Last time, we talked about how cultural blind spots associated with country of origin can cause real difficulties when organizations need to bring together teams from different countries to solve problems.  We discussed how individuals from some countries tend to focus on completing tasks and value achievement, while individuals from other countries tend to focus on building relationships and value reflection in the decision-making process. 

Today, I want to focus on another key potential cultural blind spot:  Communication.

COMMUNICATION

In the Cultural Orientation Index, communication is broken down into four categories:

1. High/Low Context:  A High Context orientation values behavior over words, relying heavily on non-verbal cues, while a Low Context orientation values explicit communication, relying on the literal meanings of words.
2. Direct/Indirect:  A Direct orientation values direct and explicit conflict management, while an Indirect orientation values indirect and implicit conflict management.
3. Expressive/Instrumental:  People with an Expressive orientation are comfortable with emotions at work and are comfortable using them, while individuals with an Instrumental orientation value accuracy and objectivity in communication.
4. Formal/Informal:  A Formal orientation values observing the rules of etiquette and protocol to establish credibility and respect, while an Informal orientation values the dispensing with such rules in order to create a friendly, casual environment.l

In our example in the previous post, we had huge differences in the Communication orienation.  Both China and India tend to have a High Context orientation, while the US tends to a Low Context orientation.  The result?  The US team members communicated in what they thought was ‘crystal clear’ language, while the team members from China and India were more oblique and relied more heavily on implication.  While US team members took the words they heard at face value, the team members from China and India were focusing more closely on non-verbal cues than on specific words. 

This difference in communication style and comprehension can easily derail cross-cultural meetings:  The differences in how conflict is approached and resolved, the differences in how emotion is expressed (or not), the reactions to being on the receiving end of conflict and emotion - all of this can lead to misunderstandings and difficulty in moving the team to successful completion of their mandate.

It’s easier to achieve productivity when individuals become aware of, and take responsibility for, their own orientations - and to recognize those of others at the gtable.  For example, someone with a strong Expressive Communication orientation can remind themselves that not everyone is as comfortable with expressing emotions as they are, and can take steps to temper their conversation accordingly.  At the same time, someone with an Indirect approach to conflict management can make more of an effort, when working with people who have a Direct approach, to express their concerns more straightforwardly or clearly identify the conflict and call for resolution.

Conclusion

Understanding culture can be both overwhelming and (seemingly) time-consuming for individuals and organizations.  However, it also has the potential to deliver great rewards and real dividends on the time and money invested. 

My advice?  Don’t go it alone.  If you’re going global and know you’re going to be relying on cross-cultural teams, invest in training for employees - particularly for global team leaders, who have the potential for the most influence.  Recognizing cultural differences across countries of origin is the first step to successfully participating in new markets.

A few years ago, I found myself in a team meeting which involved people from China, India and the United States.  We were discussing a change strategy, and - inevitably - emotions began to creep into the conversation.  It was interesting:  The US team members were clearly trying to drive the discussion to a conclusion, while the Indian team members argued their points increasingly vigorously and the Chinese team members became increasingly silent.

As the meeting wore on, I felt like I was participating in a real-life Tower of Babel:  Everyone was talking, few were really listening, and almost everyone was focused on their own point of view and needs rather than that of the team.  We've all been in meetings liket his, but it's particularly pronounced in situations where team members have different countries of origin.

As more and more businesses 'go global' and the world gets smaller and smaller, it's becoming more important for businesses - and individuals - to understand their cultural orientations and recognize potential cultural blind spots.

Over the years, I've found the Cultural Orientation Index (COI) from Training Management Corporation to be a helpful resource in these situations.  The COI has several components, but I'd like to focus on one, Action.

ACTION

The Action dimension focuses on how "individuals conceptualize actions and interactions with people and objects in their environment", with two orientations, 'Being' and 'Doing'.

People with a 'being' orientation focus on building relationships with others and value reflection in making decisions, while those with a 'doing' orientation focus on completing tasks, and they value achievement.

It will come as no surprise to discover that the US has a 'doing' orientation while China has a 'being' orientation.  India, on the other hand, falls squarely in the middle with a hybrid 'being/doing' orientation.  (It goes without saying, of course, that not everyone from a given country will conform to these orientations, but it does provide a useful starting point.)

If the meeting participants had been more aware of these orientations, the meeting might have proceeded more productively.  Someone could have said to the US team members:  "We recognize you're focused on concluding this meeting and walking away with firm decisions, but some of us need to contemplate our findings so far.  Can we take a break and resume our discussions in 30 minutes?  That will give us time to think through our concerns."  Or, knowing they would likely need time for reflection, the team members from China could have pre-scheduled a mid-meeting break.

The blind spot?  No one at the table appeared to have considered these different styles prior to the meeting.  Instead, the cultural gaps manifested themselves during the meeting as silence, acquiescence, excessive arguing, frustration, and, ultimately, a lack of resolution.

NEXT:  Cultural Blind Spots:  Country of Origin, PART 2 - COMMUNICATION