Global Diversity: Understanding Cultural Difference in Communications Style

Culture is largely invisible to the people brought up in it. Before settling on a global diversity strategy, practitioners need to be conscious of their own way of perceiving and talking about reality in order to recognize differences in other cultures and effectively manage within the context of those differences. This article looks specifically at cultural assumptions underlying American communications styles; the principles are applicable more broadly.

This article focuses specifically on communication. For a more comprehensive review of the dimensions of cultural differences, see ORC’s article “Global Diversity: Basic Principles of Cultural Difference.”

It is not clear whether our culture forms our language and habits of communication or our verbal and nonverbal language delimits our perceptions of reality and, therefore, defines the assumptions, values, and behaviors that make up our culture. Either way, the ability to communicate effectively with people from other cultures depends on being able to empathize with them.

Empathy is different from sympathy. When we sympathize with other people, we try to imagine how we would feel in their situation. When we empathize, we recognize that others are different from us and may not react to the same situation in the same way. Instead, we try to imagine how they must be reacting, given their patterns of thinking.

In order to empathize effectively, we need first to understand our own culture and in what regard it is likely to differ from other cultures. This memo, based on work by Edward C. Stewart and Milton J. Bennett¹, outlines the basic components of American² culture as they are demonstrated in the way Americans as a whole communicate. It should be stated at the outset that the characteristics described here are prevalent tendencies or, as sociologists refer to them, patterns of culture. Individuals within the culture may exhibit these tendencies to a greater or lesser degree. By the same token, in cultures not strongly associated with these characteristics individuals may still display them. Therefore, throughout the rest of this memo, wherever it says "Americans are" or "Americans do," please read "Americans tend to be" or "frequently do.")

The American communication style tends to be:

Problem-oriented
Direct
Explicit
Personal
Informal

Problem Orientation

Americans see the world in terms of problems amenable in most cases to solutions. When talking over a situation, we want to define the problem and fix it. This is by no means a universal view of reality. Arabs, for example, often view prevailing conditions as preordained and unchangeable. Europeans may see the same problem that Americans do, but may want to study it at a deeper level before attempting to solve it. To them, American urgency seems impetuous and ill-advised.

Directness

Americans value taking pragmatic action, and our communication style reflects this preference. We like to get right to the point, move linearly from point A to point B, without digressions. In many other cultures, the goal of a conversation is not efficiency but exploring the context. The subject is covered not by moving linearly from point to point but by loosely embellishing the theme, pausing frequently to explore related matters.

Explicitness

Americans assume that there is an objective, rational reality that can be perceived and measured and remains the same for all observers. Facts exist independently of the speaker. This objective reality is best communicated with words—the more precise the words, the better. Some other cultures, such as the Japanese, are considered "high context," that is, communication depends heavily on what is not said and on nonverbal signals. By contrast, Americans rely relatively little on context when they communicate, preferring to state their meaning as explicitly as possible. A corollary to explicitness is that Americans assign more responsibility to the speaker than to the listener. While a listener has some responsibility for figuring out the speaker's message, the onus is primarily on the speaker to say what he means.

This striving for clarity combined with Americans' assumption of equality among speakers results in a lot of free give and take between the sender and receiver of messages. If the receiver doesn't understand, she is usually expected to ask questions to encourage the sender to clarify his message, even in cases where the speaker ranks higher in the organization than the receiver. In other cultures, such back and forth is much less common. German students, for example, do not ask their teachers questions with the same freedom as Americans.

Personal Focus

Americans are unique in how personal their communication style is. Our "small talk" often consists of exchanging information about each other's families, jobs, likes and dislikes, even financial status or marriages. This is the opposite of most other cultures, where introductory topics are more likely to be intellectual, e.g., politics. This is the reason Americans sometimes judge Europeans to be cold or withdrawn while Europeans think Americans are shallow.

Americans' personally focused communication style is an outgrowth of our core value of individualism. We see the self as separate from everyone else, therefore, getting to know one another involves learning about each other's selves. On the other hand, we do not believe it is possible to really ever get to know another. Our selves ultimately stand alone.

Informality

Along with Americans' sense that everyone is a separate individual goes a conviction that each self is of equal basic worth.³ Hence, American egalitarianism, which leads to an uncommon level of informality in our communication style. We call new acquaintances by their first name quickly, often without regard for their rank. We chat relatively freely with waiters in restaurants and our teachers and bosses alike. Clearly, this style can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings in more formal cultures, where such behavior might be seen, not as friendly, but as boorish or disrespectful. Informality can make non-Americans feel somewhat at sea, having few markers of status by which to regulate their social interactions.

Implications for Global Diversity Efforts

This kind of information is useful not only for educating employees who will work in cross-cultural situations, but, more fundamentally, for guiding our conceptualization of global diversity. We already know that American-style programs will not work everywhere; these insights suggest as well that we need to be careful about our expectations of how to even begin approaching the issue. In the United States, organizations that value diversity generally do so in the belief that individual differences contribute to organizational effectiveness. In American fashion, we state this explicitly in our mission statements and objectives. Our strategies for promoting diversity usually include analyzing problem areas and then devising solutions. This linear, pragmatic attack may have to yield to other problem-solving approaches.

Fortunately, American diversity managers do not have to figure out the appropriate problem-solving approach country-by-country for themselves. One mainstay of American diversity programs that may travel very well, albeit in somewhat altered forms, is the common practice of having diversity councils or task forces guide the diversity effort in a business unit or location. Any mechanism that enables the diversity manager to listen and learn from the host culture should be embraced.

Endnotes

Edward C. Stewart, and Milton J. Bennett, American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, Intercultural Press, Inc., 1991 (Yarmouth)
The term "American" is used advisedly in Stewart and Bennett's book and in this memo to refer to people from the United States and does not include Canada or Mexico.
This does not necessarily mean that in less egalitarian cultures, individuals at the lower rungs of society are not valued. More stratified cultures may view each person as having a rightful place to occupy, with every place having an important role to play in society.

If you would like more information on global diversity or on ORC's diversity consulting and networking services, contact Liz MacGillivray or Deirdre Golden.