Cross-Cultural Communication With Increased Competition Being Witnessed

Cross-Cultural Communication

With increased competition being witnessed in many industries, Multinational companies are setting shop to new foreign markets as a way of increasing their profitability and remaining competitive. Many countries have liberalized their markets, and present advancement in technologies has made it easy for companies to open new branches in foreign markets. However, this also comes with it challenges, particularly relating to cross-cultural communication. Effective cross-cultural communication is very important to the organization that some scholars such as Levitt (1983) argue that it can determine the success or failure of a foreign business in the local market. It is against such statements that this paper examines the factors that impact cross-cultural communication at the workplace.

The paper will particularly aim at answering the following four questions; what is communication? What does it look like? What is the purpose of communication within organizations? And, what factors can negatively impact effective communication within cross-cultural organizations. In answering the above questions, the paper will apply three cross-cultural model; Hofstede model, Hall's Context theory and Schwartz value Inventory Theory for better theoretical understanding of the subject matter.

What factors can negatively impact effective communication within cross-cultural organizations?

Globalization has allowed companies to invest in foreign countries in pursuit of increasing their market share. This has increased workplace diversity and integration of cross-cultural, thus understanding how to deal with cross-cultural communication has become more critical for business managers Gudykunst & Kim (2002). To effectively understand and obtain skills in cross-cultural communication at the workplace, business managers must gain practical skills and knowledge on factors that negatively impact cross-cultural communication Harris, Moran and Moran (2004). As pointed out by Lee & Carter (2005) some of the factors that negatively affect cross-cultural communication include cultural identity, ethnic identity, gender role indemnity, individual personality, social class identity, age identity and roles identity. These factors will each be discussed briefly in the following section.

Barrier to cross cultural communication

Organizational culture

In many cases, questions arise regarding whose cultural norms and practices should be given priority in international business. According to Sprinks & Wells (1994), based on "you attitude" concept, effective communication must essentially be approached from the perspective of receivers of the message and not senders. In their study, Sprinks & Well (1994, 302) established that organizations with comparatively high external direction require managers with adequate inter and intra-individual skills and an organizational communication plan, though with a less flexible type and form of communication compared to those organization with a comparatively high international direction. It is hard to suggest any specific reasons why the latter has to be the case apart from the fact that, when it communicating to a certain culture, the type and form of the communication has to be permanently tailored to the cultural norms and practices of the local partners.

Likewise, a risk-taking organizational culture is likely to create increased tolerance of ambiguity compared to safety-conscious organizational culture. These form or relationships are evident by a positive correlation of safety awareness with the barrier language hardship.

Personal characteristics

Studies in social psychology indicate that personality attributes highly influences the effectiveness and results of communication (Padgett, & Wolosin (1980). Individual personally puts a considerable impact on both the content and form of the relations with other parties. For instance, extroverts are expected to like an interaction centered type of communication, entailing the formation of a personal relationship with their counterparts. On the other hand, introverts are expected to be territorially and internally centered. This was established strongly by the correlations of the study variables. Studies established that managers with good communication skills are likely to be more effective in communication.

Accordingly, extrovert managers appear to be more effective in communication as well as cultural practices of their workplace environment. It was established also by Padgett, & Wolosin (1980) that sensing types demonstrate preferences for truths and details, whereas intuitive forms like to be innovative and are focused on the big picture. Rajagopal & Rajagopal (2006) notes that this correlates between sensing vs. intuitive, the sensing individual would have to discover the cultural differences arising to improve their communication.

Individual who are thinkers make decisions in logical and objective manner, whereas feelers apply emotional appeals like reliability and responsibility. These thoughts are visible through the relationship in the organizational communication. Individual who are thinkers decides that external communication is critical; the next reasonable thing is to fully understand the cultural attributes involved and enhance communication skills.

Misinterpretation

This main barrier to effective communication (Lee & Carter, 2005). As pointed out by Lee & Carter (2005) communication occurs when interlocutors have reached some mutual interpretations of their intents. In cross cultural communication it is nearly impossible to achieve total understanding. This makes cross cultural communication more challenging. Rajagopa & Rajagopal, (2006) explains that the presence of cultural difference is in itself a barrier to cross cultural communication. When there is a high difference between cultures, it creates cross cultural variability leading to high amounts of uncertainty and anxiety, which finally results in anxiety and misinterpretation into the cross cultural communication environment.

Mistranslation

Barriers to cross cultural communication encompass cultural mistranslation (Lee, & Carter, 2005). This is a widespread in second as well as foreign language environment. Scholars disagree on the level of mistranslation that should be perceived (Lee, & Carter, 2005). Whereas some scholars have explained mistranslation in derogatory terms such as "interference" or "sub-standard types," other scholars perceive mistranslation as innovation that illustrates cultural changes. However, the truth is that cross cultural communication mistranslations weakens understanding. Statements like "I am going to the main room" (meaning "aim going to the latrine") are cultural statements that can result in misunderstanding in cross cultural communication.

Cultural Norms and role

Cultural norms are defined rules that determine acceptable and proper conduct (Sprinks & Well, 1994). They comprise those norms that stipulate social situations and conversational habits like greetings, expressing different emotions, and making various requests. In cross cultural communication individuals may be enticed to transfer their cultural values to environments hat are not suitable (Lee, & Carter, 2005). Similarly, roles are as well sources of cultural differences. As explained by Sprinks & Well (1994) roles are sets of cultural norms appropriate to certain groups of individuals in a society. In different cultures varied roles are assigned to different genders and age groups. In some Asian and African cultures, women are not supposed to answer back to men particularly their husbands. Violating such role could result in serious issues in intercultural communication.

Models to understand cross cultural communication

Various models have been formulated to explain the manner the values systems of nations vary. The models include Hofstede model, Hall's Context theory and Schwartz value Inventory Theory.

Anxiety Uncertainty Management theory developed by Dr. William B. Gudykunst.

A brief Background

The initial focus on cross-cultural communication was on the practicability of effective communication as observed on initial experimental concept of Hall. Spitzberg (2000) notes that it was in 1970s that scholar began to develop theories on cross cultural communication and in 1980w that systematic theories started to appear.

William Gudykunst Anxiety Uncertainty Management (AUM) theory was developed in a span of almost 20 years. Initially, he formulated a concept of intergroup communication that incorporated uncertainty reduction theory together with social identity theory. He followed this with incorporating studies on anxiety reduction to elucidate on intercultural adaptation with the aim of creating effective interpersonal and intergroup communication. Gudykunst was influenced by works of several scholars like George Simmel, and his social type concept. Basing on this concept, Gudykunst referred to stranger as a person who is not known by his current groups and who is foreign cultural background.

Anxiety Uncertainty Management theory

AUM theory proposes that when individuals interact with strangers, they will normally be a feeling of uncertainty and anxiety, thus, in a cross-cultural situation, this uncertainty and anxiety comes from cultural differences as well as lack of understanding of cultural norms. Gudykunst (2005) explains that uncertainty is a cognitive aspect.

Predictive uncertainty entails individuals' incapability to forecast strangers feeling, beliefs, norms and attitudes. Explanatory uncertainty entails individuals' incapability to explicate strangers feeling, beliefs, norms and attitudes (Gudykunst & Kim (2002)). According to Gudykunst (2005) people have minimum and maximum levels for anxiety. He points out that the maximum levels are the highest degree of anxiety an individual can have and feel at easy to interact with the a stranger ( Gudykunst (2005) . Certainly, when anxiety goes beyond the maximum level the individual will stop interacting with the stranger. On the other hand, the minimum level is the lowest degree of anxiety an individual can have and still be interested in interacting with a strange. Supposing the anxiety level falls below the minimum, the individual is not interested in what happens to the stranger. Thus, when an individual's anxiety is very high or very low, he will not be able to communicate effectively.

AUM theory has 47 axioms, the fundamental axiom of the theory is 39, and it states that

"An increase in our ability to manage our anxiety about interacting with strangers and an increase in the accuracy of our predictions and explanations regarding their behaviour will produce an increase in the effectiveness of our communication" (Gudykunst, 2005; 218)

This axiom 39 implies that to carry out effective communication, people need to properly control uncertainty and anxiety. However, this alone cannot guarantee effective communication, but it will allow people to mindfully attempt to understand strangers and the way these strangers are interpreting their messages. In doing so, people can respond in a manner that results in effective communication. Therefore proper control of uncertainty and anxiety provides an avenue for effective communication, though effective communication depends on the conduct of a person in such situation (Gudykunst, 2005).

Self-concepts and AUM

Self-concept is used to refer to a personal views, they comprise of personal identity as well as social identity. Self-esteem of a person can either be positive or negative feeling a person has about himself/herself. According to Gudykunst, (2005) personal identities are the main generative ways for interpersonal behaviour; whereas social identities are the main generative ways for intergroup behaviour. Therefore, when a person perceives a stranger to be different from their groups, the person does not treat such a stranger on the basis of his group membership, in such cases, the person's communication is funded on his personal identity. The person will not treat the stranger with some stereotype and he will interact with the stranger on personal level. More so, Gudykunst & Kim (2002) notes that a positive self-esteem assists in preventing biases

Axioms 1-4 stipulates that to reduce anxiety, people should increase the level at which their social identities guide their interactions supposing their social identities are positive. More so, an increase in self their self-esteem will result reduction in their anxiety levels.

Gudykunst & Kim (2002) note that these axioms demonstrate the significance of having positive social identities. Having a sense of superiority against other groups can result to ethnocentrism. Examples of such cases come from missionaries; in circumstances where a missionary has a low self-esteem he may withdraw from interactions in a cross-cultural environment. According to Gudykunst & Kim (2002) a low self-esteem as well results in misunderstanding other people, personalizing issues and other issues in communication. This regards to missionaries coming from minority societies in a multiethnic country for example, African or Asian missionaries from western countries. Supposing there is an attitude of inferiority or discrimination, such a feeling will negatively impact the result of cross cultural communication.

Responses to strangers and AUM

Axioms 10 -14 and 18-22 are related to responses to strangers. To reduce uncertainty and anxiety in cross-cultural communication an individual is supposed to promote the ability to understanding complex information concerning strangers, flexibility of thoughts, tolerance of uncertainty and empathy.

Capacity to understand complex information concerning strangers: the more an individual is able to understand complex information the more he will be able to look for alternative explanations concerning the stranger's behavior. Therefore, individuals are more able to understand the stranger's behavior compared to cognitively simple individuals.

Flexibility of attitude: stiff and conflict-ridden attitude seem to result in ethnocentrism, prejudice and biases. Gudykunst & Kim (2002) notes that ethnocentrism is an attitude that relates to an individual' own group as the central aspect of everything and disregards all other aspects are measured in relation to it. An individual cannot avert some level of ethnocentrism; though exceedingly strong ethnocentrism results in misunderstanding and stereotypes. Stereotypes leads to grouping, social grouping refers to the manner in individuals order their social environment by categorizing individuals into groups that make sense to them. The more understanding individuals are with outside groups, the more is their perceived differences of these groups, thus they will treat people from outside group with less negative tendency. In addition, when people group strangers they create some expectations about the strangers' behaviors. Thus, negative expectations results in uncertainty and anxiety, whereas positive expectations assist people in managing uncertainty and anxiety. As stated by Gudykunst & Kim, (2002) a person cannot prevent social grouping, however, being mindful and have proper attitude can guide one from avoiding being stereotype.

To deal with stereotype an individual should be aware of the impact of grouping (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). With this understanding a person can apply de-grouping, wide grouping and re-grouping to enhance cross cultural communication. Fir instance, supposing all American are grouped as individualistic, then a person can widen the definition of individualism to encompass elements of collectivism. Using re-grouping, when a person interacts with an American, the person can view the American as young or old, male or female, or any other re-grouping.

Tolerance of ambiguity: As explained by Gudykunst & Kim (2002) tolerance refers to the ability to address situation in a successfully, even where more information is required to interact successful is not known. The greater a person is tolerant to ambiguity the less anxiety he will experience. In addition, tolerance for ambiguity as well impact the kind of information we attempt to establish concerning strangers. Supposing people have low tolerance, they tend to found their judgments on their fist impression, and seem to collect information that justifies their stereotypes. People with high tolerance level need to be open to new ideas and judge strangers in an objective manner.

Empathy: cognitively empathy results in taking the viewpoint of strangers, and this result in viewing the world from the perspective of the stranger. Accordingly, the empathic individual goes through the emotional feelings of the other person. Communicatively, an emphatic person demonstrates understanding and kindness through verbal and non-verbal communication. High level of empathy reduces uncertainty and anxiety.

Hall's Context theory The high and low context idea is mainly related to the manner in which information is communicated. Hall (1976, 101

Basing on his past experience gain from Foreign Service, Edward Hall wrote to two books titled, "The Silent Language" (1959) and "The Hidden Dimension" published in 1969. In these books, Hall established two classic aspects of culture. Initially, he established high-context and low-context cultures. The high and low context idea is mainly related to the manner in which information is communicated. Hall (1976, 101) assert that all information transaction can be grouped a high- low- or middle context. Where, "high context information transactions feature pre-programmed information that is in the receiver and in the setting, with only minimal information in the transmitted message. Low context transactions are the reverse (Hall, 1976, 101). A large proportion of the information being transmitted must be message to consist o what is missing within the context.

The high/low context model has remained useful and it usually applied when evaluating, for instance, face-to-face communication. The outcomes of this model are wide, ranging from interpersonal communication to mass communication.

As noted by Langer (1978) high/low context mode is among the easiest models to witness in cross cultural communications. This mode deals mainly with language, an element located in the outer cover of the "cultural onion," and has been described as among the basic models for any form of cross cultural communication or evaluation. For instance, majority of business negotiators, specifically from western countries find it hard to negotiate with their Chinese counterparts. In many cases, these business negotiators from the west face severe difficulties understanding their Chinese counterparts in relation to interpreting properly what their Chinese counterparts what to pass to them. Though certainly, it is not just the high/low context model that creates difficulties in communication, the high/low context mode may also play a crucial role in problems faced when an individual from a high context nation, for example Japan, communicates with an individual from a low context nation, like UK.

Likewise, mass communication as well is affected by high/low context model. Particularly, it is expected that when companies advertise, the message passed is less explicit in high context cultures compared to low context cultures (Hall,1976).

Nonetheless, there is minimal, if any, data existing which establish particular high/low nations. Generally, it is very difficult to establish the levels of directness, because it involves several aspects such as explicitness/implicitness, bluntness/cushioning and communicative strength. Still, this concept is very useful in cross cultural communication though ambiguous. The ambiguity of this concept makes it complex and hard to apply it within the framework of analytical viewpoint, particularly for comparing those cultures that seem to be similar.

Hofstede's Cultural dimensions

The need of a universally accepted framework for categorizing cultural patterns resulted in several researchers performing different researches to address this issue. The most famous and highly cited work in cross cultural study is a research carried out by Hofstede, a Dutch organizational anthropologist. Hofstede obtained his culture dimensions by analyzing work-related values among employees of IBM working in different countries in the 1970s. His research was done through a questionnaire that was designed to analyze work values. He later concluded that there are four cultural dimensions; power distance, individualism / collectivism, masculinity/femininity and uncertainty avoidance.

According to Hofstede there are five basic dimensions to national culture, these are, hierarchy, also referred to as power distance; this dimension determines the degree at which individual within a certain culture accept unequal sharing of power. The second dimension is ambiguity; Hofstede termed it as "uncertainty avoidance," this relates to the level to which people feel at easy with ambiguity (Hofstede, 1996). At one end we have cultures that encourage risk taking, while at the opposite end we have cultures that encourage routine and regulation. The third dimension under this model is individualism (Hofstede, 1996); this explains the level at which people value self-independence. In societies that are individualistic, individuals value so much individual success than on group success. At the other end, there are collectivists' cultures that value group success and loyalty than individual success. The fourth dimension of Hofstede model is achievement-orientation termed as masculine-feminine degree (Hofstede, 1996). This dimension concerns values that have usually been related with gender. Thus, cultural societies that are masculine value things like, success and richness and social achievements; however, societies that is feminine value most things like interpersonal relationships, sharing and standard of living. Lastly, we have long-term orientation; this dimension was added later to Hofstede model. According to Hofstede (1996) it explains that some societies value most long-term gains, while on the opposite side, some societies value most short-term rewards.

The findings by Hofstede are perhaps the most popular work in cross cultural research. Even though the work offers a comparatively broad framework for evaluation; the framework can be used easily to most organizational and individuals in their daily cross cultural interactions. It is specifically applicable as it simplifies the complexities of cross culture and its interactions into only five comparatively simple to understand cultural dimensions.

Schwartz value Inventory Theory

A different way to establishing cultural value/norms variations has been undertaken by Shalom Schwartz. Through his Schwartz Value Inventory (SVI), Schwartz when carrying out his research did not focus on preferred results, but he asked participants to evaluate 57 values and determine how important these values were to them as "guiding principles of an individual's life." Accordingly, Schwartz divided his work into individual level evaluation and cultural level evaluation. This was a big difference when compared to the studies of Hofstede, who at time failed to clearly differentiate between the two levels, though commonly claim to apply at the cultural-level.

As noted by Smith & . Bond (1998) Schwartz differentiated between value types and value dimensions. Though this separation is same to some of Hosftede's studies, it is more comprehensive in Schwartz's work. Schwartz (1994) explains that a value type is simply a group of values that can be theoretically grouped into one logical description, like democratic commitment at cultural level. Schwartz (1994) further explains that values that are found in the value-type have got other values that are found in the opposite direction. In the example of democratic commitment, it would through hierarchy basing on culture-level. When combined these two value types create the value dimension of "democratic commitment against hierarchy." Looking at this dimension, it can be compared to individualism vs. collectivism value dimension. Nevertheless, as shown earlier, the distinction between value type and value dimension is clearer and comprehensive in Schwart's study.

Schwartz collected data from 63 countries, and 60,000 participants took part in his study (Schwartz, 1994). He obtained a total of 10 different value types at the individual-level analysis, these were, "power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity and security."

Each of the 10 individual level type signify certain values which can be groped into a common idea; for example, values placed in the "power value type are likely to represent a person who values social status as well as esteem or control and dominance over other people as well as resources. On the other hand, high scores in "achievement" value type implies that a person give high priority personal achievement and approval. Hedonism indicates a value type of a person who prefers pleasure and self-indulgence. Stimulation value type signifies a set of values that show a liking for an exciting life, while self-direction represents a different set of values that prefer independence, innovation and liberty. Universalism value type signifies a liking for social justice and broadmindedness, while the benevolence value set comprises values that promote the welfare of other people. Conformity value type comprises of values that demonstrate obedience; tradition value type contains values that illustrate respect for customs. Finally, security value type comprises of values that are concerned with safety, peace and welfare of people (Schwartz, 2001).

Looked at a circular order, the above 10 value types can be grouped into four broader value types, these include (a), openness to change, comprising of stimulation, self-direction and a part of hedonism; (b), self- enhancement, comprising of achievement and power, and the rest of hedonism, (c), conservation, comprising of value orientations of security, tradition as well as conformity, (d), self- transcendence, which comprises of universalism and benevolence. The above four broader values can be further combined to form two bipolar theoretical dimensions. As explained by Schwartz (1994) this kind of order is obtained from the position of values based on their negative correction in the circle, therefore values positioned on the opposing sides of the circle will be highly negatively correlated, though highly positively correlated with those values positioned next to them.

Practically, this implies that an individual who gives high scores to values positioned in the "security" value type is as well likely to view values positioned in the "conformity" value type as being the guiding rules of his live. Thus, such a person is likely to give high scores to those values placed in the "stimulation" or "self-direction" value sets.

Schwartz (1994) as well derived seven different value types when examining the cultural-level values. These seven value types, where further grouped into three value dimensions.

Conservatism (embeddedness) value type focuses on upholding of traditional values. This value type disagrees with two different independent value types, placed on the opposite side of the value circle, (formulate by Schwartz' approach of analysis). The two independent value types advance personal benefit, and not group benefit. Similarly, intellectual independence value type puts importance on the assessment of intellectual ideas and directives, while the effective independence value type puts more importance on pleasure experiences.

Schwartz's hierarchy value type underlines the importance of peaceful relationship with a person's social environment. However, this value type is countered by mastery value type, which stresses the importance of active understanding a person's social environment. An additional value dimension can be established with other opposing value types; hierarchy vs. egalitarianism. As noted by Schwartz (1994) hierarchy value type underlines an uneven distribution of power, while democratic value type provides a high emphasis on equality as well as advancement of well-being of others

It is worth noting that Schwartz's work signify a fundamental departure from the earlier studies that have been presented in this study. His work can be used as measurement tool in cross cultural communication analysis (for example, values vs. preferred forms of behavior). Accordingly, this results in two outcomes; it does removes to some level the possibility of situational variable having a high impact on participants. Secondly, it does bring out the debate that when participants questioned about values (instead of particular results) may be tend to select a more utopian reply, that at the end may not be shown in their true behavior.