Friday, October 10, 2008

Intercultural Communication and The Organization

Communication in an organization involves two overlapping areas :
interpersonal communication and organizational communication. Interpersonal communication is the exchange of information between two individuals, whereas organizational communication is the pattern of communication between groups and individuals in the organization. Interpersonal communication has been described in a general model that traces the flow of information between two individuals (Adler, 1991). Language and cultural factors impact on all the dimensions and phases of the communication process. Thus, international communication can suffer in the multicultural business environment.


Common sense supported by the communication literature (for example, Hamzah-Sendut, Madsen & E’ Thong, 1989) indicate that limited language proficiency changes the dynamics of the communication process. Both speed and accuracy are affected. The communication process must be slowed down and simplified in order to complete the interchange of information between sender and receiver. Status, hierarchy, and power always affect organizational communication. In this study, most of the expatriates assumed upper-level positions in the corporation. This adds to the lack of English language competence and the tendency to respect the authorities’ status and power, in compounding the communication difficulty. Consequently, information loss would always occur as information is filtered up through the organizational levels even though information loss is considered a widely accepted organizational phenomenon.


Cultural difference is also a factor that affects the communication process and
individual communication styles. According to Hall (1976), individuals from different societies and cultures communicate differently. He developed a comparative model that is directly related to interpersonal communication and that has contrasting polar dimensions, namely, high-context communication versus low-context communication. In a high-context environment, more of the information lies either within the context or within the counterparts who are parts of the interaction. Less of the meaning of a message is provided in the coded, explicitly transmitted part of the total message. In contrast, in low-context cultures, the verbal part of the message itself contains more of the information and the majority of the transmitted information is vested in explicit codes.


In a low-context Western culture, the prime responsibility lies with the sender to encode a clear and understandable message. Verbal messages are extremely important since people do not look in the environment for information. The messages are usually explicitly coded unless they pertain to relatively sensitive issues. Once the message is encoded and sent, the receiver has the responsibility to ask for clarification of the communicated message if the message is unclear. Direct feedback is an integral part of the communication process. In contrast, in the high-context Chinese culture a different flow of information is created and different responsibilities between the sender and receiver are expected. In a high-context cultural environment like that of Taiwan, the sender firstly assesses the communication environment or context and then encodes the verbal message. Once the message is sent, the receiver also assesses the communication environment before interpreting the meaning of words in the verbal message. The syntax, taken by itself, may be vague and indirect, especially when dealing with sensitive interpersonal issues. Interlocutors instinctively receive contextual or environmental variables as part of the message.


As a result, what might be considered incomplete or vague becomes complete by adding the context dimension to the communication process in high-context communication. During the communication process, immediate feedback and asking for clarification may not always be an integral part of the communication process in a high-context culture.


Face consideration is another crucial but subtle factor that impacts the communication process. While all cultures give importance to “saving and giving face”, Hsu (1971) notes that losing face is the ultimate social sanction and is “a real dread affecting the social system” that is more than physical fear. Chinese individuals are thus reluctant to send messages in any condition where there is a possibility of losing face.


Therefore, if a Chinese individual sends a message, that individual is conditioned to make sure that the content of the message is correct or cannot be questioned by the receivers. Consequently, there is a tendency to wait and respond in meetings and to delay reporting until projects are completed or results are certain. This face-saving behavior of Chinese is different from the face-saving or face-enhancing behavior of Westerners. Westerners put forth tentative ideas and partial proposals and ask directly for feedback and clarification. In a Western style of communication, an individual can even gain face by asking for clarification and putting forth a tentative idea. As compared to Westerners, Chinese are conditioned to communicate in completed thoughts rather than in incomplete or hypothetical tentative ideas. Harmony among individuals, handed down from the Confucian tradition, leads to the suppression of open conflict and confrontation in Chinese culture and in the formal interactions among individuals that transpire in meetings.