Cross-Cultural Management Communication - Literature review Example

CROSS-CULTURAL MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION [Name] [Institutional Affiliation] [Date] Introduction Culture defines one’s identity. The idea of culture influences how people of the world use language (Senft et al. 2009). People from different parts of the world can easily communicate if they know a common language. However, cultural differences inherent in human beings from diverse parts of the world can provoke misunderstandings among them. Communication is assumed to have taken place if the receiver of the message decodes the intended meaning (Lee and Brosziewski 2009).The message is often encoded in symbols, signs or language so as to b relayed to the receiver. Cultural traits present in an individual influence the choice of symbols, signs and language as well as the media of communication. Thus, despite the fact that a speaker and a listener share a common channel there is possibility of misunderstanding owing to cultural differences. In order to understand the cultural differences among people, various scholars have come up with theories and frameworks to explain such differences. In his framework, Hall (1976) identifies two distinct cultures-High-Context and Low-context Cultures. Hall (1975) gives a lot of emphasis on the context of communication in defining his cultural groups. According to Hall (1990), a context is the total sum of information that an event is surrounded with. He claims that cultures of the world can be described based on their level of context. The purpose of this essay is to examine the usefulness of Hall's high context/low context framework in explaining the differences in communication and negotiation practices between countries. The essay begins by explaining the features characteristic of Hall’s high context/low context cultures. Then, the essay attempts to relate the features discussed to the differences in communication and negotiations between countries. The essay finally explores an additional framework in an attempt to unearth the differences in communication among different cultures. Hall's High Context/Low Context Framework Communication is commonly referred to as way of exchanging meaning between a sender and a receiver (Lee and Brosziewski 2009). The manner of expressing oneself in a unique pattern of communication that can be classified as typical of a given culture or sub-culture like “Chinese” or “French” is called a communication style. There is a close connection between culture and language. Culture is the whole way of life of a given people, including language. Language is primarily the means through which culture is expressed, transmitted, and etched in our memories. Hall (1976), being cognizant, of the strong influence of language on culture came up with two categories of culture; high context and low context cultures. He vested his interest in helping people understand both cultural issues and communication styles that are peculiar with each context. Some of the cultural issues referred to by Hall (1976) include some factors in the society like religion, traditions and status of the country. Hofstede (2008) added his individualism vs. collectivism dimension to the cultural issues identified by Hall. Every culture has a tendency to use high context messages in place of low-context messages in normal daily communication (Peterson and Søndergaard 2008). The choice between high context and low-context messages dictate how the various speakers infer meaning of what is being said by inference is influenced by context. In High-context culture, the meaning of what is being said is interpreted in terms of the individual’s sum of values, norms, and beliefs. Inference plays a great role if the receiver is to decipher what the speakers is saying (Gurova 2012).The coded message including its structure and syntactic form may not necessarily correlate with the intended meaning. This feature of high context language is opposed to the low culture context where the explicit codes tell the meaning. In this culture, there is need to spell out what is supposed to be said in a detailed manner. There is no reference to cultural beliefs, values, norms, and traditions (Hall 1976). Features of High-Context Culture The key features of people in high-context cultures are collectivism, intuitiveness and rationalism (Hall 1976).This culture is peculiar among people from the Middle East, South America, and Asia. In high-context cultures people lay emphasis on interpersonal relationship. The primary purpose of language is to enhance social interaction. People, especially from China, tend to trust people from their own families in a business set. Outsiders are viewed as intruders and not often trusted. The Chinese often fear that members from other cultures or families will reveal the company’s secrets or that they might not stick for long in the position as they may wish to start their own business based on the ideas they have gathered from them(LU 2004). On the other hand, communication uses the indirect approach. As explained earlier the meaning of a message not merely embedded in the syntactic structures but on the cultural background of the speaker. The other thing to note is that rules in this culture are situational. The Chinese for instance, believe there is no single rule that can be applied in all situations. The nature of the situation is what dictates the rules to be applied. This is considered a rather pragmatic approach where whatever works (rule) in a given circumstance is what is applied.   Features Low-context Culture Low-culture context differs from the high culture context in a number of ways. People from Western Europe and North America are individualistic, action-oriented, and logical. In communication they tend to use a direct approach of communication. Therefore, there is a great emphasis on proper use of syntactic elements, lexical terms and other language elements in order to communicate. The context, as opposed to high-context culture plays an insignificant role in communication. If there is anything to be said it is said in a clear manner without any assumption that the listener will deduce the meaning by relying on the context. Next, rules are key in the social interactions. Rules are regarded as the “the rule of law.”Americans for instance, are sticklers of rules and they perceive them as the guiding principle in life. There are a wide range of rules that spell out how the communicative processes social interactions, management of businesses and enterprises and all other aspects of life in the society. The other important feature to note is the process of decision making. Facts, as opposed to intuition, are the basis upon which decisions are made (Cruz 2001). Differences in Communication and Negotiation Practices between Countries The first part of the essay has examined critically features of the both high-culture and low-culture. This section attempts to analyze the influence the two cultures in both communication and negotiation process and the differences that emerge. As discussed earlier, in HC Culture places a lot of significance on the communication context. Communication does not take place in a vacuum but in a context. The context is not meant for aesthetic value but a field from which inference and assumptions can be made. This aspect influences both communication and negotiations. They tend to talk less since the listener is expected to deduce the meaning of what is being said. The choice and use of syntactic and lexical elements is limited as opposed to the Low-context culture. Another thing is that presuppositions are a predominant feature of communication in this cadre. Presuppositions are the elements that both the speaker and the listener assumes in the conversation but whose knowledge aids in understanding meaning (Cruz 2001). This, however, does not imply that communication in the LC culture takes place in a vacuum. Any communication takes place in either a physical or situational context. Depending on the context, diverse form of the same language is used. For instance, a conversation between two doctors in theatre assumes register rich in medical terms and expressions. The same doctors speaking in a different situational context like at home will use a very different register (Cruz 2001). In LC culture, there are presuppositions and assumptions, but the major distinction with HC culture is the level of clarity and explicitness that characterizes the conversations in LC culture. A person from America speaking or negotiating with one from Chinese should thus be keen on a few things. Firstly, the speaker should use as less words as possible. Secondly, bear in mind that the context of communication can influence decoding of the message. The context should thus not be taken for granted. Hall (1976) in his theory noted that communication in high-context culture entails information that is embedded in either the physical context or internal knowledge of the speaker. Therefore, an American speaker should not take for granted the physical set-up of the negotiation and knowledge of the listener. Negotiations between the two parties should take place in a well-thought out physical set-up. Moreover, the speaker should take into consideration the much about the topic that the speaker knows. Communication between a speaker from a HC culture and a listener from LC culture can be a challenge for a number of factors. In LC culture, the background information and context are not taken into consideration. Thus; the listener expects a direct approach to communication that is devoid of any serious assumptions, presuppositions, and implied meanings. Negotiations between the two parties can be unintelligible if the speaker insists on an indirect way of communication. Understanding of such differences is imperative as helps one know what communication approach to use in the diverse contexts. In conversation, people use non-verbal cues to communicate (Burgoon et al. 1996). With regard to the two cultures, there are differences that emerge in respect to the use of non-verbal communication. In HC culture, there is rampant use of gestures, facial expressions by both the speaker (while speaking) and the listener (while decoding the message) (Cruz 2001). HC culture places significance on other aspects like vocalization and vocal qualifiers (volume, pitch, intonation and timbre-attitude and sentiment).Thus, it is possible to tell the outcome of a given negotiation process from the attitude, intonation, volume and pitch. To some extent, in LC culture people use gestures and other non-verbal ways of communication but these do not play centre stage. Emphasis is laid on the words used to communicate and not paralanguage or other aspects of communication apart from words. Surprisingly though, even within HC and LC cultures there exists distinct differences in the meaning of the gestures used. The German and the French who belong to the same LC culture might have varied use of gestures and other paralanguage elements. The written language also differs. For instance, while the British use a comma in numerals (1,000) the French use a full stop (1.000). Peppas (2001) notes that even within cultures there exists several subcultures. The differences highlighted are proof of that. A study of the Japanese language in the HC culture reveals a series of words that the speaker can use to encourage the speaker to repeat what they are saying. For instance, the word “Hai” which simply means “Yes” in English can be used to imply more than five means. It can be use to tell the speaker to repeat what they are saying, give more information, and continue with the conversation among other meanings (Doucet 2008). In contrast to HC cultural culture has very limited words that encourage the speaker to keep talking or give more information. Perhaps this is because people speak in a direct manner that makes comprehension easier and quick. For instance, in French language there is emphasis on clarity of what is being spoken. There varied direct expressions that a speaker can apply to decline an offer, reject an idea without beating about the bush. If, for example, one is being asked out for coffee. They can say “None, merci” implying “no, thanks”. The expression is direct and the speaker does not necessarily have to beat about the bush. In the Chinese language and many other languages there is no single word for “no”. Instead, people use concerns or repeated objections to indicate their disagreement. Actually, anything that is not a clear “yes” means a “no”. Hofstede’s dimensions can be used to analyse the HC culture based on tolerance to uncertainty. The notion of collectivism too has nurtured them to tolerate anything in life include such ambiguity in speech. Hall’s framework gives insight into the two cultures. The culture differences highlighted manifest themselves in the way that people speak and negotiate. It is usual for people seek clarification while conversing in HC culture, especially when the context alludes to some historical things. Further, given that the HC culture is slow to change, it is probable for historical events to still have relevance in the present time. LC culture is quite dynamic and does not rely heavily on history to decode meaning of what is being said. They too, HC culture people don’t rely on their status, religion in order to assign meaning to an aspect of discussion. Hofstede (1980) identifies the individualistic vs. Collectictivism dimension. The fact that people in LC culture value individualism affects how they communicate. For instance, in the US, because of the individualistic aspect, there is often a tendency to use the pronoun “I” as opposed to “we”. This means people in LC value self over anything else. They are susceptible to engaging in negotiation where their interests come first. The interests of the other people come second. Having a collectivism view of life among people in HC culture influences their choice of words. They often refer to “we” in communication as opposed to the use of “I” in individualistic societies. In negotiations the interests of the family, society and other people override those of self. The two contextual cultures are differentiated by the criteria for defining politeness in speech. In HC culture it is considered impolite to ask question while in LC culture it is considered an act of politeness (Tella 2005) For instance, the French people don’t mind questions. All they mind is the structure of the sentence. If the structure indicates politeness (vouvoiement) in its construction there is little worry. Hofstede’s theory can be used to explain the differences in communication between the English, American and Germans, and the French. The dimension of Masculinity vs. Femininity is applicable in analysis of the countries in question. In the western world, owing to feminism, women are seemingly treated equally (Hall and Hall 1990).They are thus regarded as feminine countries. Men and women have the same values that are keen on modesty and caring. The East is considered as masculine. Men seem to dominate most political positions as well as socio-economic platforms (Hall and Hall 1990). Culture where femininity is prominent like in the US there has been emergence of sexism in language. Women, given that they are given democratic space, they have infiltrated a form of language that is peculiar to the female gender. This has become part of the language. In the East, usage of language gets a lot of influence from the male-dominated society. Political language in the East is peculiar with men who largely dominate these platforms. Lewis’ Framework of culture and its impact on communication Lewis (2005) identifies three categories of cultures; reactive, multi-active culture and linear-active. The multi-active culture includes the African, Arabs, the Spanish, and Italians. The linear active consists of the Americans, English, German, and the Swiss while the Reactive category is predominantly made up of the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. The linear-active group is known to be much organised and task oriented (Lewis 2005).Besides, they are stickers of facts. They also like straightforward discussions and that they listen in an equal measure as they talk. In terms of communication they tend to use a direct approach to favour direct discussion. The manner of communication is implicit and is not dependent on the context. There is also a high degree of precision and accuracy in terms of choice of vocabulary. When speaking to people from this culture one should not assume that they understand presuppositions. If possible ask them to say if the understand what is being spoken. Their culture too affects how they decode information from the speaker. They don’t rely on the unsaid words, unseen context to interpret the meaning. Meaning is likely to be understood is less ambiguous and straightforward. The reactive culture is characterised by good listening skills, speaking skills, courtesy, friendliness and ability to comprise (Lewis 2005).Just like the linear-active group, the too spend time to listen and understand before engaging in any discussion. In communication, they tend to take time to listen with a view to getting their own point of view as well as that of the listener before uttering their views. They might be slow to react or speak up after a speech and when they actually speak they don’t reflect any signs of confrontation (Lewis 2005). The multi-active on the other hand is emotional, impulsive, loquacious, and warm. These particular characteristics embedded in their culture have a big influence on how they communicate and negotiate (Lewis 2005).Firstly, they tend to dominate conversations. The reactive group would hardly speak in a conversation with this type of group. Secondly, since they are poor listeners, they often interrupt conversations as they seek clarifications and repetition of some segments that they didn’t catch as they were busy interrupting. Thus, language of this particular group is often characterised with expressions that encourage people to repeat what they are saying and many more (Lewis 2005). Conclusion In brief, the essay has examined the usefulness of Hall's high context/low context framework in explaining the differences in communication and negotiation practices between countries. The essay begins by explaining the features of Hall’s high context/low context cultures. Then, the essay attempts to relate the features discussed to the differences in communication and negotiations between countries. In the essay, it was noted that one’s culture affects the choice of syntactic and lexical terms. It, further, influences the choice and use of paralanguage and other forms of non-verbal expressions. The fact that people from two distinct cultures speak a common language does not mean that they can easily understand each other. For them to avoid misunderstandings, it is prudent to have knowledge of the other person’s culture and how that culture influence how they speak. In terms of helping understand the differences in communication among different cultures, Hall’s framework hits the nail on the head. References Burgoon et al., (1996). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken-dialogue. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cruz, W. (2001). Differences in nonverbal communication styles between cultures: The Latino-Anglo Perspective. Leadership and Management in Engineering. Doucet, M. (2008) What part of yes don't you understand? Mechanical Engineering. Gurova, L. (2012). Inference, Consequence, and Meaning Perspectives on Inferentialism. Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Pub. Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. Hall, E. & Hall, M. (1990). Understanding cultural differences: Germans, French and Americans. Yarmouth: Intercultural Press. Hofstede, G. (2008). A summary of my ideas about national culture. http:// feweb.uvt.nl/center/hofstede/page3.htm. (retrieved 23.4.2015) Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lewis, R. D. (2005). Finland, cultural lone wolf. Ya rmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Lee, D. B., & Brosziewski, A. (2009). Observing society meaning, communication, and social systems. Amherst, N.Y., Cambria Press. Lu, X. (2004). Rhetoric of the Chinese Cultural Revolution: the impact on Chinese thought, culture, and communication. Columbia, S.C., University of South Carolina Press Peppas, S.C. (2001). Subcultural similarities and differences: an examination of US core values. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 8(1): Peterson, M. F., & Søndergaard, M. (2008). Foundations of cross cultural management. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications. Senft, G et al., (2009). Culture and language use. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Pub. Co. Tella, S. (2005). Multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary affordances in foreign language education: From singularity to multiplicity. Turku: Annales Universitatis Turkuensis. Read More