The High and Low Context Cultural Attributes - Case Study Example

Cross Cultural Management Introduction Workplaces are becoming increasingly diversified and varied in their composition due to globalization. In the face of such challenge, it is suitable to understand the different cultural dimensions that may shape behavior and communication patterns of the diversified workforce. Hall (1976) studied how anthropological differences between cultures impacted the way people communicated in different contexts. Cultural values were pivotal in determining how people interpret and create messages in varying contexts. This behavior was observed to be linked with people’s connection with cultural groups which impacted their relationship and influenced their communication patterns. In identifying how cultural experiences affect the responsiveness of people in different contexts, he categorized the two classifications of cultures including high context cultures and low context cultures. High context cultures are those that rely on environmental contexts in creating and interpreting messages. So, members of such cultural groups have an ability to understand and interpret subtle communicational messages cued from their non-verbal signals and body language. High context messages are, therefore, those which have most of the information derived from the communicator than in his or her explicit coded messages. Expressions and facial signals are important determinants of the communicator’s message. In such cultures, the context or the cultural environment plays an important role in the comprehension of any information or message. Low context cultures are those where the context is not significant in communicating the message and the larger part of the message is expressed overtly in order to emphasize on the message. In such cultures, the indirect information or the context is often overlooked and messages that need to be conveyed are expressed directly. The majority of the message is hence coded in explicit terms rather than other expressional cues. Where non-verbal signaling is sufficient, interpretations is made on the basis of facial expressions. High and Low Context Cultures: Differences In order to utilize cultural diversity as an opportunity for greater organizational performance, it is important to understand their differences. The main difference between the two classifications of cultural groups is their responsiveness to their environmental contexts. While high context cultures derive greater meaning to messages based on their environmental signals low context cultures rely fairly less on environmental hints but more on the explicitly coded messages. Non verbal signals, facial expressions, and body language plays a vital role in the interpretation and creation of messages in high context cultures as they seem to derive meaning out of the gestures. However, low context cultures may not rely much on the environment when interpreting messages. In high context cultures, the relationship is long lasting and individuals feel greatly involved in the cultural group. If the relationship is positive, this can lead to greater efficiency and productivity within the individual as tasks are completed in teams. However, on the downside, negative relationships may hurt performance. Generally, communication in high context cultures is smooth and efficient as they utilize the environmental context. Moreover, leader-subordinate relationships are reciprocated with loyalty and accountability where the leader is responsible for the actions of his or her subordinate. In low context cultures, individual relationships are short and not as deep as those in high context relationships. The authority in such cultures is dispersed along the bureaucratic hierarchy and unlike, high context cultures, the authority is not held personally responsible for their subordinates. However, such cultures also distinguish less between insiders and foreign workers so workers from diverse backgrounds may adjust easily to the environment. Agreements and other formal documents are usually written in order to make it binding and once they are written, they are non-negotiable. High Context Countries: An Analysis Arab: The Arabs belong to a high context culture where many things are observed without them having to be explicit. This is true when workers have done a good job at a project but not emphasize their efforts because they know it will be recognized. This quality of self-effacement is prevalent among Arabs but not general as they may want to bring their accomplishments into notice (Ting-Toomey 2012, p. 108). Arabs rely on non-verbal signals heavily and these are mostly related to “identity, emotional expression, conversational management, impression formation, and boundary regulation functions,” indicating their high context features (Ting-Toomey 2012, p. 141). Chinese: The Chinese also belong to a high context culture where implicit signals play a significant role. The Chinese culture has also been identified as a collectivist culture according to Hostede’s (2001) model. This shows the tendency of Chinese workers to value relationships. Their tendency of employing implicit signaling has been well observed which affirms their high context culture (Ting-Toomey 2012, p. 104). The covert understanding between the communicators is important in social interactions occurring in high context countries visible in the Chinese culture. The Chinese also involve themselves in multi-layer relationship with others reflecting a high context culture. Low Context Countries: An Analysis British: The British culture is essentially low context and this reflected by their workplace behavior and communication styles. While the British do have a great sense of equality nevertheless the authority is considered to be powerful to influence decisions and the workers defer to seniority (van der Meer 2013). Although the leader-subordinate relationship in British workplaces is quite informal however the hierarchy is highly differentiated (van der Meer 2013). Written and explicit documentations have gained popularity and have become the need of the time. However unlike common low context features, the British do respect rules and procedures that are implicit and understood. This demonstrates that while policies are written down, implicit rules are also recognized. Thus, the British style of communication is indirect and covert as characterized by low context cultures. German: Most low context cultures are also the ones that have been identified as individualistic cultures in nature. This fact symbolizes a tendency to value individual work and greater autonomy. The German culture is unexpressive in terms of their communication signals (Ting-Toomey 2012, p. 123). This demonstrates a tendency not to rely on contextual cues. A study based on questions asking about their control over their doing showed that 82% of Germans took responsibility for their actions (Ting-Toomey 2012, p. 61). This shows their tendency to take responsibility for their actions rather than having a manager take responsibility of their actions. Corporate Examples of Business Communication High Context Cultures Arabs: The Arabs have a corporate culture influenced from their high context cultures where many messages are implicitly understood without any explicit messages. In examining the corporate website of Etisalat, a telecommunication company from the United Arab Emirates displayed less information regarding their formal documentations apart from an annual Corporate Social Responsibility Report (Etisalat, 2014). This demonstrates the importance of subtle and implicit messages which are understood by default without the need to have explicitly stated documents. The company shows a hierarchal structure with senior executives, regional officers and strategists. The presence of senior officers from different cultures reflects the diverse workforce of Etisalat in terms of composition. Work relationships are also deep and go beyond the usual corporate environment again showing the cultural influence of high context societies. The workforce of Etisalat in itself is quite diverse employing varied employees in their management and workforce. It can be assumed that the higher ups do take responsibility of the actions of subordinates and are responsive to implicit cues showing features of low context communication style. Chinese: The Chinese workplace and corporate culture shows a distinct pattern in communication style. The Chinese communication style contains messages that can be understood with respect to the context. The communication patterns and behavior of Chinese people are influenced by their cultural and etiquette values that promote humbleness, politeness, and consideration (Fang and Faure 2010, p. 3). These principles guide their behavior in everyday lives including the workplace. In particular, the communication pattern for insiders and outsiders is different and the state of relationship is important in determining the nature of communication. The Chinese also associate certain attributes which entitles them to listen. Age, experience, seniority, and expertise, to name a few enable a person to speak while other have to listen. Thus, the culture encourages more listening than speaking. However, low context cultures may encourage more expression of self than the Chinese culture. Low Context Cultures British: To analyze the British communication style as impacted by the culture, I chose to assess the corporate website of Unilever UK. Its purpose and principles maintains the importance of team work and working with other realizing the need to build good relationship with all their stakeholders. Its purpose statement shows how they respect their partners including all workers, suppliers, and other people involved. Its global expansion around the world also shows the assimilation of local corporate cultures showing their openness to insider and foreign workers thereby encouraging workplace diversity. This indicates an important aspect of a high context culture which does not distinguish between insiders and foreigners. And therefore, they are more likely to welcome a varied workforce, which is true with Unilever UK. From the company structure of Unilever UK, it is evident that power is distributed across corporate officers and executive officers representing bureaucratic hierarchy typical of low context cultures. Further features of low context cultures are evident in the company’s communication style which emphasizes good relationship and communication with their employees (“The Governance of Unilever” 2010). Serious decisions are taken by the board and seldom do higher ups take responsibility taken for subordinates. While the Unilever UK communication and structure is not entirely low context, it does represent some features typical of a low context culture. German: Unlike a totally low context culture, the corporate culture of the German car manufacturer Volkswagen shows, the management encourages a deep relationship with their employees. They promote the active involvement by the employees so that genuine feedback by the employees anonymously reaches the higher management for effective decision making (Volkswagen, 2014). A great emphasis is made on the employees of Volkswagen in order to stimulate new ideas and innovations. Volkswagen also has documented principle statements and other policies showing the explicit declaration of polices for it to be followed by the employees. And the system essentially runs on an explicit and direct communication style where the initiation and development of projects follow an official go-ahead. Also, there is explicitly stated policy and procedures and all employees must comply with these written rules. Higher managers and bosses may not be personally responsible for their subordinates’ actions as person represents himself or herself. However, this notion varies with company to company. Conclusion As diversity is becoming increasingly ubiquitous in the workplace, the global challenge calls for a recognition of the various different cultures that shape communication and behavior. Following globalization and internationalization, various companies have expanded overseas in order to set up a multinational company. This requires an understanding of the various cultures and how their values are ingrained in behavior and transmission of messages. Hofstede’s framework of culture had already defined two classifications of collectivism and individualism. Collectivist cultures are those that value relationship over personal independence and may work well n teams. Individualist cultures are those that prefer personal independence and the satisfaction of personal needs. However, Hall’s (1976) has classified cultures based on their responsiveness to the surrounding context. Cultures that rely more on the hidden cues generated by the environment or the communicator are categorized as high context cultures. Cultures that rely less on implicit cues but more on direct messages are said to be low context cultures. While high context cultures have deeper and long lasting relationships, low context cultures have greater flexibility in terms of cultural acceptance and trends. Few of the cultures identified in this paper do reflect the high and low context cultural attributes however it is also a recognizable fact that no culture is entirely high context or low context in terms of communication. For instance, in the fast paced age today, written documentations have become a need of the workplace even though it is characterized by low context cultures where there is a great sense of explicitness. Bibliography Etisalat. 2014. Etisalat: Company Profile. [online] Available at: http://www.etisalat.com/en/about/profile/company-profile.jsp [Accessed: 7 Feb 2014]. Fang, T. and Faure, G.O. 2010. Chinese Communication Characteristics: AYinYang perspective. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Hall, E.T.1976. Beyond culture. NewYork: Doubleday. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. The Governance of Unilever. 2010. [e-book] Unilever. http://unilever.com/images/ir20100428TheGovernanceofUnilever200510tcm13216301.pdf [Accessed: 7 Feb 2014]. Ting-Toomey, S. 2012. Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Press. Van Der Meer, M. 2013. Navigating British Culture: How the British Conduct Business. [online] Available at: http://www.iorworld.com/navigating-british-culture--how-the-british-conduct-business-pages-230.php [Accessed: 7 Feb 2014]. Volkswagen Group. 2014. Volkswagen Group Basic Principles. [online] Available at: http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/content/en/human_resources/basic_principles.html [Accessed: 7 Feb 2014]. Read More