Cross-Cultural Communication in Organizations - Example

Cross-cultural communication in organizations (Name) (Institution) (Module) (Course) (Instructor’s Name) (Date of submission) Introduction Communication is the relay of ideas and messages from point A to point B in an effective and timely manner such that the intended influence and response is obtained from the target. This is an important aspect in running organizations and businesses. The larger the organization is, the more the need for effective communication. In order to ensure efficiency, organizations draft channels of communication which more of than not follow the organization structure and flow of authority. By introducing the term “cross cultural” to communication implies that there is a difference between the manner of communication where the actors share a common culture and the manner of communication where the actors have different cultural backgrounds. Phatak Bhagat and Kashlak (2005) claim that managerial communication is organizations is greatly influenced by cultural background and hence the need to be aware of the needs of efficient communication. In this age of globalization, labor mobility and diversity in the workplace, managers and organizations in general need to be more conscious of the diverse communication needs that are brought in by different cultural backgrounds and diversity in the workplace. Cross-cultural communication is faced with potential barriers that are related to verbal and non-verbal methods of relaying meanings that may or may not be hared with the origin of the participants. Discussion It is important that first one recognizes the role of culture in communication. Conventionally, people understand cultures as a way of life and the only way it may impact communication is through language differences. Mor-Barak (2005) says that culture transcends language in very many ways. He starts off by quoting Krober and Kluckohn (1952) who define culture by saying that Culture consists of patterns, explicit or implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on one hand, be considered as products of actions, on the other as conditioning elements of further action (p. 169). Hofstede (1997) as cited by Mor-Barak (2005) says that culture is the software of the mind in that separates one group of people from the other without necessarily showing the physical differences. This ‘software’ does not however exclusive determine the behavior of people but rather delineate anticipations and expectations and behavior within a specified social context. Culture determines how managers and employees in general perceive a problem and develop solutions to the problem. In support of this are social anthropologists view that societies face the same problems only that solutions and answers to these problems differ. Hofstede (1997) cited in Mor-Barak (2009) studied employees of 50 different nationalities working in a Dutch IBM factory. This sample suited the purpose of his study in that the employees shared a common organizational culture and had been exposed their national culture long enough not to exhibit Dutch culture altogether as a result working in the country. He measured the element of culture along pre determined four main axes, collectivism as opposed to individualism, masculinity/femininity in contrast to modesty, power distance (relationship with authority) and avoidance of uncertainty (control of aggression). He found out that the nationality of these people influenced more the differences along these four main axes than the position held at the organization. Accordingly, employees perceive management’s communication efforts differently. Some cultures would dictates that employees expect the supervisor to be for instance authoritative and aggressive while some culture would expect a fatherly figure responsible for providing guidance in the performance of duties. Hofstede (1997) as cited in Mor-Barak (2005) continues and explain his findings and shows that national politics and systems of governance mould cultures. Looking at the case of Latin countries, Asian and African countries where hierarchal systems are common, supervisors and managers and subordinates all perceive themselves unequal. Managers expect submission from supervisors and the subordinate while the subordinates expect to receive authority from above and rarely engage in regular business routines and processes without orders from their seniors. In contrast nationalities of small power distance countries such as the US Denmark, Canada and the UK that subordinates, managers and supervisors considered themselves existentially equal only separated by positions. The subordinates in these countries expect managers and supervisors to be resourceful and respected democrat. These differences in perception of leadership and authority within an organization on cultural lines are often ignored by managers creating misunderstanding and conflict. Moodian (2009) argues that memos and emails circulated by managers to his subordinates attract different levels of attention from all employees not based on their position but rather their cultural orientation. To facilitate effective cross-cultural communication for managers, Munter (1993) suggests the following steps 1. Setting communication objectives 2. Choosing a communication style 3. Assessing and enhancing credibility 4. Selecting and motivating audiences 5. Setting a message strategy 6. Overcoming language difficulties 7. Using appropriate nonverbal behaviors In the first step, a manager must recognize and identify the objective of his communication i.e. is he seeking for some recommendations, requesting a report on some project, warning etc. Munter (1993) says that in doing so the manager must ask himself, is the objective realistic in the context of the cultural background of the recipient? For instance according to the Islamic culture, actions of human beings are controlled by Allah. In this respect giving a deadline on an activity such as writing of a report may sound inappropriate to a Muslim in the belief that he will complete the report of the task given within the deadline only if Allah wishes for him to do by providing him with the energy and wisdom to carry out the task. The common reply to orders in the Muslim world is “Inshallah” which translates to “if Allah wills.” Such a reply in the American context is unacceptable; an employee is expected to be responsible solely for his actions and the religious aspects should not be mixed with work (Elashmawi 2001). In considering the objective, a manager must also consider whether the timeframe is realistic. In some cultures, more so African, there is a relaxed attitude towards time tables, schedules and deadlines. Contrarily, in countries such as Switzerland and Germany, time tables, schedules and deadlines are given serious attention. Munter (1993) gives an example of a Cameroonian executive who schedules for a meeting at 9.00 am with other executives. Funny enough the first person in the meeting arrives at 12.00 pm and when the last executive arrives at 2.00pm, all the others condemn him for being late. The second step that managers should keep in mind is choosing an appropriate communication style. Munter (1993) recognizes four general communication styles; tell, sell, consult and join. In telling, the manager does not require the input of the recipient but is rather giving orders. To sell is to persuade people to adopt something or do something in a different manner. Managers of Latin and African backgrounds have problems adapting this selling style but are stuck with the telling style. Therefore it is upon top executives to precisely choose the managers who are charged with communicating to the subordinate staff. For instance, American and German subordinates my interpret a communication signal that was supposed to be persuasive as being an order given the person who is communicating does not know how to apply these styles. Consulting as another style pertains to collecting opinion of communication recipients. Joining on the other hand is appropriate where collaboration and brainstorming is required. Mor-Barak (2005) says that the style of communication is nurtured by experience of everyday events and cannot be alienated from management roles. He says that issues such as family environment and culture are the most significant in determining a manager’s communication style. He gives the example a situation in Najaf town of Iraq during the Iraq war pitting American soldiers against the locals. The commander of the US Amy’s 101st Airborne Division was facing an Arabic crowd which was suspicious of their intentions. Unable to communicate due to language barrier, the commander instructed his men to take a position that would signify peace and friendliness. The soldiers knelt on one knee, smiled and pointed their weapons down. Despite no words being uttered, the crowd understood the message and smiled back to the division. After identifying and choosing a communication style, there is need to assess and enhance credibility in terms of the source of the communication signal or message. A number of authors agree that there are five major factors involves in assessing credibility 1)position/rank in the organization’s hierarchical power; 2) personal goodwill and relation towards audience; 3)expertise or knowledge of subject at hand; 4) image; and 5) the values and standards shared with your audience. Going by Hofstede’s (1997) findings, Latin and African audiences are likely to be more responsive to communication depending on the rank of the source without giving much attention to the sense in the message. Mor-Barak (2005) emphasizes the importance of personality and goodwill in communication. A manager must show good intention at all times even if the audience may show dislike to the message. An individualistic a manager will not care about the implication of the message on the audience. If the decision does not depict good will, there are chances that the audience will reject it and go to any lengths to sabotage it. As supported by Rosenbloom and Larsen (2001), Hoftsede noted that in times of crisis, employees at the IBM factory in Netherlands grouped according to the cultural backgrounds in the larger context i.e. all Africans would group together and Latinos alike. It is at this time of crisis that the African idea of collectivism would be best displayed as compared to the American individualism. Mor-Barak (2005) gives an example of a South African mining company which did not display goodwill in communicating with the workers resulting to a prolonged labor strike. He says that the workers requested a meeting the top management which was turned down. The management instead opted to use an impersonal approach to communicate to the workers through bulletins on notice boards. The workers felt humiliated by this and in response and under the African spirit of collectivism, ‘ubuntu’ which calls for humaneness resulted into a labor strike lasting for more than two weeks. This indicates the need to motivate the audience to take part in the communication process by being a willing audience which this paper discusses next. The other three factors of enhancing credibility are somehow direct in that having knowledge and skill about a topic will earn the management respect while the presentation of self matters too. The fourth step has to do with identifying other stakeholders in the communication process other than the audience. Munter (1993) says that there are some situations which require primary and secondary communication. For instance directors of an organization communicate directly to managers who happen to be the primary audience who are also expected to communicate the same message to their subordinates. However, where there is communication barrier between the audience and the origin, the interpreter forms the primary audience for both actors if the communication is two way. Nonetheless, there is need to include some stakeholders in the communication process in order to put emphasis, persuade and bear witness (Gelfanad & Aycan 2006). These may be power brokers, politicians or family members. Rice and Shook (2007) observe that political leaders are mostly included when labor issues between the management and the subordinates are being discussed. As a result, their presence influences openness and trust. A message strategy is the fifth consideration that communicators need to bear in mind. Munter (1993) observed that high context cultures prefer to have indirect business communication where a message builds up to the main points rather than being straight on point as direct message might be interpreted as intrusiveness or demanding. High context cultures mostly value their culture such as Japan, China and Vietnam. Low context cultures however prefer direct communication. This is mainly due to the element of time where message s need to be direct in point to save time and energy. The US, Britain and German lead in this culture. Such a strategy does not occur only in writing but also in meeting. Low context cultures do not give much attention to exchange of pleasantries in meetings while high context cultures value and observe them diligently (Rosenbloom, & Larsen 2001). Communication barrier is the most common problem for organizations operating across cultures and especially multinationals (Bowe & Martin 2007; Moon 1997). Language differences however, do not imply that communication across the two cultures will be minimal. In fact, it must be at a higher level in order to foster understanding on other elements of cultural differences other than language. Furthermore, a single language such as English has many variations in terms of accents and slang and the two mainstreams; UK English and American English. When actors in communication are faced with such a situation which is not well handled through clarifications and interpretation, there is bound to be confusion and conflict. Munter (1993) gives an example of a common word in board meetings both in the American context and British context, ‘to table.’ In the UK English, it implies the discussion should commence right there and then while the American version ‘to table’ means postpone. The most common solution to language barrier is translation. Over the years, translation has been challenged by linguists on three points through the translation theory developed by David Gordon in 1985. The first point raised by Gordon (1985) is based on the three elements of communication which are the author, the message and the audience. He argued that in order for a person to understand the message appropriately, he must understand the circumstance of the audience and the author of the message. He gives the example, though not in an organization context of Martin Luther King’s “Letters from Prison” in which he says that cannot fully understand the message in the letters without first identifying the circumstance of the recipient of the letters who are the audience and the author himself. He therefore recommends that translators need first to identify the circumstance of the author and the audience before translating a message in order to include the element of context in the new language. If he does not do so, the message is likely to be lukewarm and without the authority that it possesses in its original language. The second basis for challenging translation according to Gordon (1985) has to do with syntax or formal and dynamic equivalence in languages. For example, Greek language has very long sentences which if directly translated into English lose meaning. The third basis for challenging translation which organizations should be aware of is that translation is a theological task. Simply put, it implies that the first step in translation is interpretation by the translator. His choice of words in the second language determines the message whereby if he has a bias it is fed to the audience. Take for instance the word achievement in English. Munter (1993) says that there is no word in any other language that means achievement. Therefore when used in communication where translation is required it is for the translator to decide what to say. Could translators use non verbal behavior such as gestures in such situations? Use of nonverbal behavior is the last step proposed by Munter (1993) on how to handle cross cultural communication in the organization context. Gestures, eye contact, facial expression, touching, pitch, volume and other types of body language differ in meaning across cultures. Managers must avoid assuming the universality of some body gestures to avoid relaying the wrong message. For instance a nod in the western world means ‘yes’ while in Bulgaria, it means ‘no.’ Using the left hand to pass something or touch or eat is considered rude among the Muslim who view the left hand as unclean. In Kenya seeking attention by saying ‘tsk tsk’ is considered rude while whistling in India is considered rude too. Managers and communication actors must therefore seek other ways of communicating before fully understanding the restrictions of nonverbal communication in different cultures. Cultural diversity is something that organizations cannot run away from but can only manage for their own benefits (Bannon & Mattock 2003; Hartley, 2009; Gelfanad & Aycan 2006). In a world facing global opportunities, it is expected that different cultures will be forced by circumstances to interact; Australian expatriates will be working in Brazil while German expatriates will be working in relief organizations in South Sudan. These are two examples of two different worlds in terms of culture and language that are forced by circumstances to interact. While they can interact at social level, interaction at the business level will require more professionalism. The two sides must be able to read from the same and ensure that organizational communication flows flawlessly from the origin to the lower levels without any shreds of misunderstanding attributable to cultural differences. Guffey and Almonte (2009) warn that seeking to assimilate and induct some people into another culture is retrogressive. They say that in most cases, minority cultures refuse to conform to assimilation resulting in wastage of times and resources. They call for organization to embrace diversity as it makes organizations innovative and creative and also facilitates the creation of a strong and unique organizational culture. They observe that organizations that boast of well managed cultural diversity tend to have more fulfilling social environments in the workplace that enhance personal productivity Conclusion Communication is a very important factor in decision that modern day organizations have failed to adequately address where it takes place across cultures. Many organizations are eager to launch in foreign markets in the belief that translators will help them understand the market where there is language barrier and that incorporation of the locals will facilitates quick understanding of the culture and ease cross-cultural communication issues. As discussed above, cross cultural communication is a deep and wide subject that requires more attention from organizations. Understanding issues in cross cultural communication is an important step in avoiding and solving conflicts in the workplace. Again, it is a fundamental factor for developing a strong organizational culture. References Bannon, G. & Mattock, J. (2003). Cross-cultural communication: the essential guide to international business. 3rd ed. London: Kogan Page Publishers Bowe, H. & Martin, K. (2007). Communication across cultures: mutual understanding in a global world. New York: Cambridge University Press Elashmawi, F. (2001). Competing globally: mastering multicultural management and negotiation. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann Gelfanad, Erez & Aycan, C. (2006). Cross-Cultural Organizational Behavior http://ie.technion.ac.il/~merez/papers/Cross%20Cultural%20Organizational%20Behavior%202007.pdf Gordon, D. (1985). Translation theory. http://www.bible-researcher.com/gordon.html Guffey, M. E. and Almonte, R. (2009). Essentials of Business Communication 6th ed. New York: Cengage Learning, Hartley, D. (2009). Organizations Lag in Cross-Cultural Communication. http://diversity-executive.com/article.php?in=595 Mor-Barak, F. (2005). Managing diversity: toward a globally inclusive workplace. New York: Sage Munter, M. (1993). Cross-cultural communication for managers, Business Horizons. Vol. 36 Issue 3, p69 http://www.hum.utah.edu/communication/classes/sp04/3190-2/Managers.pdf Moon, M. M. (1997). Understanding the impact of cultural diversity on organizations http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/97-0607c.pdf Moodian, M. A. (2009). Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within organizations. Los Angeles: SAGE Rice, R. & Shook, D. (2007). “Relationships of job categories and organizational levels to use of communication channels, including electronic mail: a meta-analysis and extension.” Journal of management studies. 27 (2). P. 195-229 Rosenbloom, B. & Larsen, T. (2001). “Communication in international business-to-business marketing channels: Does culture matter? Industrial Marketing Management Journal. 32 (1) 309– 315 Read More