A Point of View: Communication is about More than Words

When I started teaching in this country, my faculty advisor showed me a sample of a U.S. syllabus.  In addition to the material being covered, it contained very detailed instructions to the students such as font size and type, minimum number of pages for each assignment, deadlines (i. e., 11:59 pm).  It went as far as defining “tardiness” and laying out expectations such as attendance is mandatory, all assignments must be typed, etc.  I was floored.  To me, these were nonsensical and unnecessary instructions.  We were, after all, operating in a higher education setting and, despite their young age, my students were adults.  Surely, they would know better than, for example, turning in a hand-written assignment.  The consequences of such transgression should not have to be explained.  It should be understood.

Very patiently, I was given a lesson on the importance of being direct and ensuring all expectations were clearly communicated ahead of time.  In other words, students needed to know, in no uncertain terms, everything that was expected of them.  Despite my uneasiness, I felt best to adhere to the norm.  It wasn’t until later in the course (I was teaching Intercultural Communication) that the “aha” moment hit me: it is a style difference!  And the same way these differences are impacting our classrooms, they are also impacting our multicultural boardrooms and meeting rooms across the country.

What is said, not said, and how messages are delivered—it all matters.

When communicating across cultures, managers and supervisors need to remember that there are numerous differences in the ways individuals communicate.  Misunderstandings can be avoided by (1) learning about differences in conversational and written etiquette and (2) avoiding projecting our styles onto someone else’s (which was exactly what I was doing in the situation explained above).  One of the first steps toward developing more mindful communication with those who are culturally different is to develop a keen awareness of style differences.  The following principles are worth mentioning because of their potential for creating misunderstandings in the workplace.

Messages can be delivered directly or indirectly – both are OK.

The extent to which speakers reveal their intentions through either verbal or written messages, will depend on whether they are “direct” or “indirect” communicators.  Direct communicators disclose their needs and intentions through spoken and written words.  Many individuals in the U.S. adopt this style as the most appropriate in most contexts.  Indirect communicators, on the other hand, tend to “camouflage” their needs and intentions in their message.  For individuals who prefer this style, preserving harmony in the relationship is far more important than being totally honest.  A “white lie” may be more appropriate than telling the truth.

For example, if my supervisor invites me (an indirect communicator) for a barbecue at his house to celebrate our team’s exceptional performance, and I know for sure I have a conflict, rather than telling him I would not be able to attend, I may give him the impression I am accepting the invitation and simply not show up.  The reason I would behave in such manner is because saying “no” to my supervisor, whom I hold in the highest regard, would feel disrespectful.  I am certain my direct communicator supervisor would have expected nothing but the truth from me.

In increasingly cross-cultural workplaces, it is essential that managers and supervisors remember that different groups place different priorities on telling the truth, being honest, preserving harmony, and trying to avoid conflict.  While in the U.S. the preferred style of communication in most situations is the direct style, for many of us indirect communicators, it will take a lot of coaching to help us understand and become more comfortable with adding this particular style to the way we communicate.

For some, body language, context, and environmental clues carry the message across.

A very significant way in which groups differ in how they communicate relates to their preference for high-context or low-context communication.  For high-context communicators, most of the information is “understood” and therefore, need not be communicated directly.  High-context communicators are much better at reading body language and other environmental cues such as social roles or positions outside of the verbal message.   Low-context communicators do the opposite.  For them, the majority of the information should be transmitted through explicit verbal or written messages.  Intercultural communication researchers have found that, in the United States, the tendency is to avoid relying on nonverbal, contextual information; instead, we should be explicit, to the point, and make sure our messages are not ambiguous.

For those who prefer a high-context communication style, intention or meaning can best be conveyed through the context (e.g., social roles, status, or positions) and through nonverbal channels (e.g., pauses, silence, tone of voice).  The message receiver is the one responsible for inferring the hidden or contextual meaning of the message.  In other words, they need to “read between the lines,” and decode the nonverbal subtleties that accompany the verbal message.

Low-context communicators, on the other hand, expect intention or meaning to be delivered explicitly.  Straight talk is preferred, and the speaker is the one responsible for constructing a clear, persuasive message that the listener can decode easily. Going back to my example above, as a “high-contextualizer”, I assumed my students would automatically understand the expectations instructors would have of them now that they were in college.  My having to relay to them such expectations (i.e., in the syllabus) was unnecessary.

Managers and supervisors working with high-context employees need to practice reading “between the lines” and decoding the nonverbal subtleties accompanying their verbal messages.  They also need to be able to prepare those employees for the context in which they are operating.  It is worth mentioning that, within mainstream United States culture, men tend to adopt a low-context style and emphasize clarity in conversations.  Women, on the other hand, tend to be more high-context in their communication approach and avoid hurting others’ feelings.

Silence can speak volumes.

“He who knows does not speak, and he who speaks does not know.” (Japanese proverb)

This Japanese proverb is very telling of how groups vary in the relative emphasis they place on speaking and silence.  For North Americans of European descent, for example, silence can feel very uncomfortable or awkward as it signals a possible breakdown in the communication process.  Because of that, they tend to fill those awkward moments by asking questions.  For many other groups, though, silence communicates respect and deference.  These groups tend to reduce uncertainty by means of silence, observation, or even asking someone else about a behavior they observed.

When dealing with a culturally diverse workforce, managers and supervisors need to understand that silence communicates as much as the spoken word.  It is an important aspect of the communication process for certain groups, and they need to become more comfortable with the absence of words.  The silent employee in the staff meeting may very well be trying to understand what is being said (e.g., translating) or taking time to formulate a question or a response.  While pauses can sometimes indicate that something has gone wrong, it is possible that it is being utilized to achieve better communication.

 “Yes” doesn’t always mean “yes”.

In some cultures, it is inappropriate to say “no”; thus, the tendency is to “soften” a negative answer or statement.  An employee with an Asian cultural background might, for example, avoid saying “no” by answering a question with another question.  Your Hispanic employees may turn you down gently as a way of saving face for all concerned.  A Middle Eastern employee, on the other hand, may say, “Maybe I can do it, I’ll let you know,” even though he knows it is impossible.  Often times, “yes” simply means “Yes, I understand you” and not necessarily, “Yes, I agree with you.”

These types of behavior may be misconstrued, despite the fact that an employee may be using such tactics as a means of avoiding confrontation or being seen as rude.  When working across cultures, managers and supervisors need to be aware of the tendency of “softening the negative” by certain groups and understand that responses such as maybe, perhaps, it’s difficult, or I will consider it, actually mean no for some of them.  A more effective strategy, then, is to avoid asking “yes or no” questions altogether.  Instead, provide a choice among several options so employees can reject what they do not want without feeling they have caused offense or disrupted the harmony of the employer/employee relationship.

When working with culturally diverse employees, keep the following in mind:

• No set of behaviors is universally correct. For example, research shows that U.S. Americans tend to regard someone who smiles as more intelligent than those who do not.  The Japanese, on the other hand, because their cultural norms dictate constraint in nonverbal expressiveness, do not equate expressiveness with intelligence.  We need to be aware that there are multiple possible explanations when making sense of an intercultural situation. Be very careful when interpreting someone’s behavior because we often look at the world through our own culturally-tinted glasses.
• Knowledge of culture-specific behavior is useful, but we have to keep in mind that it will never apply to all individuals or circumstances. While generalizations are useful, recognize that there are limits to those generalizations.  For this reason, creating a comprehensive list of appropriate behaviors would be pointless, if not impossible.  Proper behaviors are those that are appropriate in the context of the culture, setting, and occasion.  What is right in one set of circumstances may be totally wrong in another.
• We must avoid erroneously evaluating individuals according to membership in some labeled group. Our knowledge of cultural characteristics should serve as a starting point. We should never assume that all members of the same group adopt the same cultural traits.  This is dangerous as it leads to stereotyping.
• Lastly, if we do not notice, learn about, and respond appropriately to the diversity in our organizations, misunderstandings are likely to occur. This, in turn, will greatly compromise the effectiveness of our relationships with those who work for us and with us.

In a cross-cultural context, communication is often complicated.  The message you send may not necessarily be the one that is received.  Likewise, the message you receive may not be the one that was intended.  Also keep in mind that you, as well as your employees, see the world through your own “culturally tinted glasses.”  You don’t have to remove the glasses; however, you need to recognize that you have them, so you can compensate for the distortions they create.