Understanding Cross Cultural Examination
Introduction
Regardless of the type, structure or nature of the organization, communication stands a vital part in ensuring that all elements or components are properly laid out to allow the exchange of information, ideas, emotion or thought between individual, groups, or departments. As much as there is always a demand for people within the organization to interact, communication stands supreme in allowing this interaction to flow freely as to make certain the balance between individual and corporate objectives. For this case, there is always a question on the receiver and the source of the information, whether they share common traits or attributes.
According to Agarwal & Garg[1](2012), there are types of communication happening within an organization - up to down, down to up, horizontal and cross communication. In the same manner, communication may happen either in oral or non-verbal terms. As long as there is a flow of information from one person to another or from a source to a receiver, communication happens.
Within the context of organization, communication plays a tricky role because it can build the organization or destroy its structures. On a positive note, communication creates trust from employees. With clear communication, transparency is built wherein employees feel secure regarding their tenure in the communication through reduction of cluelesness and false sense of security. As applied to personal levels, communication also drives the creation or development of relationships within the organization. Stakeholders are more willing to share their thoughts or their emotions when communication lines are open and the flow is clear. Aside from that, this openness also creates coordination or a collaborative organization where employees play a role in decision making, in suggesting plans, and such other managerial actions.
In this paper, I will be reviewing the value of cross cultural communication and how this concept creates organizational value and strengthen the individual aspiration of employees. In the same manner, I will also explore the different barriers that could stop cross cultural communication within the organization thus creating a problem of knowledge management, conflicts, and such other important cultural issues. With the guidance of two theories on cross cultural communication, I will get the chance to understand the value of communication as applied. Lastly, I will also provide some recommendations based on the analysis of the subject to help organization in crafting strategies that will ensure cross cultural communication.
Literature Review
Cross cultural communication, according to Pym[2] (2003), covers "the perceived crossing of a point of contact between cultures." Examination of cross cultural communication is very important in linguistics within the organization. While this is not given notice if the communication process proceeds smoothly, there are certain causes of misunderstandings that should be given proper discourse to ensure that human encounters are provided with the necessary support. According to Bateson[3](1972), people do not stop to decode the message of the communication, but rather there is an automatic decoding of the signals to indicate the metamessage of the exchange words. In this sense, people do not stop to question the speaker regarding the emotions implied out of the speech, but listeners infer the emotions or the metamessage being conveyed as communication flows.
According to Tannen[4](1985), the first barrier of cross cultural communication is the language itself. Being focused on the linguistics problem of the organization, cross cultural communication is about getting the message to the board or to the receiver. However, as provided by the example above, when there are differences in language understanding, there will always be the emergence of cross cultural communication. For further example, let us take the way people in New York and those in Brazil interpret the meaning of the word "soon". While people in New York mean "soon" to be on the shortest possible time, people in Brazil may think that “soon” means as soon as the person gets the chance or the time to complete the task.
Secondly, cultural behavior or the behavioral norms of the person's cultural orientation can also affect the success of cross cultural communication. Mentioned earlier is the behavior on stressing terms or phrases which could mean differently across cultures. On the other hand, another example is making eye contact. While Americans demand that the person their talking to makes eye contact with them, there are Asian cultures that do not give this much credit, for them making eye contact is disrespect. In a sense, this difference on understanding a specific culture can affect the way the person perceives the communication signals.
Thirdly, another important consideration in understanding barriers of cross cultural communication is the issue of stereotyping. While there is a clear definition regarding the general culture characteristics of the people, it does not mean all individuals have the same characteristic. For instance, taking into account the example noted earlier. If you have colleagues who are from Brazil and who may have different understanding of the word “soon”, it does not mean if another one enters the picture, he or she will also have the same characteristic. This will stereotyping and this will only create confusion on how communication flows.
Fourth, another barrier of cross cultural communication could be traced to attitudinal problem. Ethnocentrism is a big issue of attitudinal aspect of cross cultural communication. It is a phenomenon wherein the person believes that his or her culture is moral, right and will always be at the center, while all other cultures are morally wrong. This attitudinal problem leads to wrong interpretation of the conveyed message. For instance, Islamic women wear burkha to emphasize respect and reverence; however Westerners may consider this as a form of women oppression. When Islamic women continue to wear burkha, Westerners feel that they are morally wrong. This is extreme ethnocentrism.
Aside from these barriers, there are problems or issues to be taken into account to get a full grasp of cross cultural communication problems. One of which is cultural relativism, which is more on passivity of making judgment regarding cultural differences. Another cultural shock wherein the person gets overwhelmed by the kind of norms being exhibited by members of the organization, thus having difficulty in absorbing and understanding them.
Theory & Rationale
Social scripts, according to Meng[5](2008), are not innate, but rather these are acquired scripts from daily activities and from interactions with other members of the society. Due to the fact that one can acquire social script as a way to understand culture, this also means that when one is exposed to another culture, cultural shock happens as the result of the differences of social scripts. According to Meng[6](2008), due to the fact that social scripts are learned or acquired, people may also adapt the different social script without noticing it. For instance, with the development of English as the international lingua franca, people speak English through their own social script. However, as soon as they get in touched with the language, they will soon start to acquire the social scripts of native English speakers. In a way, there is a direct relationship to the adaptation of culture and the linguistics adaptation of a person.
Due to the fact the proximity is an important part of communication, it is also important to understand the issues of the proxemic theory. It spans across the understanding of posture when speaking, the distance, touch gestures, eye contact, smell, and the loudness of the voice. It is impossible to separate communication from the proxemic theory as applied to these factors mentioned earlier. When one communicates, questions of the gestures are always important because they help to explain the motive and intent of the communication. Noted earlier is the way American Indians increase their voice to stress things, while Britons just repeat the phrase to make emphasis. This difference of understanding the loudness of the voice may lead to wrong interpretation, thus creating a problematic for the cross cultural communication.
Analysis of the Theories
In understanding the value of cross cultural communication, it is very important to understand the meaning of cultural orientation, wherein the social script theory is anchored on. The social script theory provides a conclusive explanation on the differences of reaction on the same thing. There will always be this gap of culture because of their orientation. To expect similarity would be futile because cultural orientation will always become a factor in communication. In this regard, the social script theory proposes a plausible explanation on why people of different culture may have different approach of communication and understanding the same thing.
Social script theory notes that the person internalizes daily activities based on the social script of the person. Social scripts are culture-based reflective understanding of the situation. For instance, restaurants scripts of a Chinese may be different of the script of someone from America. In this sense, the way they perceive or understand situation is based on the social script that is embedded on them from their culture or by their orientation.
With the adaptation of the social script, cross cultural communication is developed. While people get their culture through the script they acquire by observing and experiencing the same natural situation, they also get oriented with what is acceptable in their society. Applying social script theory on cross cultural communication, it is easy to see how people within the organization adapt the largely accepted norm, thus allowing assimilation of culture for the cross cultural communication barriers to be eliminated.
What Hall provided was a non-verbal communication view of the cross cultural communication system. Proxemic theory tries to explain the way people behave while speaking with others with the aid of understanding the view of space. When people speak, they are also driven by non-verbal gestures that they acquire from their cultural orientation. When these views of space collide, they will result to the misinterpretation of actions, thus crossing or even defeating the purpose of the linguistics. In fact, proximity is equated with the idea of understanding, positive communication, attitudinal change, and trust. These components play a role in developing the idea of proximity within cross cultural communication to explain the ability of the person to assimilate and adapt to the needs of communication theory.
Discussion
According to St Clair[7](2006), people internalizes situation by observing and experiencing the same situation. With that, one acquires social script based on what is being shown to the person from his or her interaction. As the social script is embedded, it becomes the cultural orientation of the person. With this adaptive or learned feature of the social script theory, one can say that any person can start to acquire social scripts or culture to adapt to the largely accepted norm of the society. In this case, as noted by the English language social script adaptation.
For illustration of the differences, let us take the example provided by Gumpers[8](1982). Americans Indians would raise their voice to stress or emphasis a point, but British English may take the message as being angry. On the other hand, British also repeats phrases to make their stress or emphasis, but this can also be taken in a different light by speakers from another culture. Simply, the problem of cross cultural communication is the perceived misunderstanding of meanings. It may be that one may take the message differently as it is intended to be. When this happens, there is what we call cultural disorientation or gap.
Implications
In terms of social script theory, let us take for instance, in an organization with majority of employees are Americans, minority employees will more likely adapt to the social scripts of the Americans to be able to interact properly with them. This adaptive concept of social script theory, as being acquired scripts, allows for the cross cultural communication to be explained in a better way.
For another example, let us take the way crews of restaurants offer menus to their customers. In most Western culture, they will just stand before the customer's table and just wait for the customer to ask for the menu list. However, in most Oriental culture, crews would directly ask the customer for the order. If a Westerner faces with this action from Oriental crews, they may feel violated or even harassed; however, for Orientals, for crews not to communicate with them is a big no. In a sense, there is a wide difference on the way they approach the communication channel as motivated by the social script theory.
The proponent of the proxemic theory, Edward Hall noted that people use space for their elaboration of culture. Under this understanding of culture, there is a definite notion on the territorial nature of man, as to the overtures of space. Hall noted that while Americans are very concerned about space, Arabs would want to make contact. In fact, there is no equivalent Arabic word for privacy, according to Griffin. The difference of understanding space and contact results to the cross cultural problems of communication. Americans may feel that they are not violated or they are not respected by the actions of Arabs. However, by all intent, the actions of Arabs do not have motives of such disrespect, but rather their cultural orientation or the script as noted by St Clair[9](2006) allows them to be that close without any disrespect.
Following the same example as noted in the social script theory, let us take the Western and Oriental view of space (as expanded from first example above). American employees would talk to each other in opposite sides of the table, but most of the Oriental employees would talk with each other sitting side by side. In fact, Orientals would even whisper on each other's ear while talking, but this is not common to Americans who always regard space as a very important part of respect in communication.
Conclusion & Recommendations
Cross cultural communication is a very vital concept in today's organizational management. Due to the rise of globalization, people interact with each other across borders. As a result of this, cultural orientation or their own characteristics may also become problems to be considered. One cannot isolate orientation from interaction because orientations are already embedded in the psyche of the person. In a sense, it is already part of the way people behave and interact with each other. For one to understand communication, one must also understand cultural differences and adapt to these differences to get in touch with the reality.
According to Tannen[10], the study of cross cultural communication helps to shape the understanding of linguistic theory and the application thereafter. With the variation and diversity of culture and language, communication comes across questions of personal relationships and diplomacy. There are several differences of communication that can be construed as crossing culture. First, it is the question on how we talk, what we talk about, the nature of the communication such as intonation, directness and formulaicity or the novel-ness of the language. Due to these differences, there is also the question of comprehension or coherence of language to cultural understanding.
Cross cultural communication has become an important part of organizational understanding. With various ethnicity and nationality coming together to work within the organization, it is nearly impossible to avoid the diffusion and confusion of communication due to cultural differences. For this purpose, several organizations have organized means and strategies to avoid the high risk of conflicts due to this cause. Based on this analysis, I would suggest that a cultural disorientation may be made on members of the organization. Rather than relying on their own cultural orientation, they should be debriefed about it and they should be given the organizational culture for this basis of communication.
In the same manner, to be able to properly communicate with each other in a way that will avoid cross cultural conflicts, drafting rules on how to interact must be created. This will help to avoid cultural shock and conflict to maintain actions within the centrality of culture. With this, there is a need to make sure that people within the organization have better understanding of other culture. We cannot isolate people from interaction, but we can make them ready for the differences of culture. Expanding understanding of other culture will help to avoid cross cultural communication failure.
Over the years, several experts have tried to understand the integral nature of cross cultural communication. While others are focused on the linguistic value of the communication channels, others are more concerned about the non-verbal actions being used. Yet, there is still a continued need to understand cross cultural communication. One cannot fully grasp the idea of cultural differences, but one can fully understand and assimilate with the idea.
References
Agarwal, S. & Garg, A. (2012). The Importance of Communication within Organizations: A Research on Two Hotels in Uttarakhand. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSRJBM) ISSN: 2278-487X Volume 3, Issue 2 (July-Aug. 2012), PP 40-49
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
Griffin, E. A First Look at Communication Theory. Proxemic Theory of Edward Hall.
Gumperz, J. J. (1978). The conversational analysis of interethnic communication. IoE. Lamar Ross (Ed.), Interethnic communication (pp. 13-31). Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, No. 12. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Meng, H. (2008). Social Script Theory and Cross-Cultural Communication. Intercultural Communication Studies XVII: 1 2008
Pym, A. (2003). A Theory of Cross-Cultural Communication. Intercultural Studies Group.
St. Clair, R. N. (2006). The framing of culture: Interdisciplinary essays on culture theory. Course available through Blackboard for Beijing Foreign Studies University students, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.
Tannen, D. The Pragmatics of Cross-Cultural Communication. Applied Linguistics, V01. 5., No. 3
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk along .friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
[1] Agarwal, S. & Garg, A. (2012). The Importance of Communication within Organizations: A Research on Two Hotels in Uttarakhand. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSRJBM) ISSN: 2278-487X Volume 3, Issue 2 (July-Aug. 2012), PP 40-49
[2] Pym, A. (2003). A Theory of Cross-Cultural Communication. Intercultural Studies Group.
[3] Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
[5] Meng, H. (2008). Social Script Theory and Cross-Cultural Communication. Intercultural Communication Studies XVII: 1 2008
[6] Ibid.
[7] St. Clair, R. N. (2006). The framing of culture: Interdisciplinary essays on culture theory. Course available through Blackboard for Beijing Foreign Studies University students, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.
[8] Gumperz, J. J. (1978). The conversational analysis of interethnic communication. IoE.
[9] St. Clair, R. N. (2006). The framing of culture: Interdisciplinary essays on culture theory. Course available through Blackboard for Beijing Foreign Studies University students, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.
[10] Tannen, D. The Pragmatics of Cross-Cultural Communication. Applied Linguistics, V01. 5., No. 3
