Cross-Cultural Communication Theories - Coursework Example

Cross-Cultural Communication Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Introduction Globalization, advancement in technology and the stability of the internet, have made the mobility of individuals across the world easily (Wierzbicka, 2010). This means that people from different backgrounds are interacting in different ways through their daily activities. This has resulted to diversity in most workplaces and therefore the need of cross-cultural communication. Cross cultural communication may be described as the exchange of knowledge and information from people from different cultural backgrounds and thus beliefs, customs and communication strategies (Wierzbicka, 2010). Most countries have seen the needs of understanding the cultural orientation of different countries in terms of communication so as to sign treaties, solve conflicts and conduct business (Guang & Trotter, 2013). Given that there is a need for face to face communication at the diversified workplace, organizations are continuously adapting to cross-cultural communication as a norm. Without proper understanding of the different ways in which different cultures prefer communication, there is a higher likelihood of miscommunication that can lead to conflicts (Wierzbicka, 2010). Hitherto conflicts have been solved based on the understanding of cross-cultural communication and the associated barriers that have been minimized to solve the conflicts. There are certain parameters that determine cross cultural communication including power distance, individualism versus collectivism, self-construal and low and high context (Wierzbicka, 2010). There are burgeoning number of theories that explain cross cultural theories including: face negotiation theory, conversational constraint theory, expectancy violation theory, anxiety or uncertainty management theory and communication theory that have different emphasis on cross cultural communication with different views of their authors (Wierzbicka, 2010). This paper explores cross cultural communication basing its arguments on face negotiation theory and conversational constraint theory and their failure as well, looking into the barriers and how they can be overcome for smooth cross-cultural communication. Theory One: Face Negotiation Theory (FNT) This theory was postulated by Stella Ting Toomey in the year 1985 and tries to illustrate how most communicators from various cultural orientations and backgrounds manage various practices that involve face work (Oezel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). The assumption of the theory is than in an ideal society that is comprised of many cultures there must be conflicts that arises from the social process of human beings and the relationships they have (Oezel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). Therefore, being that conflicts are inevitable, different cultures have come up with ways of handling them yet still maintaining the face of the society (Canelon & Ryan, 2013). The theory thus holds up to the idea of preserving the face according to the culture of the communicator (Oezel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). The face is used metaphorically to represent the identity as well as the persona that the communicator displays in the society that is the public image (Canelon & Ryan, 2013). The factors in negotiating face include the concern over the face of others and that of an individual, the setting of the society where the communicators hail from; either collectivist or individualistic society, and the status of the society that generates power (Oezel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). These factors define how individuals will behave when trying to solve cross-cultural conflicts that engage a lot of communication. The other assumption is that large and small power distances have an influence on horizontal or informal communication. Based on the theory there are various conflict communication styles that can be applied in cross cultural communication (Oezel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). The individualistic societies do believe in domination or controlling when making decisions, compromising the situation so as to come up with solutions and integrating the other party’s stand so as to arrive to a confluence in the conflict. On the other hand, collectivist societies do believe in avoiding the conflict as well as obliging such that they give up during the conflict solution phase (Oezel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). All these behaviors by people from different cultures are geared towards the preservation of the face of their culture (Oezel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). The theory basically champions for the fact that it is only through the realization of differences in culture that aid in solving cross cultural conflicts through effective communication. Theory Two: Communication Accommodation Theory Communication accommodation theory developed by Howard Giles and his colleagues looks at how different communicators accommodate various cultural beliefs and practices in cross cultural communication (Ayoko, Härtel, & Callan, 2002). The theory proposes that people from different cultural backgrounds are able to make adjustments as they are engaging in cross cultural communication. The theory best explains the fact that people will always try to minimize the social distance that exists or is built between them when interacting. It is an evolution of the speech adjustment theory that attaches the value of psychological ideas in understanding the dynamics involved in speech (Ayoko et al., 2002). The interactants who in this case are from different cultural upbringings adjust their communication so as to get the approval of the other party as well as set a positive image that encourages information exchange (Ayoko et al., 2002). There are two accommodation processes involved; convergence and divergence. Convergence refers to the process where the communicators try so hard to adapt to the other communicators’ characteristics so as to reduce the perceived social disparity (Ayoko et al., 2002). Divergence on the other hand explains the process where there is a contradiction on the method of adapting and the individual mostly emphasizes on the social difference as well as the nonverbal cues that are different between the communicators from different backgrounds (Ayoko et al., 2002). The two factors greatly depend on the attributes of the communicators. According to Ayoko et al. (2002), there are four major assumptions in this theory. First off, when communicating there is obviously similarities as well as differences in behavior and speech. These similarities and differences accrues from different cultural backgrounds of the interactants. Secondly, there are norms that guide the process of accommodation. This means that there are various degree of appropriateness of the accommodation process (Ayoko et al., 2002). The norms define the behaviors of the communicators and make them act as the situation demands. Thirdly, the conversation can be evaluated through understanding the speech and behavior of one another. Lastly, the social strata and belonging of an individual is determined by their attribute and language (Ayoko et al., 2002). Therefore, when people communicate they accommodate more frequently to the behaviors that are associated with a higher status than they are. What the Theories Explain and Fail to Explain In a nutshell the face negotiation theory looks at how ones perception of the face or social identity as well as public image is preserved when communication. The theory best describes how communication takes place in an ideal society that is relationship dependent and thus have conflicts. Based on the theory two groups are identified the collectivist culture and the individualistic culture societies (Wierzbicka, 2010). The theory, however has some shortcomings. The theory is based on the different experiences as well as perceptions of collectivist and individualistic cultures. However, the cultural dimension alone may fail to elaborate the cultural differences. For instance, the Japanese communicators are more concerned with self-face rather than the societal face. Additionally, the U.S communicators have the tendency of compromising when faced with conflicts despite being in the so called collectivist society. In sum, this theory is more based to the vintage perceptions and beliefs rather than what is there in the contemporary globalized word. Communication accommodation theory on the other hand explains how people make necessary adjustments to suit the situation when they are communicating across different cultures (Ayoko et al., 2002). The communicators in this case can develop behaviors that reduce the social distance between them and the other party. The main reason for this is to enable the exchange of information despite there being cultural differences that therefore create some idealized barriers (Ayoko et al., 2002). Despite being considered by the few researchers who have actually explored this theory as being sound, it has a number of criticisms as well. Cross-cultural communication process itself is usually complex to break down into various components as dictated by the convergence and divergence points of view (Ayoko et al., 2002). The assumption that either parties are rationally communication does not also sum up as there are situations where anarchy is the order of the day (Ayoko et al., 2002). Therefore, this theory loses stand with regards to conflicts since it fails to address the conflict aspect of communication. Barriers to Effective Cross Cultural Communication sIn multicultural workplaces that most organizations have conformed to, there are barriers that affect effective cross cultural communication (Ochieng & Price, 2010). First off, there is language barrier that is very complex especially when the two do not have a common language they can use to understand each other (Stahl, Maznevski, & Jonsen, 2010). Some languages are so complex that translators find it hard to convey the emotions and concepts as per the communicators’ standpoint. The second barrier is the difference in non-verbal cues that are utilized across various cultures. Some non-verbal cues may mean something on the other culture, leading to miscommunication (Sauter, Eisner, & Scott, 2010). For example, in America, when giving direction one can comfortably use their fingers to point that direction, whereas gesturing in the Japanese culture and is considered a rude gesture (Sauter et al., 2010). The Japanese culture allows one to use an open palm (Ochieng & Price, 2010). Extensive eye contact especially between a man and woman is prohibited in Asian and Middle East countries but is appreciated in the American culture (Sauter et al., 2010). The other barrier is hostile stereotypes that can lead to misjudgment of an individual leading to lack of effective communication (Stahl et al., 2010). Fourth, there is also behavioral differences when communicating in different cultures. Some cultures suggest that people talking to each other must have space whereas some believe that there has to be some close distance. Additionally, as aforementioned some cultures take the stand that direct eye contact is a rude move (Stahl et al., 2010). The fifth barrier is the emotional display of the communicator. An appropriate display of emotions in one culture may breach the understanding held by people from the other culture. Some cultures restrict the display of emotions while others allow the display of emotions when communicating. Failure to adhere to the displays could lead to misunderstandings and at times conflicts (Ochieng & Price, 2010). The power distance also defines how individuals cross culture will communicate. For instance, the Americans utilize low power distance and have more informal compartments allowing interactions whereas others like china that have high power distance conform to the formal communication and nothing else. Some people also believe that it is their culture alone that is superior. How to Overcome the Barriers to Cross Cultural Communication Organizations faced with the challenge of cross-cultural communication barriers must eliminate the barriers for effective communication (Stahl et al., 2010). First off, such organizations should encourage intercultural competence within the set-up of their organizations so as to overcome the associated cross-cultural communication (Ochieng & Price, 2010). The process involves a conglomerate of activities that happen grounded on a common code of communication. Through the activities the individuals are able to be culturally aware, sensitive and adroit (Ochieng & Price, 2010). Resultantly, the individuals are able to appreciate the culture of each other and the differences as well when communicating. The other step would be holding workshops so as to equip individuals with techniques and tips for communication effectively as well as adapting to different cross cultural communication processes (Ochieng & Price, 2010). The other move may be giving opportunity for the employees to respond to conflicts from a diversified approach through coaching and training in communication skills (Ochieng & Price, 2010). The communicators should avoid the use of jargon when communicating with others from others who have a different perception on the same based on their cultural backgrounds (Ochieng & Price, 2010). Still in the organizational context, the management should arrange for meetings where the employees are explained for how dependent each employee is on their language. It is from this point that the organization may try to iron out the differences (Ochieng & Price, 2010). One way of doing away with language barrier is coining one business language that is easy to learn and lacks a lot of complex non-verbal cues. Barriers Faced by Global Companies in Cross Cultural Communication Burgeoning literature have emphasized on the link between international communication management and cross-cultural communication especially for the managements of multinational organizations (Wierzbicka, 2010). The barriers that is mostly experienced by the global companies is language barrier that has made most of them fail to expand as they should. The language barrier stems from difference in nationality and thus values and cultural beliefs. Additionally, the difference in non-verbal cues has also been an issue especially for western origin organizations (Okoro, 2013). This difference in emotional display that is expressed through the non-verbal cues has made it difficult for such organizations to favorably adapt to the business environments and thus limiting their chances of making profits (Guang & Trotter, 2013). Communication systems also differ from one nation to the next (Okoro, 2013). The expectations of individuals are also determined by the cultural background they hail from. A good example of such organization that is facing a barrier to cross-cultural communication is Wal-Mart; the worlds renowned retailer. When expanding to Germany there were hitches between the staff and the customers (Okoro, 2013). Wal-Mart therefore learned its lesson the harder way once it rolled its operations in Germany. The store clerks leveled some resistance on the organization’s culture of putting a mile for the customers. This is because most of the customers misinterpreted and misunderstood this viewing it as a form of philandering (Guang & Trotter, 2013). This clearly indicates that the barriers to communication can affect the business relationships if not well addressed (Okoro, 2013). Okoro (2013) opines that one form of non-verbal cue may mean business etiquette in one culture and insult on the other. Wal-Mart had to restructure its American based culture long after it was nearly losing track in Germany. My Insights on the Barriers on Cross-Cultural communication in International Business Based on my analysis of barriers to effective cross-cultural communication I strongly do believe that the international business faces the same. This is because there has been globalization of businesses and thus the need to expand in other countries. Such businesses as global companies are often faced with the challenge of embracing diversity due to language barriers (Huang, 2010). The process of sourcing for employees in the other countries may be difficult as is the process of training and orienting them in the organizational culture. The difficulty also comes when conducting promotion of products by a company (Huang, 2010). If the advertisements and other forms of promotion bear within themselves messages and images as well as gestures that are rendered inappropriate by the culture, potential customers may be lost. Convincing such customers may be very difficult given the fact that their culture has already shaped their perceptions and beliefs (Ochieng & Price, 2010). The barriers also influence consumer behavior such as purchase of products. A good example is where gifts are given to attract more consumers. In some cultures, the act of gift giving to lure customers may be considered unethical. This affects the market share of companies in international business. In some cultures such as Japan the act of gift giving is encouraged (Ochieng & Price, 2010). I can also clearly see that the international business has a longer way to go in terms of cross cultural communication. The first step is obviously breaking the barriers to cross cultural communication. While this is very easy on paper, practically it is costly and time consuming (Huang, 2010). Therefore, international businesses should involve the cultural differences when laying down strategies as well as making decisions. Conclusion Cross cultural communication is one of the essentialities in the globalized contemporary world. Most organizations are encouraging diversity and therefore attracting individuals from various cultural backgrounds. There are many cross-cultural communication theories. However, the two discussed in this paper are face negotiation and communication accommodation theories. The two theories each have different views on how this form of communication transpires. There are very many barriers to cross cultural communication. However, the ones discussed in the paper include language barrier, difference in non-verbal cues, power distance and emotional display. In similar way, there are different methods or ways that can be used to overcome this barriers and institute effective cross-cultural communication. Most important to note is that there are also implications of these barriers to international communication and that the global companies also experience the same barriers. The model company used to show this is Wal-Mart that faced barriers when expanding into the German market. References Ayoko, O. B., Härtel, C. E., & Callan, V. J. (2002). Resolving the puzzle of productive and destructive conflict in culturally heterogeneous work groups: A communication accommodation theory approach. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(2), 165-195. Canelon, J., & Ryan, T. (2013). Face, work, Gender, and Online Discussion: A Negotiation Perspective. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 2(1), 110-124. Guang, T., & Trotter, D. (2013). Key Issues in Cross Cultural Business Communication: Anthropological Approaches to International Business. African Journal of Business Management, 6(22), 6456-6464. Huang, L. (2010). Cross-cultural Communication in Business Negotiations. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 2(2), 196-199. Ochieng, E. G., & Price, A. D. (2010). Managing cross-cultural communication in multicultural construction project teams: The case of Kenya and UK. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 449-460. Oezel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face Concerns in Interpersonal Conflict: A Cross-Cultural Empirical Test of the Face Negotiation Theory. Communication Research, 30(6), 599-624. Okoro, E. (2013). International Organizations and Operations: An Analysis of Cross-Cultural Communication Effectiveness and Management Orientation. Journal of Business & Management, COES&RJ-JBM, 1(1), 1-13. Sauter, D. A., Eisner, F., & Scott, S. K. (2010). Cross-cultural recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(6), 2408-2412. Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., & 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(4), 690-709. Wierzbicka, A. (2010). Cross-cultural communication and miscommunication: The role of cultural keyword. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(1), 1-23. Read More