How Do We Communicate in a Multicultural World?

Four Styles of How Cultures

Handle Conflict

My roommate and I were born in different countries and I never imagined that could be
the root of our problem. Our culture shapes so much of the way we interact with each
other, and then when you think about language barriers and vocabulary used by
different generations, its easy to see where miscommunication can happen.

Last year I was living in Europe and now I’m living in Southeast Asia. It’s a constant
struggle to make sure the messages I send will be interpreted the way I mean them.
Communicating in a way that feels as natural as breathing to me can really put other
people off, sometimes with personal and professional ramifications.

The Intercultural Conflict Style Inventory

One of my favorite communication models I learned in a college cross-cultural

psychology class was Hammer’s 2003 Intercultural Conflict Style (ICS). It completely
changed the way I understand how my friends and colleagues communicate with me.

Based on my research of Hammer’s ICS model and my own cross-cultural experiences,

these are my interpretations of the various communication styles posited by Hammer
and his colleagues. For a more comprehensive explanation of this research visit the ICS
website or read chapter 17 from the 2009 book by Hammer, Contemporary Leadership
and Intercultural Competence.

The ICS model relies on two spectrums, verbal directness and emotional
expressiveness. The idea is that when conflict arises, various differences among
cultures can emerge and escalate the issue.

Based on the type of communication a culture promotes, various groups will fall into one
of four categories: discussion, engagement, accommodation, and dynamic. These
categories are quadrants on the two spectrums, so different cultures might have the
same style but one is more emotionally expressive or direct than another.

Further, an individual from one group might have a different style of communication than
the overall culture. For example, I was socialized to use a “discussion” style, but am
slightly more emotionally expressive and scored into the “engagement” style of
communication.

If you are curious about your style, you can pay to take the test on the website, but if
you’re less serious just ask yourself – do you speak directly (state things explicitly) or
indirectly (use context, subtle suggestions, or stories)? Are you emotionally expressive
or restrictive?

Before I continue, I think it’s important to mention that we should not use this theory to
generalize how someone is communicating based on their ethnic or cultural
background. We need to accept that we live in a complex world, where several cultures
coexist in one country and many of us have been socialized in multiple cultures.

What we can do is observe the way people are behaving, use the knowledge we have,
and respond accordingly. We need to accept a healthy amount of ambiguity in
communications, and know that just because there is an overall trend in one culture,
does not mean that an individual will follow the pattern.

After I learned about these four different styles of communication and the ways they can
lead to conflict, it made a huge difference in the way I understand social interactions. I
really believe most problems are simply miscommuncations. So now when I feel
frustrated or offended, I try to take a deep breath and change the way I communicate.

 The Discussion Style

Cultures that are verbally direct and less emotionally expressive fall under this category.
People who use this style will explore conflict through direct, rational arguments, and
limit the expression of their personal feelings towards the matter.

I remember that most of the students in my psychology class fell under this category,
and all of them were proud that conflict could be handled in a business like matter with
little residual damage. While this is true for others who communicate the same way,
how might people with another communication style perceive it?

Robotic.
Just because someone says something with a level tone won’t necessarily make the
other person feel like they are understood and cared about.

When I lived in a country in northern Europe, this communication style was particularly
pervasive. I remember that my expressions sometimes felt huge and overdone
compared to my European friends, and that the unrestrained laughter of other
Americans abroad always dominated a social space.

One of my favorite cross-cultural moments in Europe was when an American started off
a conference using a conch shell horn. I will never forget contrast of the lady with the
blaring horn to the reserved discussion-style Europeans politely clapping. To her credit
it did get everyone’s attention, and the Europeans were thoroughly entertained and
impressed by her lung capacity.

According to Hammer (2009), cultures that generally fall in the discussion category are
European-American, Australian, and Northern European groups.

 The Engagement Style

People with this type of communication style are highly direct and emotionally
expressive. When I think about this communication style I always remember my Italian
relatives waiving their hands in the air and yelling in loud volumes with zeal and gusto.
One can always tell exactly what these individuals are feeling and thinking.

But while the people who utilize and the engagement communication style during a
conflict may feel they are demonstrating honesty and sincerity, the intensity of this kind
of communication might be overwhelming for other styles. Specifically, the words
“tantrum” and “melt down” were used by my classmates describing their interpretation of
the engaging individuals.

As someone with the engagement style, I always want people to know what I am feeling
and thinking so there won’t be any miscommunication. But after being told that I am
“reactive” I have learned to tone it down a bit.

And especially now that I moved to a country of the opposite style, I try to contain my
feelings because too much emotion makes me seem out of control.
For example, I was recently invited to a rather late dinner at a local coworker’s house. I
was especially tired that evening, but managed to stifle my yawns. Unfortunately, I could
not deceive my hosts. Much to my embarrassment, the hosts continuously encouraged
me to nap in the spare room or take a shower and “freshen up.” They then expressed
ardent concern that I was driving home and suggested I stay the night.

Even though I was only moderately tired, my emotional expressiveness amplified my

inner state and I appeared incompetent and out of control of my exhaustion.

From my experience, being emotionally expressive and direct has also made local
people in a foreign country feel comfortable with me as a stranger. When I am smiling,
laughing, and making eye contact without reserve, local people generally approach me
and engage in conversation.

Hammer states that the African American community, southern Europe, Cuba, Nigeria,
and Russia often contain cultures that express this type of communication style
(Hammer 2009).

 The Accommodation Style

Individuals who score low on directness and low on emotional expressiveness have the
accommodation style.

People who use this type of communication during conflict intend to be sensitive to
people’s feelings and considerate of others’ perspectives. They use other cues than
direct speech to get their point across, like body language, tone, and words rooted in
context that allows for a more nuanced approach.

But for people using other communication styles, accommodating individuals can come
off as elusive and misleading. They just want to know what accommodating individuals
are feeling or thinking about a problem.

It’s important to note that just because communications are indirect does not mean the
message is unclear. Interpretations of meaning are simply based on context, and for
everyone socialized in that culture, signals are generally received and understood
without misinterpretation.
However for direct communicators, this can be really confusing and often people don’t
understand why everything is so ambiguous. But for indirect communicators, it IS clear.
They pick up on the context and get the message, it’s just that direct communicators
were not observant enough to catch it.

I was surprised to hear that my friends that fell under the accommodating
communication style sometimes found direct communicators paternalistic. If someone
was too direct, it’s like “I understand you perfectly, you don’t need to explain like I’m
five.”

As an individual who is both direct and emotionally expressive living in Southeast Asia, I
need to observe and consider various interpretations before I react. For example,
sometimes my international coworkers will say there is no need for me to come to a
particular meeting or activity.

At first I was offended and thought they didn’t value my contributions. But after talking
with my other American coworkers who had experienced the same thing and asking
people who knew the culture well, I realized that my time was valued by my local
colleagues, and they didn’t want me to feel bored if the topic was irrelevant to my duties.

Native Americans of the United States, Somalia, Japan, Mexico, and Thai cultures are
usually in this category of communication (Hammer 2009).

 The Dynamic Style

Individuals who use a dynamic style are emotionally expressive and less direct.
Essentially, people in this category can express the intensity of their attitude towards
something without having to say it. Stories, metaphors, and humor might be used to de-
escalate the situation while expressing feelings. Hammer further states that these
individuals might engage the assistance of others to help resolve the conflict.

However, while strategies are effective for keeping the peace in dynamic cultures, other
communication styles can feel bewildered by the display of emotion with lack of
explanation.

My college roommate was socialized to use the dynamic style of communication. As a

person with the engagement style, I picked up on her emotions of stress and anxiety,
but totally missed her indirect communication methods. To keep the peace, she
recruited a trusted friend to help, and the problem was consequently solved.

Cultures in Arab Middle Eastern countries and Pakistan can have this communication
style (Hammer 2009).

My Reflections

Our world is becoming more globalized and our communities more diverse. Don’t let
cultural differences become a barrier to communication and friendship, take the time to
listen, learn, and build unity.

CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION STYLES: HIGH AND LOW CONTEXT

The concepts of high context and low context refer to how people communicate in
different cultures. Differences can be derived from the extent to which meaning is
transmitted through actual words used or implied by the context.

High context implies that a lot of unspoken information is implicitly transferred during
communication. People in a high context culture such as Saudi Arabia tend to place a
larger importance on long-term relationships and loyalty and have fewer rules and
structure implemented.

Low context implies that a lot of information is exchanged explicitly through the
message itself and rarely is anything implicit or hidden. People in low context cultures
such as the UK tend to have short-term relationships, follow rules and standards closely
and are generally very task-oriented.

Understanding whether your international colleagues are high context or low context will
help you to adapt your communication style and build stronger relationships with
them. These concepts are covered during cross-cultural training programmes such as
Communicating across Cultures and managing international teams. Cultural awareness
training which focuses on one or more specific cultures like Doing Business in
India or Living and Working in China will also address these concepts.
When doing business in a high context culture such as Mexico, Japan or the Middle
East, you might encounter the following:

 Misunderstanding when exchanging information

 Impression of a lack of information

 Large amount of information is provided in a non-verbal manner, e.g. gestures,

pauses, facial expressions

 Emphasis on long term relationships and loyalty

 ‘Unwritten’ rules that are taken for granted but can easily be missed by strangers

 Shorter contracts since less information is required

When doing business in a low context culture such as Germany, Switzerland or the US,
on the other hand, you might find the following:

 All meaning is explicitly provided in the message itself

 Extensive background information and explanations are provided verbally to

avoid misunderstandings

 People tend to have short-term relationships

 People follow rules and standards closely

 Contracts tend to be longer and very detailed

High and low context cultures usually correspond with polychronic and monochronic
cultures respectively. The table below shows some general preferences of people from
high context and low context cultures.

Participating in a cross-cultural training programme such as Doing Business with

India and Doing Business in the UK, you will gain a comprehensive understanding of
the high or low context preferences in the country or countries where you are working
and the impact these preferences have on doing business with them.
High Context Low Context

Indirect and implicit messages Direct, simple and clear messages

Polycrhonic Monochronic
High use of non-verbal communication Low use of non-verbal communication
Low reliance on written communication High reliance on written communication
Use intuition and feelings to make Rely on facts and evidence for decisions
decisions
Long-term relationships Short-term relationships
Relationships are more important than Schedules are more important than
schedules relationships
Strong distinction between in-group and Flexible and open
out-group