Analyzing why difficulties arise in intercultural communications Essay

In analyzing why these difficulties arise in intercultural communications, Sheryl L. Lindsley (assistant professor of communication at California State University, Stanislaus), put forth four layers of intercultural communication in 1999: The first layer is the â€Å"macro-context,† which includes the economic and political situations in which the communications occur. A good example is the domination of Mexico by the U. S. , while at the same time increasing Mexico’s revenue made possible by NAFTA (Jennifer Peltak, n.d. ). Lindsley’s second layer consists of individual competency or incompetence, in regard to bilinguals who are generally the bridges to communication. In terms of intercultural businesses, if the bilinguals harbor their own stereotypes of the other culture, some problems cannot be overcome. The third layer is comprised of communicative behaviors. This is in the perception category; using Mexican/American relations as an example, Lidsley identifies expectations on both sides as a potential problem in negotiating. Mexicans tend to keep conflicts private and save face in public, where Americans have no problem resolving conflict in public, and then acknowledging privately that there are no hard feelings. The fourth layer individual attribution to meaning. In the case of preconceived stereotypes, the listener can misinterpret the speaker’s intent because of the mind set barrier. Messages can be perceived selectively, reinforcing cultural stereotypes. While this information may cast a better light on solving or minimizing obstacles to intercultural communication, if we look on the broader scale of business relations, a critical problem emerges; people, no matter what culture, have become a means to an end rather than an integral and important part of a company. This became very obvious in the 1990’s when more companies went global and acquisitions and mergers occurred. In 1993, Business International published the key factor for international business failure: cultural differences (Charles Gancel, Chilina Hills, 1997). To avoid this problem of collapse of the infrastructure of an international company based on a shift in the balance of power and the inaccessibility of remote teams geographically dispersed, Gancel and Hills recommend three fundamental conditions: 1. Clarifying the objective (the company’s philosophy, protocol and methodology must be clearly understood). 2. Negotiating its implementation (in a complex structure, introduction and implementation of systems does not need to be imposed. Some of the systems can be designed and negotiated by those that will be applying them, incorporating the needs of the culture involved). 3. Accompanying change (managers being trained in intercultural relations, informed of their new culture’s way of communicating and imparting information). Last, nonverbal communication and the method by which information is given are important to note. While Americans and many Europeans have no problems asking for and receiving feedback or suggestions from corroborators, a Chinese or Indian individual would see this practice as a personal affront. This is but one example of cultural differences in the workplace. Management that will be working abroad should have a through knowledge of the culture they are about to enter and work within. Along with this verbal exchange, it is important to understand that certain gestures or even forms of eye contact are offensive or insulting to another culture. In order to get the most from the foreign work force, understanding the culture, even having a coach within the new culture is imperative in order to achieve a smoother transition. While intercultural communications will always have its problems and comical blunders, it need not be so painful. Understanding another culture is, now more than ever, the key to successful negotiations from the individual to the corporate level. Works Cited Brislin, Richard. â€Å"Encouraging depth rather than surface processing about cultural differences through critical incidents and role plays. † Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. Center For Cross Cultural Research, Western Washington University. N. d. , 23 April 2006 http://www. ac. wwu. edu/~culture/brislin. htm Burgess, Guy & Heidi. â€Å"Language Differences. † Conflict Research Consortium, University Of Colorado. 1998 – 2002, 21 April 2005 http://www. colorado. edu/conflict/peace/problem/langdif. htm Gancel, Charles & Hills, Chilina. â€Å"Managing the pitfalls and challenges of intercultural communication. † Communication World. December 1997, 22 April 24, 2006 http://www. findarticles. com/p/articles/mi_m4422/is_n1_v15/ai_20219196 Jones, Anna & Xuan Quach. â€Å"Intercultural Communication: For Students In the Faculty Of Economics and Commerce. † University Of Melbourne. 2004, 22 April 2006 tlu. ecom. unimelb. edu. au/pdfs/intercul_comm. pdf Peltak, Jennifer. â€Å"Intercultural communication problems are best seen via multiple levels. † National Communication Association. N. d. , 23 April 2006 http://www. natcom. org/pubs/CM/cm699. htm.