This chapter reviews the relevant literature on intercultural communication. The literature comprises culture factors of probed more into high versus low context culture and individualism versus collectivism. Especially, Multinational language policies relativity with intercultural communication in multinational corporations are included. In addition, approaches to intercultural conflict are covered in the last part.
Intercultural Communication
As interactions across national borders have pervaded the daily activities of companies worldwide, multinational corporations kept greater attention on conducting their business (Cheng & Lin, 2009). Doing business in an international environment requires the ability to interact with individuals of different backgrounds (Jonasson &
Lauring, 2012). Consequently, intercultural communication has gained importance in doing business internationally (Lauring, 2011; Tange and Lauring, 2009). Furthermore, the importance of deploying competent expatriates who have diverse cultural experience to establish global competitive advantages has been emphasized (Cheng & Lin, 2009;
Holopainen & Bjorkman, 2005).
Intercultural communication was communication between people of different cultural (Jandt, 2012). By definition of Bennett (1998), cultures were varied in language, behavior patterns, and values. When communicating in intercultural situations, people encountered assumption of dissimilar and consideration of different. Intercultural communication focused on face-to-face interaction among human beings. For this kind of communication to occur, each participant must perceived himself or herself being perceived by others (Bennett, 1998).
8
Culture and Intercultural Communication
High and Low Context Communication
Hall (1976) proposed the concept of high versus low context as a way of understanding different cultural orientations. It helps people to understand the differences among cultures and implications of managing cultural differences more easily (Kim, Pan
& Park, 1998). In high-context culture, communication relies more on simple information with deep meaning. In contrast, communication relies on a large amount of explicit information with specify meaning in low-context culture (Gudykunst, 1997; Kim, Pan &
Park, 1998; Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin, Korac-Kakabadse, & Savery, 2001). For this reason, communication problems especially take place in the interaction between individuals belong to high-context culture and low-context culture.
For example, Hall (1976) viewed people in low-context cultures, such as the Swiss and German, as speaking explicitly and directly. They are quick to get to the point. On the contrary, persons in high-context cultures like China and Japan are viewed as rather slow in getting to the point and not expect to have to be very specific. The result of a person in high-context cultures will talk around and around and put all the pieces in place except the crucial one (Jonasson & Lauring, 2012). Being specific about unpleasantness is particularly embarrassing in a relationship and easily involves losing face to people in high-context cultures (Jonasson & Lauring, 2012).
Individualism and Collectivism
Hofstede’s (1983) description of individualism and collectivism is another cultural dimension that is closely related and much cited in communication studies (Gudykunst, 1997; Korac-Kakabadse et al., 2001; Lauring, 2011). Individualism, can be defined as individuals are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only. Its opposite, collectivism, represents individuals can expect their relatives or members of a
9
particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. A society's position on this dimension is reflected in whether people’s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “we.”
Selmer (2006) indicated that because of dissimilar language and cultural backgrounds, western expatriates often regard as out-group in China. People in individualistic cultures have many specific in-groups such as family, religion, social clubs, or profession (Gudykunst, 1997). Kinship and other particularistic ties exist between members of the in-group (Selmer, 2006). Since the Western business expatriates are not family members or share other common experience with their Chinese colleagues, it may not be easy to create any meaningful relationship with them. This further emphasized western expatriates’
distinction and obstructed the development of a harmonious and supportive relationship between the Western and Chinese peers.
Summary
Scholars in culture and communication (Gudykunst, 1997; Hall, 1976; Jonasson &
Lauring, 2012; Kim, Pan & Park, 1998; Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin, Korac-Kakabadse,
& Savery, 2001; Lauring, 2011) indicated culture determines how individuals encode messages, what mediums they choose for transmitting them, and the way messages are interpreted. This implies when transmitting a message in an international setting, culture might create differences in the way messages are sent and received.
Multinational Language Policies and Intercultural Communication
Situated in the global context, multinational corporations comprise diverse employees and geographically dispersed subsidiaries and hence need to facilitate inter-unit information and communication (Harzing & Pudelko, 2013; Luo & Shenkar, 2006; Van den Born & Peltokorpi, 2010; Welch, Welch, & Piekkari, 1997). The need to coordinate a growing multiple forces has been an ongoing concern for multinational corporations (Dhir,
10
2005; Luo & Shenkar, 2006; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a; Tange & Lauring, 2009).
Expatriates added more experience of confronting colleagues who may have distinct language or cultural backgrounds. The everyday spoken and written languages employed for interpersonal, inter-unit, and intra-unit communication have gradually changed and the size of the problem increases with a number of languages exist within a multinational.
Corporate Language and Intercultural Communication
Faced with the language issue in internal information and communication flows, multinationals tend to move toward the use of corporate language (Feely & Harzing, 2003;
Fredriksson et al., 2006; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a; Tange & Lauring, 2009) to manage the tension between global integration and local adaptation and make expatriates control and coordinate international activities easily (Feely & Harzing, 2003; Fredriksson et al., 2006; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a; Tange & Lauring, 2009; Van den Born &
Peltokorpi, 2010; Welch & Welch, 2008). Corporate language is the language formally designated for verbal and written use by headquarters and overseas subunits and with the rest of the multinational corporation network (Luo & Shenkar, 2006). This is the language be used in in major events (e.g., board meetings), organizational documents (e.g., research reports, manuals), and required from managerial personnel as a prerequisite for hire (Luo
& Shenkar, 2006; Thomas, 2008).
According to Tange and Lauring (2009), the introduction of a corporate language has proved helpful to internal communication since it provides a common medium for all members of the organization and offers easy access to official information channels such as company reports or employee magazines. The competence of a corporate language for and expatriates can be considered to have a number of important benefits from a management perspective (Fredriksson, Barner-Rasmussen & Piekkari, 2006; Feely &
Harzing, 2003; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a; Thomas, 2008). Expatriates with high corporate language competence help formal reporting such as the maintenance of policies,
11
documents, and information systems between headquarters and subsidiaries. Also, their high corporate language competence make them play a decisive character in subsidiaries’
control (Björkman & Piekkari, 2009).
Although advantages of implementing corporate language exist, the multilingual character of the MNC has been highlighted by several scholars (e.g., Fredriksson et al., 2006; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999b). Notably, introducing corporate language will not render the firm monolingual, as language diversity within a global firm is likely to persist (Feely & Harzing, 2003; Fredriksson et al., 2006;
Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999b). Some MNCs have more than one corporate language, or use multiple languages for designated communication purposes in internal exchanges. Fredriksson et al. (2006) remarked that corporate language is likely not the mother language of the particular firm. Non-English-speaking local or subsidiaries tend to use their own languages in spite of following corporate language policies while interacting with suppliers, customers, and employees. Surely, the usage of local languages in foreign subsidiaries can also be important, for example, to improve customer relations and recruit functionally competent employees (Van den Born &
Peltokorpi, 2010).
Local Language and Intercultural Communication
For a large proportion of staff within many multinationals, information exchanges needed to be conducted with a second language. This aspect was reflected within case of Kone Elevators (Marschan-Piekkari, Welch, & Welch, 1999b), where the proportion of foreign employees out of total employment had risen to 92% in 1996. Difficulties of operating corporate language in multiple-language environments were evident. From that interview data, an Austrian operative commented “The great barrier in communication is the language. If you have to explain some technical problem it isn’t easy by phone”
(Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999b, p.426). Similarly, a Mexican middle manager said “The
12
major problem in inter-unit communication is the language skills. At organizational levels below me, people don’t speak any other language except for Spanish” Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999b, p.426). These implies that subsidiary staff at middle or low operating level had less opportunities to meet with headquartered staff, and the use of English appeared to distort communication between colleagues in subsidiaries.
Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982) helps explain why expatriates are required adequate local language competence when they are in subsidiaries. Van den Born and Peltokorpi (2010) stated “social identities are derived from in-group membership. In-group bias may occur through the emphasis of positive self-images in reference to out-groups”
(p.103). In other words, expatriates speak corporate language make their appearance differ from local employees, and thus expatriates are viewed as out-groups justly. Consequently, in-group members may enjoy high levels of trust, interaction, support, and rewards amongst each other, whereas out-group members are met with negative attitudes and negative emotions (Lauring, 2008).
Welch and Welch (2008) characterized employee perceptions and expectations may generate a situation of hostility and mistrust such as expatriates from headquarters being regarded as spies from headquarters. Expatriates interaction with local staff is important in creating an environment of trust, and competence in the local language is often seen as one of aspects (Thomas, 2008). The importance of language for the development of trust has been confirmed in a recent study (Barner‐Rasmussen & Björkman, 2007). Results of that study show that language fluency of local language related significantly to a shared vision and perceived trustworthiness in both the Chinese and Finnish subsidiaries. Empirical research on language in MNCs indicates that limited language comprehension and fluency may create a sense of remoteness and disconnectedness, which can exclude individuals, units and regions from each other’s view (Marschan et al., 1997; Marschan-Piekkari et al., 1999a,b). Exactly, language competence of the local language may thus provide a shared
13
social identity and promote the emergence of in-groups with colleagues in subsidiaries.
Summary
Previous studies have indicated that language is related to social identity and thus contributes to the categorization of in-groups and out-groups. Harzing (2002) indicated that language is a cultural symbol, it is a visible expression of a particular cultural group. This suggests that “individuals who share a common language are likely to share the same perceptions of rules and collective norms, roles and values” (Barner ‐ Rasmussen &
Björkman, 2007, p. 108). Accordingly, competence in and familiar with a particular language may therefore generate a positive self-identity, while limited language competence and affiliation will cause “difficulties in exchanging information and building trust” (Barner‐Rasmussen & Björkman, 2007, p.109).
Intercultural Communication Barriers
Chances of encountering intercultural communication situations gets more and more for people around the world. There is probably no way to learn all the rules governing appropriate and inappropriate behavior for every culture and subgroup with who you came into contact. A better approach is to examine on a general level the barriers to intercultural communication. Barna (1998) and Jandt (2012) specified a number of barriers which would be encountered when discussing problems of intercultural communication.
Assumption of Similarities
People often natively assume there are sufficient similarities among people of the world. However, the common biological and social needs and the values, beliefs, and attitudes surrounding are vastly different from culture to culture. The common nonverbal behavior, the smile, is an example which can be test whether it is actually the universal people assume it to be. An Arab international student newly arrived in the United States shared his experience:
14
When I walked around the campus on my first day, many people smiled at me. I was very embarrassed and rushed to the men’s room to see if I had made a mistake with my cloths. But I could find nothing for them to smile at. Now I am used to all the smiles.
Language Differences
Vocabulary, syntax, idioms and so on all cause difficulty, not to mention when the person is struggling with a different language. It is troublesome when someone clings to just one meaning of a word or phrase in the new language regard connotation or context, for the variations in possible meaning, inflection and tone are varied. Moreover, there are other language problems, including the different styles of using language such as direct, indirect; expansive, succinct; argumentative, conciliatory; and so on. These different styles can lead to wrong interpretations of intent.
Nonverbal Misinterpretations
People from different cultures inhabit different sensory realities. They see, hear, feel, and smell only that has some meaning or important for them. It is not easy to understand the less obvious unspoken codes of the other cultures, like the handling of time and spatial relationships. In addition, the misinterpretation of observable nonverbal signs and symbols, such as gestures, postures, and other body movements, is a definite communication barrier as well.
Stereotypes
Stereotypes are stumbling blocks for communicators because they are overgeneralized, secondhand beliefs from we make sense out what goes on around us, whether or not they are accurate or fit the circumstances. The sensitive search for cues guides the imagination toward the other person’s reality. For example, a visitor who is accustomed to privation and the values of self-denial and self-help may fail to experience American culture as materialistic and wasteful.
15
Tendency to Evaluate
The tendency to evaluate is we assume our own culture or way of life is the most natural, rather than try to comprehend thoughts and feelings from the worldview of the other. This bias prevents the open-mindedness to examine attitudes and behaviors from the other’s point of view. There is an international illustrations of the tendency to evaluate. An U.S. student said:
A Persian friend got offended because when we got in an argument with a third party, I didn’t take his side. He says you are never supposed to go against a relative or friend to a stranger. This I found strange because even if it is my mother and I think she is wrong, I say so.
There comes a conflict in communication when you think in your way which may not be the same as others.
High Anxiety
High anxiety or tension, also known as stress, is common in cross cultural experience due to the number of uncertainties present. Too much anxiety or tension requires some form of relief, which too often comes in the form of defenses, such as the skewing of perceptions or hostility. That is why it is considered a stumbling block.
Summary
The communicator cannot stop knowing that the people he is interacting have different customs and thought patterns from his own. He must be able to know and contact with others’ values, attitudes, and feelings, neither losing his own values.
Approaches to Communication Conflict
Approaches to communication conflict refer to ways individuals manage the actual conflict. Those ways show how people manage communication during conflict differs considerably across cultures.
16
Neuliep (2009) demonstrated the conflict interaction style is based on two communication dimensions. The first is the degree to which a person seeks to satisfy his or her own interests during conflict, called self-face need. The second is the degree to which a person is cooperative and seeks to incorporate the interests of the other, called other-face need. The combination of self-face need and other-face need defines five primary communication styles of managing conflict and three secondary styles (see Figure 2.1).
The five primary styles are dominating, integrating, obliging, avoiding, and compromising.
The three secondary styles include emotional expression, third-party help, and neglect.
Avoiding
High Other-Face Concern (Cooperativeness) Self-Face Concern (Assertiveness)
High
Low Obliging
Third-Party Help
Compromising Emotional
Expression
Dominating Neglect Integrating
Figure 2.1. Self-Face Concern, Other-Face Concern, and Communication Styles of Managing Conflict. Reprinted from Intercultural communication: A contextual approach (p.332), by J. W. Neuliep, 2009, Los Angeles: Sage. Copyright 2009 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
17
The dominating communication style is an approach a person might use his or her authority, expertise, or rank to try to win the conflict. Second, a person who takes the integrating approach collaborates with the opponent or to find an agreeable solution that satisfies both parties. If the person seeks to balance both self-face and other-face needs, this kind of approach is the compromising style. Fourthly, when the person puts the needs of the other ahead of his or her own needs, this shows the obliging interaction style. At last, the avoiding style is a communication way person keeps the conflict and not discuss it.
Emotional expression refers to how one might use his or her emotions to guide the conflict, this reflects the person’s feelings and proceeds accordingly. The third-party help is the extent to which a person would engage an out sider to act as a mediator in the conflict.
And neglect is the use of a passive-aggressive approach which one might ignore the conflict but attempt to elicit a response from the other via aggressive acts.
In general, research (Ting-Toomey et al., 2000; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991) in this area has shown that individualists tend to use more dominating styles during conflict than collectivists. Collectivists tend to use more integrating, obliging, and avoiding styles during conflict.
The study of conflict in intercultural by Hall (2005) identified five approaches to conflict that individuals appear to choose. These five approaches are avoiding, accommodating, competing, compromising, and collaborating.
One way people choose to respond to a conflict is to avoid it as much as possible.
Avoidance may be accomplished by bringing up other issues that change the focus of attention or by simply being silent and refusing to participate in the conflict. For instance, Spain is a country in which conflict is avoided when possible. Japan is another community in which avoidance is a culturally preferred way of approaching conflict. The Japanese have a reputation of avoiding direct conflict. In many cultures the ability to avoid conflict is seen as a sign of maturity, not weakness.
18
The accommodating approach is finding out what the other person wants and then trying to match. Usually people find it easier to reduce conflict by trying to get what others’
would like without concerning for their own wants or needs. In Zimbabwe, it is common for people to find out what the other want to hear before telling you their opinion. They can, therefore, avoid open disagreement and can adapt their wants to fit with the other person’s wants.
The competing approach is the way to accomplish what a person wants regardless of the needs of the other. Like Greeks love to argue and public debate, conflicts are typically met with enthusiasm and are natural parts of Greek life. Also, the conflict is a natural part of the workplace in Israel. One American manager in Israel noted that his subordinates challenged whatever he asked them to do, but that was common throughout the organization.
The compromising approach to conflict is the people involved reduce their demands to win the others’ agree and achieve their purpose to some degree from the negotiation.
This approach allows people to gain a middle ground in conflict. For example, Americans likes to stress the idea of equality and are often great believers in a good compromise.
This approach allows people to gain a middle ground in conflict. For example, Americans likes to stress the idea of equality and are often great believers in a good compromise.