Cultural Breakdowns of Communication and Impact on the Performance of Multicultural Teams

Home , Cultural communication

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ CULTURAL BREAKDOWNS OF COMMUNICATION AND IMPACT ON THE PERFORMANCE OF MULTICULTURAL TEAMS

M.V.A.L. NARASIMHA RAO*

*Assistant Professor, K L University Business School, K L University, Vaddeswaram, Guntur Dist. Aandhra Pradesh, India.

ABSTRACT

In the context of globalization, business activity involves high volume of communication across the countries. Business activities such as, leading, motivating, negotiating, decision-making, problem solving and exchanging information and ideas are all based on the abilities of managers and employees from one culture to communicate successfully with colleagues, clients, and suppliers from other culture.

Against this backdrop, the notion of culture becomes an even more important concept for the analysis of communication process and the challenges there in. Culture includes values and patterns that influence company attitudes and actions. It impacts behavior, morale and ultimately productivity at work. The growth of globalization of business has made it vital for people from different cultural backgrounds to work together. In today's marketplace, communicating change in MNCs requires intercultural communication competence and cultural sensitivity skills from organizational change leader. The communication skills of individual team members play an important role in establishing rapport within the team and binding team members into one cohesive and high performance unit.

The present paper addresses cultural issues in business communication across cultures. In the context of fast pace growth of globalization, an attempt is made to study the effect of cultural diversities among globalised economies and how these cultural diversities are creating noise in the process of communication. An attempt is made to identify and analyse the cultural breakdowns of communication and a few communication models are critically examined for their effectiveness in cross cultural communication.

KEYWORDS: Communication, Culture, Diversity, Globalization. ______

INTRODUCTION

Hofstede (1991) has defined culture as "the collective programming of the mind, which distinguishes the member of one category of people from another". Culture gives people a sense of who they are, of belonging, of how they should behave, and of what they should be doing. www.zenithresearch.org.in Culture impacts behavior, morale, and productivity at work as well, and includes values and

patterns that influence company attitudes and actions. The growth of globalization of business

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ has made it vital for people from different cultural backgrounds to work together (Thomas & Ely, 1996). Managers of MNCs need to understand the role of intercultural communication competence in achieving cohesiveness in diverse environment of global team. More sophisticated knowledge and training in intercultural communication skills and multicultural team building is highly demanded (Bennett, 1997). In today's marketplace, communicating change in MNCs requires intercultural communication competence and cultural sensitivity skills from organizational change leader. Moreover, the improvement of technology has greatly reshaped intercultural communication and involves more people in communication process (Chen, 2000; Huber, 1990; Porter, & Samovar, 1994). Globalization, continuous organizational change, and communication technology are the three driving forces that intensity

CULTURE

Culture (from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning "to cultivate") is a term that has different meanings. For example, in 1952, Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn compiled a list of 164 definitions of "culture" in Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. However, the word "culture" is most commonly used in three basic senses:

Excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture

An integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning

The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group.

CULTURAL DIVERSITY

Cultural diversity is the variety of human societies or cultures in a specific region, or in the world as a whole. (The term is also sometimes used to refer to multiculturalism within an organization. This article does not currently cover that alternative meaning.) There is a general consensus among mainstream anthropologists that humans first emerged in Africa about two million years

ago. Since then they have spread throughout the world, successfully adapting to widely differing conditions and to periodic cataclysmic changes in local and global climate. The many separate societies that emerged around the globe differed markedly from each other, and many of these differences persist to this day.

As well as the more obvious cultural differences that exist between people, such as language, dress and traditions, there are also significant variations in the way societies organize themselves, in their shared conception of morality, and in the ways they interact with their environment.

By analogy with biodiversity, which is thought to be essential to the long-term survival of life on earth, it can be argued that cultural diversity may be vital for the long-term survival of humanity; and that the conservation of indigenous cultures may be as important to humankind as the www.zenithresearch.org.in conservation of species and ecosystems is to life in general. The General Conference of

UNESCO took this position in 2001, asserting in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration on

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ Cultural Diversity that "...cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature"

CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Cross-cultural communication (also frequently referred to as intercultural Communication, which is also used in a different sense, though) is a field of study that looks at how people from differing cultural backgrounds communicate, in similar and different ways among themselves , and how they endeavour to communicate across cultures.

CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION IN THE GLOBAL

WORKPLACE

Today's companies are doing business more and more in a global context. The people that count in any business from the suppliers to clients to employees are increasingly based in remote locations in foreign countries. The need for effective and clear intercultural communication is becoming vital in securing success in today's global workplace.

Intercultural communication has many definitions. In short intercultural communication looks at how people, from differing cultural backgrounds, endeavour to communicate. It draws on areas such as cultural anthropology and other areas of communication to build an academic framework. At its foundation is the desire to establish and understand how people from different cultures communicate with each other and help people improve this.

Within the context of the global workplace, intercultural communication looks at how people communicate (verbally and non-verbally), manage, work together, approach deadlines, negotiate, meet, greet, build relationships and much more. Companies and individuals looking to do business within the global workplace often fail to address such areas before doing business abroad. This can and does lead to poor performance and lost deals. Greater understanding of intercultural differences, etiquette, protocol and communication as well as more informed planning will certainly lead to a much higher probability of achieving business goals.

Intercultural communication today means getting a competitive edge. Why? Because today business is highly competitive and fast changing. People need to get it right, and get it right the first time.

MULTICULTURAL TEAM

Effective multicultural teams are central to future global competitiveness, workforce motivation and management (Rhinesmith, 1996). MNCs expanding globally to tap the potential of foreign markets use multicultural teams because they promise the necessary flexibility, responsiveness and improved resource utilization to meet the dynamic demands of a global business environment (Mowshowitz, 1997). Multicultural teams are task-oriented groups consisting of people of different national cultures (Marquardt, & Horvath, 2001). The cultural diversity of a www.zenithresearch.org.in team has many benefits such as the variety of perspectives, skills, and personal attributes that

multicultural team members contribute to an organization (Mazenevski, 1994).

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ Ethnically diverse groups generate more ideas of higher quality in brainstorming tasks (McLeod, & Lobel, 1992); culturally diverse teams outperform homogeneous teams in identifying problems and generating solutions (Watson, Kumar, & Michaelson, 19ùó. MNCs can make significant gains in productivity by employing multicultural teams (Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendrickson, 19ù8) However, managing cultural diversity, differences, and cross cultural conflicts has become the most challenge of multicultural teams (Marquardt, & Horvath, 2001). Five most typical challenges of multicultural team are (a) managing cultural diversity, differences, and conflict, (b) handling geographic distance and dispersion of team members, (c) dealing with coordination and control issues, (d) maintaining communication richness, (e) developing and maintaining team cohesiveness (Marquardt, & Horvath, 2001). Nevertheless, cross cultural communication competence is a vital component of managers' ability to address the challenges faced by multicultural teams.

CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND MULTICULTURAL TEAM PERFORMANCE

According to Shonk (1982), the key factors necessary for team to be effective are clear communication, common goal, rewards/recognition, trust, and decision-making process. Team members have to be effective listeners and competent communicators, to understand the common goal or why the team exists and what is the responsibility of individual team members, to understand the incentives the company provides for working on the team and how the team's contributions will be recognized, to trust each other, and to understand how decisions are made and what process is being used to make those decisions.

Studies of team cohesion and team performance report positive correlation between these two factors (Elron, 1997; Guzzo, & Shea, 1992). Cohesive teams react faster to changes and challenges, are more flexible, and therefore are more efficient (Elron, 1997). The communication skills of individual team members help to establish rapport within the team and to bind team members into one cohesive and high performance unit.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

HOFSTEDE'S DIMENSIONS OF CULTURE

The most widely referenced dimensions of culture are derived by Hofstede (1980, 1991), which are power distance, individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity- femininity. Power distance indicates the extent to which a culture accepts that power within the culture is distributed unequally. The individualism refers to a loosely knit social framework in which people place higher values on individual goals than on group goals and collectivism refers to a tight social framework in which people place group needs and goals higher than individual ones. Uncertainty avoidance indicates the extent to which a culture feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations and tries to avoid these situations. The masculinity refers to the dominant cultural values are assertiveness and the acquisition of money and things. The feminine

focuses more on quality of life and nurturance issues (Hofstede, 1991). www.zenithresearch.org.in www.zenithresearch.org.in

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ UNCERTAINTY REDUCTION THEORY

Uncertainty reduction is a cognitive process by which individuals attempt to understand one another and their situations by making proactive predictions about the other's attitudes, values, feelings, beliefs, and behaviors and by creating plausible retroactive explanations for the other's behavior (Berger, 1979). The uncertainty reduction theory posits that effective communication is a function of the amount of uncertainty that individuals experience in the communication process. It is also one of the factors for effective functioning of global teams (Berger, & Calabrese, 1975). Multicultural team members need to be interculturally and communicatively competent to be able to obtain necessary information about their team members, to reduce uncertainty and anxiety, and to start effective working relationship.

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE MODELS

Team members' effective and clear communication is one of the critical factors for achieving high performance work teams (shonk, 1982). Intercultural communication competence research can be considered central to understanding dynamics of multicultural teams. The intercultural adjustment model and the intercultural communication competence model are the two most widely mentioned models of intercultural communication literature.

THE INTERCULTURAL ADJUSTMENT MODEL

Hammer, Gudykunst, and Wiseman (1978) analyzed 24 personal abilities considered important in intercultural situations. The factor analysis showed three basic dimensions: the ability to deal with psychological stress, the ability to communicate effectively, and the ability to establish interpersonal relationships.

The ability to deal with psychological stress include effectively dealing with frustration, interpersonal conflict, stress, pressure, financial difficulties, social alienation, different political systems, and anxiety. The ability to communicate effectively include initiation interaction with stranger, entering into meaningful dialogue with other people, effectively dealing with communication misunderstandings between yourself and others, and effectively dealing with different communication styles. The ability to establish interpersonal relationships include items such as (a) effectively dealing with different social systems, (b) developing satisfying interpersonal relationships with people, (c) accurately understanding the feelings of another person, (d) empathizing with another people, and (e) effectively dealing with different social customs (Hammer et al. 1978).

THE INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE MODEL

The intercultural communication competence model views effective intercultural interactions as a function of success of the communication process between culturally different persons. An intercultural competent person is able to establish an interpersonal relationship with a foreign national through effective exchange of both verbal and nonverbal levels of behavior (Dinges,

1983). Abe and Wiseman (1983) reported five dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: (a) the www.zenithresearch.org.in www.zenithresearch.org.in

ability to communicate interpersonally, (b) the ability to adjust to different cultures, (c) the

ability to adjust different social systems, (d) the ability to establish interpersonal relationships.

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ THE CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE MODEL

Matveev (2002) determine that integrated intercultural communication competence model to be the most appropriate when examining the impact of intercultural communication competence on performance of multicultural teams. He proposed the integrated cross-cultural communication competence model is based on the research of Abe and Wiseman (1983) and Cui and Awa (1992).

The integrated cross-cultural communication competence model has a number of conceptual and operational advantages. First, the model is more universal in nature: it can be applied to a much wider range of situations and interactions of people from different cultures, including overseas performance and intercultural adjustment. Second, the theoretical foundation of the integrated model is consistent throughout different intercultural communication and cultural studies. Finally, earlier studies using the foundational intercultural communication competence model yielded significant findings (Matveev, 2002). The integrated cross-cultural communication model views a multicultural team in an organization as a basic unit of analysis. Each member of the multicultural team consists of a different culture and possesses different characteristics contributing to the communication process. Four underlying dimensions of the model are the interpersonal skills dimension, the team effectiveness dimension, the cultural uncertainty dimension, and the cultural empathy dimension (Matveev, Rao, & Milter, 2001).

The interpersonal skills include a team member acknowledges differences in the communicative and interactional styles of people from different cultures, demonstrates flexibility in resolving misunderstandings, and feels comfortable when communicating with foreign nationals.

The team effectiveness dimension includes critical skills such as the ability of a team member to understand and clearly communicate team goals, roles, and norms to other members of a multicultural team.

The cultural uncertainty reflects the ability of a team member to display patience in intercultural situations, to be tolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty due to cultural differences and to work in a flexible manner with others on a multicultural team.

In the cultural empathy dimension, a culturally team member has the capacity to behave as though she or he understands the world as team members from other cultures do, has a spirit of inquiry about other cultures, an appreciation for a variety of working styles, and an ability to view the ways things are done in other cultures not as bad but simply as different.

CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION PROCESS:

When people from different cultures come together to interact their messages are guided by and reflect their basic value orientations and cultural norms (Neuliep, 2003). Therefore, in order to communicate effectively in a culturally diverse business environment it is essential to become knowledgeable about the cultural factors that affect the communication process. Cultural

differences threaten the communication process because they reduce the availability of codes and www.zenithresearch.org.in www.zenithresearch.org.in

conventions that are shared by the sender and the receiver. The cultural field represents culturally based elements in the sender‟s and in the receiver‟s background, such as their language,

education, and cultural values (as shown in Fig. 1). It is these cultural fields that create the codes

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ used in encoding and decoding and cultural conventions that affect the communication process (Thomas & Inkson 2003). These fields are often referred to as cultural noise. When encoding, decoding and interpreting it is this cultural noise that acts as a filter through which all messages, both verbal and nonverbal, passes, therefore, all cross cultural exchanges are to a greater or lesser extent charged with ethnocentrism. That is we have a tendency to judge others, and their communication according to the codes and standards set by our own culture.

FIG.1: CULTURAL FIELD REPRESENTING CULTURAL ELEMENTS IN THE SENDER’S AND RECEIVER’S BACKGROUND

Source: „Cultural Intelligence‟ by D C Thomas and K Inkson

Cultural noise includes, but is not limited to, stereotyping, language, nonverbal communication, cultural value dimensions (power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, time, uncertainty avoidance/tolerance, masculinity vs. femininity, universalism vs. particularism), high and low context communication, time orientation, cultural apprehension, and evaluating behaviour from one‟s own point of view.

STEREOTYPING

“Pictures in our heads”

• A cognitive representation of a group of people that does not allow for individual difference and influence one‟s feeling about that group

In cross cultural encounters there are several filters that can prevent us from accurately understanding what others are trying to communicate and that can prevent others from accurately understanding what we are trying to communicate. Our tendency to interpret and evaluate www.zenithresearch.org.in behaviour before we understand it and our willingness to stereotype groups of people prevents us

from interpreting behaviour accurately (Hofstede, Pederson & Hofstede, 2002). Stereotyping

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ involves a form of categorising that organises our experience and guides our behaviour toward various groups within society (Adler, 2002). Stereotypes, like other forms of categorisation, can be negative or positive. Positive stereotyping is when the stereotype is consciously held, descriptive rather than evaluative accurate and is modified based on further observations. Negative stereotyping occurs when we place people in the wrong category, when the group is incorrectly described and there is no allowance for individual difference, and when we fail to modify the stereotype based on observations (Mannes, 2006).

IMPACT ON COMMUNICATION

If inaccurate stereotypes are firmly held, they lead to inaccurate predictors of others‟ behaviour, misunderstanding and decreased effectiveness in communication. It is important to be aware that when we do stereotype people we act towards them in a manner that reinforces our belief in the attributed stereotypical behaviour, thus not allowing the adjustment of the held belief. For example if we believe that most Asian people cannot speak English and that they cannot understand you; you might adjust your communication when communicating with them or avoid them altogether. Either way the communication process is compromised

INDIVIDUALISM VS COLLECTIVISM

• Individuals are concerned about consequences of action for themselves, not others

• Collectivists primarily view themselves as members of groups

People from individualistic cultures are most concerned about the consequences of action for themselves. They prefer activities conducted on one‟s own or in relatively private interactions with friends. Decisions are made by the individual according to the judgment he makes as to what is appropriate and the individual rewards that will accrue. People from collectivist cultures primarily view themselves as members of groups and collectives rather than as autonomous individuals. They are concerned about the effects of actions of their groups. Activities are likely to be taken in groups and on a more public basis. Decisions are made on a consensus or consultative basis and the effects of the decision on everyone in the group are taken into account

(Thomas & Inskson, 2003).

IMPACT ON COMMUNICATION

Individualist organisations tend to specify individual positions, have detailed job descriptions, listing duties and responsibilities, whereas collectivist specify people by the group, describe tasks, responsibilities and reporting relationships in collective terms. Award and recognition - individualists prefer to be rewarded on the basis of their own contributions. Collectivists like to be rewarded on the basis of equal shares for all contributing to the group. The changing work environment has caused employees and employers to shift their emphasis from building long term relationships to negotiating short term transactions. Those from individual cultures tend to view jobs as short term transactions, whereas those from collectivist cultures see them as long

term relationships. Individualists generally assert their own rights, ideas and resist group www.zenithresearch.org.in www.zenithresearch.org.in

pressure, whereas collectivists are more influenced by the context and the ideas of the other people involved. The way working relationships are organised – individualist value speaking up,

sharing and debating points of view vs. collectivists who's expectation is for harmonious

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ discussion in which goals take precedence over personal egos. Collectivist may not be willing to highlight any issues that might upset the harmony for the group, which might mean issues go unresolved.

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE

• The degree to which members of a culture feel threatened by unpredictable, uncertain or unknown situations

Communicating with a person from another culture can be uncomfortable because such situations are filled with uncertainty and unpredictability. When uncertainty is high anxiety is high, and communication can be difficult or awkward, therefore, reducing this uncertainty will facilitate effective and successful communication. Research has found, however, that the tolerance for or level of uncertainty a person experiences is learned through cultural socialisation. Uncertainty can be defined as the degree to which members of a particular culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations (Hofstede, 1980). Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance sense that uncertainty in life is a continuous threat that must be fought are guided by the belief that what is different is dangerous. High uncertainty cultures evade ambiguity in most situations and look for structure in their business, organisations, home life and relationships. Conversely, low uncertainty cultures see uncertainty as a normal part of life and each day is accepted as it comes. People are comfortable with ambiguity and guided by the belief that what is different is curious. Uncertainty levels can be measured by the extent to which the culture emphasizes focusing on ways to reduce uncertainty and create stability – for example, having clear written rules and procedures or strong norms to guide action. Formal organisational procedures may be much more necessary in high uncertainty cultures (Thomas & Inkson, 2003).

IMPACT ON COMMUNICATION

High uncertainty leaders will structure the work of their subordinates, possibly through bureaucracy, and will make decisions to enhance stability. High uncertainty employees are likely to avoid any ambiguous situations. People from high uncertainty cultures expect all procedures to be clearly defined and their roles and tasks clearly defined and would, for the most, expect oneway communication (downward). High uncertainty is often paired with high power distance and if this is so employees would also expect formal lines of communication, have clear lines of power and authority and the CEO‟s/manager‟s word becomes law.

POWER DISTANCE

The extent to which members of a culture except and accept that power is unequally distributed

Power distance refers to how a society feels about hierarchy and inequality of status (Hofstede 1980). New Zealand society prides itself on being egalitarian and view power as something that should be distributed equally. Conversely high power distance cultures, such as India, Pacific Islands and most Asian cultures unequal distribution of power is expected and acknowledged

socially (Mannes, 2006). Important to working and communicating effectively in a multicultural www.zenithresearch.org.in www.zenithresearch.org.in

organisation is understanding where relevant migrant cultures are positioned on the power distance continuum compared with NZ. Knowing this is useful in assisting us to understand the

working environment in terms of the dependence relationships between employees and

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ management. In low power distance cultures there is limited dependence of employees on managers and there is a preference for consultation. In high power distance cultures employees are seen as afraid to disagree with their manager and managers are seen as autocratic or paternalistic.

High power distance employees tend to look to their superiors for guidance and are often proud to show dedication and loyalty to their superiors and are therefore reluctant to provide any feedback that might impact negatively upon that relationship. This makes it challenging to collect valid results when conducting surveys or questionnaires.

IMPACT ON COMMUNICATION

When we assume others‟ environments are similar to our own we behave accordingly and assume all people think and feel the way we do. When we behave according to our own norms we communicate with others using our communication style, not being aware that this may confuse, show disrespect, or create misunderstandings.

High power distance employees prefer to know exactly what is expected of them, are bought up to be obedient and without these structures, are likely to feel lost or uncertain, thus feeling they do not belong and therefore not contributing to the organisation.

High power distance depends on hierarchy and distinct levels of power and with this comes rules of communication engagement - who can speak to whom, thus it becomes difficult to talk to colleagues on an equal level. High power distant is mostly downward communication

CONTEXT

• High context – meaning is gleaned from the physical, social, and psychological contexts

• Low context – meaning is encoded in the verbal code, words are trusted

Cultures differ on the continuum regarding indirect and direct communication of messages and, because culture is interwoven with communication, distinct patterns of communication emerge.

Hall (1959) explains that when it becomes apparent to people of different cultures that they are not understanding one another, each tends to blame „those foreigners‟ for their stupidity, deceit or craziness. However, first impressions are often wrong because neither person has had the opportunity to reveal her/himself in such a short period of time. High context communication is a communication style in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalised in the person, while very little is coded in the explicit, transmitted part of the message (indirect). Conversely low context communication is just the opposite – the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code (direct). Our communication systems are so ingrained that we find it difficult to decode another‟s system which does not use the same code as our own and, for any kind of interaction, communication contextualization becomes a social and interpersonal

obligation that depends to high degree on shared knowledge (Scheu- www.zenithresearch.org.in

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ Lottgen & Herandez-Campoy, 1989). High context communication is often associated with collectivist cultures, low context with individualists. Circular or indirect communication works well for collectivist cultures as the relationship and harmony is important, whilst a linear and direct style works well for individualistic cultures as they strive to present themselves as an individual – and often misunderstandings arise because one is listening for an explicit point and the other is listening for the point that is implicit in the message.

IMPACT ON COMMUNICATION

High context communicators perceive low contexters as rude or abrupt and not concerned about building a relationship. Low context communicators perceive high contexters as ambiguous, having something to hide or beating around the bush and are not in a position to attend to meaning through context, therefore not receiving and/or understanding the complete message. Low context communicators can be perceived as confrontational, highly threatening or unsettling and likely to lead to loss of face, or embarrassment for high context communicators. High contextes are perceived as having trouble communicating main ideas when writing memos or reports and when making oral presentations. Perceived as not giving true feelings at meetings and saying what they think the boss wants to hear, thus perceived as irresponsible.

The English Language

• Since there is no time like the present he thought it was time to present the present.

• When shot at the dove dove into the bushes.

• After a number of injections my jaw got number.

• The farm was used to produce produce.

Why make it difficult, the English language is already difficult!

From the above examples we can see how easy it would be for a non native English speaker to

get confused, especially if translating the words literally with limited vocabulary. In written communication pay attention to selecting words that are clear and explicit and leave minimal chance of misunderstanding. For example the first point could be made clearer by taking out redundant words and using more specific words that avoid confusion –

• It was time to present the gift. He presented the gift.

• After a few injections my jaw got number.

• The farm grew produce. The farm was used to grow produce.

• The dove plummeted into the bushes. www.zenithresearch.org.in www.zenithresearch.org.in

Can you imagine the term “fire drill” translated literally. An international student, when asked in

an exam, to explain a fire drill wrote about this.

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ ACCEPTING AND RESPONDING TO PRAISE

Even the way we accept and respond to praise differs across cultures making it difficult to reward or recognise employees. Cultural differences exist regarding how frequently praise is used, what is praised, and how people respond. For example, American people are likely to praise physical appearance, whereas Arabs and Japanese are more likely to praise skill and work. Response to praise also varies across cultures, for example in China, where modesty is a virtue, praise can cause embarrassment and they tend to deflect praise, conversely we, like most western countries, are likely to politely accept it (Thomas, 2002).

DEVELOPING CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

FIG. 2. PROCESS TO EMPLOY AN APPROPRIATE CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

Assessment of Intercultural Communication

Ongoing Assessment / Auditing of Communication Strategies

Assessment of Cultural Capacity and/or Understanding

Resource Commitment to Communication Strategy

Assessment of Appropriateness of Relationship Communications

Assessing Relationship Goals

Evaluation of Changes in Dependence and Trust

Ongoing Assessment / Auditing of Communication Strategies www.zenithresearch.org.in www.zenithresearch.org.in

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ Source: Cultural Distance – getting messages across in a multicultural workplace, at IC summit 2007.

For effective cross cultural communication across the organisation, the communication strategy must take into consideration not only the macrocultural and organisational cultural influences on both the sender and receiver of the message but also the relationship linkage and specific communication goal. The more complex the communication environment, resulting from the levels of similarities and differences between macrocultures and organisational cultures, the more attention to ensuring effective communication strategies are used by the sender of the message. The above diagram shows the types of process needed to employ an appropriate intercultural communication strategy and the following explains each step starting from the top.

1) Assessment of the level of cross cultural communication competency within the organization must be objectively assessed, examining both the experience level, as well as the success of the organisation. This assessment is based on the set of abilities and accumulated knowledge primarily based on developing meaningful and effective cross cultural communication. Given the nature of the complexity of the communication environment, the developed skill set for adjusting each element of the communication strategy (direction, frequency, modality and content) becomes critical. Those with little prior experience in highly complex communication environments must rely more on two directional, frequent, personalised and low content communications in order to minimize misunderstanding and maximize effectiveness.

2) The cultural capacity of intercultural communication is the ability of the organisation to classify past intercultural experiences into meaningful categories. By doing this, the initiators strategy can be used in comparable situations, providing some degree of economies of scale. The frequency of communication between staff of different cultures can accelerate the rate of adaptation of communication strategies, thereby increasing the strategy‟s effectiveness and efficiency.

3) Having taken measure of successful intercultural communication and to improve communication linkages and relationships additional resources (time, training, expertise, adaptation, communication) will be needed. The commitment of resources to specific functional areas of cross cultural communication should not only be considered relating to one specific relationship, but relating to the effective impact on organisational communication.

4) Relationship communications need to be monitored on an ongoing basis to determine their appropriateness for their intended target. For example, does the communication strategy being employed operate most effectively internally or externally; between different departments; in certain macrocultural environments? Ongoing monitoring will identify any areas that need to be improved or modified.

5) The communication strategy not only has to be evaluated relative to the various types of relationship partners and macrocultural differences but also to the relationship goals. Not all

relationships are similar in terms of their intended goal and the type of relationship will vary by www.zenithresearch.org.in

factors such as cultural setting or competitive environment. Therefore, managing the

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ communication strategy should include a means to modify communication efforts that are dependant upon differences in communication targets.

6) Communication strategies can be, and frequently are, influenced by the level of interaction and the resulting level of trust between staff that is developed over time. The communication strategy should be aligned with existing trust and modified to changes in the trust level. In new cross cultural relationships trust can be built through information sharing, social interaction and relationship building. One of the main goals of communication strategies should be directed at building trust and to overcome the inherent motives to distrust due to cross cultural misunderstandings.

7) Given the complexity of establishing effective cross cultural communication strategies it is imperative to monitor and audit the strategy on an ongoing basis. Communication strategies that are cross cultural in nature are extremely complex strategies and need to be developed for different departments yet should maintain consistency and coherence across the organisation.

THREE ‘R’s FOR EFFECTIVE CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION:

• Recognize cultural differences

• Respect for cultural difference

• Reconcile cultural differences

(Mannes M, 2007)

RECOGNISE CULTURAL DIFFERENCE

Because culture does interfere in the communication process and interaction it is important that we do not minimise differences - why – because we are different! Some might argue because of globalization of business and TV networks cultural differences are converging and disappearing. For example, we see McDonalds, Coke, Microsoft, Lexus cars etc all around the world. However, be warned, these are only the artifacts that we observe. To see the cultural differences

we need to go deeper, and while we instantly recognise these explicit cultural differences, we may not recognise implicit cultural difference. Culture is about meaning, about what meaning is given to things, actions and behaviours.

RESPECT FOR CULTURAL DIFFERENCE

Different cultural orientations and views of the world are not right or wrong – they are just different. It is very easy to be judgmental and distrust those who give different meaning to their world from the meaning you give to yours. Respecting these differences and accepting the right of others to interpret the world in the way they have chosen is sometimes difficult but is easier when we recognise that all cultural differences are in ourselves.

www.zenithresearch.org.in

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ RECONCILING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

A significant body of evidence shows that through reconciling differences effective business can be created. Identify and define behaviours that vary across the different cultures within the organisation. This approach will show management how to guide the “people side” of reconciling any kind of values. By integrating these differences and behaviours this enables effective interaction with those of contrasting value systems. It reveals a propensity to share understanding of the other‟s position in the expectation of reciprocity and requires a new way of thinking (Trompenaars & Woolliams, 2003).

THE POSITIVES OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY:

Though cultural diversities affect the communication effectiveness in multicultural groups in global organizations there are several positive implications of these cultural diversities on the performance of these organizations.

• Diversity permits increased creativity

• People think differently thus more and better ideas are generated

• Great opportunity to learn “our way is not the only way” and a different way can sometimes be a better way

• More effective and productive teams Vehicles for better cross cultural communication:

• Vehicle needs to include tolerance, acceptance, inclusion and respect.

• Internal communications is about getting the message through to everyone.

CONCLUSION

Understanding cultural values and unique communication styles will be helpful in improving the effectiveness of communication in global organisations. Using plain English is beneficial, not

only for staff from another culture, but also helps minimise misunderstandings generally. Finally assume differences until you find the similarities. Learn about your own culture and that of others and promote values of acceptance and diversity.

It is very much essential to make the employees to involve in cross cultural training with special focus on cultural diversities and differences in communication approaches and protocols. Well built training programmes will definitely help the members of the cross cultural teams to identify the factors of cross cultural noise and to address it in a more efficient way.

REFERENCES

Abe, H., & Wiseman, R. (1983). A cross-cultural confirmation of the dimensions of intercultural

effectiveness. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 53-67. www.zenithresearch.org.in

Adler, N., (2002) International Dimensions of organisational behaviour 4th ed.,

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ Canada, South Western Thomson Learning

Bennett, J.M. (1997). Handbook of intercultural training. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(4), 535-539.

Berger, C.R. (1979). Beyond initial interactions. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell

Berger, C.B., & Calabrese, R.J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112

Chen, G. (2000). Global communication via Internet: An educational application. In G. Chen, & W.J. Starosta (Eds.), Communication and global society, pp. 117-133. New York: Peter Long Publishing

Cui, G., & Awa N.E. (1992). Measuring intercultural effectiveness: An integrative approach. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 311-328

Dinges, N.G. (1983). Intercultural competence. In D. Landis, & R.W. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training: Issues in theory and design, pp. 176-202. New York: Pergamon Press

Elron, E. (1997). Top management teams within multinational corporations: effects of cultural heterogeneity, Leadership Quarterly, 8(4), 393-413

Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations, in M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough (eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press

Hammer, M., Gudykunst, W., & Wiseman, R. (1978). Dimensions of intercultural effectiveness: An exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 282-393.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, United Kingdom: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede G.J., Pedersen P.B., Hofstede G., 2002, Exploring cultures: Exercises, stories and synthetic cultures, Intercultural Press.

Huber, G. (1990). A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on organizational design, intelligence and decision making. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and

communication technology, pp. 237-274. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications. www.zenithresearch.org.in

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ Mannes, M., (2006). Communicating across cultures in a New Zealand workplace an investigation of attitudes, policies and practices at Excell, Auckland, Thesis Massey University.

Mannes, M., (2007). Cultural Distance – getting messages across in a multicultural workplace, at IC Summit.

Marquardt, M.J., & Horvath, L. (2001). Global Teams: How Top Multinational Span Boundaries and Cultures with High-speed Teamwork, Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Matveev, A.V., Rao, N., & Milter R.G. (2001). Developing a scale to measure intercultural communication competence: A pilot study in multicultural organizations. Paper submitted to the International and Intercultural Communication, Division of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA.

Maznevski, M.I. (1994). Understanding our differences: performance in decision-making groups with diverse members, Human Relations, 47, 531-552

McLeod, P., & Lobel, S. (1992). The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, Nevada

Mowshowitz, A. (1997), "Virtual organisation". Communication of the ACM, vol.40, no.9, pp.30-37.

Neuliep, J.M., (2003). Intercultural communication 2nd ed., New York, Houghton Mifflin Company

Porter, R.E., & Samovar, L.A. (1994). An introduction to intercultural communication. In L.A. Samovar, & R.E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (7th ed.) (pp. 4-25). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Rhinesmith, S.H. (1996). A manager's guide to globalization: Six keys to success in a changing world. Chicago, IL: Irwin.

Shonk, J.H. (1982). Working in teams: A practical manual for improving work groups. New York: Amacom.

Thomas, D., (2002). Essentials of International Management – a cross cultural perspective, London, Sage Publications

Thomas, D.A., & Ely, R.J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 79-90.

Thomas, D.C. & Inskson. K., (2003), Cultural Intelligence, San Francisco, Berrett- Koehler www.zenithresearch.org.in

Publishers Inc.

ZENITH International Journal of Business Economics & Management Research Vol.1 Issue 3, December 2011, ISSN 2249 8826 Online available at http://zenithresearch.org.in/ Townsend, A.M., DeMarie, S. and Hendrickson, A.R. (1998). Virtual teams: technology and the workplace of the future, The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17-29.

Trompenaars, F.and Woolliams, P. (2003) & lsquo; Business across cultures’ (Capstone, UK)

Watson, W.E., Kunmar, K., & Michaelson, L.K. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task group, Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590-602.