Intercultural Business Communication - Strategies to Improve Cross-Cultural Communication - Case Study Example

Cross-cultural Communication Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Table of contents 1.0 Strategies to improve cross-cultural communication 3 1.1 Approximation 3 1.2 Picking up clues or interpretability 3 1.3 Discourse management 3 1.4 Interpersonal control 4 1.5 Self-disclosure 4 2.0 Cross-cultural communication practices 4 2.1 Power distance 4 2.2 Uncertainty avoidance 5 2.3 Individuals vs. Collectivism 5 2.4 Context communication culture 5 3.0 Annotated bibliography 5 References 8 1.0 Strategies to improve cross-cultural communication GlaxosmithKline is large multinational company the sells its products across cultural lines. Cross-cultural communication among the workforce is needed in the marketing needs of the company’s products to potential customers (Chaney & Martin, 2011). The presence of Australian, Chinese and Indian employees at the firm means that there could be disputes due to different values, misinterpretation, misinformation, emotions and roles. English is a native language in Australia but it a second language in India and China. Combined with culture and other regional differences, there will be barriers in communication among the three groups of employees. Employees communicate through facial expressions, posture, gestures, body language and tone of voice (Reynolds & Valentine, 2011). The strategies to improve communication and eliminate misunderstanding include; 1.1 Approximation This involves copying or approximating the language use of both Australian and Indian employees in instances such as lexical diversity, speech rate, dialect, and accent and language structure. This enables the cultural distance between the two groups get accepted and reduced. It will also create a common platform for interaction and puts the other party into their comfort zones. For example, Indian would use ‘aap’ or ‘hum’ to indicate collectivism while Australians favor independence and use ‘Hey Jack’ or ‘Jane’ to denote individualism. Chinese use a lot of indirect communication. For example, they say ‘no’ in almost anything by using ‘yes’ explicitly. It is actually looked upon as being rude to say ‘no’ in China (Hofmann, 2012). On the other hand, the Indian communicator would not like to intimidate or humiliate the caller, Australians believe in self-expression or individual opinion. 1.2 Picking up clues or interpretability This is the ability to understand or give attention to interpretative competence. The cultural trainers should regulate conversation and modify speech processes. Discuss non-controversial and safe issues during meetings with repetitions and clarifications if not understood (Reynolds & Valentine, 2011). For example, the Australian employees should be keen on the vocabulary and culture specific responses of Indian employees. On the other hand, Chinese managers do not shout at their juniors because it is seen as losing control and face (Hofmann, 2012). Again, Chinese and Indians send implicit messages in which the receiver is meant to know ‘more’ behind the message. Unlike Australians, Indians and Chinese know that a deadline of some work is not necessary a serious deadline. 1.3 Discourse management Respond and judge conversational needs of both parties. This means that the trainer or communicator should go with the flow instead of adhering to a certain script. For example, departmental meetings and work progress updates should have an impartial manager controlling the conversation. For instance, Australia and Indian employees are told of their roles and expectations while in China, the individual is expected to know the peers then tasks later. The environment should be that of sharing, responding, managing conflicts and forming decisions (Reynolds & Valentine, 2011). The employees on both sides should undergo cultural training to familiarize with each other’s values, beliefs, attitudes and emotions. 1.4 Interpersonal control Involve role relations among the two parties (Chaney & Martin, 2011). The manager or tutor should be a good communicator versed in Australian and Indian cultures. Moreover, He or she can manipulate role relations by being submissive, dominating or assertive and can swerve the roles midstream. For example, in India the manager can choose to be subtle and heavy in implication and in Australia, situations have a direct and logical inference. In China, one think is done at a time. For example, in a business dinner, people take dinner then relax and later have a talk about serious business. This will match with the high context communication culture of Indian employees and the low context communication culture of the Australian employees. 1.5 Self-disclosure In this session, the Indian employees can share their own culture to the Australian employees and in the event they learn from the encounter and exchange information. In this situation, the other party can observe the language usage and variations (House, et al., 2002). For example, an Australian can say ‘Hey! I am not interested in your talk. Do not call me again’ while an Indian employee would say ‘I am busy at the moment. Please call me later’. The Chinese will say ‘Why don’t we eat dinner…then talk about it later’. It is important that Australians understand the way the Chinese and Indians behave because they have almost similar beliefs, culture and values. These differences should be highlighted and shared for better understanding and communication. 2.0 Cross-cultural communication practices The cultural framework used in GlaxoSmithKiline cross-cultural communication is based on the Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory. The framework showcases the effect of culture on the values of members of a society and how the influence behavior. According to the theory, there are cultural dimensions under consideration which are; power distance, individualism vs. collectivism and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede & de Mooij, 2002). Context communication culture has also been introduced to compare communication competencies that occur in cross-cultural settings. The cultural framework for Australia and Indian employees is discussed in the descriptions below. 2.1 Power distance Power distance describes inequality arising from power differentials at the workplace. Societies with large power distance have centralized authority, autocratic leadership, many supervisory staff, acceptance of privileges and paternalistic ways of management (Hofstede & de Mooij, 2002). On the other hand, low power distance societies have few supervisory staff, high egalitarianism, flat organizational structure and consultative management style. India adheres to high power distance culture while Australia has not differences in groups, education, work and social life. For example, Indians convey views and news using proper channels while Australian can call and address their bosses using their first names and not their titles. 2.2 Uncertainty avoidance Describes how a society copes with future uncertainties without undergoing stress. Weak uncertainty avoidance is associated with tolerance to divergent opinions, flexibility and undertaking risk (Reynolds & Valentine, 2011). On the contrary, strong uncertainty avoidance is associated with strong requirement for consensus, tendency to avoid risk, no tolerance of deviants and respect for authority. For example, Indian traditions are crucial while Australians embrace change easily. 2.3 Individuals vs. Collectivism Refer to the inclination of individuals to remain in groups. Individualistic cultures foster contractual relationships, concentrate on self, emphasize on personal enjoyment, value independence and self-sufficiency and stress on horizontal relationships (Hofstede & de Mooij, 2002). On the other hand, collectivistic cultures is where behavior is shaped by social norms, harmony and hierarchy, and sharing of resources and the readiness to shed personal interests. Indians have collectivistic communication in which they address themselves using a collective pronoun such as ‘hum’ or ‘aap’. However, Australian cherishes self and independence and uses ‘I’ or ‘me’. 2.4 Context communication culture In high context communication, messages are heavy and subtle with implications. The decoder may seek to understand the underlying meaning by sifting through the text. Indians use high context communication in which they take care of the collective face to avoid humiliation. On the other hand, Australians use low context communication in which language is used to mean exactly what they mean. The speech patterns denote the logical and direct inference to self-expression or personal opinion. 3.0 Annotated bibliography Okoro, E 2012, Crosss-Cultural Etiquette and Communication in Global Business: Toward a Strategic Framework for Managing Corporate Expansion. International journal of business and management, vol. 7, no. 16, p. 130-137. In this article, Okoro analyzes global etiquette and constructive evaluation of cross-cultural communication for managers who are taking up international assignments. The author notes that global workforce is diverse and effective cross-cultural etiquette is necessary for global business success. The journal surveys current literature on the key areas such as cross-cultural communication for managers working with multinational companies, etiquette, and managing competitive advantage. Other issues involved cross-cultural effectiveness and current issues and trends. This research focuses mainly on etiquette and communication issues across cultures for multinational organizations. It is an educative piece for managers to cope with cultural differences in communication and training on cross-cultural etiquette. Emphasis is given to training of managers who can be able to handle negotiations, intercultural and cross-cultural communication for the success of the organization in the global economy. The article attempts to point out a number of cross-cultural issues that should be eliminated such as ethnocentric behavior, stereotyping and managerial parochialism. This article is beneficial to managers and trainers on cross-cultural communication for culturally diverse workforce where emphasis is laid on sensitivity training and etiquette. Moreover, it is a basis for preparing orientation courses for stakeholders and culturally diverse employees. On the contrary, this article is limited by the absence of a sample size which affects the validity of information being discussed. The article concludes that there is need for managers to have effective intercultural communication and understanding of cultural differences. I think this article is crucial for managers and employees who desire a global mindset, cross-cultural awareness and appropriate etiquette. Kawar, TI 2012, Cross-cultural Differences in Management, International Journal of Business and Social Science, vol. 3, no. 6, p. 105-110. Kawar studies cross-cultural differences in management in organizations with differences communication, functioning, behaviors and attitudes. The author notes that misunderstanding abound in workplaces where people have different backgrounds, beliefs and values. As a result, the organization faces numerous workplace conflicts, failure to meet tight budgets, deadlines and sales targets. The author identifies some cultural theories and models that are vital in understanding cross-cultural differences. One theory used is that of Geert Hofstede on understanding other cultures within the multinational corporations as well as the model of culture. Kawar’s research focuses on cross-cultural differences, cultural intelligence and effect of cultural values on management. On the contrary, unlike Okoro (2012) the author does not provide empirical evidence to show how some large international organizations are affected by the issues raised above. Yet, it underscores the need for international business communication between individuals and not merely a communication between governments and nations. This article is useful to expatriates and international trainers to understand barriers and ways of bridging communication differences between two or more cultures working together. This article is limited by lack of data which could provide informed studies and inferences in practical cases. Kawar concludes that while there are differences among cultures, overcoming such obstacles require cultural intelligences and adaptation to new cultures. I believe this article is informative and in-depth in highlighting not only issues in cross-cultural communication but also provides solutions to these challenges. I learned that cross-cultural communication is needed to overcome barriers related to language, accent and lexical diversity. References Chaney, LH & Martin, JS 2011, Intercultural business communication (5thed).Prentice Hall. Hofstede, G & de Mooij, M 2002, Convergence and divergence in consumer behavior: implications for international retailing. Journal of Retailing, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 61-69. Hofmann, J 2012, Cross-cultural communication in Chian: West vs. East. InternChina. 2012 October, 12. https://internchina.com/cross-cultural-communication-in-china-west-vs-east/. House, R Javidan, M Hanges, P & Dorfman, P 2002, Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 3-10. Reynolds, S & Valentine, D 2011, Guide to Cross-cultural Communication. (2nded). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Read More