Interpersonal Communication in the US and China - Assignment Example

Interpersonal Communication Number Interpersonal Communication Modern organization communication is imperative, especially in the current world where globalization is quickly taking shape. Interpersonal communication has become a vital issue, especially within multinationals where people from different cultures are involved. Interpersonal communication as a key aspect of modern organization communication involves two individuals, the cultural beliefs and values of an individual and the nature of the communication process. Interpersonal communication varies between the United States and China. In both societies, however, the vital form of communication enables individuals from the diverse cultures to understand each other, based on cultural influences. The American Model of interpersonal Communication The American model of interpersonal communication is individual-based and tends to address the self within an organization (Lowry, Cao, & Everard, 2011). It is basically a symbolic process that brings people together, in which case, the participants use verbal and others forms of communication to persuade others for individual and professional benefit (Chia, 1995). This form of communication is premised upon and influenced by interactive traditions that can be traced from fundamental and common facial norms. All Americans tend to be at peace with a positive face, which generally convinces neighbors or associates to show respect and or recognition for an individual. Negative facial communication, for example, communicates the need for liberty for an individual (Lowry, Cao, & Everard, 2011). According to Samowar, Porter, and McDaniel (2011), the American norm of interpersonal communication as replicated in the face concept is that when an individual joins a gathering, and they modify their face to be in line with the main agenda being discussed. At this point, Americans often tend to relay information about themselves to others, through verbal and nonverbal means of communication. The recipients receive the communication and assess it by comparing the various forms of communication for consistency. As a result, the individual’s assessment of the parties in a conversation or communication controls and dictates the exchange of messages. The American society, therefore perceives interpersonal communication as a game involving two individuals whereby information from each other’s independence pays out, and which can only be sustained by how rational is an individual. Other factors include individual beliefs, and tactful maneuvers of each other’s facial expression through verbal and nonverbal means of social interaction. Such a form of communication is supported by numerous academic literatures focusing on the American model of interpersonal communication (Cushman, & Cahn, 1985). Berg (2012) supported self impression and its management, observation, listening, expressive communication, verbal and nonverbal information as well as confession of one’s achievements or intentions as the most important forms of communication in various organization settings within the American organizations. Proficiency in the use of all forms of communication, especially verbal and nonverbal interactions in various organizational contexts, thus, comprises one of the primary aims of sending and receiving information (Zhou, 2008). The studies on relationships within the American society are primarily based upon how a person controls verbal and nonverbal information to establish, maintain, and end dealings. Americans mainly perceive relationships as the scenarios in which persons relay, receive, and interpret messages for individual benefit. Interestingly, Chia (1995) has pointed out that unlike the common notion of the American culture as far as interpersonal communication is concerned, which is driven by self-consciousness, the members of the society tend to emphasize on interdependency between persons from various cultures and social origins. Human interdependency implies that Americans tacitly prefer a more relational approach to interpersonal communication in various organizational settings. In contrast to the American model of interpersonal communication, currently Chinese prefer a largely different model of organizational communication. In China, the main model of interaction between individuals or parties tends to be plain. China’s Model of Interpersonal Communication Unlike the American model of sending and receiving information, Chinese tend to hinge their communication approach on relational norms, driven by morals (Samowar, Porter, & McDaniel, 2011). Chinese do not exhibit any signs of uniqueness or independence as it is normally the case in America; rather, they tend to owe allegiance to certain social ties. Members of China’s society exercise tolerance while talking or going about their duties since their moves will impact on other members within the social network (Zhou, 2008). Additionally, the power to control reception and sending of information, does not rest solely on the participants exchanging messages since the reactions of the audience may impact on the non-verbal models of communication beyond one’s power. In light of the immense role played by the social networks in an individual’s communication, Chinese can rarely employ the rational model of interpersonal interactions (Berg, 2012). To comprehend interpersonal communication in the Chinese context, it is important to consider the fact that interactions within the society are driven by emotional, social relational and particularistic factors. These values basically remind the participants of a chain of command and authority, hence Chinese way of achieving interpersonal communication often depends on the prevailing situations, which are impacted by relationships, emotions, and face (Berg, 2012). Relationships are treasured in China. Unlike Americans, Chinese believe that they can only achieve material goals, if they set up vital connections with others within the larger social setting other than the family. And as such, business organizations provide the best context for fulfilling stronger relationships. In China when a person attempts to build an interactive connection with other individuals, the link is the objective in itself (Zhou, 2008). However, when one tries to set up an instrumental relationship based upon a sound interpersonal communication, the relationship plays an important role in propelling the main participant to achieve other goals. Therefore, this relationship within the Chinese society is basically weaker and more temporary as compared to the American model. This latter social tie exists between salespersons and customers, public service vehicle touts and passengers, health care providers and outpatients in a care center among others. Berg (2012) indicated that Chinese people invoke a universal tone, instead of an individual one, in their communication with new faces in an organization. Chinese people have adopted a tendency of behaving in a rational manner when making interpersonal communication with strangers (Cushman, & Cahn, 1985). In light of this, members of the society tend to steer clear of and suppress aggressive responses in order to keep interpersonal communication harmonious within their social environments. But this kind of restraint is temporary. Chinese have the potential of implementing communal acts of hostility toward the repressed in a swift and even embellished manner as a way of serving the interests of the group. This is because an individual’s need within China’s society to establish strong social affiliations is approved of within already existing social networks. The social interaction within Chinese organization is dictated by politeness and respect for authority. In this rational model of interpersonal communication, China’s traditions of interaction are applicable to all people in different respects, depending on hierarchy. Unlike in American organizations where existing institutions and instruments of power are challenged and people are given almost equal opportunity to contribute during interpersonal communications, China’s society holds that for a smooth social interaction to take place, every person has to align their messages and responses to be in line with the traditions of the society. In contrast, America believes that it is a routine to regard all people as ‘equal’ during interactions. This is a break away from the China’s society that does not believe in equality (Lowry, Cao, & Everard, 2011). The main reason for leaving everyone room for maneuvering is that everyone reserves the right to communicate their thoughts and by impeding one from enjoying that right, the society might be influenced by individual opinion. Conclusion Interpersonal communication is an important aspect of modern organizational culture. With the growing need for globalization, different cultures are forced to mix and tolerate each other, especially within the corporate world. The American way of achieving interpersonal communication is different from the Chinese model: whereas, the former appears to be more open and individualistic, especially when creating and maintaining new relationships, the latter is hinged on closed collectivism. Unlike Chinese, more Americans tend to be at peace with an ‘equal’ opportunity for all, so as to express themselves freely, since any decisions they make would affect them personally. In contrast, Chinese tend to be hesitant to exercise free interpersonal communication since any comment or move one makes has a direct impact on the rest of people occupying a give social network. References Berg, R.W. (2012). The Anonymity Factor in Making Multicultural Teams Work: Virtual and Real Teams. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(4), 404-424. Chia, R. (1995). From Modern to Postmodern Organizational Analysis. Organization Studies, 16(4), 579. Cushman, D.P., & Cahn, D.D. (1985). Communication in Interpersonal Relationships. New York: SUNY Press. Lowry, P.B., Cao, J., & Everard, A. (2011). Privacy Concerns Versus Desire for Interpersonal Awareness in Driving the Use of Self-Disclosure Technologies: The Case of Instant Messaging in Two Cultures. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(4), 163-200. Samowar, L.A., Porter, R.E., & McDaniel, E.R. (2011). Intercultural Communication: A Reader. New York: Cengage Learning. Zhou, H. (2008). SMS in China: A Major Carrier of the Nonofficial Discourse Universe. Information Society, 24(3), 182-190. Read More