Communicating Across Cultures

BUSINESS EXPERTS AND ENGINEERING BEE / INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS
COMMUNICATING
ACROSS CULTURES
Prof. Dr. phil. Susanne Maaß-Sagolla

Notice of copyright protection
This essay including all its parts is copyrighted. Any utilization outside of the strict limits of the
copyright law is illegitimate without the permission of the FH Münster.
©2011
Preface
The first unit was designed to make you familiar with the idea of intercultural communication and its different
dimensions around this newly developing course of study. The second unit is now meant to go a little deeper into
the subject of intercultural communication and it should be useful for anyone who communicates with people
from other groups, either for pleasure or as part of his or her job.
I focus on understanding cultural differences by giving an insight into what is meant by terms such as stranger,
ethnicity etc. As the biggest difference amongst cultures is the difference between collectivistic and individuali-
stic cultures I will again have a close look at this dimension and supplement Hofstede’s (1981, 2001) description
by those of Gudykunst (1984, 1997, 1998) and Triandis (1988, 1995).
Other aspects that are equally important are the role of language, verbal and non-verbal communication and its
influence on communicative behavioural patterns in intercultural encounters.
When working abroad one has to know how the different phases of a culture shock develop, what can be done to
understand and relieve oneself while experiencing this process. I will have a close look at the different phases and
elaborate on some important aspects that can be of help instead of being captured in the process.
As global assignments often create conflict, for whatever reason, I will focus on what it means to enter into con-
flict situations, what the cultural differences leading to unfavourable discussions are and last but not least how to
manage such situations effectively.
At the end of this second unit you will find a chapter on how to improve the quality of your cooperation with
strangers and what it means to be descriptive, interpretive and evaluative.
Throughout this entire unit you will find questionnaires to assess your own ability concerning the various topics
discussed. Additionally, applications are given in order to practise on a daily basis and to become more conscious
of communicating with strangers.
This unit is completed with a short case study of a Scottish person in Japan taking the topics discussed into consi-
deration.
Finally, I hope you will enjoy the various topics as much as I do and that they benefit you as much as they bene-
fitted me in communicating with strangers.
II
Table of Contents
1. Strangers and uncertainties in interaction processes 6

2. Questions for reflection 9
3. Individualism - collectivism and its influence on communication processes 10
3.1 The importance of ingroups in
individualistic/collectivistic cultures 11
3.2 Horizontal and vertical cultures 11
3.3 Misattributions between members of individualistic –
collectivistic societies 12
3.4 Cultural identities 13
3.5 High- and low-context communication 16
5. Culture shock and acculturation 22
5.1 Experiencing culture shock 23
5.2 The acculturation curve 23
5.3 The reverse culture shock 24
5.4 The DMIS concept by Milton J. Bennett 25
7. Understanding conflicts in intercultural encounters 29
7.1 Cultural and ethnic differences in conflict 31
7.2 Conflict styles 32
9. The nature of language 36
9.1 The role of English in a globalised world 36
9.2 Topic management and turn-taking 37
9.3 Nonverbal messages 38
11. Improving the quality your cooperation with strangers 43
11.1 All perceptions are selective 43
11.2 Being assertive – being confirming 43
11.3. Need for predictability 45
11.4 How to be mindful 47
13. Standing back from yourself 50
14. Bibliography 52
III
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Generalisation distributions 10

Figure 2: Individualism and collectivism in business and industry 15
Figure 3: The ‘onion diagram’: manifestations of culture at
different levels of depth 22
Figure 4: The acculturation curve 23
Figure 5: Development of intercultural sensitivity 25
Table 1: Assess your uncertainty 8

Table 2: Assess your individualistic and collectivistic tendencies 14
Table 3: Assess your listening behaviour 18
Table 4: Individualistic and collectivistic cultures 19
Table 5: Assess your tendency to avoid conflicts with strangers 30
Table 6: Assess your conflict and mediation style 33
Table 7: Assess your nonverbal communication knowledge 39
Table 8: Assess your approach-avoidance tendency 46
Table 9: Assess your mindfulness 48
IV
1 Strangers and uncertainties in interaction processes
Greetings. I am pleased to see that we are different.

May we together become greater than the sum of both of us.
Vulcan Greeting (Star Trek)
When confronted with cultural differences, we tend to see people from other cultures as strangers. Somewhat the
term stranger is ambiguous in that it is often used to refer to aliens, intruders, outsiders, immigrants as well as
any other person who is unknown or unfamiliar (cf. Gudykunst, 1998). The German translation ‘Fremder’ clearly
shows that there is something that is unknown (strange – outside of what we know) to us, something that we are
not at all familiar with and of course something which we could either get used to or not. A German visiting the
United States and an American visiting Germany are both strangers. A Swedish teacher in a Swedish school with
a high number of immigrants, an African doctor in Germany, a Turkish bride visiting her groom’s family are all
examples of strangers.
For Schuetz (1944:499), the term stranger means that individuals permanently try to be accepted or at least parti-
ally be tolerated by the group he or she approaches. Schuetz (1944) not only refers to immigrants and sojourners
in other cultures but also to people who are trying to join a closed club or any new and unfamiliar group.
Parrillo (1980) summarises Schuetz’s perspective:
Because this is a shared world, it is an intersubjective one. For the native, then, every so-
cial situation is a coming together not only of roles and identities, but also of shared rea-
lities – the intersubjective structure of consciousness. What is taken for granted by the
native is taken for problematic by the stranger. In a familiar world, people live through
the day by responding to daily routine without questioning or reflection. To strangers,
however, every situation is new and is therefore experienced as a crisis.
Parrillo (1980:3)
Thus the term stranger refers to those people in relationships where there is a relatively high degree of strange-
ness and a relatively low degree of familiarity (cf. Gudykunst, 1997). Herman and Schield (1960) argue that the
major problem strangers face in their communication with new cultures is the lack of security, as they do not
have the necessary knowledge to fully understand the communication of the people they are communicating
with.
There are two types of uncertainty present in our interactions with strangers (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). First,
there is predictive uncertainty, the uncertainty we have about predicting strangers’ attitudes, feelings, beliefs, va-
lues and behaviours. We need to be able, for example, to predict which of several alternative behaviours strangers
will choose to employ. The second type of uncertainty is explanatory uncertainty, the uncertainty we have about
explanations of strangers’ behaviours. Whenever we try to figure out why strangers behave the way they do, we
are engaging in explanatory uncertainty reduction. The problem we are addressing is one of reducing the num-
ber of possible explanations for the strangers’ behaviours. This is necessary if we are to understand their behavi-
ours and, thus, be able to increase our ability to predict their behaviours in the future while interacting with them
(cf. Gudykunst, 1998:19).
6
However, there will always be some degree of uncertainty in all relationships. We can never totally predict or
explain strangers’ behaviours. We all have a certain level up to which we can cope with uncertainty or not. When
our uncertainty level is exceeded or simply too high, we do not have enough information to predict or explain
strangers’ behaviours comfortably. If we do not actively try to reduce our uncertainty regarding strangers’ beha-
viour, we can only rely on our categorizations to reduce our uncertainty and guide our predictions (cf. chapter
11.1).
However, high levels of predictability can be associated on the one hand with boredom. When this happens there
may not be enough novelty in the relationship to sustain our interest in the other person and we may not be
motivated to communicate appropriately. On the other hand we are likely to misinterpret their messages because
we do not consider the possibility that our interpretations of their messages are wrong. We are then running the
risk to be too confident which could lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
When our uncertainty level is balanced we are able to make some predictions or explanations as we do have suf-
ficient information. We may not be entirely happy with our predictions or explanations but at least we do have
enough information to interact comfortably with strangers.
As we have learned in the first unit (cf. chapter 2, p.6) Langer (1997:117) talks about mindfulness while commu-
nicating with strangers as this creates the necessary freedom which we need to discover meaning even in ambi-
guous situations. While being mindful, we do not see the information that we have as static, but rather discover
that there are always ambiguities present; this leads us to observe the stranger’s behaviour closely, which in turn
makes for more effective communication.
Generally, one can say that as we get to know strangers our uncertainty regarding their behaviour decreases. It
does of course not necessarily decrease, it could also increase if we lose closeness in such a relationship or if we
find out that strangers have deceived or betrayed us.
Before going on, I want you to think about your uncertainty in communicating with strangers for the first time.
Take a moment to complete the assessment in Table 1 now.
7
Assess your uncertainty
The purpose of this questionnaire is to help you assess the amount of uncertainty you generally experience when
you communicate with strangers (n.b. you can sub-stitute the word ‘stranger’ by a specific person you know in
each of the statements). Respond to each statement by indicating the degree to which the statements are appli-
cable when you interact with strangers. If you ‘Never’ have the experience, answer 1 in the space provided; if
you ‘Almost Never’ have the experience, answer 2; if you ‘sometimes’ have the experience and sometimes do no;
answer 3; if you ‘Almost Always’ have the experience, answer 4; if you ‘Always’ have the experience, answer 5.
1. I am not confident when I communicate with strangers.

2. I can interpret strangers’ behaviours when we communicate.
3. I am indecisive when I communicate with strangers.
4. I can explain strangers’ behaviours when we communicate.
5. I am not able to understand strangers when we communicate.
6. I know what to do when I communicate with strangers.
7. I am uncertain how to behave when I communicate with strangers.
8. I can understand strangers’ behaviours when we communicate.
9. I am not able to predict strangers’ behaviours when we communicate.
10. I know what to expect from strangers’ behaviours when we communicate.
To find your scores, first reverse the responses for the even numbered items (e.g. if you wrote 1, make it 5; if you
wrote 2, make it 4; if you wrote 3, leave it as 3; if you wrote 4, make it 2; if you wrote 5, make it 1). Next, add the
numbers next to each of the items. Scores range from 10 to 50. The higher your score, the more uncertainty you
experience when interacting with strangers.
Table 1. Assess your uncertainty (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:21)
Applications
Here are some suggestions how you can become more aware of your behaviour when communicating with
strangers. Do as many of the suggested activities as possible, reflect on your responses and write them down.
1. Over the next week, pay attention on how you guide your communication processes. Where is the
difference when you communicate with strangers or with people you are familiar with?
2. Over the next week, pay attention to the times you think you communicated ef-fectively and ineffecti-
vely with strangers. What did you do when you communi-cated effectively/ineffectively?
3. Over the next week, pay attention to when you are mindful of your communication. How is the outco-
me different when you are mindful? Under what conditions do you tend to communicate on automatic pilot?
Adapted from Gudykunst (1998:37)
8
2 Questions for reflection
1. How does the concept of the stranger help link interpersonal communication?
2. Why is uncertainty a typical reaction to encountering strangers?
3. What do predictive and explanatory uncertainty mean?
4. Why is there greater uncertainty when we meet strangers than when we meet people who are familiar?
5. Why do misunderstandings occur when our level of uncertainty is too high?
9
3 Individualism - collectivism and its influence on
communication processes
We have already got to know the dimension of individualism-collectivism as de-scribed by Hofstede (1980, 2001)
in the first unit (cf. chapter 6.2, p. 21). This dimen-sion provides in fact the most powerful explanatory frame-
work for understanding cross-cultural differences in behaviours.
There are general patterns of behaviour that are consistent in collectivistic cultures as well as in individualistic
ones. Individualism and collectivism, however, are manifested in unique ways in each culture. In Japan as in
many other Asian cultures, collectivism involves a focus on the concept of harmony and ‘being reserved’ (cf.
Gudykunst, 1998, Maaß-Sagolla, 2003). Other collectivistic cultures emphasise different cultural constructs as
part of their collectivistic tendencies. Understanding communication in any culture requires culture-general and
culture-specific information. At the culture specific level, differences between two particular cultures are assessed
for their likely impact on communication between people of those cultures. For instance, the generalisation that
Latin American patterns of cross-status communication differ from the more egalitarian patterns of Germans
could be analysed for its possible effect on interaction between employees and managers from those two cultures.
Culture-general approaches to interaction describe general cul-tural contrasts that are applicable in many cross-
cultural situations, for example, miscommunication in high- and low-context communication.
If we meet people from another culture and we do not know their cultural background, we can make a reasona-
ble interpretation of their behaviour if we under-stand the dimensions of cultural variability.
Before going on, we should distinguish between the individual and the culture. General tendencies exist within
every culture on each of the dimensions discussed in the first unit. Not all members of a culture share the general
tendencies of their culture. Thus cultural-level tendencies do not predict the behaviour of all individual mem-
bers of a culture. In order to understand an individual’s behaviour, we must understand the characteristics that
have an influence on the communication processes in indi-vidualistic and collectivistic cultures (cf. Kluckhohn &
Strodtbeck, 1961, Hofstede, 1980, Gudykunst, 1998).
Figure 1: Generalisation distributions (cf. Bennett, 1998:7)
10
3.1 The importance of ingroups in individualistic/
collectivistic cultures
You may remember that members of collectivistic cultures are group-oriented and that the emphasis of indi-
vidualistic cultures is placed on the self. A member of a collectivistic culture may use the pronoun ‘we’ when
stating a personal opinion while a member of an individualistic culture tends to say ‘I’. No matter whether we
place more importance on the ‘I’ or the ‘we’, both cultural groups rely on their ingroups. Ingroups are groups that
are important to their members, in which they look out for each others’ welfare and make sacrifices whenever
necessary. Individualistic cultures have many specific ingroups, e.g. family, social clubs, profession etc. while
collectivistic cultures have only a few general ingroups, e.g. family, work group and university etc. Ingroups have
an influence on the behaviour of their members which is stronger in collectivistic cultures than in individualistic.
The sphere of influence in individualistic cultures is very specific while it is general in collectivistic cultures, e.g.
it affects many different aspects of a person’s life (cf. Gudykunst, 1998).
In collectivistic cultures the goals, needs and views of the ingroup are given preference to those of the individual
– the social norms of the ingroup to the pleasure of the individual, shared group beliefs to unique beliefs, and a
value on cooperation with ingroup members to maximising individual outcome. There are also different rank
orders of importance in collectivistic cultures. In Latin America the family is the primary ingroup, in Japan the
company and in most African cultures the community – to mention just a few (cf. Triandis 1988, 1995).
3.2 Horizontal and vertical cultures
Individualistic and collectivistic cultures differ in whether relations among people in the culture are horizontal or
vertical (cf. Triandis, 1995, Gudykunst, 1998). Gudykunst (1998:48) claims that people are not expected to stand
out from others in horizontal cultures. They tend to see themselves as the same as others, and there is an empha-
sis on valuing equality. In vertical cultures on the other hand people are expected to stand out from others. They
tend to see themselves as different from others, and equality is not valued highly.
In horizontal, collectivistic cultures there is high value placed on equality, but little on freedom, which is illustra-
ted by a Japanese saying, ‘The nail that sticks out, gets hammered down’ (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:48). In vertical,
collectivistic cultures, such as India, individuals are expected to fit into the group while at the same time they are
allowed to stand out in the group.
In vertical individualistic cultures, such as the USA, Germany, Great Britain or France, people are expected to act
as individuals and stand out from others. In horizontal, individualistic cultures, such as Sweden, Norway, Den-
mark, people are expected to act as individuals while not standing out from others. These cultures place a high
value on freedom and equality and are known as feminine cultures (cf. Hofstede, 2001, unit 1, chapter 6.3, p. 24).
11
3.3 Misattributions between members of individualistic
- collevtivistic societies
As we have seen in chapter 3.1 members of collectivistic cultures are group-oriented and identify strongly with
their ingroups. They usually use the personal pronoun ‘we’ when stating a personal opinion. Members of indivi-
dualistic societies often perceive such statements as something that the group may do or believe, but not neces-
sarily that it is the speaker’s opinion. Belonging to an ingroup -no matter whether it is the family, the community
or the work place - means to be protected by this particular group. On the other hand being protected by a group
means showing one’s grati-tude by being loyal to this group.
With respect to this characteristic ‘face’ is a phenomenon that is attributed to many collectivistic cultures. Face is
our public image (cf. Ting-Toomey, 1988). Face-concern is treated differently in individualistic and collectivistic
cultures. In the lat-ter, it is predominantly other-oriented. Giving face (i.a. high degree of respect), es-pecially to
people with higher status, is important to collectivists. If this expectation is violated, it can lead to misunderstan-
dings, ineffective communication and a breach of relationship.
Consider the following example (cf. Brislin et al., 1986:155, adapted from Gudykunst 1998:157):
Phil Downing … was involved in the setting up of a branch of his company that was merging with an existing Japa-
nese counterpart. He seemed to get along very well with the executive colleagues assigned to work with him, one of
whom had recently been elected chairman of the board when his grandfather retired. Over several weeks discus-
sion, they had generally laid out some working policies and agreed on strategies that would bring new directions
needed for development. Several days later … the young chairman’s grandfather happened to drop in. He began on
how the company had been formed and had been built up by the traditional practices, talking about some of the
policies the young executives have recently discarded. Phil expected the new chairman to explain some of the new
innovative and developmental policies they had both agreed upon. However, the young man said nothing; instead,
he just nodded and agreed with his grandfather. Phil was bewildered and frustrated … and he started to protest.
The atmosphere in the room became immediately tense. … A week later the Japanese com-pany withdrew from the
negotiations.
As you can see in the example given, the young Japanese chairman was giving his grandfather face by agreeing
with him. Any negotiations he had with Phil before were not at all negated by his behaviour, which was obvi-
ously not understood by Phil, who failed to give face to the grandfather and worse than that, he threatened the
grandfather’s face by showing his bewilderment and frustration. As the grandfather belongs to the ingroup of
the young chairman, he could not accept doing any further business with Phil. Giving face and being loyal to the
members of one’s in-group is an important issue in many collectivistic societies.
12
Applications
Here are some suggestions how to increase the effectiveness of your communica-tion with and understanding of
strangers.
1. Over the next week, pay attention to your perceptions of strangers. How are your perceptions biased?
What factors lead to these biases? How can you stop these biases in the future?
2. Sometime in the next week, check your perceptions of a stranger’s behaviour. Describe your conversa-
tion, write your reflection down and check whether you attributed correctly. What effect does this have on your
understanding of the stranger and your communication with him or her?
3. Sometime in the next week, actively listen to a stranger when you are interact-ing. Try truly to unders-
tand the stranger on what is being discussed rather than just presenting your own view. What effect does this
have on your encounter with him or her?
3.4 Cultural identities
Our cultural identities are our social identities that focus on our membership in our culture. These identities
have an enormous influence on our communication in everyday life, but generally we are not very aware of their
influence. We only become aware of the influence of our cultural identities on our communication when we find
ourselves communicating with strangers or in another culture.
Apart from all other dimensions mentioned in the first unit (cf. Hofstede 2001, chap-ter 6) one aspect influences
our communication with strangers the most which is individualism and collectivism.
In all cultures we find both, collectivistic and individualistic tendencies, but one tends to predominate. It is, of
course, possible to be a collectively oriented person in an individualistic society and an individualistically orien-
ted person in a collectivistic society.
Individuals’ collectivistic tendencies involve two main factors: subordinating individ-ual goals to group goals and
viewing the ingroup as an extension of the self (cf. Tri-andis et al., 1985).
Whenever we communicate with people from another culture we assume that they are similar. People from indi-
vidualistic cultures assume that people in collectivistic cultures act all collectively. This assumption then blinds us
to the differences that exist in collective cultures. However, we must recognise that not all people in collectivistic
cultures emphasise their collective tendencies – some are highly individualistic. In order to become an intercul-
turally competent communicator we must be ready to look for individual differences and, other types of group
differences that may affect their communication (cf. Gudykunst 1998).
The questionnaire in Table 2 is designed to help you assess the degree to which you are individualistic and/or
collectivistic. Take a few minutes to complete the questionnaire.
13
Scores on the questionnaire range from 10 to 50 for both individualistic and collec-tivistic tendencies. The higher
your scores, the greater your individualistic and collectivistic tendencies.
While you probably have a tendency towards one direction more than the other, you can have high and low
scores on both. The important thing to keep in mind is that your tendencies affect your communication with
people who have different tendencies.
Assess your individualistic and collectivistic tendencies
The purpose of this questionnaire is to assess your individualistic and collectivistic tendencies. Respond by indi-
cating the degree to which the values reflected in each phrase is important to you: ‘Opposed to my value’ (answer
1), ‘Not very important to me’ (answer 2), ‘Somewhat important to me’ (answer 3), ‘Important to me’ (an-swer 4),
or ‘Very important to me’ (answer 5).
1. Obtaining pleasure or sensuous gratification

2. Preserving the welfare of others
3. Being successful by demonstrating my individual competency
4. Restraining my behaviour if it is going to harm others
5. Being independent in thought and action
6. Having safety and stability for people with whom I identify
7. Obtaining status and prestige
8. Having harmony in my relations with others
9. Having an exciting and challenging life
10. Accepting cultural and religious traditions
11. Being recognized for my individual work
12. Conforming to social norms
13. Being self-directed
14. Being kind to others
15. Having power
16. Being ambitious
17. Being self-controlled
18. Being able to choose what I do
To find your individualism scores, add your responses to the odd numbered items. To find your collectivism sco-
re, add your responses to the even numbered items. Both scores will range from 10 to 50. The higher your scores,
the more individualistic and/or collectivistic our are.
Table 2. Assess your individualistic and collectivistic tendencies (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:67)
14
Applications
Here are some suggestions how to be aware of your collectivistic and/or collec-tivistic tendencies while communi-
cating with people you are familiar with or with strangers.
1. Over the next week, pay attention to when your communication is based on individualistic and collec-
tivistic tendencies. Under what conditions do you act as an individualist? Under what conditions do you act as a
collectivist?
2. Over the next week, pay attention to the cultural rules that guide your communication. What rules
do you follow without any thought when you interact with strangers and acquaintances? Try to isolate as many
rules guiding your commu-nication as you can.
3. Over the next week, pay attention to how your cultural identity influences your communication.
Under what conditions does your cultural identity influence your communication?
Figure 2: Individualism and collectivism in business and industry (cf. Hampden-Turner, Trompenaars, 2000:90)
15
3.5 High- and low-context communication
The previous chapters have shown that individualism – collectivism provides a very useful explanatory frame-
work for understanding differences and similarities in inter-cultural settings while the high- and low-context
scheme focuses on the cultural dif-ferences in communication process (cf. Hall, 1976).
Hall (1976:91) claimed that a high-context communication or message is one in which most of the information
is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted
part. To fully under-stand what high-context communication means we have to be raised in the culture. High-con-
text communication occurs between twins who have grown up together or between couples or old friends who
have known each other for a very long time and do not need much information whenever they communicate - as
there is no need to utter things explicitly. High-context culture is attributed to collectivistic cultures and it tends
to be indirect, ambiguous, fast, economical, efficient and satisfying. How-ever, time must be devoted to training
one’s mind on it. If this does not take place, the communication will remain incomplete.
You may remember from the first unit (cf. chapter 8.6, p. 45) that collectivistic cul-tures are polychron and
individualistic cultures are monochron cultures. Monochronic time and polychronic time represent two variant
solutions to the use of both time and space as organizing frames for activities. Space is included because the two
systems – time and space – are interrelated. Monochronic time emphasises schedules, segmentation and prompt-
ness while polychronic time systems are char-acterised by several things happening at once (cf. Hall, 1976).
Polychronic cultures stress involvement of people and completion of transaction rather than adherence to time
schedules.
Germans overseas are psychologically stressed in many ways when confronted with polychronic time systems
such as those in Asia, Latin America or the Middle East.
A low-context communication is the opposite; i.e. the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code (cf.
Hall, 1976:91). Low-context communication tends to be direct, precise and clear and tends to be attributed to
individualistic cultures. Computer experts programming a computer, two politicians drafting legislation or a child
trying to explain his mother why he got into a fight are examples of low-context communication.
People raised in cultures in which low-context communication predominates tend to assume that high-context
communication is always ineffective as it is not clear, precise and direct. Nevertheless, indirect messages can
be very effective in collectivistic cultures because members of the cultures understand how to interpret these
messages. Outsiders, members of individualistic cultures, in contrast, do not generally know how to interpret the
messages and assume therefore that indirect messages are ineffective.
Here is an example (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:29) in which an American supervisor wants his Greek subordinate to
participate in decisions (a norm in the USA), while the sub-ordinate expects to be told what to do (a norm in
Greece). It becomes quite clear that the American and the Greek are attributing different meanings to things
being said.
16
Behaviour Attribution
American: How long will it take American: I asked him to

you to finish the report? participate.
Greek: His behaviour makes no
sense. He is the boss.
Why doesn’t he tell me?
Greek: I don’t know. How long American: He refuses to take

should it take? responsibility.
Greek: I asked him for an order.
American: You are in the best position American: I press him to take
to analyse time requirements. responsibility for his own actions.
Greek: What nonsense! I better
give him an answer.
Greek: 10 days. American: He lacks the ability to

estimate time; this estimate is
totally inadequate.
American: Take 15. It is agreed you American: I offer a contract.

will do it in 15 days? Greek: These are my orders. 15 days.
In fact, the report needed 30 days of regular work. The Greek worked day and night, but at the end of the 15th day,
he still needed one more day’s work.
American: Where is my report? American: I am making sure he

fulfills his contract.
Greek: He is asking for the report.
Greek: It will be ready tomorrow. (Both attribute that it is not ready.)
American: But we agreed that it American: I must teach him to

would be ready today. fulfill a contract.
Greek: The stupid, incompetent
boss! Not only did he give me
wrong orders, but he does not
appreciate that I did a 30-day job
in 16 days.
The Greek hands in his resignation. The American is surprised.
Greek: I can’t work for such a man.
17
Active listening and understanding the concerns of the other, whether he comes from individualistic or collecti-
vistic culture, is by no means easy. It is in fact a challenge as we need to discriminate and identify what is import-
ant in the other’s utterances which is not mentioned explicitly. Active listening while not attributing the way we
usually do when communicating on automatic pilot is necessary if we want to understand strangers. Successful
listening is therefore a purposive activity which requires that we are mindful and sensitive, moment by moment.
Assess your listening behaviour
The purpose of this questionnaire is to assess your listening behaviour with strangers. Respond to each statement
indicating the degree to which it is true regarding the way you generally listen: ‘Always False’ (answer 1), ‘Usually
False’ (an-swer 2), ‘Sometimes False and Sometimes True’ (answer 3), ‘Usually True’ (answer 4), and ‘Always True’
(answer 5). Please replace collective by individual if you come are from a collective culture.
1. I have difficult time separating important and unimportant ideas when I listen to strangers.
2. I check new information against what I already know when I listen to strangers.
3. I have an idea what people from collective countries will say when I listen to them.
4. I am sensitive to strangers’ feelings when I listen to them.
5. I think about what I am going to say next when I listen to my counterpart from a
collective culture.
6. I focus on the process of communication that is occurring between me and strangers
when I listen to them.
7. I cannot wait for my partner from a collective culture to finish talking so I can take my turn.
8. I try to understand the meanings that are being created when I communicate with strangers.
9. When strangers are talking I focus on determining whether they have understood what I said.
10. I ask strangers to elaborate when I am not sure what they mean.
To find your scores, first reverse the responses for the even numbered items (e.g. if you wrote 1, make it 5; if you
wrote 2, make it 4; if you wrote 3, leave it as 3; if you wrote 4, make it 2; if you wrote 5, make it 1). Next, add
the numbers next to each statement. Scores range from 10 to 50. The higher your score, the better your listening
behaviour.
Table 3. Assess your listening behaviour (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:165)
18
The following table provides a survey of individualistic and collectivistic cultures, their major characteristics,
values, way of communication and some example cultures.
Individualism Collectivism
Major characteristic
focus on individuals’ goals focus on group’s goals

emphasis on the ‘I’ emphasis on ‘we’
many ingroups few ingroups
Individual level
values stimulation, power, values traditions, conformity,

self-direction, benevolence
independent self-construal interdependent self-construal
Communication
low-context messages: high-context messages:

direct, precise, clear indirect, ambiguous, economical, efficient
Example cultures
Australia Africa
England Argentina
Belgium Brazil
Canada China
Denmark Egypt
France Greece
Germany India
Ireland Japan
Italy Korea
Sweden Latin America
United States Saudi Arabia
Table 4. Individualistic and collectivistic cultures (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:58)
19
1. Why is the dimension individualism-collectivism the most important one for distinguishing cultural variability?
2. What is meant by culture specific and culture general?
3. In how far do ingroups influence the behaviour of collectivists and individualists?
4. Which cultures are vertical and which horizontal? What is the influence of these cultures while interacting
with people from other cultures?
5. What does the concept of giving and taking face mean to collectivistic cultures?
20
6. What does cultural identity mean? Why is it important for human beings to have a cultural identity?
7. Why is it important to know the difference between high- and low-context communication? Which risk
do you run if you need to cooperate with high/low-context cultures without knowing how to act/react appro-
priately? Please elaborate.
8. How can you distinguish collectivistic and individualistic countries regarding their context behaviour?
21
5 Culture shock and acculturation
As we have seen in the case studies where Phil and his Japanese colleague as well as the Greek subordinate and
his American supervisor had difficulties in appropriately decoding the messages send by their interlocutors, we
can imagine fairly what it is like to live and work abroad. Global assignments have become an increasingly im-
portant part of managers’ careers and they are a source of competitive advantage for internationally operating
companies.
As shown in earlier chapters, our mental software (cf. Hofstede, 1994:209, Hall, 1959) contains basic values
which have been acquired very early in our lives. Hall (1959) calls them our primary message system which has
become so natural as to be unconscious. Hofstede (1994) claims that conscious and more superficial manifestati-
ons of culture are our rituals, heroes and symbols.
Figure 3: The ‘onion diagram’: manifestations of culture at different levels of depth (cf. Hofstede, 1994:9)
Symbols are words, gestures, pictures or objects which carry a particular meaning and are recognized by those
who share a culture. Heroes are persons, whether they are alive or dead, who possess characteristics which are
highly prized in the culture and who of course serve as a model for behaviour. Rituals are collective activities
which are considered to be socially essential (cf. Hofstede, 1994:8).
These different levels of culture cannot be easily understood or researched upon but living and working abroad
means to have at least a certain knowledge of what to expect from one’s host culture in order to be accepted as
someone who is seriously interested in understanding the counterpart rather than in wanting to put one’s ideas
through over and over again.
22
5.1 Experiencing culture shock
The inexperienced stranger now can make an effort to learn the words used, how to greet or when to bring
presents but he or she is unlikely to recognise or even feel the underlying values. We can say that the expatriate1
returns to a state in which he has to learn the simplest things all over again. This often leads to feelings of dis-
tress, helplessness, loneliness, anger, frustration, impatience, headache, sleepless-ness etc. and sometimes hostility
towards the country being sent to. Global managers see situations that they neither understand nor believe to be
ethically correct. Some expatriates from industrialised countries feel appalled by the poverty in many economi-
cally developing countries, especially in contrast to their own relatively luxurious hotels and homes and of course
vice versa.
Culture shock is not a disease, but rather a natural response to the stress of immers-ing oneself in a new en-
vironment. Economically and linguistically similar countries can cause culture shock as well as more dissimilar
countries. As one’s physical functioning is often affected, expatriates and migrants have more need for medical
help shortly after their displacement than before or later (cf. Hofstede, 1994).
5.2 The acculturation curve
Hofstede (2001) describes that people on temporary assignment report an accul-turation curve. Here are the four
phases (cf. Adler, 1972, Hofstede, 2001):
Figure 4: The acculturation curve (cf. Hofstede, 1994:210)
1
Managers sent abroad for global assignments
23
Phase 1: Euphoria – the excitement of travelling and seeing new lands
Phase 2: Culture shock – real life starts in the new environment; confusion and disorientation develop,
loss of self-esteem intrudes
Phase 3: Acculturation – the stranger has slowly learned to function under the new conditions
Phase 4: The stable state of mind – cross-cultural situations can be handled with rel-ative ease and one’s
own self-assurance and autonomy comes back
Here is a short example of an everyday situation in the working environment (cf. Adler, 2002:267):
An Italian colleague of mine described the horror of his first day in Philadelphia. He handed his secretary a stack of
letters and manuscripts and told her to type them. Each day he expected her to present him with the finished work
and each day he received nothing. Only at the end of a disappointing, frustrating and unproductive week did an
Italian friend of his explain that ‘In the Unites States, secretaries have more status than in Italy. You must ask them
if they can do your typing, not tell them to do your typing. U.S. organizations are more egalitarian and less hierar-
chical than Italian firms.’ Sheepish-ly, my Italian colleague began to ask; slowly, he began to receive typed pages.
Now the length of being irritated or shocked differs very much. People on short assignments do suffer from
alienation as well as people on long assignments. The latter sometimes report severe culture shock phases which
lasted over a year (cf. Hof-stede, 1994).
In many cases the expatriate’s spouse suffers much more since she cannot escape into a work environment and
thus has no colleagues to talk to. International assignments are often endangered because it is impossible for
the spouse to find a satisfying, meaningful way to lead her life abroad. Multinational companies therefore take
the spouse’s family life into consideration when they send their managers abroad for a longer period of time (cf.
Adler, 2002).
5.3 The reverse culture shock
Hofstede (1994:211) claims that expatriates and migrants who successfully completed their acculturation pro-
cess and then return home experience a reverse culture shock in adjusting to their old cultural environment. Mig-
rants who have re-turned home sometimes find it hard to adjust to their once familiar culture. Adler (2002:272)
reports that 20 percent who had completed a global assignment wanted to leave their company when they came
home.
When transferred abroad, people generally expect new and unfamiliar situations, whereas they do not expect
anything unfamiliar when returning home. Most returnees do not expect re-entry shock when coming home;
they expect to easily slip back into their previous lifestyle, organisation and job but they neither come back to the
world they have left nor to world they are anticipating. While an expatriate is abroad he changes, but so do his
organisation, his country and his friends. During the culture shock phase of adjusting to another country, expa-
triates often idealise their home country – remembering only the good aspects of home in order to have somet-
hing to hold on to and to dream about.
When returning home, expatriates face real changes – the gap between the way it was and the way it is and the
gap between their idealised memories and realities. Returnees often describe reentry as an even more difficult
transition than their initial entry into the new country.
24
Here are some statements made by returnees (cf. Adler, 2002:273 et. seq.):
Going home is a harder move. The foreign move has the excitement of being new … more confusing, but exciting.
Re-entry is frightening … I’ll be happy to be home … I really wonder if I can adjust back.
Some of my friends couldn’t even imagine the foreign country … They asked me how it was, but they just wanted to
hear ‘fine’.
Calling friends, my mother, my sister … Everyone was so busy with their lives that they didn’t have much time to
talk. They cut me off … I understand, but…
In Venezuela, getting things done was a hassle … and we said, ‘In the United States it would be so easy.’ When we
came home, everything was delayed and frustrating. Here in the United States! The U.S. was a continual Venezuela
story … and we had always said, ‘This will never happen at home … HA!’
Returnees usually accept their situation after several months back home. They then feel neither better nor much
worse than usual (cf. Adler 2002).
5.4 The DMIS concept by Milton J. Bennett
DMIS means development of intercultural sensitivity and is one of the concepts referred to by many intercultural
trainers. Based on cognitive psychology and con-structivism, the DMIS changes from an ethnocentric stage to an
ethnorelative stage. Ethnocentric is defined as using one’s own set of standards and customs and ethnorelative is
the opposite, it refers to being comfortable with many standards and customs, having an ability to behave appro-
priately and judge correctly in intercul-tural encounters.
Figure 5: Development of intercultural sensitivity (cf. Bennett, 1998:26)
In the following you will find a short description of each of the six stages. People at the denial stage are unable
to analyse the complexity of cultural differences. They usually live in relative isolation from other cultures and
do not perceive cultural differences at all or they make use of rough categories such as ‘foreigner’, ‘white’, ‘black’,
‘muslim’ etc. At this stage they make use of stereotypes in their description of others that are not meant to denig-
rate but are based on the vague stereotypical knowledge they have about the other people.
25
At the defense stage people have more ability to interpret cultural differences, but they attach negative evaluati-
ons to it. They fight the threat of change to their stable worldview by attaching negative stereotypes to others and
positive ones to them-selves. Some people may enter the reverse form of defense, negating their own culture and
becoming enthusiastic proponents of an adopted culture.
People at the minimization stage try to bury cultural differences within already familiar categories of physical
and philosophical similarities. They recognise and accept superficial cultural differences such as eating customs
and other social norms, but assume that deep down all people are just humans and essentially the same. People
at this stage may run the risk thinking that people everywhere on this earth desire individual freedom, openness,
and competition, which is of course not the case if we have a look at the world around us.
People at the acceptance stage enjoy recognising and exploring cultural differences. They are aware that they
themselves are cultural beings. They are fairly tolerant of ambiguity and accept that there is no one right answer.
Acceptance, of course, does not mean that people have to agree with or take on a cultural perspective other than
their own. But people accept the diversity in meeting people with different cultural backgrounds. This is the first
stage in which people begin to think about the notion of cultural relativity.
People at the adaptation stage use knowledge about their own and others’ cultures to intentionally shift into a
different cultural frame of reference. They can empa-thise or take another person’s perspective in order to unders-
tand and be understood across cultural boundaries. Based on their ability to use alternative cultural interpretati-
ons, people in this stage can modify their behaviour in ways that make it more appropriate to cultures other than
their own. They have increased their repertoire of behaviour and maintained their skills of operating in their own
culture while adding the ability to operate effectively in one or more cultures.
People at the integration stage are attempting to reconcile the sometimes conflicting cultural frames that they
have internalised. Some people become overwhelmed by the cultures they know and are disturbed by the recog-
nition that they can no longer identify with any one of them. But as they move into integration, they achieve an
identity which allows them to see themselves as ‘interculturalists’ in addition to their national and ethnic back-
ground. They recognise that worldviews are collective constructs and that identity is itself a construct of consci-
ousness.
As with many other concepts that have been written about so far to describe cultural complexities it is natural
that the different stages an expatriate or migrant experiences will never be a linear development as described by
Bennett’s (1998) model of developing intercultural sensitivity. Sometimes the stages mix or overlap, sometimes
stages are skipped – depending on each individual. Nevertheless, Bennett’s (1998) model renders an idea of what
a person has to overcome in order to be considered interculturally competent.
26
1. Our world is composed of symbols, heroes and rituals. What do they stand for and in how far can we consider
them to be an orientation in life?
2. What does the term ‘culture shock’ mean? What happens if the context for our mental software changes?
What could happen if someone experiences a culture shock?
3. Which are the four stages of the acculturation curve? What happens in the different phases?
Why are they a useful explanation for expatriates?
27
4. What does ‘reverse culture shock’ mean? What could happen to expatriates or migrants returning home?
5. Give a brief overview of the six stages of the DMIS.
28
7 Understanding conflicts in intercultural encounters
In any ongoing relationship, whether with relatives, friends, colleagues or strangers, conflict is inevitable – it will
happen whether we like it or not. Most of us view conflict negatively, but conflict itself can neither be positive
nor negative. It is the way we manage a conflict which is decisive for its having a positive or negative outcome
for our relationships. Anytime we perceive that we have a conflict we tend to become anxious, particularly in the
case of a conflict with strangers. When we are engaged in conflicts with strangers, our predictions of and expla-
nations for their be-haviours tend to be inaccurate.
Conflicts arise when we misinterpret strangers’ behaviour; when we perceive their personalities or group charac-
teristics as not compatible with ours; when we disa-gree with strangers on the cause of their and our behaviours
(cf. Roloff, 1987).
Communication is the medium through which conflict is created and managed. The way we communicate with
others often creates conflict and it reflects whether or not we are in conflict with them. It is also through commu-
nication that we can manage our conflicts constructively or destructively.
Our conflicts with strangers often seem to get out of control without our realising it. Gudykunst (1998:247 et.
seq.) describes four aspects of conflict development:
First, when a conflict starts, especially if there are already problems between the people involved, it
starts to perpetuate itself. Conflicts breed conflicts, unless they are managed successfully.
Second, the context of a person, particularly for collectivists, is very important (n.b. high- and low-con-
text communication). As we are often unaware of how the con-text contributes to our conflicts with strangers we
are unable to handle it.
Third, our conflicts always have implications for our relationships with strangers. When the conflict
is over, our relationship changes in some way. Often we do not know that it is the way we manage the conflict
which causes the change in our relationship.
Fourth, conflicts get out of control because we do not always recognise that they could also serve a posi-
tive function in our life. If two people have a conflict with a common enemy, it brings them closer. Our conflict
with strangers also defines our roles, it helps us to understand our feelings about strangers, and it helps to make
the conflict issue clearer.
Conflicts in relationships are either overt (manifest conflict) or out of sight (latent conflict). When conflicts are
out of sight, we can easily avoid addressing them. This is probably the mostly wide used strategy for dealing with
conflicts.
29
Assess your tendency to avoid conflicts with strangers
The purpose of this questionnaire is to assess your tendency to avoid conflicts with strangers. Respond to each
statement by indicating the degree to which it is true regarding how you manage conflict with strangers: ‘Always
False’ (answer 1), ‘Usually False’ (answer 2), ‘Sometimes true and sometimes false’ (answer 3), ‘Usually true’ (ans-
wer 4), or ‘Always True’ (answer 5).
1. When I think I have conflicts with strangers, I try to avoid them whenever possible.
2. When I think I have conflicts with strangers, I want to resolve them.
3. When I think I have conflicts with strangers, I do not confront them.
4. When I think I have conflicts with strangers, I make sure we discuss the problem.
5. When I think I have conflicts with strangers, I give in to what they want.
6. When I think I have conflicts with strangers, I try to control the situation.
7. When I think I have conflicts with strangers, I pretend there are no conflicts when we interact.
8. When I think I have conflicts with strangers, I try to get them to accept my solution.
9. When I think I have conflicts with strangers, I try to play the problem down.
10. When I think I have conflicts with strangers, I try to find a compromise with them.
To find your scores, first reverse the responses for the even numbered items (i.e., if you wrote 1, make it 5; if you
wrote 2, make it 4; if you wrote 3, leave it as 3; if you wrote 4, make it 2; if you wrote 5, make it 1). Then, add the
numbers next to each statement. Scores range from 10 to 50. The higher your score, the greater your tendency to
avoid conflicts with strangers.
Table 5. Assess your tendency to avoid conflicts with strangers (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:248)
30
7.1 Cultural and ethnic differences in conflict
As mentioned in the previous chapters, individualism-collectivism has the strongest explanatory framework for
understanding cross-cultural differences and similarities, in this case differences in perceiving and managing
conflictive situations.
Olsen (1978) claims that conflicts arise from either instrumental or expressive sources. Expressive conflicts arise
from the desire to release tension, usually generated from anger and frustration. Instrumental conflicts stem
from a difference of goals or practices. Members of individualistic cultures are more likely to perceive conflict as
instrumental rather than expressive in nature, and members of collec-tivistic cultures are more likely to perceive
conflict as expressive rather than instrumental in nature (cf. Ting-Toomey, 1985:78).
Members of individualistic cultures often separate the issue on which they are having a conflict from the person
with whom they have it (Ting-Toomey, 1985). Members of collectivistic cultures, in contrast, generally do not
make this distinction. Japanese managers, for example, take criticism and objections to ideas they express as
personal attacks (cf. Nishiyama, 1971). German managers, on the other hand, do not necessarily take criticism of
their ideas as personal attacks unless they are highly defensive.
Conflict is likely to occur in individualistic cultures when individuals’ expectations of appropriate behaviour are
violated; and it is likely to occur in collectivistic cultures when the group’s normative expectations are violated
(cf. Ting-Toomey, 1985). The reason for this difference is the role which context plays in providing information in
the two types of culture. As we have seen in previous chapters, context plays a vital role in collectivistic cultures,
as it provides meaning to communicating messages, whereas it is of little importance in individualistic countries
as most information is provided in the message. The more important the context is, the more often violation of
collective normative expectations leads to conflict. The less important the context is, the more often violation of
individuals’ expectations leads to conflict.
Members of individualistic cultures tend have a more confrontational, direct attiiude towards conflict, while
members of collectivistic cultures tend to have a more non-confrontational, indirect attitude towards conflicts
(cf. Ting-Toomey, 1985). A direct approach stems from independent self-construals and the use of linear logic, an
indirect approach stems form the strong desire for group harmony, an interde-pendent self-construal and the use
of polychron logic. In using their particular ap-proach, members of individualistic societies think only of them-
selves and the specific person with whom they have a difference, while members of collectivistic cultures think
about themselves and the members of their ingroups. Members of individualistic societies take a short-term view
of managing conflict, whereas members of collectivistic societies tend to take a long-term view (cf. Ting-Toomey,
1985). Members of individualistic cultures are concerned with the immediate conflict situation, while members
of collectivistic cultures focus on the long-term relationship with the other person. The immediate conflict is
important, but the critical issue for collectivists is whether they can depend on the other person in the long term.
Collectivists often prefer to use mediators to manage the conflict. This allows them to be non-confrontational so
that harmony in ingroup relationships can be maintained.
Many of the studies in intercultural communication have been carried out across the different ethnical groups in
the United States. Here are some examples of different communication styles which could easily lead and have
led to conflict.
31
Where (European Americans) use the relatively detached and unemotional discus-sion
mode to engage an issue, (African Americans) use the more emotionally intense and in-
volving mode of argument. Where (European Americans) tend to underesti-mate their
exceptional talents, (African Americans) tend to boast about theirs.
(cf. Kochmann, 1981:106)
African Americans favour forceful, European Americans subdued outputs. African Americans interpret European
Americans’ subdued responses as lifeless and European Americans interpret African Americans’ responses as bad
taste (cf. Gudykunst, 1998). Latino Americans tend to approach conflict differently than European Americans.
They generally prefer to avoid conflict whenever possible and preserve harmony in the relationship (cf. Collier,
1991).
The fact that Latin Americans in general tend to approach conflict differently than Europeans which can be
traced back to their communication styles. Members of dominant cultures such as US Americans or Germans
appreciate openness, directness and frankness, whereas Latin Americans value diplomacy and an indirect, less
confrontational approach. Concern and respect for the feelings of others dictate that a screen is provided behind
which others may preserve their dignity. To Latin Americans, direct arguments or contradictions appear rude and
disrespectful (cf. Locke, 1992).
7.2 Conflict styles
We can distinguish five conflict styles: an integrating, a compromising, a dominating, an obliging and an avoiding
one. Conflict styles are generally based on the degree of concern for oneself and strangers and the way we mana-
ge the conflict (cf. Rahim 1983, Putnam & Wilson 1982, Ting-Toomey et al., 1989, Gudykunst, 1991, 1997, 1998).
An integrating style of managing conflict involves a high concern for ourselves as well as for strangers as we
try to find solutions that are acceptable for all of us. A compromising style involves a moderate concern for
ourselves and for strangers as we try to find acceptable agreements for all of us, but the agreement is neither our
first choice nor the stranger’s. Both styles, the integrating and the compromising, reflect a solution-orientated
approach in conflict situations.
A dominating style reflects a high concern for ourselves and a low concern for the strangers, as we try to control
or dominate the conflict situation. An obliging style reflects a low concern for ourselves and a high concern for
others as we give in easily in order to please the stranger. An avoiding style involves a low concern for ourselves
and a low concern for strangers as we try to avoid the conflict topic or the situation in general. The last two styles,
the obliging and avoiding style, reflect a non-confrontational approach towards conflict.
Members of individualistic cultures prefer direct styles of dealing with conflict such as integrating and compro-
mising styles whereas members of collectivistic cultures prefer indirect styles that allow all parties to preserve
face. Thus they appreciate an obliging and avoiding style (cf. Ting-Toomey, 1988).
Avoiding conflict in order to preserve face is very common in Latin American and Asian cultures. In case of con-
flict the Chinese approach would be to advise an executive to meet with an insulter and the target of the insult
separately, so that the conflict between the two can be avoided, whereas U.S. Americans would advise an execu-
tive to have a joint meeting so that the problem between the insulter and target of insult can be resolved.
32
Similar differences are to be found between U.S. Americans and Mexicans, where Mexicans tend to avoid conflict
or deny that it exists, and U.S. Americans tend to use direct strategies to deal with it (cf. Gabrieldis et al., 1997).
The Japanese tend to use more obliging styles with members of their ingroups than with members of outgroups,
where they often use a dominating style. This difference cannot be seen in the U.S. (cf. Singhal & Nagao, 1993).
To fully understand how conflicts arise and how they are managed with respect to ingroups in collectivistic cultu-
res, it is necessary to take other dimensions of cultural variability into consideration. The level of power distance
in collectivistic cultures determines how collectivists respond to someone who insults members of the in-group
(cf. Bond et al., 1985).
Assess your own conflict and mediation style
The purpose of this questionnaire is to assess your own attitudes and approaches to conflict and mediation.
There are no right or wrong answers, though cultures vary as to the emphasis that is placed on various aspects
of conflict and mediation. The assessment can be used to determine your cultural assumptions and compare
them other possible assumptions. Please answer as honestly as possible, indicating your own style in conflict and
mediation by reacting to each statement with one of the options given.
‘Strongly disagree 1’; ‘Disagree – 2’; ‘Disagree somewhat- 3’ ‘Don’t agree or disagree – 4’; ‘Agree somewhat – 5’;
‘Agree – 6’; ‘Strongly agree – 7’.
1. In resolving conflicts, personalities are more important than facts.

2. A fair outcome requires a neutral mediator.
3. In resolving conflicts, the status of the parties is an important considera-tion.
4. It is normally possible to resolve conflicts if the people involved are honest and direct.
5. The best mediator is one who knows the parties well.
6. The first step to resolving a conflict is to get the parties to admit the con-flict face to face.
7. If I were asked to help resolve a conflict, I’d want to know some history of the people involved
before asking about the specifics of the present disa-greement.
8. It is not right to apologise if you are not at fault in a conflict.
9. It is often wise to depend on someone else to work out your conflict for you.
10. Formal rituals are necessary to successfully resolve declared conflicts.
11. A mediator unknown to both parties is best because this assures neutrality and anonymity.
12. Conflict represents a challenge and an opportunity for change.
13. Sometimes the best way to deal with a conflict is to keep silent.
14. To ensure fairness in mediation, communication rules must be applied in the same way
in all settings.
15. Conflict can be a means to positive change.
16. One should look to the future and not the past when finding solutions to conflicts
Questions 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13 indicate a high-context communication style whereas 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16
indicate a low-context communication style.
33
Low-context: When in a conflict, people with higher scores have a tendency to be direct in communication,
problem-oriented and focused on the future. In addition, those scoring high also hold the belief that mediator
neutrality is important to ‘fair’ mediation.
High-context: When in a conflict, those with higher scores have a tendency to be indirect in communication,
person-oriented and aware of the past. In addition, those scoring high also prefer, or at least accept, a mediator
from inside their group.
Table 6. Assess your conflict and mediation style (cf. Singelis & Pedersen, 1997:85)
34
1. What is the nature of conflict and how do we generally perceive it?
2. What do manifest and latent conflict mean?
3. What do expressive and instrumental conflict mean?
4. How do individualistic/collectivistic cultures react to conflict? Please elaborate on the various possibilities.
5. What are the five conflict styles? Which of them prevail in individualistic/ collec-tivistic cultures?
35
9 The nature of language
Language and culture are inextricably linked (cf. Hall, 1992, Agar, 1994, Gudykunst, 1997). All human languages
contain elements that are universal and elements that are unique. Phonological rules tell us how the sound of our
language is combined to form words. Grammatical rules tell us how to order words to form sentences. Semantic
rules tell us the relationship between words and the things to which they refer. Pragmatic rules tell us how to
interpret the meaning of utterances. The rules of a language are a function of the speech community using the
language.
In communication between members of differing linguistic or cultural groups, the degree of shared meaning in
experiencing the reality is likely to be small, especially when the differences are considerable. An English-spea-
king person will have less in common with a Chinese-speaking person than with a German-speaking person, as
the similarity of the language system reflects the degree to which people perceive the world in similar ways. One
reason is that our language system influences the way we think.
9.1 The role of English in a globalised world
It is a commonplace that English has become the most important language for in-ternational business activities
and scientific exchanges. As more and more people are working together on an international basis it has become
obvious that the num-ber of non-native-speakers (NNS) outnumbers the number of native-speakers (NS) by far.
Crystal (2003) estimates that there are approximately 350 million native speakers, 400 million people who speak
English as an official language, for example, in Africa and India, and 1 billion who speak it as a foreign language.2
Having understood that there are differences in communication styles, we now have to take the different com-
mands of English into consideration, too. Firth (1996) claims in his research work that whenever people com-
municate in English and do not understand properly, they use the ‘let-it-pass’ principle if things are not im-por-
tant. This principle, however, does not apply when people need to work precisely together, as they then have to
negotiate on meaning (cf. House, 1999).
At Kone Elevators, an internationally operating Finnish company with many European and Asian employees, the
company’s language is English. As there are very many employees whose command of English is relatively low,
the working process has been described as hard, complicated, in parts unclear (cf. Marschan-Piekkari, Welch &
Welch, 1997:593). Marschan-Piekkari and Charles (2002) also researched on the vertical communication pro-
cesses between the headquarters and the subsidiaries of Kone Elevators and found out that in flatter hierarchies
employees from all over the world appreciate English as their common language very much as it gives them a
feeling of belongingness, even though those with a better command of English are often asked for interpretati-
ons. On the one hand they are interested in helping their colleagues, and they thus get an insight into many other
departments, on the other hand they feel stressed if it comes to translate criticism or other unpopular topics.
Language is one of the most important factors, as it has an enormous influence on how correctly and smoothly
activities are carried out in internationally operating companies.
2
Gnutzmann & Intemann (2005:12 et.seq.) give an overview of the different estimations,
which differ enormously in the various linguisitic essays.
36
Marschan-Piekkari’s (1997) advice is therefore:
Language policies, especially when connected with HRM activities, are important in en-
suring that language competent staff are strategically positioned throughout the global
organisation. We further suggest, to the appointment of so-called Knowledge Officers,
that a Language Officer equivalent might be considered as a way of raising the profile
of language and its strategic importance, and as a means of managing language as a
critical resource.
Marschan-Piekarri et al. (1997:596)
9.2 Topic management and turn-taking
In addition to a good proficiency in a second language, which for most speakers today is English for international
purposes (EIL), we have to take some other elements into consideratio. In our conversations with others we have
to a.) choose appropri-ate topics to talk about and b.) coordinate our turn-taking – who speaks for how long.
In individualistic countries like Germany people like to talk about politics, business matters, sports and TV
whereas politics is a taboo topic in the USA (cf. Bynres, 1986, Althen, 1988, Schroll-Machl, 2001, Schmidt,
2003). In collectivistic cultures people like to about their families in general, folklore, country etc. (cf. Hayakawa,
1993). The topics mentioned, apart from politics, are called safe topics. Safe topics are chosen in order to create
a friendly atmosphere and make it possible for everybody to contribute constructively. The content of the topics
is therefore secondary but creating and maintaining a positive relationship level is the superior aim of properly
chosen topics (cf. Byrnes, 1986, Watzlawick, 2003, Maaß-Sagolla, 2010).
The ways that we manage topics and take turns differs across cultures, too. The Japanese, for example, take short
turns and distribute their turns evenly, no matter who initiates a topic. Americans take long, monologic turns,
distribute their turns unevenly and the speaker who initiates a topics takes the highest proportion of turns in that
topic (cf. Yamada, 1990:291).
The way we manage conversations is also affected by individualism-collectivism. Collectivists use verbal and non-
verbal complementary expressions and repetition to support others when they speak and maintain negotiations.
Individualists, in contrast, use less repetition but feedback devices like questions and comments, while collecti-
vists send back channel signals (brief utterances that make conversation flow smoothly, i.e. the German accompa-
nying ‘Hm’, cf. Gudykunst 1997, Maaß-Sagolla, 2010).
Japanese speakers engage in more simultaneous talk than Americans do. The non-verbal behaviour of the Japane-
se is more synchronised when they talk than Ameri-cans’ nonverbal behaviours. When Japanese speakers talk it
is often hard to tell who the primary speaker is. The simultaneous talk that occurs in Japanese conversations does
not lead to conflict as it does when it occurs in American conversations (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:183).
37
9.3 Nonverbal messages
Just as our verbal behaviour is influenced by our culture, our nonverbal behaviour reflects many of the cultural
patterns we acquire throughout our socialisation process. While our verbal behaviour is mostly explicit and
processed cognitively, our nonverbal behaviour is spontaneous, ambiguous, and often beyond our conscious
awareness and control. When we communicate with strangers, our understanding of the interaction is limited by
the strangers’ unfamiliar nonverbal behaviours. From greeting to expressions of feelings, we may find ourselves
feeling uncomfortable because of the unfamiliar nonverbal behaviour of our interlocutor. We may not know
exactly why we are feeling uncomfortable, as our perception of nonverbal behaviours is seldom conscious.
Hall (1966) elaborates in his book ‘The hidden dimension of culture’ on the phenomenon of nonverbal commu-
nication. Nonverbal messages are considered to be hidden as they are embedded in the contextual field of com-
munication. Nonverbal cues are discrete and some are created on the basis of agreement among the members of
a group using them and they are therefore arbitrary.
Smiles, for example, usually represent happiness. In Japan as in many other Asian cultures it could also represent
embarrassment, anger or any other negative feeling. For this reason individualistic cultures are often biased, as
they do not understand how to read the different Asian smiles correctly.
Nonverbal cues serve several functions in interaction. They may repeat or contradict the verbal message. In Ger-
man, when people with a flat tone of voice tell us that they like us, we are likely to interpret their statement as a
contradiction to their verbal message. Nonverbal messages can substitute and complement verbal messages, and
they can regulate the flow of conversation (cf. Gudykunst, 1997).
We use nonverbal behaviour in our communication process with others just as we use space between us and
our interlocutors to regulate intimacy and control our sensory exposure to them. The degree to which we touch
others and the degree to which we allow others to touch us, provides cues to how we see our relationships.
We distinguish between low- and high-contact cultures. Individualistic cultures are usually low-contact cultures
like Asian cultures, too. Latin American cultures and Middle Eastern cultures are, for example, high-contact cul-
tures. In general, people in high contact cultures prefer greater sensory involvement with the person with whom
they are communicating than do people in low contact cultures. People from Middle Eastern cultures are often
confused when negotiating with people from individualistic cultures as they cannot rely entirely on their sense of
smell due to the dis-tance between them and their negotiation partners.
Physical contact and smell are not the only senses that differ across cultures. There are also differences in eye con-
tact. The differences have to do with the extent to which people engage in eye contact and the situation in which
they do so when speaking and listening. Members of low contact cultures (e.g. Asian cultures) tend to avoid eye
contact when speaking and listening, members of moderate contact cultures (e.g. Australia, Northern Europe,
USA) engage in more eye contact then members of low contact cultures (cf. Hall, 1966, Gudykunst, 1997).
People in individualistic cultures tend to learn to engage in eye contact when listening to others rather than when
speaking. The listener’s eye contact is interpreted as an indication that they are indeed listening to the speaker.
Members of African cultures, for example, learn to avoid eye contact when listening to others especially when the
person speaking is of higher status than the person listening.
38
One final aspect of sensory involvement is how people use their voice. Members of high contact cultures tend to
speak loudly (cf. Hall, 1959). In Arab cultures, for example, loudness is viewed as indicating strength and sinceri-
ty whereas softness is viewed as reflecting deviousness and weakness (cf. Dwairy, 2006).
Assess your nonverbal communication knowledge
The purpose of this questionnaire is to assess your own nonverbal communication knowledge.
Assume that you are living and working in a country other than your own, or that in your work you deal with many
people from cultures others than your own. Respond to the statements as best as you can, agreeing and disagreeing
if possible. For some statements you may feel that the response depends very much on information that is not
given (such as the culture of the other person). In that case, mark the ‘it depends’ response but make a note as to
what specific information would enable you to respond more definitely.
‘Strongly disagree 1’; ‘Disagree – 2’; ‘It depends- 3’ ‘Agree– 4’; ‘Strongly agree – 5’.
1. I can usually tell when there is something bothering the people I interact with because they
will usually display a sad or depressed manner.
2. The best way to get along with others and avoid misunderstandings is to express my thoughts
and feelings clearly and directly via verbal communication.
3. I can usually tell when others are displeased with my work because they tell me how
I can do better.
4. Since people from all cultures use the same facial expressions to show their emotions, I can
usually tell how others are reacting to me.
5. I use direct eye contact with my superiors to show that I respect them and am paying attention
to what they say.
6. When meeting people for the first time, I always act in a relaxed and confident manner in
order to make a good first impression.
7. When a person responds to my question with silence, it usually indicates that the person has
not understood what I said but does not want to cause embarrassment to me or him- or herself
by asking me to repeat the question.
8. What is not said in a conversation is often more important than what is expressed directly.
9. Laughter always indicates that a person is happy and comfortable.
10. I use a lot of gestures and emphasis in my voice to make points because my foreign language
skills are not very good and these nonverbal clues will help me to be understood by people who
do no speak my language.
11. Since people know I am from a different culture, my appearance is not an important factor in
how they think about me.
12. People who have strong body odour are offensive and should be taught proper personal
hygiene habits for their own good.
39
13. When I get conflicting messages from people’s verbal and nonverbal com-munications, it is
better to consider only the verbal communication be-cause the nonverbal messages are
ambiguous and I am not familiar with the meaning of nonverbal communications in other
cultures.
14. The best way to establish good relations with others is to demonstrate my friendliness and
goodwill by smiling, laughing, and generally treating oth-ers as equals.
15. I usually try to keep a conversation active and lively because people will think I am not
intelligent, or my language ability is very poor, if I am silent.
indicate a low-context communication style.
As there are no right or wrong answers consequently there is no ‘scoring’. Try to reflect on the culture you had in
mind and reflect on your knowledge about this culture.
Table 7. Assess your nonverbal communication knowledge (cf. Singelis, 1997:268)
40
1. Which advantages and disadvantages can you think of concerning use of English as an
international language?
2. Which topics prevail in collectivistic/individualistic cultures?
3. Why is it important to people from collectivistic cultures to create a good relationship by making
use of safe topics?
4. What does ‘taking turns’ mean in a conversation and what is the practice in your own culture?
5. What do nonverbal messages show? Which nonverbal messages can you think of in your own culture?
41
6. What do high- and low-contact culture mean and what do you have to take into consideration when
cooperating with a culture other than your own?
7. What does eye contact mean to different cultures and how is used in your own culture?
8. What does smell mean to your own culture and how do you deal with situations where people smell totally
different than what you are used to?
42
11 Improving the quality your cooperation with strangers
It is of the utmost importance to develop an appropriate attitude when meeting or working with people from
all over the world. In order to be perceived as a competent communicator we have to take several aspects into
consideration. We have reflect on
a. our own perceptions in general and in particular,

b. being assertive and confirming - not aggressive
c. knowing how to predict and being predictive,
d. being mindful in our communication processes.
11.1 All perceptions are selective
Our perceptions involve our awareness of what is taking place in the environment and we know that all our
perceptions are highly selective. If we had to pay attention to all the stimuli in our environment, we would expe-
rience information overload. In order to protect ourselves from overloading our nervous system with too much
in-formation, we have to limit our attention to those aspects of strangers or the situations that are essential for
an understanding of what we are doing. We might, for example, notice the skin colour of our partner, but we do
not notice the skin texture. To notice is to select, to regard some bits of perception, or some features of the world
as more noteworthy than others, and to these we have to attend. Therefore, our perceptions of people from other
cultures are highly selective. We tend to focus on things that are relevant to us in our interaction with them. We
do not, of course, consciously decide on the things to which we pay attention. We are conscious of what we see,
but we need to keep in mind that what we see is manufactured in our brains. Our presuppositions and expectati-
ons influence the cues that we select from our environment and what we see.
We react to strangers based on the way we perceive them in interactions and the perceptions each of us experien-
ces are unique; they are based on cultures, ethnicities, sex, background experiences and our needs. Our experien-
ces overlap with strangers’ to the extent that we share common experiences (e.g. culture). While our perceptions
are based on our interactions with strangers, we tend mistakenly to assume that our perceptions are ‘real’ and
external to ourselves. The problem for our communication with strangers arises because we mistakenly assume
that we perceive and observe them in an unbiased form, which is, however, not the case. Our perceptions are
highly selective and biased. When our perceptions are biased we may have great confidence in our predictions of
and explanations for strangers’ behaviours – and this can never be accurate. Only when we are mindful can we
recognise that there is more than just one perspective on the information given and we can choose from among
these (cf. Langer, 1997:108).
11.2 Being assertive – being confirming
Verbal aggressiveness is the tendency to attack the self-concepts of individuals instead of, or in addition to, their
positions on topics of communication (cf. Infante, 1987, Gudykunst, 1998, Rosenberg, 2010). All verbal aggressi-
veness involves a hostile response to strangers, but not all hostility involves attacking a stranger’s self-concept.
43
A verbally aggressive message is one designed to cause strangers pain or to have them think less favourably
about themselves. We are not necessarily conscious of our intention to put down strangers when we are verbally
aggressive. Sometimes we utter things which are not meant to be aggressive but the stranger with whom we are
communicating may perceive that he or she is being attacked.
There are several ways that we can be verbally aggressive: character attacks, competence attacks, background
attacks, physical appearance attacks, speaking evil of others, nonverbal indicators etc. We should not underesti-
mate our use of verbal aggressiveness as when we communicate on automatic pilot we are much more verbally
aggressive than we think we are. Engaging in verbal aggressiveness can lead to hurt feelings, anger, irritation,
embarrassment, relationship deterioration or ter-mination.
While aggressive communicators usually achieve their goals, the strangers with whom they are aggressive do not
and strangers frequently feel hurt, defensive, or humiliated (cf. Rosenberg, 2010). The alternative to aggressive-
ness is assertiveness. Assertiveness involves communicating in a way that indicates that we are standing up for
our rights, but at the same time not trampling on the rights of strangers. Assertive communicators act in their
own best interests, and they state their opinions and express their feelings directly and honestly. They express
themselves in a way that is personally satisfying and socially effective.
Verbal assertiveness involves stating your wants, honestly expressing your feelings, using objective words (descri-
bing not interpreting). What is perceived as assertive behaviour in individualistic countries might be perceived
as aggressive behaviour in collectivistic countries. This suggests that in order to be effective individualists need
to adapt their assertive messages when communicating with collectivists. The adaptations necessary, however,
depend on the specific individuals communicating. Individualists may have to use a more indirect, rather than
direct, style of communication and they would need to understand when collectivists say ‘we think...’ they mean
‘I think...’. Similarly, collectivists need to adapt their behaviour to communicate effectively with individualists.
They will need to be more assertive than they are when communicating with other collectivists.
Besides being assertive in communicating with strangers, we have to be confirming, too. Confirmation is the
process through which individuals are recognised, acknowledged and endorsed. Confirming messages involve
four components: 1. we recognise strangers, 2. we respond to strangers’ messages to us, 3. we accept strangers’
experiences as real, and 4. we indicate to strangers that we are willing to be involved with them. The relationship
component of confirming messages implies three meanings: 1. you exist, 2. I acknowledge your way of experien-
cing, and 3. we are relating (cf. Gudykunst 1998, Rosenberg 2010).
We confirm or disconfirm strangers by the words we choose to use when we talk to them and the way we say
what we do. Our relational messages define the relationship between us and strangers. We may not intend to
send a disconfirming message but a stranger may interpret what we say or how we say it to be disconfirming. In
order to avoid such problematic and irritating situations we have to be mindful and watch for signs that strangers
may be interpreting our messages as disconfirming. To be confirming when communicating with collectivists,
individualists need to re-member to support collectivists’ interdependent self-construals. Similarly, collectivists
need to remember to support individualists’ independent self-construals.
44
Applications
Here are some suggestions how to become aware when, where and why we engage in verbally aggressive com-
munication. Furthermore, we can learn how to be more assertive and confirming in our communication with
strangers.
1. Over the next week, pay attention to how you talk to strangers. What are your beliefs about
talk? Do you think you are always correct? If so, how do you communicate in order to enforce your statements?
Which words do you use?
2. Over the next week, pay attention to your verbal messages directed to and about strangers.
To what extent are your messages confirming and assertive? To what extent are your messages interpretations
rather than an observations?
3. Over the next week, pay attention to your nonverbal communication style. Is your behaviour
low, moderate or high contact? How do you respond when others violate your nonverbal expectations?
11.3 Need for predictability
One of the major reasons why we are not motivated to communicate with strangers is that we often do not see
their behaviours as predictable. We need to trust others in the sense that, for the purposes of a given interaction,
others are reliable and their responses are predictable. When strangers’ behaviours are predictable, we feel that
there is a rhythm to our interactions with them. When strangers’ behaviours are not predictable, there is no
rhythm to our interaction and we experience diffuse anxiety and uncertainty.
If we do not feel part of the interaction taking place, we will have difficulty seeing strangers’ behaviours as predic-
table. One reason we may not feel part of the interaction is that we have learned different communication rules
than the strangers and we often follow our own rules, even when communicating in strangers’ languages. If the
Japanese follow their cultural norms regarding silence in conversations when speaking English, Americans will
feel that the rhythm of the conversation is wrong and they will not feel part of the conversation taking place (cf.
Gudykunst 1998:211).
Being faced with unpredictable behaviour often causes a feeling of anxiety. Anxiety is a generalised or unspecific
sense of disequilibrium. Anxiety stems from feeling uneasy, tense, worried about what might happen. It is an
emotional response to situations based on a fear of negative consequences. If we have not met our needs for
predictability, for example, the focus of our behaviours is in trying to deal with the anxiety associated with not
meeting this need and as we are usually not aware of our needs for security or predictability we have a hard time
pinpointing the source of the anxiety.
If our anxiety level is too high, we avoid communicating with strangers in order to reduce our anxiety. To be
motivated to communicate with strangers, we have to manage our anxiety if it is too high or too low. One way
we can deal with anxiety is to retreat into our known territory and limit our interactions to people who are simi-
45
lar. At the same time most of us want to see ourselves as nonprejudiced and caring people. We may, therefore,
interact with strangers to sustain our self-concepts. Holding both attitudes at the same time is not unusual. The
combination of our need to avoid diffuse anxiety and our need to sustain our self-conceptions often leads us to an
approach-avoidance orientation towards strangers.
The following questionnaire is designed to help you assess your tendency to approach strangers or to avoid inter-
acting with them.
Assess your approach-avoidance tendency
The purpose of this questionnaire is to help you assess your tendency to approach strangers or to avoid contact
with them. Respond to each of the statements by indicating the degree to which the statement is true regarding
how you typically think about yourself.
When you think about yourself, is the statement ‘Always false ‘ (an-swer 1), ‘Usually false’ (answer 2), ‘Sometimes
true and sometimes false’ (answer 3), ‘Usually true’ (answer 4), ‘Always false’ (answer 5)?
1. I have the opportunity to meet strangers regularly.

2. I feel very anxious when I have to communicate with strangers.
3. I think close relations with strangers are desirable.
4. I avoid interacting with strangers when possible.
5. I enjoy interacting with strangers.
6. I would object if someone in my family married a stranger.
7. I try to encourage social relations with strangers.
8. I am never sure how to behave when I interact with strangers.
9. I have tried to develop friendships with strangers.
10. I do not feel secure when interacting with strangers.
To find your score, first reverse the responses for the even numbered items (i.e., if you wrote 1, make it 5; if you
wrote 2, make it 4; if you wrote 3, leave it as 3; if your wrote 4, make it 2; if you wrote 5, make it 1). Next, add
the numbers next to each statement. Scores will range from 10 to 50. The higher your score, the more willing you
are to approach people who are different.
Table 8. Assess your approach-avoidance tendency (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:214)
46
11.4 How to be mindful
The skills necessary for communicating effectively and appropriately with strangers are those that are directly
related to managing our uncertainty and anxiety. One of the fundamental skills that we need in order to become
interculturally competent is mindfulness. We must be cognitively aware of our communication if we are to over-
come our tendency to interpret strangers’ behaviours based on our own frames of reference. Our focus is usually
on the outcome ‘Will I make a fool of myself?’ ‘Will strangers perceive me as prejudiced?’, rather than the process
of communication. But focussing on the outcome does not facilitate effective communication. In order to be
effective communicators we must focus on the process of our communication with strangers.
According to Langer (1997:23) the concept of mindfulness revolves around certain psychological states that are
different versions of the same thing, such as openness to novelty, alertness to distinctions, sensitivity to different
contexts, awareness of different perspectives and orientation in the present. Learning a subject or skill with an
openness to novelty and actively noticing differences, contexts, and perspectives makes us receptive to changes
in an ongoing situation. In such a state of mind, basic skills and information guide our behaviour in the present,
rather than running it like a computer programme.
Being mindful is the single most important skill in communicating effectively with people from other cultures.
When we are mindful, we can make conscious choices as to what we need to do in the particular situation in
order to communicate effectively. Unconscious behaviours, no matter how well motivated or skilful, cannot take
the place of mindful behaviours. We always will be more effective when we are mindful than when we are on
automatic pilot.
One of the skills that we have to learn, for example, is to distinguish between descriptions, interpretations and
evaluations (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:224).
Description
Norla did not look me in the eye when we talked.
The statement is descriptive in nature. It does not attribute social significance to Norla’s behaviour; it merely tells
what the observer saw.
If we attribute social significance or make inferences about what we saw, we would be engaged in interpretati
ons. Interpretations are what we think about what we see and hear. Multiple interpretations can be made for any
particular description of be-haviour.
Description
Norla did not look me in the eye when we talked.
Possible interpretations
Norla is lying.
Norla is shy.
Norla is evasive.
Each of these interpretations can have several different evaluations. Evaluations are positive or negative jud-
gments concerning the social significance we attribute to behaviour, whether we like it or not. We can use the
first interpretation given above.
47
Interpretation
Norla is shy.
Evaluations
I like that; Norla is not aggressive.
I don’t like that; Norla should stand up for herself.
If we are not mindful, we cannot distinguish between descriptive and interpretive processes and misunderstan-
dings are inevitable.
Thartang Tulku reminds us that:

Mindfulness requires keen observation, but must be free from interpretation and
passing judgment. Practising mindfulness develops our usual awareness to its most
subtle level; with this awareness we can protect ourselves against being pulled off
balance by our own thoughts and emotions.
Thartang Tulku (1978:118)
The following questionnaire is designed to help you assess how mindful you are when you communicate.
Assess your mindfulness
The purpose of this questionnaire is to help you assess your ability to be mindful. Respond to each of the state-
ments by indicating the degree to which the statement is true regarding the way you normally communicate with
strangers.
‘Always false ‘ (answer 1), ‘Usually false’ (answer 2), ‘Sometimes true and sometimes false’ (an-swer 3), ‘Usually
true’ (answer 4), ‘Always false’ (answer 5)?
1. I pay attention to the situation and context when I communicate with strangers.
2. I think about how I will look to strangers when I communicate with them.
3. I seek out new information about the strangers with whom I communicate.
4. I ignore inconsistent signals I receive from strangers when we communicate.
5. I recognise that strangers with whom I am communicating have different points of
view than I do.
6. I use the categories in which I place strangers to predict their behaviours.
7. I can describe strangers with whom I communicate in great detail.
8. I am concerned about the outcomes of my encounters with strangers.
9. I try to find rational reasons why strangers may behave in a way I perceive negatively.
10. I have a hard time telling when strangers do not understand me.
To find your score, first reverse the responses for the even numbered items (i.e., if you wrote 1, make it 5; if you
wrote 2, make it 4; if you wrote 3, leave it as 3; if your wrote 4, make it 2; if you wrote 5, make it 1). Next, add
the numbers next to each statement. Scores will range from 10 to 50. The higher your score, the more mindful
you are when you communicate with strangers.
Table 9: Assess your mindfulness (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:228)
48
1. What is the nature of our perception and why is it necessary to protect ourselves from information
overload? Elaborate on the advantages and disadvantages of a selective perception process.
2. Why do we need to predict strangers’ behaviours to interact with them? What does anxiety mean in this
context?
3. What do assertive and confirming mean and why is it necessary to develop these skills for our
communication process with strangers?
4. What does mindfulness mean and how can you tell that you or your interlocutor are mindful in your
communication process?
49
13 Standing back from yourself
Perhaps the most difficult skill in communicating across cultures involves standing back from yourself; becoming
aware that you do not know everything, that a situation may not make sense, that your guesses may be wrong,
and that the ambiguity in the situation may continue. In this sense the ancient Roman dictum ‘knowledge is
power’ becomes true. In knowing yourself, you gain power over your perceptions and reactions; you can control
your own behaviour and your reaction to others’ behaviour. Cross-cultural awareness complements in-depth self-
awareness. A lack of self-awareness negates the usefulness of cross-cultural awareness.
One of the most poignant examples of the powerful interplay between description, interpretation, evaluation and
empathy involved a Scottish businessman’s relationship with a Japanese colleague. The case study ‘Communica-
ting across cultures: Japanese pickles and mattresses, Incorporated’ recounts the Scottish businessman’s experience.
Communicating across cultures: Japanese pickles and mattresses, Incorporated (cf. Adler, 2002:97 et. seq.).
It was my first visit to Japan. As a gastronomic adventurer, and because I believe my cuisine is one route that is
freely available and highly effective as a first step towards a closer understanding of another country, I felt disappo-
inted on my first evening when the Japanese offered me a Western meal.
As tactfully as possible, I suggested that sometime during my stay I would like to try a Japanese menu, if it could be
arranged without inconvenience. The small reluctance evident on the part of my hosts was due, I assumed, to their
thought that I was just being polite asking for Japanese food, but I didn’t really like it. So to be good hosts, the Japa-
nese had to politely find a way to not serve it to me! But eventually, by an elegantly progressive route starting with
Western food with a slightly Japanese bias through to genuine Japanese food, my hosts were con-vinced that I really
wanted to eat Japanese style and was not simply ‘posing’.
From then on they became progressively more enthusiastic in suggesting the more exotic Japanese dishes, and I
guess I graduated when, after an excellent meal one night (apart from the Japanese pickles) on which I had lavis-
hed praise, they said, ‘Do you like Japanese pickles?’ To this, without preamble, I said, ‘No!’ With great laughter all
around, they responded, ‘Nor do we!’
During this gastronomic getting-together week, I had also been trying to persuade them that I really did wish to stay
in traditional Japanese hotels rather than the very Westernised ones my hosts had selected because they thought I
would prefer ‘normal’ lifestyle. I should add that, at this time, traditional hotels were still available and often chea-
per than, say, Osaka Hilton.
Anyway, after the pickles joke, it was suddenly announced that Japanese hotels could be arranged. For my remai-
ning of two weeks in Japan, as I toured the major cities, on most occasions a traditional Japanese hotel was substitu-
ted for the Western one on my original itinerary.
As you know, a traditional Japanese room has no furniture except a low table and a flower arrangement. The ‘bed’ is
a mattress produced from a concealed cupboard just before you retire, accompanied by a cereal-packed pillow.
One memorable evening my host and I had finished our meal together in my room. I was expecting him to shortly
say goodnight and retire to his own room, as he had been doing all week. However, he stayed unusually long and
was obviously in some sort of emotional crisis. Finally, he blurted out, with great embarrassment, ‘Can I sleep with
you?’
50
As they say in the novels, at this point I went very still! My mind was racing through all the sexual taboos and preju-
dices my own upbringing had instilled, and I can still very clearly recall how I analysed: ‘ I’m bigger than he is so I
can fight him off, but then he’s probably an expert in the martial arts, but on the other hand he has shown no signs
of being gay up until now and he is my host and there is a lot of business at risk and there’s no such thing as rape,
et cetera….!’
It seemed a hundred years, though it was only a few seconds, before I said, feeling as if I was pulling the trigger in
Russian roulette, ‘Yes, sure.’
Who said that the Orientals are inscrutable? The look of relief that followed my reply was obvious. Then he looked
worried and concerned again, and said, ‘Are you sure?’
I reassured him and he called in the maid, who fetched his mattress from his room and laid it on the floor alongside
mine. We both went to bed and slept all night without any physical interaction.
Later I learned that for the traditional Japanese one of the greatest compliments you can be paid is for the host to
ask, ‘Can I sleep with you?’ This goes back to the ancient feudal times, when life was cheap, and what the invitation
was really saying was, ‘I trust you with my life. I do not think that you will kill me while I sleep. You are my true
friend.’
To have said ‘No’ to the invitation would have been an insult – ‘I don’t trust you not to kill me while I sleep’ – or, at
the very least, my host would have been acutely embarrassed because he had taken the initiative. If I refused becau-
se I had failed to perceive the invitation as a compliment, he would have been out of countenance on two grounds:
the insult to him in the traditional context and the embarrassment he would have caused me by ‘forcing’ a negative,
uncompre-hending response from me.
As it turned out, the outcome was superb. He and I were now ‘blood brothers’, as it were. His assessment of me as
being ‘ready for Japanisation’ had been correct and his obligations under ancient Japanese custom had been fulfil-
led. Through my own cultural conditioning, I had initially totally misinterpreted his intensions. It was sheer luck, or
luck plus a gut feeling that I’d gotten it wrong, that caused me to respond correctly to his extremely complimentary
and committed invitation.
Cross-cultural communication confronts us with our limited ability to perceive, interpret, and evaluate people
and situations. Our culturally based perspectives render everything relative and slightly uncertain. Entering a
culture that is foreign to us is tantamount to knowing the words without knowing the music, or knowing the mu-
sic without knowing the dance. Our natural tendencies lead us back to our prior experience: our default option
becomes the familiarity of our own culture, thus precluding our accurate understanding of others’ cultures.
Strategies for overcoming our natural parochial tendencies have been shown throughout this unit. With care we
can avoid our ethnocentric default options. We can learn to see, understand, and transcend our cultural condi-
tioning. When working in other cultures, we can emphasise description rather than interpretation or evaluation,
and thus minimise self-fulfilling prophecies or self-fulfilling stereotypes and premature judgments. We can
recognise and use our initial stereotypes as guides rather than rejecting them as unsophisticated simplifications.
Effective cross-cultural communication presupposes the interplay of alternative realities. It rejects the actual or
potential domination of one reality over another.
51
12 Bibliography
Adler, N.J. 2002. 4th ed. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Canada: South-Western.
Adler, P. S. 1972. Culture Shock and the Cross-cultural Learning Experience. In Readings in Intercultural Commu-
nication, 2. Hoopes (Ed.), D.S., Regional Council for International Education, Pittsburgh, PA.
Agar, M. 1994. Language shock. New York: William Morrow.
Althen, G. 1988. American ways: a guide for foreigners in the United States. Yar-mouth, Maine: Intercultural
Press.
Bennett, J. M. 1998. Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.
Berger, C.R.; Calabrese, R. 1975. Some explorations in initial interactions and be-yond: Toward a developmental
theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.
Bond, M. et al. 1985. How are the responses to verbal insults related to cultural collectivism and power distance?
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 111-127.
Byrnes, H. 1986. ‘Interactional style in German and American conversations’. Text, 6 (2). 189-206.
Charles, M.; Marschan-Piekkarie, R. 2002: ‘Language Training for Enhanced Horizontal Communication: A Chal-
lenge for MNCs’. Business Communication Quarterly, 65 (2), 9-29.
Crystal, D. 2003. English as a global language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Dwairy, M. 2006. Counseling and Psychotherapy with Arabs and Muslims. A Culturally Sensitive Approach. Ams-
terdam, NY: Teachers College Press.
Firth, A. 1996. ‘The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation ana-
lysis’. Journal of Pragmatics, 26 (2), 237-259
Gabrieldes, C. et al. 1997. Preferred styles of conflict resolution: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 28, 661-677.
Gnutzmann, C.; Intenmann, F. 2005. The Globalisation of English and the English Language Classroom. Tübin-
gen: Narr
Gudykunst, W. B. 1998. Bridging Differences. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Gudykunst, W. B.; Kim, Y. Y. 1984, 1997. 3rd edition. Communicating with Strangers – An Approach to Intercul-
tural Communication. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Gudykunst, W. B.; Kim, Y. Y. 1984, 1997. 3rd edition. Communicating with Strangers – An Approach to Intercul-
tural Communication. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
52
Gudykunst, W. B.; Nishida, T. 1984. Individual and cultural influences on uncertainty reduction. Communication
Monographs, 51, 23-36.
Gudykunst, W.B. 1998. 3rd. ed. Bridging Differences – Effective Intergroup Communication. California: Sage
Publication. Thousand Oaks.
Hall, E.T. 1959. The silent language. New York: Anchor Books.
Hall, E.T. 1966. The hidden dimension. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond culture. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
Hampden-Turner, Ch.; Trompenaars, F. 2000. Building Cross-Cultural Competence. West Sussex: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd.
Hayakawa, S. I. 1993. Sprache im Denken und Handeln. Darmstadt: Darmstädter Blätter.
Herman, S.; Schield, E. 1960. The stranger group in a cross-cultural situation. Soci-ometry, 24, 165-176.
Hofstede, G. 1994. Cultures and Organizations. London: HarperCollins.
Hofstede, G. 2001. 2nd ed. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations
Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
House, J. 1999: Misunderstanding in intercultural communication: Interactions in English as lingua franca and
the myth of mutual intelligibility. In: Gnutzmann, C. (ed.) Teaching and Learning English as a global language.
Tübingen: Stauffen-burg, 37-89.
Infante, D. 1988. Arguing constructively. Prospects Heights, IL:Waveland.
Kluckhohn, C.; Strodtbeck, F.L. 1961. Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston.
Kochmann, T. 1981. Black and white: Styles in conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langer, E. 1997. The power of mindful learning. Reading, M.A.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Locke, D. 1992. Increasing multicultural understanding. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Maaß-Sagolla, S. 2003. Begegnung zwischen Ost und West – ein interkultureller Ansatz. Interview mit S.E. Dagy-
ab Kyabgön Rinpoche. In Chökor (35), Tibetischer Buddhismus im Westen.
Maaß-Sagolla, S. 2010. Small, middle und professional talk. Peter Lang: Frankfurt.
Marschan-Piekkari, R.; Welch, D.; Welch, L. 1997. ‘Language: The Forgotten Factor in Multinational Manage-
ment’. European Management Journal, 15 (5), 591-598.
53
Nishiyama, K. 1971. Interpersonal persuasion in a vertical society. Speech Mono-graphs, 38, 148-154.
Olsen, M. 1978. 2nd ed. The process of social organization. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Parillo, V.N. 1980. Strangers to these shores. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Putnam, L.; Wilson, C. 1982. Communication strategies in organizational conflicts. In Burgoon, M. (Ed.), Commu-
nication Yearbook 6. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Rahim, A. 1983. A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 90,
56-72.
Roloff, M. 1987. Communication and conflict. In Berger, C. & Chaffee, S., Handbook of communication science.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rosenberg, M. 2010. Nonviolent Communication.
Schmidt, P. L. 2003. 5. Aufl. Die amerikanische und deutsche Wirtschaftskultur im Vergleich – Ein Praxishand-
buch für Manager. Göttingen: Hainholz.
Schroll-Machl, S. 2001. ‘Aspekte amerikanischer und deutscher Unternehmens-kulturen im Vergleich’. Wirt-

schaftspsychologie, 3. 1-8.
Schuetz, A. 1944. The stranger. American Journal of Sociology, 49, 499-507.
Singelis, M.; Pedersen, P. 1997. Conflict and Mediation Across Cultures. In Cushner, K.; Brislin R. W. (Eds.) Im-
proving Intercultural Interactions. Volume 2. CA: Sage Publications, 184-204.
Singelis, T. 1994. Nonverbal Communication in Intercultural Interactions. In Brislin, R. W.; Yoshida, T. (Eds.)
Improving Intercultural Interactions. CA: Sage Publications, 268-294
Singhal, A.; Nagao, M. 1993. Assertiveness as communication competence. Asian Journal of Communication, 3,
1-18.
Ting-Toomey, S. 1985. Toward a theory of conflict in culture. In Gudykunst, W.B. Steward, L., Ting-Toomey, S.
(eds.). Communication, culture, and organizational processes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Ting-Toomey, S. 1988. A face negotiation theory. In Kim, Y.; Gudykunst, W.B. (eds.). Handbook of international
and intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Ting-Toomey, S. et al. 1989. An analysis of conflict styles in Japan and the United States. Paper presented at the
Speech Communication Association convention.
Triandis, H. C. 1985. Allocentric vs. idiocentric tendencies. Journal of Research in Personality, 1, 395-415.
Triandis, H. C. 1988. Collectivism vs. individualism. In Verma, G.; Bagley, C. (eds.), Cross-cultural studies or perso-
54
nality, attitudes, and cognition. London: Macmil-lan.
Triandis, H. C. 1995. Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Tulku, T. 1978. Openness Mind. Oakland, CA: Dharma Press.
Watzlawick, P. 2003. Gebrauchsanweisung für Amerika. 2. Auflg. München, Zürich: Pieper.
Yamada, H. 1990. Topic management and turn distributions in business meetings. American versus Japanese
strategies. Text, 10, 271-295.
55

Communicating Across Cultures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Communicating Across Cultures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communicating Across Cultures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BUSINESS EXPERTS AND ENGINEERING BEE / INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS

Prof. Dr. phil. Susanne Maaß-Sagolla

1. Strangers and uncertainties in interaction processes 6

Figure 1: Generalisation distributions 10

Table 1: Assess your uncertainty 8

Greetings. I am pleased to see that we are different.

Parrillo (1980) summarises Schuetz’s perspective:

1. I am not confident when I communicate with strangers.

Table 1. Assess your uncertainty (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:21)

Adapted from Gudykunst (1998:37)

2. Why is uncertainty a typical reaction to encountering strangers?

3. What do predictive and explanatory uncertainty mean?

5. Why do misunderstandings occur when our level of uncertainty is too high?

Figure 1: Generalisation distributions (cf. Bennett, 1998:7)

3.2 Horizontal and vertical cultures

Adapted from Gudykunst (1998:168)

3.4 Cultural identities

Assess your individualistic and collectivistic tendencies

1. Obtaining pleasure or sensuous gratification

Adapted from Gudykunst (1998:68)

American: How long will it take American: I asked him to

Greek: I don’t know. How long American: He refuses to take

Greek: 10 days. American: He lacks the ability to

American: Take 15. It is agreed you American: I offer a contract.

American: Where is my report? American: I am making sure he

Greek: It will be ready tomorrow. (Both attribute that it is not ready.)

American: But we agreed that it American: I must teach him to

The Greek hands in his resignation. The American is surprised.

Greek: I can’t work for such a man.

Assess your listening behaviour

Table 3. Assess your listening behaviour (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:165)

focus on individuals’ goals focus on group’s goals

values stimulation, power, values traditions, conformity,

low-context messages: high-context messages:

Table 4. Individualistic and collectivistic cultures (cf. Gudykunst, 1998:58)

2. What is meant by culture specific and culture general?

3. In how far do ingroups influence the behaviour of collectivists and individualists?

5.2 The acculturation curve

Figure 4: The acculturation curve (cf. Hofstede, 1994:210)

5.3 The reverse culture shock

5.4 The DMIS concept by Milton J. Bennett

Figure 5: Development of intercultural sensitivity (cf. Bennett, 1998:26)

5. Give a brief overview of the six stages of the DMIS.

7.2 Conflict styles

Assess your own conflict and mediation style

1. In resolving conflicts, personalities are more important than facts.

1. What is the nature of conflict and how do we generally perceive it?

2. What do manifest and latent conflict mean?

3. What do expressive and instrumental conflict mean?

9.1 The role of English in a globalised world

9.2 Topic management and turn-taking

Assess your nonverbal communication knowledge

Table 7. Assess your nonverbal communication knowledge (cf. Singelis, 1997:268)

2. Which topics prevail in collectivistic/individualistic cultures?

a. our own perceptions in general and in particular,

11.1 All perceptions are selective

11.2 Being assertive – being confirming

Adapted from Gudykunst (1998:203)