Sender-related Intercultural Communication Barriers to Organizational Learning

Marginality of the sender

Marginality plays an important role in intercultural interactions. Cultural marginality refers to people who have internalized two or more cultural frames of reference (Stonequist, 1932). For example, Chinese-Americans can hold two distinct mental models concerning the importance of being independent of the group, and their self-descriptions will vary according to whether a Chinese or American cultural frame feels more appropriate (Hong, Morris, Chiu, and Benet-Martinez, 2000). This can lead to internal culture shock as two cultural voices vie for attention (J. Bennett, 1993). Marginal people are often ideally suited to boundary spanning or mediating roles between cultures (Bochner, 1982), since they understand both cultures objectively and subjectively. Some expatriates, for example, interpret the actions of the foreign subsidiaries for people at headquarters and vice versa, thereby contributing to organizational learning (Reiche et al., 2009). There may be, however, a less positive aspect to marginality. ‘Marginal people [such as expatriates] feel that they live on the periphery rather than at the center of a group or community’ (Osland, 1995: 113). This can translate into less opportunity to speak or be heard because they are not members of the dominant coalition. They may also consciously or unconsciously monitor their communication to reflect their marginal role.

With regard to organizational learning in MNCs, perceived marginality affects perception and, thus, the influence of the sender. This is reminiscent of Huber’s (1991) reference to the status and power of the receiver as a potential barrier to information transfer. In many MNCs, employees who are not in the home country of the firm are seen as ‘marginal.’ Even well respected expatriates who have been sent from the home country can become marginalized by their physical absence from the corporate office. Ironically, people on the margins of organizations sometimes have a more accurate view of events and circumstances than central decision makers. Their position on the margin may bring them access to broader sources of information; in high power distance cultures (Hofstede, 1980), information is sometimes less censored in their presence. Yet, because the MNC views senders as marginal, the information or knowledge they transmit is considered of less value or relevance than similar information from a member within the home country. An organizational norm becomes established that discourages either seeking information from the marginal members, or from granting much attention when such people volunteer information. A classic example is the well known nineteenth-century incident of a low-level US Navy lieutenant on a posting in the China Seas who proposed a radical and extremely beneficial modification of sea fighting that was assiduously ignored by the War Department in Washington until Abraham Lincoln personally intervened to champion the innovation (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1997).

Perceived marginality can hamper both individuals and organizational units. The organization as a whole can marginalize all managers operating in foreign affiliates, including host-country, third-country, and expatriate managers, as well as certain affiliates (Inkpen and Dinur, 1998). In particular, affiliates in smaller foreign countries that neither command nor produce significant resources (Gupta and Govindarajran, 1991) are likely to be marginalized. Information and knowledge flowing from them is likely to have little influence on the knowledge base or decision making of either the home office or other units.

Generally speaking, marginality has to do with lack of membership in the dominant coalition of the organization, but it can also pertain to horizontal relations and individual communications. For example, a Japanese manager employed by an American MNC in Tokyo may be very receptive to information provided by the home office. He or she may, however, discount the same kind of information if it is received from a Korean manager in the company’s affiliate in Seoul. This perceived marginality of the Korean is due to the historical animosity between Korea and Japan and the cultural superiority that many Japanese still feel they have over Koreans. This example points to the relationship between marginality and stereotypes.

Stereotypes concerning the stranger

Stereotyping is ‘an exaggerated set of expectations and beliefs about the attributes of a group membership category . . . an overgeneralization without any attempt to perceive individual variations’ (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 161). According to research, stereotypes are based on relatively little information, are resistant to change even in light of new information, and are rarely accurately applied to specific individuals (Christensen and Rosenthal, 1982; McCauley, Stitt, and Segal, 1980). Stereotypes affect the senders’ ability to communicate their messages because they interfere with their ability to be ‘heard’ and accurately judged. In a similar fashion, the senders’ marginality interferes with their ability to be seen and heard. The senders’ stereotype about receivers determines how much and what type of information they will share with them.

Stereotypes combine with attitudes (such as prejudice) to create expectations of how strangers will behave. These expectations, in turn, influence the way in which people interpret incoming stimuli and the predictions they make about strangers’ behavior. ‘Using our frame of reference invariably leads to misinterpretations of the strangers’ messages, as well as inaccurate predictions about their future behavior’ (Gudykunst and Kim, 1997: 48). While stereotyping is very normal behavior, it can inhibit organizational learning, particularly across organizational boundaries. If HQ staff does not expect to hear solid, innovative ideas from certain nationalities, they may not pay careful attention to all the information coming from the field. Subsidiaries can also discount input coming from headquarters if they do not perceive corporate staff as competent.

It should be noted that stereotyping is not always viewed as negative behavior in intercultural communication. Adler (2002) writes that stereotypes can be helpful if they are consciously held, descriptive rather than evaluative, accurate, and viewed as a ‘first best guess’ about a group or person, which means they are subject to modification once firsthand experience is obtained. When people are willing to continue learning about strangers, stereotypes are not necessarily harmful. In the absence of learning, however, stereotyping leads to a reduction in intercultural communication effectiveness.

Like individuals, organizations may hold stereotypes in the form of mental maps and shared assumptions. An organizational norm may exist, for example, in a Japanese MNC that Americans are so individualistic that no knowledge concerning effective team functioning could possibly exist in the company’s US subsidiary. Even if the US subsidiary were to share codified or tacit knowledge about techniques for creating effective team functioning, the HQ in Japan is likely to ignore this knowledge because of stereotypes about Americans that are reflected in organizational values and norms.

Individual behavior can be affected by stereotypes as well, with negative consequences for organizational learning. A US HQ member of staff may receive a report from a French manager concerning dangerous moves by competitors in Europe and dismiss the news as an overreaction by ‘those emotional French.’ Thus, the stereotypes that individuals hold within the MNC can seriously, and negatively, affect the ability of senders to have their messages heard by key processors of information and knowledge.

Communication style differences

Another factor that has an effect on communication in global organizational learning is the area of communication style differences. The potential effect of communication style on organizational learning has received only passing attention in the research. Yet there is no doubt that it exists. In their study of organizational learning in a new intercultural team, Heavens and Child (1999) found that the Japanese members failed to communicate important information to British members. In this case, the Japanese communication reticence and formality with strangers led to a slowdown in reaching the team’s goal.

Cultural and ethnic identities influence verbal and nonverbal communication styles (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 100). Mutual clarity is extremely hard to achieve without an understanding of these style differences, but few MNCs make the effort to educate their employees in intercultural communication. Table 26.1 presents the most common style differences that affect organizational learning: high versus low context, direct versus indirect, person-oriented versus status-oriented, self-enhancing versus self-effacing, and elaborate versus succinct styles.1

Table 26.1 Cultural Communication Styles

High-context versus low-context

According to Hall (1976), low-context communication relies on explicit verbal messages to convey intention or meaning. In contrast, high-context communication tends to transmit intention or meaning via the context (such as social roles or positions) and the nonverbal channels (such as pausing, silence, tone of voice). High-context communication involves multilayered contexts (e.g. historical context, social norms, roles, situational and relational contexts), and the listener is expected to ‘read between the lines’ of indirect messages. In contrast, the onus lies on the sender in low-context communication to transmit a clear, direct message that listeners can easily decode (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 101). Knowledge transfer occurs differently and may be misinterpreted between high-context and low-context communicators.

Direct versus indirect verbal styles

These styles are differentiated by ‘the extent to which intentions are revealed by tone of voice and the straightforwardness of the content message’ (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 103). In the direct style, the speaker’s intentions are specified in a forthright way and tone of voice; in the indirect style, in contrast, verbal statements hide the speaker’s meaning, which is conveyed in nuances. Failure to understand these style differences allows for misinterpretation. Westerners, who prefer a direct style, often perceive the indirect style of the Chinese as ‘insincere and untrustworthy’ (Graf, 1994). The indirect style, characterized by an unwillingness to say ‘no’ directly or to force others into that position, allows for greater face-saving. People from cultures using indirect styles may perceive those with a direct style as both blunt and obtuse (Ting-Toomey, 1999). People and organizations with a direct style may be unaware that an indirect communicator is even trying to transfer knowledge to them.

Person-oriented versus status-oriented verbal styles

The person-oriented verbal style is individual-centered and emphasizes the importance of informality and role suspension. The status-oriented verbal style is role centered and emphasizes formality and large power distance (Ting-Toomey, 1999: 106). Power distance is the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally (Hofstede, 1980). Koreans and Japanese are status-oriented whereas Americans are person-oriented. This style difference sometimes makes for uncomfortable interactions and misinterpretations; it may also determine who talks with whom in the hierarchy, who is allowed to come up with new knowledge and pass it along, and how much information and knowledge is shared.

Self-enhancement versus self-effacement verbal styles.

The self-enhancement verbal style emphasizes the importance of boasting about one’s accomplishments and abilities. The self-effacement verbal style, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of humbling oneself via verbal restraints, hesitations, modest talk, and the use of self-deprecation concerning one’s effort or performance.

(Ting-Toomey, 1999: 107)

Collectivist Asian cultures are generally self-effacing while Arab and African-American cultures tend to be self-enhancing (Ting-Toomey, 1999). A person from a self-effacing culture may be so modest about knowledge they have acquired that people from self-enhancing cultures pay no attention. In contrast, the self-enhancers’ boastful mode of transferring knowledge may be so distasteful to people from self-effacing cultures that they ignore or sabotage an effort at organizational learning.

Succinct versus elaborate verbal styles

This style refers to the amount of talk with which people feel comfortable. The continuum of speech quantity ranges from succinct (low quantity) to exacting (precision and ‘just the right’ amount of words) to elaborate (high quantity) (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988). The elaborate style, found in Arab cultures, also includes detailed descriptions, repetition, verbal elaboration and exaggeration, and the use of metaphor, similes, and proverbs. The exacting style, typical of England, Germany, and Sweden, emphasizes clarity and precise meanings. These cultures perceive the use of too many words as exaggeration while the use of too few words is viewed as ambiguous. The succinct style, manifested in China, Japan, Korea, and Thailand, is characterized by understatements and meaningful pauses and silences (Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey, 1988). Rather than simply noting that another culture uses more or fewer words to communicate, these style differences are often the cause of cultural misattributions. People with a succinct style may discount elaborate speakers as illogical or inefficient and even stop listening to them. Elaborate speakers may assume succinct communicators have very little to say or contribute. Both these scenarios impact the effective transfer of knowledge. In multicultural meetings and teams, highly verbal Americans sometimes fill in the silences and do not allow enough room for people with a more succinct style (or for non-native speakers) to talk.

Ting-Toomey concludes,

In individualistic cultures, people find themselves in numerous contexts that call for direct talk, person-oriented verbal interaction, verbal self-enhancement, and talkativeness. In contrast, in collectivistic cultures, people tend to encounter more situations that emphasize the preferential use of indirect talk, status-oriented verbal interaction, verbal self-effacement and silence.

(Ting-Toomey, 1999:103)

Linguistic ability

The lack of language comprehension and fluency constitute other barriers to organizational learning. In addition to the obvious obstacles of mutual understanding and ease of transaction, people tend to restrict their communication to those who speak their own language. When large MNCs buy local companies in another country, they sometimes appoint as their liaison or local manager the host-country national who is most fluent in the language of the home country of the MNC. This person is not necessarily the most competent or best able to teach them about the local subsidiary and context; however, the transaction costs of communicating with them are the lowest.