Intercultural Communication and How It May Affect Relationships at Work - Research Paper Example

The Role of Research Living in contemporary times means that one is more likely to work in an environment where people from various cultural backgrounds co-exist. This is due to globalization, which embraces differences such as diversity of culture, ability, religion, gender, and socio-economic status. One crucial factor which can have a great impact on intercultural relations is communication. It is a known fact that miscommunication takes place with people from the same backgrounds, but how much this is exhibited is oftentimes unknown. Research has pointed this to a varying degree; however, scholars have been unable to specifically denote the manner through which this is exhibited throughout the workplace and how stakeholders might seek to apply core competencies and best practices to ensure that the efficiency of an organization/firm/or business entity is maximized and the potential for miscommunication and misunderstanding is held to an absolute minimum. This paper shall evaluate research studies on intercultural communication and how it may affect relationships at work. Literature Review Work environments usually entail interpersonal communication. Sometimes, co-workers, superiors, clients, suppliers serve as the second parties in communication. It is important that people be adept at communication, especially with those who come from cultures different from them. Five peer-reviewed empirical studies shall be evaluated in this paper all dealing with intercultural communication issues in the workplace. The first study to be evaluated is Semnani-Azad & Adair’s (2011) study that compares the display of nonverbal behaviors that convey dominance in male and female Canadian and Chinese negotiators. The participants were observed on three nonverbal behaviors that are usually associated with dominance, namely: “relaxed posture, use of space and facial display of negative emotion” (p. 451). The hypotheses set for this study are as follows: H1. Canadian negotiators will engage in more dominant nonverbal behaviors than Chinese negotiators. Hence, Canadians will use more physical space (H1a), exhibit more relaxed postures (H1b), and express more negative emotion (H1c) than Chinese negotiators (p. 457). H2. Male negotiators will display more dominant nonverbal behaviors than female negotiators (H2a) and this difference will be greater for Chinese negotiators than for Canadian negotiators (H2b) (p. 458). H3. Dominant nonverbal behaviors will mediate the relationship between culture, gender, and negotiation outcome. The relationship with joint gains will be inversely related, such that the higher the dominant behavior, the lower the joint gains (H3a). Dominant nonverbal behaviors will also mediate the relationship between culture, gender, and individual gain and this relationship will be positive. The higher the dominant behavior, the higher the individual gain (H3b). (p. 459) H4. Dominant nonverbal behaviors will mediate the relationship between culture, gender, and negotiator satisfaction such that negotiators who display more dominant nonverbal behavior will report more satisfaction with the negotiation process. (p. 460) The research method used for this study is observation of same-sex dyads, some dyads were by pairs from similar cultures and other dyads were by pairs from different cultures. The participants were asked to engage in a dyadic intracultural negotiation. They were to reach agreement on all issues pertaining to a given negotiation case involving the opening of a new business. There was no time limit given, although dyads that went on beyond 30 minutes were instructed to end the negotiation within five minutes (Semnani-Azad & Adair, 2011). Upon reaching agreement, they were to record the agreement and calculate their individual and joint gains. Then they were asked to complete surveys that measure satisfaction and demographics. The sessions were videotaped for later analysis. Raters watched the videos and rated observed behavior showing the nonverbal cues identified earlier of each participant. Each time they observed a nonverbal behavior cue previously identified and agreed upon, they rated it based on the frequency of the behavior display (Semnani-Azad & Adair, 2011). Initially, the participants were not informed that they were being recorded lest their natural behavior be contrived for the camera. They were only told of the recording after the dyad and were asked for permission if their recording could be analyzed. Findings indicated that Canadian negotiators manifested more relaxed postures and displayed more negative emotion while their Chinese counterparts used up more space at the negotiation table, indicating dominance. The Chinese negotiators were more restrained and maintained a rigid posture and less displays of negative emotion than their Canadian counterparts. Chinese negotiators may manifest their dominance through the use of space in their environment rather than their bodily expressions. Further considerations with respect to validy and reliability for the studies that have been analyzed within this literature review lends one to understand that the control for potential external factors has not effectively been engaged in much of the prior research. Taking the case of the Canadian and Chinese example illustrated above, the impact of other cultures that existed within Canada was not accounted for. Whereas it is true that China is more homogenous as compared to Canada, the potential for racial/cultural differentiation and the breakdowns in understanding that can occur within such situations provides an invaluable level of discussion that must be engaged if the reader is to gain a more insightful and valid understanding of the research. For this very reason, the issue of reliability and validity has prompted this individual researcher to engage with similar material; however to engage with it in a somewhat different way to ensure that the same problems of analysis exhibited before will not be exhibited again. The next research study to be evaluated is Congden, Matveev & Desplaces’ (2009) study entitled “Cross-cultural Communication and Multicultural Team Performance: A German and American Comparison.” Its purpose was to compare German and American participants on the effect of their national culture on their communication with others based on the cross-cultural communication competence chart which features the dimensions of interpersonal skills, team effectiveness, cultural uncertainty and cultural empathy. The following were the hypotheses for the study: H1. A positive relationship exists between the level of crosscultural communication competence of multicultural team members and the performance of a multicultural team (p. 79). H2. Americans will score higher on the interpersonal skills dimension (p. 79). H3. Americans and Germans will score similarly on the dimension of Team Effectiveness (p. 80). H4. Americans will score higher on cultural uncertainty than will Germans (p. 80). H5: Americans will score higher on the Cultural Empathy dimension than will Germans (p. 80). Participants for this study were American and German university students. They filled out two questionnaires namely the Cross-cultural Communication Competence Questionnaire and the High-Performance Team Questionnaire. Their answers in the questionnaires were correlated to investigate the relationship between the participants’ cross-cultural communication competence and team performance. Threats to validity included language difficulties of the German students; however, the questionnaire was written in simpler English so they can understand it better. Results of the study showed an overall positive relationship between cross-cultural communication competence and performance of multicultural teams. A further threat was exhibited with regard to how the Germans and Americans scored very similarly on the Interpersonal skills, Team Effectiveness and Cultural Uncertainty dimensions and were not statistically different. Even though the testing was rigorous and helped to reflect, what this author believes to be, an unbiased stance/approach, the fact of the matter is that the potential for validity errors and singularity in testing could indicate the fact that bias was indeed exhibited. It was only on the dimension of Cultural Empathy that they differed where Americans scored higher on the scale of “humane orientation” and “collectivism”. Once again, the study’s focus on core aspects of communication and the cultural links that approaches to understanding can provide reveal a level of singularity between the participants; however, the singularity in and of itself is not quite as useful or determinant as one might expect; due in part to the cultural similarity that was exhibited within the test subjects. For this very reason, the need to broaden such a study and determine a greater level of inference based upon more diverse inputs is required. Oliveira’s (2013) study entitled “Multicultural Environments and Their Challenges to Crisis Communication” aimed to examine how communication strategists such as communication professionals manage cultural variability in designing crisis strategies. It also explored if culturally sensitive communication strategies were applied in a consistent manner. The following are the research questions for this study: RQ1. How do communication professionals themselves define multiculturalism and its role in crisis communication? RQ2. To what extent do communication professionals perceive cultural elements as important aspects of crisis episodes? RQ3. According to communication professionals, what are the most relevant cultural elements to be addressed when designing crisis communication strategies? RQ4. How often, according to communication professionals, do corporations culturally adjust crisis communication strategies? (p. 259) The method used for this research was interviews with 25 communication professionals. In order to explore people’s perceptions, beliefs and opinions on certain issues, qualitative interviews enable researchers to better understand participant’s experiences and views (Oliveira, 2013). Qualitative textual analysis was used to identify themes and concepts in the interview transcripts. In order to preserve validity, interview questions were field-tested with four professionals to identify dubious, confusing or unimportant questions or revise some questions to make it more understandable. Findings from this study were abundant and insightful. For one, it was found that when communicating with Latinos, public relations practitioners had difficulties in the definition of multiculturalism, confusing it with cultural diversity. Another finding was that interviewees viewed cultural differences as just one part of diversity, arguing that age, religion and education differences were likewise aspects of diversity that affect corporate communication (Oliveira, 2013). The most notable finding was that professionals did not feel prepared to handle multicultural crisis nor use culturally sensitive crisis strategies as often as they should even if they considered culture as instrumental to crisis management. Threats to validity and reliability can likely be noted with respect to the fact that the research in question only interviewed 25 participants. Naturally, with such a small group of test subjects, the potential for variance and incorrect inference is compounded. Moreover, the overall level of diversity that can be exhibited within such a small group of participants further calls the analyst to question the overall applicability and reliability of the study at hand. Chang, Chuang & Chao’s (2011) study entitled “Determinants of Cultural Adaptation, Communication Quality and Trust in Virtual Team’s Performance” explored online relationships of multicultural teams. Its purpose was to investigate how the variables of cultural adaptation, communication quality and trust affect the performance of virtual teams and how they relate to each other. Intensive interviews with four virtual team members were conducted. These members were two management information systems engineers, one computer programmer and one project manager. Findings from the interviews concluded that cultural adaptation, communication quality and trust impact the performance of virtual teams in a positive way (Chang et al., 2011). This implies that virtual team leaders should be aware of cultural differences as well as project issues within teams so that conflict and cross-cultural miscommunication will not occur. Whereas the use of online cultural analysis was novel, the issues of validity and reliability that are contingent upon such a study invariably break down into determining what aspects of “culture” easily permeate the online setting. As this is not thoroughly discussed of defined by Chang et al. (2011), the reader can only infer that the consideration has not been fully made and the authors have instead relied upon prior measurements as a means of drawing inference on the topic at hand. Finally, the study of Comu, Unsal & Taylor (2011) entitled “Dual Impact of Cultural and Linguistic Diversity on Project Network Performance” sought empirical evidence on how differences in culture and language affect the performance of teams. The methods used were the implementation of a series of experiments to examine the impact of cultural and linguistic diversity on various project networks. Participants were asked to play various tasks in design and construction in the roles of an architect, an engineer and a contractor. They were asked to design, specify and build a small model of a building together in the roles they were assigned. Sixty university students who were culturally and linguistically diverse, but all had knowledge of English in various degrees, participated in various project networks for 90 minute periods. Half of the teams were monocultural and the other half was multicultural. After completing the projects, each of the participants from the multicultural teams was asked to complete a cultural assessment test. The results showed that multicultural networks outperformed the monocultural networks, implying that cultural and linguistic diversity may impact the performance of teams in a positive manner. Once the members of the multicultural teams adjusted to each other to overcome their cultural and linguistic difficulties, they were able to introduce to each other new approaches and strategies that led them to outperform the monocultural teams. The reliance on focusing on roles rather than culture affinity causes the researcher to lose a degree of understanding with respect to the representativeness that this particular study has to offer. Further, the issue of validity and reliability cannot even be engaged fully without separating the issue of efficiency and culture from one another; something that the authors take very little time to do. Cross-cultural dealings are inevitable in globalized workplaces. This may mean that the likelihood of conflict and miscommunication due to cultural and linguistic difference is higher or it may also mean that the differences eventually enhance the performance of workers. From the five studies evaluated, what is known from the findings is that there are cultural differences even with non-verbal communication. For example, in negotiations, Canadians manifest more relaxed postures and displayed more negative emotion as a sign of dominance. On the other hand, Chinese negotiators used up more space with their gestures as a sign of dominance (Semnani-Azad & Adair, 2011). Divergent Understandings of Culture and Conflict: While most people expect cultural differences to cause much conflict and miscommunication, some of the studies proved otherwise. One example is the work of Comu, Unsal & Taylor (2011) which showed that multicultural teams with members from various countries and linguistic diversity can outperform their monocultural counterparts after they have overcome the first adjustment to each other. Having minimal knowledge of a common language (English) helped. It could be that they exerted greater effort at trying to accommodate each other’s differences knowing they themselves are being adjusted to by their co-members. Hence, by working together better after their adjustment phase, they were more open to each other’s ideas, leading them to outperform the monocultural teams in the same tasks. Still, Congden, Matveev & Desplaces (2009) advocated for the development of cross-cultural communication competence in individuals working in multicultural settings. Once they do, interpersonal skills, team effectiveness, cultural uncertainty and cultural empathy will be better managed. Similar findings from the work of Chang, Chuang & Chao (2011) indicated that cultural adaptation, communication quality and trust should be enhanced especially in multicultural virtual teams. A good supervising leader would be able to promote harmony among the team members especially if he is aware of cultural differences and project issues within the team and can deal with these efficiently. Finally, Oliveira’s (2013) study emphasized the need for communication experts to equip themselves with more adeptness in cultural diversity so that they are better able to handle multicultural crisis should they be embroiled in it. While it is understood that much of the research dealt with empirical methods which exacted results that are more or less measurable, it would also be worth studying some ethnographic insights of individuals working in multicultural settings. Yet, one is prompted to ask hoow stakeholders think or feel about communicating with people who do not belong to their own culture ; as well as how they might be motivated to communicate effectively with foreigners. How similar or different are they to their foreign counterparts and how does this affect their intercultural communication? All these basic issues need to be threshed out by human resource management (HRM) in order to design training programs that address better intercultural communication in their own organizations. Discussion Semnani-Azad & Adair’s (2011) study was very thoroughly written, clearly taking the reader through all the steps of the research. The findings were likewise well explained along with side information on the true nature of the Canadians and Chinese. However, it did not go into detail about gender differences in nonverbal dominance cues. It also did not include an inter-gender dyad to see how the Chinese males interacted with the Canadian females and vice versa. This may seem to be more complex and deserved an entirely new research. Congden et al.’s (2009) study showed a simple research question and a clear and coherent literature review. However, the discussion of the results tended to be subjective, with explanations of some data based on the author’s personal knowledge about the participants. It may be a positive feature of the research; however, it does not seem to be generalizable to other participants from the same countries. Oliveira’s (2013) covered much ground in the area of cross-cultural and crisis communication. It was remarkable how the author was able to conceptualize such a difficult and sensitive topic to communication experts, and derived answers from them which were sincere and humbling. Credit goes to the capability of the interviewer to elicit honesty from her participants. Chang, Chuang & Chao’s (2011) study followed through in explaining all the variables they presented as well as did thorough interviews with the participants to yield very insightful information. Still, it would have been much better had there been more participants in the study to have various perspectives on virtual cross-cultural communication. Comu, Unsal and Taylor (2011) thought of a complex, but creative methodological approach that effectively reflected their research problem. They took all considerations to ensure that their goals are met, even intentionally putting together multicultural team members from different cultures, none of whom were native English speakers, to more effectively create linguistic barriers among the group. It was surprising that those teams outperformed monocultural teams where all members spoke good English. The study was well designed and the researchers risked going out of the traditional “box” to implement creative methods of gaining information on cultural and linguistic diversity. Even as the methodology of this particular approach is essentially sound, the findings cause this analyst to question whether or not the resulting conclusion is correct. The reason behind this has to do with the fact that the results only focused on university level individuals that spoke English either as a first language or as a second language. Further, even as this distinction in language ability is focused on, the reader is not presented with an understanding for how cultural similarities might have contributed to the findings and how cultural dissimilarity might have been exhibited within the teams that were native English speakers. Ultimately, the focus on language, at the expense of culture, causes the analyst to question the validity of the results of this analysis; even though it is possible that the results are sound and reflective, the analyst has no way of proving this from the rubric of the research performed. Recommendation Researchers nowadays think up of various ways to derive the information they need. The five studies evaluated showed diverse methodologies that derive surprising results. Although a multitude of research has been conducted over the years on various topics, empirical research still prevail as it puts theories to the test in practical situations. More empirical studies are recommended for HRM issues. Proposed Study Purpose Statement The purpose of this qualitative study is to determine if the views and attitudes of individuals engage alternate approaches when communicating with people outside of their own cultural group. Through data collection, information will be gathered that can help design a training module for effective intercultural communication in multicultural work settings. Surveys, interviews, and on-site observations will be utilized to gather the data. Research Questions RQ1. What are the attitudes of people when they communicate with people outside their cultural group? RQ2. What influences or motivates an individual to ensure effective communication takes place with individuals from another culture. As Leedy and Ormrod (2010) pointed out, the methodology used tends to evolve during a qualitative study, which can open further areas to investigate, improving the depth of the initial investigation. Because of this, it is likely that additional questions will developed throughout the research process. Research Design As opposed to the empirical studies that designs contrived settings in order to derive data from participants, the study proposed to explore participants’ attitudes and views on cross-cultural/ intercultural communication shall depend entirely on the participants’ own responses. Thus, a qualitative research study using semi-structured interviews and survey questionnaires shall be conducted. The study will recruit multicultural participants from a multinational organization to answer a survey questionnaire that has both closed and open questions based on the intercultural communication motivation theory of Kupka et al. (2009). This analysis shall explore the participants’ motivations and hesitations in communicating effectively with people from outside their cultural group. It shall leave spaces for comments and elaborations should the participants deem it necessary to further explain their answers. Using multiple methods to gather data can greatly assist in gathering high quality results (Batt & Banerjee, 2012). Focus group interviews with participants from the same cultural groups shall also be conducted guided by semi-structured questions. This is to gain their views and insights on intercultural communication issues. The interviews shall be recorded and transcribed in verbatim for qualitative analysis. Strengths and Weaknesses One of the strengths of this study is contingent upon the fact that the participants themselves were encouraged to “tell it like it is”; thereby introducing a unique level of inference that would not have been gleaned within a quantitative study. They are considered experts in their own merits because they own their experiences. Collecting information from the focus group interview may be likened to collecting information from one culture as they are considered representatives of their own culture for this study. The approach to the study will adhere to a more formal definition of validity in human research, which is the coherence of knowledge derived from research to the experiential knowledge of the participants and its coherence to the practical knowledge of how one acts in specific situations and contexts. Possible weaknesses to the study are refusal of participants to continue their participation or lack of available participants. Threats to Validity Threats to validity of this study are if the participants do not provide full information in either the questionnaire or the interview or worse, if they provide wrong information by being dishonest with their answers. Such conditions betray the trust of the researcher and the validity of the study. However, it is a risk worth taking if actual views directly coming from the participants themselves are sought. Precautionary measures such as assuring the participants of confidentiality and pledges to be honest should be put in place (Committee, 2009). To ensure the validity and reliability of future qualitative studies, it is highly recommended that the interview and survey questions be tested out on a pilot group before being implemented in the actual study (Ellis, & Levy, 2008). This is to enable the researcher to revise any questionable item. Justification of Research Design and Methods As Bryman (2008) points out, in knowledge construction it is very essential for the social researcher to construct knowledge by understanding of the social world through the eyes of its participants. Thus phenomenology points to an “interest in the nature of human experience and the meaning that people attach to their experiences, with the assumption that the important reality is what people perceive it to be” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009, p. 26). Bryman (2008) summarizes the major common features of qualitative methodology. Firstly, the focus on meanings and understanding the culture of those being studied implies that qualitative researchers, as far as possible, work in natural settings. This suggests a preference for observation and informal interviews, rather than experiments and standardized interviews. Secondly, qualitative research aims to generate theories from the data that emerge. The data is analyzed and interpreted simultaneously with the ongoing process of collecting data. Finally, qualitative research is likely to be concerned with process, rather than outcomes, and attempts to provide a contextual understanding of complex issues and interrelationships (Bryman, 2008). Because the area of focus is exploring the attitudes and views of participants, a qualitative research using a mutimethod approach of semi-structured interviews and survey questionnaires is most appropriate. Multimethod studies are most likely to have higher quality especially in Human Resource research. For example, certain industries or occupations are chosen as the focus of the research, examining its HR policies in relation to a topic of interest such as organizational performance, quality of jobs available or the dissemination of knowledge within the company. As Batt & Banerjee (2012) explained, the approach to be taken in this type of research can be described as problem-focused, theoretically-based. It utilizes a variety of methods which may include observations, survey dissemination and examination of archival data to obtain necessary information. Methods of Data Analysis Frequency counts of responses from each question in the survey questionnaire shall be organized in charts for comparison. Comments added in the questionnaire shall likewise be organized according to themes. Likewise, the information from the transcripts of the focus group interviews shall be organized according to prevailing themes, as determined by independent raters. Analysis of the results shall be done with the backdrop of information derived from available literature. Use of Research Data Results The importance of effective intercultural or cross-cultural communication is increasing now that globalization makes it necessary to reach out to people who are from different cultural backgrounds and ethnicities. Information gained from this research will be helpful in analyzing similar situations in other multicultural settings and plan and design future trainings in effective intercultural communication and customer service which is known to boost sales and profits of a business.  Conclusion Theory and research go hand in hand, but putting them into practice is the challenging part. Researchers should keep in mind that all the hard work they put in will eventually be worth it for it will benefit its stakeholders, should the information gained from their research be used in their field accordingly. References Batt, R., & Banerjee, M. (2012). The scope and trajectory of strategic HR research: Evidence from American and British journals. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(9), 1739–1762. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/09585192.2011.610933 Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chang, H., Chuang, S., & Chao, S. (2011, April). Determinants of cultural adaptation, communication quality, and trust in virtual teams’ performance. Total Quality Management, 22(3), 305–329. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/14783363.2010.532319 Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (U.S.), National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), National Academy of Engineering & Institute of Medicine (U.S.). (2009). On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research. (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12192 Comu, S., Unsal, H., & Taylor, J. (2011, July). Dual impact of cultural and linguistic diversity on project network performance. Journal of Management in Engineering, 27(3). 179-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000052 Congden, S., Matveev, A., & Desplaces, D. (2009). Cross-cultural communication and multicultural team performance: A German and American comparison. Journal of Comparative International Management, 12(2), 73-89. Retrieved from http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/JCIM/article/view/18202 Ellis, T., & Levy, Y. (2008). Framework of problem-based research: A Guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy problem. The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 11, 17-33. Retrieved from http://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol11/ISJv11p017-033Ellis486.pdf Kupka, B., Everett, A., Atkins, S., Mertesacker, M., Walters, L., Walters, T., Graf, A., Hill, L., Dodd, C., & Bolten, J. (2009, September). The intercultural communication motivation scale: An instrument to assess motivational training needs of candidates for international assignments. Human Resource Management, 48(5), 717– 744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20312 Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design. (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Oliveira, M. (2013, July). Multicultural environments and their challenges to crisis communication. International Journal of Business Communication, 50(3), 253-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021943613487070 Semnani-Azad, Z., & Adair, W. (2011, March). The display of dominant nonverbal cues in negotiation: The role of culture and gender. International Negotiation, 16(3), 451–479. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2011109 Read More