Cross-Cultural Communication, Hofstede Culture Dimension Theory - Essay Example

Cross-Cultural Communication Name Institution Cross-Cultural Communication Introduction Cross-cultural communication is very relevant in this age of globalization and internationalization (Vashishta and Balaji, 2013). Cultural factors often act as barriers to effective operation of multinational corporations. Many challenges result when people from different races, cultures and values come together in a work setting. Communicating across cultures is considered a difficult task. Effective communication result from an individual understanding the meaning of what another individual is saying (Kapoor et al., 2003). To many people, cross-cultural communication can be seen elusive. Cross-cultural communication can be termed as interpersonal communication between people belonging to different cultures. People from different cultures regularly communicate in a manner that brings misunderstanding and conflict (Kapoor et al., 2003). Effective cross-cultural communication entails overcoming cultural differences when interacting with people who have different beliefs, values or ideologies (Vashishta and Balaji, 2013). Working in multicultural team may bring about many issues such as disagreements and conflicts that can affect the performance of an organisation. In order to ensure effective cross-cultural communication, companies should identify the barriers involved and come up with methods to overcome these barriers (Vashishta and Balaji, 2013). Cross-cultural barriers are brought about by scant cultural knowledge as well as lack of cross-cultural communication skills. This paper will highlight two theories of cross-cultural communication that can shed light the issue and the barriers to effective cross-cultural communication. In addition, it will detail out ways to overcome these barriers and will offer a global location where this barrier is relevant. It will also offer the implications for cross-cultural communication. Hofstede Culture Dimension Theory According to Hofstede, there are five culture dimensions that can explain the differences between national cultures; power distance, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, collectivist versus individualism, and long term and short term orientation (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). The first dimension is power distance which highlights the extent to which cultures and societies accept that power is unevenly distributed in the community. High power distance cultures accept inequality of power. These cultures believe that hierarchy should be respected since people are not equal. Uncertainty avoidance highlights the extent to which a given culture feels vulnerable to uncertain and unfamiliar situations and tries to avoid these situations by enforcing formal rules and beliefs (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). Cultures can be classified as either masculine or feminine. The masculine cultures show a dominance of tough norms and values like assertiveness, achievement and material success (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). Masculine cultures respect social gender roles as men are expected to be assertive and tough while women are expected to be modest and tender. Feminine cultures show a dominance of tender values like care for others and personal relationships. Individualism culture represents a society that does not value cohesion and togetherness (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). Everybody is expected to depend on him/herself for everything. On the other hand, collectivist cultures value cohesion and loyalty to a group rather than individuals. The next category is long-term versus short-term orientation. A society with long-term orientation searches for virtue while short-term orientation society has a strong concern based on establishing the truth (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). High and Low Context Culture Theory High context culture is different from low context culture and people from these cultures differ in behaviours. Examples of countries with high context culture include India, China and Brazil (Richardson and Smith, 2007). High context cultures are found in societies that value relationships and group unity. Change process is slow and people learn by observing others before practicing. People from this culture prefer to use non-verbal communication compared to verbal communication since they are very sensitive to conflict. Communication style in general is influenced by structured social hierarchy and closeness of relationships (Richardson and Smith, 2007). Internal meaning is often embedded deep in the information. In high context culture, the listeners are expected to understand the unsaid as very little is coded (Richardson and Smith, 2007). People tend to speak in a linear manner in order to avoid interrupting the speakers. In the low context culture, relationships are not valued as they believe in one’s accomplishment. Change take place fast and they learn by following directions and explanations. Examples of countries with low culture context include Germany, France and Britain (Richardson and Smith, 2007). In the low culture context, people express themselves through verbal communication. People often expect explanation to complex information. Low context culture emphasizes on direct and linear communication and is based on open feelings. People from different culture context tend to have difficulty when communicating due to their different communication styles (Richardson and Smith, 2007). Moving employees from high-context culture to low context culture will bring about communication challenges due to cultural differences. What theories explain and what they fail to explain In a business context, communication is considered one of the most important elements of enhanced performance (Miroshnik, 2002). People who work internationally are faced with cross-cultural communication issues. Cross-cultural communication needs an individual to be aware of cultural differences since what may be natural in one nation may be confusing to another (Miroshnik, 2002). Communication among people is influenced by cultural dimensions such as verbal, non-verbal, and etiquette. Hall’s low and high context culture has explained how different cultures differ in communication preferences. This is why the theory has been proved valid in transcultural studies (Richardson and Smith, 2007). However, the theory has failed to characterise all the countries into low or high culture context such as Finland and India. Hofstede dimensions are used as guidelines for understanding cross-cultural communication (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). Hofstede sheds light on cultural differences that exist in different countries. The theory has made some cross-regional comparisons that allow us to form images of differences between countries. It has described the effects of culture on values and behaviours of people that may affect communication. Nevertheless, it only offers an approximate understanding of cultural differences between countries. Hofstede dimensions are used as guidelines for understanding cross-cultural communication (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). Although Hofstede culture dimension is accepted as a model for explaining national cultures, its validity has been criticized extensively. Managing international companies requires an understanding of national and organisation cultures. Dimensions of national cultures explained by Hofstede are not relevant for explaining communication in organisations within the same country (Sivakumar and Nakata, 2001). Barriers to Effective Cross-Cultural Communication Misunderstanding is considered to be one of the chief barriers to communication especially in an environment that is multicultural (Kapoor et al., 2003). It takes place among individuals who come from various backgrounds with varying values as well as beliefs. These variations leads to high degrees of unease as well as doubt lead to misunderstanding which extends through their entire tenure. In addition, norms are rules that determine the satisfactory and proper behaviour based on culture (Kapoor et al., 2003). Individuals make rules that suit themselves and also anticipate others to follow suit. Therefore, every individual culture has their own set of norms which they find acceptable. Hence, in a multicultural environment, individuals often fail to realize the cultural norms of other cultures. In specific cultures, various responsibilities are assigned to both women and men, which vary from culture to culture and therefore within a team many cultures, an individual can easily pin point violation of the roles (Kapoor et al., 2003). Moreover, insufficient information about individuals results to unintelligent alternatives with regard to cross cultural communication (Vashishta and Balaji, 2013). Cultural stereotypes overexert the perception individuals have on other cultures which eventually results to improved progress. Stereotypes come about due to lack of knowledge of the groups which are major reasons for difference in opinions (Vashishta and Balaji, 2013). Furthermore, thinking about ones culture as a reference to other cultures is a barrier to cultural communication because individuals make one think that their culture is distinctive above others. This raises the degrees of anxiety eventually leading to miscommunication. Overcoming Barriers to Cross-Cultural Communication Competence in cross cultural communication allows an institution to attain their goals and objectives with regard to the norms, beliefs as well as the values of the individuals being impacted by its functions (Vashishta and Balaji, 2013). Therefore, an organisation ought to come up with a cross cultural competence which can be effectively utilised to get rid of cross cultural communication barriers as the ones aforementioned. Cross cultural competence is considered as the capability of an organization to take part in various activities that are related to communication and is mostly helped by knowledge. Hence, cross cultural communication can be effectively be improved through effective knowledge training (Vashishta and Balaji, 2013). Effective knowledge training involves the realization as well as admittance of cultures amongst employees within an organization. Therefore, employees require to be given a fundamental cross culture training which will increase their awareness on areas that involve a number of cultures within the workplace. With these cultural training programs, employees can be able to gain knowledge in areas such as values, beliefs as well as the perspectives of other cultures other than their own (Vashishta and Balaji, 2013). In addition, language training is another method of enhancing cross cultural communication. Firstly, language is is chief barrier in communication within a workplace (Vashishta and Balaji, 2013). Therefore, introducing a language training program to individuals who have a higher chance of approaching individuals from other languages can be very important particularly for employees who encounter foreign counterparts (Vashishta and Balaji, 2013). Also, enforcement of mutual benefit policies is another method of improving cross cultural communication since employees who get similar employee benefits despite of their cultural backgrounds may be faced with a win-win circumstance which is fair to every one of them encouraging cross cultural communication. Barriers Faced by Global Companies The existence of culture characterizes people and distinguishes people from different countries (Pryor, Butler and Boehringer, 2005). It integrates how a group of people live and behave towards each other. When individuals join a business organisation, all their values and beliefs tag along. International companies face cultural difficulties due to operating in different countries with different cultures. When global companies send expatriates to other countries, they are often faced with cultural shock. As expatriate managers encounter different cultural concepts found across the world, there is always a tendency to be overwhelmed by the available differences (Pryor, Butler and Boehringer, 2005). One company that has been affected by cross-cultural differences is Enron Company (Pryor, Butler and Boehringer, 2005). In 1992, the company announced a $3 billion project for the construction of natural-gas power plant in India. However, it lost the contract since the local authorities and representatives thought that the company was pushing negotiation really fast. From this case, it is clear that cultural differences influence international negotiation (Pryor, Butler and Boehringer, 2005). For one country’s perspective, time is money and negotiations deals need to take a short time while in others the slower the negotiation the better. Culture affects how people from different country think, communicate and behave (Pryor, Butler and Boehringer, 2005). Differences in culture between India local authorities and Enron created a barrier that impeded the negotiation process. Enron main company is based in the United States. United States is considered a low context culture. People prefer to use direct and linear communication and are not afraid of expressing their feelings. Relationships are not valued and people endeavour to accomplish personal goals (Westney and Zaheer, 2003). However, India is a high context culture which has a different communication style from USA. Therefore, as a result of different communication and negotiation styles, it was difficult for Enron to close the deal. Implications for Cross-Cultural Communication Cross cultural communication brings about a better understanding of cultural diversity due to the interaction of different individuals who come from different cultural backgrounds (Pryor, Butler and Boehringer, 2005). In such cases, effective communication strategies start with a proper realization of both the sender as well as the receiver of a particular message. This brings about a certain measure of uncertainty which makes communication complicated. Therefore, having proper cross cultural communication gives individuals a basic understanding of cultural diversity which is fundamental to effective communication (Richardson and Smith, 2007). Furthermore, effective cross cultural communication brings about an increased awareness of individual cultures. Basic learning of different cultures is very significant since it applies when taking part in appropriate greetings as well as physical contact (Richardson and Smith, 2007). For instance, a firm and strong hand shake in the United States is considered widely accepted whereas it is not recognized in other cultures. Therefore, with an effective cross cultural communication, it creates a sense of awareness towards individuals from different backgrounds. In addition, cross cultural communication helps people be able to translate different languages especially in a business function (Richardson and Smith, 2007). Since English isn’t the first language of everyone, cross cultural communication has helped numerous individuals identify the differences in both culture as well as communication thus ascertaining that every party irrespective of their geographic positioning, assemble through successful project completion (Richardson and Smith, 2007). Conclusion Cross-cultural communication has been brought about by globalization and internationalization. People from different cultures tend to communicate in different ways which may lead to misunderstanding and conflict. Cross-cultural communication is described as an interpersonal communication between people belonging to different cultures. Companies with multicultural teams suffer a lot from ineffective cross-cultural communication which may affect their performance. Cross-cultural barriers come as a result of scant cultural knowledge as well as lack of cross-cultural communication skills. According to Hofstede theory, national culture can be described using five cultural dimensions. The theory has compared cultures of different countries to determine how different people in different cultures behave and interact. Hall’s theory of high and low context culture has illustrated that cultural differences are linked different communication cultures. Communication style between low context culture and high context culture differ immensely. The barriers to effective cross-cultural communication include stereotyping, rules and norms, misunderstanding and different beliefs and values between people etc. In order to overcome these barriers it is important to train employees about different cultures. In addition, language training is important to ensure that different people can understand each other while communicating. In addition, organisations should enforce benefit policy for all cultures to avoid discrimination. References Kapoor, S., Hughes, P., Baldwin, J. R. & Blue, J. (2003). The relationship of individualism- collectivism in India and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(6): 683–700. Miroshnik, V. (2002): „Culture and international management: a review”, Journal of Management Development, 21(7): 521-544. Pryor, B., Butler, J. & Boehringer, K. (2005). Communication apprehension and cultural context: A comparison of communication apprehension in Japanese and American students. North American Journal of Psychology, 7(2): 247–252. Richardson, R. M. & 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. Sivakumar, K. & Nakata, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstede's framework: avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Journal of international business studies, 32(3): 555-574. Vashishta, D and Balaji, B. (2013). Cross Cultural Study of Customer Satisfaction with Self Service Technology in Retail Settings of India and Indonesia. International Journal of Management, 4(5): 139 – 152 Westney, D.E. & Zaheer, S. (2003). The Multinational Enterprise as an Organization,w: Rugman, A.M., Brewer T.L. (red.), The Oxford Handbook of International Business. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 349–350. Read More