Several decades ago, the linguist, Dr. Robert B. Kaplan, published “Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education”, introducing the notion that people from different language groups and regions of the world structure their writing to reflect different patterns of thinking. The illustrations below, taken directly from his article, provide insights that continue to be applicable.

A 1960s Illustration of “Cultural Thought Patterns” 

These drawings are meant to depict how people make a point in written discourse. Do they get to the point in a linear manner or rather “talk in circles” and then get there? The above illustrations, based on many examples of written communication, shed light on broad style variations although readers may  have questions about some of the graphics. For instance, romance languages and Russian look somewhat similar at first glance, and it may be hard to discern what the fine points of difference are. Semitic includes at least both Hebrew and Arabic, and many would say that the illustration for Semitic cannot possibly characterize both languages. Nevertheless, Dr. Kaplan’s seminal analysis of different regional styles have significance, even now, in the global workplace.

A Page from 2012 Cross-Cultural Training

Here’s another illustration, a little more updated, from a piece of material that we use in our cross-cultural training:

Cultural groups and individuals can differ in their baseline preferences about how information is delivered. The triangle on the left shows a speaker’s preference for stating the main point first, followed by background and further context. The inverse triangle on the right illustrates a contrasting pattern in which the point is only made once the speaker provides the full background. Of course, the latter is also influenced by the social or situational context. For example, a speaker with a linear communication style may choose to deliver

bad news by softening it with background first, and then getting to the point.

A speaker with a more linear orientation tends to present in a systematic, step-by-step manner whereas a speaker with what may appear as “digressive” tendencies may zig zag around the point or present the complete background first. Unless speakers understand the other’s individual or cultural patterns of expression, mutual perceptions may be skewed. One views the other’s style as convoluted and inefficient; the other thinks his or her counterpart’s communication style is simplistic and limited, and ultimately inefficient.

 Cultural Variations of Expression – Impact in the Workplace

DL&A associate, Dr. Salah Bendifallah, emphasizes that perceptions of “efficiency” in communication can differ dramatically across cultures. From his own tri-cultural background (North African, French, and American), he sees a noteworthy general difference between the worlds of Francophone and English speakers. In English, he observes, “Communication efficiency requires conciseness, which means getting to the point quickly. Only if necessary would one support the main and subsequent points with just the details that directly relate. From an English language perspective, this is the paragon of efficiency.”

In contrast, he points out that his French-speaking colleagues feel very comfortable making a complex argument at the beginning of a discussion, followed by an elaboration of concepts related to the argument. The added information often leads to further explanations (more begets more). The speaker, however, does not necessarily view these as digressions from the main point. Rather, they are the means by which the listener can consider the whole topic, and not just a limited segment.

The Case of a Franco-American Team of Software Developers

A global team of software developers with mainly American and French team members meet by video conference to try to confirm a set of customer requirements for their joint software project. A common objective of the two sides of the team is to conduct what each considers to be an efficient meeting. However, the French team members are surprised by the conciseness and quick decision-making of their American counterparts. The French observe that their U.S. teammates proceed quickly to list requirements gathered on their side, and then attempt to conclude the meeting with what seems like a superficial comparison and synthesis.

The Americans, in contrast, observe that their French colleagues expend a lot of time on reviews of client requirements (and in their view), unnecessarily prolonging decision-making. Interestingly, both sides of the team place a high premium on efficiency, but in different ways.

Dr. Bendifallah has observed, generally, that native English-speaking team members — when interacting with French speakers — can become derailed by perceptions that a conversation is meandering off topic. He asserts that conciseness, in and of itself, is not necessarily the objective of task–oriented, business communication in French. From the French perspective, the very contribution of seemingly peripheral “digressions” from the main point ultimately put consensus-building on firmer ground.

Listening Through Different Speaking Styles – A Key Global Competency

Global competencies in communication should include the ability to listen non-judgmentally, taking into account speakers’ views of “efficiency” and the diversity of ways that information may be structured.

George Simons , a world renown expert in cross-cultural and global diversity training, notes: “Global leaders must be masters at listening to what others are saying, and the way others are saying it. They realize that communication is not the simple transfer of information by the sender, but rather the receiver’s (re)construction of reality during the interaction. This is a starting point for how to work globally.”

Dr. Bendifallah reflects on Simon’s points by returning to the subject of conciseness and efficiency: “If a speaker’s statements are concise for the sake of efficiency, and, if the listener perceives those utterances as information-poor, there may be an unintended consequence…the listener may have to exert additional effort, rendering the ‘concise’ interaction inefficient.”

And that is the point!

“Culture hides more than what it reveals, and strangely enough what it hides, it hides most  effectively from its own members.”

 Edward Hall, Anthropologist

Lost Opportunity

Lalita, an Indian engineer, has passed the first hurdle in her job application for a senior position for a British telecom company in London. The qualifications listed in her resume matched much of what the job posting required. She has made it to the virtual interview where three British managers drill for detail on her current and past roles and responsibilities. In addition, they engage her in a discussion of some challenging situations she handled successfully.

Lalita feels that the achievements listed on her resume speak for themselves.  She is not used to self–promotion and, in fact, has never had any coaching in this type of “personal marketing.”  Since she values humility, she feels that it would be inappropriate to boast about her accomplishments. However – and Lalita does not realize this – the interviewers are looking for someone who can communicate confidently and assertively and be candid about both her failures and successes. She is over 30, and neither her technical university nor the organizations in which she has worked ever offered a business communication or cross-cultural training program. She is highly qualified, but doesn’t get the job. Her lack of familiarity with the appropriate cultural use of language in the interview hinders her prospects for success.

Mismatched Expectations

Robert, a senior engineer in Silicon Valley, is preparing for a telephone call to Bangalore with Anil, also a senior engineer. Robert’s electronics firm had recently contracted Anil’s Indian organization for design support in its new products division. Relieved to have the support, Robert intends to map out project steps in detail with Anil on the call. On the meeting agenda, he highlights the key design challenges and decisions to be made, and emails it to Anil two days before the call. Robert also invites Anil to include any other agenda items. He doesn’t receive anything to add from Anil and assumes that all is well.

The reality on the call does not mesh with Robert’s expectations. For sure, the two engineers communicated in culturally different ways, but beyond that, Anil appeared to have neither the technical expertise nor the authority to make decisions about the best ways to execute the project plan that Robert had expected from him. Robert is frustrated with how little they accomplished during the call.

What happened here? Anil is an exemplary employee in his organization, but is not the “senior engineer” Robert thought him to be. Why was this? DL&A associate, Dr. Bidhan Chandra, explains the discrepancy between the two positions labeled “senior engineer,” and the pitfalls of mismatched expectations that may arise as a result.

First, there are often many more layers of titles in an Indian company than in a U.S. organization. Dr. Chandra explains that for every title in an American organization, it is common for an Indian partner company to have at least twice as many titles. Acquiring a new title suggests a step up, but may not always be accompanied by a salary increase.

Dr. Chandra emphasizes the importance of recognizing that faster promotions (i.e., higher-level titles) are an incentive for employee retention in India, in large part, because of the relative value placed on hierarchy and personal status. Because there are often proportionately more employee titles and rankings, nothing can be assumed about the level of knowledge and expertise between two professionals with identical organizational titles in India and the U.S. or in other Western countries. The discrepancy may represent a significant gap, and then result in miscommunication. Dr. Chandra suggests that for both scenarios described here, it is critical to assess capabilities in ways that take into account cultural differences in educational systems, communication style, and country-specific workplace practices.

The recognition that one set of behaviors or workplace practices can be subject to multiple interpretations is key in developing cross-cultural competency and a global perspective. This requires, as a starting point, the ability to step outside of one’s cultural self in order to see things as others do.

Some of our European and American clients working with people in Asia have reported confusion about the use of “we.”  We have heard clients say, “When I communicate with a team member in, for example, India or China, I often hear, ‘We,’ instead of ‘I.’ I can’t tell if the team member is speaking as an individual or is communicating a consensus from the team.”

The choice to use “We” or “I” can be situational or personal. However, when viewing this language usage through the lens of culture, the selection may also reflect very different values that shape cultural orientations. The frequency (or lack thereof) with which an individual uses “I” can indicate whether an individual’s identity is tied more to a group or more to him or herself. In a group–oriented or “collectivistic” culture, the use of the word “I” is strongly discouraged. But in a society that emphasizes individualism, such as the U.S., it’s acceptable and even encouraged to assert oneself and offer personal opinions. For example, people do not hesitate to begin sentences with “I” in e-mails and, depending on the context, most recipients of such communications will not attribute arrogance or egotism to the writer.

Of course, “I” or forms of “I” can still be heard in discourse and interaction in collectivistic cultures. DL&A associate John Gu, originally from Shanghai and now living in the U.S., exemplifies this with an interesting fact about the Chinese language and culture, which traditionally has been highly group oriented. He explains that, although there are approximately thirty different ways to express the pronoun “I,” most of these serve to minimize the importance of the speaker.

John provides an example of the Chinese use of “We” that he felt could result in confusion. An engineer in Beijing applied for a job with a well-known technology company in the San Francisco Bay Area. This engineer asked John to critique the cover e-mail text he planned to send with his resume. The job applicant knew that he needed to highlight his achievements, and in the cover letter wrote,  “A product design that we came up with became our company’s prototype.” After some probing, John discovered that the engineer had been one of several contributors to the product design. He advised the engineer to present himself as “I” and to be very specific about his contribution to the product design. John explained to the engineer that using “we” instead of “I” can confuse Westerners because of two potential divergent interpretations: (1) the job applicant may be trying to take credit for something he didn’t do; or (2) he is too humble to use the word “I.” Neither interpretation would help his prospects for getting a job.

When a culture’s tendency is neither strongly collectivistic nor individualistic, the decision to use “we” or “I” is not dictated so clearly by a cultural framework. Spain is an example of a country that falls between these two poles according to the highly regarded research of Geert Hofstede. DL&A’s Spanish Associates with extensive global business experience, Maria Camblor and José Ruperez  suggest that “nosotros” (“we”) and ”yo” (“I”) usage does not result in cross-cultural confusion. José and Maria’s sense of this in the Spanish context, as with other Latin American cultures, is that “nosotros” might be used instead of “yo” to avoid personal responsibility, and can be convenient when there is a need to convey decisions that people do not want to communicate. If a manager says to a direct report, “We are not able to grant you a raise this quarter,” he or she avoids accountability. Yet, that same manager may have no problem taking credit for delivering good news, such as “I’ll be giving you a raise this quarter.” This example, not unique to Spanish culture, resonates as equally plausible in other cultures that tend toward even more individualism than Spain (e.g., U.S., U.K., and Australia).

It’s not always possible to pinpoint where language and culture mirror each other and where they do not. Culture is one of several factors affecting how people use language. Culture, like language, is dynamic and changing. In the case of China, certain sectors are moving slowly in the direction of individualism.  John Gu notes that, nevertheless, many Chinese in global workplace contexts continue to feel awkward when they say “I.”

It’s not that one pattern of communication is inherently better than another. It’s just that we cross-cultural trainers want to make sure to lessen the confusion!

From: The (Australian) Today Show

Culture-bound language elements are at work in this example. Cross-cultural training should raise awareness of ways that people in the global workforce can use language inclusively. A common cross-cultural guideline regarding inclusive language is to exercise caution when attempting humor across cultures. This includes avoiding ethnocentric or culture-bound communication.

In the video clip above, the news anchor uses a common expression in English that is quite specific to a particular context. Additionally, this expression has a second connotation related to spirituality. Even if viewers don’t immediately understand the joke with its double-entendre, this video clip is hard not to appreciate. Just identifying with the news anchor’s embarrassment is enough to bring on laughter.

Apart from the cultural nuances in the joke itself, there’s a charming exchange between the two men. While the joke falls flat, the interaction ends up being an endearing show of mutual understanding.