What does context have to do with cross cultural communication?
Over the course of the last few cross cultural training blog entries I’ve made, a few of you have responded asking for more information around High and Low Context cultures and the communication problems that can erupt when teams from either side of the spectrum are working together.
I thought I’d spend a little more time this week discussing how teams comprised of employees and leaders from both High and Low Context cultures can work together more effectively, saving both time and money.
After all, that’s what Solve the Culture Puzzle! is all about.
So let’s start with a quick review of what Edward T. Hall said about High and Low Context cultures. If you remember from the training course, Hall explained that all cultures appear somewhere on a matrix from High to Low Context, depending on a variety of cultural mores, rules and unwritten guidelines around what’s “normal” for communication in any particular culture.
An example of High Context cultures are Korea, Japan, Vietnam, China and Saudi Arabia. A few Low Context cultures would be Germany, Swiss-German, the U.S., Austria and Australia.
A lot of you, I know already, are dealing with people across these cultural divides. Perhaps your head office is located in the U.S., with manufacturing located in Asia and a satellite office in Latin America, or maybe sales and engineering located in Western Europe.
If so, then you’ve run into this problem before, but you might not have been able to put a label on it.
So what can happen?
How about this – when the American manager asks clearly and directly, with solid eye contact, using a first name (because he was raised to believe this is the most sincere, open and honest, direct and respectful way to communicate in a business context) for a group of employees from China to participate in a “brain storming” session, he gets almost nothing from the group. They are reluctant to participate, they look down at the floor, their body language appears meek and non-confrontational, their voices low in volume, apparently not “engaged” in the process at all.
Why? Because what’s “normal” in your culture’s communication style, may be “highly abnormal” in someone else’s. The Chinese employees in this example were raised to not directly answer back, using eye contact and a loud voice, lest it be perceived as a challenge to the manager’s status. It’s a huge leap outside your average Chinese employee’s comfort zone to engage in back-and-forth banter with a Western-style leadership approach. It’s simply too informal, too much a challenge to perceived hierarchies for them to relax and be productive in that type of environment.
It’s not to say that the Chinese or the Japanese cannot do these types of exercises – it’s simply a question of being aware of the differences, and knowing how to manage it when the difference becomes apparent.
Another example - what about the fact that in a Japanese meeting, so little of what is said verbally carries the actual intended message, and so much more of the message is buried in subtle meanings, intonation, body posture, silence and couched in diplomatic language? For Westerners on their first trip to Japan, this can cause frustration, as to them, it’s simply unclear what the message is, much less what’s expected of them.
Westerners have to understand to pay attention to subtle cues, and to appreciate gaps of silence in a conversation, to be aware of body position, lack of eye contact and process these things as “The Japanese Way”.
By the same token, Chinese and Japanese have to understand that in the West, it’s ok for subordinates to speak up in meetings, ask for clarification, and participate actively, even making direct eye contact.
Once it’s understood by all parties that my “normal” might not be your “normal”, both sides can move past being offended, or feeling slighted, and work towards getting work done, saving time and money.
After all, that’s what Solve the Culture Puzzle! is all about.
Ted Bezner
