Direct cultures will dive straight into criticism with pure honesty and efficiency. Indirect cultures will integrate positive feedback in order to be more diplomatic and appreciative. There’s often little attempt to soften any criticism and instead, these types of cultures use “upgraders” to ensure clarity.Īnother factor in differentiating between the two, according to Meyer, is the prioritization of positivity. People from direct cultures are prone to strip away unnecessary pieces of feedback and get straight to the point, no matter how blunt it may be. Someone from a low context society-one who avoids ambiguity-might approach negative feedback in the same way. Meyer explains that people in low context societies “believe that good, effective, professional communication is a communication that is very explicit.” Direct and Indirect Negative Feedback In order to get a point across, it must be said literally and, perhaps, repeated for assurance. A low level of context implies that there is little shared understanding and few common reference points. With so much left unsaid, there’s more room for misinterpretation. To someone from a low context society like the US or Canada, this would seem rather unsettling. There’s no need to ensure clarification among a group because each individual simply understands what was implicitly said. Other forms of communication, like body language and nonverbal communication, require people to read between the lines and take in all accounts of context. It’s believed that the people in the room have enough information about a situation to draw a correct conclusion without the need to say it aloud. In a high context society like China or Japan, it’s assumed that there is a large body of shared understanding and common reference points. This shared context can dictate how explicitly or implicitly someone will communicate. In any given society, there is a set of understood reference points and common knowledge. Clarity and Ambiguity in Verbal CommunicationĮrin Meyer determines the primary difference in communication styles by assessing the acknowledgment of context. Along with other sources of research, deeper patterns emerge that point toward a better way of communicating. She built a framework for understanding the characteristics of communication in countries around the world. One useful tool in approaching this is Erin Meyer’s Culture Map. A leader of a multicultural team has the challenge of understanding differences between cultures in order to create an effective team. The nuances of communication are prevalent in all kinds of relationships, but the conversations among team members are particularly critical. Navigating Different Communication Styles Overcoming cross-cultural communication barriers requires a systematic and empathetic approach. They shed light on communicating effectively, providing structure for a team, and building professional relationships. They also present cultural nuances you need to know to effectively manage a cross-cultural team.Īlthough they may be generalizations and aren’t meant to label a group of people, these frameworks are a good place to start in better articulating differences. A few frameworks have emerged that provide a way to measure characteristics of countries around the world. Researchers have been curious about the commonalities and dissonances between cultures for a long time. Cross-cultural communication in the workplace takes time to understand, but the leaders who understand the differences between countries can shape an organizational culture around what each person needs to be productive and innovative. With that comes a complex landscape to navigate, one with possible missteps and misinterpretations around every corner. If history tells us anything, trends in remote work will continue to make our teams more diverse and multicultural.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |