Introduction

Effective communication is important for professional and career development, the creation of a positive workplace environment, and avoiding miscommunication and conflict amongst colleagues, clients, and community members alike. At the same time, in an increasingly globalized world, there are extremely few—if any—careers that involve interacting and communicating only with people who share the same cultural background. Research is clear that communicating across cultural differences can be complex and challenging in ways that go far beyond language.

In this chapter, you will explore the fundamentals of intercultural communication skills for the workplace and build your capacity to engage in empowering communication across cultural differences.

Communication & Intercultural Communication

All communication involves exchanges between individuals or groups. When we think of the word ‘communication’, many of us think immediately about spoken language. However, there is incredible diversity when it comes to the verbal, written, and non-verbal ways that human beings communicate with each other. Broadly speaking, communication involves the production and transmission of messages through language, symbols, signs, behaviours, writing, and/or physical expressions. The rise of new technologies has enabled communication as never seen before; we can communicate by phone, video, text, instant message, email and many other methods and we can send our messages across the globe with the click of a button. But what happens when our messages are received by people whose cultural practices around communication are very different from our own?

Communication involves forming perceptions of one another. When people differ in terms of how they are communicating (and why), there is a risk of misperception and/or misunderstanding. Conflict, disagreement, or tension can arise less because of the issues being discussed but because of differences in communication styles and norms. These potentials are magnified in cross-cultural contexts because cultures differ when it comes to the rules or norms for communication. According to Macionis and Gerber (2011), norms are “the rules and expectations by which a society guides the expectations of its members” (p. 608). Cultural norms around communication are also very often tied to deeply held values and worldviews. Every culture has its own communication norms, which also set the characteristics and criteria for judging ‘good’ and ‘bad’ communication. Miscommunication and conflict can arise when communicating across cultural differences because the sender(s) and receiver(s) of the messages may be operating from very different communicative norms, values, and worldviews.

Sometimes, these norms are explicit, but more often, they are simply learned and considered the normal, appropriate way of doing things. Edward T. Hall (1959), considered by many to be the founder of intercultural communication studies, famously said that “Culture hides much more than it reveals, and strangely enough what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants. Years of study has convinced me that the real job is not to understand other cultures but to understand our own” (p. 39). Understanding how our own culture(s) influence our communication practices is one of the most powerful intercultural communication skills we can develop. In an era of online communications and globalisation, it is increasingly likely that we will not know the cultural background or communicative norms and preferences of the people we are engaging with. Understanding ourselves and the broad range or ways that other people’s communicative norms, values and preferences may differ from ours is an increasingly important skill in modern workplaces.

In fact, there is very strong evidence that employers are looking for graduates who have intercultural communication skills. A large body of academic research and industry reports have shown that these skills, and those associated with them, are very highly valued by employers (Andrews & Higson, 2008; British Council, 2018; Diamond et al., 2011; Financial Times, 2018 [is this source supposed to be this article by Agnew? Or something else?]; Deloitte & Global Business Coalition for Education, 2018; Royal Bank of Canada, 2019). An American study found that 96% of employers agreed that “students should have experiences that teach them how to solve problems with people whose views are different from their own” (p.3) and close to 80% agreed that students should gain intercultural skills (Hart Research Associates, 2015). Partly as a result of globalisation, employers often value intercultural skills more highly than academic performance; however, research also shows that “many employers are dissatisfied with their newly hired graduates’ communication skills” (Dauber & Spencer-Oatley, 2023, p. 1082–1083).

This chapter is meant to empower you with some foundational intercultural communication knowledge and abilities to ensure that you have some of the most highly valued career skills in today’s increasingly diverse, global, and interconnected workplaces.

Intercultural Communication, Ethnocentrism & Power Dynamics

It is important to keep in mind that intercultural communication is about more than knowledge, skills, or attitudes. It is also about power. How power shows up in intercultural communication is always contextual and locally specific. However, there are some global contexts and specific power dynamics that can guide us to engaging in more inclusive and equitable intercultural communication. The long, ongoing, and complicated legacy of Western European colonialism across the globe has meant that, in many parts of the world, the communication norms and practices of able-bodied, elite White men have been or are dominant. As a result, the communications of members of equity-denied groups are often marginalized.

What does this look like in practice? When it comes to gender, study after study has shown that women are disadvantaged in workplace communications. Research (Brescoll, 2012; Cutler & Scott, 1990; Hancock & Rubin, 2014; Karpowitz & Mendelberg, 2014 [missing reference list entry]) shows that:

• Men speak far more than women at meetings.
• Women are interrupted far more often than men.
• Women are far more likely to have their competence questioned when they do speak.
• Men who speak more at work are viewed as more competent, while women who speak more are viewed as less competent.

Research also shows that White people tend to penalize authoritative behaviour of people of Asian heritage at work and that Black and Latinx people often face workplace stereotypes (Berdhal & Min, 2012; Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003).

This matters in the workplace because research shows us that both companies and workplaces benefit immensely from a diverse workforce where everyone is valued and able to contribute to their fullest potential. If members of some groups are silenced, have their thoughts and ideas ignored or given less weight, or are excluded from the conversation altogether, then it is not just those individuals who suffer. Workplace innovation, initiatives, culture, efficiency, engagement, and output are negatively impacted as well.

Building your intercultural communication skills is about creating a more inclusive environment where everyone can thrive. Understanding some of the cultural dimensions that influence communication is a good starting point for improving your inclusive communication skills.

Cultural Dimensions That Influence Communication

Intercultural theory includes what are known as culture general frameworks, which are different from culture specific knowledge. Culture specific knowledge refers to how we build understanding of specific cultures we may interact with. For example, you are going on a trip to Vietnam, so you try to discover as much as you can about the behaviours and practices common to the Vietnamese. You might do this through web searches, movies, or people you know who are Vietnamese or have an understanding of Vietnamese culture. Culture general frameworks are different; they can help us to understand differences and commonalities across a variety of cultural contexts. They provide us with insights on cultural behaviours and practices by considering cultural values, which then inform the norms and influence the behaviours. It is also important not to essentialize these frameworks but to use them as “tools in our toolkit” that can help us to understand the influence of culture on communication.

While there are numerous culture general frameworks from a variety of academic disciplines (e.g., business, sociology, and communication studies), for the purpose of this chapter, we will focus on four cultural dimensions that most influence communication styles and preferences:

1. High and low power distance
2. Individualism and collectivism
3. Universalism and particularism
4. Monochronic and polychronic

As we explore these dimensions, it is important to view each of them as a continuum. For example, while we may have very high power distance cultures, or very low power distance cultures, we may have many orientations that are somewhere in between—either on the higher or lower side of the continuum. It is also important to recognize that these values, norms, and behaviours are contextual, so in the workplace, we may adhere to high power distance norms, while in a family or friend situation, we may find the hierarchy more relaxed. When using culture general frameworks, it is best not to think about your individual behaviours but about broader societal values and norms that influence behaviours.

1. High & Low Power Distance

The terms high and low power distance come from the work of Geert Hofstede (1980), who developed his frameworks using factor analysis of a worldwide survey of IBM employee values in the 1960s and 1970s. Hofstede’s frameworks have been refined and critiqued since but are still regarded as valid frameworks to explore values differences across cultures. In essence, this dimension of culture explores variations of how power is distributed in society through hierarchical structures.

In very high power cultures, hierarchies are embedded in workplace cultures, families, and society at large. Authority tends to be centralized, with those at the top of the hierarchy expected to provide directions and decision-making. In low power cultures, there may be some hierarchy in certain contexts, but its valuing of equality creates more decentralized power structures, where consultation is the norm. While there is still a boss or executive responsible for decision-making, subordinates may be asked for opinions, and multiple perspectives may be invited.

In low power distance cultures, youth and innovation are valued, and status can be achieved. There may be more opportunities for social mobility since status is conferred by what one does rather than who one is. Who one is is more important in high power cultures, where status may be conferred by age, rank, title, or standing.

Consider how these different orientations might influence communication. In a low power culture, it may be normal to set up a meeting with one’s boss to discuss an issue. While this may happen in a high power culture, it is unlikely that regular workers would have access to the boss; they would need to work within the hierarchy to have their concerns brought to higher levels. In some high power cultures, there are multiple ways to address someone depending on their status. For example, how you address someone who is only slightly older than you is quite different from how you would address your peers. Similarly, there is a degree of formality required in both spoken and written communication. This formality is quite different from a low power orientation, where we may be on a first name basis with our bosses, professors, or senior family members.

2. Individualism & Collectivism

Individualism and collectivism is perhaps the most well-known cultural dimension influencing communication. This dimension is also part of Hofstede’s framework but has been conceptualized by numerous other theorists before and since (Ting-Toomey, 1988; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1997). Ultimately, the difference between more collectivist orientations and more individualist orientations is tied to identity. Do we identify primarily as individuals with our own goals and freedoms, or do we identify primarily as a member of a collective where the group’s goals are at the forefront.

Consider how this dimension might influence communication. Collectivist cultures may communicate with more awareness of how their communication reflects on their group. Individualist cultures may display more willingness to say what is on their mind and understand their individual perspective to be independent of others in their networks.

In addition, this cultural dimension is complicated by what Ting-Toomey (1988) has called face negotiation theory. Face negotiation involves how people save face. As you can imagine, people who are oriented toward individualism communicate with awareness of saving their own face. They are careful not to say anything that would embarrass themselves or cause them to lose face. Face negotiation is more complex in collectivist orientations. People will be aware of losing their own face but will also communicate in ways that ensure that face is saved for their group. In addition, they are more aware of saving the face of those they are in communication with.

3. Universalism & Particularism

Universalism and particularism is a dimension first introduced by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997). Their research identified that cultural our communication depending on whether our cultural values and norms [unsure what this first half is supposed to say] emphasize the universal application of rules, where everyone is subject the same application of rules, or if the particular situation makes the rules more flexible. This dimension is often related to individualism and collectivism and high and low power distance, since relationships are often at the core of how particular situations require more flexible rules. Moreover, universalist cultures tend to be more task-focused, whereas particularist cultures tend to be more process-focused. For particularist cultures, both relationships and the process of building them may not be as important as timely results or moving to the result, contract, legal action that universalist cultures tend to favour.

Consider how these different values and preferences might influence communication. Imagine a team where some members are focused on results and others on process and require a relational approach to proceed. Or, a situation where there is a relationship between a boss and an employee. In a universalist orientation, the relationship would be inconsequential; whereas, for a more particularist orientation, the relationship might influence the application of rules.

4. Polychronic & Monochronic

Polychronic and monchronic refers to how cultures vary in how time is conceptualized. The term polychronic literally means “many times” while monochronic means “one time.” The differentiation relates to both how time is perceived and managed.

Monochronic cultures tend to value time. Time is viewed as a commodity, as evidenced by the terms “time is money” or “don’t waste my time.” Polychronic cultures do not qualify time to the same degree. Monochronic workplaces value punctuality, deadlines, and schedules, where process is often a series of steps designed to meet deadlines in a timely manner. Monochronic cultures value turn taking and order, whereas polychronic cultures may often follow other cultural norms that prioritize relationships or hierarchies. For example, imagine a service situation where people line up to be served one at a time (monochronic); compare that to one where people gather around and multiple people may be served at once or where the elderly or regular customers might be prioritized (polychronic). Polychronic workplaces tend to focus on the overall objectives and may engage in multiple steps or activities in various orders depending on the context. Polychronic cultures tend to be high context, as discussed in the next section.

High- & Low-Context Communication

Hall (1959) was the first to theorize and conceptualize the concept of high- and low-context cultures and how culture influences communication in many ways. Hall’s thinking has influenced research and study on how culture informs not only communication but values, norms, and behaviours. A summary of high- and low-context characteristics is provided in Table 13.4. Many of the dimensions discussed above were influenced by Hall; however, as you review the chart below, you will notice how both the cultural dimensions and the communication preferences are explicit in Hall’s model. For example, the first rows of the table refer to values and norms where the lower rows refer to communication.

High-context cultures tend to be more collectivist in nature with a relational emphasis that focuses on process. Low-context cultures tend to be more individualist with a task focused on results. High-context cultures normally rely on forms of hierarchy, which may or may not be detected by those outside of the culture but are recognized in subtle ways by members who understand certain protocols, such as who speaks first, who is deferred to, and the level of formality required depending on positions within the hierarchy. Low-context cultures may have some hierarchies but value a flatter structure with a desire for equality and therefore may display less formality. As a result, low-context communicative cultures prefer direct communication styles where the speaker is responsible for delivering direct, clear, concise messages. This is different from the more indirect communication styles favoured by low-context cultures where the listener is responsible for decoding messages that may be nuanced or non-verbal. Another interesting thing to note is that high-context cultures place the responsibility for the message on the listener (or in written communication the reader), who has the job of decoding nuanced, indirect, and non-verbal cues. In low-context communicative cultures, the spoken words are emphasized, and the speaker is responsible for encoding their messages in clear, concise, direct ways.

Communication Styles & Culture

The degree to which a culture is high or low context influence whether the preferred style is more direct or indirect. As illustrated in Table 13.4, high-context cultures tend to be more indirect and rely more on non-verbal cues. In comparison, low-context cultures favour a more direct communication style where words carry the majority of the message.

Differences in communication styles influenced by culture can easily cause misunderstandings and misperceptions. Consider that we are always forming perceptions of each other when communicating. When a direct communicator gets straight to the point and tells it like it is, a colleague who favours a more indirect style may think they are rude or pushy. Conversely, an indirect communicator who is conscious of avoiding conflict and saving face may soften a message in ways that their colleague who favours a more direct style may think, “why don’t they get to the point? Why don’t they say what they mean?” Challenges can also arise when direct communicators miss subtle inferences or non-verbal cues. If they are relying on only the verbal message and not “listening between the lines,” they may miss the message.

All communication involves a sender who encodes the message and a receiver who decodes the message. When communicating across cultures, we need carefully consider the communication style of the sender when decoding. For example, if a direct communicator decodes all messages as though they were encoded by a direct communicator, it is likely they will misinterpret the message. The challenges of different styles can be mediated by recognizing your own communication style and trying to adapt it when communicating with others who may prefer a different style.

If you are more direct, try to:

• Avoid blunt statements.
• Consider that softening criticism may be more important than honest feedback.
• Pay attention to non-verbal cues, especially when they do not align with the verbal message.

If you are more indirect, try to:

• Recognize that subtle message may not be understood in the way you intended.
• Accept that direct communicators respect and expect direct messages.

Regardless of style, when communicating across cultures, it is always good practice to use verification techniques. For example, you can restate the message you heard:

• “So, what I understood you say was…”
• “Let me make sure I understand….”
• “Could you say a bit more about that so that I am sure I understand your meaning…”

Watch the video below to learn more about direct and indirect communication.

Direct and Indirect Communication Between Cultures [2:11 min] by SFU Co-operative Education (2016)

Non-Verbal Communication & Culture

Edward T. Hall’s (1976) theorizing also introduced how cultures differ in non-verbal communication, such as the degree of emotion displayed, the use of physical gestures, touch, and even the distance between communicators. He noted that cultures vary in the degree of neutrality or emotion displayed when communicating. In neutrally-oriented cultures, subtle behaviours that do not reveal emotions are favoured. People do not overtly display emotion, especially in the public sphere or workplace. Affective cultures tend to display emotions more readily, use facial expressions to convey interest or agreement, and often use physical gestures, referred to as kinesics, such as talking with the hands.

Consider how this cultural dimension might influence our perceptions of those communicating. When members of more neutral cultures are interacting with members of more affective cultures, they may find their emotional and physical displays alarming or inappropriate. At the same time, members of affective cultural orientations may perceive neutrally-orientated culture groups disinterested or cold. When we combine neutral- and high-power orientations, it highlights behaviours such as eye contact. A member of a neutral, high-power culture may not engage in eye contact with a superior; unfortunately, this may be perceived as disinterest or shame instead of a sign of deference and calm.

Culture also influences haptics, which refers to the use of touch and proxemics (i.e., the degree of physical closeness). In some cultures, touching someone while communicating relays interest and care, whereas in another cultural context, touching someone you are not in an intimate relationship with might be seen as intrusive. There are also unwritten rules about how close one should be when in communication. In fact, in 2006, Morrison and Conway published a best-selling book titled Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands that details the does and don’ts of haptics in more than 60 cultures worldwide. Research has also shown that concepts of personal space are variable by culture. In a study involving more than 9,000 participants in 42 countries, Sorowkowska et al. (2017) quantified social, personal, and intimate proxemics to provide compelling evidence that cultural norms provide rules for closeness in communication.

Conclusion

In today’s increasingly globalized world, the job skills associated with intercultural development are in high demand. Being able to communicate effectively and respectfully with people who are different from yourself is important for your own professional development and for fostering productive, innovative, inclusive, and equitable work environments. Self-awareness and empathy are important to intercultural development, as is having a foundational understanding of the cultural dimensions that influence intercultural communication. The knowledge you have gained in this chapter is just a starting point. Intercultural development is a richly rewarding, lifelong process of learning and unlearning. As you move forward on your career journey, remain open to new opportunities to develop your intercultural communication skills even further!

References

Agnew, H. (2016, January 27). ‘Big Four’ look beyond academics. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/b8c66e50-beda-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2

Andrews, J., & Higson, H. (2008). Graduate employability, ‘soft skills’ versus ‘hard’ business knowledge: A European study. Higher Education in Europe, 33(4), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720802522627

Berdhal, J., & Min, J-A. (2012). Prescriptive stereotypes and workplace consequences for East Asians in North America. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(2), 141–152. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0027692

Brescoll, V. (2012). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 622–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212439994

British Council. (2013). Culture at work: The value of intercultural skills in the workplace. https://www.britishcouncil.org/research-insight/culture-work

British Council. (2018). Employability in focus: Exploring employer perspectives of overseas graduates returning to China [PDF]. https://opportunities-insight.britishcouncil.org/sites/siem/files/field/file/news/Employability%20in%20Focus_China.pdf

Cutler, A., & Scott, D. (1990). Speaker sex and perceived apportionment of talk. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11(3), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400008882

Dauber, D., & Spencer-Oatley, H. (2023). Global communication skills: Contextual factors fostering their development at internationalised higher education institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 48(7), 1082–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2023.2182874

Deloitte, & Global Business Coalition for Education. (2018). Preparing tomorrow’s workforce for the fourth industrial revolution [PDF]. https://gbc-education.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/03/Deloitte_Preparing-tomorrows-workforce-for-4IR-revised-08.11.pdf

Diamond, A., Walkley, L., Forbes, P., Hughes, T., & Sheen, J. (2011). Global graduates: Global graduates into global leaders [PDF]. Association of Graduate Recruiters. https://www.ncub.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/CIHE-1111GlobalGradsFull.pdf

Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Fawcett Publications.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Press.

Hancock, A. B., & Rubin, B.A. (2014). Influence of communication partner’s gender on language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34(1), 46–64. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0261927X14533197

Hart Research Associates (2015). Falling short? College learning and career success. https://www.aacu.org/research/falling-short-college-learning-and-career-success

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.

Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2003). Facing prejudice: Implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat. Psychological Science, 14(6), 640–643. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1478.x

Macionis, J. J., & Gerber, L. M. (2011). Sociology (7th Canadian ed.). Pearson.

Morrison, T., & Conway, W. A. (2006). Kiss, bow, or shake hands. Adams Media.

Royal Bank of Canada. (2019). Bridging the gap: What Canadians told us about the skills revolution. https://thoughtleadership.rbc.com/bridging-the-gap-what-canadians-told-us-about-the-skills-revolution/

SFU Co-operative Education. (2016, February 3). Direct and indirect communication between cultures [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/6eq37Q_dKao?si=6ffuENBrgz7uX–D

Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Hilpert, P., Cantarero, K., Frackowiak, T., Ahmadi, K., Alghraibeh, A. M., Aryeetey, R., Bertoni, A., Bettache, K., Blumen, S., Błażejewska, M., Bortolini, T., Butovskaya, M., Castro, F. N., Cetinkaya, H., Cunha, D., David, D., David, O. A., . . . Pierce, J. D., Jr. (2017). Preferred interpersonal distances: A global comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(4), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117698039

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflicts: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim and W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–235). Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. The Guilford Press.

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding diversity in global business (2nd ed.). Nicholas Brealey International.

Universities and Colleges Admissions Service. (2019). What skills are employers looking for and why are they important? [is there a link or website for this source?]