Difficulties in business communications: languages and cultures
Bogomil Kanjev
Abstract: The work introduces the problems that might appear in the communication of people from different nationalities. Language and culture differences are being considered.
Key words: culture, ethnocentrism, foreign, language, problems.
Introduction:
It's no secret that today's workplace is rapidly becoming vast, as the business environment expands to include various geographic locations and span numerous cultures. Business is not conducted in an identical fashion from culture to culture. What can be difficult, is understanding how to communicate effectively with individuals who speak another language or who rely on different means to reach a common goal. Both large and small businesses often have a global reach. If you have foreign clients, purchase raw materials abroad or lead tours internationally, cultural differences and communication problems can cause misunderstandings that harm your company's bottom line. Intercultural communication is a vast topic. In combination with a growing emphasis on global markets and an interdependent and internationalized economy, the need for dealing with intercultural differences and cross-cultural communication barriers has grown.
Main part:
Cross-cultural communication - the new norm
The Internet and modern technology have opened up new marketplaces that allow us to promote our businesses to new geographic locations and cultures. And given that it can now be as easy to work with people remotely as it is to work face-to-face, cross-cultural communication is increasingly the new norm. After all, if communication is electronic, it's as easy to work with someone in another country as it is to work with someone in the next town. And why limit yourself to working with people within convenient driving distance when, just as conveniently, you can work with the most knowledgeable people in the entire world? In this new world, good cross-cultural communication is a must.
Ethnocentrism
Problems in business communication conducted across cultures often arise when participants from one culture are unable to understand culturally determined differences in communication practices, traditions, and thought processing. At the most fundamental level, problems may occur when one or more of the people involved clings to an ethnocentric view of how to conduct business. Ethnocentrism is the belief that one's own cultural group is somehow innately superior to others. It is easy to say that ethnocentrism only affects the bigoted or those ignorant of other cultures, and so is unlikely to be a major factor in one's own business communication. Yet difficulties due to a misunderstanding of elements in cross-cultural communication may affect even enlightened people. Ethnocentrism is deceptive precisely because members of any culture perceive their own behavior as logical, since that behavior works for them. People tend to accept the values of the culture around them as absolute values. Since each culture has its own set of values, often quite divergent from those values held in other cultures, the concept of proper and improper, foolish and wise, and even right and wrong become blurred. In international business, questions arise regarding what is proper by which culture's values, what is wise by which culture's view of the world, and what is right by whose standards. Since no one individual is likely to recognize the subtle forms of ethnocentrism that shape who he or she is, international business practitioners must be especially careful in conducting business communication across cultures. It is necessary to try to rise above culturally imbued ways of viewing the world. To do this, one needs to understand how the perception of a given message changes depending on the culturally determined viewpoint of those communicating.
Factors affecting cross-cultural business communication
The communication process in international business settings is filtered through a range of variables, each of which can color perceptions on the part of both parties. These include language, environment, technology, social organization, social history and mores, conceptions of authority, and nonverbal communication behavior. By assessing in advance the roles these variables play in business communication, one can improve one's ability to convey messages and conduct business with individuals in a wide range of cultures.
Understanding cultural diversity-language
Given different cultural contexts, this brings new communication challenges to the workplace. Even when employees located in different locations or offices speak the same language (for instance, correspondences between English-speakers in the U.S. and English-speakers in the UK), there are some cultural differences that should be considered in an effort to optimize communications between the two parties. In such cases, an effective communication strategy begins with the understanding that the sender of the message and the receiver of the message are from different cultures and backgrounds. Of course, this introduces a certain amount of uncertainty, making communications even more complex.Without getting into cultures and sub-cultures, it is perhaps most important for people to realize that a basic understanding of cultural diversity is the key to effective cross-cultural communications. Without necessarily studying individual cultures and languages in detail, we must all learn how to better communicate with individuals and groups whose first language, or language of choice, does not match our own.
Environment
The ways in which people use the resources available to them may vary considerably from culture to culture. Culturally-ingrained biases regarding the natural and technological environment can create communication barriers. Many environmental factors can have a heavy influence on the development and character of cultures. Indeed, climate, topography, population size and density, and the relative availability of natural resources all contribute to the history and current conditions of individual nations or regions. After all, notions of transportation and logistics, settlement, and territorial organization are affected by topography and climate. For example, a mountainous country with an abundance of natural waterways will almost certainly develop different dominant modes of transportation than a dry, land-locked region marked by relatively flat terrain. Whereas the first nation would undoubtedly develop shipping-oriented transportation methods, the latter would concentrate on roadways, railroads, and other surface-oriented options. For example, transportation and logistics in one culture may seem patently absurd in another. The manager of a Canadian company doing business in South America might never think to ship goods from Chile to neighboring Argentina by the circuitous route of the Panama Canal. Because Canada is relatively flat and has an excellent network of railroads and highways, the Canadian manager might assume that the easiest way to transport goods for any short distance would be overland. This preference would be reinforced by the fact that many Canadian waterways freeze over due to its harsh climate. As a result, the Canadian might well assume or even specify a preference for overland transport in any relevant business communication. What the Canadian might not understand in such a situation is that the rugged physical environment of the Andean terrain and the related absence of cross-Andean railroads and freeways would make such an option unreasonably expensive or even impossible. By contrast, warm water ports and relatively easy access to the Panama Canal or other waterways would reinforce the option of water routes even for such relatively short overland distances.
Population size and density and the availability of natural resources influence each nation's view toward export or domestic markets as well. Nations with large domestic markets and plentiful natural resources, for example, are likely to view some industries quite differently than regions that have only one (or none) of those characteristics. The United States and China, for example, both have gigantic domestic markets and are rich in natural resources. Both nations export out of choice and have a tendency to internalize their views of foreign markets. Foreign markets in such countries may be culturally reinforced as being secondary markets as a result, with a cultural emphasis on domestic markets. By contrast, Switzerland, with neither a large domestic population nor abundant natural resources, is culturally oriented toward export with foreign markets viewed as their primary markets and the domestic Swiss market as a comparatively negligible secondary market. Population density and space usage influence the development of different cultural perceptions of how space and materials are used. Thus, how people lay out or use office space, domestic housing, and buildings in general shifts from nation to nation. For example, in many nations the size, layout and furnishings of a business office communicate a message. The message communicated, however, varies from nation to nation.
Such differences may be subtle or overt. For example, the distinctions between the U.S. and French upper-level executive's office may be quite subtle. In both France and the United States, the size of an office, plushness of its furnishings, and location in the building (corner office or top floor of the building) reflect the status of the office's owner. In France, however, the individual aesthetics of the office decor convey an important statement about the office owner while in the U.S. office the wall decorations and furnishings are often selected by a designer with little input from the office's occupant.
Much more overt is the contrast between the U.S. or French executive office and the "open system" offices of Japan. In the open system office, Japanese department heads have no individual offices at all. Instead, their desks are simply one of numerous other desks placed in a regularly patterned arrangement in a large open area. No partitions are used between the desks at all and no individual offices exist. Yet each person in this officeless open system is strategically placed in a way that communicates his or her rank and status just as surely as the U.S. or French individual office system. Thus, the department heads' desks are normally placed at a point farthest from the door where the department heads can view their whole department easily at a glance. Moreover, further status may be indicated by placement near a window. The messages communicated by such placement in a large open area may be entirely lost on the French or U.S. visitor unfamiliar with it.
Technology
Some businesspeople fail to modify their cross-cultural communications to accommodate environmental differences because of inflexibility toward culturally learned views of technology. Indeed, cultures have widely divergent views of technology and its role in the world. In control cultures, such as those in much of Europe and North America, technology is customarily viewed as an innately positive means for controlling the environment. If a road approaches a mountain in a control culture, a tunnel is blasted through the mountain. If the tunnel collapses, the cultural view is that the technology was inadequate to the task and needs to be improved. In subjugation cultures, such as those of central Africa and southwestern Asia, the existing environment is viewed as innately positive, and technology is viewed with some skepticism. If a road approaches a mountain, the road may simply stop at the mountain. If a tunnel is used and does collapse, the cultural view is that the very idea of going through the mountain was misguided, not that the technology was inadequate. In harmonization cultures, such as those common in many Native American cultures and some East Asian nations, a balance is attempted between the use of technology and the existing environment. In these cultures, neither technology nor the environment are innately good and members of such cultures see themselves as part of the environment in which they live, being neither subject to it nor master of it. Of course, it is dangerous to over-generalize about the guiding philosophies of societies as well. For example, while the United States may historically be viewed as a control culture that holds that technology is a positive that improves society, there are certainly a sizable number of voices within that culture that do not subscribe to that point of view. One major communication stumbling block among those from control cultures is the belief that other cultures wish to be more like them. Control cultures tend to describe themselves as the "industrialized nations." Their members are often acculturated to believe that the way in which people in less industrialized nations use their resources results from inherently inferior technology. Arguably, in some cases this position may be defensible. Often, though, the reason people use the resources available to them in the manner that they do is because it makes good business sense to use them in that fashion within the context of their own cultural views.
Social organization and history
Social organization, as it affects the workplace, is often culturally determined. One must take care not to assume that the view held in one's own culture is universal on such issues as nepotism and kinship ties, educational values, class structure and social mobility, job status and economic stratification, religious ties, political affiliation, gender differences, racism and other prejudices, attitudes toward work, and recreational or work institutions. All of these areas have far-reaching implications for business practice. Choosing employees based on resume, for example, is considered a primary means of selection in the United States, Canada, and much of northern Europe—all nations with comparatively weak concepts of familial relationships and kinship ties. In these cultures, nepotism is seen as subjective and likely to protect less qualified workers through familial intervention. By contrast, it would seem anywhere from mildly to highly inappropriate to suggest to members of many Arabic, central African, Latin American or southern European cultures to skip over hiring relatives to hire a stranger. For people in these cultures, nepotism both fulfills personal obligations and ensures a predictable level of trust and accountability. The fact that a stranger appears to be better qualified based on a superior resume and a relatively brief interview would not necessarily affect that belief. Similarly, the nature of praise and employee motivation can be socially determined, for different cultures have settled upon a wide array of employee reward systems, each of which reflect the social histories and values of those cultures. For example, a promotion of a single member of a traditional Japanese work group may cause the productivity and morale of both the group and the promoted employee to fall. A similar promotion in the United States, by contrast, might be seen as a reward for the promoted employee and might even be viewed as encouraging the remaining members of the group to work harder for a goal that they too might attain. Thus to communicate such a promotion openly may prove to be a poor policy in Japan but a good policy in the United States.
Finally, it is often difficult to rid business communication of a judgmental bias when social organization varies markedly. For example, those from the United States may find it difficult to remain neutral on cultural class structures that do not reflect American values of equality. For instance, the socially determined inferior role of women in much of the Islamic world, or of lower castes in India-to name just two-may puzzle or anger Western citizens. Nevertheless, if the Western business-person cannot eliminate the attendant condemnation from his or her business communication, then he or she cannot expect to function effectively in that society. An individual may personally believe that a country's social system is inefficient or incorrect. Nevertheless, in the way that individual conducts business on a daily basis, it is necessary to work within the restraints of that culture to succeed. One may choose not to do business with people from such a culture, but cannot easily impose one's own values on them and expect to succeed in the business arena.
Contexting and face-saving
Communication depends on the context in which the communication is set. The more information sender and receiver share in common, the higher the context of the communication and the less necessary to communicate through words or gestures. Communication, then, can be seen as being high or low in contexting. In a highly contexted situation, much of what people choose not to say is essential to understanding the transmitted message. Even though a person may not have said anything directly, others are still expected to understand the unspoken message. Edward T. Hall was the first person to coin the term "contexting." Hall observed: The matter of contexting requires a decision concerning how much information the other person can be expected to possess on a given subject. It appears that all cultures arrange their members and relationships along the context scale, and one of the great communication strategies, whether addressing a single person or an entire group, is to ascertain the correct level of contexting of one's communication … the rules vary from culture to culture, so that to infer by the level of contexting that "they" do not understand may be an insult, even though your assumption is correct. High context cultures include such nations as Japan, China, Mexico, Greece, the Arab countries, Brazil, and Korea. Mid-level contexted cultures include England, Finland, Italy, and France. Low context cultures include the United States, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, and the German-speaking portion of Switzerland. This set of examples is very limited and also fails to account for cultural and regional differences domestically. Thus, the Western Apaches of the southwestern United States may well be the most highly contexted of all cultures worldwide, although their numbers are insufficient to affect the general low context communication among the majority of people in the United States. Similarly, regional differences in Germany are apparent in the contrast between relatively higher contexted Bavarians and lower contexted north Germans although all are Germans and all would be lower contexted than the average Briton or Japanese. Finally, no two cultures share the same level of contexting. Thus, in any cross-cultural exchange, one party will act as the higher contexted and one the lower contexted. In high context cultures much of what is not actually said must be inferred through what may seem to be indirection. To people from lower context cultures, those in high context cultures may seem needlessly vague. Conversely, those from high context cultures may view their low context counterparts as impersonal and confusingly literal.
As a communicator in an international business setting, it is important to assess the level of contexting inherent in the communication of the culture in which one conducts business to understand clearly what has been conveyed. Since contexting represents a cross-cultural shift in the conception of explicit versus implicit communication, any area of business communication in which such distinctions play a part are significantly affected. Thus, in high context cultures, the emphasis on words chosen in general and on the written word in particular is relatively weak since words provide only one aspect of the context of the communication. As a result, how something is said matters more than what is actually said. By contrast, in low context cultures, the actual words matter more than the intended meaning. What is actually said-and especially what is actually written-matters more than the context in which it was said. The contexting implications of this variance in the emphasis on the actual word are far-reaching for business. In low context cultures, emphasis on explicit communication leads to a rigid adherence to law while in high context cultures the law is seen as flexible to accommodate different situations. In low context cultures written agreements are seen as binding while personal promises are viewed as nonbinding. In direct contrast, high context cultures are more likely to hold a flexible understanding of written agreements while holding personal promises to be more binding. High context cultures, as a result, find that their interpersonal behavior is governed by individual interpretation (that is, the context of the relationship) while low context cultures find that their relationships are dictated by external rules. Finally, a correlation exists between face-saving and contexting. Cultures with high contexting are more concerned with face, that is, preserving prestige or outward dignity. Low context cultures are less concerned with face since words are more likely to be taken without underlying implied meaning. As a result, high context cultures tend to favor a business communication approach based on indirection and politeness; low context cultures follow more of a confrontation strategy and use a direct plan approach to business communication. High context cultures tend to interpret directness in communication as uncivil and rude; low context cultures tend to view directness as honest and inoffensive. As a corollary, high context cultures view indirectness as honest and showing consideration while low context cultures view indirectness as dishonest and offensive. Finally, high context cultures tend to prefer minimal amounts of verbal self-disclosure, preferring vagueness to stating the obvious. Low context cultures by contrast are intolerant of vagueness and demand a high amount of explicit verbal self-disclosure.
Conceptions of authority
Different cultures often view the distribution of authority in their society differently. Geert Hofstede, the Dutch international business researcher, has called this dimension of cultural variation "power distance" defining this as "the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally." Views of authority in a given society affect communication in the business environment significantly, since they shape the view of how a message will be received based on the relative status or rank of the message's sender to its receiver. In other words, conceptions of authority influence the forms that managerial and other business communications take. In a highly centralized culture, a relatively high-ranking individual communication is taken very seriously, even if one disagrees. This, in turn, has far-reaching effects for the form managerial communication takes based on the relative authority conception of a given culture. In working with cultures such as Israel and Sweden, which have a relatively decentralized authority conception or small "power distance," one might anticipate greater acceptance of a participative communication management model than in cultures such as France and Belgium, which generally make less use of participative management models, relying instead on authority-based decision making. In a relatively decentralized business environment-as exists even in many highly centralized U.S. companies-people generally pay attention to a person based on how convincing an argument he or she puts forth, regardless of that person's rank or status within the organization or society at large.
Nonverbal behavior
Among the most markedly varying dimensions of intercultural communication is nonverbal behavior. Knowledge of a culture conveyed through what a person says represents only a portion of what that person has communicated. Much of nonverbal communication may be broken down into six areas: dress; kinesics, or body language; oculesics, or eye contact; haptics, or touching behavior; proxemics, or the use of body space; and paralanguage. Any one of these areas communicates significant information nonverbally in any given culture.
One of the most apparent differences is the interpretation of dress. The message given by polished shoes, for instance, could easily be lost on a culture in which sandals are the standard footwear. Similarly, a woman's decision to wear her best suit would be lost in a culture in which no women wear business suits.
Even when cultures share similar forms of dress, the message inherent in the choice of clothing is not always the same. For instance, the selection of a conservative tie for a formal negotiation might well be shared by several cultures, but exactly what a conservative tie is (even when all parties belong to cultures in which men generally wear ties) remains determined by the standards that prevail in that particular culture. Thus, what is a conservative tie in one culture may seem unconservative or flashy in another, giving a different message altogether.
Just as importantly, people often bring to a crosscultural meeting ethnocentric prejudices regarding what they believe to be proper dress. Thus, a European or American may condemn as somehow less than civilized a Saudi or Iranian in traditional garb. Conversely, a Saudi or Iranian may well consider as flagrantly immoral the bare face, arms, and legs of a European or American woman in business attire. In Muslim countries, women must avoid sleeveless tops, short skirts and low necklines. Some cultures have strict dress codes for business. For example, in Japan, conservative business suits in dark colors are essential to make the best impression.
Nonverbal behavioral differences in kinesics may be less obvious than dress differences. How people walk, gesture, bow, stand, or sit are all, to a large part, culturally determined. In many cases, a kinesic sign well understood in one culture is totally unknown in another culture. In Indonesia and in much of the Arab world, for example, it is offensive to show the soles of one's feet to another. This often clashes with behavior in the United States where foot-crossing is common with no attention to where one's sole points. In Japan, a relatively elaborate system of bowing is common but has no counterpart in the United States. This entire system of nonverbal communication is therefore generally lost on most U.S. businesspeople.
Haptics or touching behavior also reflects cultural values. In a generally nonhaptic society such as Japan, touching another person in a business setting even with a handshake is traditionally considered foreign. While those Japanese familiar with U.S. handshaking may adapt to its use, one can expect that such cultural compromise would not easily extend to so haptic a response as a pat on the back.
Also, kissing a business associate is not considered an appropriate business practice in the U.S., but in Paris, one peck on each cheek is an acceptable greeting. Delicate handshakes, accompanied with minimal and brief contact, are accepetable in Asian countries; however, a slight bow is a more common greeting. In the United States and some parts of Europe, a firm handshake is appreciated and a limp one not looked upon favorably. In some African countries, the limp handshake is the thing to do. In Middle Eastern and some Asian countires, only the right hand is used to shake hands, because the left hand is considered dirty and unhygenic. An interesting example of the different meanings of body language is eye contact (oculesics). In the United States and in many parts of Europe, direct eye contact is considered as a means to express interest, to indicate trust in the other person and to convey openness. Some of the interpretations of eye contact include, "Look me in the eye, I'm honest, and I'm not a liar." For religious reasons, eye contact is a dangerous thing in Muslim countries. It is offensive for a man to look a woman in the eye or even to glance at her in a more than cursory fashion. The same applies to Asia, where eye contact is considered impolite and an invasion of space and can cause the opposite reaction to what a visiting foreigner intends. As far as Asia is concerned, prolonged eye contact is a challenge, an aggression and a battle of strength and power. In South America, eye contact between opposite sexes can be interpreted as an invitation. Longer eye contact or staring between women is often understood as criticism of the other woman's appearance.
Finally, proxemics or how far apart people stand when speaking or how far apart they sit in meetings carries significant information to people who share the same culture. Here, too, as with other nonverbal behavior, such information is likely to be garbled across cultures. Personal space is culturally determined. In the United States, for instance, people tend to feel most comfortable in business settings when speaking at approximately arm's length apart from each other.
In many Latin American, southern European, central African and Middle Eastern cultures, however, a comfortable conversational distance would be much closer. Indeed, in many parts of the world, friendly or serious conversations are conducted close enough to feel the breath of the speaker on one's face. The U.S. or northern European communicator unaware of this may face a very discomforting situation, with the speaker literally backing his or her U.S. or northern European counterpart into a corner as the speaker continues to move closer to the retreating listener. The result in a business situation could be disastrous. The speaker with the closer personal space conception would likely feel distrustful and even spurned by the listener with the larger space conception. Conversely, the person with larger personal space conception might feel the encroaching speaker to be pushy, overly aggressive, or rude.
Temporal conception
International business communication is also affected by cross-cultural differences in temporal conception or the understanding of time. Most U.S. and northern European businesspeople conceive of time as inflexible, a thing to be divided, used, or wasted. This is not, however, a universal view. How one uses time, consequently, may profoundly affect the way in which business is conducted in various parts of the world.
While it is dangerous to overgeneralize, most cultures fall with varying degrees into two types of temporal conception. The first type adheres to preset schedules in which the schedules take precedence over personal interaction or over the completion of the business at hand. Edward Hall coined the term "monochronic" to describe this system of temporal organization. By contrast, those who follow what Hall termed a "polychronic" temporal organization rank personal involvement and completion of existing transactions above the demands of preset schedules.
Admittedly, not all societies can be easily divided into monochronic and polychronic systems. Often certain subsets within a society will function monochronically, while others within the same culture will function polychronically. For example, most major corporations in the United States follow a strict monochronic system. Many doctors in the United States, however, follow a comparatively polychronic system. Still on the whole, one might generalize that U.S. culture as a whole holds a monochronic conception of time.
Because people generally complete tasks at the expense of scheduling in polychronic societies, people in high authority may become easily overwhelmed with multiple tasks. To prevent overloading people in positions of high authority, those in polychronic societies often use subordinates to screen for them. Once a person can get past those screening, the person in authority will generally see the task through regardless of the relative importance of the task. Because a polychronic system encourages a one-on-one interaction, such cultural organization usually allows for highly personalized relationships to flourish between the person in authority and the task-bringer. The flow of information is open in both directions at all times. Indeed, for the system to work smoothly, it is to the advantage of both superior and subordinate to stay fully aware of all aspects-professional and personal-of each other's lives. This personal involvement makes it even harder for the person in authority to refuse once the task is presented. Thus, in such situations being able to break through those who screen for the person in authority is often the hardest part of having the person in authority assist in a task. No direct barriers exist between the leader and the subordinate; the superior will always welcome the subordinate. This develops a system in which influence and close circles of contacts among those screening for those higher up create an informal and unofficial business hierarchy.
In a monochronic system, personal feelings are rarely allowed to flourish on the job precisely because personal involvement must not be allowed to affect preset schedules if the system is to function smoothly. Personal relationships are determined by the terms of the job. Multiple tasks are handled one at a time in a prescheduled manner. People in authority are, in contrast to those in polychronic societies, available by scheduling appointments. In such a system, time screens tasks for the authority figure rather than the authority figure's subordinates or the personal relationship among the people involved.
The communication strategy for facing a generally polychronic system of time conception differs significantly from the strategy for facing a generally monochronic one. For example, in a polychronic system, one should be aware that people distinguish between insiders and those outside the existing personal relationships. One must therefore try to establish an inside connection to facilitate the effectiveness of a given message. By contrast, in a monochronic society, one needs only to schedule a meeting with the appropriate people. One should not expect people in a monochronic system to give preference to those they know over complete strangers. The outsider is treated in exactly the same fashion as the close associate.
The influence of temporal conception on communication is extensive. This is further complicated by the fact that no culture is exclusively polychronic or monochronic. Members of any culture lean to one direction or the other, although the cultures as a whole may organize their thoughts and conceive of time more one way or the other. The central issue here is to keep alert to communication differences that would indicate that one culture was more monochronic or polychronic in orientation, and to adapt one's communication strategies accordingly.
Giving gifts or not
Gift-giving etiquette is a complex subject that can be difficult to master. In China, gifts are the norm and expected, while in other countries, the wrong gifts are insulting. Avoid bringing bad luck in China-don't give a clock or a gift with blue, white or black wrapping paper. Keep offering your gift, because Chinese recipients usually refuse three times before accepting.
Meeting expectations
Following local customs builds better relationships at business meetings. For example, Canadians are clock-watchers and expect everyone to arrive on time. In Japanese meetings, often only the most senior person for each side talks, while others typically remain silent. In China, business dinners often include many toasts, so pace your drinking accordingly. To maintain the respect of Asian contacts, avoid etiquette mistakes that cause you to lose face.
Conclusion:
Given the diversity of interpretations that can turn friendly gestures into the opposite, it is a prudent approach to familiarize oneself with the different meanings when traveling and to keep gestures to a minimum to avoid giving offense.
Keep it simple
When you communicate, keep in mind that even though English is considered the international language of business, it is a mistake to assume that every businessperson speaks good English. In fact, only about half of the 800 million people who speak English learned it as a first language. And, those who speak it as a second language are often more limited than native speakers. When you communicate cross-culturally, make particular efforts to keeping your communication clear, simple and unambiguous. And avoid humor until you know that the person you're communicating with "gets it" and isn't offended by it. Humor is notoriously culture-specific: Many things that pass for humor in one culture can be seen as grossly offensive in another.
And get help if you need it
Finally, if language barriers present themselves, it may be in every one's best interest to employ a reliable, experienced translator. Because English is not the first language of many international businesspeople, their use of the language may be peppered with culture-specific or non-standard English phrases, which can hamper the communication process. If you're giving an oral presentation, a clear handout in simple language helps avoid misunderstandings. Again, having a translator on hand (even if just during the initial phases of work) may be the best solution here. The translator can help everyone involved to recognize cultural and communication differences and ensure that all parties, regardless of geographic location and background, come together and stay together through successful project completion.
Developing awareness of individual cultures
If a leader or manager of a team that is working across cultures or incorporates individuals who speak different languages, practice different religions, or are members of a society that requires a new understanding, he or she needs to work to convey this. Consider any special needs the individuals on your team may have. For instance, they may observe different holidays, or even have different hours of operation. Be mindful of time zone differences and work to keep everyone involved aware and respectful of such differences. Generally speaking, patience, courtesy and a bit of curiosity go a long way. And, if you are unsure of any differences that may exist, simply ask team members. Members of different cultures might observe different holidays. Again, this may best be done in one-on-one setting so that no one feels "put on the spot" or self-conscious, perhaps even embarrassed, about discussing their own needs or differences.
Цитирани източници:
1. https://www.mindtools.com/CommSkll/Cross-Cultural-communication.htm
4. http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/cross-cultural-international-communication.html
5. http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Cos-Des/Cross-Cultural-International-Communication.html