Intercultural Communication Research Essay

This was a research paper I wrote in my last year of community college for a Communication class which is one of the best examples of my writing I have to date.

Intercultural Communication in Work Groups



There are many benefits as well as challenges associated with intercultural communication especially pertaining to work groups. Intercultural communication involves people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds interacting and sharing ideas with each other and when this is done in a work oriented group, the participants must be on the same page in order to achieve their goals. It is very possible to have a wonderful outcome from working in an intercultural group setting although there are aspects of intercultural communication that must be taken into account. There are many factors that affect how people interact in a small group setting and some main ones that I will discuss includes individualistic versus collectivistic cultures, culture’s impact on power distance dimension, high and low context effect on group communication, and gender roles. These aspects all affect how positive an intercultural work group climate will be and how well the synergy between members of an intercultural group will be.

An aspect of intercultural communication that greatly affects work group communication is the difference between individualistic and collectivistic. Individualistic cultures like the United States, Canada, or Europe tend to put more focus on the skills, strengths, and weaknesses of a sole individual in order to determine what job they are best suited for, how best to communicate with others and what role they play in society. People belonging to collective oriented cultures like Northeast Asia or the Middle East believe their role in life is to be an integral member in a group or team of people and the performance of one person is not valued as is the work of an organization or group of people. Individualistic cultures tend to be aware of a person’s rights alone and always try to give credit where credit is due which is applied to a specific person rather than a group of people.

Collective cultures rely on the framework of a group oriented environment to accomplish tasks and complete goals which impacts people in the sense that everyone has the group in mind and there is a lot more weighing on group efforts since one person’s faults spells out failure for the team. This difference in mindsets impacts intercultural work groups greatly, in some ways people belonging to collective backgrounds might be more aware of others in the group and will make decisions based on the wellbeing of the team as a whole whereas people who tend toward the individual route will be doing work in order to gain a good self-reputation and be seen as a hardworking individual. This could cause some conflict if neither types of people are aware that these differences exist because collectively oriented people could see individualists as selfish and bad team players whereas individualistic people could view a collective format of work as unfair in the sense that it doesn’t showcase and give credit to deserving people.

Collectivism and individualism have a serious effect on the aspects of a group involving leadership and decision making as well which is important to note in intercultural work settings. This is best mentioned in “Culture Matters: Individualism vs. Collectivism in Conflict Decision Making” written by Rebecca Lefebvre when she states in the article after studying the differences between the United States versus Ghana “Our findings lead us to conclude that we are not to expect collectivists to make long lasting decisions without the involvement of others in their group or individualists to toss aside the thoroughly researched and logical choice to go with a snap decision. Second, the nature of the society one lives in informs the decision making process” (pg. 141, Lefebvre)

The next determining factor in how intercultural work groups might interact with each-other would be Hofstede’s philosophy on power distance dimensions between cultures. Power distance refers to the emphasis or lack of emphasis on titles and hierarchy in a culture and also touches on which cultures have a marked importance placed on equality or egalitarianism. We can again apply this principle to America versus Asia. America is considered a more egalitarian country and has strived towards equality over the last several decades. No matter a person's social class, marital status, gender, race, education background, etc. people in Eurocentric countries believe it is important to be understanding of all types of situations and walks of life in order to keep the peace. Whereas in places like Japan or China people thrive on social order that involves hierarchy and titles to identify others. These societies feel that in order to improve and progress as a country they must obey implicit, social, rules which serve as a guideline when interacting with people based on age, family status, business affiliations, etc. These varied differences in outlooks among cultures could result in a difference of behavior between those who work in groups together. People who have high power distance might be hesitant and more indirect when addressing those who are older or have worked longer at a company than they have. People who place more emphasis on egalitarianism might be more informal with others and may seem a bit disrespectful to those with high power distance which may offend some people. This concept impacts the way people would communicate through work because “the value of power-distance can be used as a predictor of job performance especially in multi-national organizations where cultural variations among employees can act as barriers to good performance” (Skyline Business Journal, Shahwan). The author also mentions that power distance can be defined differently depending on the individual and influences many of our decisions in groups as well as individuals.

High and low context is another key point that changes an intercultural group’s dynamic. People from high context cultures which comprise about seventy percent of the worlds population relies more on non-verbal and indirect cues to communicate messages to others. Low context cultures like the United States convey most of their meaning through the verbal message itself and tend to be more direct than their high context counterparts. This ideology is very interconnected to the philosophy of power distance in some ways because it ties into how indirect or direct people are when interacting with others and how many social “rules” whether implicit or explicit there are in a culture. Similarly to power distance Asian and Middle Eastern cultural values lean towards high context depending on a person’s age, societal status, in which context you associate with them in, etc. America and Euro-centric values coincide with more low context ways of communicating since equality is more important the individual is entitled to their opinions and feelings on a subject so people interact more informally, conflict is not necessarily discouraged, and we are more direct and blunt about our thoughts and feelings. In other words people who are in line with low context values “mean what they say and say what they mean” since the verbal message doesn’t usually have any underlying or extra meanings. A great way to illustrate the differences between high and low context cultures would be cited in the Communication Quarterly article which states “ people in high-context cultures are more cautious in initial interactions and have a greater tendency to make assumptions based upon a stranger's cultural background than do people in low-context cultures. People in high-context cultures also ask more questions about a stranger's background” (pg. 49, Gudykunst)

Finally, there is a difference in gender roles and what is expected of males and females in every culture. These values have also been referred to as the values of masculinity versus nurturance which begs the question of to what extent does masculine and feminine gender roles affect people’s views and the way people interact with each other. Every culture has a slightly different way of showcasing these values although most of the world is considered to lean towards more masculine and patriarchal. Some cultures for example Korea, have been able to achieve more of a balance between both roles although this is not common. This is very evident when people come together in an intercultural work environment and may be responsible for the way men treat women and vice versa in an intercultural setting. Depending on the types of cultural backgrounds people are from this could either be a point of agreement or disagreement among a work group. In scholarly journal written by Jens Mazei and published by Verlag Springer entitled “Sex Roles” this journal illustrates how the different aspects of cultural values are connected and goes further when mentioning gender roles and how they are viewed in different cultures“ in cultures lower in individualism, higher in in‐group collectivism practices, lower in assertiveness practices, and higher in harmony, women more likely outperformed men in negotiations” (Mazei, Sex Roles) The study they conducted illustrates how much of what defines our gender roles as we have come to know them are the concepts of assertiveness and harmony. This study also explains why males and females approach work differently and approach working in groups differently around the world.

Overall these separate value systems pertaining to cultures like views on gender roles, the display of high or low context values, the philosophy on power distance dimensions, and the differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultures are responsible for how people work together and have an impact on what the group synergy and group climate will become. It is best to keep in mind that neither approach  is right or wrong although they are different and contribute to how others view and communicate with each other. These social constructs and philosophies are vital to understanding others and although we might not be familiar or agree with all of them educating and familiarizing ourselves with them will only make it easier to relate to others from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. We are all raised with a group of morals and values that shape us into who we are and culture plays a bigger role than we might think. This is more evident than ever when put to the test in small intercultural group settings.