Intercultural Communication:
the Challenge of the Multicultural Workplace

Like everything else we learn, the way we communicate is determined strongly by the culture we grow up in, and there are many aspects of communication which differ from culture to culture, including how loud we talk, the directness with which we speak, how much emotion we express in various situations, the rules for turn taking, the use or avoidance of silence, and many non-verbal aspects of communication like posture, eye contact, proximity, touching, tone of voice, etc. that occur almost totally beneath our conscious awareness. Today’s multicultural work place creates significant challenges to effective communication beyond the obvious barriers created by varying competence in the primary language of communication, which, for global businesses, is generally English.

As a simple example, let’s look at the confusion and misunderstanding differing expectations around a single communication parameter such as turn taking can cause. Imagine a young man from a WASPish U.S family engaged to a young Jewish woman of first-generation immigrant parents from Eastern Europe. Both generations of both families are native speakers of American English. The young man visits his fiancée’s family for the first time. An animated conversation begins and get louder, with lots of expressed emotion and the family all talking over each other, finishing each other’s sentences, and generally ignoring the young man, who sits quietly awaiting his turn to enter the conversation, which never comes. Driving home, the young man, irritated, says to his fiancée, who is not speaking to him, “Your family is so rude! In two hours, nobody spoke to me, asked me a question or even looked at me. They were not the least interested in me and never gave me a chance to say anything.” Later, the young woman’s mother calls her daughter and says, “What are you doing with that cold conceited idiot? He was here two hours and never said a word. He thinks he’s too good for us!”

In this example we see the clash of two sets of rules for turn-taking. The high-engagement style expects people to jump into the conversation while others are speaking, never leaving gaps. It generally permits a lot of expressed emotion and confrontation. The low-engagement style allows only one speaker at a time, with others waiting for a pause and perhaps an invitation to step in. It generally restrains emotional expression, though it may permit confrontation. A third style, not represented here, leaves thoughtful pauses between speakers, showing respectful consideration of what’s been said before speaking. It tends to avoid emotion and confrontation. Each group finds the other styles rude or stilted or frustrating in some way.

It is easy to misinterpret the communication of someone from another culture, even when it occurs in a language we understand, since many aspects of culture influence communication style, regardless of the language in which it is expressed. That is, we take our cultural values with us into the foreign language. For instance, East Asians sometimes say that Westerners treat strangers like friends and friends like strangers. Observing a U.S. American giving money to a beggar on the street or holding a door open for a stranger could provoke such a remark, as could overhearing an American turn down a request by a family member or close friend to help out with something. What does this say about relationships and obligations across the East/West cultural divide, and what does it have to do with communication style?

Individualistic cultures such as the English-speaking and the Northern European cultures, as well as Italy, may be seen as collections of individuals, each of whom may have simultaneous memberships in numerous overlapping, informal, loose groups that they join and leave when convenient. Churches, companies, business associations, social clubs, sports clubs, civic associations, political groups, etc., are examples. While family ties may be quite strong, membership obligations to other groups are weak, and loyalty is neither required nor highly valued. Common rules of polite behavior apply equally to group members and non-group members. Relationships with strangers are easily formed and dissolved, and friendships entail little obligation. Individuals assume a fundamental right to self-expression, self-realization, and self-protection.

On the other hand, highly group-oriented cultures, such as most East and South Asian, South American, Middle Eastern, Eastern European, and sub-Saharan countries, can be seen as a collection of strong groups, starting with close family and extending to other blood relatives, school groups, work and military units, community groups, churches, etc. In-group interaction is heavily circumscribed. Individuals are bound to their groups by heavy obligations and strict rules of intra-group relationships; loyalty is required and highly prized. Friendships exist primarily within groups, are formed with serious intent, and imply increasing reciprocal obligation. Individuals learn early to subordinate personal desire to the consensus and well-being of the group. However, there are few rules of behavior with respect to outsiders. One conducts oneself with friends and with strangers quite differently.

It is clear that communication patterns develop very differently in individualistic and in group-oriented cultures. In the latter, where communication is shaped to protect relationships, the rules governing directness and emotional expression, for instance, are quite constraining when communicating within the group and relatively loose when communicating with people outside one’s group. Within the group, the dimension of power distance (hierarchy) moderates these behaviors and speaking across status boundaries inhibits directness as well as the expression of negative emotions. Many group-oriented cultures tolerate high power distance,* and emotional expression seems to be stronger in these (particularly non-Asian) cultures, despite the restraints across status boundaries.** The Slavic and Mediterranean countries, the Middle East, the less-Northern European-influenced South American nations, and many of the sub-Saharan nations are highly expressive, with varying degrees of directness, for instance.

Individualistic cultures tend toward lower power distance and thus permit more direct expression in most circumstances where self-expression trumps relationship. However emotional expression in individualistic cultures is again related to power distance, with, for example, France and the Francophone countries or parts of countries (e.g., French-speaking Switzerland, Québec in Canada, French-speaking Belgium, etc.) being more emotionally expressive than the lower power distance Nordic, Germanic, and English-speaking countries.

In short, communication, like all human behavior, is governed unconsciously by deep cultural values, and preferences for different value sets produce distinctive communication patterns. In today’s multicultural work environment, it is increasingly important to understand the implicit values that affect our own and our workers’ communication styles and to be able to address differences openly and check for clarity and comprehension in order to enhance our collaboration, our relationships, and ultimately our success. To work in the global environment, we have to develop communication as a conscious skill.

* “In cultures in which people are dependent on in-groups, these people are usually also dependent on power figures. Most extended families have patriarchal structures with the head of the family exercising strong moral authority. In cultures in which people are relatively independent from in-groups, they are usually also less dependent on powerful others.” Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, McGraw-Hill, pp. 83-84. See also Figure 3.1, “Power distance Versus Individualism,” p. 83.

**See the Interpretive Guide, Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory, p. 15, Mitchell R. Hammer, PhD, Hammer Consulting LLC.