There are a number of problems related to language difficulties in cross-cultural communications. First are barriers caused by semantics. Words mean different things to different people, particularly people from different national cultures. Some words don’t translate between cultures. For instance, the Finnish word sisu means something akin to “guts” or “dogged persistence” but is essentially untranslatable into English. Similarly, capitalists in Russia may have difficulty communicating with their British or Canadian counterparts because English terms such as efficiency, free market, and regulation have no direct Russian equivalents.

Second are barriers caused by word connotations. Words imply different things in different languages. Negotiations between U.S. and Japanese executives can be difficult because the Japanese word hai translates as “yes,” but its connotation is “Yes, I’m listening” rather than “Yes, I agree.”

Third are barriers caused by tone differences. In some cultures, language is formal; in others, it’s informal. In some cultures, the tone changes depending on the context: People speak differently at home, in social situations, and at work. Using a personal, informal style when a more formal style is expected can be inappropriate.

Fourth are differences in tolerance for conflict and methods for resolving conflicts. People from individualist cultures tend to be more comfortable with direct conflict and will make the source of their disagreements overt. Collectivists are more likely to acknowledge conflict only implicitly and avoid emotionally charged disputes. They may attribute conflicts to the situation more than to the individuals and therefore may not require explicit apologies to repair relationships, whereas individualists prefer explicit statements, accepting responsibility for conflicts and public apologies to restore relationships.

Cultures tend to differ in the degree to which context influences the meaning individuals take from communication.43 In high-context cultures such as China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, people rely heavily on nonverbal and subtle situational cues in communicating with others, and a person’s official status, place in society, and reputation carry considerable weight. What is not said may be more significant than what is said. In contrast, people from Europe and North America reflect their low-context cultures. They rely essentially on spoken and written words to convey meaning; body language and formal titles are secondary (see Exhibit 11-4).

Contextual differences mean quite a lot in terms of communication. Communication in high-context cultures implies considerably more trust by both parties. What may appear to be casual and insignificant conversation, in fact reflects the desire to build a relationship and create trust. Oral agreements imply strong commitments in high-context cultures. And who you are—your age, seniority, rank in the organization—is highly valued and heavily influences your credibility. Managers can therefore “make suggestions” rather than give orders. But in low-context cultures, enforceable contracts tend to be in writing, precisely worded, and highly legalistic. Similarly, low-context cultures value directness. Managers are expected to be explicit and precise in conveying intended meaning.

There is much to be gained from business intercultural communications. It is safe to assume every one of us has a different viewpoint that is culturally shaped. Because we do have differences, we have an opportunity to reach the most creative solutions possible with the help of others if we communicate effectively.

According to Fred Casmir, a leading expert in intercultural communication research, we often do not communicate well with people outside of our culture because we tend to generalize from only their cultural origin. This can be insensitive and potentially disastrous, especially when we make assumptions based on observable characteristics. Many of us have a richly varied ethnic background and would be offended if someone addressed us according to what culture our physical features might favor, for instance. Also, attempts to be culturally sensitive to another person are often based on stereotypes propagated by media. These stereotypes usually do not have a correct or current relevance.

Casmir noted that because there are far too many cultures for anyone to understand completely, and individuals interpret their own cultures differently, intercultural communication should be based on sensitivity and pursuit of common goals. He found the ideal condition is an ad hoc “third culture” where a group can form when they seek to incorporate aspects of each member’s cultural communication preferences. The norms this subculture establishes through appreciating individual differences create a common ground for effective communication. Intercultural groups that communicate effectively can be highly productive and innovative.

When communicating with people from a different culture, what can you do to reduce misinterpretations? Casmir and other experts offer the following suggestions:

1. Know yourself. Recognizing your own cultural identity and biases is critical to understanding the unique viewpoints of other people.

2. Foster a climate of mutual respect, fairness, and democracy. Clearly establish an environment of equality and mutual concern. This will be your “third culture” context for effective intercultural communication that transcends each person’s cultural norms.

3. State facts, not your interpretation. Interpreting or evaluating what someone has said or done draws more on your own culture and background than on the observed situation. If you state only facts, you will have the opportunity to benefit from the other person’s interpretation. Delay judgment until you’ve had sufficient time to observe and interpret the situation from the differing perspectives of all concerned.

4. Consider the other person’s viewpoint. Before sending a message, put yourself in the recipient’s shoes. What are his or her values, experiences, and frames of reference? What do you know about his or her education, upbringing, and background that can give you added insight? Try to see the people in the group as they really are first, and take a collaborative problem-solving approach whenever potential conflicts arise.

5. Proactively maintain the identity of the group. Like any culture, the establishment of a common-ground “third culture” for effective intercultural communication takes time and nurturing. Remind members of the group of your common goals, mutual respect, and need to adapt to individual communication preferences.44