Intercultural Communication in a Multicultural Workplace

Tomas Corza,

California State University Northridge,

Communications 356 Intercultural Communications,

May 9th, 2021

In a business environment, whether it be a small family-owned business or a large financial institution, effective communication between managers, employees, or team members is crucial for maintaining or improving productivity. When team members misinterpret a message communicated by management or another team member, businesses or organizations can experience a loss in productivity. Therefore effective communication in the workplace is crucial for peak productivity levels. However, oftentimes in multicultural workplaces misunderstandings of the intended meaning behind a communicated message can be unintentionally misinterpreted or go unheard.

This problem began to become apparent to me during my time as a service writer for a small auto repair shop. I often would experience issues that I could not explain, I would always make the attempt to communicate with my manager as clearly as I could and I would complete my assigned tasks to the best of my ability. Yet I would always find myself needing to overcome problems caused by misunderstandings. Such as when I would take orders from my manager, I would do exactly what he communicated to me. However, I often found that what was actually expected of me, was always far more than what was verbally communicated. This would cause tension between me and my manager and led him to believe I was just irresponsible and lazy. Even though I would always complete the tasks he assigned to me in a timely manner. However, from the perspective of my manager, I would only do the bare minimum because I would only do exactly what was verbally asked of me. It was apparent to me that I was either not understanding how he spoke to me or he was not effectively communicating with me.

My assumption at the time was that he was not accurately communicating the details of the tasks I was assigned.

An example of this problem would be when my manager would communicate a request for me to complete a task by verbally expressing something such as, “I need you to make an estimate for repair XYZ ”. Which I would then reply with, “ Is that it, nothing else?”, he would then just look at me with a blank stare on his face. So I would then go on to complete the task that was asked of me, assuming that it was all that I was expected to complete. However, my manager would then storm into my office furious that I did not make the estimate, get the approval for repairs from the customer, order the necessary parts and generate an invoice. I would respond with “I asked if that was all you wanted done and you didn't say anything”. My manager believed that this was just an excuse to be lazy. When I would ask why he did not communicate to me what exactly he wanted done, he wouldn’t just say “you just don't pay attention to me when I’m talking”.

From the perspective of my manager, he did communicate everything that I was expected to complete, partially with the use of vocabulary but with further meaning behind his message implied through his nonverbal cues. He expected me to pick up on his nonverbal cues as to what was further expected of me. While I would be in a state of confusion because I thought I did what he asked and because no other expectation was clearly communicated. These communication issues would often lead to unnecessary negative discourse that ultimately would have negative outcomes on workplace productivity. Such as; delays for customers, opportunity costs from the loss of time, negative workplace morale and false perceptions of employee work ethics.

While both me and my manager both lived in Los Angeles, we both had very different cultural backgrounds. My manager being a Mexican-American immigrant and me being an American. The way in which we process information communicated to us is largely influenced by the syntax of the first language we learn (Hopkins, 2009). Therefore, an immigrant living in the United States may not perceive communicated information the same way that someone from the dominant culture of the United States would.

My manager being a Mexican American immigrant had a communication style influenced by the communicational culture of Latin America. In Latin America, oral communication almost never includes all the details of the message being expressed (Martinez, 2020). In Latin American culture, expression through nonverbal communication such as body language, tone of voice, and gestures are more pronounced and carry far more significance than messages or information communicated verbally (Martinez, 2020). While my communication style is derived from my cultural surroundings in the United States. Where non verbal communication carries little to no significance (Martinez, 2020).

In recent history, the United States has experienced a growing amount of immigration from Asian and Hispanic countries, who have high context communication cultures (Henson, 2013). While business operations in the United States are characterized by the dominant low contextual culture (Henson, 2013). With this growing diversity in the United States, intercultural business communication and intercultural workplace relationships are becoming increasingly common. Leading to more intercultural discourse in the workplace between people of high and low context cultures (Martinez, 2020).

Those from low context cultures rely on detailed expression through vocabulary, as opposed to those from high context cultures who do not see detailed expression through vocabulary as being necessary (Henson, 2013). As Hall explained, when discussing how we interpret and understand communicated messages across cultural boundaries, “the chances of one’s being correct decreases as cultural distance increases” (Hall, E.T. 1976)

Communication in the workplace environment can have a significant impact on the productivity and success of an organization, the inability to effectively communicate between management and staff can lead to loss of productivity and unnecessary conflict (Khilji, 2013). Since the high or low context of one's culture has an impact on interpretation of meaning in a message and with the increasing diversity in workplace encounters, it is crucial for managers to broaden their understanding on the impacts of context in cross-cultural communication (Khilji, 2013).

Edward Hall used the term Syncing or, “being in sync” to describe the unconscious synchronized motion of people during interactions, the motion of people during interactions can either be in sync or out sync (Hall, E.T. 1976). Hall explains that when people’s unconscious movements do not sync with others around them, they become a disruption. The idea of, “being in sync” refers to when people's unconscious motions correlate together while communicating verbal and non verbal expression(Hall, E.T. 1976). These synchronized unconscious movements create bonds between people, through shared understanding of culturally specific verbal and nonverbal expression (Hall, E.T. 1976).

With high context communication, the meaning of a message is only partially communicated with explicit verbal expression while the majority of the meaning is implied through physical context and by an assumption of shared contextual understanding (Hall, E.T. 1976). Low context communication being the opposite, where the entire meaning behind a communicated message is thoroughly explained in detail with the use of vocabulary with little to no reliance on context (Hall, E.T. 1976). People typically use both high and low context communication but cultures tend to exhibit one communicational style as more dominant than the other (Hall, E.T. 1976). When people from high context communication cultures discuss their thoughts they expect others to understand the meaning behind the message they are communicating, without the need of a detailed explanation (Korac, et al., 1998). In high context communication, interpretation of tone and gestures play a crucial role in determining the full meaning behind a message that is expressed (Korac, et al., 1998). Low context communication on the other hand phases out external factors when determining the full meaning of a message and directly focuses on what is verbally explicitly expressed (Korac, et al., 1998).

Individualistic cultures with independent worldviews prefer more distant social networks and place emphasis on individuals protecting only the interests of themselves or immediate family (Hofstede, 1983). Collectivistic cultures prefer strong emotionally integrated social networks composed of family and social groups, who look after each other's interests (Hofstede, 1983). Those from individualistic cultures with independent worldviews who typically segregate and categorize relationships, typically need in depth expression of details when communicating or interpreting a communicated message, which exhibits a low context communication culture (Sorrells, 2016). Individuals from collectivist cultures with interdependent worldviews, who build networks of deep personal relationships over a large span of time tend to display high context communication (Sorrells, 2016).

The culture in which an individual is born and raised directly influences their self perception and value system because the social norms of that culture, whether it be collectivist or individualist, guide the development of their behaviors (Gudykunst, 1996). Therefore, cultural collectivism or individualism has a direct and indirect influence on one's communication behavior (Gudykunst, 1996). Those from collectivist cultures typically develop their self interpretation through the interdependence of those around them, while those from individualistic cultures typically develop their self interpretation independently from those around them (Gudykunst, 1996).

Communication complexity, describes the level of reliance on nonverbal cues to communicate intention and information (Niemeier et al., 1998). Non verbal cues such as distance, gestures and silence, which are especially significant for interpreting a communicated message (Niemeier et al., 1998).

The issues I had been experiencing with my manager can be explained as me and him not, “being in sync” with our body language therefore leading to our disruptive interactions (Hall, E.T. 1976). I had trouble reading his non verbal communication because I did not share his understanding of his culturally specific expressions (Hall, E.T. 1976). My manager being from Mexico, which has a high context communication culture, would express much of the intention behind his communicated message with the use of non verbal communication such as silence or body language (Martinez, 2020). While I am from the United States which has a dominant low context communication culture, this implies that I mainly rely on the use of vocabulary when communicating or interpreting messages. This difference in our communication complexity (Niemeier et al., 1998) can explain the many miscommunications and misunderstandings that took place in my old multicultural workplace. From the perspective of my manager he truly believed that he was expressing the full intention of his communications, not knowing that his nonverbal communication to me went mostly unheard. While from my perspective he was not communicating to me the full meaning of his message.

The United States which ranks highly in having an individualistic culture, people typically develop their self image independently from their social groups (Gladwin, 1981). This implies that those who develop their context communication culture in the individualistic society of the United States tend to exhibit low context communication and have a low degree of communication complexity. Therefore those from individualistic cultures have less tendency to observe the non verbal communication cues from those around them. Which describes my difficulty in understanding the nonverbal communication of my manager that he expected me to understand. While the culture of Latin America tends to exhibit high collectivistic tendencies (Baeza, 2012). Which implies that people from Latin American cultures have the tendency to develop their self image interdependently of their social groups. Meaning that people from Latin American countries develop their self image with much influence of their social groups, thus making them more observant of non verbal communication cues. Meaning that those from Latin America have a tendency to exhibit high context communication. This describes why those from collectivist cultures place much more emphasis on non verbal communication because their self image was developed by observing the non verbal communication from those around them. This explains why my manager who was a Mexican-American immigrant communicated the majority of his messages through non verbal communication and always assumed that I would understand.

With the growing amount of immigration to the United States we will continue to see more intercultural communication and relationships in the workplace and beyond. This implication for business managers is that one must learn how to effectively communicate with people of different cultures than their own, in a way that encourages productivity, effective teamwork and positivity in the workplace.

What I will do in order to better navigate communication in the intercultural workplace will be to take a more informed and understanding approach when communicating with those of different cultures. Through staying informed about the communication styles of other cultures and learning how I can be a better intercultural communicator (Sorrells, 2016), in order to not only overcome misunderstandings and miscommunications in the workplace but to prevent them as well. I will do this by increasing my level of intercultural competence, through the use of the intercultural praxis entry points (Sorrells, 2016). I will use inquiry points of entry by being curious and willing to suspend my judgements of different cultures in order to learn about communication styles different from my own (Sorrells, 2016). What I learn about the communication styles of another culture through inquiry I can then apply to framing, so that I may have a better understanding of messages communicated to me by those with different cultural backgrounds and varying degrees of communication complexity. As well as develop better skills, so that I can effectively communicate with people from cultures of different communication complexities. By actively engaging with people from different cultures I can develop a better understanding through dialogue (Sorrells, 2016). Through the use of dialogue I can achieve a deeper connection for communication in multicultural workplaces, by searching for commonalities and challenging my own previous assumptions with what I learn from engaging with people from other cultures (Sorrells, 2016). I can apply what I learn through engaging in dialogue to how I plan team building exercises when I manage my own multicultural workforce. This will ultimately help me to come closer to a deeper understanding of communicating with and managing people from different cultural backgrounds. Thus improving the productivity of my future multicultural workplace, whether it is composed of people from high or low context communication cultures.

With the utilization of any of these points of entry into the intercultural praxis (Sorrells, 2016), I hope to engage with and learn more about the communication styles of different cultural backgrounds, so that I can become a better communicator with a wide variety of cultural backgrounds. This way I can better address miscommunications or misunderstandings that occur in multicultural workplaces and beyond. These points of entry into the cultural praxis can also help me to develop my own mental tools that may help in preventing miscommunications in workplace intercultural communications, thus preventing a loss in productivity.

If I had understood the differences between high and low context communication cultures when I was working at the auto shop, I would have been able to take a more understanding approach towards the differences between me and my managers' communicational context cultures. As well as utilize the intercultural praxis to find common ground with each other, in order to prevent so much of the conflict we experienced over the course of those five years. Which would have helped, lessen the loss of productivity, prevent the many arguments we had, and possibly achieve a much deeper level of understanding than we originally had with each other. Therefore, through approaching workplace intercultural communication problems with the utilization of the intercultural praxis, we can not only come to a higher level of intercultural understanding but also achieve a higher level of productivity and efficiency.

References

Ritchie Henson, G. (2013). High/low context cultures. In C. E. Cortés (Ed.), Multicultural America: A multimedia encyclopedia (Vol. 1, pp. 1069-1070). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://www-doi-org.libproxy.csun.edu/10.4135/9781452276274.n402

Khilji, S. (2013). High- and low-context cultures. In E. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory (Vol. 1, pp. 333-336). SAGE Publications, Ltd., https://www- doi-org.libproxy.csun.edu/10.4135/9781452276090.n113

Martinez, R., & Iyer, V. (2020). Key factors of business communications in latin america. The Journal of Business Diversity, 20(1), 60-65. Retrieved from https://libproxy.csun.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest- com.libproxy.csun.edu/scholarly-journals/key-factors-business-communications- latin-america/docview/2388309648/se-2?accountid=7285

Hopkins, Bryan. (2009) Cultural Differences and Improving Performance : How Values and Beliefs Influence Organizational Performance, Taylor & Francis Group. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csun/detail.action?docID=4513085.

Hall, Edward T. (1976). Beyond culture, Anchor Books/Doubleday

Korac-Kakabadse, Nada, et al. (2001) “Low- and High-Context Communication Patterns: towards Mapping Cross-Cultural Encounters.” Cross Cultural Management, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 3–24.

Hofstede, G. (1983). National Cultures Revisited. Behavior Science Research, 18(4), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939718301800403

Sorrells, K. (2016). Intercultural Communication: Globalization and Social Justice, 2nd Edition. Sage Publications, Inc.

Gudykunst, William B, et al. (1996) “The Influence of Cultural Individualism‐Collectivism, Self Construals, and Individual Values on Communication Styles Across Cultures.” Human Communication Research, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 510–543.

Niemeier, Susanne, Campbell, Charles P, & Dirven, René (1998). Cultural Context in Business Communication. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gladwin, Thomas N. (1981). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related ValuesHofstedeGeert. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1980, 76 pp., $29.95. The Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 681–683. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1981.4285738

Baeza, Miguel Angel. (2012). Organizational citizenship behavior, collectivism, and job satisfaction: Evidence from Mexico. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Click here to learn about JTBD theory.