MYSTICAL ROSE COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

POGONLOMBOY, MANGATAREM, PANGASINAN

PURPOSIVE COMMUNICATION
COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
Hand out 4

Lesson 2: Intercultural Issues in Workplace Communication

Communication and the Twenty-First Century Workplace

In Unit 1, Chapter 1, the impact of globalization on communication was discussed. In a study called "The Impact of Globalization
on Cross-Cultural Communication" the authors make the point that, "In a global environment the ability to communicate effectively can
be a challenge. Even when both parties speak the same language there can still be misunderstandings due to ethnic and cultural
differences (Matthews and Thakkar. 2012). The advances of mass media, particularly telecommunication systems like email, text
messaging, and social networking sites means that people across the planet can communicate and share information with each other.
"The world is getting smaller," says Gloria S. Chan (1999) in her essay "Management Communication: An Asian Perspective." and the
implication of this in terms of communication, is that people who speak different languages or who come from different cultures will
have to deal with each other. This type of communication is called cross-cultural or intercultural communication.

Cultural Differences
Having a multinational or cross-cultural team or partnership has benefits and challenges. On the one hand, diverse cultures can
mean a diverse knowledge base and new approaches to solving workplace problems. On the other hand, certain ideas may be at risk of
being "lost in translation." As Emy Pascasio (1999) notes, "Cross-cultural faux pas result when we fail to recognize that persons of
other cultural backgrounds have different goals, customs, traditions, thought patterns, and values from our own." While one way of
behaving and communicating may be the norm for one group, it can seem unusual or even cause offense to another.
Although not directly related to communication, one example of a cultural difference that matters in workplace interactions is the
value given "o time. Pascasio (1999) notes that "Americans value promptness. They generally make use of schedules and evaluate
each other's behaviour in ese terms." This is also true in Japan, where the trains-and people-are expected to arrive on schedule.
However, in the Philippines. "to arrive "e is the norm rather than the exception and it has a different meaning pending on how late one
is, the circumstances of the meeting, and ww well one knows the person being met" (Pascasio, 1999). To elaborate, according to a
recent Inquirer.net article, "arriving one minute late will likely not merit an apology, but one hour would" (Lasco, 2017). There is also,
according to the same article, a "politics of time." wherein "Some can arrive fashionably late because of-or to assert-ther importance"
even in professional contexts in the Philippines today.
Cultural differences are tied to language differences, that is, language and culture go hand in hand. As Pascasio (1999) notes.
"Language reflects the realities of a given culture and affects the way its members define their experiences." Language can reflect how
concepts like time, distance, color, pain, and so on are perceived differently by people from different cultures. The pronoun system of
the Tagalog language, for example, has two equivalents of the English "we": The term kami is exclusive and refers to the in-group (and
excludes the outsider). while the term tayo is inclusive (Pascasio, 1999). Such a pronoun system suggests the Filipino value for in-
group loyalty. Philippine English, which was mentioned in a previous lesson, may also be drawn on for examples of cultural-linguistic
differences. English expressions with meanings that are different locally, will not be understood by non-Filipinos. One must be wary
then of using expressions like blowout (a treat), dirty ice cream (local ice cream bought from street vendors), jingle (to urinate), or go
down (get off a vehicle) when conversing with non-local speakers of English.
Another example that is particularly pertinent to workplace communication is how "no" is said or expressed by people from
different cultures. In Western countries, like the US, clarity is very important: this means communicating a refusal has to be brief and
direct. However, in many Asian countries, "more focus is placed on the context of communication than the communication itself" (Kim,
2013) and a direct "no" is considered unnecessarily harsh and off-putting. Speakers and writers from these contexts thus find
alternative or "indirect" ways of saying "no." According to Sean Upton-McLaughlin (2014), a Chinese-focused writer, editor, and
business consultant, in China, for instance, one method of saying no is "to begin a refusal by expressing one's own embarrassment at
the situation." He says that the objective of this is "to placate the person being spoken to and to give them an extra measure of
respect so as to not cause them to lose face or feel unappreciated" (Upton-McLaughlin, 2014).
Many guidebooks for tourist or business purposes warn Westerners about misunderstandings regarding the Japanese of saying "no."
In fact, a book entitled Doing Business with the New Japan (2008). Lists sixteen ways of avoiding saying "no": these ways include
tangential responses, counter questions, a conditional "no," or silence. This and other practices. such as nodding "yes" during a
conversation to indicate attention to what the conversation partner is saying rather than agreement with what he/ she is saying, may
be explained by the Japanese value wa or maintaining interpersonal harmony over frankness (Hodgson, Sano, & Graham, 2008).
Sometimes a linguistic difference may be at fault, such as when an American boss makes a request and asks "Do you mind?" and the
Filipino responds with a yes, to mean a willingness to do the errand and not "Yes. I mind" (Pascasio, 1999).

Effective intercultural Communication

By now, it should be clear how important it is to be culturally aware and culturally sensitive when navigating intercultural
communication. The kay is to be aware of the existence of cultural differences and managing such differences. Here are two more
cultural differences that affect communication between those from the East and West, along with some suggestions as to how to find a
middle ground.

Directness Versus Circumlocution

As mentioned earlier, brevity, clarity and directness of communication are favored in American and British cultures. As Chan
(1999) explains it, "this means that a message, an idea, a request, etc, should be conveyed to the audience or recipient clearly and in
as few words as mandatory." For example, when communicating a refusal or rejection to Westerners, Asians should avoid
circumlocution or indirectness and instead, state a polite yet clear "no." On the other hand, a Westerner communicating with someone
from Asia should be aware of the latter culture's valuing of interpersonal harmony or smooth interpersonal relationships (abbreviated
as SIR). For instance, when an American communicates in a typically direct way to a Filipino, this can be viewed as too "brutally frank"
an approach, according to Pascasio (1999). Pascasio paraphrases Frank Lynch's definition of SIR as "a facility at getting along with
others in such a way as to avoid outward signs of conflict" (Pascasio, 1999). The American who is aware of the value of SIR can then
make an attempt to both clearly convey a rejection but also "soften" this with buffers, for instance an explanation or good news
preceding the outright "no."
Personal/Friendly Language Versus Respectful Language
Chan (1999) calls attention to the emphasis in Western contexts on using friendly and personal-rather than impersonal language in
the workplace. Employers and employees are encouraged to use personal pronouns such as I, you, me, and we in writing: she says the
objective of this is the establishment of rapport between communicator and audience" (Chan, 1999). For example, in American
workplaces, colleagues are encouraged to use first names when conversing with each other and even with their employers. However,
in Asia, the use of formal titles is a way of showing respect for someone considered superior - "in age, economic status, education,
profession" (Chan, 1999). In the Philippines, for example. me dropping of a title in favor of using the first name of someone older and
higher in rank is considered rude or disrespectful. Pascasio notes inat "Informal addresses are used only with peers or those of lower
status such as the rank and file" (Pascasio, 1999). Speakers from this context are therefore conscious of addressing people with titles
or labels such as Boss, Doctor, President. Attorney, Manager, Judge. Engineer Commissioner. and Professor (Pascasio. 1999: Chan,
1999).
For intercultural communication to be effective, writers and speakers from both Eastern and Western contexts should be familiar
with these conventions. They may either adjust to the culture and mode of address of the other or choose to not take offense because
they understand the culture that drives the linguistic convention. One final example is the effusive and sometimes exaggerated humility
displayed in the professional correspondence of Filipinos, as seen in the phrases your good office," "I will be eternally grateful for your
assistance." and the ubiquitous "more power to you." A Filipino writing to an American may choose to omit these, knowing it is
unnecessary and even confusing for the American reader. An American writing to a Filipino should also know that. according to Alzona
Encarnacion (quoted in Pascasio, 1999), "Bluntness or brusqueness of speech is frowned upon, being regarded as a sign of il-breeding"
and as such, can make an effort to extend more courtesy in his/her writing.

Synthesis
Gloria S. Chan says that intercultural communication is more challenging than intracultural communication because there is greater
mastery of one's own language and culture. Yet for intercultural communication to be effective, adaptations to a culture different from
one's own are necessary. One also needs to "abide by the cultural norms and standards English imposes on the users of language"
(Chan, 1999).