benefit from the strong ties that may result from intracultural ­relationships, diverse organizations using n ­ on-complex knowledge may benefit from the knowledge sharing that occurs in the weaker ties of intercultural relationships.

Table 11.2  Status of factors that support knowledge sharing in intercultural teams and organizations Factors That Support Knowledge Sharing

Status of These Factors in Intercultural Teams and Organizations

A common language

Needs to be encouraged

Enough shared knowledge to predict others’ behaviour

Needs to be encouraged

Rich person-to-person contact

Needs to be encouraged

Strong inter-unit ties (for complex information)

Needs to be encouraged

Weak inter-unit ties (for non-complex information)

Likely to be present naturally

Contribution of expatriates

Needs to be supported

Social interaction of managers of subunits

Needs to be encouraged

In virtual teams, high relational social capital

Needs to be encouraged

224  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

• There is evidence that strong ties that function as chan-

nels of knowledge-sharing for complex knowledge across borders can be provided through expatriates. When compared with other more arm’s-length crossborder relationships, expatriate relationships had several typical characteristics that had direct consequences for knowledge sharing. First, expatriate relationships were, on average, richer and longer term than arm’s-length cross-border relationships, creating more opportunities for knowledge sharing. They also had a higher multiplying effect, spreading ties more effectively across new units. Second, they were characterized by a higher level of trust and multiplexity, driven by shared experience, physical proximity, and prolonged ftf interaction. Finally, a lengthened participation in the assignment unit typically led to a higher level of shared cognitive ground, effectively facilitating knowledge sharing. Expatriation may have a sustained effect on knowledge sharing within the multinational corporation (MNC), beyond the knowledge transfer perspective discussed in previous research.39

•

•

Nevertheless, knowledge sharing through expatriates is not unproblematic. From a sample of Finnish expatriates, the results revealed that expatriates were involved in transfers of several different types of knowledge, often requiring them to work across functions. This aspect of their knowledge-sharing task gave rise to difficulties. However, knowledge-related and, to a lesser extent, organizational-related stickiness factors dominated those related to the social and relational contexts in explaining the difficulty of knowledge transfers from the expatriates’ perspective.40 Noorderhaven and Harzing (2009) showed that social interaction between managers from different units of a multinational enterprise (MNE) supported knowledge sharing not only by forming a communication channel particularly conducive to the transfer of tacit, non-codified knowledge, but to an even greater degree by providing opportunities for social construction of knowledge in a learning dialogue. That is, knowledge was not only transferred when managers from different units interacted, it was also created by a synthesis of the parties’ knowledge.41 Knowledge sharing in virtual teams is affected by relational social capital through the mediation of team commitment. In other words, the greater workers’ sense of sharing their values with colleagues, mutual trust with them and the higher the benefit they expect from working with them, the more cooperative their attitude and the less their competitive conflict. These in turn increase the level of knowledge sharing they undertake and so their effectiveness.42

 11.2.4 for more findings on the factors that affect how well expatriates share knowledge.

11.3 Working in diverse groups and teams Working effectively in groups and teams usually presents challenges;43 diversity, including cultural diversity, can add to those challenges, but a range of approaches is available to help overcome them. Table 11.3 summarizes culture-related factors that influence group- and teamwork either negatively or positively.

Effects of diverse group- and teamworking There are many cultural differences in group- and teamwork, as Section 7.3 showed. These may include preferred decision-making styles and expectations concerning both group- and teamwork, ease of difficulty in working in an unchaired or unsupervised group, level of deference to authority/leader, level of preference for agendas and sticking to them, preference for structured discussion, clear outcomes and minutes or informality, whether the atmosphere is competitive or cooperative, and whether there is a preference for exploring all issues before decision is sought or a sense of urgency and pressure for closure. Unfortunately, most findings on the performance effects of diversity in groups and teams are negative. For instance, in football, team cultural diversity has a negative effect on team performance, especially when the coach lacks intercultural experience.44 In globally distributed teams, perceived diversity hinders team cohesion and individual performance.45 A 2005 review of studies from the previous 50 years concluded that surface-level socialcategory differences, such as those of race/ethnicity, gender or age, tend to have negative effects on the ability of groups to function effectively. In contrast, however, underlying differences, such as differences in functional background, education or personality, are more often positively related to performance – for example by facilitating creativity or group problem-solving – but only when the group process is carefully controlled.46 How members in international project groups use the ‘national/cultural’ discourse plays a crucial role in its organization, a longitudinal study found. ‘More specifically, results demonstrate that group members shaped and developed their international project in important ways by using the discourses on “national culture” and “cultural diversity” to excuse confusion and misunderstanding, to position themselves vis-à-vis the group, to justify decisions and to give the

INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES  225

Table 11.3  Effects on group- and team-work of factors related to culture Factor

Effects on Group-and Team work

Cultural differences (see Section 7.3)

Negative for groupwork

Diversity of race/ethnicity, gender or age

Negative for groupwork

Use of the ‘national/cultural’ discourse, for instance to excuse confusion and misunderstanding

Negative for groupwork

Heterogeneity

Positive for team performance, but depends on the balance between process losses through task conflict and decreased social integration and process gains through increased creativity and satisfaction

Faultlines

Negative

National diversity

Increases how long it takes teams to reach decisions on business expansion, the number of options considered and the attractiveness of international expansion options

Task type

Where the task explicitly favours multinational inputs or where there are only as many nationalities or cultures represented as needed for the task, the benefits of diversity outweigh the costs

Integration-and-learning perspective workplace culture

Positive

Access-and-legitimacy perspective workplace culture

Negative

Discrimination-and-fairness perspective workplace culture

Negative

Organizational culture

Mixed

Identity

Problematic in virtual teams

Trust

An issue for intercultural virtual teams

Behaviours that improve oral or written communication

Positive; see Table 11.5 (p.230)

Other approaches

Positive; see Table 11.6 (p.230)

group a raison d’être.’47 A meta-analysis undertaken in 2010 found that team performance is negatively affected, though only to a small degree, by diversity of race [sic] and sex but neither negatively nor positively affected by age diversity.48 In contrast to the negative findings on diversity’s impact on groupwork, an earlier meta-analysis found a small effect of diversity in gender, ability and personality on team performance in favour of heterogeneous teams, and argued that the significant effects found in many studies can be attributed to the type and difficulty of the task used in the investigation.49 Another study found no link between top management team diversity and corporate performance.50 Noting that the previous research on the effect of cultural diversity in teams was equivocal, Stahl et al. (2010) tested hypotheses that task complexity and aspects of the team such as its size, duration and dispersion moderate the effects of cultural diversity on teams. The test was a meta-analysis of 108 empirical studies on processes and performance in 10,632 teams. They found that cultural diversity led to process losses

through task conflict and decreased social integration, but to process gains through increased creativity and satisfaction.51 Related to the concept of diversity, but distinct, is the concept of faultlines, which are divisions of a group’s members on the basis of two or more attributes. Combinations of differences in the language fluency, location and nationality of subgroups of team members lead to faultlines, which are often marked by power contests between the subgroups.52 ‘Diversity and faultline strength both contribute to important groups and subgroup dynamics and ­development processes.’53 Faultlines can significantly ­disrupt team performance due to the creation of intergroup bias. Faultlines explain more variance in perceptions of team learning, psychological safety, satisfaction, and expected performance than single-attribute heterogeneity does. In addition, cross-subgroup work communications are not effective for groups with strong faultlines although they are for groups with weak faultlines.54 Again, perceived faultlines heighten conflict and impair decision process quality.

226  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

In a work context, national diversity increases how long it takes teams to reach decisions on business expansion, the number of options considered and the attractiveness of international expansion options. Homogeneous national teams (Canadian) ranked home expansion options as significantly more attractive than nationally diverse teams did.55

Explanations of diversity’s effects on performance in groups and teams Given the cultural differences in approaches to group decision-making and teamwork described in Section 7.9, it is not surprising that cultural diversity affects group-and teamwork outcomes. Values differences can lead to task conflict – disagreements about task content, such as over what kinds of advertising to undertake. They may also lead to process conflicts such as disagreements about delegation and resource allocation. For instance, group members who value effectiveness (for example, quality) are likely to have disagreements about resource allocation with group members who value efficiency (for example, units produced). In addition, lack of similarity in group members’ goals and values undermines interpersonal relations within the group.56 Optimal inclusion, which is a level of perceived inclusion that is enough so individuals do not feel excluded, not so much that they feel imprisoned, may be a further explanation for the effect of diversity on group performance. A literature review in 2010 established that an optimal level of perceived inclusion in a work group is positive for highquality relations with group members and supervisors, job satisfaction, intention to stay, job performance, organizational citizenship, organizational commitment, well-being, creativity and career opportunities. Factors that influence whether employees perceive that they have optimal inclusion include appropriate fairness systems, diversity climate and inclusive management philosophy/values and strategies/decisions. It is possible that the adverse effects of some levels of diversity on group functioning result

from the emotional response of minority members, who may not experience optimal inclusion.57,58 Perceived dissimilarity and the quality and magnitude of the response to it may be another source of the affective, cognitive and behavioural consequences of diversity, other studies suggest.59 Brodbeck et al. (2010) somewhat controversially argued that group diversity elicits either positive or negative effects on individual learning performance, depending on whether a focal individual’s ethnic dissimilarity from other group members is high or low. Their model is partially supported by research. Group composition in terms of age, gender and ethnicity may be less significant for participation, cooperation and respect, however, than whether group members’ self-construals tend more to independence or interdependence, which is an individual-level construct related to individualism–collectivism, according to research by Oetzel (2001).60 In one particular kind of group, the community of practice, the effects of national diversity on performance depend on the psychological safety of its members and the type of media they use. ‘Specifically, the arc relating nationality diversity and performance became more positive at the higher end, and less negative at the lower end, to the extent that communities reported higher psychological safety and richer communication media use.’61 Over time diverse work groups can become as productive as non-diverse groups.62 What processes might explain this finding?

Effects of different types of diversity A combination of type of diversity and type of group task affect performance, one study found. Table 11.4 shows the findings. As Table 11.4 shows, diversity of values and cognitions are beneficial for creative groupwork and diversity

Table 11.4  Effects of type of diversity and type of group task on group effectiveness63 Type of Diversity

Type of Group Task Creative

Computational

Coordinative

Values

Positive – varied perspectives stimulate creativity

Neutral

Negative – can create interpersonal strains and mistrust

Cognitions (ideas and ways of thinking)

Positive – varied knowledge helps refine alternatives

Positive up to the point where all the knowledge needed for the task is available; beyond that point, neutral

Positive up to the point where the knowledge needed for the task is available; beyond that point, negative

Demeanours (e.g punctuality norms, conversational style)

Moderately negative – can create interpersonal strains and mistrust

Weakly negative – objective nature reduces strains

Strongly negative – most affected by communication failures

INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES  227

of cognitions is beneficial for some circumstances of computational and coordinative groupwork. Diversity of demeanour is considered to create difficulties in all three types of groupwork. Thus where the task explicitly favours multinational inputs or where there are only as many nationalities or cultures represented as needed for the task, the benefits of diversity outweigh the costs. In other cases, the reverse will apply, as, for example, if a German company with substantial experience in an industry was attempting to replicate recent success in Spain with an entry into Portugal. The management team could benefit from consisting of one or more Germans, Spaniards and Portuguese. Any additional nationalities would be beyond what are expressly needed for the task and would be a liability.64  11.3.1 for more findings on the performance effects of different kinds of diversity in groups and teams and their causes.

Work culture influences on diversity and groupwork effectiveness The culture of the workplace has a significant effect on how well diverse work groups function. Particularly important is the perspective on workforce diversity itself that predominates in the work group and with its manager. Which of three perspectives predominated determined how well a diverse work group and its members functioned, how people expressed and managed tensions related to diversity, whether members of minority groups felt respected and valued by their colleagues and how people interpreted the meaning of their racial identity at work, a study found. The three perspectives were:

• an integration-and-learning perspective (a positive attitude to including and learning from different others), • an access-and-legitimacy perspective (different others should have equal rights), • a discrimination-and-fairness perspective (different

organization, a study found. Sending memos may be less effective than ftf meetings for conveying information and resolving problems. When people are more different from their co-workers they are more reluctant to interact in person, especially when the organizational culture promotes collectivist values. However, no more conflict was found between demographically different co-workers than between demographically similar ones, and, in a culture that emphasized collective goals, demographically different co-workers were more likely to find conflict beneficial. Workers in individualist organizational cultures were both more likely to experience conflict (probably because their goals and values differed more from each other’s) and to find it harmful.66

Diversity issues in multicultural teams Trust, language diversity, team composition in status terms, reward structures and the task-capability of minority members are all factors that have been shown to affect how well a multicultural team functions:

• Trust: in diverse teams members tend to experience

•

•

others can be treated differently but with fairness).

Only the integration-and-learning perspective provided the rationale and guidance needed to achieve sustained benefits from diversity.65 The organizational culture is another factor in how effective diverse work groups are. Diverse co-workers in organizations with collectivist cultures communicated more by memos and less by ftf interaction than either diverse co-workers in organizations with individualist cultures or non-diverse co-workers in any kind of

•

•

lower levels of trust for and from one another. This is because it is easier for them to share information and interact on the task (or sub-task) with members of their own culture than with members of the other cultural subgroups. However, if workers limit their interaction with members of other cultural subgroups, it becomes difficult for them to know that they can trust them. Thus, lower overall levels of trust result when more cultures are present. Language diversity: building trust and relationships are processes that depend on language. Language diversity has been to shown to have a significant impact on socialization processes and team building, influencing both communication acts and mutual perceptions. Language-related difficulties are experienced by native speakers of the working language as well as non-native speakers.67 Status and its accompanying power differentials: groups and teams that contain high-status minorities tend to have less conflict than those with less powerful minority members. The reward structure of the group or team: basing rewards on the performance of individuals exacerbates competition along diversity lines within the group. Group-oriented rewards, conversely, refocus group members towards group or team effectiveness instead of personal success. The task competence of subgroup members affects team building: more task-capable minorities may have higher perceived value in the group.

228  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

Working in multicultural virtual teams The advantages to businesses of virtual teamworking include the ability to pass work-in-progress round the clock between the three main economic centres (Asia, Europe and North America), while even within the same time zone work-in-progress can be stored, which makes it possible to use time more efficiently. Paradoxically, one major barrier to virtual teamworking effectiveness is members’ reluctance to share work-in-progress – for instance, software developers are often unwilling to pass over half-finished programs to others. Intercultural virtual teams’ primary methods of interaction are telephone conferences and emails. A clear majority say they primarily use verbal communication (team and one-to-one telephone conferences), and just over one-third say they primarily use written communication (email, web-based conferencing/collaboration tools and instant messaging). As Pawar and Sharifi (1997) noted, by comparison with physically co-located teams, whose members ‘are likely to have similar and complementary educational and cultural backgrounds’, members of virtual teams are more likely to vary in their education, culture, time orientation, language and expertise.68 Globally distributed work teams must attempt to cope with important differences in interpersonal communication styles, preferred approaches to organizational control and authority relations, workrelated knowledge and problem-solving approaches. The members of these teams tend to be embedded in their local unit and society and yet in a situation of task interdependence with other members who are embedded in different local units and societies. To resolve the issues arising from all these tensions requires high levels of cultural adaptation.69 Concrete examples of the difficulties intercultural virtual teams face include the following:

• ‘In a multinational videoconference that introduced

•

new development teammates to each other, individuals naturally assessed teammates by their dress and posture. We believe that had the team members traveled to meet face to face, they would have attempted to dress appropriately to the location where the meeting took place, alleviating some of the wrong first impressions generated at this event.’70 Becker, Olson and Olson (2000), who pointed out the extensive use of gesture in design group meetings, noted that computing and communication technology were making possible new venues for carrying out design meetings, including distributed meetings where either groupware or communication technologies

were used. These, however, restricted the range of gestures that could be seen by other members of the group. One technology, for instance, desktop video conferencing, generally only allowed a head and shoulder shot to be transmitted.71 It is unsurprising, therefore, that a 2009 review article on virtual teams recorded a ‘sizeable number’ of studies that found a negative relationship between positive interpersonal climate and diversity, where diversity referred to geographic dispersion, the existence of subgroups, and differences in culture, function and age. The most consistently found relationships were a negative relationship between subgroups and trust, and a positive relationship between conflict and both cultural diversity and subgroups. Also found were positive relationships between positive interpersonal climate and media richness, interpersonal as opposed to task-based communication, and communication quality. Evidence of a negative relationship between quality of communication and structural diversity was also found, but this was primarily with respect to geographic dispersion.72 Similarly, a slightly later study found that differences in nationality had a strong negative direct effect on creativity in virtual teams, while differences in age interacted with establishment of rapport, participation equality, and process conflict and with differences in technical experience to affect creativity.73 Positive findings, however, are that in an exercise in which members of a dysfunctional multicultural class were assigned to teams and given a task to perform in an anonymous, virtual-team setting, as well as in a real-team setting found that team members contributed in a much more balanced manner in the anonymous virtual-team exercise.74 Again, differences in sex and race [sic] do not significantly affect creativity.75 Two particular psychological issues for virtual team members are those of identity and trust.

Identity There are problems of identity in virtual teamworking. Understanding what is going on in an interaction usually depends on knowing the identity of your interlocutor, but identity is ambiguous when team members are separated by time and borders, so that the cues generally used for identification are concealed. There is, for instance, the possibility that any one interlocutor may adopt multiple virtual personas. Ferguson (2005) proposed that team members who only communicated via cmc and never came ftf with fellow team members and who knew from their virtual team’s inception that the work team was only

INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES  229

a temporary one were likely to view their virtual team members quite differently when compared to members of more traditional teams. ‘This may be particularly so in a global virtual team where members are separated by time zones, language barriers, and cultural differences.’ Identification with one’s team or perceiving the team as an ingroup holds importance for organizational outcomes. Team members with a salient team identity tend to behave in a manner which benefits the group as a whole rather than in a way which is self-interested. If, as Ferguson implied, globally distributed teams lack team identity this may lead to effort-withholding behaviours which result in lowered team performance. When a team member acts in their own self-interest, it may often be at the expense of the team and the organization. It may not be the ‘virtuality’ (cmc, lack of ftf meetings, or lifespan of a team) that poses challenges to a virtual team, but rather its cultural diversity and the distance between members, a smallscale study within one organization found.76

Trust Trust is clearly an issue for intercultural virtual teams. Much of the theoretical and empirical literature on interpersonal and organizational trust suggests that a lack of shared social context, such as occurs in global virtual teams, would result in low trust. Media richness and social presence theories also question the possibility of relationship development in virtual teams, since computer-based communication eliminates the types of communication cues needed to convey trust, warmth and other interpersonal affections. Without these cues individuals build stereotypical impressions of others based on limited information. Furthermore, cross-cultural variabilities such as individualism–collectivism suggest different needs, values and goals for the team, resulting in potentially differing levels of trust. The more cultures there are represented on a virtual team, the greater the tendency of many organizations to establish strict control mechanisms. Some controls actually signal to the team members that there is an absence of trust and, therefore, these controls can hamper trust from emerging. Institutional controls can also undermine trust when mechanisms give rise to rigidity in response to conflict, and high levels of formalization are substituted for more flexible conflict management.  11.3.2 for a discussion of temporary teams, in which trust is a particular issue.

Longer-lasting virtual teams follow a sequential group development process in terms of trust. Virtual team

development appears to differ from that of ftf teams because the use of cmc heightens pressure to conform when a virtual team is first formed and trust is most strongly linked with feeling that the team is accomplishing the task appropriately. As the virtual team develops, trust in peers becomes more strongly linked to goal commitment. Once the team is working together effectively, accomplishing the task appropriately is the strongest link with trust in peers.77 Communication behaviours and some actions that facilitate trust early in a virtual team’s existence were identified by a case study. They included communicating about personal rather than task matters, communicating enthusiasm, coping with technical uncertainty and taking individual initiative. Later in a virtual team’s life predictable communication, substantive and timely responses, successful transition from social to procedural to task focus, positive leadership and phlegmatic responses to crises helped maintain trust. The case study report suggested that the trust initially created during the study was more like ‘swift’, depersonalized, action-based trust than longterm trust. Trusting behaviour based on swift trust may subsequently have provided a cognitive and emotional basis for longer-term trust, however.78

How can the performance of diverse groups and teams be improved? The great majority of people change the way they speak and most also adapt the way they write when working within an intercultural virtual team. These encouraging results indicate that members of diverse teams can adapt their behaviour in both spoken and written communication as well as allowing for religious beliefs and time zone differences.79 Behaviours to avoid because they impede communication in intercultural teams include not participating during team discussions, being too direct, overbearing or abrupt, refusing to accept non-local practices, expressing or being influenced by preconceptions about the receiver’s culture, not being allowed ‘think time’, formulating criticism or praise without taking the receiver’s culture into account, lack of team commitment, bad humour. Behaviours to foster because they improve oral and written communication in intercultural teams are shown in Table 11.5. As Table 11.5 shows, there are many ways to improve virtual intercultural team communication, particularly in written modes. A range of different approaches are available for increasing the effectiveness of multicultural groups and teams. They include channelling interactions through

230  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK Table 11.5  Behaviours that improve communication in intercultural virtual teams80 Behaviours That Improve Oral Communication In Intercultural Virtual Teams

Behaviours That Improve Written Communication In Intercultural Virtual Teams

Speaking slowly/clearly

Using simple language – short words

Avoiding slang and colloquialisms

Limiting use of slang and jargon

Keeping words and sentences short/keeping to the point

Keeping to the point

Confirming understanding through repetition

Changing between formal and informal writing

Changing language or accent

Confirming understanding (repetition) Being more descriptive Using lists/points Avoiding long emails to non-native users of the language of writing Writing from the receiver’s point of view Avoiding humour Formulating criticism carefully

a central point, inculcating positive attitudes to diversity, using the skills of cultural brokers and multicultural individuals, radical co-location, promoting shared team mental models, applying team management theory and multicultural theory, joint brainstorming, diversity

training, negotiating, using listener-adapted persuasive messages, both identifying shared values and acknowledging unique contributions, and building common ground through time spent together. They are explained in detail below.

Table 11.6  Potential beneficial effects of a range of diversity team-building approaches Diversity Team-Building Approach

Potential Effect

Encourage the team to reflect on and modify its functioning

Improves team functioning

Encourage lateral interactions

Builds confidence

Channel vital interactions through a leader

Improves performance

Encourage re-evaluations of members’ diversity beliefs

Enhances brainstorming

Use multicultural individuals for cultural brokerage

Enhances team effectiveness

Deploy radical co-location

May double productivity

Use site visits for members of virtual teams

Strengthens ties

Encourage team mental models

Improves coordination under time pressure

Apply team management theory

Enhances trust, a non-judgemental atmosphere, conflict resolution and negotiation skills, goal-setting abilities and pervasive individual responsibility

Apply multicultural theory

Encourages cooperative learning

Encourage initial attributions of capability and benevolence

Leads to swift trust

Provide ways for members to have spontaneous meetings

Supports remote teams

Brainstorm how to handle the conflicts inherent in diversity

Leads to group resolution

Train in ability to work effectively in diverse groups

Increases members’ diversity skills

Train early in the group’s existence

Helps overcome the initially higher vulnerability to group breakdown

INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES  231

Table 11.6  (Continued) Diversity Team-Building Approach

Potential Effect

Create opportunities for members to increase their interpersonal congruence

Increases creative task performance, social integration and group identification, lowers conflict

Use persuasive messages that recognize the other’s perspective

Helps manage intercultural team differences

Identify both shared values and unique contributions

Maximizes advantages, minimizes disadvantages of diversity

• A field study of 54 work teams from 13 different organ-

•

•

•

•

izations found that the following influence how well members of diverse teams function: how much the team members depend on each other in their work, how long the group has been in existence and especially how much the team reflects on and modifies its functioning.81 The more culturally diverse a group or team, the more pronounced are the positive effects of the amount of interaction among its members on their confidence in its ability to perform; however, for optimal performance, as opposed to confidence, the more culturally diverse the group or team the more interactions need to be channelled through a central point (usually someone in a leadership position).82 Positive attitudes towards diversity in work groups enhance brainstorming performance, measured as quality of ideas, in actual diverse groups.83 Therefore it is beneficial to induce group members to re-evaluate their beliefs and expectations about cultural diversity itself and its role in their work group.84 Members of multicultural groups and teams who have relatively more cross-cultural experience can actively engage in cultural brokerage and in practice often do so even without being appointed. Cultural insiders (those who have deep knowledge of multiple cultures other than the ones represented) both engage in cultural brokerage, albeit in different ways. Insiders are more likely than outsiders to broker by directly resolving cultural issues; outsiders are more likely to broker by facilitating interactions. Both types of brokerage enhance team effectiveness.85 Perhaps the most able to perform cultural brokerage are the kinds of multicultural employees mentioned in Section 6.2, who are being described as a ‘new demographic’ – individuals who identify with two or more cultures and have internalized associated cultural schemas.86 Radical co-location: companies are experimenting with putting teams into their own large rooms (an arrangement called radical collocation or co-location). A field study of six such teams, tracking their activity, attitudes, use of technology and productivity found that radically co-located teams showed a doubling of

•

•

•

productivity. Schedules, too, were shortened in comparison with both the industry benchmarks and the performance of past similar projects within the firm; the teams reported high satisfaction about their process and both customers and project sponsors were similarly highly satisfied. Among other reasons for these improvements were the fact that teams had easy access to each other for both coordination of their work and for learning, and that the work artefacts they posted on the walls remained visible to all.87 Time spent together may also reduce how much national differences affect a group’s functioning. Newly formed multinational groups are likely to be the most vulnerable to the drawbacks of diversity, but, over time, if they survive and meet nominal performance thresholds, they develop more trust and rapport. Members come to respect and welcome the group’s complementarities, overlooking (perhaps even relishing) differences in demeanour, values and so on. For globally distributed teams there may be significant benefits in terms of overcoming the difficulties described under the heading ‘virtual teams’ when co-workers spend periods of time working together through site visits. These enable ‘co-workers to become more familiar with one another’s communication and work styles, capabilities and interests, personalities, work and social roles, and the cultural context in which they are embedded, thus transforming their relationships’. Following the site visit, this situated familiarity ‘fosters behaviors reflecting closer ties, which then reinforce those bonds’, and so ‘transforms work relationships between distant co-workers in enduring ways’.88 Team mental models can be important factors in team effectiveness. ‘Team mental models are team members’ shared, organized understanding and mental representation of knowledge about key elements of the team’s relevant environment’. They may enhance team members’ coordination and effectiveness in performing tasks that are complex, unpredictable, urgent, and/ or novel. ‘Team members who share similar mental models can, theorists suggest, anticipate each other’s responses and coordinate effectively when time is of

232  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

•

•

•

•

the essence and opportunities for overt communication and debate are limited.’ Lim and Klein (2006) found that the more similar team members’ mental models were, the more they were likely to agree upon team priorities and strategies, yielding efficient task performance.’89 Team management theory addresses interpersonal conflicts within teams by breaking down hierarchical structures to decentralize power. A team orientation ‘validates all roles through group decision-making’. All members have input and participate in role allocation. A supportive rather than competitive atmosphere encourages participation and negotiation. Non-evaluative statements like ‘Let me review what I believe we’ve discussed so far’, and using the word ‘we’ rather than ‘you’ reinforce a democratic approach rather than a judgemental, hierarchical one. In this way, it is argued, team theory supports diversity in organizations. The basic characteristics of well-functioning teams include trust, a non-judgemental atmosphere, conflict resolution and negotiation skills, goal-setting abilities and pervasive individual responsibility. These are also the requirements for success in diversity management. ‘Problems in the workplace arise from exclusion, distrust, and fear. Teams counter these difficulties by creating bonds through working together towards mutually beneficial ends. Therefore, teams play an important part in restructuring the role of the individual and others in the workplace.’90, 91 Multicultural theory is another approach to building better teams from diverse groups. It involves encouraging cooperative learning through interactive activities, such as team members answering worksheets, individuals researching issues and reporting to the group, or pairs of group members researching both sides of a problem. This fosters positive interdependence, individual accountability and ftf problem-solving. Multicultural theory ‘promotes mutual understanding and respect for ethnic, religious, gender, class, language, and age differences’. It also promotes equal access to economic power. Team members who import an understanding of knowledge-sharing cultures from other settings that they are familiar with help organizations to develop a knowledge-sharing culture to promote effective organizational learning among culturally diverse team members, according to Zakaria et al. (2004).92 Team members of culturally diverse teams who start from a position of crediting the other team members with adequate capability and also benevolence (such as their having a positive intention to exchange information) also help organizations to develop a knowledge sharing culture. This set of attitudes is, in effect,

swift  trust which is less based on interpersonal relationships than other forms of trust, and places greater stress on initial broad social structures and then on action. Here a potential problem is with culturally different expectations about work levels and outputs. Zakaria et al. (2004) concluded that team members need to maintain high levels of action regardless of their personal preferences.93

Supporting remote teams, whether intercultural or not, requires ways to provide ‘constant awareness and easy transitions in and out of spontaneous meetings’.94

• Resolving problems through brainstorming techniques •

•

•

•

that allow for group resolution can help address the conflicts inherent in diversity. Training can help group members improve their ability to work effectively in diverse groups. For example, it has been suggested that special team-building training may be necessary, so that groups containing members who are differently-abled may be able to function more effectively. Such training may involve changing not only how the members react to their fellow members who are differently-abled but also how each person reacts to each other person in terms of beliefs, reactions and job performance expectations.95 Training programmes for enhancing the effectiveness of multinational groups are most needed in the early stages of the group’s operation. Similarly, it is at the outset of the group’s work together that multinational group leaders must be the most vigilant about possible group breakdowns due to diversity.96 Techniques that increase interpersonal congruence enhance effectiveness in diverse groups. Interpersonal congruence measures the degree to which group members see others in the group as those others see themselves. People often see themselves differently from how others see them. This factor affects group effectiveness in diverse groups with high interpersonal congruence, a study showed. When people expressed their ‘unique’ characteristics within the group during their first ten minutes of interaction, the high level of interpersonal congruence within the group was still benefiting group outcomes four months later.97 Negotiation and persuasion are key to managing intercultural team differences. Being able to design appropriate persuasive messages in decision-making contexts and influence others in ethical ways that recognize others’ perspectives is crucial. In the teambased, post-modern organization, ‘adapting messages to one’s listeners takes precedence over individual

INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES  233

•

eloquence’.98 In an intercultural situation, this requirement includes adapting to the cultural perspective of the other person. Both cognitive complexity (differentiation) and having a broad definition of one’s role are related to how much someone used listener-adapted persuasive messages.99 Finally, building teams out of diverse groups requires both identifying shared values among subgroups (for example, high-quality work or orientation towards serving the customer) and also acknowledging the unique contributions of individuals. In this way, team builders can maximize the advantages of diversity, such as enhanced perspectives and broader approaches, but minimize its disadvantages such as subgroup focus, power differentials and distorted communication.

Figure 11.4 analyses these suggestions for improved intercultural teamwork and groupwork into those that

develop strengths, those that work with strengths, processual methods, managerial interventions and mobilizing natural forces that promote understanding and harmony.

11.4 INTERCULTURAL LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT Culturally adapted leadership is associated with positive outcomes for organizations as well as for leaders and followers. When a superior and his or her subordinate have the same nationality, ethnicity and gender the quality of their relationship is often better. People who share the same demographic attributes often share beliefs and values, or at least assume that they do. People who perceive that they

Figure 11.4  How leaders can improve intercultural teamwork and groupwork Developing strengths Training Techniques that increase interpersonal congruence Techniques that help team members develop shared mental models Working with strengths Recruiting team members with positive attitudes to diversity Identifying shared values among subgroups Using cultural brokers

Mobilizing natural forces that promote understanding and harmony Increasing the amount of interaction among team members channelled through a leader Increasing the time team members spend together Radical co-location

Processual methods Improved multicultural team performance

Developing swift trust Maintaining high levels of action regardless of personal preferences

Managerial interventions Managing conflict by negotiation and persuasion Resolving problems through brainstorming techniques Applying multicultural theory to promote respect for differences and equal access to power Applying team management theory to break down hierarchies, decentralize power and address interpersonal conflicts

234  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

think alike are more likely to like one another, feel comfortable in each other’s company and have more confidence in each other because they view each other as more predictable. In addition, similar backgrounds often lead to people having similar communication patterns and so they are able to communicate more effectively and with fewer misunderstandings. Intercultural leaders and managers have to confront the obverse of these helpful conditions.

Barriers to intercultural leadership and management (Sub)cultural differences in leadership and management, as Chapters 7 and 9 showed, may extend to whether the leader/manager represents or leads the group or organization, whether or not the leader is first among equals and decision-making consensual, whether leaders are given wide discretion or not, whether leaders’ focus is on competing outside their own team or on team members and whether leaders emphasize long-term plans and strategies or quick results. There are also (sub)cultural differences in how managers perform specific functions such as compliance gaining, mentoring, giving feedback and international project management. Table 11.7 shows how some of these differences can give rise to problems for intercultural managers. Varying management styles linked to each country’s culture in different countries can create problems; for instance, whereas in French management style, authority is legitimized by the hierarchical position itself, in Slovenian management style authority belongs to the person who has the expertise. In the case of a joint venture, when the French management wanted to impose more hierarchy in a Slovenian plant, tensions arose.100 The professionalization of leadership grounded in a formal knowledge base that is predominantly derived from research in Anglo-American cultural settings and performed by Anglo-American leadership researchers may have placed the adaptation of leadership styles to national culture under pressure.101 For example, participation and empowerment, as introduced in the Western literature,

do not work well in Russian organizations. Explanations were found in a series of factors linked to Russian national and organizational cultures: ‘the practice of vesting authority in one man [sic], tightly coupled hierarchies, lack of knowledge sharing, anti-individualism and dependence’.102 Equally, studies of hotel staff in Canada and the People’s Republic of China showed that China’s high power distance reduced the effect of empowerment on job satisfaction.103 Empowerment is negatively associated with employee job satisfaction in India but positively associated in the United States, Mexico and Poland. Given that these last two are high power-distance countries, particular factors may be operating – ‘Mexican workers may tolerate strong hierarchy but would prefer a less autocratic system’, while Polish employees may not accept authoritarian management easily, as ‘it tends to be associated with the ineffectiveness of the earlier regime’.104 Studies of Turkish managers showed a discrepancy between their beliefs in favour of participative leadership and their relatively low beliefs in employees’ capacity for leadership and initiative. This might be owing to a conflict between their training in Western management and human relations ideology and the high value placed in traditional Turkish culture on a benevolent autocratic style of leadership. ‘A dominating style in handling differences with subordinates is widespread and is perceived to be an effective method by superiors and subordinates alike.’ Expressing support for participative leadership might be seen as socially desirable rather than realistic. Another possibility is that managers had a genuine belief in participative practices, but were frustrated by employees’ responses. The subordinates might not yet have embraced participativemanagement ideology. Change efforts which bring a more comprehensive perspective and which from the outset involve all interested parties may be the more appropriate strategy.105 Why might participation and empowerment, as advocated in Western literature, be counterproductive in some European and Asian countries?

Table 11.7  Issues that arise in intercultural leadership and management Issue

Consequences

Variations in management styles linked to each country’s culture Tensions with workforce Participative and empowering management

Conflicts with workers’ expectations and preferences in high power-distance countries

Superior–subordinate age similarity

Less positive superior–subordinate relationships

Superior–subordinate gender dissimilarity, especially when it is the man who is subordinate

Less positive superior–subordinate relationships

INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES  235

Age and gender are subcultural issues that create obstacles to effective management. In the case of age, however, it is age similarity that has been linked to the issue: people of similar ages may feel themselves to be in competition (this is an implication of social comparison theory) and so have less positive superior–subordinate relationships than people of different ages. ‘Subordinates who are roughly equal to their supervisor in terms of age may be inclined to consider the adverse implications for their own personal career progress.’ These effects interact with cultural differences. The negative association between age similarity and good superior–subordinate relationships is likely to be stronger in high power-distance cultures, like that of Mexico, where it is expected that higher status goes with age. Confirming this, a study found that age similarity had negative effects on superior–subordinate relationship quality in Mexico, but not in the USA.106 Again, there is a negative association between gender dissimilarity and the quality of superior–subordinate relationships, particularly when it is the man who is the subordinate. This negative association is stronger in cultures such as that of Mexico, whose stronger patriarchal and machismo elements make female superior–male subordinate relationships more problematic. Despite this, while gender dissimilarity had a stronger negative impact on one dimension of relationship quality – trust – in Mexico, it had a stronger negative impact on a second dimension of relationship quality – leader-member exchange, which largely involves support and understanding – in the USA. The researchers concluded, ‘Overall, demographic similarity influences the quality of relationships between supervisors and subordinates but … the precise type of influence is affected by culture.’107

that specific aspects of charismatic/transformational leadership are strongly and universally endorsed across cultures.110 Similarly, ‘challenging the process’ and ‘enabling others to act’, two aspects of transformational leadership, were unaffected by differences in cultural dimensions, cross-cultural research among Pakistani, Kazakh and Turkish business students found.111 On the other hand, ‘inspiring a shared vision’ and ‘modeling the way’ were significantly and negatively related to uncertainty avoidance while ‘encouraging the heart’ was positively related to power distance. This research also found that uncertainty avoidance was significantly and negatively related to overall transformational leadership.112 These findings suggest that intercultural leaders need to learn where and how to adapt and which widely endorsed leadership practices can be widely applied. Communication plays an important role in the process by which charismatic leadership emerges. (This is consistent with the school of thought that leadership is located, observed and interpreted as a communication process.) While similar management practices ‘could be effective in societies that seem different’, they need to be examined for their interpretation in different countries. This is the essence of the Global Integration–Local Responsiveness framework where global integration emphasizes consistency or standardization and local responsiveness emphasizes customization or adaptation.113 Managers’ responsiveness relates to communication style, the content of communications and use of third parties for negative feedback.114

Factors in effective intercultural leadership and management

Globalization has created a demand for global leaders – people with the rare capacity of leading in many cultures simultaneously. Caligiuri and Tarique (2009) studied over 200 global leaders and found that highly extroverted leaders with a greater number of high-contact cross-cultural leadership development experiences were the most effective in global leadership activities.115 Next discussed is intercultural management in relation to the specific roles of mentoring, giving feedback, taking responsibility for diversity and managing international projects.

Defining the fundamental cultural references of a nation helps to anticipate the work behaviour and reactions of individuals regarding new management procedures. The better these procedures correspond to such fundamental cultural references, the better the results.108 How leaders function cannot be studied independently of the groupbased social context that gives their roles and qualities expression. ‘Leaders and followers are transformed and energized as partners in an emerging social self-categorical relationship.’109 Leaders must be ‘one of us’, exemplify what makes ‘us’ better than ‘them’ and stand up for the group. Some attributes associated with charismatic/transformational leadership may be universally endorsed as contributing to outstanding leadership, however. This hypothesis was tested in 60 cultures as part of the GLOBE Research Program. The results supported the hypothesis

Research has shown that charismatic l­eadership is associated with collectivist values in the ­followers. What might explain this?

Effective intercultural mentoring Crosby (1999) argued that issues of trust, comfort and rapport are central to intercultural mentoring. Some people might more readily act as instrumental sponsors than as psychosocial confidants for someone

236  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

who differs from them on important dimensions of identity. Similarly, junior people may feel more ­suspicious of and behave more awkwardly around senior people who differ from them than around senior people who resemble them. Because most senior people in organizations today are still … men, insisting on the close emotional bond between a mentor and a protégé as the only vehicle for career advancement may unwittingly serve to reinforce the … old boys’ network.116 Mentorees from some cultural or social backgrounds need to be taught the meaning and functions of assertiveness, encouraged to ask questions and express opinions. Similarly, mentors should be educated about the meanings of silence and learn not to interpret the absence of questions and suggestions to mean that neither problems nor ambitions exist. Mentors should not dismiss or trivialize a mentoree’s emphasis on race, gender or class (as by saying, ‘You’re focusing on class too much’, or ‘You’re looking at this through a class lens’). Mentors should help mentorees to make contacts and to network. The mentorees may not know how to go about it (how to introduce themselves to important figures in the field, how to remind someone that they’ve met before). ‘The oppressed learn their place very well; even the most independent of persons knows the line.’117 Mentorees from lower social classes may not ask how to go about doing something that everyone assumes they know how to do. They will not necessarily ask, because it can be humiliating to have to ask what you ‘should’ already know, such as whether a gathering is in semi-formal or casual dress, how to make small talk with guest speakers or how to contact a senior manager. Mentors should be prepared to talk with mentorees about things that they assume other junior employees know.118 Osula and Irvin (2009) proposed that intercultural mentoring effectiveness is a function of the mentor’s and the mentoree’s general cultural awareness, their cultural self-awareness and their situation-specific awareness.119 These authors also suggested the possibility of an intercultural learning agenda in which both mentoree and mentor first learn more about each other’s cultural expectations before finalizing their mentoring agreement. While this awareness of the other is commonly expected (if not always delivered) in foreign situations, such as the preparation of expatriates, diplomats, or missionaries for overseas postings, its relevance for domestic situations may be even more significant and affect a broad range of issues related to diversity and the work environment. Osula and Irvin (2009) further suggested the value of cultural awareness in the mentoring relationship, leading to a ‘third culture’ perspective.120

Giving feedback across cultures When Czaplewski et al. (2002) researched and analysed ‘cross-cultural’ (meaning ‘intercultural’) performance feedback in multinational enterprises, they concluded the following:

• Employee input is essential for identifying employee

•

•

strengths and weaknesses in the most effective manner, as employees are often most aware of both aspects of their work performance. To get high power-distanceoriented employees to increase their upward input to their superiors, managers are recommended to ask open-ended questions that provide opportunities for voluntary answers, and to direct specific questions to an individual’s area of expertise. In collectivist cultures, it is important specifically to invite the employee to respond with his/her ideas and perspectives so that harmony is preserved. To build a personal relationship and trust with subordinates calls for being polite and showing respect. Another way to build trust is to have events where managers can have friendly and informal dialogues with subordinates. In collectivist cultures, it is important to show respect to older people and those with long tenure in the company; in high power-distance cultures, this applies to those with higher social status. Respect can be shown by a marked emphasis on politeness and decorum. For example, a written communication should ask such senior employees to ‘consider’ doing certain things and should ‘request’ them to do it. Saying ‘You must’, or ‘You are required’, is considered impolite. In addition, proper titles should be used when addressing older people. It is important to match the verbal and non-verbal communication styles of other cultures. In collectivist cultures, verbal communication of work assignments, requirements and priorities should focus on how the employee relates to the group and the organization overall. In addition, feedback and recognition should be provided that establishes rapport with family, friends and associates as well as the other important ingroups of collectivist employees. In high-context communication cultures, loud and direct oral communication is socially unacceptable. Argumentative voices and exaggerated hand gestures are frowned upon and often lead to miscommunication. Instead of making demands, it is often useful to ask, ‘May I ask you a question?’ or ‘May I make a suggestion?’ It is also important to be aware of non-verbal cues. For instance, gestures are typically more restrained than is typical in the West in order to demonstrate one’s respect for the other person.

INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES  237

• In collectivist cultures critical feedback may be seen as

a personal attack, especially if someone outside of one’s work group delivers the feedback. For this reason managers should establish a trusting personal relationship with the subordinate before providing any negative performance feedback. Intercultural managers should also offer advice in a diplomatic and caring manner.

Managers should consider beginning by apologizing for having to conduct the session and use analogies and other indirect communication to illustrate performance concerns. Instead of direct or blunt feedback, they should use open-ended questions, silence, paraphrasing and reflecting feelings. They should seek to observe the reaction of employees closely and be willing to tolerate ambiguities as well as sometimes leaving things unsaid rather than spelling out everything clearly. Collectivist subordinates will read between the lines and understand what is being said.

• Managers giving feedback to subordinates from collec-

tivist cultures should also consider using a third party to convey any negative feedback, or to gain a sense of the underlying issues and obtain possible responses from the subordinate before personally giving negative feedback. The reason for this is that it is acceptable for employees in collectivist cultures to provide constructive feedback to another member of their work group when they have established a close and trusting relationship with each other. A trusted third party can act as a buffer to help minimize conflict, explore hidden fears and preserve the relationship, face and self-esteem of the individual and the group. In addition, a respected third party can more easily serve as a mentor or ask more junior workers to contribute their views. In addition to a respected peer from the employee’s team, other potential third parties are a senior employee in the company or an employee with expertise in a particular area.121

Diversity leadership Diversity management presents challenges for contemporary leadership, including (a) the limited access of individuals from diverse identity groups to leadership roles; (b) the shaping of leaders’ behaviour by their dual identities as leaders and members of gender, racial, ethnic or other identity groups; and (c) the potential of individuals from groups formerly excluded from leadership roles to provide excellent leadership because of their differences from traditional leaders.122 There are strong arguments in favour of leaders and the organizations they lead adopting goals and policies that promote diversity. These arguments include:

• the need to obey equal opportunities law, • ethical corporate conduct, which embraces equal opportunities out of fairness, • the business case, especially attracting and retaining • • •

the best staff both by widening the pool from which selection is made and by the attractiveness to many of diversity-promoting employers, building learning communities, where diversity is ­valued for bringing in new knowledge and perspectives, supplying diverse markets and user populations and attaining global competitive advantage, both of which are facilitated by having diverse groups from the (global) environment involved in decision-making, an ‘affirming’ climate in an organization – a climate that means that employees perceive they have equal access to opportunities and fair treatment, regardless of ethnicity or gender – increases employees’ organizational commitment, climate for innovation, psychological empowerment and identity freedom and reduces their intention to leave.123

There is evidence, however, that poor diversity management programmes can lead to resistance, reluctance and a perceived lack of effective organizational engagement and become something that organizational members associate with fear and anxiety.124 To be effective, diversity programmes must have support from the top, and managers need to set the tone for an open and receptive environment, which actively incorporates difference. To develop functional intercultural communication between different groups in the organization, managers must reward new approaches. ‘By modelling bias-free language, both written and spoken, and by illustrating a genuine acceptance of different methods and manners, managers can create a work environment that will nurture and profit from diversity.’125 The starting point in most diversity training programmes is an analysis of the self. Most employees are unaware of their own biases, how they are formed and how they emerge in the workplace in overt and subtle ways. Thus, good multicultural managers should have an understanding of themselves, be able to communicate effectively through verbal and non-verbal messages, be respectful and empathetic and understand other cultures’ ‘sense of time, concept of work and basic beliefs’. Managers who lack some of these qualities can develop them through training programmes. In many ways, cultural awareness training is key. For example, managers need to learn what is offensive to other cultures in terms of grooming, dress and communication methods as well as understand that what is perceived as ‘odd’ behaviour is really just different.

238  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

A commitment to respecting difference is the first step. Training that provides an understanding of the values, beliefs, customs and preferences of other groups is much more likely to enhance cultural diversity. Effective training improves skills in listening, interpersonal communication, conflict resolution and negotiation. It also explores ways to alter current assumptions and paradigms. Training methods to achieve these goals include consciousnessraising activities (to study how culture shapes perceptions as well as behaviour) and interactive activities such as roleplaying, creating scenarios to illustrate stereotypes, analysing case studies and viewing films for discussion. Trainers must create an atmosphere of trust in order to handle the ‘serious and deep cultural and personal conflicts, which must be voiced, acknowledged, and explored’.126 To minimize tensions, managers should set guidelines, such as encouraging all responses, use ‘I’ statements, listen with respect, maintain confidentiality and avoid blaming. These guidelines resemble those for forming effective teams; consequently, companies that encourage teamwork should succeed in multicultural efforts.127 What should the diversity training of managers aim to achieve?

The finding shows that a leader should focus on relationships, symbolic communication, body language, and cognitive complexity for a better, more effective communication strategy.128

Effective international project management Case studies of international construction projects have revealed some of the major managerial barriers to intercultural project management, such as resolving conflicts, giving multi-skill training and adapting management approaches for cultural difference.129 One project, to build a hospital in Saudi Arabia, was managed by a five-member team of three Swedes, one Arab and one Briton. The construction workers were Arabs and Pakistanis. In this project the main managerial issues were negotiation, conflict resolution, raising productivity and delay in raising funds. Another project, also in Saudi Arabia, was to construct a major harbour and road. The consulting engineers were from Britain and the USA, the project manager was Swedish and the workforce consisted of more than 1,000 Thais and Pakistanis; the client was Arabic. Important managerial issues were to optimize labour costs by learning how to evoke pride in the workers, to give multi-skill training and to create rivalry among work groups. In a third project, Swedish contractors undertaking construction of a hydropower plant in

Thailand found that Thai workers in Thailand were less productive than those who work abroad. A fourth case showed that the ‘democratic’ Swedish approach to management did not work well in a project to construct a tunnel in Hong Kong with Chinese and Swedish management and mainly Chinese engineers.130 Lessons for effective international project management emerged from the case studies of international project management just described. For example, a project manager stationed in the Middle East (West Asia) said, Social relations in the Middle East are very important; if not for anything else, it is vital for getting information. In order to know very early that a project is proceeding, you must have a network of relations to be informed … they must know you and trust you as a person first, and then trust your company. It is impossible to build such interpersonal relations without cultural awareness.131 Other conclusions included the following: Effective management of cultural diversity at project level is an art. For example, negotiation with Arabs requires a degree of patience that few Western project managers have ever had to practice. Many of the problems are solved informally, in social meetings, based on interpersonal relationships. A project manager in the Middle East said, ‘There exists a strong and direct positive relationship between project performance and the project management’s interpersonal relations with other actors involved in the project … delays can be avoided and much time and resources saved.’132 Three strategies project leaders use to cope with cultural diversity are to draw upon individual tolerance and self-control, to enter into a trial-and-error process coupled with relationship development and to capitalize on transnational corporate or professional cultures.133 Focusing on the complexity of power project development, Kumar et al. (2005) argued that power project developers needed to follow a strategy that combined one based on formal contracts and one based on trust building. In such a combined approach, the appropriate balance between the two components shifts over the life cycle of the project. Trust building is critical at the initiation of the project, whereas complete contracting should dominate in the project implementation stage.134 What adjustments in attitudes, expectations and communication behaviours are likely to be needed by a Western project manager working on a project in the Middle East?

INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES  239

CHAPTER 11 SUMMARY

• While cultural differences in negotiators’ behaviour,

•

•

•

goals and communication can lead to conflict, cultural differences in preferences present opportunities for mutually satisfying procedures and outcomes. Communication to make harmonization of mental models possible is a key factor in intercultural negotiation. Cultural differences in power distance, formality preferences and time horizons together with lack of social information make intercultural cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing particularly problematic. Informal lateral relations, social interaction, participation in corporate training programmes, language fluency, trust and shared vision help overcome these barriers. A common language, social knowledge of the other party’s culture, the appropriate use of both weak and strong social ties, the contributions of expatriates, opportunities for intercultural knowledge creation and relational capital are particularly valuable for intercultural knowledge sharing. Cultural differences affect preferred decision-making styles and expectations concerning both group- and teamwork. Thus, diversity affects group and team functioning and performance. However, the type of diversity and the nature of the group task influence what those effects will be. The work environment, especially attitudes to diversity, and the organizational culture also influence diversity’s impact on group or team performance. Factors including status differentials and reward structures, and methods such as training, internal negotiation and brainstorming conflict-related problems can improve performance in diverse teams. Two issues have attracted most research attention in regard to virtual teams: team identification and trust between the dispersed team members. Research in temporary teams has revealed that a kind of swift trust can develop which allows the team to function without the underpinnings that trust usually requires. Intercultural leaders and managers must prevent differences from leading to superior–subordinate tension and must show respect for subordinates’ ‘face’. In general, Westerners may need to pay more attention to interpersonal relationships than they do usually, and be prepared to revise their usual management methods.

1. Mentors should allow for (sub)cultural differences in the kind of support the mentoree needs and in their willingness to ask for help.

2. Feedback should allow for subordinates’ culturally influenced attitudes to criticism. 3. There are strong arguments in favour of active diversity leadership in organizations. Diversity leadership requires top managers both to act as models, particularly with regard to how they communicate, and to instigate and strongly support diversity training. 4. International project managers need high levels of cultural diversity awareness and acceptance.

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007) ‘Using English for international business: A European case study’, English for Specific Purposes, 26(1): 103–20. 2 Warren, M. (2014) ‘ “Preparation is everything”: Meetings in professional contexts in Hong Kong’, English for Specific Purposes, 36: 12–26. 3 Brett, J.M. (2000) ‘Culture and negotiation’, International Journal of Psychology, 35(2): 97–104. 4 Ribbink, D. and Grimm, C.M. (2014) ‘The impact of cultural differences on buyer–supplier negotiations: An experimental study’, Journal of Operations Management, 32(3): 114–26. 5 Bazerman, M.H., Curhan, J.R., Moore, D.A. and Valley, K.L. (2000) ‘Negotiation’, Annual Review of Psychology, 51: 279–314. 6 Chen, Y.R., Mannix, E.A. and Okumura, T. (2003) ‘The importance of who you meet: Effects of self-versus other-concerns among negotiators in the United States, the People’s Republic of China, and Japan’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(1): 1–15. 7 Brett, op. cit. 8 Peleckis, K. (2014) ‘International business negotiations: innovation, negotiation team, preparation’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110: 64–73. 9 George, J.M., Gonzalez, J.A. and Jones, G.R. (1998) ‘The role of affect in cross-cultural negotiations’, Journal of International Business Studies, 29(4): 749–72. 10 Bazerman et al., op. cit. 11 Liu, L.A., Friedman, R., Barry, B., Gelfand, M.J. and Zhang, Z.X. (2012) ‘The dynamics of consensus building in intracultural and intercultural negotiations’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2): 269–304. 12 Bazerman et al., op. cit. 13 Wilken, R., Jacob, F. and Prime, N. (2013) ‘The ambiguous role of cultural moderators in intercultural business negotiations’, International Business Review, 22(4): 736–53. 14 Traavik, L.E.M. (2007) ‘Reciprocating concessions in intercultural and intracultural contexts’,

240  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

15 16

17

18

19

20 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

IACM 2007 Meetings Paper, URL: http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1100608. Last accessed 17 July 2016. Peng, M.W. (2001) ‘The resource-based view and international business’,   Journal of Management, 27(6): 803–29. Hajro, A. and Pudelko, M. (2010) ‘An analysis of core-competences of successful multinational team leaders’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 10(2): 175–94. Matsumoto, D. and Hwang, H.S. (2011) ‘Cooperation and competition in intercultural interactions’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations’, 35(5): 677–85. Rauwolf, P., Mitchell, D. and Bryson, J.J. (2014) ‘Value homophily benefits cooperation but motivates employing incorrect social information’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 367: 246–61. Chuah, S.H., Hoffmann, R., Ramasamy, B. and Tan, J.H. (2014) ‘Religion, ethnicity and cooperation: An experimental study’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 45: 33–43. Teraji, S. (2008) ‘Culture, effort variability, and hierarchy’, The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(1): 157–66. Van Dijk, E., de Kwaadsteniet, E.W. and De Cremer, D. (2009) ‘Tacit coordination in social dilemmas: the importance of having a common understanding’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3): 665–78. De Kwaadsteniet, E.W., Homan, A.C., Van Dijk, E. and Van Beest, I. (2012) ‘Social information as a cue for tacit coordination’, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(2): 257–71. Kleinbaum, A.M., Stuart, T.E. and Tushman, M. (2008) ‘Communication (and coordination?) in a modern, complex organization’, Harvard Business School Entrepreneurial Management Working Paper No. 09-004. URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1162171. Last accessed 17 July 2016. Straub, D.W., Loch, K.D. and Hill, C.E. (2002) ‘Transfer of information technology to the Arab world: A test of cultural influence modeling’, Advanced Topics in Global Information Management, 2: 141–73. Klitmøller, A. and Lauring, J. (2013) ‘When global virtual teams share knowledge: Media richness, cultural difference and language commonality’, Journal of World Business, 48(3): 398–406. Möller, K. and Svahn, S. (2004) ‘Crossing East-West boundaries: Knowledge sharing in intercultural business networks’, Industrial Marketing Management, 33(3): 219–28. Leung, K., Bhagat, R.S., Buchan, N.R., Erez, M. and Gibson, C.B. (2005) ‘Culture and international business: recent advances and their implications for future

28

29 30

31

32

33

34

35

36 37

38

39

40

research’, Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 357–78. Bhagat, B.L., Kedia, P.D., Harveston, H.C. and Triandis, H. (2002) ‘Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: an integrative framework’, Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 204–21. Based on Ibid. Hutchings, K. and Michailova, S. (2004) ‘Facilitating knowledge sharing in Russian and Chinese subsidiaries: the role of personal networks and group membership’, Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2): 84–94. Sarala, R.M. and Vaara, E. (2009) ‘Cultural differences, convergence, and crossvergence as explanations of knowledge transfer in international acquisitions’, Journal of International Business Studies, doi:10.1057/ jibs.2009.89. Tsai, W. (2002) ‘Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing’, Organization Science, 13(2): 179–90 (internal references omitted). Barner-Rasmussen, W. and Bjorkman, I. (2005) ‘Surmounting interunit barriers: factors associated with interunit communication intensity in the multinational corporation’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 35(1): 28–46. Barner-Rasmussen, W. and Björkman, I. (2007) ‘Language fluency, socialization and inter-unit relationships in Chinese and Finnish subsidiaries’, Management and Organization Review, 3(1): 105–28. Buckley, P.J., Carter, M.J., Clegg, J. and Tan, H. (2005) ‘Language and social knowledge in foreign-knowledge transfer to China’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 35(1): 47–65. Granovetter, M.S. (1973) ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360–80. Lunan, R. and Barth, T. (2003) ‘Managing the exploration vs. exploitation dilemma in transnational “bridging teams” ’, Journal of World Business, 38(2): 110–26. Hansen, M.T. (1999) ‘The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1): 82–111. Mäkelä, K. (2007) ‘Knowledge sharing through expatriate relationships: A social capital perspective’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 37(3): 108–25. Riusala, K. and Smale, A. (2007) ‘Predicting stickiness factors in the international transfer of knowledge through expatriates’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 37(3): 16–43.

INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES  241

41 Noorderhaven, N. and Harzing, A.-W. (2009) ‘Knowledge-sharing and social interaction within MNEs’, Journal of International Business Studies, 40: 719–41. 42 Lin, C.P. (2011) ‘Modeling job effectiveness and its antecedents from a social capital perspective: A survey of virtual teams within business organizations’, Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2): 915–23. 43 Guirdham, M. (2002) Interactive Behaviour at Work, Hemel Hempstead, UK: Pearson. 44 Maderer, D., Holtbrügge, D. and Schuster, T. (2014) ‘Professional football squads as multicultural teams: Cultural diversity, intercultural experience, and team performance’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(2): 215–38. 45 Garrison, G., Wakefield, R.L., Xu, X. and Kim, S.H. (2010) ‘Globally distributed teams: the effect of diversity on trust, cohesion and individual performance’, ACM SIGMIS Database, 41(3), 27–48. 46 Mannix, E. and Neale, M.A. (2005) ‘What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2): 31–55. 47 Barinaga, E. (2007) ‘Cultural diversity at work: “National culture” as a discourse organizing an international project group’, Human Relations, 60(2): 315–40. 48 Bell, S.T., Villado, A.J., Lukasik, M.A., Belau, L. and Briggs, A.L. (2010) ‘Getting specific about demographic diversity variables and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis’, Journal of Management, 37(3): 709–43. 49 Bowers, C.A., Pharmer, J.A. and Salas, E. (2000) ‘When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: a meta-analysis’, Small Group Research, 31(3): 305–27. 50 Homberg, F. and Bui, H.T. (2013) ‘Top management team diversity: A Systematic review’, Group & Organization Management, 38(4): 455–79. 51 Stahl, G.K., Maznevski, M.L., Voigt, A. and Jonsen, K. (2010) ‘Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: a meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups’, Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 690–709. 52 Hinds, P.J., Neeley, T.B. and Cramton, C.D. (2013) ‘Language as a lightning rod: Power contests, emotion regulation, and subgroup dynamics in global teams’, Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5): 536–61. 53 Ibid. 54 Lau, D.C. and Murnighan, J.K. (2005) ‘Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines’, Academy of Management Journal, 48(4): 645–59. 55 Punnett, B.J. and Clemens, J. (1999) ‘Cross-national diversity: implications for international expansion decisions’, Journal of World Business, 34(2): 128–38.

56 Jehn, K.A., Northcote, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999) ‘Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 741–63. 57 Shore, L.M., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H. and Singh, G. (2010) ‘Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research’, Journal of Management, 37(4): 1262–89. 58 Brodbeck, F.C., Guillaume, Y.R.F. and Lee, N.J. (2010) ‘Ethnic diversity as a multilevel construct: The combined effects of dissimilarity, group diversity, and societal status on learning performance in work groups’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, URL: https://research.aston.ac.uk/portal/files/240534/ JCCP_ML_Diversity_FINAL_including_addresses. pdf. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 59 Härtel, C.E. (2004) ‘Towards a multicultural world: Identifying work systems, practices and employee attitudes that embrace diversity’, Australian Journal of Management, 29(2): 189–200. 60 Oetzel, J.G. (2001) ‘Self-construals, communication processes, and group outcomes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups’, Small Group Research, 32(1): 19–54. 61 Kirkman, B.L., Cordery, J.L., Mathieu, J., Rosen, B. and Kukenberger, M. (2013) ‘Global organizational communities of practice: The effects of nationality diversity, psychological safety, and media richness on community performance’, Human Relations, 66(3): 333–62. 62 Watson, W.E., Johnson, L., Kumar, K. and Critelli, J. (1998) ’Process gain and process loss: Comparing interpersonal processes and performance of culturally diverse and non-diverse teams across time’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(4): 409–30. 63 Based on Hambrick, D.C. (1998) ‘When groups consist of multiple nationalities: towards a new understanding of the implications’, Organization Studies, 19(2): 181–206. 64 Ibid. 65 Ely, R.J. and Thomas, D.A. (2001) ‘Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 229–73. 66 Chatman, J., Polzer, J., Barsade, S. and Neale, M. (1998) ‘Being different yet feeling similar: the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(3): 668–98. 67 Henderson, J.K. (2005) ‘Language diversity in international management teams’, International Studies of Management & Organization, 35(1): 66–82.

242  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

68 Pawar, K.S. and Sharifi, S. (1997) ‘Physical or virtual team collocation: Does it matter?’ International Journal of Production Economics, 52: 283–90. 69 Cramton, C.D. and Hinds, P.J. (2014) ‘An Embedded model of cultural adaptation in global teams’, Organization Science, 25(4): 1056–81. 70 Olson, J.S and Olson, G.M. (2003–4) ‘Culture surprises in remote software development teams’, Queue, (1)9: 52–9. 71 Becker, M.M, Olson, J.S. and Olson, G.M. (2000) ‘How does radical collocation help a team succeed?’ Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer supported Cooperative work, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, 339–46. 72 Mortensen, M., Caya, O. and Pinsonneault, A. (2009) ‘Virtual teams demystified: an integrative framework for understanding virtual teams and a synthesis of research’, MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4738-09, URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1282095. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 73 Martins, L.L. and Shalley, C.E. (2011) ‘Creativity in virtual work: effects of demographic differences’, Small Group Research, URL: http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/21/1046496410397382.abstract. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 74 Berg, R.W. (2012) ‘The Anonymity factor in making multicultural teams work: virtual and real teams’, Business Communication Quarterly, 75(4): 404–24. 75 Martins, op. cit. 76 Ferguson, M.J., (2005) ‘The role of group membership perception and team identity in a virtual team’s use of influence tactics’, IACM 17th Annual Conference Paper, URL: http://ssrn.com/abstract=602047 (internal references omitted). Last accessed 17 July 2016. 77 Haines, R. (2014) ‘Group development in virtual teams: An experimental examination’, Computers in Human Behavior, 39: 213–22. 78 Suchan, J. and Hayzak, G. (2001) ‘The communication characteristics of virtual teams: A case study’, IEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(3): 174–86. 79 Anawati, D. and Craig, A. (2006) ‘Behavioral adaptation within cross-cultural virtual teams’, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(1): 44–56. 80 Based on Anawati, D. and Craig, A. (2006) ‘Behavioral adaptation within cross-cultural virtual teams’, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 49(1): 44–56. 81 Schippers, M., Den Hartog, D.N., Koopman, P.L. and Wienk, J.A. (2003) ‘Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(6): 779–802.

82 Tröster, C., Mehra, A. and van Knippenberg, D. (2014) ‘Structuring for team success: The interactive effects of network structure and cultural diversity on team potency and performance’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2): 245–55. 83 Nakui, T., Paulus, P.B. and van der Zee, K.I. (2011) ‘The Role of attitudes in reactions toward diversity in workgroups’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(10): 2327–51. 84 Ely, R.J. and Thomas, D.A. (2001) ‘Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 229–73. 85 Jang, S. (2014) ‘Bringing worlds together: Cultural brokerage in multicultural teams’, URL: http://nrs. harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12274592. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 86 Fitzsimmons, S.R. (2013) ‘Multicultural employees: A framework for understanding how they contribute to organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 38(4): 525–49. 87 Teasley, S.D., Covi, L., Krishnan, M.S. and Olson, J.S. (2000) ‘How does radical collocation help a team succeed?’ Proceedings of CSCW 2000 URL: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1031607.1031621. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 88 Hinds, P.J. and Cramton, C.D. (2013) ‘Situated coworker familiarity: How site visits transform relationships among distributed workers’, Organization Science, 25(3): 794–814. 89 Lim, B-C. and Klein, K.J. (2006) ‘Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 27: 403–18. 90 Schreiber, E.J. (1996) ‘Muddles and huddles: facilitating a multicultural workforce through team management theory’, The Journal of Business Communication, 33: 459–73. 91 Hirschhorn, L. (1991) Managing in the New Team Environment: Skills, Tools and Methods: Lincoln, NE: Author’s Choice Press. 92 Teasley, S., Covi, L., Krishnan, M.S. and Olson, J.S. (2000) ‘Computer supported cooperative work’, Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, Philadelphia, PA, 339–46. 93 Zakaria, N., Amelinckx, A. and Wilemon, D. (2004) ‘Working together apart? Building a knowledge-sharing culture for global virtual teams’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 13: 15–29. 94 Teasley, op. cit. 95 Dansby, M.R. and Knouse, S.B. (1999) ‘Percentage of work-group diversity and work-group effectiveness’, Journal of Psychology, 133: 486–95.

INTERCULTURAL WORK ACTIVITIES  243

 96 Hambrick, D.C., Davison, S.C., Snell, S.A. and Snow, C.C. (1998) ‘When groups consist of multiple nationalities: towards a new understanding of the implications’, Organization Studies, 19(2): 181–205.  97 Polzer, J.T., Milton, L.P. and Swann, W.B. (2002) ‘Capitalizing on diversity: interpersonal congruence in small work groups’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2): 296–324.  98 Coopman, S.J. and Applegate, J.L. (1997) ‘Socialcognitive influences on the use of persuasive message strategies among health care team members’, in Eizenberg, E. and Goodall, H. (eds) Organizational Communication: Balancing Creativity and Constraint, 2nd edn, New York: St. Martin’s Press.  99 Fine, M.G. (1995) Building Successful Multicultural Organizations, London: Quorum Books. 100 Globokar, T. (1996) ‘Intercultural management in Eastern Europe: an empirical study of a French–Slovenian plant’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 26(3): 47–60. 101 Mustafa, G. and Lines, R. (2012) ‘The triple role of values in culturally adapted leadership styles’, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 13(1): 23–46. 102 Michailova, S. (2002) ‘When common sense becomes uncommon: participation and empowerment in Russian companies with Western participation’, Journal of World Business, 37(3): 180–7. 103 Hui, M.K., Au, K. and Fock, H. (2004) ‘Empowerment effects across cultures’, Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1): 46–60. 104 Robert, C., Probst, T.M., Martocchio, J.J., Drasgow, F. and Lawler, J.J. (2000) ‘Empowerment and continuous improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, and India: predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of power distance and individualism’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5): 643. 105 Kozan, M.K. (1993) ‘Cultural and industrialization level influences on leadership attitudes for Turkish managers’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 23(3): 7–18. 106 Pelled, L.H. and Xin, K.R. (1998) ‘Birds of a feather: Leader-member demographic similarity and organizational attachment in Mexico’, The Leadership Quarterly, 8(4): 433–50. 107 Pelled (1996) op. cit. 108 Globokar, T. (1996) ‘Intercultural management in Eastern Europe: an empirical study of a French–Slovenian plant’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 26(3): 47–60. 109 Haslam, S.A. and Platow, M.J. (2001) ‘Your wish is our command: the role of shared identity in translating a leader’s vision into followers’ action’, in Hogg, M.A.

and Terry, D.J. (eds) Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts, Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. 110 Hartog, D., House, R.J., Hanges, R.J., Ruiz-Quntanilla, S.A. and Dorfman, R.W. (1999) ‘Culture specific and cross culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?’ Leadership Quarterly, 10(2): 219–56. 111 Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2007) The Leadership Challenge, San Fransisco, CA: Jossey Bass. 112 Ergeneli, A., Gohar, R. and Temirbekova, Z. (2007) ‘Transformational leadership: its relationship to culture value dimensions’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(6): 703–24. 113 Anakwe, U.P., Anandarajan, M. and Igbaria, M. (2000) ‘Management practices across cultures: role of support in technology usage’, Journal of International Business Studies, 31(4): 653–66. 114 Sparrow, op. cit. 115 Caligiuri, P. and Tarique, I. (2009) ‘Predicting effectiveness in global leadership activities’, Journal of World Business, 44(3): 336–46. 116 Crosby, F.J. (1999) ‘The developing literature on developmental relationships’, in Murrell, A.J., Crosby, F.J. and Ely, R.J. (eds) Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships within Multicultural Organizations, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 117 Hoyt, S.K. (1999) ‘Mentoring with class: connections between social class and developmental relationships in the Academy’, in Murrell, A.J., Crosby, F.J. and Ely, R.J. (eds) Mentoring Dilemmas: Developmental Relationships within Multicultural Organizations, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 118 Ibid. 119 Osula, B. and Irvin, S.M. (2009) ‘Cultural awareness in intercultural mentoring: A model for enhancing mentoring relationships’, International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5: 37–50. 120 Ibid. 121 Czaplewski, A.J., Milliman, J. and Taylor, S. (2002) ‘Cross-cultural performance feedback in multinational enterprises: opportunity for organizational learning’, Human Resource Planning, 25(3): 29–43. 122 Eagly, A.H. and Chin, J.L. (2010) ‘Diversity and leadership in a changing world’, American Psychologist, 65(3): 216–32. 123 Chrobot-Mason, D. and Aramovich, N.P. (2013) ‘The psychological benefits of creating an affirming climate for workplace diversity’, Group & Organization Management, 38(6):, 659–89. 124 Schwabenland, C. and Tomlinson, F. (2015) ‘Shadows and light: Diversity management as phantasmagoria’, Human Relations, 68(12): 1913–36.

244  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

125 Fine, op. cit. 126 Ibid. 127 Schreiber, E.J. (1996) ‘Muddles and huddles: facilitating a multicultural workforce through team management theory’, The Journal of Business Communication, 33: 459–73. 128 Halim, N.A.A. and Razak, N.A. (2014) ‘Communication strategies of women leaders in entrepreneurship’, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118: 21–8. 129 Dadfar, H. and Gustavsson, P. (1992) ‘Competition by effective management of cultural diversity: the case of international construction projects’, International

Studies of Management and Organization, 22(4): 81–92 130 Ibid. 131 Ibid. 132 Ibid. 133 Chevrier, S. (2003) ‘Cross-cultural management in multinational project groups’, Journal of World Business, 38(2): 141–9. 134 Kumar, R., Rangan, U.S. and Rufín, C. (2005) ‘Negotiating complexity and legitimacy in independent power project development’, Journal of World Business, 40(3): 302–30.

Part three EXERCISES, CASES AND ROLE PLAYS  245

Part three EXERCISES, CASES AND ROLE PLAYS 3.1. What implications might the following findings have for intercultural work communication? A study of Vietnamese migrants to the UK (‘old’ first generation, second generation and ‘new’ first generation migrants) found differences among these groups in, for instance, the degree of collectivism practised in running the business; however, it also found differences from the broader UK population in the influence of strong family loyalties.1 3.2. What consequences for intercultural work interactions and relationships might result from the following stereotypes? 1. ‘On the positive side, Germans often see Americans as friendly, open, resourceful, energetic, innovative, and, in general, capable in business … [with] greater freedom, generally happier, … more productive and creative than many other people … ; [and having] opportunities to succeed. … [Americans find Germans] highly disciplined, well educated, neat and orderly, … systematic, well organized, meticulous, … efficient. … Some Americans find them hard to get to know – not unfriendly, but reserved. On the negative side, … Germans are [seen by Americans as] pushy in service lines … and often insensitive to the feelings of others.’2 2. In the former Yugoslavia, negative stereotypes of women included regarding them as inefficient, not competent in politics and management, less self-confident than men, less successful in making public speeches, more interested in practical matters (schooling, medical care), and as preferring to spend more time on housekeeping and taking care of others.3 3. There are both similarities and differences in age-based stereotypes held by US and Thai younger workers. In both countries younger workers see older workers as more uncomfortable with new technology, less flexible and more cautious on the job, and more loyal (and having fewer absences) to the organization than younger workers. As compared to younger American workers, however, younger Thai workers agree more with negative stereotype items that older workers make more mental mistakes, are slower to adapt to new technology, are more fearful of technology, and are less flexible at work. But they also agree more with positive stereotype items that older workers are absent less, have a better attitude toward work, and have a higher level of commitment to the organization than younger workers.4 3.3. What consequences, if there are any, for international business dealings within Europe or between Arabs and non-Arabs are likely to flow from the following aspects of Europeans’ and Arabs’ identity? Europe-wide, only three in 100 Europeans put ‘Europe’ first as the place they identify with. Many people, it seems, do not identify with ‘Europe’ because of the lack of continuity down the generations, shared memories and symbols. People identify with their immediate surroundings, the town or city (49 per cent), province (13 per cent) or country (28 per cent) where they live.5 Typically, Muslims, and Arabians in particular, hold two sets of identity: one, immediate, social and spatially particular; the other, historical, cultural and global.6 3.4. The text points out that awareness of one’s own culture is vital for intercultural effectiveness. Completing the following questionnaire will help you to develop your own-culture awareness:

245

246  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

People in my group (culture) generally tend to:

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

1. describe their experiences 2. relate stories or anecdotes 3. generalize 4. give examples or particular instances when enunciating a principle 5. speak in abstract terms 6. feel personally responsible for their own success or failure 7. have many friendships and relationships outside their families 8. show emotion freely 9. think showing emotion in the workplace is unprofessional 10. talk about their feelings 11. have most of their friendships from among their colleagues 12. try to mix work and pleasure 13. be respected for being wealthy 14. think that people should be judged on their achievements alone 15. believe in promotion by seniority 16. think that time is money

3.5. The following are extracts from an interview with a manager and notes from his subordinate in a horticultural business. The statements refer to a third member of staff, Elliot. Manager (Bob): ‘Elliot was diagnosed with schizophrenia about eight years ago. He seems stable on his medication and confident that he can monitor his symptoms reasonably well. He lives alone in a flat with support from his parents who live nearby. Elliot started working part-time at Merrinvale Enterprises nearly two years ago. Although his attendance is a problem – he only gets to work about 50 per cent of the time – he works very well on the days he is there. The productivity and quality standards he achieves are way above average.’ From Fran’s notebook: ‘We have 200,000 seed pots to process for Mallard’s this week – huge job – and I was relying on Elliot being here to get it done. He’s the only one capable of operating the labelling device at the level we need. He wasn’t in yesterday and he’s missing again today. I’ve had words with Bob over it. We should not be putting up with Elliot. He just comes in whenever it suits him, never mind what we have to do. Anyone else would have got the sack a year ago.’7 How should the manager, assuming he is aware of Fran’s attitude, as he should be, deal with the problem? 3.6. A newly appointed senior manager complained to the CEO of a medium-sized business in a North European country about a series of issues with the staff of his unit: lack of commitment, poor discipline and so on. The newly appointed manager was from Southern Europe. His/her expertise was extremely important to the company’s future development and was also rare; the company was fortunate to attract him/her, after a long search. The CEO, who knew that this unit had an excellent performance record (the company judged by results), referred the matter to you, the HR manager.

Part three EXERCISES, CASES AND ROLE PLAYS  247

What factors do you consider in deciding how to deal with this issue? 3.7. You are a Western senior manager of the Indian manufacturing subsidiary of a French MNC. The annual 360 degree appraisal round has just been completed. A senior Indian team leader, whose skills and expertise are extremely important to the business, has received a very good, though not perfect, appraisal. (His/her lack of experience in leading large teams is showing.) You are aware that s/he will be expecting a substantial salary increase and hoping for a promotion. Your duty is to tell him/her that s/he will receive a below-inflation salary increase and no promotion. How would you tell him/her? 3.8. An ethnic minority householder went into the local authority offices to complain that a large item of furniture left for collection was not picked up with the rest of the rubbish. He spoke to the receptionist. The item (a double bed) had to be picked up that day or it would affect arrangements for a cultural celebration. The receptionist tried to explain to him that special arrangements had to be made with the council for the removal of large items and that a standard charge was levied. (Co-incidentally neighbours had phoned to complain that this large item had been left in the garden outside the house in question.) During the discussion it emerged that the householder had offered the refuse men money to remove the item. He was angry because they declined. Now he wanted to negotiate a price for the item to be picked up. He asked if it would be cheaper if he put it in the street. The receptionist was young and female, the householder male and older. He wondered if she had enough authority to make decisions – was he being palmed off? He demanded to speak with her manager (whom he assumed to be male). In turn, the receptionist wondered if he was sexist – she could not understand why it was so important that the item was moved that day. She also wondered if the offer of money to the refuse men was an attempt at a bribe. Analyse the factors influencing the behaviour of the participants in this scene. The case may also be used as the basis for a role play. 3.9. You have been a probationary, entry-level employee in a company for the past six months. As a result of a recent personnel re-arrangement, Mr Power, an executive from another department, was transferred in as your new boss. Mr Power put many extra duties on you, including personal matters, as soon as he arrived. For example, he asks you to purchase gifts for his family, to pick up his laundry and to buy lunch for him. You are upset about this extra work but so far you have followed your boss’s orders. He evaluates your work performances; you do not want to upset him. If you do not keep a good relationship with him, your promotion, salary, annual bonus, even job may be in jeopardy. Which of the following would be your preferred way of dealing with this situation? Compare your answer with that of as many people as possible from other countries or of different genders. a I would tell Mr Power’s supervisor about the problem and ask him to call a meeting between the three of us to discuss the situation. b I would tell Mr Power directly that these are NOT my duties. c I would talk to my boss for some benefits for doing the extra work - such as free time to do his shopping. d I would still follow his orders but make tiny mistakes so that after a time he will not ask me anymore. e I would file a request with Mr Power’s supervisor for a transfer to another department. f I would continue to follow his requests and do nothing to change the situation. First choose your preferred response then analyse it in terms of cultural variables. 3.10. A study in the UK plant of a German multinational company found that managers sometimes ignored the real impact of local ethnic diversity, focusing instead on inter-management conflicts. The neglect of the underlying issue contributed to problems with employee morale; it also conflicted with the German company’s attempts to promote a global corporate culture.8 How would you suggest that the German company should deal with this problem? 3.11. This is an excerpt from a report on the health insurance industry. It is written for an American client. What changes to the wording (not the content) would you suggest?

248  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK Asia has a small share of the global health cover industry, but with growing popularity of health insurance products and rising disposable income, the market is on the growth path, with the largest share anticipated from China, Japan and India. Low penetration rates of public funding coupled with the increasing cost of healthcare are expected to create an expansive market for voluntary health insurance. Additionally the Asia healthcare spending which is expected to grow to more than $2,000 billion by 2018 is likely to add to the growth. China Life Insurance Company Limited, GlobalHealth Asia International Group and United India Insurance Company Limited are a few of the largest companies in this region. 3.12. You are a woman who has recently joined a tech company as a middle-level marketing manager. You came from a business in a different industry – fashion. There, most employees at all levels were women and their voice counted for a lot. In your new organization you find that relatively junior male technologists sometimes have as much or more influence than more senior managers in meetings, that you struggle to be heard and that you receive emails from these young men ‘putting you right’ with no sign of recognizing your seniority. Why the difference? How do you react? How will you handle the situation? 3.13. A distributed team of four HR staff has the task of ensuring that equal-opportunities practices are introduced in staff-selection procedures throughout the organization, which has 15,000 staff. To execute this initiative work remotely in a distributed group of four from as many countries as possible. 3.14. You are a freelance editor working for a business intelligence company that uses researchers in emerging countries to prepare customized reports on markets for a range of products. The clients are generally located in the USA or Europe. Your colleagues in the emerging countries are effective researchers but their English often needs adjusting to satisfy the Western clients. For example, one researcher, with whom you are working on a project, has submitted a report, part of which reads as follows: As indicated by the aforementioned chart, according to VOCs emissions classified by origin, ˜44% (collective) of VOCs emissions result from coatings (22.9%), degreasing and dry cleaning (6.2%) and printing and miscellaneous solvent use (14.5%). All of such End-uses/applications involve high volume usage of solvents; hence many industry experts opine persistent efforts by the regulatory authorities and producers/suppliers alike to clamp-down on usage of solvents in solvent-based products - coatings/degreasing and dry cleaning/Printing, among others. These kinds of errors and this style, which is not standard Western business English, is pervasive in this researcher’s work. It means your work as an editor takes much longer and this is expensive for the client. You want to get her to change; how will you proceed? 3.15. In a software development business, client complaints had been forwarded received by the US sales force about the quality of the product of two teams in India. This was a crisis and the company had to respond. The two team managers insisted that the team should work all weekend to get the problems sorted out, threatening disciplinary action against any team member who did not obey. However, when the European Managing Director went into the office on the Saturday, he found that neither of the team managers themselves were there. What cultural value might explain this? How would you advise the European Managing Director to proceed? 3.16. The text of Chapter 9 included the following quotation from an interview with a Western banker: When presenting a privatization proposal to Turkish government officials, one issue is whether to give a balanced view, referring to potential problems, or not. Generally, Turkish history and culture predispose them to believe that any problems referred to are the tip of a very large iceberg and will actually prove fatal to the project. They are not used to working through problems; instead their experience is that problems cause failure. It makes it difficult to follow banking prudence nostrums – you do not know what to say that would make them realize you are being prudent without triggering alarm bells.9 What suggestions can you make that might help this banker with this issue?

Part three EXERCISES, CASES AND ROLE PLAYS  249

3.17. This is a quote from a West European financial trainer: ‘Working with people in Russia, I’m struck by how they often reflect for several seconds before answering a question. Often they will not answer it and will not even refer to it. They are unwilling to risk giving an incorrect or inaccurate answer.’10 What aspects of culture might make Russians reluctant to say an incorrect or inaccurate thing? How should the trainer deal with the situation? 3.18. ‘Where the American people see only two options (something is either true or false), French people see three options: true, somewhat true, and false, and they expect the second to be the most common. I have always had problems explaining this to my American clients who get into difficult situations because of this phenomenon.’11 What cultural differences might explain the French and American attitudes to questions? How should the person who is quoted here resolve his or her problems in explaining this to American clients? 3.19. A Building Control Officer (BCO) for a UK Local Authority visited a householder to explain that the extension the householder built on to his house did not comply with the Building Regulations and that he needed to make alterations. The householder came from an ethnic minority community. About an hour into the discussion, it emerged that the householder had used a family member as architect. The householder was inclined to use expansive gestures and ‘shout’. What features of the householder’s culture might help explain his behaviour? What problems might arise in the discussion? What could the Building Control Officer do to improve the situation? 3.20. Role Play Exercises Role Play 1: Conduct a market research interview between a Western, individualist, low power-distance, lowcontext communication interviewer and an Asian, collectivist, high power-distance, high-context communication interviewee. Role Play 2: Reverse the roles in Role Play 1. Role Play 3: Conduct a selection interview between an interviewer from a diffuse culture in which status is achieved, and an interviewee from a specific culture in which status is ascribed. Role Play 4: Reverse the roles in Role Play 3. Role Play 5: Conduct a negotiation between one party from a particularist culture in which emotional display is accepted and another party from a universalist culture in which emotional display is not tolerated. Role Play 6: Reverse the roles in Role Play 5. 3.21. A business research company has a contract to develop 20 ‘landing pages’ for a distributor of reports on industrial sectors. (Landing pages are web pages intended to be the first on a topic that a potential client goes to during a search; they contain links to individual reports.) The report distributor is a French company. Seven landing pages have been completed successfully, but the eighth presents a difficulty. Its title is ‘Mechanics and Parts’. The researcher believes that the title should be ‘Components and Parts’ and that lack of knowledge of the English language is creating a problem. She is very aware, however, of French-English sensitivities, but does not want to put in hours researching a topic that she considers almost meaningless. How should she proceed? 3.22. In an emerging economy HR departments often require successful job applicants to send a copy of their resignation email to their present organization to their new organization to guard against them merely using their job offer to gain traction in their existing employment. One such HR department has just received the following such resignation email: ‘I am offering my resignation to take effect in one month’s time.’ The newly appointed staff member copied to the HR department of his new employer this email to his present employer despite knowing that the new employer would know it exposed a lie. He had told them that he had to give two months’ notice before leaving his present job. How should the new employer deal with such a case? Make your assumptions about the situation clear in your answer.

250  INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AT WORK

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Bagwell, S. (2006) ‘UK Vietnamese businesses: cultural influences and intracultural differences’, Government and Policy, 24(1): 51–69. 2 Hall, E.T. and Hall, M.R. (1990) Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French, and Americans, Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. 3 Kavcic, B. (1994) ‘Women in management: The former Yugoslavia’, in Adler, N.J. and Izraeli, D.N. (eds) Competitive Frontiers, MA: Blackwell. 4 McCann, R.M. and Keaton, S.A. (2013) ‘A cross cultural investigation of age stereotypes and communication perceptions of older and younger workers in the USA and Thailand’, Educational Gerontology, 39(5): 326–41. 5 Halman, L. and Kerkhofs, J. (2001) ‘The European Values Study: Selected results’, URL: www.romir.ru/ eng/research/01_2001/europeanvalues. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 6 Ali, A.J. (1993) ‘Decision-making style, individualism and attitudes toward risk of Arab executives’, International Studies of Management & Organization, 23(3): 53–74. 7 Effective workplace communication with employees with psychiatric disability http://resources.fahcsia. gov.au/consumertrainingsupportproducts/employers/psychiatric_disability/default.htm. Last accessed 17 July 2016. 8 Moore, F. and Rees, C. (2008) ‘Culture against cohesion: global corporate strategy and employee diversity in the UK plant of a German MNC’, Employee Relations, 30(2): 176–89. 9 Interview with an investment banker, authors’ research. 10 Email from a financial expert, authors’ research. 11 Based on Taquet, J., ‘Is it lying?: A cross-cultural perspective’, JB Intercultural Consulting, URL: www. culture-at-work.com. Last accessed 17 July 2016.

GLOSSARY

The definitions in this Glossary apply specifically to the usage of the terms in this book. Term

Definition

accommodation

Process of adapting communication to make it more similar to or more different from an interlocutor’s

accountability

An actor’s responsibility for his or her behaviour toward someone other than him/herself, for example a group that the actor represents

affordance

The design aspect of an object which suggests how the object should be used

ageism

Prejudice or discrimination on the grounds of age

agency

The ability or tendency to take action

agents

People treated as active participants, who make pragmatic choices, decisions and calculations

anxiety

Fear of aspects of a communication episode, including its outcome

appreciative inquiry

An approach to communication which emphasizes having and displaying a positive regard for the interlocutor and treating communication as a process of discovery

apprehension

Fear (of communicating) experienced beforehand

attribution

Process of deciding what mainly caused or is causing another person’s behaviour

attribution theory

Theory that people usually attribute another person’s behaviour either to their disposition or to their situation

authoritarianism

Orientation or belief system of high deference to those in authority; often associated with a rigid value system and prejudice against deviants

B2B

Business-to-business relations; in this book mainly concerned with international B2B

biculturalism

Ability to orient oneself fully to more than one culture

Big Five personality dimensions

Traits that describe the organization of perceived personality. The broad categories of extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience appear to be universal

brokerage

In network theory, contact beyond a structural hole – that is, with people and organizations outside the core group

casteism

Practice of showing preference to members of one’s own caste

categorization

Psychological process within social perception that mentally allocates people to groups

CCO

A perspective that identifies four forms of communication as constituting organizations; in full the Communicative Constitution of Organizations theory

closure

In network theory, avoidance of contact beyond a structural hole – that is, limiting the amount of contact with people and organizations outside the core group. (Note that closure here has a different meaning from its meaning in need for closure, explained later in this Glossary)

cmc

Computer-mediated communication (see below)

251

252  Communicating Across Cultures at Work Term

Definition

collectivism

Cultural value that prioritizes the group to which a person belongs over the individual him/herself

common ground

Knowledge (often tacit and based on shared experience) that facilitates intercultural communication

communication

Message exchange between two or more people

community of practice

A collection of people who engage on an ongoing basis in a common endeavour. Organizational communities of practice bring together people with common work-related interests and knowledge from across distributed units and locations of organizations. Some communities of practice are interorganizational

computer-mediated communication (cmc)

Message transfer between two or more people that uses technological mediation, particularly electronic mail (email), instant messaging, video links, texting, mobile telephoning and social media. Interpersonal cmc is two-way

conflict

The tension between two or more social entities – individuals, groups or organizations – which arises from the incompatibility of actual or desired responses; conflict handling is the manner in which parties to a dispute conduct their relationship; conflict management is third-party attempts to resolve conflicts

conforming/varied ideation

Suppression of divergent points of view and convergence towards normative views in decision-making, versus its opposite

context

Those aspects of the environment of an encounter that are present in the minds of participants and may influence them; a context may be physical, social (such as the participants’ work roles), relate to its purpose or other aspects such as past encounters

convergence/divergence

Process of adjusting communication style to be more like or unlike an interlocutor’s

conversational constraints

Concerns which influence a communicator’s choice of conversational strategy – for example, for clarity or minimizing imposition

conversational improvement strategies

Strategies designed to restore relationships after conversational failures such as a violation of expectations

coordination

Process of effectively combining the work of two or more individuals or groups which is made more problematic by spatial and cultural distance

cultural brokerage

The act of managing cross-cultural interactions in multicultural teams

cultural distance

The extent to which two cultures differ, which is a function of language, social structure (for example, family structure) and religion, among other factors. The concept assumes that cultural difference can be measured

cultural identity

That part of an individual’s social identity that is based on his or her membership of one or more cultures

cultural intelligence (CQ)

A person’s capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts; CQ theory asserts that a combination of culturally adapted cognition, metacognition, motivation and behaviour strongly influence intercultural communication effectiveness, that this combination can be measured and can be improved by training

cultural relativism

The belief that all cultures are equally valid and that any culture’s values and practices must in principle be understood from the point of view of its members

culture

Socially constructed set of actions, ideas and objects that people share as members of an enduring, communicatively interacting social group; in this book ‘culture’ is generally applied only to whole social systems. The term ‘subculture’ is used for parts of social systems

cultures

Societies with a culture

demographic profile

An individual’s description in terms of ethnicity, age, gender, (dis)ability level, sexual orientation, nationality, education and socio-economic status

GLOSSARY  253

Term

Definition

discourses

All forms of social interaction, spoken or written, treated as constructing and performing reality, not just reflecting it. Different social groups, such as doctors, use different discourses

discrimination

Any situation in which a group or individual is treated unfavourably on the basis of arbitrary grounds, especially prejudice

distributive justice

Fairness in differences in rewards in relation to the status and work contribution of those involved

diversity

Presence of, or stakeholding by, a range of groups of people differentiated by their demographic profile or culture

diversity beliefs

Positive or negative beliefs about the effects of ethnic, gender, age, religious, or other types of diversity

‘ego-focused’ emotions

Feelings, such as anger, frustration and pride, concerned with ‘justice’; they revolve around conflicting claims and lead to intercultural encounters being seen as able to be resolved by invoking impartial rules, principles or standards. See also ‘other-focused emotions’.

elaborated code

Communication which explicitly verbalises much of the message; it assumes little shared knowledge with the receiver

embeddedness versus autonomy

Cultural value related to individualism–collectivism, but which also contrasts maintaining the status quo with openness to change

emotional intelligence

The ability to be aware of one’s own and others’ feelings, to differentiate among them, and to use the information to guide one’s thinking and behaviour

ethical relativism

The claim that there is no culture-free, universal morality and therefore no way of ranking moral views and practices as more or less right, at least across cultures

ethics

Moral systems

ethnic minority

Ethnic group, which, for reasons of relative numbers or history, often has subordinate status within a society   Glossary for further explanation

ethnicity

Membership of a population whose members believe that in some sense they share common descent and a common cultural heritage or tradition, and who are so regarded by others

ethnocentrism

Belief that one’s own culture or ethnic group is superior to others

expectation of accountability

A person’s belief that he or she will be held to account for his or her actions

expectations states theory

Theory that people choose among various communication strategies on the basis of predictions about how the person receiving the message will respond

face

Social value people assume for themselves, the image they try to project; positive face is based on the need for others’ approval; negative face on the need to be independent of others and their approval

face-threatening act

Communication that threatens the positive or negative ‘face’ of either the speaker/ writer or the hearer/receiver of a communication

facework

Communication strategies and actions aimed at meeting the communicator’s ‘face’ needs and wishes

familism

Practice of showing preference to relatives

faultlines

Divisions of a group’s members on the basis of one or more attributes more on faultlines

femininity

Cultural value that prioritizes modesty, compromise and cooperative success over assertiveness, competition and aggressive success

field-independence

Personal attribute in which the sense of self is not too much affected by the environment

  Glossary for

254  Communicating Across Cultures at Work Term

Definition

fixed-pie error

Judgement bias in which negotiators assume there is only a fixed amount to be negotiated, so one person’s gain must be the other’s loss

flaming

Hostile communication of emotion

frames

Representations or understandings of events, situations or relationships

framing

Process of creating representations of events, situations or relationships

gendering of organizations

Process by which a ‘masculine’ (or, rarely) ‘feminine’ culture is created within an organization

globalization

Processes, facilitated by modern technology and communications, by which economic and business activity, employing capitalist means and values, are becoming global and alleged to be driving out traditional cultures and values

governance

Set of formal and informal processes and rules that together support accountability

grounding

Process by which people establish and continuously update their shared understanding in conversations

groupthink

The tendency of groups that have worked together over a period and been successful to take conformity to an extreme, especially in crises

guanxi

The Chinese version of social networks whereby a personal connection between two people or a network of contacts allows an individual to call upon the other for help or to exert influence

harassment

Vexing by repeated attacks, which may be verbal and/or non-explicit

heterogeneity of work groups

Work group composition that is mixed in terms of demographic profile

high-context communication

Culturally endorsed communication style that assumes high levels of shared knowledge and so uses elliptical speech

homophily

Propensity to prefer to interact with others who hold similar beliefs

horizontal collectivism

A cultural pattern in which people see themselves as merged with the members of their own ingroup who are extremely similar to each other in terms of their tastes and preferences

horizontal individualism

A cultural pattern in which individuals consider themselves relatively independent of the ingroup but also as more or less equal in status with others

human malleability beliefs

Beliefs about whether people can change in their human qualities, such as morality, personality and intelligence

humanitarianism–egalitarianism

Belief in and support for equality, social justice and concern for others

implicature

Actions that imply a meaning beyond the literal sense of what is explicitly stated, for example saying the frame is nice and implying dislike of the picture in it

independent self-construal

A mental representation of the self as separate from that of others, which is linked to individualism

indirect discrimination

Practices and policies that apply equally to everyone but disproportionately affect certain groups

individualism

Cultural value that prioritizes the individual him- or herself over the group to which he or she belongs

ingroup favouritism

The tendency of members of groups to favour the group to which they belong over other groups in allocating desired resources   Glossary for more on ingroup favouritism

integrative complexity

An information-processing capacity that allows considering and combining multiple perspectives

interaction

The dynamic of question/answer, assertion/response

intercultural communication

Communication between members of two or more cultures

GLOSSARY  255

Term

Definition

intercultural communication apprehension (ICA)

Fear of communicating with people from a different culture

intercultural sensitivity

The level of awareness of and ability to respond appropriately to (sub)cultural differences

interdependence (task)

A workflow situation where progress with one person’s or unit’s task depends on inputs from another person or unit. Interdependence is the inevitable consequence of the division of labour as it arises between those who carry out the divided work   Glossary for more on task interdependence

interdependent self-construal

A mental representation of the self as in effect including other members of the ingroup, which is linked to collectivism

interethnic communication apprehension(IECA)

Fear of communicating specifically with members of other ethnic groups

intergroup bias

Prejudice in favour of any group to which the bias-holder belongs or aspires

intergroup communication

Communication between members of two or more groups when their group memberships are salient

interlocutor

Participant in a spoken or written dialogue

interpersonal communication

Communication between two or more participants, face-to-face, by phone or cmc

Islamic work ethic

Belief held by Muslims that work is service to God

joint ventures

Enterprises set up by cooperation between two or more organizations; an international joint venture is set up by two or more organizations from different countries

kinesics

Analyses of human movement

knowledge sharing

Process through which organizational actors – individuals, teams, units or entire organizations – exchange, receive and are influenced by the experience and knowledge of others

knowledge stickiness

Characteristics of knowledge or its users that make it difficult to transfer within or between organizations

leader-member exchange (LMX) theory

Theory that the quality of leader-follower communication is a strong influence on subordinates’ and teams’ performances and job satisfaction

lean manufacturing

A systematic method for the elimination of waste; a management philosophy derived mostly from the Toyota production system

LGBT people

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people

locus of control

An individual’s generalized beliefs regarding the forces that determine rewards and punishments; ‘internal’ locus of control is usually contrasted with ‘external’, with implications for the individual’s other beliefs, attitudes and behaviour

loose cultures

Cultures where people have some latitude in interpreting the culture’s norms

low-context communication

Culturally-endorsed communication style that assumes low levels of shared knowledge and so uses verbally explicit speech

maintenance orientation

A tendency to focus on relationships rather than tasks

marginalized groups

Within co-cultural communication theory, social groups that are excluded from full participation in their society

masculinity

Cultural value which prioritizes assertiveness, competition and aggressive success over modesty, compromise and cooperative success

mastery versus harmony

Cultural value dimension that contrasts prioritizing controlling one’s environment with prioritizing harmonizing with it; mastery is similar to masculinity but does not imply selfishness; harmony is related to uncertainty avoidance but does not imply an emphasis on controlling ambiguity

mediation

Process of acting as a third party to facilitate the interaction of two or more parties

256  Communicating Across Cultures at Work Term

Definition

mentoring

Process of providing a junior person with information, advice and support, often by a senior person from the same organization

mianzi

A person’s sense of dignity or prestige in social contexts; closely related to ‘face’

micro-inequities

Low-level discrimination practised against individuals or groups

micro-messages

Positive and negative, small, often non-verbal, messages

micropractices

Elements of communication that convey meaning through tiny signs; usually referred to as excluding some groups from full participation

mirroring

Conscious or unconscious imitation of an interlocutor’s behaviour, especially their non-verbal behaviour

modesty bias

Tendency to give self-ratings of work performance that are lower than supervisors’ ratings

monochronic

Term for cultures where people prefer to do one thing at a time

multinational enterprises (MNEs) and multinational companies (MNCs)

Organizations that operate in several countries simultaneously; usually applied only when production as well as marketing are operated multinationally

multiplex ties

Relationships that serve many interests, such as economic, kinship and shared leisuretime interests

need for closure

Felt need to bring a process to a conclusion; note that closure here has a different meaning from closure in network theory

negotiation

Process by which two or more parties attempt to resolve a perceived divergence of interest; often involves bargaining

network

A loose organization of non-state actors characterized by voluntary, reciprocal and horizontal patterns of communication and exchange

network theory

Theory that actors (individual people or small groups or the organizations they represent) are embedded in networks of interconnected social relationships that offer opportunities for and constraints on behaviour

norms

Unwritten rules for how to behave in a given role or situation

offshoring

Transfer of work to another country to benefit from cost or other advantages there; it may or may not involve outsourcing

optimal inclusion

A level of perceived inclusion in a group that is enough so individuals do not feel excluded, but not so much that they feel imprisoned

organizational citizenship behaviour

Civic behaviour at work that goes beyond contractual obligations

organizational commitment

Loyalty to the organization for which an individual works

organizational cultures

Sets of values and practices supposedly embedded in organizations; often in reality inculcated by top management

‘other-focused’ emotions

Feelings such as sympathy or shame that revolve around issues of relationships

other-regarding preference behaviour

Behaviour or attitudes such as altruism which pay regard to the needs or wants of other people

outsourcing

Transfer of work to another organization to benefit from cost or other advantages

paralinguistics

Study of ways of speaking that include turn-taking, voice tone, speed of speech and length of time that one speaker speaks; these have been shown to vary cross-culturally

persistent injustice effect

Rejection of excuses or apologies by people who have suffered persistent injustice

personalism

Tendency to deal with situations and decisions on the basis of personal connections

person-centred messages

Messages that recognize other people’s perspectives and explain the reasons for statements, requests or orders in terms of the other’s perspective

GLOSSARY  257

Term

Definition

politeness

Facework adjusted to the perceived amount of face-threat involved in a communication

polychronic

Term for cultures where people prefer to undertake multiple activities simultaneously

power distance

Cultural value dimension which contrasts acceptance that power is distributed unequally with its opposite

process gains

Group performance improvements compared with the sum of the performances of the individual group members; they result from positive group dynamics

process losses

Performance losses in groups related to dysfunctional aspects of group functioning such as domination by individuals

Protestant relational ideology

Deep-seated beliefs that affective and relational concerns are inappropriate in work settings

Protestant work ethic

Belief system that stresses successful outcomes for anyone who works hard, and attributes failure to personal factors such as lack of effort and weakness of character

proxemics

Analysis of human spatial distance preferences

rapport management

Management of relationships during communication

reciprocity

Obligation to repay – usually applied to favours; in many cultures there is a specific reciprocity norm

regulatory focus

Theory that the motivational system that regulates goal-directed behaviour consists of either a promotion focus or a prevention focus

restricted code

Communication which uses limited syntax and vocabulary, but may rely extensively on non-verbal behaviour; it assumes a context of knowledge shared with the receiver

rhetorical sensitivity

Tendency to adapt messages to audiences

role

Position or purpose of a person in a situation, organization or society

rules

Requirements for communicative expression necessary for mutual comprehension

self-construal

Mental representation of the self, derived, at least in part, reflexively – that is, by interpreting how others seem, from their communication, to perceive the self

self-efficacy belief

An individual’s belief in his or her ability to influence events that affect his or her life and to perform an action effectively

self-monitoring

Trait of self-observation and analysis

self-presentation

Outward communication or the message or contribution to the interaction

self-serving bias

Tendency to attribute successful outcomes of one’s own actions to oneself and unsuccessful outcomes to the situation

Sense-making

Social process of making sense in interactions. this concept

servant leadership

Leadership that primarily aspires to serve

SME

Small and medium enterprises

social accounts

Explanations, apologies and excuses

social capital

An asset that inheres in social relations and networks. Systems with strong social capital are characterized by generalized trust, which rests on norms and behaviours that are shared with others in the social unit as a whole

social cognition

The process of attempting to understand another person or group

social comparison

Psychological process of comparing people, especially comparing the self with others

social contagion

The largely unconscious adoption by one person of another interactor’s communication style, emotions or attitudes

  Glossary for more explanation of

258  Communicating Across Cultures at Work Term

Definition

social control

Limitation of a person’s behaviour through social influence – for instance by communicating to the perpetrator of a norm transgression that his or her action is socially unacceptable

social distance

Measure of relatedness (so the social distance between a mother and son is low) or similarity (so the social distance between a husband and wife from different social classes can be large) of two members of the same society

social dominance orientation

Belief in and support for a natural hierarchy among individuals and groups

social influence

The influence of other people

social loafing

Tendency to work less hard in a group than individually, partly because effort is less likely to bring personal reward

social perception

Process of perceiving others in order to form impressions and make inferences about them

sociality rights

A person’s claims on others to acknowledge and uphold his or her social identity or role

socially desirable responding

Tendency when responding to questions to portray the self in a more favourable light than thoughts or actions warrant

socio-linguistics

Study of language from a sociological perspective

speech act

Communication treated as conveying an intention such as promising, requesting or informing

speech community

A group of people who share a language and a common vocabulary, way of speaking and some norms; a central concept in linguistics

stakeholder approach

An attitude of organizations and institutions that gives weight to the interests of all groups affected by their actions, not, for instance, just shareholders of a company

stereotype

Stable set of beliefs or preconceived ideas that the members of a group share about the characteristics of a group of people

stranger

A person who is believed to lack understanding of the social world inhabited by members of an interactor’s ingroup

structural holes

In network theory, missing relationships that inhibit the flow of information

subcultures

Subdivisions of societies such as gender and age groups that have some, but not all, the characteristics of a culture, or socially constructed sets of actions, ideations and objects that people share as members of an enduring, communicatively interacting social group which is not a whole social system. Applies to gender, social class and so on. Or A term for such social groups

subjective culture

A society’s ‘characteristic way of perceiving its social environment’; emphasizes psychological constructs

swift trust

A position of crediting others with adequate capability and benevolence that can develop early in a working relationship

tacit coordination

Coordination achieved without formal procedures, that is, by co-workers cooperating spontaneously

tacit knowledge

Knowledge that has not been codified or documented, often derived from individuals’ experience

task orientation

Tendency to focus on tasks rather than relationships

third cultures

Cognitive spaces created during interaction between people from different cultures that incorporate elements of both cultures and yet remain separate and distinct.1

tight cultures

Cultures in which people are expected to behave precisely as specified by the culture’s norms

tightness-looseness

Cultural attribute which ‘captures’ the strength of social norms and the degree of sanctioning within societies

GLOSSARY  259

Term

Definition

topic-comment structure

Order in which a message is given – context first, then main point, or vice-versa

trait judgements

Assessments of own and others’ traits made by the processes of social perception; the definitions, evidence and criteria that people use to make trait judgements are often culture-weighted

transactional discourse

Discourse involving the willing suspension of fixed expectations

uncertainty

(In anxiety/uncertainty management) Inability to predict what strangers’ attitudes, feelings, beliefs, values and behaviour will be or explain why they behave in the way they do

uncertainty avoidance(UA)

Cultural value dimension which refers to the extent to which a culture prefers to avoid ambiguity and to the way in which it resolves uncertainty

universalism/particularism

Cultural value dimension that contrasts a preference for drawing general principles versus a preference for the anecdotal or itemized   3.1.3 for more on this and related cultural dimensions – Trompenaars’ (1993) relationships and attitudes taxonomy

values

Concepts or beliefs that pertain to desirable end states or behaviours, transcend specific situations, guide selection or evaluation of behaviour and events and are ordered by relative importance, or broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs to others

valuing diversity

Recognizing, valuing and managing people’s differences and caring about sharing power and communicating

vertical collectivism

A cultural tendency to prioritize one’s group memberships, but preferring to think of oneself as ‘different’ from other members of the ingroup

vertical individualism

A cultural tendency to postulate an independent self, see oneself as relatively unique and expect inequality in status

virtual teams

Groups of people working together who communicate only or predominantly by cmc

weak-tie theory

Theory that distant and infrequent relationships (that is, weak ties) are efficient for knowledge sharing because they provide access to novel information by bridging otherwise disconnected groups and individuals in an organization

work centrality

The importance that an individual attaches to work, often in comparison to family, leisure and so on

work-related values

Values related specifically to work – often categorized as extrinsic/intrinsic or instrumental/expressive

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 Hopson, M.C., Hart, T. and Bell, G.C. (2012) ‘Meeting in the middle: Fred L. Casmir’s contributions to the field of intercultural communication’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(6): 789–97.

FURTHER READING

Chaney, L. and Martin, J. (2013) Intercultural Business Communication (6th Edition) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. This is a practical ‘How to’ guide for Western business students. Guirdham, M. (2002) Interactive Behaviour at Work, Hemel Hempstead, UK: Pearson/FT. This text provides coverage of the foundations of interpersonal work behaviour. Guirdham, M. (2009) Culture and Business in Asia, Basingstoke, Hants, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. This book, which is based on primary research, describes differences in the work and business cultures of five Asian countries. Guirdham, M. (2014) Work Communication: Mediated and Face-to-Face Practices, Basingstoke, Hants, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Based on the discipline of social psychology, this text provides extensive coverage of the rapidly developing field of mediated interpersonal work communication. McKenna, E. (2012) Business Psychology and Organizational Behaviour (5th Edition), Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press. This text provides coverage of the foundations of psychology for which the present book does not have space. Monge, P.R. and Contractor, N.S. (2003) Theories of Communication Networks, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. As the title suggests, this book is a thorough treatment of communication networks for readers who might wish to study this important subject further. St. Amant, K. and Kelsey, S. (eds) (2012) Computer-Mediated Communication across Cultures: International Interactions in Online Environments, Hershey, PA: Information Resources Management Association. This collection of 28 articles provides some fascinating insights for readers who wish to explore culture in online environments to a greater depth. Few of the articles have a work focus and none has a business or management focus, however. Scollon, R., Scollon, S.W. and Jones, R.H. (2011) Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. The approach from socio-linguistics and discourse analysis taken by these authors provides a useful complement to the social psychology perspective underlying much of the present book. The context of most examples is private rather than organizational or work-related. Ting-Toomey, S. and Chung, L.C. (2012) Understanding Intercultural Communication, New York: Oxford University Press. This book introduces students to the foundations of intercultural communication; it takes the view that ‘intercultural’ embraces situations arising from both domestic and international diversity.

260

index

absenteeism  32 accommodation  199–200, 251 accountability  20–1, 109, 111, 251 acculturation  211 activity coordination  4, 110 adaptation   197–8 advertising  71 affordance(s)  27, 251 age  124–5, 126, 127, 128, 162 age-based prejudice  161 ageism  159, 251 ageist language  182 agency/ts  18, 22, 94, 251 Aldridge, M.G.  20, 36, 41, 79 altruistic behaviour  70–1 Americans  36, 109, 130, 169, 173, 176, 191, 192 anxiety   251 and uncertainty management  64–6, 196, 197 appreciative inquiry  195, 200–1, 251 Arab employees  44 Arab(s)/ian/ic  8, 31, 39, 55, 59, 64, 71, 74, 117, 120, 155, 160, 167, 169, 194, 221, 238 Arab-Egyptians  36 argumentativeness  73, 74, 168 Asia/n  44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 58, 60, 63, 69, 86, 88, 91, 109, 114, 166 assertiveness  74, 108, 129–30, 194–5 assumptions  76–7, 92–4, 132, 134–5, 172 attitudes  94–5, 132, 135 to business control  44 to business decision-making  44 to cmc  95 to gender  95 to hierarchy  44–5 to risk  44 attribution  20, 64, 99, 107, 108, 127, 137, 158, 205, 209, 251 theory  205, 251 Australia/n(s)  45, 46, 49, 67, 86, 90, 94, 128, 166 authoritarianism  91, 251 automatic thought  38 autonomy  33, 44–5

awareness of contexts  187 Aycan, Z.  32, 40 B2B  90, 251 Babcock, R.D.  78 barriers to communication  153, 155–76 behavioural mimicry  20, 21, 131 behavioural model of interpersonal communication  5–7, 25, 90 Belay, G.  19, 28 beliefs  64, 90–4, 132, 134–5, 171–2 biculturalism  184–5, 251 Big Five personality dimensions  97, 135, 251 Bond, M.H.  90, 97 boss-subordinate relations  76 brainstorming  230, 232, 233 Britain/ish  34, 44, 45, 50, 59, 69, 86, 88, 90, 95, 116, 162 managers  48, 116, 138 brokerage  50, 251 Budhwar, P.  44–7 bullying  21, 162–3, 204–5 Burgoon, J.K.  104, 179, 213 Burke, K.  19, 177 Burt, R.S.  50–1, 54 business   87 culture(s)  22, 38–9 ethics  46 Canada  46, 71, 72, 73, 74, 87, 99, 100, 101, 108, 234 casteism  45, 251 categorization/ing  100, 251 Chen, G.M.  12, 14, 207–8, 212 China  22, 24, 34, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 69, 88, 109, 114, 116 clarity  69–70, 193–4 closure  50, 218, 224, 251 cmc  3, 5–6, 12, 37, 43, 77–8, 86, 95, 115, 128, 129, 131, 135, 176, 183, 185, 203, 206, 251 codes  61–2, 164, 166 cognitive communication theory  7 collectivism  44, 48–9, 106, 110, 113, 115, 252 Collier, M.J.  19, 80 common ground  68, 113, 119, 230, 252 261

262  index

communication  60, 252 accommodation  199–200 and work context  42–44 apprehension  89 apprehension  170 barriers  153, 155 competence  7–8, 12, 73, 75–6, 206–9 functions  63 goals and strategies  63–73 modes  5–6, 68, 76, 112 outcomes  131 strategy  7, 70, 164, 165, 168 style  164, 168 technology  32 traits  73–4, 130, 164, 168 communicative constitution of organizations  4, 251 communicator style  74–5, 130–1 community of practice  226, 252 complexity  6–7 compliance gaining  117–8 computer-mediated communication  12, 26, 77–8, 176, 206 conflict  173–4, 252 behaviour  129 handling  71–3, 164, 168 management  36 resolution  202–3 conforming/varied ideation  174, 252 conformity  42–3 consensus in decision-making  76 context(s)  5–7, 16, 27, 42–54, 75, 187–8, 252 contextualism  106, 110, 113, 115 convergence/divergence  252 conversational constraints  12, 69–70, 128, 129, 252 improvement strategies  129, 203, 252 cooperation  110–1, 137 intercultural  219–24 coordination  4, 110–2, 137, 219–24, 252 intercultural  219–24 coping  204–5 core beliefs  90–1 corporate governance  45–6 language  156 corruption  51–2 country clustering  30, 39 co-worker interaction norms  76 CQ talk  196–7 creativity  47–8 critiques  35–6 Crosby, F.J.  235, 243 cultural brokerage  230, 231, 252 cultural convergence  24 cultural difference(s)  3, 9, 17–27, 30–9, 55–77, 84–101, 106–20

cultural distance  25, 168, 203, 209, 252 cultural diversity  9–11, 12, 49, 174, 224–6, 228–31, 238 cultural friction  25 cultural identity(ies)  18–19, 26–7, 185, 195, 197, 211, 252 cultural intelligence  185, 252 cultural relativism  184–5, 252 culture(s)  3, 9, 23, 17–27, 18, 23, 92, 252 shock  210 influence on work behaviour  42 work norms and  43 culture-as-a-toolkit perspective  38 cultures, values approaches,   30–6 Cupach, W.R.  7, 14 Dadfar, H.  119, 123 Danish company  159 Danish employees  43, 57 Danish systems  45 deception  71, 164, 168 decision-making  32, 76 groups  113–4 decoding  61, 128, 164, 165 deference  69 demographic profile  252 demographic variables  125, 126 Denmark  44 different others  8–9 diffuseness  169 dignity cultures  33 DiMaggio  38, 41 (dis)ability-based prejudice  161 discourse(s)  18, 19, 56, 58, 127, 189, 203, 224, 225, 253 discrimination  159, 161–2, 163, 204–5, 253 distributive justice  43, 253 divergence  174 diverse groups  224–33 diverse teams  224–33 diversity  3, 6, 9–11, 12, 91, 94, 114–1, 125, 160, 174–5, 224–32, 237–8, 253 beliefs  230, 253 cultural  9–11, 12, 49, 174, 224–6, 228–31, 238 importance at work  9–11 leadership  237–8 valuing  10, 259 Duran, R.L.  7, 13 economic activity  8 economic prosperity  22 education  47, 126 egalitarianism  33, 51 ego-focused emotions  89, 253 elaborated code(s)  61–2, 166, 193, 253

index  263

email  3, 37, 68, 69, 77, 112, 131, 135, 158, 182, 183, 202, 206, 228, 230 embeddedness/autonomy  33, 253 emotion regulation  184 emotional contagion  20, 21 emotional intelligence  89–90, 134, 170, 253 emotions  85, 88–9, 132, 133–4, 170–1 empathy  194 employment relationships  46 encoding  61, 128, 164, 165 enterprise  9, 45, 135 entrepreneurs  3 equal opportunities  10, 12, 47, 237 ethical relativism  183, 253 ethics  42, 87, 253 ethnic minority  10, 95, 138, 157, 160, 253 ethnic prejudice  160–1 ethnicity  19, 125, 127, 128, 138, 157, 160, 171, 182, 220, 253 ethnocentrism  92–3, 253 Europe/an(s)  8, 48, 59, 62, 90, 94 European Values Survey  44 exclusion  174 expectation of accountability  20, 21, 253 expectations  95–6, 132, 135, 172, 191–2 states theory  191–2, 253 face  34–5, 164, 167, 253 cultures  33, 36 maintenance  66–7 management  66–7 negotiation  66–7 face-threatening act(s)  14, 253 facework  4, 253 facial expression  59 familism  45, 46, 253 faultlines  225, 253 feedback  32, 118–9 intercultural  236–7 Fellows, R.  11, 14 felt tension  108 femininity  253 field-independence  189–90, 253 Finnish SMEs  99, 100 five-factor model  97 fixed-pie error  108, 254 flaming  68, 254 frames  19, 108, 185, 254 framing  23, 220, 254 France  34, 46, 48, 89 French management/rs  48–9, 94, 181, 234 French MNC  161 functions of talk  164, 165

Gelfand, M.J.  41 gender  74, 124, 125–6, 126–7, 128, 131 attitudes  95 prejudice  161 gendering  162, 254 generational differences  126 Gerhart, B.  48, 53 German managers  48, 97, 113 Germany  31, 34, 35–6, 43, 46 Gibson, C.B.  61, 79 globalization  10, 48, 219, 235, 254 GLOBE  48, 115–6 Goffman, E.  51 governance  45–6, 254 Grimes, D.S.  12, 14 grounding  198–9, 195, 254 group performance improvement  229–33 groupthink  175, 254 groupwork  112–5, 137, 224–33 guanxi  45, 50, 66, 94, 112, 125, 254 Gudykunst, W.B.  26, 29 Hall, E.T.  36, 37, 41, 62, 179 harassment  155, 159, 162–3, 204–5, 254 harmony  31, 33, 72 Haslett, B.  18, 19, 24 heterogeneity of workgroups  155, 173, 225, 254 hierarchy  44, 45, 48, 52, 91, 112 hierarchy/egalitarianism  31, 33, 107 high-context communication  36–7, 164, 168, 254 Hofstede, G.  24, 29, 30–2, 33, 35, 47–8, 51, 91, 132, 133, 175 homophily  220, 254 Hong Kong  24, 30, 42, 45, 52, 88, 113, 119, 135, 217 honour cultures  33 horizontal collectivism/t(s)  42, 43, 221, 254 horizontal individualism/t(s)  220, 221, 254 human malleability  132, 134, 254 human resource management  9 humanitarianism-egalitarianism  91, 171, 254 Huntington, S.  136, 142 ICT  32 identity  97–8, 132, 136, 172, 228–9 IKEA  117 implicature(s)  168, 254 imposition  69–70 impression(s)  61, 192 inclusive language  181–2 India  22, 24, 34, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 69, 88, 109, 114 indirect discrimination  160, 162, 176, 254 individualism-collectivism  30, 106, 113, 115, 119, 254 industrialization  34 inference(s)/ring   20, 26, 60, 90, 165, 172, 191

264  index

influencing  71 information seeking  64 information sharing  195 information technology  32 ingroup favouritism  157, 254 initial encounters  65 innovation  46, 47 institution(s)  17, 31, 37–38 institutional positioning  4 integrative complexity  210, 254 intentions  62–3, 96, 164, 166–7, 172 inter-ability communication  204 interaction(s)  3, 5–6, 10, 19, 25, 48, 50, 70, 76, 95, 254 intercultural   61, 65 intercultural communication   153, 155–76, 181–211, 254 apprehension  170, 255 competence  206–7 skills  3, 12, 181–211 intercultural perceptiveness  186–7 intercultural sensitivity  73, 184, 255 intercultural work communication  155–76, 181–211 interdependence, task  25, 110, 115, 228, 255 interethnic communication apprehension  89, 255 intergroup bias  225, 255 intergroup communication  26, 156–8, 255 international project management  119 internet  3, 8, 12, 62, 95, 131 forums  62 interpersonal communication  3, 5–7, 11, 25–6, 27, 59, 133, 181, 255 interpersonal work communication  3–4, 6–7, 12, 163 intracultural behaviours  26–7 Islam/ic  71, 91, 126 countries  116 leadership  117 religious belief  126 values  117 work ethic  88, 255 Italy  37, 39, 46 Japan/ese  34, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 57, 63, 67, 69, 76 job performance  32 joint ventures  11, 25, 32, 48, 114, 173, 202, 203, 234, 255 judgement bias  108 just-unjust world beliefs  91 Karakowsky, L.  24, 29 Kastanakis, M.N.  84, 98 Kim, Y.Y.  74, 82 Kincaid, D.L.  18, 19 kinesics  164, 167, 255

knowledge sharing  110, 111–2, 137, 255 intercultural  219–24 knowledge stickiness  111, 255 knowledge transfer  14 knowledge-based economies  35 language  7, 18, 19, 26, 37, 56–8, 130–1, 156, 164, 165–6, 181–2 barriers  156 choice  193 use  57 Latin America(n)  23, 33, 99, 109, 119, 125, 167 leader-member exchange  117, 255 leadership  115–20, 137–8 intercultural  233–8 lean manufacturing  44, 255 learning  188 style  100 Lee, S.M.  22, 28 Lenartowicz, T.  23, 29 LGBT people  161, 182, 255 Li, J.  24, 29 linguistic pragmatists  7 Liu, A.  11, 14 LMX  117 locus of control  44, 77, 86, 91, 134, 204, 255 logic style  100 long-term orientation  30–6 loose cultures  30–2, 255 low-context communication  36–7, 164, 168, 255 Luo, Y.  25, 29 maintenance orientation  45, 255 management   115–20, 137–8 intercultural  233–8 managers  48–9 marginalized groups  205–6, 255 marketing  22, 44 masculinity/femininity  25, 31, 106, 113, 115, 119, 255 mastery/harmony  31, 33, 255 maxims  62 mediation  67, 73, 255 mediating institution  87 meetings  217 membership negotiation  4 mentoring  118, 138, 235–6, 256 meritocracy  47 messages  60–1, 128 Mexico  34, 86, 88, 89, 111, 115, 125, 202 mianzi  66, 256 micro-inequities  163, 176, 256 micro-messages  59–60, 256 micropractices  163, 183, 256

index  265

mindfulness  190–1 mirroring  69, 73–4, 194, 256 modesty bias  98, 256 monochronic cultures  31, 36, 37, 256 moods  85, 88–9 moral codes  85, 87, 132, 133 motives  85, 87–8, 132, 133 multicultural individuals  230 multicultural teams  227–8 multiculturalism  185 multinational companies/MNCs/MNEs  25, 44, 47, 222–3, 256 multiplex ties  51, 256 Muslims  8, 24, 89, 125, 136, 160, 171, 255 Muzychenko, O.  22, 28 need for closure  109, 256 negotiation  106–10, 137, 256 style  108, 109 intercultural  217–9 network theory  50–1, 256 network(s)  50–1, 256 New Zealand  42 non-judgementalism  190 non-routine interactions  194 non-verbal behaviour  128, 164, 167–8 non-verbal communication  58–60 norms  20, 21, 43, 76, 93, 107–8, 256 Norway  86, 96 offshoring  8, 256 older workers  126, 160 Olson, G.M.  113, 112 optimal inclusion  43, 226, 256 organizational citizenship behaviour  32, 44, 256 organizational commitment  32, 86, 88, 95, 135, 256 organizational communication  46 organizational culture(s)  21, 37, 44, 46, 47–8, 162, 174–5, 227, 256 organizational gendering  162 organizational structure(s)  44–5, 256 orientation  210 other-focused emotions  89, 256 other-regarding preference behaviours  70–1, 256 outsourcing  256 paralinguistics  55, 60, 108, 256 particularism  169 Pelled, L.H.  125, 139 perceiving  98–9 perceptions  26, 90, 108 perceptual barriers  188 performance appraisal  119

performance evaluation  118–9 persistent injustice effect  163, 256 personalism  45, 46, 125, 256 personality  97, 172 person-centred messages  194, 256 politeness  67–8, 128–9, 164, 167, 257 polychronic cultures  31, 36, 37, 257 population ageing  8–9 power  32 power distance  25, 31–2, 106, 113, 115, 119, 257 preference for ftf communication  76 prejudice(s)  159–61, 163, 171, 204–5 problem-solving   100, 113–4 process gains  225, 257 process losses  113, 257 productivity  42–3 project management, intercultural  238 Protestant relational ideology  92 Protestant work ethic  91, 257 proxemics  59, 164, 167, 257 psychological factors  84–96, 131–7, 169–73 psychological processes  98–100, 136–7 radical co-location  231 rapport management  68–9, 257 reciprocity  70–1, 93, 257 regional variations  125 regulatory focus  87–8, 257 relational attunement  73–4 relationship orientation  194 religion  125, 127, 128 religious beliefs  91–2 religious values  126 resourcefulness  49, 195 responses  61 restricted code(s)  61–2, 166, 193, 257 rhetorical sensitivity  73, 257 risk  42 role(s)  17, 20, 27, 257 rules  62, 193, 257 Russia(n/s)  34, 57, 99, 100 Sagiv, L.  33, 40 Saudi Arabia  25, 67, 79, 98, 111, 123 schemata  38 Schwartz, S.H.  30, 33, 35, 39, 40 Scott, W.R.  50, 54 secular-rational values  34 self-construal  18–19, 96, 97–8, 136, 172, 257 self-efficacy belief(s)  91, 257 self-esteem  98, 132, 136 self-expression values  34 self-monitoring  114, 184, 257

266  index

self-presentation  5–6, 25–6, 181, 192, 206, 209, 257 intercultural  192–5 self-serving bias  99, 257 sense-making  100, 189, 257 servant leadership  116, 257 service quality  32 shared meanings  18, 19 shared representation theory  201 Shenkar, O.  25, 27, 29 short-term orientation  36 Singapore  44, 45, 46, 47, 52, 67, 86, 88, 114 situations  75 SME(s)  45, 46, 99, 100, 257 social accounts  163, 257 social capital  50, 257 social class  127, 133, 136 social cognition  5, 257 social comparison  99, 235, 257 social contagion  20–1, 257 social control  20, 258 social distance  75, 95, 174, 200, 258 social dominance orientation  86, 91, 132, 134, 171, 258 social identity(ies)  18–19, 68, 205, 252, 258 social influence  20–1, 258 social knowledge barriers  164, 166 social loafing  43, 258 social perception(s)  5–6, 25–6, 88, 90, 99, 172–3, 186, 188, 206, 258 sociality rights  68, 258 socially desirable responding  61, 258 socio-linguistics  56, 258 sojourner adaptation  210–11 sojourning skills  209–11 South Africa  16, 35–6 South Korea  34, 46, 51, 68, 71, 73, 76, 77, 89, 93, 211 specificity  169 speech acts  62–3 speech community  56, 258 speech, speed of  164, 167 St. Amant, K.  12, 14 stakeholder approach  183, 258 status  36 stereotypes/ing  93, 159, 205, 258 stranger(s)  61–2, 64–5, 157–8, 191, 195, 197, 198, 258 strategic resource  38 structural holes  50, 258 subcultural communication  124–39 subcultural differences  74 subculture(s)  3, 24, 124–37, 258 subjective culture  37, 72, 258 survival values  34 Sweden/Swedes  34, 116, 117, 120, 238 Swedish managers  117 swift trust  232, 258

tacit coordination  220–1, 258 tacit knowledge  50, 110,156, 258 Taiwan/ese  23, 24, 44, 45, 46, 47.48, 52, 68, 69, 74 task interdependence  26 task orientation  44, 258 task-related conflict  173–4 Tayeb, M.H.  35, 41 team building  36–7, 230–1 team management theory  232 team mental models  231–2 team performance improvement  229–33 teamwork  112, 114–5, 137, 224–33 technology  8 telecommunications connectivity  8 tension mitigation  202–3 the ‘self’  96–8, 132, 135–6 thinking  99–100, 172–3 third culture(s)  201–2, 258 tight cultures  30, 258 tightness-looseness  37, 258 time orientation  106, 110, 113, 115 Ting-Toomey, S.  36, 41 tolerance of ambiguity  189–90 topic-comment structure  164, 166, 259 traditional values  34 training  12, 156, 222, 230, 232, 233, 237, 238 trait judgements  99, 172, 259 transactional culture  185, 189 transactional discourse  185, 189, 259 translation  156 Triandis, H.C.  37–8, 41 trust  4, 70–1, 94–5, 132, 135, 156, 229 Tsui, A.S.  51, 54 Turkey  8, 37, 95, 114, 138 Turkish managers  234 turnover  32 UK  22, 44, 45, 46, 116, 117, 161, 182 uncertainty avoidance  30, 106, 113, 115, 119, 259 United Arab Emirates  88 universalism  169 universalism/particularism  72, 169, 259 USA  24, 35, 42, 46, 65, 68, 74, 76, 86, 95, 116, 117, 129 values  17, 21, 24, 30–5, 43, 75, 85–7, 107–8, 132–3, 169–70, 259 approaches, critique  30–6 congruence  21 surveys  34–5 work-related  24, 35, 136, 259 valuing diversity  10, 259 Van Dijk, E.  240 verbal communication  55–8

index  267

verbal contagion  20, 21 vertical collectivism/t(s)  112, 220, 221, 259 vertical individualism/t(s)  42, 43, 220, 221, 259 Vertinsky, I.,   48, 53 virtual teams  8, 77–8, 225, 228–9, 259 virtual third cultures  27 weak-tie theory  223, 259 Whitley, R.  54 women  8, 23, 35, 63, 91, 124, 160 work  4 activities  106–24, 137–8 behaviour  42–4, 125–6 centrality  35, 42, 259 communication practices  12, 55–78 context  35, 42–52 culture  227

environments  49–52 ethics  44 meetings  32 motivation patterns  88 organization  42 relationships  11, 12, 134, 196, 202, 231 roles  44–5 workforce diversity  8–9, 11 workgroup heterogeneity  173 working abroad  209–11 work-related beliefs  94 work-related values  24, 35, 36–7, 136, 259 World Values Surveys  24, 34, 39 written business communication  76 Xiao, Z.  51, 54